View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

April 18, 2011


1.         Roll Call

Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 pm and welcomed everyone.  (Voting and Seating Order for April: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe).  City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi was also present.

2.         Approve Agenda

Staff requested removal of Consent Item 7.g entitled, “Adopt a Resolution Approving Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit as a CONDITINOAL USE at 3091 Fairview Avenue;” noting that a revised resolution had been drafted for their consideration.  Councilmember Willmus noted that he had separate concerns related to this item as well, and wished to remove it for discussion purposes.


Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.  

3.         Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. 


a.            Richard Lambert, 800 Brenner Avenue

Mr. Lambert requested a City Council resolution of support related to proposed Xcel Energy rate increase, given the ongoing inconsistencies and interruptions in the power supply at his home, the neighborhood, and in the Roseville community over a number of years.  Mr. Lambert reviewed some of that history, and submitted a copy of his report to staff for the record, attached hereto and made a part hereof.  Mr. Lambert suggested several conditions to be met as part of any rate increase consideration.


Mayor Roe noted that a goal in the Comprehensive Plan Utilities Chapter had been for the City to work with private utilities to ensure Roseville residents had a high quality of reliable services, and included consulting with adjoining municipalities in assuring delivery of those services.


Councilmember McGehee noted her difficulty in accessing rate information on Xcel Energy’s website compared to other utility providers.


Mr. Lambert noted recent inaccuracies in Xcel Energy utility locations as experienced by one of his neighbors during a sewer line problem, as well as gross errors in Xcel’s information on transformers and other lines and equipment under their control. 


Councilmember Pust suggested that the City Council charge the City’s Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission with a review of Mr. Lambert’s concerns, as well as other issues discussed, for their recommendation back to the City Council.

4.         Council Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced ongoing discussions related to the “Beyond the Yellow Ribbon” community initiative, and an upcoming meeting to be held at the Roseville Skating Center on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 7:00 pm. 


Mayor Roe announced an invitation to Roseville Citizens from the City of Falcon Heights’ Human Rights Commission for a “Spring Together” event scheduled on Thursday, May 5, 2011 at Curtis Field in Falcon Heights from 6:00 – 8:00 pm; free to the public, to learn more about the Somali culture, with activities for all ages.


Councilmember Johnson, with Councilmember consensus, wished Councilmember Pust a “Happy Birthday” today.


Mayor Roe thanked those attending and participating in the recently-held Ethics Training.

5.         Recognitions, Donations, Communications

6.         Approve Minutes

a.            Approve Minutes of April 11, 2011  Meeting

Comments and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by the City Council prior to tonight’s meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet.


Willmus moved, Pust seconded, approval of the minutes of the April 11, 2011 meeting as presented.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.

7.         Approve Consent Agenda

There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted.  At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda.


a.            Approve Payments

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented.         

ACH Payments


62129 – 62203





Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.


b.            Receive Performance Measures Update

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of the periodic update of City Performance Measures as presented and as detailed in the RCA dated April 18, 2011.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.


c.            Adopt Budget Work Plan

Mayor Roe noted that discussion on priorities was moved from April 11 to tonight’s meeting, and that the draft presented should be revised accordingly.


Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the 2012/13 Budget Work Plan (revised DRAFT – 4/12/11) as presented, with additional date corrections as noted by Mayor Roe.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.


d.            Accept Ramsey County Emergency Management Homeland Security (RCEMHS) Grant for Radio Equipment

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, acceptance by the Roseville Police Department and East Metro SWAT, of the grant award funds for radio equipment from Ramsey County Emergency Management / Homeland Security (RCEMHS) in the amount of $30,000.

Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.


e.            Accept $6,000 Donation from St. Paul K-9 Foundation

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, acceptance by the Roseville Police Department of donations in the amount of $6,000 from the St. Paul K-9 Foundation to cover a portion of the purchase and training of a K-9.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.


f.             Approve Appointments to the Variance Board

Councilmember Willmus noted an error in the date on the proposed appointments.


Mayor Roe noted the need to change the title to the “Variance Board,” not the “Board of Zoning Adjustments and Appeals.


Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, ratification of the selection of Roseville Planning Commissioners John Gisselquist, Michael Boguszewski, Peter Strohmeier, and Jeff Lester as Variance Board members appointed to serve from May 4, 2011 to April 5, 2012.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.


h.            Adopt a Resolution Renewing Five-Year Approval of INTERIM USE for Ramsey County Hazardous Waste Facility at the Kent Street location

          Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10890 (Attachment E) entitled, “A Resolution Approving a Five (5) Year Extension to Ramsey County’s Existing Household Hazardous Waste Collection Site as an INTERIM USE in Accordance with Roseville City Code, Section 1009.03 (PF3663).”


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.


i.             Authorize Acceptance of Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal Inflow and Infiltration Grant Funds

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10891 (Attachment B) entitled, “Resolution Accepting Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Municipal Infiltration/Inflow Grant and Designating an Authorized Representative for the Project;” in accordance with Contract No. SG2011-021 (Attachment A) for improvements to the City’s sanitary sewer infrastructure to reduce inflow and infiltration; and designating the City’s Public Works Director as the authorized representative for the project.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.


j.     Receive Drainage Report for 3053 Chatsworth Street Subdivision Update

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, receipt of the drainage report update for 3053 Chatsworth Street Subdivision.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.


k.    Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding $5,000

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented as follows:






Martin Marietta Materials

Street seal coating materials






Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.


l.             Consider Approving a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Ramsey Washington Cable Commission

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA-
Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and Ramsey/Washington Cable Commission for the purposes of providing telephone system support.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.

