View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2011
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m. and welcomed
everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for May: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; and
Roe). City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
Mayor Roe noted the Amended Agenda,
provided as a bench handout attached hereto and made a part hereof,
clarified and added Item 11.a Public Hearing, related to Item 12.a Minor
Subdivision at 2220 Acorn Road; with the Hearing noticed in accordance with
notice requirements, but not listed accordingly on the original meeting agenda.
Councilmember Willmus requested
removal of Consent Item 7.e entitled, “Direct Staff to Advertise for Vacancies
on the Human Rights Commission;” for consideration on a future agenda.
Councilmember McGehee requested
removal of Consent Item 7.b entitled, “Approve Application of Department of
Justice COPS Hiring Grant,” for discussion purposes at tonight’s meeting.
Pust moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus;
Pust; and Roe.
Mayor Roe called for public comment
by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. No one appeared to speak
at this time.
4. Council Communications, Reports and
apologized for the late start of tonight’s meeting due to technical issues.
Councilmember Pust noted that she
would be leaving briefly during the course of the meeting to make an awards
presentation at Roseville Area High School on behalf of the Roseville Community
Mayor Roe and Councilmembers
announced upcoming meetings/events and how to obtain additional information.
May 17, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. - Human Rights Advisory Commission’s
Civic Engagement Task Force meeting in the Willow Room at City Hall
May 25, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. – Open House for presentation of the
Regulating Map and Plan for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area in the Willow
Room at City Hall
June 2, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. – Yellow Ribbon Community Organization
– second organizational meeting at the Roseville Skating Center for any
interested volunteers. Mayor Roe noted that the first meeting held on May 10,
2011, had been cut short due to severe weather warnings.
Mayor Roe, on behalf of the City
Council, staff and community, offered congratulations to Ms. Sophia Mileotis,
student at Roseville Middle School and 2011 first place winner of the City of
Roseville Human Rights Commission Essay Contest, who also went on to become the
first place winner at the State level. Mayor Roe announced that winners would
be honored on May 22, 2011 at 12:30 p.m. at the Brookdale branch of the
Hennepin County Library.
Recognitions, Donations, Communications
6. Approve Minutes
Approve Minutes of May 9, 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
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the minutes of the May 9, 2011 meeting as submitted.
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson;
Willmus; Pust; and Roe.
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
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
Agreement between Minnesota Commercial Railway and the City of Roseville for
Work at Dale Street Railroad Crossing
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval
of the “Crossing Surface Installation Agreement (Attachment A) between the City
of Roseville and Minnesota Commercial Railway, in order to facilitate work by
the City of Roseville for work at the Dale Street railroad crossing.
Consider a Supplemental Trust Indenture for Centennial Gardens Apartment
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 10903 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Authorizing the Execution
and Delivery of a Supplemental Trust Indenture Relating to $12,000,000
Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (Centennial Apartments Project), Series
Adopt a Resolution Approving the Certification of Unpaid Utility
and Other Charges to Ramsey County
McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, adoption
of Resolution No. 10904 (Attachment A) entitled, “Resolution Directing the
County Auditor to Levy Unpaid Water, Sewer and Other City Charges for Payable
2012 or Beyond;” in accordance with the Delinquent Account List presented
Consider Items Removed from Consent
Approve Application of Department of Justice COPS Hiring Grant
(Former Consent Item 7.b)
At the request of Mayor Roe, CM
Malinen briefly reviewed this item, as detailed in the Request for Council
Action (RCA) dated May 16, 2011.
Councilmember McGehee advised that
she had discussed with City Attorney Bartholdi the possibility of setting up a
Special Services District to assess Rosedale and Har Mar, and other applicable
general commercial areas, for reimbursement of the additional essential public
safety services they required. As Rosedale issues and a required police
presence continue to escalate, Councilmember McGehee opined that since Rosedale
had to-date consistently refused to work with the Roseville Police Department
to pay for a portion of these extra services, it may be necessary to implement
such a District.
Furthermore, Councilmember McGehee
noted that there would be financial implications if the grant was awarded and
accepted, in paying the difference in what the grant allowed and what
Roseville’s sworn officers received, including salary and benefits.
Councilmember McGehee questioned the staff time in applying for these grants;
and whether the City was in the position to make a one-year commitment to fund
the position(s) at the end of federal funding.
Councilmember McGehee expressed
her preference in delaying this grant application to explore the possibility of
a Special Taxing District going forward to pay for those extra services.
Councilmember Pust noted the
comprehensive nature of considering the Special Taxing District; and questioned
whether such a review could take place prior to the grant application deadline
of May 25, 2011.
Mayor Roe requested that Police
Chief Rick Mathwig and Administrative Assistant Karen Rubey respond to
questions and comments.
