View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
November 9, 2009
1. Call Roll
Mayor Klausing called to order
the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and
(Voting and Seating Order for
November: Roe; Pust; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing)
City Attorney Scott Anderson was
Mayor Klausing advised that
Councilmember Pust had been detained at work and would arrive shortly.
2. Approve Agenda
By consensus, the agenda was
approved as presented.
3. Public Comment
Mayor Klausing called for public
comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared
Communications, Reports, Announcements and Housing and Redevelopment
Authority (HRA) Report
November 6, 2009
Mayor Klausing announced that the
City of Roseville was advised by the Department of Education and Economic
Development (DEED) of the award of a $1,000,000 Redevelopment Grant for the
Twin Lakes Phase II project, having been selected from a total of 11
applications. Mayor Klausing noted DEED’s recognition of and compliments to
staff on their preparation of the application. Mayor Klausing expressed appreciation
to City staff on behalf of the City Council and community; for their ongoing
work in getting this area redeveloped and back on the tax rolls.
Mayor Klausing noted the success
of the recently held “Welcoming Community Forum” on October 27, 2009, hosted
by the City’s Human Rights Commission.
Mayor Klausing further noted the
first Parks and Recreation Master Plan Community Meeting held last week and
sponsored by the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission.
6. Approve Minutes
Approve Minutes of October 26, 2009 Regular Meeting
Johnson moved, Ihlan seconded,
approval of the minutes of the October 26, 2009 Regular Meeting as amended.
Page 13, Lines 1 – 3 (Klausing)
Strike the entire paragraph
Page 21 Lines 7 – 16 (Klausing)
Revise language as follows:
Mayor Klausing spoke in support
of the motion, based on his experience at the Planning Commission level, as
well as that on the City Council; opining that this action was supportive of
the neighborhood as a whole, both residential and commercial property
owners. Mayor Klausing noted that the property was well kept; and that
when single-family homes are located near or on busy streets, they experience
some negative impacts when in mixed use areas or adjacent to commercial
properties. [Mayor Klausing noted that single-family homes
fronting busy streets, particularly when adjacent to commercial properties,
may be less desirable for residential use; and that the result is that such
residential properties often are not well-maintained and can negatively
affect surrounding neighborhoods. Mayor Klausing further noted that on the
other hand, such locations are very desirable as commercial properties and
rezoning to commercial allows for new construction that can actually benefit
surrounding neighborhoods.] Mayor Klausing opined that B-3 zoning
designation seemed more consistent with that area; and further opined that
redevelopment of commercial businesses in that area would prove to be an
asset to the community, as well as the neighborhood, as long as the City
properly addressed traffic issues and concerns.
Roe; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Approve Consent Agenda
There were no changes to the
Consent Agenda. At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Bill Malinen
briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Pust arrived at
this time, at approximately 6:20 p.m.
Councilmember Ihlan questioned
legal services on Page 5, for legal services in the amount of $9,248.84 from
the Recreation Fund.
City Manager Malinen advised
that this was arbitration on entryway construction at the Skating Center, beyond the City Attorney contract retainer provisions.
Councilmember Roe noted that a
significant portion of the total prepaids was a payment of over $440,000 to
the contractor of the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Improvements.
moved, Pust seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as
Roe; Pust; Johnson; Ihlan; and Klausing.
Approve Business Licenses
moved, Pust seconded, approval of business license applications for the
period of one year, for the following applicants:
Rockwell @ Rocco Altobelli
Rosedale Center, Suite 945
Approve General Purchases or Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
Pust seconded, approval of general purchases and/or contracts as follows:
City Manager Malinen noted that
Item #1 was redundant, as the City Council had previously approved the Master
Plan Update contract; and was inadvertently included for approvals again.
Parks Master Plan Update
Amazing Machinery Inc.
Storm line steamer
2009 Fiber Install – water tower segment
Approve a One-Day Gambling Permit for the Hand in Hand
Montessori Raffle on November 29, 2009 at 2131 Fairview Avenue N
Pust seconded, approval of the request for a One-Day Gambling Permit for the
Hand in Hand Christian Montessori Raffle to be held on November 29, 2009 at 2131 Fairview Avenue N.
Approve a One-Day Gambling Permit for Como Area Hockey Association
on November 21, 2009 at B-Dale Club at 2100 Dale Street
moved, Pust seconded, approval of the request for a One-Day Gambling Permit
for Como Area Hockey Association on November 21, 2009 at B-Dale Club at 2100 Dale Street.
