City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

Regular Meeting

November 23, 2009

1.         Call Roll

Mayor Klausing called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.

(Voting and Seating Order for November: Roe; Pust; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing)

Mayor Klausing noted that City Manager Bill Malinen was unable to attend the meeting at this time, but may be arriving later in the meeting; and that Finance Director Chris Miller would fill in for him at the meeting.  City Attorney Scott Anderson was also present.        

2.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember Ihlan requested removal of Consent Items 7.d and e, respectively entitled, “Receive Update of City Grant Applications;” and “Approval of Standard Agreement for Professional Services with The Cuningham Group for the Zoning Code Re-write.”

Mayor Klausing requested removal of Consent Item 7.f entitled, “Adopt a Resolution Supporting Federal HR3745, The Community Access Preservation Act of 2009.”

By consensus, the agenda was approved as amended.

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Klausing called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.  No one spoke.

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

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

6.         Approve Minutes

a.                 Approve Minutes of November 16, 2009 Regular Meeting

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of the minutes of the November 16, 2009 Regular Meeting as presented.

Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Pust; Johnson; 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, Finance Director Chris Miller briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.

a.                 Approve Payments

Councilmember Ihlan questioned an item on page 1 of the Accounts Payable in the amount of $314,541 to Commercial Partners Title, LLC for the Westwood Village Application.

Mr. Miller advised that this was a pass-through progress payment for Westwood Village, with the City serving as fiscal agent; with standard procedure for a third party to be hired for review of payments, and the City then making payment to the contractor.  Mr. Miller reminded Councilmembers that all costs for improvements had already been assessed to Westwood Village.

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

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

b.                 Approve General Purchases or Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

c.         Establish a Public Hearing on Monday, December 7, 2009 for Liquor License Renewals for 2010

Klausing moved, Johnson seconded, scheduling a public hearing for Monday, December 7, 2009 to consider renewal of liquor licenses for the calendar year 2010; as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated November 23, 2009.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

a.                 Receive Update of City Grant Applications (former Consent Item d)

At the request of Mayor Klausing, Mr. Miller briefly reviewed this item.

Councilmember Ihlan noted the MN DEED grant in the amount of $1,000,000 requiring matching, for property acquisition and construction of a segment of the Twin Lakes Parkway and reconstruction of Prior Avenue.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that, when the City is working on the 2010 Budget and proposing a Preliminary Levy of nine percent (9%), spending public funds on a parkway segment not needed for immediate development purposes was uncalled for and needed serious consideration in the future during a time of tight economies.  Councilmember Ihlan further opined that the public needed to be aware of such uses of public money.

Mayor Klausing sought clarification, and Mr. Miller confirmed that this was tax increment financing (TIF) money.

Councilmember Roe sought clarification, and Mr. Miller confirmed, that this was TIF District No. 11, and that the money was restricted by state law and offered no unilateral discretion for use; and that if the District were to be decertified, any available excess funds above and beyond those expended would be returned to various agencies (i.e., School District, Ramsey County, and the City).

Councilmember Roe asked how long it would take and impacts to the 2010 budget, if the City decided to help the budget by not spending TIF money at this time and decertifying the District.

Mr. Miller advised that decertification is not a quick process, and there would be no relief to the 2010 budget, and possibly some to the 2011 budget depending on timing; and that the City would receive approximately $250,000 of the $1 million.  Mr. Miller cautioned that the City would need to ensure that there were no other obligations for which the City may be responsible (i.e., existing payment to a previous land owner), and that such a decision should not be made lightly.

Councilmember Roe clarified that if the process was initiated for decertification, if done in 2010, it could possibly impact the 2011 tax receipts.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that, even if the District was not decertified, the City didn’t need to spend the funds, with those funds coming back to General Fund revenues for other public projects.

Mayor Klausing suggested that, given varying opinions of the body, they agreed to disagree.

By consensus, the grant application update as prepared by staff and detailed in the Request for Council Action dated November 23, 2009 was accepted.

b.                 Approval of Standard Agreement for Professional Services with The Cuningham Group for the Zoning Code Re-write (former Consent Item e)

At the request of Mayor Klausing, Mr. Miller briefly reviewed this item, noting previous City Council action on October 26, 2009 approving this consultant to complete the Roseville Zoning Ordinance Re-write; and staff’s subsequent negotiations with the firm, and the City Attorney’s review, of the proposed Standard Agreement for Professional Services in an amount not to exceed $35,000.

Councilmember Ihlan requested the item removed from the Consent Agenda to allow individual vote, in light of the budgeting process and amount of money spent by the City for consulting services; and her desire to rethink her original vote.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City shouldn’t be hiring consultants in tough budget times, and needed to cut back now and in the 2010 budget.  Councilmember Ihlan further opined that City staff is capable of doing the re-write in-house; and with no intended reflection on this firm, the City had other options available.

Mayor Klausing, while appreciating Councilmember Ihlan’s confidence in City staff, questioned the availability of in-house staff in completing this work; noting that it was standard operating procedure to attempt to complete work in-house; but suggested that this may be a staff availability issue, as well as whether staff had the right skill set to complete this time-consuming and challenging review and re-write.

Councilmember Johnson concurred with Councilmember Ihlan on the need for caution in the frequency of hiring outside consultants; however, opined that the scope of the rezoning to comply with the Comprehensive Plan warranted additional help; and supported the requested action.

Councilmember Pust sought clarification, and Mr. Miller confirmed, that the money was coming from the Community Development Department budget, which was fee-based and not property tax supported.

Mayor Klausing concurred that the City needed to be judicious in hiring outside consultants; however, opined that one way the City was able to keep budget costs down was by not having full-time staff in-house that were not utilized fully, and by not taking on those additional positions and associated salary, benefits and expenses. Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the requested action.

Councilmember Roe noted, from his earlier discussions with City Manager Malinen, that this contract represented a new City standard form of agreement with outside contractors.

Mr. Miller concurred, noting that was a relatively new standard form being used by the City, with the intent to utilize it for all future professional service.

Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the standard format, rather than select boiler plate language of firms being hired, to more fully protect the City’s best interest related to contract terms.

Roe moved, Klausing seconded, approval of a Standard Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Roseville and The Cuningham Group for rewriting of the City Zoning Code.