Chief Mathwig advised that the
grant application, review, and approval process would take until approximately
November or December of this year as each application was vetted and its merits
determined; at which time if the grant was awarded to the City of Roseville, it
would then come before the City Council for their approval to accept the funds
and enter into a grant agreement.
Ms. Rubey advised that staff had
yet to undertake the task of writing the application until the City Council
authorized the application; and at the request of Councilmember McGehee, estimated
that the application would entail approximately eight (8) hours of staff time
to gather information requested.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee
as to how much time elapsed between staff becoming aware of grants and the
application deadline, Ms. Rubey advised that staff usually had no more than
thirty (30) days between notice and response deadlines.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust as to the negative consequences to the City and/or Police Department in
receiving the grant and then not accepting the funds, Ms. Rubey was unaware of
those consequences; noting that the City currently had a good relationship with
the Department of Justice staff at this time; and that they were aware that all
communities were facing budget issues.
Councilmember Willmus expressed
his support of moving forward with the application, and expressed his interest
in concurrently looking into a Special Service District.
Mayor Roe noted the need to commit
to funding two (2) additional sworn officer positions for the additional year;
and the need to consider those implications as part of current budget deliberations.
City Manager Malinen advised that
there would also be time over the three (3) year grant funding period, if
awarded, to develop subsequent funding or to work with the business community
on options for assistance.
Pust moved, McGehee seconded,
authorization for the Police Department to apply for two (2) commercial patrol
positions through the Department of Justice COPS Hiring Grant; with the
understanding that City Council approval will be required prior to acceptance
of the grant.
Direct Staff to Advertise for Vacancies on the Human Rights Commission
(HRC) (Former Consent Item 7.e)
Mayor Roe noted that Councilmember
Willmus’ request was that this item be removed completely from tonight’s agenda
for consideration at a future meeting, as previously noted.
Councilmember Pust left the
meeting at this time, approximately 6:45 p.m.
a. Receive the 2010
Audit Report and Financial Statements
Finance Director Chris Miller
introduced Mr. Eichten for a presentation on the 2010 Audit Report.
Three (3) documents were provided
as bench handouts and respectively entitled, “City of Roseville Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report – Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2010;” “Management
Report for City of Roseville, MN dated December 31, 2010;” and “Special Purpose
Audit Reports on Single Audit, Internal Controls and Compliance with Laws and
Regulations dated December 31, 2010;”
James “Jim” H. Eichten, CPA of
Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co., PA
Mr. Eichten reviewed the Auditor’s
Role; providing an opinion on financial statements; testing of internal
controls and compliance; and federal award program audit tested this year. Mr.
Eichten advised that the audit report was organized in sections: Audit Summary;
Funding Cities in MN; Government Funds Overview; Financial Trends and
Conditions of Selected Funds; and accounting and Auditing Updates, with each
section addressed in more detail in the above-referenced reports and documents.
Mr. Eichten noted three (3)
findings during the audit on the City’s compliance with federal laws and
regulations, as detailed on page 1 of the Management Report’s Audit Summary;
and City management staff’s response to each of those findings.
Discussion included how tracking
systems can be integrated into the City’s accounting system in the future; and
correction of findings through documented responses or elimination of those
findings to address future funding requirements.
Mr. Eichten advised that his firm
did a lot of municipal audits, and due to current budget constraints, those
local governments were all receiving more federal aid and receiving subsequent
audit findings similar to the City of Roseville; and opined that these type of
findings were not unusual when put in their proper perspective.
MN Legal Compliance Audit
Mr. Eichten noted four (4)
findings during the audit on the City’s compliance with Minnesota laws and
regulations, as detailed on page 2 of the Management Report’s Audit Summary and
City management staff’s response to each of those findings.
Discussion included only two (2)
out of forty (40) tested invoices being delinquent slightly over the
thirty-five (35) day terms; needed legislation to bring the state law up to
current electronic payment standards for the requirement to obtain required
claims declarations from vendors on electronic fund transfer payments.
Finance Director Miller advised
that the City had received a similar finding in its previous audit; and due to
the cumbersome compliance burden and expense for the City as well as its smaller
vendors, management staff had chosen to take this audit hit for a number of
years as the lesser of two evils.
Mr. Eichten concurred that it was
an onerous task for a City to track every time they sent out an electronic
Mr. Miller noted that this only
impacted smaller vendors, many of whom were not equipped to do so, putting the
onus back on the City to call them to verify their receipt of the payment. Mr.
Miller questioned if it was worth the additional time and expense for the
purpose of removing this audit finding, with management staff making the value
judgment that it was not at this point; preferring that state statute be
updated to take the situation into consideration, since the current statute is
still applicable to paper payments, not modern procurement systems.