Adopt a Resolution authorizing City Manager to apply for SCORE
Roe moved, Pust seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10760 entitled, “Resolution Requesting 2010 Score
Funding Grant for Use in Roseville’s Residential Recycling Program,
authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant application to Ramsey County for 2010 SCORE grant funds in the amount of $70,207.00
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Medical Direction Agreement between
Allina Health Systems and East Metro SWAT
Roe moved, Pust seconded,
adoption of Resolution No. 10761 entitled, “Medical Direction Agreement –
East Metro SWAT and Allina Health Systems, approving a medical direction
agreement relating to a combined tactical team with the Cities of St.
Anthony, New Brighton, North St. Paul and the University of Minnesota, which
is known as the East Metro SWAT Team and authorizing the Chief of Police to
execute the Agreement on behalf of the City of Roseville;” approving the
Medial Direction Agreement, effective January 1, 2010 between Allina Health
Systems and the East Metro SWAT.
Receive an Update Regarding a Request by RECO Real Estate, LLC
to approve a Conditional Use to Permit Outdoor Storage at Boater’s Outlet, 1705 County Road C
Pust seconded, accepting the update of the Community Development Department
related to the application for a Conditional use at 1705 County Road C.
Adopt a Resolution approving the Request by the City of Roseville for the Vacation of a strip of Public Road Right-of-Way in the Vicinity of Sienna
Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 10762 entitled, “A Resolution Approving the Vacation of a
Certain Public Roadway Easement (PF09-029).”
Approve Public Improvement Contract for Sienna Green (PF07-068)
Pust seconded, approval of the Public Improvement Contract between the City
of Roseville and Snelling Avenue, LLC (developer).
8. Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
2010 Budget Prioritization Process
1. Receive 2010 City
Manager Recommended Budget
City Manager provided a larger
working copy of the spreadsheets provided in the Council packets. Mr.
Malinen noted that the spreadsheet in tonight’s packet provided additional
development of the previously-presented spreadsheet, with the addition of a
City Manager Recommended Budget, attached in two forms: first a summary by
major operating divisions; and the second providing program by program
listing in the same format used throughout the Budgeting for Outcomes (BFO)
process. Mr. Malinen advised that this spreadsheet reflected a composite of
Councilmember and senior management staff rankings and composites; and used as
a base the 2009 adjusted budget as referenced in the Springsted Report and
profiles, with that budget having been reduced mid-year by approximately
$400,000 to reflect the loss of Market Value Homestead Credits (MVHC) to the
City. Mr. Malinen defined the color-coded areas, with the yellow line
indicating where the City Council rankings arrived at the last City Council
meeting; blue representing new additions to the budget; and orange
representing a reduction from the initial amount for the 2010 City Manager
Mr. Malinen noted that the
recommended budget was based on the total amount allocated for the
Preliminary Levy adopted in September of 2009. Mr. Malinen advised that
adjustments had been made for those items that may not have been ranked as a
high priority, but were obligatory expenditures (i.e., Suburban Rate
Authority Membership with a written agreement for a one year opt out notice);
and further noted that a number of previously-identified 2010 inflationary
items had not received a high priority, and had been allocated as appropriate
City Manager Malinen expressed
optimism that most of the higher priority items had remained funded, even
though some may have been somewhat reduced; but that there were no apparent
major reductions in staffing indicated as a result of the proposed budget;
and that it appeared reasonable at this point, with further refinement based
on ongoing discussions and direction of the City Council.
Councilmember Pust sought
clarification as to the calculation of the staff composite, whether that
represented an average of all Department Heads ranking every line item, or
Department Heads specifically ranking their individual Departments.
City Manager Malinen clarified
that it represented an average of all directors, but did not include his
rankings, but was a composite of Department Head averages.
Councilmember Pust sought
additional information as to how that breakdown was ranked.
City Manager Malinen advised
that it was his understanding that something had been provided to
Councilmembers, showing how individual Department Heads ranked their items.
Councilmembers Pust and Johnson
concurred that they were not aware of having received this information
Councilmember Johnson opined
that he was awaiting an electronic file of what the City Council had worked
on at their October 26, 2009 meeting that would include that information.
Councilmember Roe noted that the
information may have been included on the overall matrix with lines, but
that information may have been hidden.
Finance Director Chris Miller
advised that he was not sure if the information had been provided to
Councilmembers, but he would follow-up and provide the information.