Roll Call

Ayes: Roe; Pust; Johnson; and Klausing.

Nays: Ihlan.

Motion carried.

c.                  Adopt a Resolution Supporting Federal HR3745, The Community Access Preservation Act of 2009

At the request of Mayor Klausing, the City Council’s North Suburban Cable Commission (NSCC) Liaison Councilmember Roe briefly reviewed this item.

Councilmember Roe noted that the NSCC was supportive of this federal legislation intended to preserve public educational and government programming through local franchise agreements and related terms, rather than through state-wide franchising options, and allowing less local control over what could be funded and allowing cable companies to remove select services at the local level.

Mayor Klausing advised that, while he was supportive of public educational and government access channels as a legitimate expectation; opined that he was uneasy supporting a specific piece of legislation without knowing more about the proposed legislation.  Mayor Klausing sought additional information from Councilmember Roe on NSCC-level discussions; and whether there was an opportunity to support the concept of Public, Educational and Government (PEG) without tying it to a particular bill.

Councilmember Roe advised that there had not been a lot of discussion related to that at the NSCC level; and that no other proposals had been developed other than this legislation; with support on both the House and Senate side, and support being solicited from legislative representatives, in addition to seeking their co-sponsorship of the legislation.

Councilmember Pust questioned who were the general opponents of the legislation; and whether the Chamber of Commerce supported or opposed the legislation, or just the industry.

Councilmember Roe advised that the majority of the opponents were phone companies and other cable providers or those having interest in that industry; and was unsure of the involvement of the Chamber or whether the industry had enlisted their support from a business standpoint.

Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the concept.

Klausing moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10766 entitled, “Resolution Supporting Federal HR3745, The Community Access Preservation Act of 2009”

                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

9.                 General Ordinances for Adoption

10.             Presentations

a.                 Finalize the 2010 Budget and Property Tax Levy

Mayor Klausing thanked Councilmembers and the public for their comments to-date; noting that this had been a challenging budget process.

          Finance Director Miller briefly updated Councilmembers that the initial proposed City Manager-recommended budget remained as presented at the last meeting; and that the City Council was asked to direct staff on how they wished the 2010 levy and budget to look; allowing staff, at the upcoming Truth in Taxation Public Hearing to provide the public with an accurate portrayal to present.

          Mayor Klausing advised that, from a staff and public perspective, the City Council needed to determine if the Preliminary Levy was the total levy intended for 2010; and to discuss final allotments at tonight’s meeting.  Mayor Klausing referenced an e-mail from another resident, Jeff Johnson, related to outdoor skating rinks, who had suggested fewer rinks, but maintained on a more regular basis and spoke in support of that suggestion.

Councilmember Ihlan expressed frustration that she had not yet received the line items and budget worksheets to support the budget expenditure summaries, as she had requested at two previous meetings; and had not found the information posted on the City’s website.

Mr. Miller reiterated City Manager Malinen’s response from the last meeting when the information had been requested, that there was no 2010 line item prepared as had been done in previous years, with staff focusing on program-type budgeting over the last few months.  Mr. Miller further reiterated that Mr. Malinen and he had advised Councilmembers and the public that the 2009 line items budget, posted on the website, had changed little for the 2010 proposed budget; and that those few changes were highlighted in orange and blue on the 2010 priority ranked budget matrix.

Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that, without the documents all in one place, it was difficult to understand where changes were reflected between 2009 and 2010; and if most categories hadn’t changed, why decreases or increases were listed on the budget summaries.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that she was prepared to make a formal motion to get this information at tonight’s meeting; opining that she had to have those itemizations behind the figures in the summary; further opining that it was public information, and if her motion failed or there was no response to it, she was prepared to make a public information request; further opining that this was public information that was desperately needed.

Ihlan moved, Pust seconded, that the City Council direct staff to produce line item breakdowns or budget worksheets for 2010 budget by the end of this work week, Wednesday, November 25, 2009, to allow the City Council to work on them before the Truth in Taxation Hearing, as previously requested at the last two meetings; and that the information be provided to Councilmembers electronically, and posted on the City’s website for public information.

Mayor Klausing spoke in opposition to the motion; opining that it had been addressed in the past, and did not serve to move the City Council forward in terms of a comprehensive budget discussion.  Mayor Klausing opined that the discussion needed to hinge on what general programs and services valued by the community and which were most important to individual Councilmembers and by consensus, to the majority.  Mayor Klausing admitted that this first attempt at a Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO) process had been [less than] perfect, but had been helpful in forcing the City Council and public to review what was done and determine our priorities within that framework.  Mayor Klausing concurred with staff that the information was available on the website for 2009; and opined that the City Council could make budget decisions on the information provided to-date.

Mayor Klausing sought an opinion from City Attorney Scott Anderson related to Councilmember Ihlan’s Data Practices request; and whether information could be demanded that had not been created.

City Attorney Anderson advised that the City was required to provide information requested, but was not required to create data not already in existence.

Councilmember Pust asked Councilmember Ihlan to clarify her specific request; noting that she was using 2008 budget proposals for her reference in reviewing the 2010 budget breakdowns.

Councilmember Ihlan, via her laptop at the bench, referenced information on the City website identified under “Departments;” “Finance and Budgets and Annual Reports;” as “2009 Budget Work Paper #1 and #2” that provided more detail by department.  Councilmember Ihlan noted that she was hearing that the 2009 budget worksheet contained a lot of the same values in 2010, and in that case, shouldn’t be that difficult to note those line items that had changed, for the sake of transparency and giving the City Council data that it needed to scrutinize departments.  Councilmember Ihlan reiterated that this was the third time she’d requested the data; and if the process was not transparent, it didn’t allow the City Council to do their job; and that if only a few changes were indicated, that staff make those changes within that detailed format as used in previous years.

Councilmember Pust noted that she had that detailed document from 2007 and 2008, and questioned Finance Director Miller on whether that information was available to staff internally, or if it would require him to manipulate additional data; and how much additional time those further calculations would require. 

Mr. Miller advised that he could extract out changes, and any additions or deletions and allocate them; however, he noted that anything with personnel costs attached would need to be allocated 160 different ways; and clarified his comment that the 2010 line items didn’t exist since staff has not made those allocations, pending City Council directives.  Mr. Miller advised that he would need to create and/or update formulas; and suspected it would take him several days to do so.

