the city council has no one to blame but themselves for the delay in constructing the fire station and the parks improvements. for some reason council members did not want to put in some effort lobbying for this bond issue and placing it on the ballot for a citizen's vote last fall or they did not trust the citizens to vote for the bond issue, as the citizens did for the original construction of the city hall, it's expansion, and many other city bond issues.

if the council would have put it to a citizen's vote last fall, and the issue passed, as other bond issues have done, construction could be going on right now. because the council chose such a questionable route to approve the bond issue, it opened up the possibility of a small group delaying and maybe even cancelling the bond issue.

because the city council chose such a distastful method, the council has alienated many residents, and the chances of this bond issue being passed by a citizen's vote is no longer a given, as it would have been last fall.

Well said Roger!

It's frustrating to me that this group and anyone who supports their efforts care so little about their firefighters that they want them to continue to work in stations that are contaminated with mildew and are unsafe. These are stations that the tax-payers never paid for in the first place because they were funded by grants or were gifted to the city. This is the first time the citizens have been required to pay for anything like this. This group should find something better to do than look for ways to show their lack of appreciation for the men and women who serve them. Shame on them. And I hope the city/fire dept. is successful when they countersue this group.

A. Gutierrez, I think your frustration is misplaced. The city has the cash, $20,000,000 sitting in the bank. That is beyond what the city needs for regular cash flow. They could build that fire station tomorrow. In fact, they could build two of them.

Part two of the project I put forward in 2002 would have built a fire station at the property located behind the library around 2006.

I got part 1 built with the support of the voters back in 2002. After Fire staff was moved back into city hall, the next phase was to tear down #1 and deal with the other fire facilities. We did a study in 2000 which called for building one large station. The location was to be at the vacant property behind the library. I left office in 2004.

From 2004 through today, the city has had the cash to build that fire station. They did nothing. They have had the ability to put it on the ballot every year. They did nothing.

They have the cash to build it today. They do nothing.

So what does our council do? They invent this funding scheme to borrow money they don't need by claiming that the city is a port and that a port needs new fire stations and parks and therefore they borrow millions without a referendum.

Did you vote for our current council? If so, then you are to blame. Don't blame the rest of us who oppose the games our current council is playing.

If your issue is with city council, I suggest you take it up with them in a way that doesn't affect the firefighters. Talk about misplaced frustration.

Well said Roger and John! Mr. Gutierrez, this not wanting to build the new fire station because of the lack of caring for their health is furthest from the truth! I've known many family & friends over the years who have been Roseville Fireman and so if I knew that their was a mold & mildew problem in those stations, I would have pushed hard for the city to get someone in their to clean it up!

In this case, it's not about whether we should or shouldn't have a new fire station built, (I'm in favor of the project) I just wished we as taxpayers had a say in it through a referendum vote. I'm also in favor of the P & R improvements too! Again, it would have been nice to vote on it instead of using the little known and ever used, Port Authority to get it done.

The fire department supporters should also vent their frustration with the parks supporters. The fire department was used in order to get the money for the parks. It is no secret around the council chamber that a fire department referendum would pass with 60-70% of the vote. It is also no secret that the parks referendum most likely would have failed. Their survey showed no support for a $20 million dollar referendum.

So the council packaged them together in one deal. Then they said that they didn't have enough money to do them cash, which is true. The city doesn't have $30 million sitting around, only about $17 million to be exact. They figured that voters would not approve $30 million and the tax increase that would come with it.

So this is how they justified the Port Authority scam.

Bottom line is that the popularity of the fire department was used by the parks supporters.

The citizens opposed to the port authority scam made their intentions clear before the council took any action on this. The statements made at the public hearing were loud and clear. The council on a 3-2 vote acted anyways.

I think what we all need to realize is that we vote these people in to office to represent us, sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. The idea is that THEY vote to pass whatever actions they take as a council...nothing would ever get done in an efficient and timely manner if the citizens had to vote every issue. I suggest that you vote wisely when electing officials and take the time to learn what they stand for. In the meantime, this ridiculous action is costing all of the taxpayers of the city even more money trying to prove the point of a small group of citizens. With one station torn down, the other two in disrepair with mold issues and not enough room to house the needed equipment and staff, a new station is going to happen...the only question left to decide is how much you want to end up paying for it. There are a few basic responsibilities of government, one of which is public safety, let's please be responsible and responsive to the needs of this fine city.

Tom, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. We elect people to make decisions. Nothing would get done if everything was put to a public vote.

What you are missing is that we expect our elected officials to conduct themselves in an honest, ethical,and legal manner. I want to be clear, agreeing or disagreeing with them has nothing to do with honesty and ethics. This is beyond that.