Johnson questioned if it was typical to use a combination of staff and City
Council composites in the ranking process.
Manager Malinen advised that staff had performed their rankings in tandem
with the City Council, and that including their composite rankings was up to
the City Council. Mr. Malinen suggested that it may be helpful to have that
information during City Council deliberations to observe any different and/or
divergent rankings and their respective perspectives.
Ihlan noted that, when the BFO process was first proposed, rankings were to
come from the public, as a community-based process. However, Councilmember
Ihlan noted that, as a result of the poorly attended community meetings, and
limited input from the public at those meetings, this proposed budget ended up
being a staff and City Council-ranked budget, not one prioritized by the
public. Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that there was no way to match
the proposed budget with how the members of the public wanted their tax
Ihlan further noted the complete elimination in the Park Maintenance Fund of
outdoor ice rinks and questioned the intent of this elimination.
Manager Malinen confirmed that the proposed 2010 Budget did not include any
outdoor neighborhood ice rink preparation and/or maintenance, representing
rankings, and the cost to the City to do so.
Ihlan noted, based on comments over the past several years and public interest
and importance of these free, neighborhood-based ice rinks to the community;
and even with minimal maintenance during that time, the rinks were still
funded; and opined that, if public input had been received, the item would
still be included in the 2010 budget. Councilmember Ihlan noted that the
composite ranking had been 3.0, and still had been eliminated, when items
receiving lower rankings remained funded. Councilmember Ihlan opined that
this should serve as a red flag to the public of the importance of their
input in the ranking process.
Manager Malinen noted the priorities provided by those attending the
community meetings, when asked to rank City services, with Parks and
Recreation and Streets indicated as the lowest priorities of those in
attendance, providing some rationale in his decision-making in the recommended
2010 budget. Mr. Malinen advised that he had worked from the bottom up to
determine if some items could be totally eliminated; recognizing that the
process was challenging; and addressing the “other” categories that needed to
be reallocated according to day-to-day operations.
ensued related to how the neighborhood ice rinks were maintained, with City
staff rather than hiring temporary staff; intent, pending further review by
staff, in reallocating staff time rather than eliminating a position; and
addressing some items showing disparate rankings between the City Council and
Pust cautioned use of input from the community meetings, given the limited
number attending and the heavily-weighted age group represented who were not
younger families; and questioned whether that input adequately reflected
Manager Malinen advised that he was cognizant of that throughout the process;
and encouraged Councilmembers not to take this one item used for illustration
and to reinforce the BFO process as more relevant than those items remaining
below the line and currently unfunded that need to be reinstated, creating
the need for reallocation of other line items.
Roe concurred with City Manager Malinen’s comments related to where the line
was drawn below City Council priorities with a ranking below 2.2 or 2.0.
Councilmember Roe recognized Councilmember Ihlan’s comments related to
neighborhood ice rinks, that this was an opportunity for citizens to provide
input at the November 16, 2009 meeting; expressing his hope that the meeting
was being well-advertised and would be well-attended; seeking public comment
on how well the City Council ranked their priorities. Councilmember Roe
noted that the City Council had ranked the ice rinks highly, trying to
reflect the views of citizens as their representatives; and suggested that it
may make more sense to look at Parks and Recreation Marketing as a possible
way to restore funding for ice rinks, or at least a portion of them.
Councilmember Roe spoke in support of restoring funding for all neighborhood
those lines, Councilmember Ihlan noted, on the last page of the budget below
the yellow line, noted the “other” category ranked as a 1 by the City
Council, with staff ranking it high and its appearance in the adjusted
budget; and suggested there may be some room for adjustment in order to
preserve outdoor ice rinks.
Manager Malinen reiterated the purpose of content of the “other” categories,
with staff having left that item as identified in the Springsted Report, and
representing numerous items that were inherent to each department’s
day-to-day operations. However, Mr. Malinen suggested that in the future
staff would need to be more methodical in defining the “other” category,
rather than the current accounting/rounding system. Mr. Malinen advised
that, in this first go around, the skating rinks were a large number, with
large revenue off-set.
Johnson, in reviewing the Police Department Administration category, noted
2008 and 2009 final budget figures; but noted the lack of any substantive
figures for 2009, while still budgeting for 2010 and the apparent $141,000
Miller advised that the 2009 final numbers reflected the loss of State Aid,
and represented the amended budget in the spring of 2009; with the Police
Department budget an example of reallocating annually where certain personnel
were assigned. Mr. Miller advised that there was a change during that 2009
for one FTE from police patrol to police administration. Mr. Miller noted
that personnel costs increased by 3% in 2008; however, advised that the
increase would have been larger if the allocation had not been switched from
patrol to administration.
