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

City Council

City 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.


2.            Approve Agenda

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.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


3.         Public Comment

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 Announcements

          Mayor Roe 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 Foundation.


Mayor Roe and Councilmembers announced upcoming meetings/events and how to obtain additional information.  Meetings included:

§  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.


5.            Recognitions, Donations, Communications


6.         Approve Minutes


a.            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 packet.


Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minutes of the May 9, 2011 meeting as submitted.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; Willmus; Pust; 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

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

ACH Payments







                        Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


c.         Approve 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.


                        Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


d.            Consider a Supplemental Trust Indenture for Centennial Gardens Apartment Project

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 2007.”


                        Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


f.             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 (Attachment B).


                        Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


8.            Consider Items Removed from Consent


g.            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.


                        Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


e.            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.


10.      Presentations


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.


Management Report

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 Findings

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 payment.


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 functions.


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 ratios.


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 Fund activities.


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.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


9.         General Ordinances for Adoption


a.            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 schedule.


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 system.

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 front.


Public Comment

Deb Mosby

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 restrictive.


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 drunk driving.


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 Victoria Street

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 action.


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 is occurring.


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 amendments.


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.

                        Roll Call

Ayes: Pust and Roe.

Nays: McGehee; Johnson; and Willmus.

Motion failed.


                        Roll Call (Original Motion as corrected)

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; and Willmus.

Nays: Pust and Roe.

Motion carried.


Mayor Roe noted that a motion to publish a summary of the ordinance required a super-majority vote, based on statutory requirements.


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 License Violations.”


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.


Public Comment

John Kysylyczyn

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.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee; Johnson; and Willmus.

Nays: Pust and Roe.

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.


b.            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 Training

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 2010

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 Activities

§  Ethics Cards

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.

§  Ethics Tips

Chair Horsager noted the quarterly tips posted on line addressing ethics issues from around the country.


Budget Needs

Chair Horsager noted that the Commission budget needs were nominal.


Ethics Code and recommended change

Councilmember McGehee noted the advantages of the 2011 training being streamed on the web for those unable to attend.


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.


13.         Public Hearings


a.            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 conditioned. 


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 (Lot Standards).


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 properties.


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).


Public Comment


                   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 Road

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 it.


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 new developments.


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 the DNR.


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 drainage work.


Mayor Roe closed the Public Hearing at 9:16 p.m.


City Council Discussion

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.


14.         Business Items (Action Items)


a.            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.


                      Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


15.         Business Items – Presentations/Discussions


16.         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.

17.         Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings



16.      Adjourn

Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:34 p.m.

                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.