City Council Meeting Notes by JN

November 13-14, 2006

General comments: Really big turnout, plus channel 9 News recording, and channel 5. Saw a print reporter taking notes. Audience overflowed out of council chambers into the lobby/hall outside. Chatting before the meeting, it seemed like most attendees were interested in the Xcel Energy franchise tax increase issue. (This past week every Xcel customer in Maplewood received a letter from the utility explaining that the City was planning to increase their electric franchise tax by more than five times. The letter advised concerned citizens to call the city or attend the council meeting tonight.)

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Changes due to people having conflicting engagements (including Will Rossbach, who was not present and wanted committee appointments to await his return).

Additions:

M1 – update on program mayor attended re: conservation easements

M2 – update on mayor's forums

M3 – update on meeting with Congresswoman McCollum

Agenda approved as amended, all ayes.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Nothing interesting here.

VISITOR PRESENTATIONS

First up a special report vistor presentation: Labor/employment law firm (specifically Charles Bethel, City Attorney for Human Resources) reporting on collective bargaining in progress. Gives a backgrounder on the history of labor law on the federal and state level, in particular how it applies to public employees.

The presenter had a big screen that was visible to the council but not the audience. Where I sat, the one TV I might have been able to see was blocked by a TV crew, ironically.

After his assistant provided more description of the process in the past, Bethel returned to the mic to explain that now things are different because of the new bargaining unit, for the Confidential & Supervisory Employees, so that now every city employee except the city manager belongs to one bargaining unit or another.

Aside on this topic: Right before the meeting began, a blue sheet of paper was handed out. Unfortunately I can't find a digital copy on the city's website to link to, but I think it was from the last city newsletter. The point of the piece, written by Interim City Manager Greg Copeland, seems to be that the staff of Maplewood is on the upper end of the pay scale in the metro area. I tried finding the survey cited online (the MN Local Government Salary and Benefits Survey), but it is apparently only available to members of the League of Minnesota Cities. The problem with the handout is that it repeatedly talks of 13 jobs studied — out of 27 that are part of the new bargaining unit – but we aren't told why these 13 are chosen and not others. For all we can know from this data, Copeland picked the 13 above-metro-average positions to study — maybe we're exactly average if you look at the other 14, or even below average? Given a lack of information as to the criteria for the sampling of 13 jobs out of 27, it's hard to read very much into the data Copeland assembled. If his point was to be that all Maplewood employees are above average, so to speak, one would imagine that the whole set of 27 would be better suited to make that point. Otherwise, it seems probable that he choose only the above-average-pay employees out of the set. (Or maybe he was trying to pressure, embarrass or intimidate those specific employees for other reasons?)

General Visitor Presentations:

Nancy Lazaryan came up to talk. Stuff about allegations of forged deed. It took a while, but Mayor Longrie made clear that she wasn't going to discuss this matter that is the subject of ongoing litigation between the city and Ms. Lazaryan.

Another regular speaker stood up to ask why Maplewood taxes are so high, a recurrent theme of his.

Then Bill Keyser came up, on the same topic as Lazaryan. He wanted to keep talking, but eventually was removed by the police. He thought the public would demand to know answers to his questions. Everyone in the audience said “no,” and out he went.

H. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. South Maplewood Development Moratorium Ordinance (Second Reading)

Public hearing part of the process. A lot of people attending sign up to speak on the topic. After some back and forth between council and city planner, the public hearing is opened. (Apologies for butchering peoples' names.)

Jim Kerrigan: understanding from staff that a developer in Hopkins has asked for property to be exempted from moratorium, property east of 494 on Carver south side. Kerrigan thinks that the moratorium does make sense, and hopes there are no exemptions.

Mary Deivert: “here partly as a planning commissioner.” Recurring question has been: Was R1R put in because of sewer systems or issue of land use? She clarifies that half of planning commission wanted it for features, half for sewer. She seems to fall on the land use side of the question. Also thinks that if the moratorium is just south of Carver, then CoPar would take it personally. (Aren't they suing us already?)

