View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
August 17, 2015
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Willmus,
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City
Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.
2. Pledge of
3. Approve Agenda
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the agenda as presented.
Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Brandon Kowal, 2960 Old Highway 8
brought to the attention a significant discrepancy in his water billing since his
meter was replaced and subsequent billing of in excess of $3,500. Mr. Kowal
advised that he had brought this to the attention of staff, and had also sought
additional information via three different forums and seeking whether any other
Roseville residents had experienced a similar discrepancy. Mr. Kowal noted
that the majority of those responses had been negative, indicating that there
must be a mistake. In checking with his neighbors, Mr. Kowal advised that
their usage and bills were all relatively similar each quarter, and they had
not experienced a billing discrepancy when meters were switched out. Mr. Kowal
advised that he had purchased his home from his parents, and was sure the
original meter was forty-plus years old, and at least had never been replaced
during his fifteen years of ownership. Mr. Kowal sought a more detailed
breakdown on the actual consumption during those years to make sure it
accurately reflects usage.
referenced Mr. Kowal's e-mail communication to the City Council on this same
subject with Finance Director Miller also copied. Mayor Roe noted the need for
further staff investigation to find out what was behind this large discrepancy
in working toward its resolution.
Willmus questioned whether a meter reading was taken from the old meter head
when replaced as well as the outside remote meter, which sometimes had damaged
wires over time and could address differences in readings from the meters that
could verify actual consumption.
Mr. Kowal noted
that the old Badger brand meter - with a fifteen year factory life expectancy - had read 5,288,000 gallons when removed, but he was not sure if it was reading
accurately before replaced.
reiterated the need for additional staff follow-up, and while that may seem to
be a large bill, over time it may prove accurate if the consumption was not
recording as it should. Mayor Roe noted staff could work with Mr. Kowal in
addressing the issue, as well as assisting with a payment plan for the account
versus a one-time payment.
McGehee suggested staff monitor Mr. Kowal's water usage and meter readings over
the next few months to make sure consumption is similar to what the meter is
Mayor Roe noted
that his meter was twenty years old when replaced, and depending on where you
were located in the City, there may be older or newer meters based on the time
that area developed. Mayor Roe expressed confidence that staff would research
this further and find a fair solution.
At the request
of Mr. Kowal, Mayor Roe confirmed that he could expect staff to follow-up with
him and check the inside meter.
Laliberte asked staff to make sure there were no late charges applied to Mr.
Kowal's utility bill until this was resolved.
Communications, Reports, and Announcements
Laliberte suggested staff check into recording that training if possible for
future reference. Mayor Roe noted that C-TV may have interest in recording it
for airing as well.
advised he needed to leave the meeting tonight immediately after discussion and
potential action on the bond sale to facilitate a family medical issue.
Mayor Roe read a statement announcing the terms of the
settlement of a suit brought by Mr. Victor Yair Hernandez-Rivera against 4
Roseville police officers arising from a 2013 incident.
Donations and Communications
Approve Consent Agenda
Consider Items Removed from Consent
General Ordinances for Adoption
Approve the Sale of the City's 2015 Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Director Miller introduced this item, and introduced Ms. Terri Heaton of Springsted
who reported results of the bond sale held earlier today, as indicated on the
bench handout, detailing aware of $3,060,000 in General Obligation TIF Bonds,
Series 2015A to Raymond James & Associates, Inc. Ms. Heaton noted seven bids
indicating a lot of market interest, with twenty-six banks involved, and rates
resulting in a true interest rate of 2.819% over the fifteen year term of the
bonds, well below their estimate of 2.71%. With those very favorable results,
Ms. Heaton reported that there were sufficient revenues so that the city when
offered a premium of extra cash or reducing the bond issue size, Finance
Director Miller opted to reduce the size of the issue, resulting in the lower
issue from $3,270,000 to $3,060,000, as reflected in the revised draft
Heaton reviewed the AAA bond rating held by the City of Roseville, and for the
benefit of the viewing public reported that the city's report card from the
bond rater Standard and Poors recognized the city's strong economy; management
and financial practices under their methodology; effective police, procedures
and City Council decisions; and management of the City Manager and Finance
Department staff, all indicating strong budgetary performance and flexibility as
well as strong liquidity. Ms. Heaton noted the city's history and practice in
not regularly issuing debt resulting in its very small debt load. Ms. Heaton
congratulated the City and staff on this glowing report in the industry; and
recommended they accept this bid.
Director Miller advised that he had the report available if of interest to the
Roe sought public comment on this matter. No one appeared to speak to this
moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution (Attachment A) entitled,
"Resolution Accepting Proposal on the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $3,060,000
General Obligation Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Series 2015A, and Levying a Tax
for the Payment Thereof;" as amended
the request Councilmember McGehee, Ms. Heaton advised that the spend-down time
for the City to expend bond proceeds was within twenty-four months, with an
outside limit of three years, based on new regulations and other issues applying
to the bond. Ms. Heaton further reported that those expenditures were as
specified to be used for public improvements within TIF District 17 and a
certain percentage available within the immediate area of the district as also
the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Manager Trudgeon reported that
staff has initiated internal discussions for bringing recommendations for those
specific infrastructure improvements, and would bring those and a recommended
schedule for moving forward to the City Council in the very near future.
Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee, and Roe.
Mayor Roe noted
how pleasing it was to hear that the strong financial efforts of the City
Council and its taxpayers were paying off.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 6:24 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 6:27 p.m., with
Councilmember Willmus leaving the meeting at approximately 6:25 p.m.
Joint Meeting with Finance Commission
welcomed the full Finance Commission, consisting of: Chair Robin Schroeder, Commissioners
John Bachhuber, Angela Byrne, Edwin Hodder, Nagaraja Konidena, Justin Rohloff,
and Peter Zellar. Finance Director and staff liaison to the commission, Chris
Miller was also present in the audience.
provided an overview of activities of the Commission since their inception, as
detailed in the RCA dated August 17, 2015; and listed attachments to the RCA
representing recommendations of the commission to the City Council for their
consideration, comment and/or action. Attachments included recommendations on
financial policies, capital improvement program (CIP) funding strategies, use
of park dedication fund, and a review of the water and sewer rate structure.
noted that some recommendations would require significant time by the City
Council for their review, while others less time, but next steps and/or
follow-up at the discretion of the City Council.
In Attachment A
(Financial Policies) Chair Schroeder noted that revisions included terminology
updates, as well as combining several similar policies. Chair Schroeder
advised that there were no major changes and asked for City Council approval of
modifications as presented.