Johnson sought comparison information for the Police Department between 2008
and 2009; and whether this represented a contingency account and how staff
allocated such a contingency.
Miller advised that the City only kept a generic contingency account, which
was not earmarked for any one department, but available throughout the year
as needs indicated.
Johnson requested a copy of the 2008 actual and proposed budgets.
Miller duly noted the request; however, advised that in the Comprehensive
Annual Reports, the actual budget for each major function was provided; in
addition to the detailed information provided to the City Council from staff
through their quarterly financial updates, providing the actual budget
Johnson asked and City Manager Malinen confirmed, that this budget had been
prepared from information from the public, staff and City Council and his
recommendation for what was in the best interest of the City; however, he had
not gone to staff for their preferred numbers for a proposed budget.
Johnson opined that his perception was that while operations were down
overall by certain percentages; it appeared that the Parks Improvement
Program (PIP) funds were taking the brunt of reductions. Councilmember
Johnson further opined that the Parks and Recreation Department had taken a
substantial hit with the previous loss of state aid, and suggested that there
was a need to keep the level of service in this area and at a level that
citizens expected. Councilmember Johnson noted that it appeared that the
department was facing an additional reduction of two FTE from their staff,
and he didn’t observe that in other departments, and questioned that imbalance.
Manager Malinen noted that, while it appeared to be the most significant, the
PIP was at the level as the 2009 adjusted budget.
Johnson noted that, when PIP funds were used to create the Diseased Tree
Fund, this had precipitated his concern; opining that the actual PIP budget
should be $215,000, not the reduced $165,000.
Klausing recognized City Council concerns, as expressed, noting that this
illustrates the overall budget problem in addressing state restrictions and
setting a maximum levy amount, with desires exceeding funding to achieve
them. Mayor Klausing noted that this was what made the decision-making
challenging in what should or should not be funded, or how to find additional
revenue sources to fund those higher priority items.
Klausing reviewed his rationale in his ranking higher those items that would
provide greater and more long-term ramifications to the City and its citizens
if they were unfunded or deferred, and the need to protect the public by not
falling further behind (i.e., infrastructure maintenance and replacement),
even though those decisions may not be politically popular, but representing
honesty for Councilmembers and the public, and what leadership indicated.
Mayor Klausing noted that a citizen may not recognize if fewer patrol cars
were in their neighborhood; but that they would notice it if they experienced
an emergency. However, Mayor Klausing noted that citizens would immediately
recognize if there were no outdoor ice rinks, and the question was whether
the community could handle that lack for a few years to provide funding
elsewhere. Mayor Klausing reminded Councilmembers and the public that the
pie was only so big and the discussion was based on shifting within a limited
number of resources.
Roe noted that Exhibit A was a work in progress; and that there were a number
of items identified as 2010 items under the Council/Administration area that
needed to be allocated from there to specific departments; and that reallocation
would continue throughout the process. Councilmember Roe further noted that
percentage impacts by department varied as to the dollar impact.
Councilmember Roe sought input from the public as to whether the City Council
was ranking funding levels and priorities as desired by citizens before the
tough decision-making was completed with ultimate and final 2010 budget adoption.
discussion included City Manager Malinen’s rationale in the proposed
adjustments and consistency in that analysis on an individual basis or
overall; and reflected 2009 budget adjustments in creating the 2010 budget.
Pust noted on the last page, line 33 under Police “Other” at 3% and apparent
discrepancies between the 2009 and 2010 budgets, and similar categories in
the Parks and Recreation Department.
Miller advised that he would review the data in more detail and provide a
response to the City Council.
Chief Rick Mathwig addressed the “other” category questioned by Councilmember
Pust; clarifying that the 2009 adjusted budget cut two Community Service
Officers, representing a large portion of that number; with one position
vacant and another currently on staff funded by grant funds, but scheduled
for elimination once those funds have expired.
Ihlan noted that, in addition to needing public input on the ranking
process; another confusing issue in working through this budget is that the
ranking chart only reflects a small part of the City’s overall budget, with
many programs and expenditures not represented at this time, and only
primarily those funded through property taxes. Councilmember Ihlan noted
City Council spending in other areas, using as an example the Council
majority vote to spend $1 million for property acquisition; and advised that
had she been sick and unable to attend the meeting, if present she would have
voted against the expenditure, further opining that the land was not needed.