Ron Cockerel: He's for it! People want time to bring in their concerns, he says, about the whole Fish Creek area. Asking council to support the moratorium. Says some folks want to keep their houses in the woods, and “we should find some way to protect that lifestyle.” Doesn't think we should simply delay, but take the moratorium as an opportunity to look at everything, bringing together residents, developers, etc. “We know there's gonna be development down there, but we hope it will be the right way.”

Joe Bailey: His roots run deep. Bought his land from father, who bought from grandfather, from great grandfather, and maybe one of them back there homesteaded it. I'm guessing he's for the moratorium, too. Balance development and saving resources down there. Unique landscape. Historical section of Mississippi River bluffs. Interesting artifacts — pottery, spears, bison bones from a thousand years ago — found in places where digging has been done in the area. And don't forget the mammals and bird life.

Gordon Bailey: of Bailey Nurseries — Just would like to speak in favor of the moratorium.

Bill and Sharon Sobey: With Lorne Development (?) — own property down in the area affected. Opposes moratorium. Bought land with intent to develop it. Thinks there are probably ways for “the best of both worlds to be met” without a moratorium. Thinks some exemptions should be made for people currently wanting to develop their parcels. Calls attention to the need for some higher density housing and affordable housing.

Steve Manarczyk? : He's “definitely for the moratorium.”

Karl Erb: Definitely a need for a moratorium on development west of 494 and south of Carver. Thinks it is dangerous to have housing too close to the high-speed freeway, where for example tankers of toxic materials go by.

Amy Kaiser: Just recently moved into Maplewood. Has 3¼ acres. Would like to be part of a group doing planning for the area, as she was previously in Cottage Grove.

Mark Bonitz (?): “Very much for this moratorium.” Doesn't think we should have any exceptions. “That carries an implied burden, if you will . . . if you make an exception, you've already kind of opened the door to future exceptions.”

Mark Vogel: Likes people and animals of south Maplewood. Sees people subdividing their homes in order to avoid getting “taxed out.” I think he's in favor of the moratorium, but I honestly got distracted surfing the web and wasn't listening.

Some Woman, Bailey's Wife: Says it's very complicated. Lots of things to be considered. Need to take a year to study it for historical reasons, traffic reasons, etc. And she agrees with her neighbors who have already spoken.

Look, no offense, but I'm not hearing anything new here, so I'm going to go read the news unless I hear someone speaking in opposition.

Some Developer spoke who had spoken before. Said he'd like an exemption, but otherwise would go for a variance in order to develop his land.

As many speakers extoll the virtues of having wilderness rather than peoples' yards across the road from them, I am find myself remembering a story of Pecos Bill, myth of the wild west, whose mother up and moved when she heard that a new neighbor had moved within fifteen miles of their family homestead, complaining that the neighborhood was getting too crowded.

CoPar sent a fax offering their testimony regarding the moratorium, which was added to the record (but not read aloud).

Hearing closed, council discussion ensued.

Jueneman asked about legal repercussions vis a vis people who have bought property or otherwise moved toward development. Kantrud says moratorium does not affect any development that has had preliminary approval from the city, nor does it extend the time frame for anything where the city has to respond. City planner says he there are no such properties south of Carver that have had preliminary approval or whatnot. There is one south of Highwood, has received preliminary approval but not final plat approval (so I guess it's a go regardless of this moratorium).

Hjelle motions to accept second reading of moratorium. Longrie offers friendly amendment with her second: that in section 2, under coordination of various groups, wants to include historic preservation commission and new environmental and natural resources commission to be involved in the planning process for the future. And wants to clarify objective of study to review ex—aw, look, I'm not getting it down. I think Hjelle lost it too, but he said “sure” in regard to the friendly amendments to his motion.

Jueneman asks if moratorium is always adopted for one year, or if there can be shorter periods of time. Kantrud says statute talks about extending it not limiting it, but he seemed to say it could be done for a shorter time. Jueneman asks about variances, and the process for them; Kantrud says they'd be subject to the same inquiry as any variance would.

Jueneman asks if we could lift the moratorium (if the planning process was done sooner); Kantrud thinks that would be fine. City Planner Roberts, to supplement Kantrud's remarks, thinks a section in the ordinance specifically says that completion of the studies in effect lifts the moratorium.