In Attachment B
(CIP Funding Strategies) Commissioner Rohloff reviewed the revised plan from
the Commission. Commissioner Rohloff noted that the Commission found certain
areas of the CIP woefully underfunded, yet provided twenty-four different
scenarios for different ways to make funds sustainable over the next twenty
years, as found in Exhibit B-4 showing all twenty-four scenarios and related
charges. Commissioner Rohloff advised that the Commission voted on how to
bring the Pavement Management Plan (PMP), Park & Recreation Department's
Park Improvement Plan (PIP), and the General Facilities in line. Commissioner
Rohloff noted that each of those recommendations provided the base plan at the
top of the page, followed by the Commission's recommendation. While the
Commission recommends review and subsequent approval by the City Council,
Commissioner Rohloff advised that the Commission recommended an annual review
Attachment C (Park Dedication Funds) Commissioner Bachhuber reviewed the fund
in light of current CIP needs and funding challenges, as well as the background
of the fund traditionally used for acquiring new park assets, building trails
or adding green space. Commissioner Bachhuber advised that the Commission was
recommending that this fund also be utilized for maintenance of current park
infrastructure since it represented a tremendous asset for the City, with
ongoing challenges in maintaining that infrastructure. Commissioner Bachhuber
suggested rethinking the park dedication fee policy - depending on regulating
parameters around those assets - to address maintaining existing assets versus
acquiring more unless considered under separate consideration by the City
Council as a whole, but otherwise to not use those funds for new acquisitions.
Attachment D (Water and Sewer Rate Structure), Commissioner Byrne noted the
differences in municipal utility rate structures compared with her career in regulating
private utilities and her analysis of electric and natural gas rates, providing
a unique perspective. Commissioner Byrne reviewed general rate design goals
and how to build rates to achieve ongoing resources for investing in those
utilities, typically based on four principles. While recognizing many parallels,
Commissioner Byrne reviewed them specifically and individually as applicable,
including subsidies, recovery of fixed costs and recovery mechanisms, and what
made the most sense and provide the greatest transparency. Commissioner Byrne
concluded that based on her experience, the current municipal rates in Roseville
achieved something not available for the public utility sector at the Department
of Commerce in getting very close to the cost of delivery. Based on this
thorough review, Commission Byrne advised that the Commission was offering no
specific recommendations to change 2016 rates, and if the City Council had
specific areas they wished the Commission to pursue going forward for 2017 and
beyond, sought their feedback accordingly.
policies (Attachment A)
Mayor Roe expressed
his interest in recommended changes and new language, and expressed
appreciation for some of the additions, especially within the capital
McGehee questioned if she had missed a recommendation for using cost benefit
analyses; with Councilmember Etten noting it was included but not called out
specifically as a change to the language.
Under the new
policy, Commissioner Rohloff identified that analysis for future development
proposals, and language related to fiscal analysis identifying uses and
demonstrating costs and benefit, with the cost of that analysis borne by the
Mayor Roe noted
that the cost-benefit language had been added to the City's policies at the
initiation of Councilmember Ihlan a few years ago and thanked the Commission
for adding that as a policy and bringing it forward, even though he wasn't sure
how well it was being followed at this point.
Councilmember Laliberte's notice regarding striking of "monthly" updates from
the policy, Chair Schroeder clarified that the City Council may not always get
monthly updates, but sometimes they may be quarterly or on another timeframe,
and this policy provided some flexibility for the City Council to address
specific situations to determine what their preference was.
suggested retaining "regular," AND "annual" in the revised language.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Chair Schroeder clarified that the scope of the CIP
was for twenty years out, with an annual review to provide a sufficient
On page 2 of
the CIP, Councilmember Etten noted referenced to the "Park Capital Maintenance
Fund," and asked if that was intended to replace the PIP.
Bachhuber advised that the PIP could be interpreted in a number of ways,
including new assets, but the Commission's intent was to be clear that this
fund was intended to maintain existing assets, with actual improvements falling
Etten asked that the Commission discuss that further with the Parks &
Recreation Commission in the near future to make sure their input is part of
the City's thought process and this recommendation. Councilmember Etten
further noted the last sentence of that bullet point avoided using the word
'depreciation' in relating to funding an equal portion of estimated replacement
Rohloff responded that depreciation was not chosen for this type of asset; and
if upon review fifteen years into a thirty-year life expectancy there was
maintenance indicated that could extend the life of that asset proportionately
based on useful life versus new cost, that was used consistently. Commissioner
Rohloff noted one example of that could be water pipes, with new technologies
continually available to extend that life and provide more flexibility.
Etten noted a consistent fifth bullet point within each enterprise fund that
provided for ongoing preventative maintenance for replacement, and asked for
clarification of its intent.
Rohloff responded that the intent was to charge a sufficient built-in fee to
cover the fixed cost for replacement.
In that same
paragraph, Mayor Roe noted the use of both terms "useful expired life" and "depreciation," and questioned which was the most accurate, asking the
Commission to review that for consistency before it came back to the City Council
for formal action.
Rohloff duly noted that request for consistency.
Laliberte, with concurrence of the council, noted the need to cross-reference
fund names in these updated policies to make sure they were renamed as
applicable and referenced in other city policies for ease of following.
consistency, Mayor Roe noted a duplication of the second and third bullet
points on page 1 of the New Capital Investment Policy.
recommendation for review of the CIP is recommended bi-annually, with
Commissioner Bachhuber noting the intent was for a minimum of every two years,
Mayor Roe suggested changing language accordingly to read "every two years" to
avoid confusion (page 2)
On page 3 in the
definition for "park system assets,' Mayor Roe concurred with excluding
buildings to remain consistent with other city buildings, but to also make sure
that was the intent on the part of commission.
advised that considerable discussion on park facilities had been held among
commissioners, and noted that language was very intentional on the part of the
On behalf of
the City Council, Mayor Roe thanked the Commission for their thorough work
providing a good ultimate product, and anticipated definite support from the
City Council as those policies came forward for formal action.
Strategies - Proposed Solutions (Attachment B)
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Chair Schroeder clarified that the Commission
rewrote the policies in light of reviewing subsequent attachments so they would
comply with each other.
General Facilities and the PIP, Councilmember Etten first suggested a heading
change from PIP to "Park Capital Management" but also asked if there had been a
discussion with staff not connected to those particular pieces, specifically in
a 10% reduction in their annual spending amounts.
Rohloff responded that, in the case of the OVAL, even though the City would
expect to cover 100% of the costs, there was a potential for state or private
funds to cover a portion, thus the Commission's reduction to 90%.
further clarified that these were simply intended as examples, and other than
the Finance Department, the Commission had not talked with departments, thus
creating the presentation of twenty-four scenarios before further refinement,
and appearing to be more doable moving forward.
Aside from the
OVAL issue, Commissioner Bachhuber noted that all scenarios assumed the City
was currently funding what was in the CIP now based on community and City
Council discussions to-date. However, Commissioner Bachhuber noted the need
for further discussions and assumptions on what level of service, and level of
maintenance of those assets was preferred that would impact fully funding the
CIP as written.
opined that as relevant commissions or departments bring recommendations to the
City Council, that would be a key part of how the Finance Commission could
interact and become even more integral to the City Council's function to retain
that positive influence going forward. Councilmember Etten further opined that
the more that was done, from his perspective it served to enhance
community-wide aspects of those discussions going forward.