8.         Consider Items Removed from Consent

a.            Adopt a Resolution Approving Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as a CONDITIONAL USE at 3091 Fairview Avenue (former Consent Item 7.g)

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly summarized the request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated April 18, 2011; and additional condition that the dwelling unit would be limited to two (2) people, as per additional condition, on bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Councilmember Willmus noted his previously expressed concerns regarding potential impacts for adjacent neighbors through ADU’s as a Conditional Use rather than as Interim Uses; and reiterated his position in not supporting ADU’s as Conditional Uses, following the property, without the ability to periodically review those uses to ensure their compliance.


Councilmember McGehee requested that staff explain why ADU’s were issued as a Conditional Use rather than as an Interim Use; and whether an Interim Use would accomplish the same ability to terminate a specific ADU.


City Planner Thomas Paschke advised that the main distinction was that a Conditional Use was more permanent than an Interim Use, with the term of an Interim Use under City Code allowed at a maximum of five (5) years.  Mr. Paschke opined that, given the healthy investment to a home or detached home by a property owner; and consistent with the recently updated and approved zoning code, staff was confident that ADU’s had sufficient regulation through the Conditional Use process; with that regulation already in place if violations to City Code or violation of applicable conditions were found not to be in compliance.  Mr. Paschke noted that Interim and Conditional Uses were similar, but questioned if property owners would be willing to make substantial capital investments in their property if the use could be terminated after five (5) years at the will of the City and based upon its own merits.

City Attorney Bartholdi noted that a requirement of an Interim Use was that a time expiration be included.


Councilmember Willmus opined that a property owner’s initial investment could be recouped under an Interim Use; and expressed concern that many ADU’s could be put in as rental properties in low density residential areas; and through having the Interim Use tool it provided a safety switch for periodic review by the City; and if no problems were indicated, there would be no reason why the City Council would deny renewal of the Interim Use, similar to the Kent Street recycling facility Interim Use adopted on tonight’s Consent Agenda.


Councilmember Johnson opined that it was not altogether unreasonable, if a property owner was renting out a portion of land, to come back at five (5) year intervals for evaluation, and may serve as a better tool for the City in granting ADU’s than a Conditional Use.


Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10892 (Attachment D – as revised) entitled, “A Resolution Approving an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as a CONDITIONAL USE at 3091 Fairview Avenue (PF11-007);” with the added condition that the ADU at 3091 Fairview Avenue be limited to two (2) people.


Mayor Roe noted rental properties were required to register annually, and in addition to nuisance code enforcement, that means was in place to address potential issues based on rental units; in addition to the square footage and occupancy limitations of ADU’s; unlike renting an entire home or duplex.  Mayor Roe further noted that, if the City Council chose to make them available only as Interim Uses, the City’s recently-adopted zoning code would need revised.

Councilmember McGehee concurred with the comments of Councilmember Willmus in supporting ADU’s as Interim Uses to avoid facilitating additional rental space in single-family areas while addressing special accommodations as needed for extended family and/or care giving situations. Councilmember McGehee opined that a property owner should be able to recoup their initial investment within five (5) years, and should be amenable to bringing an application forward for renewal every five (5) years.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that this would better serve the City than with a Conditional Use that ran with the land.


Councilmember Pust opined that it was inconsistent to treat this type of rental property different than others, noting that the City only had rental registration now, not rental licensing.  Councilmember Pust recognized the concerns about rentals in residential areas; however, she opined that there needed to be a broader policy discussion to restrict them in those areas, if the City Council so desired.  Councilmember Pust noted that, if a property owner rented their primary dwelling, the City had no say; and in this situation, there was no solution with an Interim versus Conditional Use.  Councilmember Pust suggested a full-blown discussion by the City Council on rental properties.  Councilmember Pust opined that limiting occupancy to two (2) people seemed arbitrary, and may be better suited if related to occupancy per square foot.  Councilmember Pust noted that previous discussions were related to the need and marketability of this type of unit (e.g. granny flats); and that the HRA was already prepared to tackle the charge from the City Council on a broader discussion related to rental licensing.


Councilmember Willmus concurred that a broader discussion was needed; but advised that part of his rationale in objecting to this application is to not approve any ADU’s until that broader discussion was held, in relationship with State and International Building Code regulations and applicable square footage language.


Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that it was staff’s opinion that the 600 square footage limitations addressed ADU’s and brought them into balance.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that this specific application was primarily to address alternative living arrangements for a family member; however, it did open the door for a limited rental unit.  Mr. Trudgeon supported a policy discussion, advising that staff could continue to explore additional information; however, for the application currently before the City Council, he recommended that they consider it on its own merits, and based on current zoning code, rather than changing the process midstream.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that, should the City Council deny the application, it would need to provide findings for denial, and that such a denial would be out of compliance with the City’s current zoning code.  Mr. Trudgeon asked that the City Council honor the process they had adopted and under which current applications were reviewed; and to have the broader discussion as a separate discussion.


Councilmember Johnson, after hearing tonight’s discussion, advised that he was unwilling to set a double standard for different types of rental units; and spoke in support of this application based on current City Code.  Councilmember Johnson opined that the broader policy discussion needed to happen soon to avoid being put in this type of situation again.


Councilmember Willmus opined that it was appropriate to consider a moratorium on ADU’s until further discussion was held; and to have a tool in place to avoid additional ADU applications before that policy discussion was completed.


Mayor Roe, in considering the limited square footage and occupancy requirements for ADU’s, opined that one single-family home becoming a rental could have significantly more impact on a neighborhood than an ADU.  Mayor Roe noted that an ADU may not even become a rental unit, and was less concerned in their approval as a Conditional Use, opining that impacts of such small units would be fairly minor.  Mayor Roe spoke in support of the application; but offered his interest in having a broader policy discussion in the near future.


Councilmember Willmus noted that, prior to adoption of the revised zoning code, ADU’s were not allowed in Roseville; and asked that staff provide background on why they’re now allowed.