All four vote aye to the motion.

A five-minute break was called. A lot of people still stayed around after it, though it looks like some who were interested just in the moratorium departed.

2. Saint Paul Tourist Cabins Manufactured Home Park Closing (940 Frost Avenue)

Purpose of this is to consider financial impact on the residents. Apparently there is just one resident/manufactured home left to purchase. Developer said that a range of $750 to $10,000 were payments for the manufactured homes. Council needs to consider what should be an equitable buyout for the remaining homeowner.

Jueneman asks whether this is just about the one remaining owner or all the others. The others were all bought out with arm's length negotiations so they're done, and apparently it's just this one.

A community organizer stepped forward to talk. They work as tenant's union for manufactured home park residents. He spoke to residents moving out of the park, who told him that he was “too late,” to invite them to a public hearing. Wants to encourage the city to pass a park closing ordinance to protect people in situations like this. Jueneman explained, and Copeland concurred, that state law already covers the issue pretty well, which is why the council in the past (when only Rossbach and Jueneman of current members were on it) decided not to pass such an ordinance.

Bill Johnson, park owner, was invited to speak by the mayor. Says he's always been concerned that the residents be taken proper care of, and he thinks that with the developer they did that, working in good faith to reach satisfactory settlements. In the end only two homes in the park actually moved. Thinks that the absence of any residents to speak in the hearing is evidence of the success of their approach.

After talk among council and staff, the developer came forward, Bart Montanari, to talk about things. He says that the one guy who made complaints who was mentioned by the community organizer was the highest paid, given $10k for a home that was then demolished as soon as he moved out. He points out that none of the structures left are up to code and could be legally moved. Asks the council to move swiftly with respect to the last remaining resident. And he says the last remaining resident actually has another residence, in Princeton, Minnesota, and is just holding out for a bunch of money.

Hjelle says They don't actually own the land, right? Yep. Isn't there a provision for termination of their lease? Yes, by virtue of the notice that was given. Hjelle asks, have you offered this guy $10k? Developer says that the $10k was given to old guy with nice trailer, the holdout is in his 30's and has a good job and a less nice trailer, so he doesn't get such a sympathy premium in his offer.

Kantrud observes that if negotiations between the parties don't work out, the city council is empowered to step in and set the price for the transaction.

Mayor moves to have the staff work on putting together data and averages by the next council meeting on all of the transactions that have taken place so far.

I. CONSENT AGENDA

Copeland reads the entire list, with elaborations. Very exciting. I tremble in anticipation as he says, “This next item has a lengthy history, going back to 1984 . . .” If you REALLY care about the consent agenda, I demand that you go and download the whole freaking 297 page council meeting packet.

These items were pulled for debate or discussion:

1. Approval of Claims

Jueneman question: Check #71135 to Bethel & Associates. Asking again for an itemization of the bill, for number of hours and activities. Would really like to get it this time, please.

2. Sanitary Sewer Rates for 2007

Longrie asks about whether rates to us from the met council have increased, and staff says yes they have.

Cave asks “Why wasn't this presented during the budget? Because this is a fee, y'know, that's being charged to people and it's being put in the consent agenda.” Copeland talks about bringing revenue sources in alignment leading to ultimately a final tax rate. He says that this is driven by passing along costs from the Met Council, but Cave points out that the increase includes extra money for building a reserve as well. Copeland defends that decision, and says “you're 100% right” about this being a budgetary issue, but the budget is taking shape meeting by meeting. “Really, this is an enterprise fund when you think about it,...[it] isn't balanced and can be kept in balance by making these adjustments on an annual basis.” Jueneman steps in to point out that this is a standard procedure. Cave says this is her first budget, and she objects to it being on the consent agenda.

Hjelle: “What recourse would we ever have if we said no?” If we don't pass along the fees, we'd have to come up with the money somewhere else. Also, he doesn't like the structure of the Met Council.

Jueneman doesn't think it's a topic of debate.

Cave, after being scolded for being a newbie, motions that we approve with the caveat that council receive information on the balance of the working capital and reserve, so that they can keep track of what's going on.