McGehee stated she was unsure if she agreed with Councilmember Etten, even
though she agreed it was important to get this done and get a budget completed,
it was the responsibility of the City Council do to so. Councilmember McGehee
expressed her interest in having the Finance Commission come to the City
Council to discuss the budget at which point that information gets back to
departments or commissions rather than having the Finance Commission approach those
other commissions or feel obligated to have them signoff before bringing it to
the City Council.
Mayor Roe noted
the intent for the Finance Commission was to be of service to the City Council
as well as the community at large.
Laliberte thanked the Commission for the work put into this with consensus of
commissioners, and especially in providing so many scenarios and options as
well as their best recommendation. In that sense, Councilmember Laliberte
expressed her interest in an unfettered recommendation to come before the City
Council from the Finance Commission, at which point it would be filtered to
other commissions and how it may affect their specific work if adopted by the
City Council. Councilmember Laliberte opined that if vetted by departments
and/or commissions beforehand, it would not be a true or unfiltered recommendation
of the Finance Commission.
concurred, noting that would be similar to the initial work performed by the
City Council's CIP Subcommittee several years ago without benefit of other
commissions other than that of the Parks & Recreation staff given the
timing of the Park Master Plan process and valuable input from it enlightening
how to move forward.
Laliberte clarified that she would never receive a raw recommendation and go
forward blindly without benefit of input from specific commissions being
affected by that action and how it affected their work. However, Councilmember
Laliberte noted it was the City Council's responsibility to connect with their
advisory commissions at that point.
recommendations for General Facilities Mayor Roe referenced exhibit B-2, noting
that recommendation from the Finance Commission still had significant negative
balances. However, if removing the OVAL concrete replacement and cooling
system in 2020, thereby removing over $2 million, it made the scenarios work
pretty well. As the City Council moves into CIP discussions, Mayor Roe
suggested further consideration on how to treat that. Mayor Roe noted that
Commissioner Rohloff's analyses address numerous potential funding sources rather
than using levy dollars for that replacement funding.
advised that the Commission had a discussion about using "additional levy" meaning "revenue source," which had been clued in other places (e.g. summary
page) as "other sources."
suggested plugging in a one-time additional funding source of $2 million to
cover that, but sought input from the Parks & Recreation Commission as
well. Mayor Roe noted that if the city funded the large OVAL expenses in 2020 by
issuing bonds, the remaining proposed funding amounts would cover the remaining
expenses over the twenty years, while at other times the State of Minnesota had
contributed to this regional asset, as well as identifying private entities
that may be willing to participate in the future as well.
discussion included policy decisions in considering other revenue sources in
order to make funds more sustainable if that $2 million for the OVAL was backed
Laliberte opined that she didn't think other funding sources should ever be
counted on in making long-term plans for the City or decisions based on a
certain amount of dollars coming in from another source.
purposes, Mayor Roe observed that if the OVAL amount of $2 million was
excluded, the remainder of the CIP at 100% looked to be on target. However,
Mayor Roe recognized that consideration always needed to be given to the
timeframe for expected life expectancy for city-owned assets and properly timed
OVAL, Commissioner Rohloff referenced Scenario 4 in appendix B-4 excluding the
In the PIP,
Mayor Roe noted a similar situation related to possibly changing timing of expenditures
making the 20-year funding and fund balance work better, which brought
discussion to park dedication funding.
on, Chair Schroeder offered the Commission's willingness to provide any other
scenarios the City Council requested.
Rohloff opined that if a surplus or reserve was achieved, any of these underfunded
CIP funds would be a good place to put it, and if any levy decrease was
initiated, it needed to be accounted for in the next year, but a good place for
a one-time injection for the OVAL would go a long way as dedicated funding in
expressed appreciation to the Commission for bringing this forward, as well as
Etten expressed interest in maintaining a certain level in the fund, and using
anything above that level for park maintenance capital, or the old PIP. From
his perspective, Councilmember Etten noted the intent was not to accumulate a
lot of things, but to provide a purposeful way to look for park and recreation
opportunities, such as in SW Roseville where such amenities were sorely lacking
or expanding buffer zones and connections around Langton Lake, and requiring a
larger expenditure. Councilmember Etten expressed the importance of looking
for solutions to problems with this fund, and not bring it down to zero, but increasing
assets identified as needs, or things that could come up in the future.
noted that perspective was part of a very active discussion on the Finance
Commission in brainstorming how to maintain and improve existing assets given
the massive deficit in the current park plan in attempting to maintain those
current assets. Commission Bachhuber stated it was the Commission's thought
that it was irresponsible to continue adding to park assets when the city was
unable to take care of existing assets, and if in a different position, thinking
strategically of ways to get more done to address that deficit. With park
maintenance funding, Commissioner Bachhuber opined that park dedication fees
could accomplish that goal, and if the opportunity for acquisition came up, a
discussion by the City Council and community should be held on strategies to
find dollars somewhere else versus having assets banked for acquisition of
Etten advised that concept had gone through that filter with community
discussions on Langton Lake and SW Roseville, and expressed his concern in
putting the City Council in a position not to act upon community-expressed
easy access to trail systems in Falcon Heights and Lauderdale, as a resident of
SW Roseville, Councilmember McGehee noted the lack of Roseville green space
and/or parks available. Councilmember McGehee agreed that the city was already
overextended and whether to add more assets under these circumstances needed to
be addressed by the City Council and the community, or whether to acquire land
coming off the tax rolls causing additional maintenance. Councilmember McGehee
opined that anything less than thoughtful consideration would be irresponsible
on the part of the City Council whether the PIP, PMP or other area requiring
maintenance of capital assets. Councilmember McGehee opined that maintenance
was important and expressed her personal concern that the city had gotten into
this fix by overlooking that maintenance component as part of everything it
did; and stated she was heartened by the Commission's recommendation. However,
Councilmember McGehee clarified that this didn't mean she wasn't a staunch
supporter of Langton Lake, but did represent constituents from the entire
expressed interest in a policy that would retain some portion of the park
dedication fund dedicated for ongoing CIP, but reserving a portion for potential
acquisition of smaller sites that completed connections or corners of parks.
Mayor Roe clarified that this didn't preclude the city from those smaller scale
acquisitions; and suggested the Finance and Parks & Recreation Commissions
talk about a realistic percentage for replacement/acquisition. The other piece
noted by Mayor Roe was as development occurred, the money coming from
dedication fees could be allocated using a different formula from the possible
allocation of the current pool of money, into a respective pool specifically
for acquisition. Mayor Roe noted this would address any potential boon of
development and a periodic review of the allocation formula or targets based on
individual cases based on current development and need for additional parks.
However, Mayor Roe questioned justifying use of 100% of the park dedication fund
strictly for CIP.
understanding the incentives, City Attorney Gaughan cautioned council members
and commissioners of State Law prohibitions on the use of park dedication fees,
currently restricted to development or improvement of existing park assets.
Mr. Gaughan suggested eliminating any reference to the term "ongoing
maintenance" as it related to park dedication fees.