Councilmember Ihlan further noted that, even though residents consistently
request additional pathway construction, there was no item allotting such funding,
even though the City spent money on roads that may not be used.
Councilmember Ihlan opined that all government functions needed to be on the
table, so trade-offs could be made over all funds, not just those funded
primarily by property taxes.
Roe, in response to Councilmember Ihlan’s comments, noted that the action to
acquire property was using tax increment financing (TIF) funds that were
restricted in their use; and couldn’t be applied to other areas of expense in
the City. Councilmember Roe further clarified, referencing Attachment A in
tonight’s budget materials, the inclusion of all funds, including Enterprise
Funds, even though priorities have not been broken down among those funds in
this BFO process to-date. Councilmember Roe noted, as an example from those
identified funds, that the Community Development Fund is basically funded
from fees paid for Building Permits and Land Use applications, those fees
based on the actual cost of providing the service and funded accordingly.
Councilmember Roe, using the Water Utility Enterprise Fund as another example
noted that a substantial amount of the $5.9 million budgeted was for payment
to the City of St. Paul for providing water to Roseville citizens.
Councilmember Roe noted that suggesting that there could be a trade-off in
those funds was not realistic.
Klausing concurred, further noting that in relationship to the TIF funds used
for property acquisition, State Statute prohibited the City from using those
funds for other purposes, such as rink maintenance; as well as charging fees
in excess of the services provided for Building Permits, and related
Manager Malinen noted that, as previously discussed and agreed upon by the
City Council majority, since the tax-supported funds is the area representing
the most significant structural imbalances, that was the first area on which
the BFO process was focused, with the intent to add other funds to the process
as it evolved over subsequent years, and to continue to improve the BFO
approach to budgeting. City Manager Malinen recognized that this was a
learning and informative process for all, and subject to refinement as the
process proceeded. With respect to the pathway comment of Councilmember
Ihlan, Mr. Malinen noted that he and Public Works Director Duane Schwartz had discussed and included funding for pathway and boulevard maintenance, as part
of asset maintenance and replacement, and also in street maintenance material
funding. Mr. Malinen advised that those material costs were adjusted for
inflation, including facility supplies and small repairs in an effort to
institutionalize funding in annual budgets to preserve the City’s assets, a
failure in past budgets.
Ihlan further addressed the funding for TIF that would otherwise go toward a
tax-supported budget; and taking funds from School District and County
operating budgets as well.
discussion ensued related to perceptions and limitations for TIF funding
allotments; government transparencies and how composite rankings were
Pust, using as an example, page 3, line 97, Parks Maintenance snow plowing
and apparently disparate composite rankings between the City Council (4.2)
and staff (2.8).
Manager Malinen advised that, part of the benefit of the BFO process, was
better identifying particular costs in providing a service or program; and
comparing it to other programs and costs. City Manager Malinen suggested
that staff may have felt that less maintenance of paths in wintertime was
less of a priority than other services and/or programs.
and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke noted the need to define what the
ranking numbers actually meant. Mr. Brokke advised that when he ranked the
categories, if it was something currently being done, he applied a “3;” if a
mandatory item, he ranked it a “5;” and if it provided a revenue stream to
off-set costs, he ranked it a “4.” Mr. Brokke noted that Mayor Klausing had
ranked the items based on different criteria; and opined that those
perspectives made a difference in the composite process.
Pust advised that she had ranked pathway maintenance in the winter as a “5”
based on potential liability issues.
Brokke advised that he had ranked it as a “3” since the maintenance was
currently being done. Mr. Brokke noted that it also depending on the ranking
of Springsted’s analysis of full-time staffing, and included items such as
ice technicians, mowers, and misc. consumables such as fuel.
Klausing suggested, as the City Council and staff went through the BFO
process for the 2011 budget, that a meaningful discussion was on what each of
the categories meant; noting that Councilmember Roe’s ranking was based on
what we wanted the City to excel at, and his rankings were based on even
Roe noted under the Human Rights Commission (HRC) and Ethics Commission, the
recommended budget provided a significant reduction in both of those budgets,
and questioned whether this was based on potential grant funding for either
to replace the tax-supported funding or actual costs. Councilmember Roe
noted that the City Council had recently changed the HRC role and added some
things to their slate, and indicated that he wanted to make sure they were
fully funded to accomplish those tasks.