Councilmember Roe clarified that the reason staff had not prepared that detail this year to-date was based on staff awaiting City Council direction at tonight’s meeting; at which time the information would be provided as information at the Truth in Taxation hearing and then come together for final levy and budget decisions by year-end.

Mr. Miller concurred with Councilmember Roe; opining that if using the budget process used in previous years, that part of the process would be completed by now; however, advised that staff was waiting for the City Council to make final decisions, allowing staff to allocate costs; a time-consuming process requiring several iterations being a program-based as opposed to an operating-based process.

Councilmember Pust expressed concern that City Manager Malinen had not directed Mr. Miller to prepare the information requested by Councilmember Ihlan, given that this is a new process with various glitches; and expressed further concern that if a City Councilmember couldn’t request data as previously provided, what else was not being followed.  Councilmember Pust opined that this was not a good path to pursue, and spoke in support of the motion.

Mayor Klausing noted the difference in the City Council versus individual Councilmembers making demands of staff; and further noted that the Council majority had supported this different budget approach.  Mayor Klausing noted that it was not fair to staff, at the near end of the process, for one Councilmember to decide to use a different process; and questioned why the City Council could not complete this budget process based on the information provided to-date by staff, using general budget categories broken down by department.  Mayor Klausing recognized that, in past years, there was an even greater breakdown, but opined that the previous process was much more confusing and opaque, with this process providing a better understanding for the City Council and public of specific programs and funding.   Mayor Klausing advised that he could not agree that the City Council could not make budget decisions and determinations based on the information provided to-date.

Councilmember Ihlan used Recreation Administration as an example in past years versus this year’s lump number, when salaries and benefits were broken down from 2005 – 2007, with 2008 actual budget and 2009 proposed budget lines.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that this provided sufficient detail rather than a summary to determine where the money was going, a crucial need for her if she was to seek meaningful ways to reduce the budget.  Councilmember Ihlan reiterated that she’d had that information every year she’d served on the City Council; and was asking for the same information to be provided this year, even if a different budget process was in play, for it to correspond to the summary numbers.  Councilmember Ihlan advised that this is public data, and even if not in the exact format, she was seeking the information as a councilmember and on behalf of the public who needed this information.

Councilmember Johnson questioned Mr. Miller’s next step if the City Council provided direction to staff at tonight’s meeting; and whether that would not in fact be to create a line item document.

Mr. Miller concurred, that at some point, staff would do so, but not within the timeframe of a few days, and that it would take him 2-3 days to recreate the line item if he were to work 24/7; but cautioned that it would not tie back to the BFO process.   Mr. Miller used Councilmember Ihlan’s example of Parks Administration, noting that there was no program in the amount of roughly $565,000 in this summary, but that there were 18 different programs within that summary; and that if Councilmembers were seeking a link back to a line item budget, it would take approximately one month to recreate that detail.

Councilmember Johnson questioned what staff would prepare for the Truth in Taxation hearing; and what they planned to recreate to tie into the budget summaries at the end of the BFO process.

Mr. Miller advised that such detail was not presented at the Truth in Taxation hearing level; but would consist of a budget package comparable to previous years; and asked if there was a different presentation that the City Council would like to see this year, that staff needed to hear that sooner rather than later.

Councilmember Johnson questioned whether staff was already doing what was being requested by Councilmember Ihlan.

Mr. Miller advised that, once the budget was finalized, the detail requested by Councilmember Ihlan, would be completed.  However, Mr. Miller advised that he was leery to do that level of detail now, when as an example, the additional $50,000 employee insurance costs for every full-time employee would need to be allocated 160 different ways; and he would prefer to do that allocation only once rather than making those disseminations to a still dynamic document and process.

Councilmember Johnson concluded that he was hearing from staff that Councilmember Ihlan’s request would require substantial additional work and was not in staff’s timeline at this time.

Mr. Miller concurred with Councilmember Johnson’s observation; noting that it could be done, but not within a week.

Councilmember Roe asked Mr. Miller how long it would be, once the BFO process was completed and a final budget determined at the last meeting of the year, before a budget document was published.

Mr. Miller estimated two weeks, reminding Councilmembers that at the December 21, 2009 meeting, the budget document would still be in wholesale categories, not 160 different ways (i.e., vehicle replacement in four different places; arena refrigeration in one spot) and didn’t represent much in the way of labor intensity; however, Mr. Miller asked that the City Council provide clearer direction before he began the fine-tuning process.

Councilmember Roe suggested that, through the BFO process, the ultimate budget document will not be the same as in past years.

Mr. Miller advised that staff would try to replicate the published document as that 2008 document as referenced by Councilmember Pust, opining that using that format allowed the reader a quick overview in the executive summary and more in-depth detail with various city programs.

Councilmember Roe asked if the matrix of 162 line items would appear with rankings or mandated levels of service in that document.

Mr. Miller suggested that it could and that it would serve to underscore the BFO process and what the end product will become based on that process.

Councilmember Roe continued to review his perception of staffs’ process to go from the matrix to the budget document, with staff developing worksheets that will connect the matrix and those numbers; allowing next year’s process to be less confusing and tie things together much more obviously.

Mr. Miller concurred that it would be considerably easier next year if the City Council stuck with this process.

Councilmember Ihlan clarified that she was not asking for a line item budget that corresponded to the spreadsheet rankings, but to the budget expenditure summaries provided by staff and broken down by departments, not the 162 priorities.  Councilmember Ihlan questioned how staff had generated the expenditure summaries without a worksheet behind it; and opined that she didn’t know how to continue without having that information before her to make meaningful decisions on how to reduce the tax levy.

Councilmember Pust recognized the amount of work required of staff to split the numbers across 160 programs over the last 6-8 weeks and the information provided to the Council and public throughout that process; and questioned what additional information had been provided to Councilmember Ihlan beyond those documents.

Mr. Miller advised that he had provided various iterations of the packet information, including the narrative that accompanied the City Manager-recommended budget, but not reflecting allocations for new impact items (i.e., health care).

Councilmember Pust noted that in the past, Mr. Miller had always been forthcoming with public or City Councilmember requests to justify the information provided by providing that supporting documentation, and questioned if Mr. Miller had been directed to not supply that supporting documentation in this instance.