Mayor Roe concurred,
noting that councilmembers and others often have been using "maintenance" when
referring to CIP activities, but that in reality the CIP refers to
improvements, and that everyone should perhaps use more discipline in their
choice of words when discussing CIP items, and not use the word "maintenance" in those discussions - especially as it relates to the use of Park Dedication
Gaughan noted that it was often difficult to define, but a best practice would
be to stop using the term "maintenance" and use terminology such as
"development" and "improvement" as defined and clear in state law.
discussion included proposed use of park dedication fees as a funding source
for park CIP needs; recognizing the need for guidance on what could and could
not be funded (e.g. new club house at the golf course, or enhancements at the
OVAL); development of trail and sidewalk connections as a permitted use of
funding versus cutting weeds or other types of "ongoing maintenance;" and verifying
the need for specific input from the Finance and Parks & Recreation Commission
in defining that fund and initial allocations.
Etten suggested the need for departments to also look at what assets to put
money toward, which could create adjustments in the CIP, and need to define the
highest priorities the money should be used for, which may prompt a long-term
Laliberte expressed interest in pursuing this discussion moving forward.
McGehee expressed interest in identifying those assets needing targeted or
enhanced funding that were currently sitting on the books.
reported that he had shared a draft policy he'd created with the Parks &
Recreation staff, suggesting it may find its way into the hands of the Finance
Commission for further discussion.
thanked Commissioner Byrne for her thorough look at this, and her well-written
memorandum defining the four design goals.
As noted from
his review of the report Councilmember Etten advised that he agreed there were
no significant changes indicated, with past action taken by the City Council in
adjusting fees to assist some residents with utility fees if appropriate. Councilmember
Etten sought clarification that the Commission was comfortable with inter and
intra funding policies currently being used by the City based on professional
expertise of commissioners.
Byrne reiterated that she found the practice used by the city in funding
infrastructure to be fair with a fixed base fee for all and very transparent
and to the point in making sure it recovered enough to cover that
infrastructure. Regarding a specific portion of the population needing a
subsidy based on the type of customer or income level, Commissioner Byrne
suggested those conversations were needed on a more targeted basis looking
toward a specific program versus trying to pull fixed costs out. For 2016,
Commissioner Byrne reiterated that it made sense to continue with the course
already laid out by staff until the City Council addresses any subsidy or
special circumstance programs with more specificity.
McGehee stated that she agreed with the goals of the rate structure, but not
with its conclusions. Displaying handouts showing her perspective on the
current water utility rate program between 2008 and 2015 base rates,
Councilmember McGehee addressed expectations for those enterprise funds based
on fees to service holders in order to pay for infrastructure. Councilmember
McGehee noted this had been accomplished by various means as the city developed,
but requested during previous discussions, she wanted further discussion as to
whether that infrastructure funding should be accomplished through the levy to
set aside dedicated money similar to the PMP that remained transparent and for
a specific identified purpose, or by bonding for those improvements. Councilmember
McGehee stated that she was not a proponent of the senior discount program,
since while some may need it others took advantage of it who did not need it.
If the intent was to use a means test for eligibility, Councilmember McGehee
opined that people would not seek the subsidy as they were too proud to do so.
McGehee opined that the underground utility infrastructure should be treated
the same way as funded similar to the PMP program for street improvement. Councilmember
McGehee proceeded to review comparisons for the benefit of the Finance
Commission based on consumption, opining that the current system didn't provide
any conservation incentives and therefore placed an unfair burden on those
using the least amount of water and penalizing those who used more water. Councilmember
McGehee reviewed her idea for potential alternative funding for the water
infrastructure and estimated cost impacts for those options over a twenty-year
period. Councilmember McGehee also displayed a proposed tiered system for
water usage to encourage conservation by restructuring rates, also providing
more simplicity and transparency in pricing while retaining stable funding
spread across the tax base. Councilmember McGehee displayed examples of rate
structures used by the Cities of Shoreview and St. Paul compared to that used
McGehee asked that the Finance Commission look at her data from their
clarified that advisory commissions received their charge from the perspective
of the City Council as a whole, not individual Councilmembers.
personal perspective, Mayor Roe spoke in support of the fairness of the current
system using the same base fee to cover water service based on his analysis.
While the initial change to this rate structure was significant for the community,
Mayor Roe noted it had been implemented in two phases in 2011 and 2012 to make
it more feasible. Mayor Roe acknowledged that the initial change in the rate
structure startled many in the community, but once they understood the basis
for it, there was no ongoing outcry and it provided a much more transparent fee
through water and sewer fees versus from levy support or bonding. When comparing
the potential annual levy increase for an average household, Mayor Roe stated
his difficulty in understanding how a homeowner could come out ahead using
Councilmember McGehee's proposal based on his analysis. Mayor Roe stated he
was not supportive of looking further at this proposal; and expressed his
concern that this reverted to the old rate structure where heavy users
subsidized other users without the base cost covering the actual cost of
Laliberte agreed with Mayor Roe, recognizing that while the rate structure
changes made in 2011 and 2012 were difficult, it created a transparent system
even though it made it difficult to compare rates with other communities using
a different structure that didn't build in capital and infrastructure in their
base rate. Councilmember Laliberte also noted the considerable time discussing
and coming to a decision for the senior discount program, opining she found no
need to consider another subsidy in a different way.
Etten noted having had this discussion in the past and decision resulting in
the council action supporting the current rate structure and situation.
Councilmember Etten advised that it would take him more time for a thorough
read of the information provided by Councilmember McGehee and determination as
to whether it provided any actual savings before he could respond beyond tonight's
expressed his desire to make sure the City Council had that discussion prior to
charging the Finance Commission in pursuing it; and expressed his willingness
for Councilmember McGehee to bring this back for further discussion in the
future if supported by the Council majority.
ensued regarding whether the Finance Commission felt any new information came
out of Councilmember McGehee's analysis.
noted the Commission's previous support for and their analysis of the current
structure and the logic of that structure. Commissioner Bachhuber opined that
if the City Council charged the Commission with looking further into how it set
utility rates, it needed to be done using a full set of criteria including
other factors as part of that analysis. From the point of view of the
Commission, Commissioner Bachhuber opined it would not factor in as a super
high priority and while there were certainly different dimensions to consider
than the current structure, there was no perfect system, but the consensus of
the Commission was that this current structure provided an awesome starting
Byrne agreed with Commissioner Bachhuber that any rate design in general had
flaws, but noted the need to consider costs, benefits and all pros and cons, as
well as subsidies in one place versus another. However, Commissioner Byrne
opined that a more productive conversation may be to consider the potential
complications with a block rate and harms for low income/high usage customers
to achieve conservation. If the Commission were to check the math on bonding -
or staff - Commissioner Byrne echoed her colleague that considering another
funding mechanism would be low on her priority list. As a newer resident of
Roseville, Commissioner Byrne referenced her personal reaction to the water
rates in Roseville until she understood it better; and while the base rate is
higher she admitted she still paid attention to her water usage. Commissioner
Byrne noted this current structure sent a strong signal to users that there was
a cost for the infrastructure they were using it.