Mr. Trudgeon assured Councilmembers that staff would include that background as part of the information for a broader policy discussion.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus’ request; opining that she had been supportive of providing an opportunity for “granny flats,” however, she had not envisioned ADU’s specifically designed for rental units.


Mayor Roe clarified that City Code does not specify their use as rentals, but that they could be used as such.


Roll Call

Ayes: Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: Willmus and McGehee.

Motion carried.


Councilmember Willmus requested additional discussion sooner rather than later.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff, in consultation with the City Attorney, would prepare information for a City Council consideration of a possible moratorium on ADU’s and consideration of other issues raised tonight.

9.         General Ordinances for Adoption

a.         Adopt an Ordinance Amending Section 1009 of the City Code Relating to Limiting the Number of Tenants in an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)

Pust moved, Johnson seconded, TABLING this item pending a broader policy discussion on ADU’s.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.

10.      Presentations

a.            Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update

Jason Etten, Citizen Lead of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Implementation Partners Work Group introduced Randall Doneen, Citizen Lead of the Natural Resources & Trails Work Group.


Mr. Doneen provided a brief update on the work of this group and their objectives to communicate to the public and develop priorities for natural resources and trails for recommendation to the larger Master Plan Implementation Partners Work Group.  Mr. Doneen suggested four (4) focus areas for the Natural Resources and Trails Work Group: 1) natural resource management; 2) trails; 3) specific projects to undertake; and 4) community outreach.


Mr. Etten provided a brief update on the implementation work to-date, including the random survey of 1500 residents currently underway and anticipated response dates for initial results.


Discussion among presenters and Councilmembers included guarantees by the Leisure Vision consultants of a minimum number of 600 responses through additional phone follow-up in place in areas determined to have less of a response; and ability for participation by residents via the website to be collated separately and not part of the statistically valid and random sampling, but allowing for their volunteer response.


Mr. Etten reviewed upcoming community meetings scheduled in May to present preliminary findings, with finalized survey results anticipated to be available for the June 20, 2011 scheduled joint meeting of the City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission.  Members of the public were encouraged to attend the upcoming community meeting, and to seek additional information from City Hall or via the City’s website.


Mayor Roe noted his difficulty in downloading the Master Plan in its entirety as a link from the website and asked that staff review that situation.


Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke advised that he would investigate the situation; and expressed the community’s appreciation as well as his personal thanks, to the citizen organization team members and citizens involved to-date.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her appreciation to Mr. Brokke and Mr. Etten for designing a process ensuring community involvement in such a meaningful way.

11.      Public Hearings

a.    Public Hearing to Consider Request by Michels Pipe Service to Extend Working Hours for the 2011 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project

City of Roseville Civil Engineer Kristine Giga briefly reviewed the request of Michels Pipe Services for extended work hours to complete the 2011 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project during low-flow time periods and also to facilitate fewer traffic disruptions.


Councilmember Pust opined that this seemed to be a reasonable request, and appeared that work areas in residential neighborhoods were limited.


Mayor Roe questioned City Attorney Bartholdi whether the City Council needed to impose any time limits on variance activities during the time frame; with City Attorney Bartholdi responding that this was at the discretion of the City Council.


Mayor Roe suggested that such a time limit be placed on the variance request, or the variance could continue indefinitely; suggesting it be limited through the end of May of 2011.


Councilmember Willmus questioned if a representative of the contractor was present at tonight’s meeting.


Ms. Giga advised that they were not; however, staff had spoken to the contractor earlier today, and they had requested the variance only for the month of May.


Mayor Roe opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the request by Michels Pipe Service to extend working hours for the 2011 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project.


Public Comment

Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at 7:07 pm, with no one appearing for or against.

12.      Business Items (Action Items)


a.    Consider Request by Michels Pipe Service to Extend Working Hours for the 2011 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of a variance request by Michels Pipe Service to extend working hours for the 2011 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project at various locations throughout the City, as detailed in the RCA dated April 18, 2011; in order  to facilitate completion of their work and disruption and inconvenience to property owners  and area traffic during low-flow periods, during the month of May, over a period of eight (8) nights, anticipating that each segment should be completed in one to two nights of work.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.

13.      Business Items – Presentations/Discussions

b.            Adopt a Resolution Approving the City’s Financial and Budget-related Policies

Finance Director Chris Miller provided brief introductory comments, noting that the City currently had six (6) historical policies in place applicable to financial and budget-related items, as detailed in the RCA dated April 18, 2011.  Mr. Miller suggested that, given several new Councilmembers, it may be time to review those policies; and brought several minor corrections and updates from a housekeeping standpoint:

§  Page 4, Line 96, typographical correction: “its”

§  Page 6, Line 146: change from a ten (10) year to a twenty (20) year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)

§  Page 6, Line 167: change CIP years


City Manager Malinen noted that, while the CIP Task Force may be considering recommending that the CIP from ten (10) to twenty (20) years, the full City Council had yet to approve that extension.


Councilmember Johnson, as a member of the CIP Task Force, concurred.


Page 11, Line 326

Councilmember Willmus noted frequent discussions related to General Fund reserves, and past budget presentations had been consistent in the City’s inability to meet that 50% reserve goal.  Councilmember Willmus questioned actual reserve percentages over the last few budget cycles; and whether it made sense to reduce the current goal.  Councilmember Willmus sought advantages and disadvantages in considering such a reduction; as well as comparison reserve fund policies of other metropolitan communities.