Pust questioned the $2,250 allotted for the HRC and Ethics Commission; and
the larger $10,000 allotment for the Public Works, Environment, and
Transportation (PWET) Commission.
Manager Malinen advised that, in reviewing the PWET, the amount indicated the
amount of time spent by staff in supporting a specific commission; with staff
time not included in the Ethics Commission or HRC at this point. Mr. Malinen
advised that the City Council line item for staff support included staff time
for the City Council and all advisory commissions; noting that in the next
iteration of the process, they would be more clearly defined.
Manager Malinen advised that staff had noted tonight’s comments of individual
Councilmembers; and would further refine the next presentation accordingly;
with that presentation providing for “decision packages” to be inserted
(i.e., wage and benefit packages; capital funding; inflationary funding; fuel
costs) in the equation.
included which items were included in the process and those that were not.
Pust requested that all budget impact and City Manager-recommended items be
included in the proposed 2010 budget for City Council and public
consideration prior to the next meeting.
Ihlan noted in Attachment A, Budget Expenditure Summary, in past years
supplemental background information had been provided by staff on those line
items; and requested that staff provide to the City Council and public before
the next meeting, that information as it related to expenses and revenue.
Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane
Grefenberg opined that, while the rankings and BFO process were good, what
should the outcomes be? Mr. Grefenberg suggested that this was what the
public deserved as a sense of what the outcomes will be generated by the
rankings. Mr. Grefenberg noted the attendance at the community meetings held
in August of 2009, with only fifty (50) people in attendance and City staff
defining the answer based on programmed questions when given alternatives of
cutting which area, specifically Parks, Fire, Police or Streets; and not
given an option for ranking Administration, Finance or Economic Development.
Mr. Grefenberg opined that it would be more important to look at the larger
community representation in the Imagine Roseville 2025 visioning
process and reinforced in the Comprehensive Plan Update process, which both
provided more civic engagement, and identified neighborhood involvement as a
high priority, creating the new charge to the HRC to facilitate that
involvement. Mr. Grefenberg noted that the previous process included
pathways, which were given significant reference in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Grefenberg offered to work with the City Council and staff for the next
budget cycle to discuss motivation versus outcome.
Johnson reiterated his request to staff to send him the Excel file from the
October 26, 2009 meeting for his preparation in debating the preferred level
Manager Malinen encouraged Councilmembers to initiate that discussion at
tonight’s meeting as a preface to more refined decision-making. City Manager
Malinen advised that staff would continue to define the BFO process so
outcomes become more measurable as the process evolved.
Johnson addressed service levels for Program line #86, page 3 of Attachment
B-1 (Parks and Recreation “other;” and “marketing”). As an example,
Councilmember Johnson suggested some semblance to get the marketing component
and a level of maintenance for outdoor ice rinks reallocated. Councilmember
Johnson sought information from staff on repercussions; and whether volunteers
could be tapped to work on the neighborhood skate rinks, given their passion
for continuing this service and providing an opportunity for them to assist.
Pust opined that this would be a critical way to show neighborhood
involvement. Councilmember Pust further noted, in line 87 under Council
Salaries that the amount was almost identical to the number needed to keep
the outdoor rinks open and maintained and suggested an even trade-off.
Roe noted the Statutory prohibitions for any 2010 budget actions and until
after the next City election.
Pust noted that the City Council could collectively agree that they would not
take a salary and put that money into the General Fund.
Roe noted his preference to get input from the community on the proposed
budget; and areas that are not funded, areas for adjustment; to adequately
reflect the needs of the public and all priorities, rather than replacing one
program or service with another.
Johnson advised that he didn’t want to micro-manage everything, but that
there were different levels and expectations for service levels (i.e., snow
blowing; ice control) based on community input.
Johnson noted that if he applied his salary to reinstate the neighborhood
outdoor ice rinks, he’d have nothing left to bargain with for other services
Pust noted that there were 160 items to consider for allocation and/or
Miller, as noted in past meetings, reiterated the one driving factor in staff
pitching the BFO process was the sense of urgency on staff’s part in
eliminating the unsustainable practice utilized by the City in maintaining
its resources. Mr. Miller encouraged Councilmembers to decide whether their
decisions were sustainable practices or not; otherwise they were only
deferring for another year how to right the ship.