Mayor Roe noted
the apparent policy question involved here seemed to be more social in nature
and expressed his lack of interest in asking the Finance Commission to weigh in
on a social policy. If the City Council discussion is whether to change the
current policy, Mayor Roe opined that required a financial analysis and staff
should be tasked with that. Mayor Roe asked individual Councilmembers where
they wanted to go from here based on the merits of this discussion rather than
just delegating it to the commission to get if off the City Council's table.
Laliberte clarified that her intent was not to move it off the City Council
table; and since the work had already been done and customers had already taken
the hit and rates had been made as transparent as possible, she felt that had
been the right thing to do based on cost.
McGehee stated that she still didn't feel the City had a good conservation
policy; and from her understanding of state statute, that needed to be
addressed by the City.
Mayor Roe noted
that discussion had been held before as well.
Etten stated he was comfortable with the decisions made by the City Council on
its rate structure for the foreseeable future.
Mayor Roe clarified that there was no direction from the City Council to the
Finance Commission on this topic at this time.
water and sanitary sewer funds, Mayor Roe noted one item for the City Council
to consider asking the Finance Commission to look at was interfund loans.
Mayor Roe questioned if the city should continue doing loans between funds or
simply call them transfers and be done with it. Mayor Roe sought Council
feedback as to whether to charge the Commission with looking at this as a new
topic for further discussion at a future date if so directed by the Council as
Laliberte opined that she believed reserve funds were tax dollars already
collected from taxpayers, and when legal flexibility is available to use those
funds as needed, she saw no need for a loan as long as they remained within
those recommended changes, supporting a simple transfer versus an interfund
loan with interest.
Etten opined that in the end it all goes back to the City Council for a
decision; and the only reason he saw the need for input from the Finance
Commission was if they thought the City Council was breaking a law so-to-speak,
from a financial or accounting perspective.
expressed the Commission's willingness to review the current policy and make a
Mayor Roe suggested
if the Finance Commission wanted to look at it, the City Council could bring it
up at a later date.
As noted in the
RCA, lines 44 - 48, Chair Schroeder noted future work plan items for the
Finance Commission, seeking any input from the City Council as they moved
forward or guidelines they wished to share.
included the intent and general philosophy for the Police Forfeiture Fund and
utilization similar to that of the PIP and how those funds were earmarked.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, City Attorney Gaughan briefly reviewed the
restrictions and regulations for these funds, and offered to provide that
information to the Finance Commission prior to their review and as a guide for
their discussions, duly noted appreciatively by Chair Schroeder.
referenced an excellent memorandum prepared by Police Chief Mathwig several
years ago emphasizing the reporting and budgeting aspect which was often not as
obvious as other city finances.
Etten noted that, when the Finance Commission had been created, part of the
discussion involved how to present finance documents for the City Council and
community that were easier to understand. While recognizing that some changes
had been made and the budget process continued to evolve, Councilmember Etten
asked the Commission for their input on those improvements and whether
additional revisions should be made.
responded that it was evident during the Commission's review of various
documents, there were different audiences needing different formats, whether
documents for presentation to the City Council or to the public through the
city's newsletter. Chair Schroeder noted that Mayor Roe had drafted a format
that the Commission liked and were adopting it for some information, and would
continue to revise materials. Chair Schroeder encouraged input from anyone, noting
that the Commission was made up of volunteers working in the finance field, so
they looked at things differently and wanted to make sure materials were presented
for the particular audience in way that made the most sense, whether summary
versus detail or whatever format worked best.
Laliberte recognized Councilmember McGehee's introduction of the budget
feedback post card, opining that was a great step to obtain community
feedback. In addition to that as she'd brought up in the past, Councilmember
Laliberte expressed interest in a dashboard for the general public that could
be shown on a regular basis and updated throughout the year that provided a
clear visual rather than more details, and providing the budget at a glance for
the average citizen.
suggested the Commission start out with the same document detail then rolled
into a summary dashboard rather than needing to create numerous different
Laliberte left it to the discretion of the Commission as long as it came
forward sooner rather than later, and presented the city budget in a transparent
fashion without the creation in a different format appearing to be different information
noted the limitations of current software capabilities for Finance Department
staff, but committed to look it from that perspective to avoid any additional
or undue burden on staff.
commended the capabilities of the Community Development and Communication
Departments' spreadsheet presentations providing great data, suggesting
consulting with them on ideas.
Laliberte concurred, noting that the Communications Manager was hired to
present information to residents as they desire, and if the silo practice is
still occurring with departments, it shouldn't be.
Mayor Roe noted
consulting someone more versed in communication and less versed in financial
matters would be an effective way to determine the value of the documents from
their perspective as well rather than through the lens of a finance person.
McGehee opined that the website and postcard information was simple and easy to
understand, noting this was the first time that had been made available for
residents, with their general response involving debt service. However, based
on their comments, Councilmember McGehee suggested a breakdown for the public
to understand how and where that debt service was assigned rather than in a
lump which provided a different picture when divided out.
dashboard, Councilmember Etten suggested something on the website that showed
how all the pieces came together, creating an annual problem for Finance
Director Miller in seeking to give the public a complete picture without
overwhelming them with the details.
concurred that, with the different audiences, the taxpayers may want to know
how much each area of government was costing rather than the total debt
service, suggesting two different breakdowns.
it even further, Councilmember Laliberte noted the bigger picture was where
revenue was coming in as there was currently no way to show that for offsetting
noted one item already discussed by the Commission involved their desire for an
annual review of the budget, CIP, water/sewer rates with the City Council.
Mayor Roe suggested
the council consensus to pursue that goal. Along that line, Mayor Roe
encouraged the Finance Commission to bring forward any recommendations for
adjusting the timing as the City Manager recommended budget was brought forward
-whether internal or external- to further streamline the budget process.
Laliberte agreed, seeking recommendation annually from the Commission of when
specific areas of the budget should be reviewed and/or put forward to the
public in that process.
noted the recommendation they made in bringing the CIP forward earlier in the
budget process since that represented such a large portion of the levy.
Laliberte questioned if the Commission had held any discussions regarding the
HRA funds and levy or their annual budget, not suggesting they do so, but
simply wondering if it had come up.
advised that they had not yet gotten into that, but asked if the City Council
wished to charge them with doing so.
Mayor Roe, without
objection stated it made sense to charge the Commission accordingly.
Trudgeon sought clarification from the City Council on what they wanted the
Commission to do related to the HRA budget and levy, or the deliverable they
Laliberte expressed interest in a historical review of how the HRA had used
their funds, how and when funds were replenished upon sale or purchase of a
property; and any recommendations for those funds coming back or how used or
drawn down in the future.
Mayor Roe noted
the need for the Commission to feed back any recommendations through the HRA
Trudgeon sought further clarification as to whether the City Council intended a
role for the Finance Commission for the 2016 levy given the time frame. Mr.