Mr. Eichten continued review of
the Management report, page 2 and beyond, related to follow-up on prior year
findings; Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) procedures implemented
by the City; and the importance of appropriate internal controls by providing
adequate funding for the City’s Finance Department to perform its oversight
Mr. Eichten noted the need to put
the contingency plan for the Information Technology Division into written
format, as developed and outlined.
Mr. Eichten reviewed the City’s
revenue and expenditure trends compared to previous years; declining taxable
market values and impacts to the City’s tax base and governmental fund revenue
per capita; one-time impacts of the Decertification of a Tax Increment
Financing (TIF) District; funds received from federal and county grants, rather
than state grants; and the City’s historic and continuingly healthy debt
Mayor Roe, for the benefit of the
public, reviewed the TIF District decertification process, with excess TIF
funds paid back to the County, in this case of approximately $7 million, with
Ramsey County then repaying the City of Roseville their portion of approximately
$1.2 million under property taxes; and other taxing jurisdictions, such as the
two (2) area school districts also receiving their portion of those funds.
Councilmember Pust returned to
the meeting at this time, approximately 7:05 p.m.
In reviewing the City’s General
Fund financial position, Mr. Eichten opined that the City had done a great job
in addressing its fund balance policies; with the percentage of expenditures at
45.1% based on actual data, not policy data, even though that was less than
their stated policy of retaining 50% reserve fund balances. Mr. Eichten noted
that the City’s General Fund had finished under budget, which was exceptional
in terms of projections, with those projections rarely seen that close to
actual budgets of that size; and important information for the City to take
into account as they made their decisions.
Mr. Eichten reviewed the financial
trends (page 15) of the City’s enterprise funds and overall improvements, while
minimal, but trending favorably.
Mr. Eichten noted additional
future mandates as the City addressed requirements of GASB Statement #54 in
reporting fund balances in conjunction with their fund balance policies; and
alerted the City Council to expect staff to return with recommendations related
to that policy.
In conclusion, Mr. Eichten advised
that his firm was offering a clean audit opinion on the City’s basic financial
statements; noted the findings as previously discussed and the need to continue
assessing internal controls; the overall improvements found in the City’s
General Fund financial condition; and the need for continued ongoing assessment
of financial projections and results including General, Other Operational and Enterprise
Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Eichten for
his presentation; and noted some areas still needing to be addressed by staff
or the City Council.
Councilmember Johnson commended
Finance Director Miller on a job well done in running a tight ship.
Mayor Roe concurred, specifically noting the budget projections to actual revenues
and expenditures as noted by Mr. Eichten.
Mr. Miller acknowledged the
commendations and advised that he would relay those commendations to staff.
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded,
acceptance of the 2010 Annual Financial Report as presented.
9. General Ordinances for Adoption
Consider an Ordinance Providing for Two Tier, Off-Sale and
On-Sale Suspension Penalties for Liquor License Violations
Councilmember Pust noted that she
may need to leave the meeting again, as the School District was unable to move
her portion of the award presentations to accommodate tonight’s meeting
Councilmember Johnson provided a
history of amendments to the City’s Ordinance, Title Three, Chapter 302.15 from
his perspective. Councilmember Johnson noted that then-Councilmember Roe and
Councilmember Pust had researched and provided recommended amendments to the
City’s liquor ordinance last year for both on and off-sale. At that time,
having found the penalty for off-sale license holders harsher than those for
on-sale, Councilmember Johnson noted that he had come forward with a proposal
for a two-tiered penalty system for sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor, but
that it had not received Council majority support. Councilmember Johnson noted
that he did not hear, at that time, any compelling reasons or rationale for
those penalties for off-sale establishments being treated more harshly than
those on-sale establishments having other sources of income than alcohol
sales. Councilmember Johnson cautioned that he wanted to clarify that there
were three (3) components of the penalty structure: monetary fine, days suspended,
and ultimate revocation; and he was only seeking to amend the number of days
for suspension and negative or disastrous impacts on off-sale establishments.
Since he had received a letter recently signed by ten (10) off-sale license holders
in Roseville, Councilmember Johnson sought to bring forth his two-tiered plan
again, and under a different City Council makeup, based on his discussions
to-date with new Councilmembers.
Councilmember Johnson noted the
changes proposed in amending the current ordinance (Attachment B), with the
exception of one error on page 2, where the suspension period for the first
violation for sale of alcohol to an obviously intoxicated individual should
be one (1) day, not zero (0) days as written.