Mr. Miller advised that the extent of his focus had been on the summary sheets; and that he had not yet spent time on a 2010 line item budget.

Mayor Klausing opined that his opposition to the motion was in not having staff do the extra work; and further opined that the motion was counterintuitive to the BFO budget process.  Mayor Klausing further opined that the City Council tended to focus on specific dollar amounts rather than making meaningful budget suggestions; and expressed concern that the City Council was going down that path again.

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Ihlan and Pust.

Nays: Roe; Johnson; and Klausing.

Motion failed.

Given the results of this action, Councilmember Ihlan advised that she would be subsequently filing a public information Data Practices Act request.

Councilmember Roe clarified that the requested $450,000 in Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) did not represent an expenditure; and that the actual City Manager’s recommended budget was $450,000 less than the levy.

Mr. Miller noted that the City would be required to levy $450,000 more than it needed as the state would then automatically reduce their allotment to the City by $450,000, reducing the City’s net tax proceeds.

Councilmember Pust questioned staff’s point of view, process-wise, on their expectations of tonight’s meeting for budget decisions; and whether individual Councilmembers should move to add or delete specific items, allowing staff to return with a new budget; or how they anticipated further budget tweaking to occur.

Mr. Miller suggested both avenues as the process continued to evolve and new opportunities for reducing costs were suggested, while absorbing or consideration of additional costs as well.  Mr. Miller noted that the entire process was one of refinement and reallocation; and asked that, if the Council collectively was not comfortable with the City Manager-recommended budget, they indicate those areas tonight, whether by motion or suggestion.

Mayor Klausing reviewed his approach, using the Fire Relief Association mandate as an example, and new actuarial that may allow for reduced costs; and the need, as another example, for Councilmembers to determine if they wanted to fund outdoor skating rinks or not.

Discussion included where funds were currently allocated and where areas of adjustment could be found; uncertainties and risks in unfunded liabilities for the Fire Relief Association based on market conditions; and potential revisions in material and/or equipment bids allowing for some additional monies.

Councilmember Ihlan questioned if the City Council had actually taken a vote that they decided to levy back the actual amount of state aid lost; and opined that levying was not the only alternative, and the budget could be cut by that amount relying on reserves or other sources of revenue.

Mayor Klausing advised that no actual vote had been taken, but when the ranking discussions were held, the City Council had indicated a high priority in levying, represented by it then being included in the proposed budget; and questioned if a formal motion would be required.

Councilmember Ihlan referenced a recent Pioneer Press newspaper article that she shared verbally, quoting a representative of the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) related to proposed municipal property taxes and averages of various cities.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City of Roseville was out of step with the rest of the State of MN; and questioned how the City Council could make suggestions (i.e., outdoor skating rinks) without having line items, rather than ranking sheets, available for reference.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that the other option of directing the City Manager to cut the levy by percentage points across the board could be very damaging with the limited information available to Councilmembers at this time.  Councilmember Ihlan recognized that Councilmembers had received an updated reserve report from staff and suggested further consideration of using some of those reserves judiciously.  Councilmember Ihlan questioned, with the limited information available, why the public should bother to attend the Truth in Taxation hearing if the City Council set the budget tonight; and opined that this would not represent a public process.

Mayor Klausing opined that rationale for attempting to set the budget at this meeting was 180 degrees different than how Councilmember Ihlan was attempting to paint it; with this BFO process initiated based on past concerns and as a direct response, and a good one, to involve the public more by having something concrete for them to respond to, with hard numbers on the City Council proposed budget.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City was not providing the public with sufficient background information.

Mayor Klausing opined that he and Councilmember Ihlan disagreed on that point.

Councilmember Ihlan sought further discussion and individual thoughts on use of reserves in the 2010 budget, those under or over target percentages based on policy, and proposed 2010 budget additions for capital replacement funds and how they were identified in the budget expenditure summaries.

Mr. Miller advised that the proposed budget did not increase capital expenditure funds at all.

Councilmember Ihlan suggested using funds from existing reserves, taking from one savings account to another, to potentially decrease levy-supported budget and take some pressure off the taxpayer.

Mayor Klausing opined that this money was dedicated to capital replacements.

Councilmember Ihlan opined that this money was already in reserve and could be applied toward capital replacement.

Mr. Miller clarified that staff was suggesting that the City Council levy $450,000 for vehicle replacement, the actual 2010 need, attempting to establish money for capital replacement, not building up reserves.  Mr. Miller further clarified that there was no money in the Vehicle Replacement Fund other than in the Fire Department for police, street, or park maintenance vehicles, as all vehicle purchases had been suspended in 2009 as there was no money and there would remain no money unless re-appropriated for 2010.

Councilmember Ihlan suggested that her previous understanding was that the proposed budget intended to put money in those sinking funds, and if that was the intent, that money could take pressure off the tax levy, allowing the City to use some non-restricted reserves and put them in those accounts.  Councilmember Ihlan suggested another option to consider using reserves toward capital expenditures, but opined that she didn’t have enough information about specific capital expenditures to allow her to make a suggestion of how much should come out reserves.

Councilmember Roe noted, in looking at use of reserves for capital expenditures, the status of the City’s ten year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) currently funded substantially under projected needs; and cautioned that if monies were not saved in this and subsequent budgets, it would put the City even further behind by deferring those needs, ultimately costing more and making the situation worse down the road.

Mr. Miller concurred with Councilmember Roe’s assessment; opining that one of the reasons staff had advocated so strongly for the BFO process was based on the City’s continued path of fiscal unsustainability in the last seven out of eight     years;  and referenced a previous memorandum provided to the City Council where staff had detailed the previous $14 million in reserve to fund vehicle, equipment, and park improvements, with that fund now diminished to $6 million by using those reserves in past budgets, not correcting the basic structure.  Mr. Miller opined that, in aggregate, the City had a strong reserve fund; however, staff’s main concern was in the public safety realm, with the City currently in a weaker position than 3-5 years ago.  Mr. Miller noted that discussions have continued for several years, but staff had brought the memorandum to the City Council’s attention once again, cautioning them about spending reserves for short-term needs, ultimately pushing off that burden to the next generation.