Trudgeon suggested the first step from a historical perspective with program
priorities studied for future reference.
noted there would be a steep learning curve initially for the Commission.
thanked the Finance Commission and their great teamwork, as well as pride in
the Council having appointed these individual members.
expressed her appreciation for a great team with diverse talents of which she
also was proud to serve with.
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at
approximately 8:02 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:08 p.m. Councilmember
McGehee left the meeting at approximately 8:10 p.m., returning at approximately
Review the 2016-2035 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Funding
the Finance Commission remaining to observe this discussion, Finance Director
Miller briefly presented an overview of the 2016 - 2035 CIP, including 2016
recommended funding strategies, 2016 financial impacts, and future funding
considerations. Mr. Miller noted that, as usual the CIP as a starting point,
included the community's vision and City Council's aspirations and goals.
referenced during discussions with the Finance Commission, Mayor Roe observed
that, absent the significant OVAL expenditures of $2 million in approximately
2020, the CIP was looking decent.
Director agreed with the caveat that this and future City Council's continued
funding increases as recommended over the CIP time period.
included 2016 geothermal expansion for the Public Works Building as a specific
line item and whether that was realistic so soon, requiring refreshing the plan
and KFI's review along with prioritizing it with other needs, currently undergoing
internal discussions before making a recommendation; and dependent on
identifying a funding source with further vetting needed and the ultimate decisions
of the City Council as to whether to increase funding for facilities.
discussion included Enterprise and Community Development Funds, and clarifying
fund balances with overall fund allocations for CIP versus operating funds; and
the projected major 2018 CIP expenditure of $1.1 or $1.2 million for a new club
house at the golf course skewing that year's funding, and options still under
review by the Parks and Recreation Commission for their recommendation.
a general comment, Councilmember Laliberte noted these were the areas the City
Council needed to get back on track. However, Councilmember Laliberte stated
her bigger concern was in continued growth of the operating budget that really
needed discussion to make a firm decision on potential cuts in programs and
service to balance this rather than just continue to grow the operating budget
at recent rates.
Etten noted that on some funds (e.g. pathway maintenance) the targeted funding
remained the same over many years, and questioned as new pathways are added it
needed to be adjusted sooner rather than later to reflect inflation and those
new segments over the next 2-5 years, especially with the additions of pathways
along County Roads B and B-2, Victoria Street, and other pathways that, while
great community assets, needed to realize an increase in maintenance funding.
Director Miller advised that, when preparing the CIP a decentralized approach
was used with current direction to staff to address the cost to maintain existing
city assets over the next twenty years in today's dollars, and that estimate as
shown. Mr. Miller advised that unless directed otherwise, each department factored
in any additional pathways or other assets coming on line in 2015 by year end,
but offered to double check his assumption with Department Heads.
the health of some vehicle fleet funds as noted on the City Manager's recommended
budget, Councilmember Etten suggested continuing review with the possibility of
repurposing some of those funds or shifting them for other needs.
Director Miller advised that staff looked at that annually as it projected out
twenty years, noting that at this time more was being allocated to those funds
than necessary, thus the reallocation recommended in the City Manager's budget.
the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director Miller advised that
inflationary adjustments are not made with all allocations and projections made
in today's dollars as a reference. Mr. Miller noted the challenges in
attempting to guesstimate those future inflationary rates in any meaningful way
using the filter of today's dollars.
Roe opined it would not be a good idea for departments to attempt guessing
those inflationary numbers for a particular year in the future without the advantage
of actual inflation percentages. However, Mayor Roe suggested an annual review
in actual dollars provided a good picture of the effects of inflation on future
Roe suggested looking seriously at the recommendations of the Finance
Commission in setting aside a portion of park dedication dollars or starting a
balance for appropriate park and recreation funds. Mayor Roe noted that
consideration should also be given to the potential receipt of significant
dollars over the next 5-7 years in the Park CIP fund, which actually made sense
from his perspective related to park dedication. If that was possible, Mayor
Roe noted those dedication funds had the potential to address three major
problem funds from the overall CIP.
Roe suggested the City Council take a serious look at the OVAL, and consider
future transfer of funds in the water utility rather than internal loans with interest
which seemed unfair to taxpayers.
Manager Trudgeon agreed with the concept of internal transfers versus loans,
with Councilmembers Laliberte and Etten expressing their agreement also.
Roe provided direction based on that agreement that staff return that recommended
policy change to the City Council for formal action at a meeting in the near
Laliberte sought clarification on moving PIP funds into the park dedication
fund; with Mayor Roe noting allocations within a fund could be determined
annually as a starting balance and which portion of that fund was
levy-supported without depleting either fund, whether coming through the levy
or from development.
Roe and Councilmember Laliberte thanked the Finance Department and Commission
for their great work and presentations.
Business Items (Action Items)
Business Items - Presentations/Discussions
Fire Department Staffing Program Update and Discussion
Fire Chief Tim
O'Neill was present for this update, along with Battalion Chief of EMS Greg
Peterson and Battalion Chief of Operations David Brosnahan. Chief O'Neill
provided a review of the phases previously outlined for the public and City
Council and as detailed in the RCA and attached presentation materials dated
August 17, 2015. Chief O'Neill expressed his interest in reviewing this information
before getting to target dates and based on previous budget presentations and
the process in moving from a part-time to full-time department.
presentation highlighted recent discussion areas including the negotiations for
a full-time firefighter's union included in the 2016 budget in response to
anticipated action while keeping it at a budget-neutral capacity; and addressing
the potential that the Battalion Chief's job may also move to a position of
unionization, which had also been projected and planned for as part of the 2016
budget and reorganization of shift responsibilities whether or not unionized
and again part of the 2016 budget or immediately thereafter.
reiterated other alternatives for organizing the department and short- and
long-term ramifications in those approaches as it related to the budget.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Chief O'Neill reviewed the Fire Marshal position as
it related to this restructure and pending retirement of the current employee,
and proposed shift of those duties to the Battalion Chief with the overall goal
to have a full-time firefighter with those skills be available on one of the
three rotating shifts making a Fire Marshal available 24/7 versus only during
daytime office hours. Chief O'Neill acknowledged that the current employee had
been in the industry for over forty years, and therefore there would be a
learning curve in filling the position no matter which option was chosen.
At the request
of Councilmember Laliberte, Chief O'Neill further addressed the intent for the
Assistant Chief as well as Battalion Chief levels to provide a succession plan
for the department as part of this restructuring plan and cross training of
duties of the Fire Chief position to facilitate that future succession and
allowing duties interchangeable between positions and by sharing knowledge.
Laliberte requested a quarterly update from the Department on the number of
part time firefighters as shifting continues in phases toward this new model.