Mayor Roe questioned if an actual
vote had been taken last year on Councilmember Johnson’s proposed two-tiered
Councilmember Johnson responded that it had not, as there was not sufficient
Councilmember support at that time; and noted that he had voted in support of
the amendments as presented at that time to provide a unanimous and united
As a licensed drug counselor and
former juvenile parole officer, Ms. Mosby noted that the biggest detractor of
youth health in her work with them, is definitely alcohol, then other drugs.
Ms. Mosby expressed her concern about decreasing penalties for selling to
youth; and asked that the City Council defer action on this item to allow other
concerned citizens who may not have heard that this issue was being discussed
tonight, to attend and make their comments known.
Ms. Mosby presented several facts
based on studies and the trends in alcohol use by teenagers and later in life,
and provided several examples of alcohol sales to minors; in addition to economic
costs for alcohol use in Minnesota, and to the City of Roseville in police
response to underage drinking and all of its implications and resulting crimes.
Ms. Mosby opined that it was a privilege
for license holders to sell alcoholic beverages that they made huge profits from
those sales and further opined that she felt strongly that if the City Council
decreased those penalties, those license holders may become lax in their
diligence. While recognizing that historical statistics and actual violations
in the community were minimal, it was important to keep kids alcohol free, and
that started as adults being role models individually and as a community in setting
high standards. In the City’s efforts to make things more fair between on and
off-sale businesses, Ms. Mosby spoke in support of making on-sale more
Steve Burwell, 2482 Albert
Street; Owner of Fairview Wines and Spirits
Mr. Burwell noted that, when talking
about a two-tiered system in Roseville, two different types of businesses were
being discussed; with on-sale selling drinks on their premises; and off-sale
patrons taking the product off-site. Mr. Burwell noted the restrictions on the
number of off-sale establishments per City Code as well as the additional
merchandise off-sales could sell based on State Statute; but the lack of any of
those restrictions for on-sale establishments in Roseville. Mr. Burwell
opined that the current ordinance was not a fair system for off-sale establishments,
based on the suspensions provisions; and from his perspective, opined that not
enough discussion or thought had gone into the current ordinance. Mr. Burwell
noted that he had been furious when he left the meeting in February of 2010
when the current ordinance was adopted and how the decision had been made; with
little or no input from the perspective of liquor store or bar owners, but rather
based only on individual City Councilmember perspectives.
Mr. Burwell referenced recent
postings on the Roseville Issues Forum (RIF) and the need for more discussion.
Mr. Burwell addressed the business practices of his establishment, as well as
those other responsible off-sale establishments in the community, clarifying
that they took their responsibilities seriously, and did not intentionally sell
to underage individuals or inebriated individuals, and used due diligence to
ensure that. Mr. Burwell opined that as a long-time resident, and business
owner, in the community, he and other business owners had a right to expect
more than a fifteen (15) minutes discussion that seriously impacted their
livelihoods, with other people making decisions impacting that livelihood. Mr.
Burwell noted his desire, as well as that of other business owners, in
protecting children; and his personal abhorrence for underage consumption and
Before a decision is made on
whether or not to reduce fines for off-sale establishments, Mr. Burwell asked
that a serious discussion be held by the City Council and its licensees, both
on and off-sale; rather than the continual push to make liquor licensees solve
social issues for the community. Mr. Burwell guaranteed the City Council that
minors were not buying alcohol from his establishment.
John Kysylyczyn, 3083 N
Mr. Kysylyczyn noted the ten (10)
months of City Councilmember time that went into this issue in 2000 in
reviewing alcohol laws and enacting a new structure and new way of doing business.
However, Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the further amendments made last year were
a bad decision, lacking further thought and process; or in hearing from special
interest groups on all sides, allowing for conclusions based on that discussion
and best practices in managing a penalty structure. Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that
a task force needed to be created to provide that more detailed discussion at
this time. Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the perception of decreased penalties
was strictly propaganda, if a review was made of the current ordinance that
actually reduced penalties of the 2000 ordinance; and addressed his
interpretation of cumulative penalties that needed additional research to avoid
serious problems. Mr. Kysylyczyn supported the intent of Councilmember
Johnson‘s proposed two-tier system; but opined that it needed more in depth
review. Mr. Kysylyczyn spoke in support of incentives being returned to the ordinance
and that it was wrong to mandate businesses to provide training when there was
no police oversight to ensure they’re doing the training, expressing his preference
for the City’s Police Department to pursue major crimes.
City Council Discussion
Mayor Roe questioned the City
Council’s preference in taking action tonight, or Ms. Mosby’s request to defer
Councilmember Pust expressed her
amenability to a further and broader discussion with business owners.
Councilmember McGehee opined that
this issue had been discussed multiple times already, and that public awareness
of this topic on tonight’s agenda and requested action had been included in the
agenda packet materials; and saw no reason to delay action any longer.