Councilmember Roe noted the substantial funding gaps represented in the ten-year CIP, based on existing monies, projected needs, and projected property taxes. Councilmember Roe noted that, even with incredible interest returns that the City might realize, the City was not even close to funding those capital needs with reserves; and advised that he would not support such a suggestion; opining that to continue spending reserves was an unsustainable practice.

Mr. Miller concurred, noting the approximate need annually of $1 million for overall vehicle replacement.

Councilmember Johnson questioned the process for final budget adoption from the preliminary budget.

Mr. Miller advised that the City Council would be asked to finalize the budget at the December 21, 2009 meeting, two weeks after the Truth in Taxation hearing.

Councilmember Johnson advised that he had fundamental problems with the proposed budget as it stood, based on appropriations; opining that this budget was a broad stroke versus line item process; and he doesn’t feel he’s been provided with sufficient information to appropriately allocate funds from one department to another without fully understanding those impacts.  Councilmember Johnson advised that he had consulted with City Manager Malinen regarding those reservations, and wanted to alert his Council colleagues that he would not support this budget unless he received that additional information.  Councilmember Johnson reviewed his request for additional information on “other” categories as an example, and lack of information on differences (i.e., Police Department taken from $166,000 to $56,000).

Mayor Klausing advised that this was one patrol position not filled.

Councilmember Johnson opined that he didn’t have sufficient information at tonight’s meeting that would allow him to reallocate monies and do the budget justice; and questioned his colleagues on whether he’d have another opportunity to discuss the budget, and see responses from City Manager Malinen on his suggestions and subsequent impacts.

Mayor Klausing expressed his personal frustration that Councilmembers believed they were not receiving sufficient background information, when any individual requests of staff that he’d made had been readily fulfilled or received responses. Mayor Klausing opined that, if a Councilmember was not supportive of the City Manager-proposed budget, it was their responsibility to propose an alternative.  For example, by making a shift from one department to another department, and what the collective body would support to get a budget adopted.  Mayor Klausing noted that this was the primary and most important thing the City Council was charged with doing annually, to set an annual budget and tax levy.

Councilmember Johnson opined that, based on his review of the City Manager’s job description; this was the City Manager’s job.

Councilmember Roe asked Councilmember Johnson if he was referring to the level of spending or where the money was allocated.

Councilmember Johnson responded that he was referring to the actual allocation.

Councilmember Roe opined that this was a subtle distinction; and suggested that if Councilmember Johnson were to provide his rationale for not supporting the budget as presented, it would allow Councilmember Roe to add that to his thoughts and discussion, and ultimately provide guidance to the City Manager.

Mayor Klausing concurred that this was an importance difference, and asked if the City Council was comfortable with the proposed level.

Councilmember Pust advised that she was not comfortable with the total level that that the challenge is in how the data was presented and given that the data did not say that 86% of the costs are personnel-related.  Councilmember Pust opined that, if a Councilmember was not comfortable with the total spending level and wanted to reduce it, it was not possible to say specific lines, not knowing if it was a fraction of a person that would ultimately not save the City any money.  Councilmember Pust advised that she could come up with cost savings in preventing dollars leaving the City; however, questioned if that was realistic; leaving her with an archaic across-the-board reduction. Councilmember Pust further opined that the process had tied the hands of Councilmembers and didn’t allow her to come up with sufficient ways to save personnel costs.

Mayor Klausing advised that the BFO process was based on staff providing an outline or rough idea of what it cost to provide certain programs and services, and was not a monetary correlation; but that decision-making could be based on relative approximations of various costs.

Mr. Miller advised that all of the programs and services had a personnel component; and that if one program was targeted for elimination, there may be full-time employees (FTE’s) impacted in providing that program or service, requiring it to be finessed.  Mr. Miller concurred that the BFO process was a broad picture and that this was understood and anticipated.  Mr. Miller suggested that, if there were larger-scale items that the Councilmembers wished to cut, they would look at various programs, and they would involve some level of staffing changes, and require some precision in accomplishing those changes structurally.

Councilmember Pust noted that if this was just based on staffing changes, that balance discussion could be held on staff levels; but noted that customer services was addressed in all departments, and was a valuable service in all of those departments, and was ranked at the highest level, creating the basis for the preliminary budget and levy.

Mayor Klausing concurred that customer service in all departments is important; and noted that over previous years, the “low hanging fruit” had already been picked, causing the City to now make those difficult decisions in how remaining services and programs, as well as staffing levels, should be prioritized.

Councilmember Pust noted that Councilmember Ihlan’s request would represent a budget that provided options at various percentages; but questioned what decisions the City Manager would make to cut things to get to a different level, and suggested that it seemed like a wasted effort if she prioritized things that may not ultimately save money or retain priorities.

Mayor Klausing suggested that Councilmembers determine how to get to their preferred budget level.

Councilmember Pust  suggested that her preferred level for her and the public is what they could afford; and opined that the public couldn’t afford this level, even though she may agree that everything listed was valuable, but not in an economy where taxpayers didn’t have any extra money.  Councilmember Pust opined that of all the times to raise taxes to the level reflected, this was not the time; and advised that the public feedback she was receiving in the community was not supportive of this level of spending.  Councilmember Pust opined that it was her responsibility to do fewer good things with less money, but she couldn’t tell how to achieve that without losing good staff that does those good things.

Councilmember Roe opined that, when setting a preliminary levy, Councilmembers needed to determine what the appropriate level of change in property tax in this economy should be, and what level they wanted to be at.  Councilmember Roe further opined that, once that information was provided to staff, with individual and collective Councilmember priorities and rankings clearly in place, the City Manager and staff could then determine that budget at those specific levels.  Councilmember Roe noted that, to-date, staff had been provided with no motion for various levels that they could return to Council with impacts at those various levels, based on Council priorities and an analysis of staffing levels.  Councilmember Roe opined that it was not the City Council’s job to work out all those details, as long as they’ve provided staff with their priorities, which hopefully reflect those of the community, and if not reflective, the community needed to let Councilmembers know that.  Councilmember Roe suggested that Councilmembers concur on what they think the property tax levy should be, and move forward, rather than individually try to determine where to make reductions or reallocations, unless providing broad guidance to staff on their suggested changes, by seeking a majority vote of the City Council at the time of final levy adoption.