Mr. Miller advised that he was unable to offer a comment on norms for other communities, as each looked at their specific cash flow and operational needs between revenue collections cycles from differing perspectives.  Mr. Miller noted that the City collected revenue through Ramsey County property taxes on a six (6) month cycle, thus the rationale in creating the 50% reserve policy to assure operating needs in the interim.  However, Mr. Miller advised that, budget cycles over the last seven to eight (7-8) years were closer to 35-40% reserves in the General Fund, with additional funds borrowed on an interim basis internally from other funds, a  normal operating procedure not only for Roseville but other cities as well; and that borrowing was usually from the City’s most stable reserve fund, the Pavement Management Plan (PMP); typically for only 30-60 days.  Mr. Miller advised that the City Council may wish to have discussion on whether or not that was an appropriate practice to continue.


Councilmember Johnson questioned if reducing the reserve policy from 50% to 35% would preclude the necessity of borrowing from other internal funds.


Mr. Miller responded affirmatively; however, he noted that to get from the 35% to 50% funding level, it would require a sizable infusion of cash from some source.


Councilmember Willmus opined that that specific policy needed further review and discussion.


Mayor Roe concurred, noting that policy had been one of his proposed discussion points as well.


Mayor Roe clarified with Mr. Miller total General Fund budget versus levy-supported General Fund budget ($13 million versus $18 million); the portion of property tax levy going toward principle and interest and whether it made sense to have a policy related to tax-supported portion of the General Fund, or the whole fund; and whether there would be any significant changes to the numbers accordingly. 


Mr. Miller advised that consideration should be given on the lack of uniformity of non-cash tax flows through the year; noting that most cities used General Fund, rather than property tax-based reserve  percentages.


Mayor Roe questioned if it made sense to provide a minimum range rather than a fixed percentage for reserves as a future policy discussion if supported by the City Council majority.


Mr. Miller opined that such a policy could be considered.


Mayor Roe noted the inclusion over many years at the end of the budget document of a list of funds by type and category, as well as a description for the City’s budget process, along with statutory and City Code requirements.  Mayor Roe questioned if it made sense to incorporate those items into policies; and how funds were structured or added/deleted during upcoming discussions, may need to be reflected in the policies.


Mr. Miller noted that staff typically structured funds on City Council direction or policy, or legal requirements dictating how funds were segregated; and advised that future policy discussions could be reflected in those documents.


Mayor Roe questioned how funds were established through Council directive; with Mr. Miller advising that they were typically established through resolution, whether to designate or abolish funds and included as part of the City’s formal published financial documents.  Mr. Miller noted that other internal bookkeeping items were not part of that formal publication.


Mayor Roe opined that it made sense to have a City Council discussion on specific funds, their how and why, as the budget process proceeded; and why funds were segregated or not segregated, or included as part of the General Fund. 


Councilmember Johnson supported such a discussion.


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10893 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Adopting Financial and Budget Policies for the City of Roseville;” amended as follows:

§  Page 4, Line 96, typographical correction: “its”

§  Page 6, Line 138: change from a ten (10) year to a twenty (20) year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)

§  Page 6, Line 146: change from a ten (10) year to a twenty (20) year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)

§  Page 6, Line 167: change CIP years


Councilmember Willmus suggested amending the General Fund reserve policy lower than 50%; and questioned if Councilmember Johnson had considered such amendment part of his motion.


Councilmember Johnson responded negatively, but remained open to an amendment to the original motion.


Councilmember McGehee noted that she had not considered this to be an action item tonight, and since this was all new territory to her, she expressed her preference to delay action until additional information requests from staff had been supplied, including a discussion on each separate funds, and potential reduction of the General Fund reserve policy.


Mayor Roe noted that, even if adopted tonight, revisions could be made to the resolution at any point in the future.

Councilmember Willmus offered a friendly amendment to the motion to reduce the General Fund Reserve Policy to 35%-50%.


Councilmembers Johnson and Pust, as makers of the motion, accepted that friendly amendment to reduce the General Fund Reserve Policy to 35%-50%; with Mayor Roe therefore declaring that there was no need for a secondary motion due to the support of the makers of the original motion.


City Manager Malinen questioned Mr. Miller on what, if any, challenges that may present, such as implications on other funds also not meeting their reserves.


Mr. Miller foresaw no significant challenges, with the City essentially borrowing reserve funds from other funds without a minimum, specifically the PMP.


Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included monthly versus quarterly budget to actual financial reports, not balance sheets; requirement for annual publication of a City financial statement; and whether to vote the issue up or down at tonight’s meeting or hold further discussions, with the Council majority supporting moving forward at this time.


Councilmember McGehee advised that she would not be supporting the motion with the added amendment to reduce the General Fund reserve from the current 50%, opining that an adequate cushion was needed; and she saw no rationale in creating a perception that the City Council was doing a better job than it actually was.  Councilmember McGehee opined that, if the City could not achieve sustainability by reducing expenditures, this was not an appropriate way to budget.  Given the volatility of current economic conditions, Councilmember McGehee advised that she could possibly consider a reduction to 45%, but not to 35%.


Roll Call (Motion, as amended)

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


c.            Discussion on Budget Program Descriptions

Mayor Roe noted a number of non-tax supported programs currently without description; further noting that, in his discussions with City Manager Malinen, Departments had been tasked with and were currently completing those descriptions.


With City Council concurrence, Mayor Roe suggested that after tonight’s discussion, staff continue work on those descriptions for incorporation into the budget work plan.


At this point, Mayor Roe led the discussion through each program category and description, with discussion as follows.

Administration: General Communication

Discussion included tax-supported operations versus Communication Fund-supported items representing indirect costs not fully reflected in the Communications Fund, but not necessarily limited to the Administration area, but part of day-to-day operations and minimal staff time in an amount estimated at $64-65,000 for the 2011 Budget, with a total Communications Fund of $345,000 supported through cable franchise fees.


Mr. Miller advised that he would need to consult the staff person creating the definition before further clarifying the intent.


Mayor Roe suggested that this definition be refined and brought back along with other missing definitions currently being created by staff, noting there remained a notable portion of the $65,000 for which needed to be accounted.