Councilmember Pust spoke in
support of further discussion; however, she noted the interest from public
testimony, requesting additional discussion and inviting the rest of the public
to weigh in, and saw no reason not to do so.
Councilmember McGehee expressed her
disagreement; and opined that if people were that concerned, they make an
effort to make their comments known; and based on the comment of three (3)
individuals at tonight’s meeting, there was no reason to hold action.
Mayor Roe noted that discussions were
among those drafting the ordinance and the off-sale license-holders; and
expressed uncertainty that discussions were held with other license holders;
and that other than his RIF posting late Sunday evening, he was unsure of any
other public notice provided. At the request of Councilmember Johnson in the
policy for noticing ordinance amendments, Mayor Roe advised that there was no
policy, but that in the past, the City Council has exercised its option for
more public input if so indicated.
Councilmember Willmus advised
that, in his review of past meeting tapes and previous discussions on this
issue as well as past discussions with Councilmember Johnson when this
suspension issue was discussed last year and his ongoing preference for a
two-tiered system; he concurred with Councilmember Johnson’s concerns.
Councilmember Willmus questioned the rationale of Councilmembers Pust and Roe,
when serving as a City Council Task Force on this issue before last year’s
amendments, on having separate licenses with identical fine and suspension structures.
Mayor Roe advised that the previous
City ordinance was essentially the same for on- and off-sales with one
exception for on-sale establishments who failed their first compliance check
and didn’t participate in training; with the same penalties for on- and
off-sales implemented last year, and based on his perspective, there should be
no distinction based on past practice, comparisons with other cites, and lack
of other communities having a two-tiered system.
Councilmember Pust noted the need
for clarity in publically discussing a “two tier” system, when it used to refer
to mandatory versus voluntary training, and now was referring to suspension and
penalty structures. Councilmember Pust noted that, in carefully reading the
ordinance, that the monetary fines and days of suspension are the same for on-
and off-sales to ensure that the ordinance didn’t treat people differently in
how they were fined or the number of days of suspension, but that the
difference was in the impacts for those on- and off-sale establishments.
Councilmember Willmus noted that
the impacts of that economic argument were often heard; however, the component
that concerned him most was more focused on the public safety impact and the
greater potential of harm from one type of licensee to another. Councilmember
Willmus reviewed past discussions prior to adoption of the current ordinance;
and the violation of selling to minors whether at an on- or off-sale
establishment and questioned why there were two (2) different types of
licenses, comparing them to driver’s licenses and their respective classes and
penalties for violations based on those respective classes. Councilmember
Willmus opined that there was a fairness or equity question that needed to be
balanced; and spoke in support of Councilmember Johnson’s proposed ordinance
amendments, especially the penalty structure penalizing those where the violation
Councilmember Johnson noted his
perception of public comment was that additional discussion was needed; but
that they were not necessarily as a whole opposed to the proposed ordinance
Councilmember McGehee spoke in
support of the proposed ordinance amendments, concurring with the comments of
Councilmember Willmus. Councilmember McGehee opined that many problems were caused
by adults purchasing liquor and providing it to minors; and even though a
non-drinker herself, recognized the significant problems of alcohol in the
community, state and country in general. Councilmember McGehee opined that
those problems were not the issue currently before the Council, while being an
emotional issue, but that the issue was one of equity for business owners.
Councilmember McGehee opined that the majority of the problems to-date occurred
to be from on-sale, not off-sale establishments; and further opined that the proposed
amendments were reflected accordingly in what was actually needed.
Councilmember Pust directed
several questions to Police Chief Mathwig, clarifying consequences to business
owners and minors in sales/purchase of alcohol; mandatory versus voluntary training
and how that training was documented and tracked by the Police Department to
ensure compliance and based on best practices; with the Department only
researching training records upon a business’s failure to comply with the
department not checking records on site unless a violation occurs; and
additional fees for on-sale licenses versus off-sale licenses based on typical
public safety calls at those establishments.
Councilmember Pust noted the
license costs for on-sale versus off-sale at approximately twenty-three (23)
times more to take those additional service requirements into account,
establishing an equity in itself, even though they’re not the same, and the City’s
past decision that they were not going to be treated the same, based on
potential harm and law enforcement needs for on-sale businesses. Councilmember
Pust apologized for her language related to “drunk” rather than “intoxicated”
persons on her RIF posting, but referred to State Statute use of that specific
language. Councilmember Pust provided her perspective on the impacts of an
intoxicated person based on their frequenting an on-sale versus an off-sale
establishment, as well as the impacts to the general public and the number of
people potentially harmed from their actions. Councilmember Pust defended the
recommendations she and Councilmember Roe had made when they served on the Task
Force related to this ordinance; and the intent not being to treat off-sales
more harshly by keeping penalties the same. Councilmember Pust reiterated that
the penalty structure in the current ordinance was the same as the previous
ordinance enacted in 2000, with the same amount of fine and days of
suspension. Councilmember Pust acknowledged that in owning a liquor store,
alcohol sales were the only source of income for that business, and if
operations were suspended, it would have a larger economic impact on them.