3. Environmental Utility Rates for 2007

Hjelle: We've asked this question four times now, can we get a balance for this fund? Ahl says it's on the agenda. But for the meeting on the 27th. Mayor motions they table the item for next council meeting. Hjelle seconds, 3-1 vote (Jueneman votes no) for it.

7. Recreation Program Grants

I don't know what this is about, but a passel of people in front of me just said “We give up” and left.

9. Conditional Use Permit Review – Schmelz Countryside Motors (1180 Highway 36 East)

Jueneman wants to say that it's working beautifully and was worth the investment. It's moved and passed unanimously.

12. Conditional Use Permit Review – Woodlynn Ponds Townhomes (Chisholm Court, south of County Road D)

Whatever this was. Paid no attention. I'm sure everyone voted for it.

17. Desoto-Skillman Area Improvements, City Project 06-16, Authorization to Award Contract for Soil Borings and Geotechnical Evaluation Services

Mayor wants to know about process and procedure about road projects, and whether citizen meetings were helpful. Mr. Ahl says yes, they were.

19. Public Works Building Addition, City Project 03-19, Authorization to Pay for Office Equipment and Budget Adjustment.

OFFICE FURNITURE? SOMEONE PULLED OFFICE FURNITURE FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? MY GOD SOMEONE PLEASE KILL ME NOW

The time is 10:34 PM. I'm getting a little loopy.

I think Diana voted against the furniture.

21. Group Insurance Contracts

Look, I'm not really paying attention. Sue me. I think Hjelle pulled it because he is an insurance agent and so cares deeply about insurance issues. And I noticed it gave him a chance to sling criticism at the ex-HR director.

(Edit: I retrospect, I see Hjelle was trying to heap advance praise on Copeland, as a prelude to naming him manager permanently.)

J. AWARD OF BIDS

1. Sanitary Sewer Pipe Television Inspection Equipment

Underground sanitary sewer televising equipment. I hope it's HD-TV, but I'll settle for regular cable access broadcast. Heck, they could just play live sewer-cam during the breaks in city council meetings.

Apparently we're going to rent out the video broadcasts of the storm sewers, too. (Darn -- that's probably why it's not available free via webcast or cable access — it would eat into the money from the paying subscribers.)

I don't know what this costs, but I am sure that no price could be too high. Longrie is interested in buying used equipment. Ewwwwww.

Apparently we currently spend $70k to $80k per year right now on the sewer-cams.

I swear, I'm tired, but I'm not hallucinating.

2. Outfield Fence Replacement

Going from 5-foot to 10-foot fences, improving health and safety. Jueneman moves staff rec, Cave seconds, all vote aye.

3. Maplewood Community Center Liquor Provider

Additional caterers have been added, and that has increased business for events at the center. While they re-bid food to allow additional food vendors, they are only having one liquor caterer in this rebidding process. Motion, second, carried unanimously.

K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1. Adoption of Electric Franchise Tax Rates for 2007 Xcel Energy Service Area

City negotiated with Xcel and reduced the proposed revenue from $1.15 million to $1 million. Copeland talks about this as a way to reduce property taxes by taking money from otherwise untaxed entities (nonprofits, etc.). Copeland says they originally asked for a percentage rate (which among other things would encourage conservation), but Xcel would not provide a percentage rate based on usage any longer. (Some other metro cities have that arrangement at present.)

Something I noticed: At the last meeting, much was made of how the rates are disproportionate between residential and commercial, in terms of how much energy was consumed versus how much of the fee was paid. It was implied, at least, that the new rates would make the commercial/industrial meters pay a proportion of the total fees collected more in line with the proportion of energy used by those sectors. However, I see that the new proposal is simply a 5.4X increase for all the categories.

My relevant notes from last meeting: Copeland: 14,786 residential meters in Maplewood, only use about 23% of the kW running through all meters. Small commercial/industrial customers, large com/ind, in three different classes account for 76%+ of energy flowing through meters. “To levy on the basis of number of meters seems to beg the question.” Thinks it would be fair to have $2 for residential, points out that St Paul got a $1.50 increase plus some kind of 2% annual surcharge OK'd by Xcel.