It is a fact that the council had three ways in which to fund the fire station project. That is based upon the League of Minnesota Cities handbook, past practice, general practices of cities, etc.

First is to have a referendum. Second is to issue capitol improvement bonds subject to a reverse referendum. Third is to pay cash through general tax revenues. All three options are used all the time to pay for these kind of projects.

What the council did is use a tactic that is dishonest, unethical, and quite possibly illegal. They twisted economic development statutes designed to deal with problems like Twin Lakes into a use that was never imagined by anyone at the legislature.

Tom, they declared the entire city to be a "port". Then they stated that the "port" needs new fire stations and parks. Then they declared the fire station and park system as"blighted" and in need of economic development. Then they used a statute which allows borrowing without a referendum for port improvements and applied that to the fire station and the park system.

No one ever imagined that anyone on any city council would invent a scheme like this. When this was brought before the tax committee, legislators of both parties were shaking their heads. The local government lobbyists were dumbfounded. They couldn't believe it.

Tom, you need to read the memo supporting this action. It is downright frightening. This gives any city council the green light to borrow an unlimited amount of money with no referendum and then leave office, leaving the taxpayers with the 20 year bill. Yes, the council could borrow a hundred million to build the vikings stadium in Twin Lakes. Don't laugh. The city manager's draft plan calls for the city borrowing 100 million to fund the park system and build an endowment. This port authority scam could easily be used to do this.

If you read the documentation, you would not call this a "ridiculous action".

The council cost the taxpayers on this one. The citizens spoke clearly. The council could have built that station with cash anytime in the last 8 years.

Tom, why didn't the council build that station in the last 8 years? It made me sick to see firefighters pat Dan Roe on the back that night. I thought to myself how foolish they were to think of him as the hero. They didn't know he sat on the cash for 6 years and did nothing.

Why don't you ask your responsible city council members at the next council meeting the following question, "Why don't you build the new station with cash right now?"

Chris Miller said that there is $17 million in the bank, excluding funds that are needed for meeting the state auditor's guidelines for cash flow.

The fire station will only cost $8 million? What is the problem?

Tom, why doesn't anyone in the fire department publicly ask this question?

Why do the firefighters just choose to tear down the citizens in the community for challenging this gross overreach of power with this port authority scam. Why are the firefighters against the people when then have no logical reason to be against them?

I don't think it is the responsibility of the fire fighters to worry about where the money is coming from. They have voiced their need for a new station to the city council and it is the city council's job to figure out how it will be funded. If people don't like the city council's choices, then by all means, don't re-elect those members. But to block progress at the added cost of millions is irresponsible and foolish. Hopefully people can just stop playing games and build the station before it becomes like the Stillwater bridge.

The council has the cash to build it today. How is that blocking progress?

No one is stopping the council from building the fire station. Citizens are only blocking the council from borrowing money. Citizens are not stopping the council from building it with cash.

Who exactly is being foolish? The council chose to borrow instead of use cash. They created the situation they are now in. Unlike the Stillwater bridge which required congressional action to build, the council had full freedom to build anytime from 8 years ago to today.

What do we gain by making an example of this? When the judge passes this anyways, cause he will, we have halted progress and still paid out the money. Make the example on the council not the FD.

One huge gain that was made by making an example out of this, win or lose, is that we got the legislature's attention. Had citizens put their head in the sand, no one down at the capitol would have had a clue what was going on.

Had there been more time this session, I am confident that this issue would have been permanently addressed in the omnibus tax bill. But typically abuses like this take a few sessions to get corrected.

Recall that Roseville became the poster child for TIF abuse in the 1980's and early 90's, using economic development dollars for things like ice rinks. Also creating phony tax districts like Rosedale Dayton's. Because Roseville citizens brought the issue forward, the legislature finally closed the loophole back in 1995.

The example is being made on the council. The fire department wasn't even mentioned in legislative committee. Hopefully this council's abuses will lead to legislative changes which will benefit citizens throughout the state.

So we gained attention. I'm glad that will help pay for this and fix our election problems.

the people who filed the lawsuit are just exercising their constitutional rights. no one should ever complain that someone is doing that. some day, you might find yourself in the same position and you would not want others to complain that you are seeking relief through the court system.

when the city council chose the path they chose, they knew a lawsuit was a very real possibility.

I'm not complaining about rights and neither are the others on here. Most here are probably firefighters who care to have a new home, which is understandable. I don't like how they got rolled up with parks and rec. but there are many ways to make examples of people or in this case council actions. I've read a lot of the past brought up but that wasn't the current council and has little to do with this situation other then being able to compare the two. What is sad is that just to make an example here effects a group of people who buy out their own time to help all. Whether you're against what the council did or with them, firefighters will help both sides in their time of need. This example hurts the ones who care most. Shame on the council and shame on this group.