Councilmember Pust, however, noted that it wasn’t the City’s liquor ordinance
that treated them differently, simply the business they were in. Councilmember
Pust challenged the comments made that government was always against off-sale
liquor store owners; noting if that were the case, the City wouldn’t have limited
how many could operate in Roseville, and would let the free market drive that
number. Councilmember Pust opined that the City had determined that it had a
reason to regulate how much alcohol was sold in the community; and opined that
this had provided a stable group of good citizens running those off-sale
businesses. If a more broad-based community discussion was indicated, Councilmember
Pust encouraged residents to let their elected City Councilmembers know their
thoughts and the level of penalties they felt were appropriate.
Councilmember Johnson noted that,
with his proposed ordinance amendments, the City of Roseville would still be in
the top five percent (5%) of metropolitan communities in their strictness for
fines and days of suspension; and without the proposed amendments, were by far
the strictest for off-sales. Councilmember Johnson assured the public that if
he had any inclination that off-sale license holders would become less diligent
in monitoring their sales, he would not suggest the amendments. Councilmember
Johnson opined that the issue came down to individual Councilmember
perspectives on punitive damages to be realized by shutting down a business for
a day versus businesses allowed to stay open, but lose only a portion of their business.
Councilmember McGehee concurred
with Councilmember Johnson opining that off-sale liquor store owners in
Roseville were responsible business owners; and that the previous penalty was
unfair. Councilmember McGehee opined that if it was found that violations
increase, the City Council could reconsider the penalties in the future.
Mayor Roe, as proposer of the
current ordinance, questioned rationale in reducing penalties for second and
third offenses, as well as in other violations; if the actual concern was that
everyone makes mistakes.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
the impacts in an off-sale closing for thirty (30) days, ultimately closing the
business for good.
Mayor Roe noted that whether for
thirty (30) or sixty (60) days, either way they went out of business.
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, enactment
of Ordinance No. 1408 (Attachment B) entitled, “An Ordinance Amending Title
Three, Chapter 302.15 Civil Penalty Providing for Two Tier (Off Sale and On
Sale and 3-2) Suspension Penalties for Liquor License Violation;.” as corrected
for a one-day suspension for the first violation for the Sale of alcoholic
beverage to an obviously intoxicated person.
Pust moved, Roe seconded, TABLING
the vote until further community input was received.
Ayes: Pust and Roe.
Nays: McGehee; Johnson; and
Call (Original Motion as corrected)
Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; and
Nays: Pust and Roe.
Mayor Roe noted that a motion to
publish a summary of the ordinance required a super-majority vote, based on
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded,
enactment of Ordinance Summary No.1408 (Attachment C) for publication purposes entitled,
“A Summary of an Ordinance Amending Title Three, Chapter 302.15 Civil Penalty
Providing for Two Tier (Off Sale and On Sale) Suspension Penalties for Liquor
Councilmember Pust spoke in
opposition to the motion based on the lack of a full community discussion, and
her need that then the full ordinance should be published to make the public
aware of the full content and action.
Mayor Roe concurred, speaking in
opposition to the motion to publish only a summary as well, noting that the
full ordinance was not inordinately long.
Mr. Kysylyczyn encouraged the City
Council to vote for the motion for the public summary in an effort to save
taxpayer monies; opining that the full ordinance would provide no additional
public explanation; and suggested the actions be explained in more detail in a
future City newsletter or other means.
City Attorney Gaughan
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, City Attorney Gaughan advised that there was no legal requirement on
how the publication was formatted, as long as the information passed was included.
Councilmember Willmus noted that
the City Council majority appeared to favor printing the entire ordinance.
Motion failed (lacking the 4/5
super majority vote).
Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:18 p.m.
and reconvened at approximately 8:22 p.m.
Joint Meeting with the Ethics Commission
Members of the Ethics Commission
present included Chair David Horsager; and Members Anne Collopy and Ben Lehman.
Chair Horsager briefly reviewed 2010 activities of the Commission related to
Ethics Cards and Quarterly Tips.
Revisions to Ethics Code
As a bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, Chair Horsager provided a recommended
revision to the Ethics Code, basically changing language for a “yearly seminar”
to “annual training” to better reflect possible training opportunities that may
include online or webinar training.