Roe, in addressing levels of service and outcomes, noted the prioritization
method he’d used. When he recognized something he thought the community had
directed as something they wanted to excel at, such as Parks and Recreation
programs, he’d ranked them very high; while some other Parks and Recreation
activities had been ranked lower. Councilmember Roe noted the direction
provided by the public in the Imagine Roseville 2025 process, to keep
the City’s infrastructure and financial house in order (i.e., upkeep and
maintenance), with him taking that charge and ranking those items high, which
hopefully reflected the BFO process tied to outcomes. Councilmember Roe
opined that the City could do better in defining performance and the standard
of measurement (i.e., such as community relations or service at the reception
desk) through qualitative measures, ranked higher with a high standard of
performance expected; the ultimate outcomes and how that outcome has improved
or evolved to reach that expected level.
Pust questioned whether that process of measuring outcomes could be
accomplished through this BFO process, when the existing budget took 160 line
items without taking into consideration performance measurement from one year
to the next. Councilmember Pust suggested that next year, the numbers be set
aside and Department Heads and the City Council worked to determine outcomes
they provide to citizens, and how the base line established this year has
been improved upon and how to achieve those improvements, then put that in
numbers to support the expectations.
Johnson committed to looking over the various categories between now and the
next meeting; confer with staff; and return with some compromises other than
giving up Councilmember salaries.
Roe, responding to Councilmember Pust’s comments, opined that everything the
City did was tied to an ultimate outcome; that it needed to be defined for
Roe, in discussing levy impacts on taxpayers, suggested that future
discussion be given for each Request for Council Action and related to
financial impacts, to define the impact to an average property.
Discussion on Alternative Revenue Sources
Finance Director Miller
highlighted the Request for Council Action for discussion on alternative
revenue sources as part of the 2010 budget discussion. Mr. Miller provided
various sources currently being employed by other peer metropolitan
communities, suggesting that in the BFO context, it may be purposeful to
discuss as an option to eliminating or reducing services or programs. Mr.
Miller identified two (2) potential sources: that of a street light utility
fee and a gas and/or electric franchise fee.
Discussion included potential
costs of a street light fee estimated at $4/quarter per household with
commercial properties calculated at a different rate; a 1% franchise fee for
gas and electric customers, with minimal impacts.
Mayor Klausing indicated
interest in discussing a majority of the options further; noting past
interest at a City Council level.
Councilmember Roe questioned the
student enrollment fee option.
Mr. Miller advised that some
communities, while not a popular option but noting their local impact on
service requirements and exempt tax status, entertain a fee for higher
Mayor Klausing spoke in
opposition to that option.
Councilmember Roe spoke in
support of further discussion related to any of the proposed options, if the
fee could be tied to the City’s actual cost (i.e., street light capital
installation and ongoing maintenance costs to the City), since fees should
cover costs; and opined that it may be more appropriate for a fee versus a
Councilmember Pust noted a
continual complaint she heard was a lack of street lighting and if this fee
could be used for additional lights; as well as applied to requests by the
public for sidewalk installation.
Mr. Miller responded
affirmatively, allowing for an increased presence of street lighting on
certain streets or system-wide. Mr. Miller noted that the City of St. Paul charges fees for sidewalk installation as requested by the public, and that it
could be researched further.
Councilmember Pust sought
additional information on how the public would benefit (i.e., commercial
police patrol) and fiscal implications. Councilmember Pust sought how much
anticipated income would be realized from fees for any of the options.
Mr. Miller advised that
additional staff time could be allotted to provide additional information
depending on the direction of the City Council and their interest in pursuing
these options. Mr. Miller estimated potential fees at between $25,000 -
$50,000 annually for any of the options.
Discussion included potential
and specific areas that may be interested in a higher level of service;
previous discussion for a street light fee; limitations on use of revenues
specific to those items identified and depreciation costs, but providing
relief to the General Fund.
Councilmember Ihlan expressed
interest in looking at the Commercial police patrol fee, opining that a large
amount of the Police budget was expended in the commercial area; and could
potentially provide significant help to the Police Department budget.
Councilmember Ihlan noted that the City missed an opportunity in applying a
student enrollment fee when Northwestern College applied for the expansion of
their college campus, and a brief discussion was held related to Payments in
Lieu of Taxes (PILOT), without any resolution. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in
opposition of a student enrollment fee falling on students; however, spoke in
support of the City leveraging fees from a college, given the amount of City
services they utilized.
Councilmember Roe noted that the
City did look into PILOT; and suggested that additional information be
provided by staff, similar to that of the Commercial patrol fee, on tying
real costs to the fees, rather than making presumptions that most of the
Police Department costs are related to commercial activities. Councilmember
Roe opined that, while such presumptions may be valid, they needed to be
substantiated by actual costs.