Chief O'Neill duly noted this request, and provided a brief overview of shifts
from part-time to full-time firefighters since the restructuring began in 2014,
and efforts to recognize the schedules of part-time firefighters in lieu of
their other careers and family obligations.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Chief O'Neill provided a summation of those
firefighters still involved in the Relief Association and those in the Police/Fire
PERA fund; statutory requirements for those remaining in the Relief Association
that were outside the control of the City Council; and past action in 2010 to
sunset the Relief Association. Chief O'Neill addressed the complexities involved,
but reported improvements and market adjustments over the last few years taking
the Relief Association funding from 68% to 108%, and continued discussions at
Relief Association meetings, on which he, Mayor Roe, and City Manager Trudgeon
all served on their Board.
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Chief O'Neill confirmed that they were no longer
hiring part-time people or growing that staffing, with the goal toward all
full-time firefighters through attrition based on his interpretation of City
Council direction, recognizing that depending on circumstances and individual
situations, could take up to include years to achieve.
clarified that the City Council had made that decision as part of their 2015
decision to hire fifteen full-time officers, and subsequent motion to hire six
additional full-time firefighters, giving implicit guidance to Chief O'Neill
that he was authorized to follow his restructuring plan at that level, as
indicated by the City Council's vote.
Laliberte asked Chief O'Neill to forward any proposals for the legislature that
they thing the City Council should be aware of or for which they could actively
Etten expressed his support for the changes being implemented by Chief O'Neill
and updated organizational chart; stating his comfort level with the general
path being undertaken.
discussion ensued regarding the status of previous City of Roseville-specific
Fairview Fire Station Discussion
Trudgeon briefly reviewed options available for repurposing or removing the
Fairview Avenue fire station located at 2501 Fairview Avenue currently used by
the City and Roseville Historical Society for storage, as detailed in the RCA
dated August 17, 2015. Mr. Trudgeon reported that the building was quite
dilapidated and not functional for much beyond the current use, and therefore
ripe for City Council discussion. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the overall parcel
size, current building size and usable portion of the parcel of approximately
.85 acres. Mr. Trudgeon noted the City's water tower was located adjacent, and
a number of easements further encumbered the parcel, including a complex
network of underground infrastructure.
Trudgeon provided four options for consideration and specific ramifications of
each. Mr. Trudgeon noted the attendance at tonight's meeting of representatives
of the Historical Society, and publically and remorsefully apologized for the
number of times they'd been moved around within the city. Mr. Trudgeon
reported that they were currently housed in the Hagen assessor building
scheduled to come down this fall for the Twin Lakes Parkway extension, which
was timely due to the inoperable status of mechanical systems in the building.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that the current location certainly did nothing to provide
the Society with a visible presence or display space. As part of this
discussion, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the plan was to relocate them to the
Evergreen Park shelter, originally thought to be a great idea until delving
deeper into that plan and under state energy codes, it was found a $300,000
investment would be needed to bring that building up to code. From his
personal perspective, Mr. Trudgeon opined the City of Roseville owed it to the
community and the Society to provide a viable option for their relocation or
co-location into an existing city facility.
Trudgeon asked for Council direction on whether it should market this property,
with some unsolicited interest shown in the past, and anticipating a market for
a business in that heavy commercial area already.
Council's direction is to use the site for a municipal activity, depending on
that use, Mr. Trudgeon advised that if the intent was to relocate the License
Center there, the existing building would need to be demolished and a new
building constructed. Mr. Trudgeon noted that there were other issues with
that use related to parking and access, even though commercial businesses
seemed to function in that immediate area, but opined it would be challenging
for access off the site for a busy license center, and would require further
research, as well as considerations for convenience, access and parking to
the City Council decides on, City Manager Trudgeon noted the immediate need for
a solution for storage space, and recommended discussion among the City Council
and hearing public comment before moving forward.
Trudgeon identified eight potential properties for permanent centralized
storage to fill the space needs of the City and affiliated organizations and
their general locations within the community.
Vacant Old Highway
Size 8.6 acres
Future land use
Zoning HDR - 1
1926 Grand Ave,
Size 4.27 acres
Future land use
property -0 County Road C-2
Size 2.60 acres
Future land use - Industrial
pond property - Fairview Avenue/County Road C
Size 4.88 acres
Future land use - water ponding
Animal Hospital Site, 2630 Snelling Curve
Size 1.49 acres
Future land use - Office
Zoning - Office/Business
At the request
of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon noted that this rectangle property faced
had a stormwater pond, and obtaining additional right-of-way from MnDOT may
prove difficult, as well as having elevation changes and a portion of the
parcel prone to quickly filling in during rain events
McGehee reported that her observation of that area was that it was a habitat
area with something in the ponds.
Room , 1430 County Road C
Size 2.07 acres
Future land use - HDR
Zoning - HDR-1
Dale Street/County Road C
Size 4.50 acres
National Guard Armory site, 211 N McCarron's Blvd.
Size 9.10 acres
Future land use
Zoned - Institutional
At the request
of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed storage needs, currently housed
at the fire station, including materials and equipment for the Parks &
Recreation Department consisting of larger items swapped out seasonal for the
Parks and Public Works Department and also stored in bays or on shelve in the
Hagen building. While there may be marginal room once the leaf collection
program is eliminated, Mr. Trudgeon noted the equipment is used for other
things as well; and staff performed an annual review of how things fit and if
and how it was needed. Mr. Trudgeon advised that there would be no way to absorb
equipment stored in facilities coming off line, creating a real and immediate
need to find resolution.
affiliated uses of benefit for the community, Mr. Trudgeon reported that the
Rosetown Playhouse was looking for space that could be accommodated in a larger
space, whether the City Council felt it was their obligation to facilitate that
or not. Mr. Trudgeon suggested there may be some minimal revenue that could be
realized by co-locating other community organizations, or in providing
permanent storage to facilitate some of those user groups, at the discretion of
the City Council.
McGehee expressed her interest in the opportunities with the Armory without the
$5 million price tag. Councilmember McGehee noted the options available with
bays to facilitate equipment as well as display space for the Historical
Society and ability to house other groups as well. Councilmember McGehee stated
she would vote against the Fairview fire station being used for the License
Center, opining it would prove to be a big loss in customers for that
enterprise. At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember McGehee stated that she
would consider the armory as a solution, but wouldn't consider other sides; and
while adamant that the License Center should not be located on the fire station
site, she could see it used for the Historical Society; and was open to keeping
the fire station property or selling it depending on the intended future use.
Laliberte questioned staff's estimated sale value of the Fairview parcel and
usable acreage, with Mr. Trudgeon advising that Ramsey County assessed the full
parcel at $1.7 million for the acre. Without benefit of an appraisal, and
depending on demolition costs, City Manager Trudgeon estimated a possible gross
sales price of $300,000 to $500,000; and estimated $100,000 cost for demotion.
At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Trudgeon noted the major issue
with the existing building was lack of ADA compliance, electrical problems, and
possibly some if any mold. Given deferred maintenance at the building, Mr.
Trudgeon advised that he was not aware of the status of the existing roof,
heating plant and other mechanical systems.
McGehee noted from previous discussions that the roof didn't leak so there
should be no mold problems.