Hjelle wants Colette Jurek, the Xcel rep, to come in and talk. OK, actually to stand there and listen. Hjelle wants to grandstand a bit, by talking about how the city has expenses related to utility issues, but the company doesn't pay for it. Jurek points out that Xcel is the largest property tax payer in the state of Minnesota, and in fact pays property taxes on all of its facilities (substations, etc.) in the city of Maplewood. He continues to rant about how much the city spends on services related to Xcel, and someone in the audience yells “Irrelevant!”

Jueneman says: This conversation was attempted to be started in June, but Xcel procrastinated repeatedly (software issues, yadda yadda), and then a supposed time crunch. She is upset about how it was presented to the public, and says that suggestions on things to include in the letter were not included. Very upset.

Citizen comment ensues (again, my apologies for lousy transcription of peoples' names):

William O'??: Two council members addressed Xcel, thinks Jueneman was appropriate, Erik Hjelle did not live up to the standards of meetings. “I found him abusive, and I found myself embarassed to have him as a representative of my city.”

Teresa Manzella: As a note of housekeeping, she thinks it would be considerate of the council when they know that there will be significant public input, they should place it on the agenda so that it comes before 11:30 at night. Next: She believes we owe a debt of gratitude to Colette for sending out the letter. “It we hadn't come tonight, it was going to be a done deal when you put it in the newsletter.” Found the letter to be completely factual, nothing inflammatory. Is interested in Mr. Copeland's spin about how it was a reduction in property taxes. “In fact, it is a reduction in the planned increase in property taxes.” It's “false spin,” “highly disingenuous,” to present this as a “net tax reduction.” Is dubious of the shifting rationales for the fee increase. Opposes any increase in anything she pays to cover the operations of the Maplewood Community Center, which her family can't afford to belong to. Observes that as a property tax, she could itemize it on her federal income tax; but as a fee, she cannot. Calls the approach “unethical.” Audience applauds.

John Delors (?), of Arcade: First, thanks Xcel. As att'y, “found nothing inflammatory in it, . . . fact based.” “Frankly, I would not know about any of this had Xcel not sent this letter.” Felt like Alice in Wonderland, reading Copeland's explanation, at the shifting of the revenues. People with the modest homes are not given any kind of savings at all, as opposed to the people in the $400k and $300k homes. As a business owner, sat down and looked at proposed tax for small commercial and industrial. “Quite frankly, I'd be disinclined to bring my office here.” Urges that council not adopt this.

Longrie wanted to clarify that the money had to be dedicated to the specific things in the ordinance (energy-related), and then clarify that the property tax rate was staying the same, so increases citizens are seeing in their property taxes are due to property appreciation, not an increased tax rate. Says “this council” and manager had to come in to “take control” of the budget.

Mary Boyd: She is no apologist for Xcel energy, but in their defense “most people would probably notice that their utility bills went up before they noticed something they got from the city.” Talks about newsletter often arriving after the dates of items mentioned as upcoming events, and thinks it would have been the same case here. Questions: Where do non-profits fall in the chart? (in terms of how much they'll be paying in taxes); city manager doesn't really know. Boyd suggests the increase could be phased in over time, perhaps.

Edward Kibble: Opposed to it. Doesn't have problems with industry paying its fair share, but the idea of schools and churches being exempt, he doesn't accept. If the schools and churches are exempt, wouldn't that raise our taxes anyway?

Woman Whose Name I Missed: Feels bad for Xcel rep being attacked, it was embarassing. Has a question about chart with communities. Where does Maplewood stand? Currently Maplewood stands at bottom with 50 cents; increase would put us at other end of the spectrum with a few above us (paying $3+ per house), says Copeland. Wanted $2 originally, he says.

Bernard Timony ??: Additional tax being put on taxpayers of this city, putting it on the back of the electric user. Mayor asks if he has ideas, any other areas that could be cut. Man suggests that salary increases being considered are totally out of line. (I wonder if he could be confused by the misleading handout. It listed the salaries of those 13 people now and next year; however, if you read the fine print, the last-year figure is salary only, but the 2007 figure is salary + benefits – making it look at first glance as though these city staffers are getting really enormous pay increases.)