Discussion included types of
training for management staff; mandatory versus encouraged training;
opportunities to bring ethics considerations and thoughts to the forefront of
people’s minds; and rationale in recommending language changes based on
differing connotations and perceptions.
Recap on 2011 Annual Ethics
Chair Horsager advised that the
2011 Ethics Training, provided by Dr. Schultz from Hamline University, was
attended by thirty-four (34) participants; with all new Commissioners, with the
exception of one (1) voluntarily attending. Chair Horsager noted that the
Commission attempted to change the annual training and provide different
challenges to garner interest and discussion.
Report on Ethics Opinions in
Chair Horsager noted, for the
public record, that the Commission heard no complaints and were aware of no
known breaches to the Ethics Code by the City. As a public reminder, Chair
Horsager reviewed the process for bringing Ethics complaints against an elected
official to the attention of the City Attorney; and any complaints against
staff to the City Manager.
Report on Projects and
Chair Horsager noted the Commission’s
interest in pursuing projects and activities that get people thinking daily in
how to live out their ethics; with the top seven (7) ethical decisions taken
from code and made into a simple card format entitled, “Do What is Right for
Roseville,” to inspire people to live it daily.
Chair Horsager noted the
quarterly tips posted on line addressing ethics issues from around the country.
Chair Horsager noted that the
Commission budget needs were nominal.
Ethics Code and recommended
Councilmember McGehee noted the
advantages of the 2011 training being streamed on the web for those unable to
Chair Horsager noted that every
new Advisory Commissioner would receive a DVD of the training, also available
for any interested residents.
City Manager Malinen suggested
that the proposed amendment be considered, as part of an amended Ethics
Resolution at a future meeting.
New Commissioners Anne Collopy and
Ben Lehman briefly expressed their interest in serving on the Commission.
Mayor Roe thanked Commissioners
for their service, and for tonight’s presentation.
Public Hearing for Request by Charles Jungmann for Approval of a
Minor Subdivision Creating One Additional Residential Parcel at 2220 Acorn Road
Mayor Roe reiterated the change in
tonight’s agenda recognizing the Public Hearing related to this request.
Councilmember McGehee noted the
bench handout, consisting of an e-mail dated May 15, 2011, from Gary Boryczka,
2250 Acorn Road, and supporting documentation provided by Mr. Boryczka related
to his concerns of watershed damage and drainage issues; attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly
reviewed the request of Charles Jungmann for approval of a MINOR SUBDIVISION
creating one (1) additional residential parcel at 2220 Acorn Road (PF11-006) as
detailed in the RCA dated May 16, 2011; with staff recommending approval, as
Mr. Lloyd responded to questions
of Councilmember McGehee related to the 60-day review of the application, as
well as preciseness of the lot lines; with Mr. Lloyd noting the parameters of
the 60-day review period, and references to the lot lines addressed in the RCA
in Section 5.1, based on City Code Chapter 11 (Subdivision Code), and 1103.6F
Applicant Charles Jungmann
Mayor Roe noted that the applicant
was present; but had no comment at this time.
City Engineer Debra Bloom
Ms. Bloom clarified the basic
proposal to subdivide the property; and proposed easements for protection of
existing storm water ponds. At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom clarified
the process to address storm water runoff for minor subdivisions triggered by
pulling a Building Permit that would require topography maps, where the water
is currently going and where it is proposed to go tomorrow; and determining any
hardships or drainage that may be directed to adjacent property owners, as part
of the overall engineering review. At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms. Bloom
further clarified that there could be no increased runoff to adjacent
Councilmember McGehee noted her
discussions with City Engineer Bloom and Community Development Director
Trudgeon related to this issue and Mr. Boryczka’s concerns; noting that they
had advised that the City Council could condition their approval and tie any
subdivision approval to that condition. Councilmember McGehee supported
deferring action if this did not satisfy the concerns, to direct Planning staff
to make the requirements tighter.
At the request of Mayor Roe, Ms.
Bloom advised that the City could include a stormwater management condition as
suggested, similar to that done for the 3053 Chatsworth application, with approval
contingent upon staff approval of a stormwater management plan, with the
application then coming back before the City Council as a Consent Agenda Item
at a future meeting for finalization.
Mayor Roe opened the Public
Hearing at 8:48 p.m. for the purpose of hearing public comment on the request
for approval of a MINOR SUBDIVISION creating one (1) additional residential parcel
at 2220 Acorn Road (PF11-006).
Vivian Ramalingen, 2182 Acorn Road
Ms. Ramalingen advised that she
had been unaware of Mr. Boryczka’s comments until tonight’s meeting, and asked
for a better explanation for runoff issues; and a better understanding of where
the future residential structure would be located.