Laliberte opined that based on that report, she could not recommend moving
someone in there, especially with historical document storage needs; as well as
not being the best location for people access or safety in getting to and from
the site. While not seeing an estimate, Councilmember Laliberte sought
information on the strip mall where the License Center was currently located,
and asked staff to get that information, duly noted by Mr. Trudgeon.
concurred with that request, referencing previous discussions during the Park
Master Plan process as a potential site for a community center.
Laliberte opined that the site was close to campus, had good visibility; but
noted cost would obviously be a big factor for her to consider.
ensued on the frequency of staff's review of storage and accumulations reported
to be on an annual basis if not more frequent; comparisons of storage versus
money available to provide programs/services; changing of seasonal inventory
and equipment throughout the year; and how best to utilize the existing
Laliberte stated that she'd be in favor of selling the Fairview property if it
made sense financially, recognizing that it would be one time money versus the
cost of maintenance, repairs and bringing it up to code, which was a cost she
would like more detail about. Councilmember Laliberte further noted that
selling the parcel would get it back on the property tax rolls.
agreed with his need for more information based on the questions presented by
Councilmember Laliberte, and a thorough review of other spaces and how
efficiently storage capacity was used on the City Hall campus. Councilmember
Etten expressed his interest in looking at the strip mall property currently
housing the License Center; but stated his lack of interest in looking at properties
on any corners or across railroad tracks for relocating the License Center that
may reduce customers and revenue. As part of that process, Councilmember Etten
spoke in support of selling the Fairview parcel.
concurred, agreeing with looking into selling the Fairview parcel, and in
needing additional information based on the questions asked, and digging in
beyond the high level scrutiny at the staff level. Mayor Roe expressed his
interest in looking at a permanent home for the Historical Society that
provided display and storage space; and suggested considering housing the Fire
Relief Association as well as Rosetown Players and any other organizations of
that nature that deserve help if the City could provide it. If storage and
those other needs can be worked out, Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to
consider selling the Fairview property. Mayor Roe agreed with the concerns
raised on the other properties identified by Mr. Trudgeon, but expressed some interest
in the armory property given its size and opportunities.
In response to
Councilmember Etten's concerns with accessing property by driving across
railroad tracks, Councilmember Laliberte noted that may be a viable and
fiscally advantageous option for storage only if that could be relocated from
the City Hall campus and that space facilitate services/programs.
discussion ensued regarding the viability of crossing rail lines depending on
the use; and impacts to neighbors from increased traffic depending on the actual
Trudgeon clarified that staff was not looking to relocate the License Center as
part of this focus, considering that an entirely different discussion. Mr.
Trudgeon further clarified, confirmed by the City Council, that he understood
his direction to be to explore potential sale of the Fairview parcel provided
other solutions can be accommodated before putting it on the market, with the
general desire expressed to include the Historical Society at a minimum in any
discussion included the pros and cons of the former Roseville Animal Hospital
property and potential cost of additional access and lack of interest in facilitating
that with the railroad to help market the property for the current owner; with
direction to staff to estimate past and potential traffic generated by the Historical
Society when they last had display space available.
stated, duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon, that the City needed an interim
plan for the Historical Society once the Hagen property was eliminated.
837 Heinel Drive
thanked the City Council and staff for recognizing the Historical Society's
plight and their repository of 150 years of museum quality items and records.
Ms. Wolfangle noted the value of that material as expressed by the Ramsey
County and Minnesota Historical Societies providing the only history of this
area, and their interest in the Roseville Historical Society staying in
noted how heartening it was to hear the City Council expressing interest in
including them in future plans; and asked that they continue to keep the
Society in mind as they moved forward. Ms. Wolfangle stated that if there was
no place for a museum or office space for records, it meant there was no
Society. Ms. Wolfangle opined that it was too important to lose this piece of
the community's history.
Laliberte suggested to City Manager Trudgeon that staff contact the State
Historical Society to determine if there were any legacy funds available to
assist with this preservation.
Dale Street Development Update
Development Director Paul Bilotta provided a brief update on the status and
progress of this project, coming before the City Council for formal action at
the next meeting, as outlined in detail in the RCA and attachments dated August
Discuss Policy Priority Planning Document
to a future agenda.
City Manager Future Agenda Review
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Laliberte expressed her lack of closure from the joint meeting with the HRA and
clear distinction of their plans moving forward, asking if her colleagues were
left with the same lack of clarify. Councilmember Laliberte questioned if all
members present were in agreement, noting that two HRA Board members were
absent and one was noticeably quiet and unresponsive at the meeting, causing
her to wonder if they were all in agreement with the new strategic plan. Also,
Councilmember Laliberte noted a lack of discussion on overlap of the existing
2012-2016 HRA Strategic Plan and how and where this new plan picked up and
those items if any that carried over into the update.
Trudgeon sought clarification if Councilmember Laliberte or any Councilmembers
anticipated information needs beyond preparation of the HRA's 2016 budget.
concluded that the council directed City Manager Trudgeon to bring response to
the concerns expressed by Councilmember Laliberte forward as part of the HRA's
preliminary budget and levy discussion.
Laliberte requested discussion at a future meeting on next steps resulting from
the statement read by Mayor Roe earlier this evening, and the City Council's response
to events across the country with Police Departments beyond equipment and
budget discussions. Councilmember Laliberte suggested policy discussions
regarding use of tasers, high speed chases, and other issues officers dealt
with on a daily basis.
questioned if the Council meeting was the best place for learning more about
various components of the job, even though it would be beneficial for the
public to learn as well, but suggested it may be more appropriate as part of a
future Roseville University offering.
Trudgeon advised that use of force and other information related to the Police
Department had been scheduled for this last session of Roseville University;
however, it had to be postponed due to the equipment borrowed from the City of
Columbia Heights' Police Department not working; assuring the City Council and
public that it would be offered in future courses.
McGehee requested a copy of Police Department policies, with City Manager
Trudgeon responding that staff is working on providing that public information
request already requested by another party.
Etten noted his attendance at classroom and driver training on emergency
procedures for the Department, and expressed his surprise in how frequently and
quickly chases were called off, and how that was determined and who was in
charge of making that determination. When training opportunities are brought
to the attention of the City Council by Chief Mathwig, Councilmember Etten
encouraged his colleagues to take advantage of those opportunities, opining he
had found them invaluable.
Trudgeon also noted the open invitation and urged individual Councilmembers to
take part in a ride along, which he had participated in and found of great
interest as well gaining a better understanding of operations. Mr. Trudgeon
reminded Councilmembers that this was true for any city department.
Mayor Roe noted
the challenge with Police Department policies and defining which fell within
the authority and role for City Council decision-making and which were of a professional
nature relying on police expertise. Mayor Roe noted the importance of involving
the community in opportunities, training, education and other areas as well,
including a larger intentional discussion about some of these issues. As he'd
originally noted in 2003, Mayor Roe expressed ongoing interest in appointing a
Public Safety Advisory Commission.
Etten moved, Laliberte
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:02 p.m.
Etten, McGehee, and Roe.