Further discussion included the
business model used by Information Technology (IT) services and a formula for
annual adjustments based on direct and indirect costs, continually evolving.
Business Items (Action Items)
City Abatement for Unresolved Code Violations at 177 South Owasso Boulevard
Permit Coordinator Munson
reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the staff report dated
November 9, 2009; providing a visual update on the property as of today of
this vacant, single-family home. Mr. Munson advised that the current owner
is Ms. Felicia Hodge, who is currently residing in California.
Mr. Munson summarized the
proposed abatement, consisting of removal and disposal of tires and garbage
bags, and junk/debris in the yard, at a cost estimated at $300.00.
Staff recommended that the
Community Development Department be authorized to abate the public nuisance
violations at 177 South Owasso Blvd.
Klausing moved, Pust seconded,
directing staff to abate the above-referenced public nuisance violation(s) at
177 South Owasso Boulevard by hiring a general contractor to
remove and dispose of old tires and garbage bags, and junk/debris in the
yard, as detailed in Request for Council Action dated November 9, 2009, at an
estimated cost of approximately $300.00; and further directing that the
property owner be billed for all actual and administrative costs; and if
those charges remain unpaid, staff is to recover costs as specified in
Minnesota Statute, Section 407.07B; with costs to be reported to the City
Council following the abatement.
Approve City Abatement for Unresolved Violations of City Code
at 2026 Asbury Street
Permit Coordinator Munson
reviewed the request for abatement as detailed in the staff report dated
November 9, 2009; providing a visual update on the property as of today of
this owner-occupied, single-family home. Mr. Munson advised that the current
owner is Ms. Grace Mwassa, who is currently residing in the home. Mr. Munson
noted that similar violations occurred in 2003; as well as long grass
violations in 2004 and 2009.
Mr. Munson summarized the
proposed abatement, consisting of removal and disposal of extensive junk and
household furnishings, removal, storage and eventual disposal of household
furnishings stored outside, at a cost originally estimated at $2,850.00. Mr.
Munson advised that staff had finally been able to meet with the property
owner earlier today; and was therefore revising the Request for Council
Action based on that discussion. Mr. Munson advised that the original
complaint had been from a neighbor; with the property owner admitting that
most of the junk and debris in the yard was from her emptying her garage, and
had minimal value. Therefore, Mr. Munson suggested that the items were not
proposed for storage; and that the property owner was amenable to and
intended to dispose of the material, but could not afford a dumpster at this
time, nor would she commit to a date for the work to be completed. Mr.
Munson advised that the property owner had paid someone to bring in a
dumpster, but that had failed to do so and she had lost the money she paid
them to do so. Mr. Munson asked the property owner if she planned to attend
tonight’s meeting, to which she responded negatively.
Mr. Munson suggested a
simplified and less costly process, to hire a contractor and place the items
in the dumpster, eliminating the need for storage and reducing the total
estimated cost to approximately $1,000. Staff recommended that the Community
Development Department be authorized to abate the public nuisance violations
at 2026 Asbury Street.
Discussion included determining
that the property owner had no apparent physical or mental disability
preventing them from accomplishing this clean up; verification that the
property owner was not a senior citizen; staff recommending area agencies
(Northwest Youth and Family Services) that could assist the property owner
with the work; and the potential for financial assistance in providing the
Mr. Munson advised that the
property owner seemed willing to dispose of the material, and staff was
intending to place a dumpster on the property, allowing her the first
opportunity to perform the work before hiring a contractor, which would
further reduce costs; and would allow the property owner a year to reimburse
the cost of the dumpster before being assessed to property taxes.
Klausing moved, Roe seconded,
directing staff to abate the above-referenced public nuisance violation(s) at
2026 Asbury Street; by hiring a general contractor to remove
and dispose of junk and debris, as detailed in Request for Council Action
dated November 9, 2009, at an estimated total cost of approximately
$1,000.00; and further directing that the property owner be billed for all
actual and administrative costs; and if those charges remain unpaid, staff is
to recover costs as specified in Minnesota Statute, Section 407.07B; with costs
to be reported to the City Council following the abatement.
Additional discussion related in
general to code violations included how staff identified their list of
contractors, depending on the timing, their availability, and their costs, as
well as weather related considerations; and staff follow-up on locating rain
barrels in front yards, based on ordinance provisions, and based on the
number of rain barrels determined to constitute a public nuisance.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen reviewed
upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:25