Mayor Roe noted descriptions for “Admin: Fire Administration and  Planning” as well as “Admin: Organizational Management” and questioned the difference and comparable functions with other departments.


Fire Chief Tim O’Neill noted that these category descriptions were over a year old; and some remained from when the department functioned under a different organizational structure with a Fire Chief and an Assistant Chief.  Chief O’Neill opined that the descriptions could be easily revised and combined.


Mayor noted a similar situation under the Fire Fighting/EMS function; and suggested they be reviewed for consistency purposes.


Chief O’Neill noted his intent to spend time with the City Council in the near future in discussing the department’s organizational structure with three (3) categories and more current descriptions to remedy these issues.


Public Works

Mayor Roe asked that staff’s description review and revision include how the GIS function related to the Community Development Department as well as for the sewer, water and stormwater functions.


Parks and Recreation

Mayor Roe asked that staff’s description review and revisions also address personnel management versus organizational management compared to other functions.


Community Development


Mayor Roe noted that, while this department was essentially non-tax supported, Nuisance Code Enforcement and the Neighborhood Enhancement Program (NEP) functions were managed by this department; and funded by the property tax levy and the HRA, respectively.

Councilmember McGehee opined that the HRA was still tax supported.


Mayor Roe noted the funding as a tax levy; however, he clarified that is was a separate tax levy and budget.


d.            Review List of Mandatory Budget Programs

Finance Director Miller provided an overview of the RCA dated April 18, 2011; and distinctions of those mandatory functions, programs or services dictated or prescribed by State Statute or City Code (Attachment A).  Mr. Miller noted time constraints  in providing narratives on the how’s and why’s of mandatory items, in whole or in part, recognizing the subjective nature of some of those mandatory items, based on service levels required or indicated.


Mayor Roe noted the need to incorporate non-tax supported mandates in the list.


Discussion included the discretionary Police Lake Patrol contracted through Ramsey County part; and City Council discretion on the level of service and subsequent cost, as well as a different complement of staffing, for some of the mandatory functions.


Mayor Roe noted previous discussions on funding some mandatory items at current service levels and how to make applicable adjustments.


Mr. Miller suggested that they be put back in the overall list of programs and services, allowing the City Council to define their service levels, as part of the preferred outcome for outcome-based or priority-based budgeting.  Mr. Miller noted that at some point as the process continued to evolve, this should become a part of the process; however, he cautioned that it was an enormous undertaking and was at an entirely different budgeting level that what was being attempted to-date.


Mayor Roe opined that putting the mandatory items into the prioritization process provided staff guidance from the City Council and how those mandatory items fit into the mix and how service levels and resource allocations were impacted.


Further discussion included how those mandatory items were defined, through contractual or legal obligations; debt service; or long-term functions, such as emergency dispatch services), that would dramatically impacted if not funded or if those functions were handled by the City itself; and differentials of Attachments A and B related to tax-supported and non-tax supported services or functions.


Councilmember Willmus suggested consideration be given to those functions that the City could consider contracting out (e.g., elections to Ramsey County) to realize potential, long-term cost savings; and requested staff to provide additional background on those potential items.


Mayor Roe noted the need for Council review and consideration of the service levels on mandatory functions.


Mr. Miller noted that, while mandatory functions, the only distinction may be in the preferred service levels, such as response times; and where staff’s energy should be focused in each department.


Additional discussion included code enforcement as not a mandatory function; however, it was ranked high on priorities by the Council majority.


Pust moved, McGehee seconded, directing staff to add mandatory items from the 2011 budget process back into 2012/13 prioritization efforts.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.


e.            Budget-Ranking Methodology

Individual Councilmembers had been asked to provide their individual budget-ranking methodologies for discussion; and Mayor Roe’s and Councilmember Willmus’ written comments, respectively dated April 18 and April 14, 2011, included as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Councilmember Pust expressed interest in the comments of both Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus, and suggested they be combined.


Councilmember Willmus suggested, as the budget process proceeded, that each of the documents from the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process; the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and the Park and Recreation Master Plan be consulted to provide a value-based perspective and evaluation.


Mayor Roe noted past criticism of the numerical ranking system and their meaning, noting the varying viewpoints and methods used by individual Councilmembers in past rankings exercises; and the need to provide the same rules for each.


Councilmember McGehee advised that she could not personally prioritize and rank items without having dollar figures available.


Mayor Roe clarified that the prioritization process was not to be driven by focusing on costs alone.


Councilmember McGehee noted her need to consider risks/benefits as part of the entire budget process.


Mayor Roe recognized that preference, noting that numbers were available from the 2011 process for each function based on the 2011 budgeted amounts.


Councilmember Johnson, in reviewing Councilmember Willmus’ criteria, sought comment from Police Chief Mathwig and Fire Chief O’Neill on if or how national standards would be applied with such criteria.


Police Chief Rick Mathwig

Chief Mathwig advised that law enforcement response times were more a function of local entities, not based on national standards across the nation, given the numerous variables in place.


Fire Chief Tim O’Neill

Chief O’Neill advised that there were two different categories for fire response times: those for full-time departments and those for on-call departments such as Roseville, with national standards for fire response time at eight (8) minutes.  Chief O’Neill advised that standards for EMS response were at four (4) minutes or less, based on how long a person could survive as a patient without oxygen.


Councilmembers Pust and Johnson suggested use of the phrase, “Industry Best Practices,” rather than national standards.


Councilmember Pust opined that, while the nomenclature of Mayor Roe’s and Councilmember Willmus’ comments were different, they were accomplishing the same things, and could be combined accordingly.


Mayor Roe concurred that Councilmember Willmus’ first three (3) items were good examples of what he proposed in his highest priorities.