Mayor Klausing expressed his desire to get the City Council to a budget resolution, but opined that he was stymied as to how to reach that conclusion.  Mayor Klausing suggested that Councilmembers provide their preferred dollar amount and comfort level.

Councilmember Pust advised that she was not prepared to bring forward a motion on a different dollar amount, understanding that it was up to Councilmembers to make suggestions through the BFO process for the City Manger to revise for the next round of discussion.  Councilmember Pust advised that she wanted to fund outdoor ice rinks, and thought this could be accomplished by the City Council giving up their salaries.  Councilmember Pust expressed her preference, while not a line item, but built into the process, for freezing and eliminating overtime, which would allow the City to retain their important staff, while reducing the budget by approximately $200,000; her preference for a hiring freeze similar to that instituted in 2009, if it had been lifted.

Mr. Miller advised that several key positions were replaced, but many had not been replaced and remained vacant.

Councilmember Pust suggested that a hard hiring freeze be put back in place to protect current staff, while recognizing that they would be further inconvenienced with a freeze on overtime, but opining that it must be done given the current economy.

Councilmember Pust stated if administration numbers indicated all staffing costs in each department, and if there was other money in those administrative numbers, that those costs be trimmed as much as possible, (i.e., training, overtime), but done across the board in some equitable way.  Councilmember Pust, on page 2 of the ranking matrix and under the yellow line, suggested a hard freeze on inflationary increases for all 2010 projected numbers in a total amount of approximately $100,000, including overtime costs if not affecting people’s jobs, or inadvertently putting someone on a pink slip list.

Councilmember Johnson advised that he felt very strongly about his individual suggestions made to City Manager Malinen previously for budget allocations; and that he felt so strongly that he was going to base his vote to support the proposed budget on whether those items were included or not.  Out of courtesy to his colleagues, Councilmember Johnson advised that he was bringing this up now rather than holding the whole process at bay. 

Councilmember Johnson noted that one item not addressed by the City Council as a governing body was the aging demographics of the current population, with 30% of the City being sold in the next ten (10) years, anticipating that a large percentage of its senior population moving.  Councilmember Johnson, from a budgeting consideration, questioned how to address filling those houses and what they were going to be filled with.  Councilmember Johnson noted what he had observed when first moving to Roseville, its amenities: a variety of good schools, parks, churches, and well-kept streets.  Councilmember Johnson noted that he took for granted that wherever he lived, he would continue to be well protected and looked after; and opined that the City currently had the best Fire and Police Departments around, and offered them his appreciation based on his observations.  Councilmember Johnson opined that consideration needed to be given to how the City of Roseville would be marketed to future generations, with the need to preserve its many amenities and housing stock, through ongoing code enforcement, park improvements, street maintenance and replacement, and maintaining its superb public safety departments. 

Councilmember Johnson expressed his strongly-held personal concern that the City’s Parks and Recreation Department had taken substantial hits over the last 5-7 years, while other departments had been increased exponentially.  Councilmember Johnson opined that he was asking for all the outdoor skating rinks to be restored and an additional $20,000 allocated from somewhere else to come back into parks.  Councilmember Johnson opined that if he observed a rink not being used, it spoke volumes to new residents about their community; and that this was not a wise area from which to withhold funding at this time.  Councilmember Johnson recognized that dollar amounts did reflect on jobs; and noted additional stresses and duress to the Parks Department if staffing was cut further, when the Department was already experiencing its overt share of duress.

Councilmember Roe clarified, with Councilmember Johnson responding affirmatively, that this was in addition to restoring the outdoor skating rinks.

Mayor Klausing suggested that street snow plowing could be reduced in frequency to provide funds to restore outdoor ice rinks.

Councilmember Pust noted that Mayor Klausing’s suggestion to plow less frequently to reduce the budget for restoration of outdoor ice rinks was an example of a refinement that may not actually save money, when the same number of staff was still required to plow. 

Mayor Klausing suggested that it could be addressed through eliminating overtime.  Mayor Klausing opined that he was looking at things from a different perspective, but arriving at the same conclusion in a different way.

Councilmember Ihlan expressed frustration in the way this process was forcing the City Council to bump up one public service against another; and reiterated that if a proper line item budget had been provided, the City Council would be able to determine employee impacts of other programs.  Councilmember Ihlan suggested that other temporary ways of saving money be pursued during this difficult economic time, but allowing restoration of outdoor ice rinks, including the City Council forego their salaries; review less training and conference attendance as the private industry was doing unless required by law. 

Councilmember Ihlan suggested that the City maintain their hiring freezes and not fill vacancies until the economy improved to justify doing so; and suggested that the City Council direct staff to provide various levels of levy, including the 3.5% average of other cities, for further consideration.  Councilmember Ihlan further suggested that the City Council get as close to a zero percentage levy increase as possible, given that its senior citizen population would not be receiving any COLA from Social Security in 2010; and unemployment, including that of Roseville, continued at a high rate.   Councilmember Ihlan opined that, with those alternatives in front of them, it would prove valuable for further discussion.

Ihlan moved that the City Council direct staff to prepare and present proposed budgets at a 0%, 2%, 3.5% levy increase for further City Council consideration.

Councilmember Pust questioned if Councilmember Ihlan was seeking line items for each scenario.

Councilmember Ihlan suggested at a minimum based on budget expenditure summary form.

Mayor Klausing opined that this was a variation of what Councilmember Ihlan had requested earlier: current budgets with the same information at three different budget levels.

Councilmember Ihlan advised that she had previously requested line items that presumably existed for the current proposed budget; and was not asking for a summary on those three levy percentages for a general sense of reserves, or where to cut money to reduce the budget to that amount.

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

Mayor Klausing opined that the exercise of bumping one service or program against another was the basis of the BFO process, and as unpleasant as it is, the City Council was responsible for making those determinations.

Related to foregoing City Council salaries, Mayor Klausing noted that, as previously addressed by the City Attorney, State Statute addressed those salaries and the timing for altering them, which would be after the 2010 elections.  Mayor Klausing advised that if Councilmembers wished to donate their salaries, as was his current practice, they could do so; however, he opined that he preferred to retain his discretion in where he donated that money; and that it would not provide a serious solution to solving the City’s structural funding crisis.

