Fire Station Litigation Over, Construction Start Expected Soon
The state Supreme Court declined to hear the petition brought against the City by Responsible Governance for Roseville, the city reported.
Photos
The litigation over the proposed new Roseville fire station is over.
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to hear the petition brought against the City by Responsible Governance for Roseville (RGR), a citizen group that opposed the funding mechanism used by the City to purchase the bonds, officials said Wednesday in the latest weekly Roseville city update. "That means the City can begin work as soon as bids are awarded."
The city it expects construction to begin in about a month.
“The City hopes to begin construction as soon as possible,” said Fire Chief Timothy O’Neill. “The delays have cost us time and money, and we are so glad to have this behind us.”
The following is the city's news release:
"In 2010, the City Council authorized a citizen committee to research Roseville’s fire stations, fire response and operations and to make recommendations on ways to improve services. The citizen committee recommended demolishing Fire Station #1 and building a new fire station.
At the same time, the Parks and Recreation Department was working with a citizen driven Master Plan Renewal Program. The citizen committee recommended repairing and replacing aging park playground equipment, pathways and other amenities.
In November 2011, the City Council authorized the City to use its Port Authority powers to issue $10 million worth of bonds to implement the recommendations of the community and to fund construction of a new fire station and to repair and replace park amenities.
RGR filed suit in District Court arguing that the project be subject to a referendum. When the District Court sided with the City, RGR then appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and ultimately to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
“Many people in the community have been working hard for several years to get this implemented, and many others have been supportive along the way. I am especially pleased that the community will, at last, benefit from these important infrastructure improvements,” said Roseville Mayor Dan Roe.
“I am sure that today we have some happy firefighters and parks and recreation folks who can finally see their much needed and long delayed fire station and park rehabilitation projects get started,” Roe added.
On his Facebook page today (Wednesday), Roe said, "It was a great day for responsible governance in Roseville yesterday when the Minnesota Supreme Court ended the litigation against the bonding for our badly needed new fire station and park rehabilitation projects!"
To keep up with Roseville news, sign up for the Roseville Patch newsletter.
Like Roseville Patch on Facebook!
Express yourself: Leave a comment below or start a blog!
John Kysylyczyn
9:50 pm on Wednesday, July 18, 2012
It is unfortunate that Roe continues to try to ride the support the firefighters have in the community by invoking their cause, and then using that against a group of citizens who felt that his Port Authority funding plan was a scam.
Roe knows full well that if he wanted to build a fire station for the community, the city had enough cash in the bank to build not one new fire station, but three.
Had Roe shown some mayoral leadership, the fire station would have had a groundbreaking this week. Instead we are now starting a project that will cost hundreds of thousands of more than it should have.
As Roe said at a meeting, this process was all about how the city could figure out a way to borrow millions and get around the normal voter approval requirements. So he calls Roseville a "Port" and claims that "Ports" need parks and fire stations. He borrows millions using a loophole in state law, bypassing the people. He is the first mayor in the history of the city who has done this. That isn't leadership. That is a coward's way out.
Dan Roe
12:47 am on Thursday, July 19, 2012
The source of the idea to save time and taxpayer money by using non-referendum bonding was the grass-roots citizen advisory groups. I believe that, in this specific circumstance of historical low interest and construction costs, and specific to these overdue and necessary replacement and refurbishment projects, the citizens' suggestion was prudent, and so I supported it. I point this out not to deflect criticism from myself, but to give credit to the grass-roots source of the idea.
Roseville obtained "port authority" powers before I even moved here. As the former mayor knows, several other cities around the state that are equally landlocked have been given the same authority to use the redevelopment tools associated with having port authority powers, including the ability to issue bonds in certain circumstances without a referendum. The courts have upheld the city's position in that regard.
It would be foolish to use the City's cash reserves to pay for this new fire station because that money would have to be taken away from the purposes for which it is already intended - replacing fire trucks and building roofs and streets, among other purposes - all of which have become under-funded over the years. That approach would just dig the city's infrastructure funding hole even deeper.
i don't believe there was any doubt on the council that a referendum would pass. The point was to act quickly for best financial benefit to the taxpayers on needed projects.
Dan
9:13 am on Thursday, July 19, 2012
Dan Roe > John K.
roger b hess jr
10:41 am on Thursday, July 19, 2012
yes, many times there is a legal way to do something, but it isn't always the most moral or ethical way to do it. nothing could be built last year, so there wasn't any reason we could not have had a vote last fall, leaving enough time to issue the first $10 million in bonds last year, and then have started building this past spring.
in my opinion, the reason the council chose the method they chose was because the community would most certainly have voted for the fire station, but passing the parks and rec bonds was not a given. if the two bond issues had been combined into one question on the ballot, the fire station may not have been funded, because enough people may not have supported the parks and rec bonding. if the two bond issues were voted on separately, the fire station would have passed but not necessarily the parks and rec bonding, and it seems like the council wanted to get the parks and rec improvements out of the general budget and into a bonding budget.
Tony Nickelsen
1:03 pm on Thursday, July 19, 2012
Why does Mayor Roe always assume that the referendum vote for the fire station would have been just a "formality" and that the residence of Roseville would have just rubber-stamped it in without thinking twice about the cost ($8 million) to build it. If in fact, we do have the reserves in the city coffers, why aren't we using those funds to build it! Isn't that what they are there for? Also, just because you have a certain group of citizens working on certain committees doesn't give the green light to have them approved without citizens votes on referendum. Or, were you afraid they'd be shot down. Ridiculous comment, Mayor!!!