After further discussion, Councilmember Pust, with prompting from staff during the week, was tasked with drafting a prioritization methodology statement for review and consideration at next week’s meeting.


Mayor Roe asked that staff provide their additional descriptive detail at that meeting as well.


f.             Discussion of Off-Sale Liquor Ordinance

At the request of Mayor Roe, Councilmember Johnson detailed his formal request to have a discussion to adopt a two-tier component to the City’s existing alcohol sales ordinance, specifically addressing off-sale establishments in Roseville, having no other retail sales income options, such as a restaurant or bar maintained.  Included as part of Councilmember Johnson’s was a letter from Rod Olson, Store Manager at The Cellars Wines and Spirits, 8701 Lincoln Drive; and a petition of support for the proposed two-tier system from off-premise liquor license holders or store managers; along with his personal analysis and comparisons of off-sale liquor ordinances from other communities.


Councilmember Johnson noted that Roseville was the only City in his review of those comparables that had a mandatory suspension for the first violation.  Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of a two-tier system or changing back to a one-tier system with less strict penalties for a first violation.  Councilmember Johnson referenced his further analysis over the last twelve (12) years of actual liquor store violations and their frequency, noting that off-sale premises did not have a bad track record and were not deserving of such severe penalty consequences based on their record.


Mayor Roe clarified the process in updating the ordinance from previous policy that still provided for a one day suspension for those not participating in optional server training and only having a monetary penalty for a first violation.  However, Mayor Roe noted that participating in the training program was now mandatory with corresponding increased financial penalties. 


Discussion among Councilmembers included comparisons with the City of St. Louis Park ordinance; and who determines options for the day of suspension.


Mayor Roe noted attendance of representatives from several Roseville liquor stores and invited their public testimony at this time.


Public Comment

Rod Olson, Cellars Wine and Spirits

Mr. Olson noted the due diligence of off-sale managers and owners to ensure compliance and to avoid sales to minors on their premises.  Mr. Olson opined that it was not the off-sale liquor stores failing, but on-sale licensees repeatedly failing compliance checks, and that they should be penalized accordingly, without negatively impacting those businesses being diligent.  Mr. Olson noted that by going with a two-tier system, it put the blame where it should be.  Mr. Olson advised that off-sale managers/owners were fully aware of fines and punishments, and that they served as a viable deterrent for them, and made them extra diligent in their operations.  Mr. Olson noted that, even if an on-sale establishment was fined and its license suspended, they were still able to retain their revenues through food and other product sales.


Steve Burwell, Fairview Wines and Spirits

Mr. Burwell reminisced on his firm’s recent compliance check and his personal embarrassment in that failure.  However, Mr. Burwell, in taking full responsibility for that failure and its consequences, referenced the minimal failure history over the last twelve (12) years, representing a five percent (5%) failure rate.  Mr. Burwell noted that this failure rate would be considered good or 95% successful in other situations.  Mr. Burwell displayed his collection of licenses taken over the years; and assured Councilmembers that they were doing their jobs; and opined that the off-sale liquor firms should not be penalized to the point of creating financial hardship.  Mr. Burwell questioned what the community-at-large was doing to address and stop underage consumption, the ultimate goal of all parties.


Councilmember Pust noted the adoption by the City of a Social Host Ordinance.


Discussion among Councilmembers and Mr. Olson and Mr. Burwell included estimated potential income loss for a license suspension on a weekend or holiday (estimated at $1,000 – $3,000) compared to a much less significant profit on a weekday, such as Monday; suspension and closure of an off-sale simply causing their patrons to find another off-sale during that suspension and not addressing the actual problem; and the potentially catastrophic results for a family from only one failure in selling to underage consumers.


Further discussion included responsible persons for underage drinkers, or adults; how to control those people; personal experiences of Mr. Olson and Mr. Burwell and their strong encouragement of their employees to remain diligence versus the lax nature and high turnover staff at restaurants and bard who are only interested in more sales to increase their tips, not in being diligent.


Councilmember Willmus questioned the rationale of the City Council in revising the original ordinance, and their intent, whether to be punitive or to avoid recurrence.


Mayor Roe advised that, as one of the drafters of the ordinance as a Task Force of he and Councilmember Pust, the intent was that the first violation had teeth to avoid recurrence; and while discussions on a two-tier approach were held at that time, it was the majority consensus that everyone should be treated the same.


Councilmember Willmus opined that the City Council was discussing two completely different business models.


Mayor Roe noted that a different analogy could be that the financial impact was the same, and that the penalty not be less for someone less able to pay.


Councilmember Pust questioned Mr. Olson and Mr. Burwell on any changes in their business practices from the first to the current ordinance.


Mr. Olson advised that he had been forced to eliminate a family member of the owner of the chain as a result of the revised ordinance, due to ongoing problems as all of their employees were continually monitored.  Mr. Olson reviewed his firm’s employee training process and continued due diligence, as well as systematic carding of their patrons.


Councilmember Pust opined that she was confident in that being the business practice of all of Roseville’s good business owners; and questioned if the establishments represented by Mr. Olson or Mr. Burwell were required to increase their insurance or additional employee costs, other than to ensure their training, based on the revised ordinance.  Councilmember Pust recognized that the off-sales didn’t have other products to sell; however, she questioned rationale in creating a system to give one type of business one penalty and another business another penalty.  Councilmember Pust recognized the nature of their business, and assured business owners that Roseville wanted their operations in the community, as valued members of the community.  However, Councilmember Pust, while recognizing that it was up to minors and their parents/guardians to be responsible for their own consequences, it remained the community’s responsibility to do everything it could do; and why impacts on individual businesses should dictate how seriously the community viewed the offense. 