Noting that City Manager Malinen had arrived earlier during this discussion, and was observing from the audience, Councilmember Roe asked that he join in this discussion, specifically to address the current status of training and hiring freezes.  Councilmember Roe expressed his support of some of these changes, but sought clarification of those items that remained in place based on past annual budget cycle actions and directives.  Councilmember Roe further noted that, during these tough economic times, some Councilmembers may be dependent on their Council salaries for various expenses, and shouldn’t be forced to make those decisions.

Councilmember Roe opined that that may not be the best one to look at, while eliminating non-essential overtime did make sense, in addition to a hiring freeze.  Councilmember Roe noted that the City may realize other savings in street maintenance materials, with costs continuing to deflate.  Councilmember Roe spoke in support of things that would be affordable for citizens as items to pursue, with Councilmembers having provided priorities to staff and where they placed their highest rankings; while recognizing the uncertainties in Fire Relief Association liability; the additional $100,000 of increased arena project debt, and the need to find cuts elsewhere.   Councilmember Roe advised that he did not disagree with suggestions for lowering the levy, but there were some realities representing an increase over the 2009 budget; and if the levy increase were held at 0%, those cuts would need to be practically accomplished elsewhere.

Discussion among Councilmembers and City Manager Malinen, now at the bench, included maintenance of out-of-state travel and training at 2008 levels, frozen for 2009, and proposed at those same levels for 2010; whether further reductions were practical beyond essential or mandated levels; requested analysis by department by Mr. Malinen on additional overtime reductions that could be eliminated and impacts to service levels, if not obligated through contract or other mandate; and those items over which the City had little discretion (i.e., Police officers testifying and being paid overtime to do so) and resulting changes in services levels.

Further discussion included eliminating overtime for snow plowing and service impacts if plowing was only done on straight time; and continued discussion on other revenue sources, and whether there was time to consider any of those sources for the 2010 budget.

City Manager Malinen noted that the two most significant sources would be the street light utility fee and the gas and electric utility franchise fee. 

Mr. Miller advised that the staff memorandum dated November 9, 2009 included alternative revenue sources, with the two most significant being the street light utility fee, estimated to generate $300,000 annually and covering all lighting costs and their replacements; and the gas and electric franchise fee, estimated to generate $600,000 annually, based on a 1% fee; with both available for the City Council to implement in 2010 if they so directed.  Mr. Miller advised that it would take time to create the process, but that they could be accomplished.

Councilmembers concurred that they were interested in pursuing both discussions on both options; and directed staff provide additional information on the process for implementation, with the exception of the proposed student fee.

Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the street light fee as a direct correlation to the availability of street lights in the City; however, he cautioned the need to base that fee on that specific reduction in the proposed tax levy, not just a portion thereof; and allowing clarity for residents of the implementation and related reduction accordingly.

Mayor Klausing suggested that staff take those suggestions provided by Councilmembers during tonight’s discussion and refine the budget and levy accordingly.

Councilmember Ihlan questioned the additional internal loan and levy impact on the budget expenditure summary under debt service funds.

Mr. Miller advised that in 2001, the City refunded outstanding debt to take advantage of lower rates, requiring the use of reserves from other funds to accomplish that; with the amount being levied back annually to replenish that fund, which would be accomplished in 2011.

Public Comment

Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg provided a bench handout for the record entitled, “Several Unanswered Budget Questions and a Few New Ones for Roseville City Officials,” dated November 22, 2009.  Mr. Grefenberg thanked Mr. Miller for his assistance in addressing overtime; and asked that City staff be asked to assist the budget process by agreeing to a freeze on their step increases in 2010.  Mr. Grefenberg opined that he was not seeking a zero percent levy increase; but asked that the City Council review his additional questions and that staff continue to cooperate and respond to the public.

Bob Willmus

Mr. Willmus referenced Councilmember Pust’s comments about ice rinks and related personnel and positions; and questioned if a portion of the funding was removed, what other services could be impacted.  Mr. Willmus opined that it was difficult to tell from the BFO process.  Mr. Willmus, related to the 10-year CIP, questioned if the City Council had undertaken a priority process on that, and if not, why; and questioned whether any labor costs were built into the CIP and should be extrapolated.  Mr. Willmus further asked, as the City Council continues the process, if it was possible for the City Council to carry forward the 2009 budget into 2010 and amend it at later point when agreement was reached, still carrying forward the maximum preliminary levy amount of 9%, but subsequently reducing it based on further discussion down the road.

At the directive of Mayor Klausing, Mr. Miller responded that, under state law, the City Council was required to adopt an annual budget, but subsequent to that requirement, the City Council retained the discretion to amend the budget at any time.  Mr. Miller advised that the City Council could adopt the 2009 budget by resolution at their December 21, 2009 meeting as well as a final tax levy; but clarified that the levy could not change after January 2, 2010.

Mayor Klausing questioned what this would accomplish other than postponing the decision-making process.

Councilmember Ihlan, referencing the CIP, clarified her understanding of the City Council’s acceptance and approval of the ten year plan, was that any capital decisions had to have specific City Council action at the time they were expended; with the plan serving as an outline of projected needs, but that the City Council didn’t sign off on ten years’ worth of capital improvements.  Councilmember Ihlan opined that, even though those capital items had not yet been prioritized, they should be done on an annual basis.

Councilmember Roe opined that a hiring freeze or step increase freeze would not zero out the levy increase.  Councilmember Roe deferred to staff’s analysis of where additional adjustments could be made.

Councilmember Pust opined that a freeze of step increases should be on the list.

Councilmember Ihlan sought a census of her suggestion to look at reserves.

Mayor Klausing opined that he was opposed to spending reserves.

Councilmember Ihlan requested a list of capital expenditures included in the proposed 2010 budget for City Council consideration to determine if they should be funded from reserves.

Councilmember Roe supported Councilmember Ihlan’s request.

11.             Public Hearings

a.                 Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Certifying Unpaid Utility and Other Charges to the Property Tax Rolls

Finance Director Chris Miller provided a summary of the list of delinquent charges against property owners in Roseville for unpaid false alarm, water, sewer and other charged in excess of ninety (90) days past due, for collection on the following year’s property taxes, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated November 23, 2009; as well as assessments for properties petitioning for improvements; and for abatements coming before the City Council over the past year.  Mr. Miller advised that this formalized the process for collection on property taxes; and further advised that all property owners listed had been noticed of their ability to appear before the City Council.