Dan, check your history. Some of the people that have sat on their hands for the past 8 years are the same people sitting there today!!! You make it sound like we have five new people sitting up there and that simply isn't true.

Shame on the citizens who are challenging this scam port authority financing? Huh? I just have to shake my head...

If you are a firefighter and didn't want to be rolled into the parks deal, then why didn't you speak up? Why aren't you there at every meeting telling them to build it with cash?

Lobbying is what gets things done, not sticking your head in the sand.

If I'm right 8 years goes back to 2004, you're bringing up things from 1995 and back. I'll have to review my history, but you check your math. I don't deny lobbying has it's place. When it comes at the cost of healthy living conditions for our public safety staff it's not right.

The 1995 comment has to do with TIF (Tax Increment Financing) which I only referenced as an example of how lobbying at the legislature produces results.

Yes I am referring to 2004 to the present. I presented the proposal to the council to build the public safety building, public works building addition, and move everything out of Fire #1 and into City Hall back in March of 2002. It was approved by the voters in the fall of 2002. Building started in 2003. Finished in 2004. No employees in #1 anymore.

What was supposed to happen next was a new fire station was to be built on the property behind the library by about 2006 or 2007. The report showing that as the preferred location was completed during my term. Once finished, then the equipment being stored at #1 would get moved to the new facility and Fire #1 would be torn down and more parking added to City Hall. Then #2 gets sold. Then #3 gets sold or is kept for storage.

So what did the council do from 2004-2011? Nothing. Now they claim there is a crisis? So they have to use some sort of scam financing? The crisis was created by inaction of the council. The council member who claimed at the meeting last fall that there was a crisis, sat on the council during most of this time period.

we have to remember, too, that city staff is to blame for the poor state of the current fire station buildings on dale st. and fairview ave. because of neglect and lack of proper maintenance, these buildings, which are built of concrete blocks and should last for well over 100 years, have had a much shorter life span.

when our family built a concrete addition to our building in 1986, not much of a different timeframe than when those two fire stations were built, the construction workers told me that with proper maintenance, a concrete block building could last well over 1,000 years!

for some reason the city did not properly maintain the fire stations over the years, allowing leaky roofs and basements to promote the growth of mold and to damage areas of those buildings.

since there is plenty of room surrounding the dale st. location, if the city had properly maintained it, i believe it could have been expanded to meet current and future needs of the department, at a fraction of what the new station is going to cost. especially since the land to the south of that location is for sale at this time, at a very reasonable price. it sounds like the HRA wants to buy that land anyway, to combine it with the fire station land for a large development.

Roger and Tony -

Maybe you should learn the facts of how the Roseville Fire stations were built and why expansion or remodeling of the current stations was not a viable option. On the surface that may have seemed like a good idea. However there are serious issues with both stations due to the way they were built many years ago and the land that surrounds them. Your statements make it seem like these options weren't explored but they were.

You can read the facts of the study here: http://www.cityofroseville.com/index.aspx?nid=2105

Hopefully once you are educated on the facts you will understand why the decisions were made the way they were. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however you shouldn't make inaccurate statements like "we have room at both of those stations for expansion" and "it could have been expanded to meet current and future needs of the department, at a fraction of what the new station is going to cost."

I won't be as harsh on Roger and Tony as Kevin was, but there were problems with expanding Fire 2 and/or 3.

Fire 2 is pretty much inaccessible from the day after Thanksgiving to the day after Christmas. That is six weeks. When it was built, Rosedale was there, but none of that other mall development was there. Traffic has probably increased 5 fold since then. It just doesn't work.

Fire 3 is a tough place to substantially increase in size due to it being in a residential neighborhood.

Technology has increased substantially in the fire services. Trucks are larger, carry more different types of equipment, and there is a strong argument for building new because it may actually be cheaper than retrofitting.

The sad part of this story is that the station was supposed to be on the north side of the library. One station to serve the entire city, on a county road, next to a state freeway, with only residential behind it. Perfect location, empty land. You couldn't ask for more. It will always upset me that the council sat on its hands and did nothing. The library didn't take that land until years later.

The study did address the issue of one vs. multiple fire stations. If you are going to have staff on duty 24/7, then that is where it made sense to build one station in the center of town.

The study showed that calls during the day came from the commercial side of the city and from the residential side in the evening.

Not only do you have cost of building, but you also have cost of equipment. It is getting to the point that you might stick with one station with 24/7 staffing because you can't afford to buy multiple $100,000 trucks.