Councilmember Pust advised that she would attempt to remain open-minded during discussions, but she wanted to ensure that tonight’s record did not show that the City Council was single-minded in protecting business interested, when they had another role for the community-at-large to ensure their safety and welfare.  Councilmember Pust opined that, so far, the arguments for making further revisions for a two-tier system, or reverting to a previous system, were not compelling to her.


Mayor Roe questioned if there was a majority consensus of the City Council, as a next step, to bring forward amendment(s) to the ordinance for a future meeting, prior to scheduling a Public Hearing to hear public testimony; and if Councilmembers preferred to work outside the meeting via task force to bring recommendations back to the full body.


Councilmembers Johnson and Willmus expressed their interest in bringing recommendations forward.


Mayor Roe directed City Manager Malinen to include further discussion on a future agenda.


Further discussion with Mr. Olson and Mr. Burwell included notice of business owners prior to any decision-making by the City Council, based on their past experience in not receiving notification; with Police Chief Mathwig and Mayor Roe confirming that they would have received notice as part of their semi-annual compliance package.

City Manager Malinen advised that staff would review the notice history and incorporate that information for future discussions.


Councilmember Johnson personally volunteered to keep off-sale owners in the loop; understanding the importance to their business interests.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:40 pm and reconvened at approximately 8:44 pm.

g.            Discussion of Zoning Code Based on Council Work Plan

Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon provided brief introductory comments related to past discussions of items to be added to the City Council’s work plan; and those items related to the zoning code needing additional discussion and/or direction and prioritization.  Mr. Trudgeon noted staff’s preference to hear the City Council’s perspective on those items listed, and how they wished those items prioritized. 


The RCA dated April 18, 2011 provided additional detail to facilitate that discussion.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the first four bullet pointed items on page 2 of the report were ongoing as part of the zoning code rewrite, but had been deferred for various reasons, and were slated to be discussed at the Planning Commission at their May meeting, prior to any Public Hearings being scheduled. 


Specific to the Shoreland, Wetland and Stormwater Management Chapter 1017, Mr. Trudgeon noted that revisions were awaiting receipt of a model ordinance from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) that was in process; with the last update done in the 1970’s; with the intent to relocate Stormwater Management Chapters to the Public Works domain (City Code, Chapter 8) rather than including them in the City’s Zoning Code for coordination of those regulations among departments.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that the intended review of Sexually Oriented Uses (Chapter 1020) was based on updating any court rulings, and in conjunction with the City’s legal counsel, and to address modern society and technologies to ensure that safeguards are in place.


Councilmember McGehee asked that staff also include discussion on pawn shops, using the City of Bloomington’s model in limiting them based on population.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that Police Chief Mathwig was already reviewing and drafting ordinance revisions for City Council review and consideration in the near future.

Councilmember Willmus questioned if lot sizes had changed based on his review of the draft code received in December of 2010; with Mr. Trudgeon advising that there had not been any changes to lot sizes to-date, but that such discussions were applicable under the Subdivision ordinance.


It was Council consensus that those first four (4) items proceed as detailed by staff.


Add Incentives for the Use of Energy-Efficient Practices, Xeriscaping, Native Planting, and Community Involvement

Related to this suggestion, Mr. Trudgeon suggested that the City consider, and that it was staff’s recommendation for, incentives versus hard mandates, to consider a wide range or opportunities, such as increased density allowances or reduced/waived fees, or expedited review process, as examples; providing tangible results while establishing parameters.


Mayor Roe questioned if those incentives would be codified in the zoning code or handled outside the code, with Mr. Trudgeon responding that he anticipated that they would be contained within the zoning code.


Councilmember McGehee concurred, and requested that staff research other communities for the incentives they were offering; expressing her interest in being part of the redevelopment or rehabilitation of existing homes and properties.  Councilmember McGehee opined that, based on the age and condition of existing housing stock and its need for updating, along with current market conditions dictating shorter commutes, this was an opportune time to address expectations; as well as the HRA’s interest in marketing the community as green.


Mayor Roe questioned if there were other items needing further work by a working or study group, or possibly through a joint Public Works, Environment, and Transportation (PWET) and Planning Commission charge.


Councilmember Willmus expressed his willingness to have a volunteer process within the confines of the International Building Code; however, he cautioned prohibiting certain building practices through excessive rules and regulations.


Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included incentives provided to-date seeking more environmentally friendly building techniques, including the ordinance on solar panels; recognizing improved technologies; appropriate tax credits on a federal, state and local level; incentive authority and boundaries of municipal government versus other agencies and government levels; existing and proposed HRA incentives for green packages and effective marketing of those incentives; and ensuring that fees are justified to cover costs and are not perceived as discriminatory, with the market able to set incentives; and ideas for affordable housing incentives.


Councilmember McGehee volunteered to work with Mr. Trudgeon as a task force to provide recommendations to the full body at a future time.


Mr. Trudgeon advised that staff would survey other communities on their best practices as part of that study.


At this time, the City Council majority expressed their interest in hearing the entirety of Mr. Trudgeon’s presentation, and then returning with their individual priorities for further discussion at a future meeting, following their review and consideration.


Community-based Planning through Charrette Process

Discussion related to this item included interest in processes similar to that used for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan community process; involvement of the community before developments are approved; differences in privately-owned versus publically-owned properties and how involved the community can be in dictating a final use beyond typical zoning and other regulatory reviews, and community involvement as applicable; rationale in eliminating the burdensome use of  Planned Unit Development (PUD) processes for numerous land uses leading revisions in the zoning code; current Master Plan processes for major developments; and how to make projects more efficient for the City and developers, while achieving the desired outcome for all involved.


Councilmember Pust cautioned that the City should not set up the community in any process that could cause them to perceive they had more say in the final outcome than they actually did; opining that this would only cause additional frustration.


Mayor Roe concurred, noting that by engaging them in the process, when they actually saw no results, was equally frustrating.


Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting that that the Park Master Plan process involved properties under City ownership versus private ownership, eliminating many planning challenges. 


Further discussion included examples of future development or redevelopment, such as the Har Mar Site zoned as a Community Business District as a model for a large piece of property where a process such as the Charrette Process may work well, when owned by a single private property owner; the desire to include the community in major planning projects while recognizing the community’s limited role in that development; balancing the interests and benefits of the community with those of the private developer as partners; market support of the community’s preferred use versus the proven market brought forth by the developer and their financial commitment to that particular use; and respecting the time of citizens and developers throughout the process and in reaching the desired outcome.


Mr. Trudgeon expressed appreciation for tonight’s discussion; however, he noted that the City’s current role was more of a regulatory body, given current staff and resources, in accordance with City Council directive.  Mr. Trudgeon opined that community-based planning couldn’t be summarized in one discussion and would require more education to understand possibilities based on successful models.  Mr. Trudgeon suggested that, if the City Council wished to have further discussion, they take that into consideration for a future agenda as they prioritized their list.


Create Processes to … Protect Neighborhood Character

The RCA detailed various discussion points as the City Council considered their role in development and land use proposals in the future.


Review Public Notification Policy…

Mr. Trudgeon noted several recent examples that had caused great concern in the community; and expressed staff’s willingness to follow the City Council’s majority direction on the best notification process to follow in the future.


Discussion included logistics for notification of tenants in rental properties as appropriate, with Mr. Trudgeon advising that staff could facilitate such notices at the Council’s direction; individual Councilmember triggers for expanded notice, including rezoning from MDR to HDR, certain specific performance standards set forth in zoning code; Council policy parameters versus staff making a subjective call on each case; a consistent trigger/notice extension methodology; and industrial versus residential areas requiring additional notice.


Evaluate High Density Residential (HRD … Setbacks…

Mayor Roe concurred with Councilmember Johnson that a broad review of setbacks for HDR’s should be rated a high priority, along with any other uses adjacent to LDR and MDR, or neighborhood businesses next to single-family residential properties; suggesting that this might be a good for a task force.


Councilmember Willmus concurred that they were a high priority; and suggested that staff could work through some of the less contentious issues, exclusive of setback issues and notice areas.


Councilmember McGehee volunteered to work with Patrick on the issues she was most concerned with.


Councilmember Pust expressed interest in serving on a future task force on Shoreland Ordinances once the DNR completed their work.


Mayor Roe noted that it appeared nothing was indicated for removal from the list; but just needed prioritization. 


Councilmembers suggested that the HRA and/or Planning Commission may have some recommendations on green building incentives


City Manager Malinen noted the need to incorporate the Planning Commission and their meeting schedules in the timeframe for some of the items, once a priority was established.


Mr. Trudgeon was directed to provide staff’s recommendation on priorities, based on tonight’s City Council discussion and comments, and return to the City Council with those recommendations, prior to any going forward to the Planning Commission.


Mr. Trudgeon briefly touched on the broad scope of community-based planning methods and options, including a charrette process; however, he noted the need for the City Council to review and provide direction to staff on the extent of City Council review they preferred.


Mayor Roe noted that it appeared nothing was indicated for removal from the list; but just needed prioritization. 


Councilmembers suggested that the HRA and/or Planning Commission may have some recommendations on green building incentives


City Manager Malinen noted the need to incorporate the Planning Commission and their meeting schedules in the timeframe for some of the items, once a priority was established.


Mr. Trudgeon was directed to provide staff’s recommendation on priorities, based on tonight’s City Council discussion and comments, and return to the City Council with those recommendations, prior to any going forward to the Planning Commission.


Public Comment

Gary Grefenberg

Mr. Grefenberg, as a member of the recently-created Civic Engagement Task Force, in conjunction with the City’s Human Rights Commission (HRC), sought assurances that the City Council would not exclude that task force from discussions; and that not must Councilmember McGehee and Mr. Trudgeon have discussions on community engagement, but that they consider the charge of the task force in looking at neighborhood-based planning.  Mr. Grefenberg noted the number of interested citizens and the level of community expertise, and the anticipation that the task force will provide recommendations to the City Council in the near future.  Mr. Grefenberg reviewed some of the task force’s intent in bringing together the previously-referenced community documents within the realm of community engagement.  Mr. Grefenberg asked that the City Council respect eth time already invested by the task force in these efforts, and work with them accordingly.


Mayor Roe, and Councilmembers assured Mr. Grefenberg that the efforts of the task force would be recognized, and their recommendations given serious consideration; and that Councilmembers were focused on zoning for this discussion, but were cognizant of the task force charge.


Councilmembers Johnson and Pust expressed their interest in receiving meeting agendas and meeting minutes of the Task Force and asked that they be notified of future task force meetings.  Mr. Grefenberg advised that the task force was a subgroup of the HRC, and information was available through that venue.


Mr. Grefenberg apologized and opined that the HRC was not the best example of the public information and record process, but that they were improving.


Johnson moved, Pust seconded, to extend the meeting for an additional five (5) minutes to complete discussion of this item.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe.

Nays: None.


Due to the time of the meeting, Mayor Roe advised that the remaining items would be deferred to a future meeting.


h.            Discussion of Long Range Development Planning


Discussion of City Council Attendance at League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference

14.       City Manager Future Agenda Review

City Manager Malinen asked individual Councilmembers to review the draft agenda for the April 25, 2011 meeting as distributed, and contact his office with any concerns and/or questions.

15.      Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


Councilmember Roe announced the upcoming annual Roseville Clean Up day on April 30, 2011 from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm at the Dale Street soccer fields parking lot; with additional information available by contacting City Hall or via the City’s website.

16.      Adjourn

Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:04 pm.