Mayor Klausing opened the Public Hearing at 8:22 pm to receive public comment on the proposed resolution.

Public Comment

Eithne Shimasaki, 841 County Road B-2 West, PIN 112923130031, Amount =

$50.79           

Ms. Shimasaki reviewed the history of their taking possession of the house in February of 2008; and a previous billing in dispute for the quarter ending February 21, 2008, which was before they took possession of the house.  Ms. Shimasaki advised that they had forwarded the bill to the previous owner’s power of attorney, and called the City accordingly, but had never heard from the City again during that entire 18 month time.  Ms. Shimasaki advised that she was disputing this charge, and had no intention of paying it, and asked that it be dropped completely from her property.  Ms. Shimasaki questioned why this had not been disclosed during the closing, and expressed frustration with her limited recourse, and the title company doing the search no longer being in business.  Ms. Shimasaki advised that she had supporting documentation for her position.

Councilmembers and City Attorney Anderson discussed the options available from the City Council perspective; with City Attorney Anderson noting that special assessments are usually negotiated between property owners at the time of sale; and that the former property owner had been under obligation to disclose any assessments incurred on the property; however, he further noted that the obligation went with the property; and needed further research to determine if the City could waive an assessment on one property as it related to gift and/or equal protection issues, that may be deemed to be a gift or breach of fiduciary responsible for the City and it’s Council.

City Attorney Anderson suggested that his office and staff review the City Code, and any discretion the City Council may have in this circumstance.

Mark Hadler, 2011 Brenner Avenue, PIN #42923220037, $33.43

Mr. Hadler advised that his was a similar circumstance, with him taking possession of the house in March of 2008, with the bill well past 90 days overdue and from a previous tenant.

At the request of Mayor Klausing, Finance Director Miller reviewed the City’s practice for accounts over a certain age, and moved to another area of the City’s billing software, as a deleted account, when the prior owner did not pay the bill, and the City had pursued multiple attempts from that previous owner to collect and prevent this exact situation so new owners did not become liable for previous tenant billings.  However, Mr. Miller noted that this is an unfortunate burden for property owners when those collections were unsuccessful; and was applied annually as a lien against the property, not the individual.

City Attorney Anderson, in response to Mayor Klausing’s query, advised that he would have to determine if these situations would be precluded if deferred for another year.

Klausing moved, Pust seconded, removal of these two delinquent amounts for 2010 taxes from the list identified as “Attachment B” to the Request for Council Action dated November 23, 2009; identified as follows: Eithne Shimasaki, 841 County Road B-2 West, PIN 112923130031, in the amount of $50.79; and Mark Hadler, 2011 Brenner Avenue, PIN #42923220037, in the amount of $33.43.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

Mayor Klausing asked that City Attorney Anderson provide his recommendation to the City Council; and assured Ms. Shimasaki and Mr. Hadler that the City Council would follow up with them when those findings were determined.

Councilmember Pust questioned if staff was finding some higher amounts or more that would be reflective of current economies.

Mr. Miller advised that there was a minor uptick, but not much difference from the previous year.

Mayor Klausing closed the Public Hearing at 8:35 pm.

Discussion included what was reflected by the small amounts, with Mr. Miller responding that some people actually preferred having it assessed rather than paying it directly; or that some of those items were disputed and carried over.

Councilmember Roe noted that, based on fairness, if they didn’t pay the outstanding bills, all taxpayers ultimately did.

Ms. Shimasaki clarified that the fee was related to outstanding sewer maintenance fees of the previous owners, and that staff had reduced the fee appropriately, with the previous owner having moved out eight months prior; and the amount reduced by applying their initial deposit.  Ms. Shimasaki advised that her issue was with the timing of the notice.

Johnson moved, Klausing seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10767 entitled, “Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable 2010 or Beyond;” as detailed on Attachment B attached to the Request for Council Action dated November 23, 2009;” with Attachment B amended to exclude the two properties referenced above, and removed by previous action.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

City Attorney Anderson advised that he would do the legal research, and work with staff and property owners on resolution.

12.             Business Items (Action Items)

a.                 Authorize the Fire Department to enter into a Contract with Rosenbauer Firefighting Technologies for the Purchase of Fire Rescue/Pumper Apparatus and Authorize the Purchase of Accompanying Equipment

Interim Fire Chief Tim O’Neill expressed the enthusiasm of the Fire Department, represented by a contingent of firefighters in the audience, in presenting this request on behalf of the entire department since June of 2009, when the Department had sought City Council permission to proceed to bid to replace the City’s oldest pumper in the fleet, and resulting two (2) bids received for that apparatus. 

Committee Chairs, Dave Breen and Neil Sjostrom reviewed the bid process; receipt of the two bids; bid selection review by the committee and comparison to specifications; and recommendation of the lower bid of Rosenbauer of Forest Lake, MN.

The presentation included details of the apparatus and equipment safety features and capabilities; reduced costs of current fleet apparatus with this new equipment; three installment payment proposal from late 2009 to late 2010 allowing for some savings in finance charges; and appreciation expressed to the 11 member committee working on this over the last six months, including 1 retiree and 1 new hire in the department.

Mayor Klausing thanked the department for their informative presentation.

Discussion between the department and Councilmembers included impacts of the bid to the Department’s budget and future fleet replacements; long-term analysis of fleet replacement based on annual set aside of those funds at the City Council’s discretion and approved funding levels; projected sale of the existing equipment on EBay, with those funds going to the replacement fund; age of the equipment to be sold (22 years) nearing the end of its useful life with higher maintenance costs impacting its resale value; and recognizing the complexity of the bid specifications and challenges to manufactures.

Johnson moved, Pust seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to enter into a contract with Rosenbauer Firefighting Technologies General Division for the purchase of a new Fire Rescue/Pumper apparatus and authorize the purchase of accompanying equipment for said apparatus.

Roll Call

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

Nays: None.

13.             Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

14.             City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen reviewed upcoming agenda items.

15.             Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings

Councilmember Roe noted that City Manager Malinen was scheduled for his annual evaluation in January of 2010 and suggested that discussion of that process be included on a future agenda; as well as seeking City Councilmember volunteers to serve that process.

16.      Adjourn

          The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:58 pm.