Elaine Ridge: ? Has been in her house 52 years. “You all have a champagne appetite, but what about the pocketbook deal? I think you're going a little bit overboard.” Found solution: Every week buy a lottery ticket! Then you'll get a million if you pray and keep trying.

William Robins: Flat taxes are extremely regressive. This is not a flat-rate tax, but a flat tax — a head tax. Taxes might be collected with some degree of fairness. A fixed tax for every meter doesn't provide any incentives for energy conservation. Decision dominated by Xcel's corporate decision not allow municipalities to apply proportional tax (though they grandfather some cities in). This is a tax policy that should be made by a public entity, not a corporate entity. Suggests that council might take action, either through league of cities or through PUC to request one of the other formats.

Elizabeth Olson: One question. Increases are across the board – but yet, if you have a less expensive house, you're not getting the same tax break as an expensive house!

John Nephew: I got up to speak, so I missed out on taking notes on my own blathering. And the Xcel rep's answers. And the guy who then was talking after me. Sorry. Hard to type and speechify at the same time. (You can read my letter to Xcel to get the gist of my comments, or at least what I intended to say.)

A Woman Asks: What's the extra money that can be gained from this? It doesn't appear to be equitable. If this is a pass-through fee, why should Xcel set what you are going to collect?

Brad ???: From The Rock nightclub, coming from business standpoint. Looks at it in a different way. Disagreeing with fee increase, partly because their business leases its building, so by the proposed way of doing it with property taxes, the landlord gets the lower taxes while he takes the Xcel bill – just like residential renters. Concerned about other fees coming through in the future – already pays over $13k in fees each year. “In addition to this, it's a financial burden.” Other piece is talking about community center, and its fees; where's that money going?

Something Robbins?: Wasn't the Maplewood Community Center to be self-supporting? Then what is the $224k included in this tax to pay for Community Center heating?

There was a moment of clarity as it seems that the Xcel rep is saying that a counteroffer could be entertained, perhaps with some kind of more proportional or equitable arrangement. Talk back and forth – sounds like maybe they'll talk more with Xcel, and see if they can push for something.

As this was being discussed back and forth, it looked like most of the people were leaving. I missed a lot of stuff.

One questioner: It's clear that this will not be a one-year tax; can the residents expect to see a reduction in property taxes each year that the tax is in effect? Longrie: Good question, says she'd like it to happen, but is not sure how to make it happen.

Mindy Macronel: Doesn't see a lot of improvements going on, in terms of street lighting etc. Wants to know how to attain budgetary info, so she can make some suggestions about where money can be saved and whatnot, as the mayor has asked several times. Mayor says that with name and address, the city can send the proposed budget. Hjelle says that some of it is on the website. They talk about how to get her the info. Agrees with Erik that Xcel doesn't hold up their end — she's had trees leaning on her power lines for years, which Xcel hasn't cleared.

Jueneman: Reminds us of fiscal disparities, messing up Maplewood's budget by taking money from us and giving it to neighbors.

Mayor moves that we table adoption of tax rates for Xcel, pending staff going back to Xcel to try to negotiate a proportionate tax rate consistent with the discussions we've had this evening. Hjelle seconds. Jueneman question: Timeline? Copeland: We need to get on it right away. Kantrud: If we engage in discussions rather than adopting this schedule, that would require another 60 day notice period. Talked with Colette of Xcel about timetable, trying to do it ASAP, so it can come up at the next meeting. Mayor incorporates timing (negotiations in week of Nov. 20^th) in her motion. All vote aye.

At this point I walked out in the hallway, and talked with some fellow citizens for a while.

L. NEW BUSINESS

1. Century Avenue Improvements (I-94 to Lake Road), City Project 03-15, Ramsey County Review of Project Details

I missed this.