Merlyn Scroggins, 2237 Acorn
Once staff’s presentation and map
display clarified the location of the subdivision, Mr. Scroggins spoke in
support of the request, opining that a private property owner could do as they
wished with their property; and further opined that this looked like a proper
way to divide the property.
Gary Boryczka, 2250 Acorn Road
Mr. Boryczka expounded on his written
comments provided as a bench handout; and expressed the additional negative
impacts to his property adjoining Mr. Jungmann’s property on the north. Mr.
Boryczka advised that he wasn’t concerned about splitting the lot, but only
sought to correct drainage problems that had taken place and been exacerbated
over the last fifty (50) years. Mr. Boryczka opined that the property abstract
and easements should be adhered to, with no storm water drainage altered
through manmade means that would no longer negatively affect adjacent property
owners. Mr. Boryczka provided a detailed review pictorially and verbally from
his perspective on the changes made to the property that negatively impacted
storm water runoff and flooded his property.
Discussion ensued as
Councilmembers and Mr. Boryczka reviewed the documentation provided.
Mr. Boryczka advised that he
expected something to be done, whether by the City Council or through his actions,
opining that he didn’t cause the problem, but he planned to do something about
Mayor Roe recognized Mr.
Borycaka’s concerns, and expressed appreciation for his testimony tonight.
Mr. Ramalingen 3182 Acorn Road
Mr. Ramalingen questioned references
to the Tree Preservation Plan; with Mayor Roe reviewing the Tree Preservation
Plan as part of the revised zoning code adopted in 2010, to be followed by any
Applicant, Charles Jungmann
Mr. Jungmann provided his
perspectives on the two (2) wetland ponds referenced in Mr. Boryczka’s
documentation; and their current status and topographical changes over the
years; and actions taken upon his purchase of the property to enlarge one of
the ponds following its excavation and increased depth.
At the request of Councilmember
Willmus, Mr. Jungmann advised that the pond excavation (Wetland Pond #2) was
done at the direction of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) approximately
six (6) years ago.
City Engineer Bloom clarified that
the action would have been permitted by the Rice Creek Watershed District, not
Further discussion ensued, with
references to various letters and documents in the materials provided by Mr.
Boryczka related to the wetlands; a letter addressed to the property owner at
2182 Acorn Road and dated October 9, 2000, who was not Mr. Jungmann; Ms. Ramalingen
clarifying address changes when the Jungmann’s home was built; and any further
correspondence from Rice Creek Watershed District related to the drainage.
Mr. Jungmann advised that he would
search for additional correspondence related to satisfactory completion of
Mayor Roe closed the Public
Hearing at 9:16 p.m.
Discussion between staff and
Councilmembers included Associate Planner Lloyd confirming where a new home
could be located on the new lot based on parameters outlined in City Code; and
verification by City Engineer Bloom of corrections that could be conditioned on
any approval similar to those previously referenced on Chatsworth; potential
time for resolution among various agencies estimated at 4-6 months; and staff
suggesting that the issues be corrected at this time; with Ms. Bloom expressing
her confidence that staff can address any such condition and provide a report
back to the City Council at a later date, requiring the property owner to
adhere to that plan.
Business Items (Action Items)
Consider Request by Charles Jungmann for Approval of a Minor Subdivision
Creating One Additional Residential Parcel at 2220 Acorn Road
Pust moved, Willmus seconded, approval
of the requested MINOR SUBDIVISION at 2220 Acorn Road; based on the input received
during tonight’s public hearing; and the comments and findings of Sections 4-6
and the recommendation of Section 7 of the Request for Council Action dated May
16, 2011; amended as follows:
Add Condition c: “The
applicant shall submit a comprehensive storm water management plan, and a
topographical survey, as required by and meeting staff’s approval.”
City Engineer Bloom advised that
she was awaiting a return call from the Rice Creek Watershed District related
to this issue; and would consult with them on previous permits and
requirements; to ensure that whatever is developed would be consistent with
those. Ms. Bloom advised that she was well aware of issues on adjacent lots;
and would review any surveys and abstracts. Ms. Bloom advised that she could
not commit to the City Council that every wetland would be resolved; however,
she would work with local governing units to resolve the issue; and that she
would ensure any easements were put in place.
Business Items – Presentations/Discussions
City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen reviewed
upcoming agenda items.
Discussion included information
provided as a bench handout by City Manager Malinen regarding a meeting he and
Mayor Roe had attended related to the Viking Stadium; with Councilmembers
concurring that the City should hold off on any discussion or action until the
legislation session ended in one week.
Further discussion included timing
in setting target levies before the preliminary levies to provide a target for
the City Council majority and staff to work under; with Councilmember Willmus
suggesting that it be deferred until June.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Willmus moved, Johnson seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:34 p.m.