2. First Reading of Ordinance Adopting an Electric Franchise Tax in the No. St. Paul Utilities Service Area-Report to Follow

Two ordinances: one about franchise fee generally, next about specifics. Change necessary due to Xcel (to make it apply to any company, not just Xcel; apparently some energy is provided by North St Paul, for example, so this will apply the same terms to them.). Kantrud suggests pulling the specific rates out, in order to get the changes on the books.

Votes all ayes to remove the rate specifics.

3. Approve New Assessment Rates for 2007 Improvement Projects

Public Works Director Chuck Ahl says they want to put projects together so that assessments cover a certain percentage of construction costs (30%-50% was the old target), but it's down to just 27% because of the rapid inflation of materials costs, etc. (such as bituminous, rising with crude oil). Proposing 10% instead of 3% for the increase of assessments, to try and bring the percentages back in line. Likely to see similar increase next year. Council has some concerns about such a big increase; back and forth about impact on budget, debt load and debt servicing costs, etc.

Jueneman moves staff recommendation. Silence ensues. Lack of a second, apparently. Hjelle asks, if a lower amount is set, what is the impact on the projects? Ahl: Only impact is looking at debt service for more of the expenditures and that may change the projects. Longrie: Wants more numbers to consider, to figure out impact on property tax levy if they go with a lower increase on assessments.

Council looks very, very tired. It's now 1:37 AM. The poor overnight cameraman of Channel 5 is stuck waiting around — presumably to get comment from councilpersons after the meeting adjourns.

Hjelle is upset about paying taxes in southern Maplewood to pay for services up in the north. Hjelle says they get twice the services in northern Maplewood, so he's concerned about paying more taxes for improvements up here. Also, he has a 25-minute drive to get to city hall. Jueneman points out that this is why increasing the assessments makes sense — putting less weight on the general obligations of the city.

I'm not sure, but I think Hjelle is arguing that ALL street expenses should be borne by assessments. Mayor Longrie wants more info, which will delay things; Ahl says that it would put meetings off into January. I'm not sure why Hjelle didn't second the 10% motion, since that seems as far as it would go in the direction he philosophically wants. (Did I mention that the council looks very tired?)

Hjelle: If we vote on this, can we change it later on? Ahl: Absolutely. Assessment hearings won't occur until April, at which point final rates can be tweaked.

Jueneman moves staff rec again, this time Erik seconds. Cave goes first, voting Aye; Longrie votes Nay; Jueneman, Aye; Hjelle, Aye.

4. Selection of Firm to Coordinate the City Manager Hiring Process

Cave wants to remove PDI, who have the low bid, because of who they selected (the former city manager, Fursman) the last time the city hired them. Jueneman thinks highly of PDI because of their experience with government hiring. She talks at length about the importance of the process, and how well PDI did that.

Longrie suggests weeding out the high bid, and also PDI because again of them bringing Fursman to the city.

Hjelle wishes to offer an “off-topic motion”: Says there's a problem with staff having to justify their jobs to taxpayers. Doesn't support paying above-average salaries to union supervisors. I think he's going to nominate Copeland as permanent manager, since he seems to be saying things are going great and he wants more of this. “Certain city employees” are the problem, spreading rumors and fear. Yep, indeed, he motions to hire Copeland as full-fledged City Manager for a 1 year probational position, starting tomorrow, etc.

Jueneman thinks it's inappropriate to do it at this hour, and with only 4 of 5 present on the council.

Cave seconds.

Longrie says there is validity to having the process. On the other hand, we've had opportunity to see if Copeland can do the job. Thinks staff people are happy and satisfied with Copeland.

Yowza. Longrie voted aye, so they're doing it. Copeland is no longer “interim.”

M. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS

To reiterate, what Longrie brought up before:

M1 – update on program mayor attended re: conservation easements

M2 – update on mayor's forums

M3 – update on meeting with Congresswoman McCollum

N. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS

Copeland thanks the council for the job.

Jueneman expresses displeasure with the council's attitude against the staff, such as the listing of staff salaries in the latest city newsletter. “After tonight, God knows why they'd want to continue,” being treated this way. Calls it “repulsive” and “embarassing.”

O. ADJOURNMENT

And the latest Maplewood Death March is over at last. Time: 2:14 AM.