City
Council Meeting Minutes
June 11, 2012
1. Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 5:35 pm and welcomed
everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for June: Johnson; McGehee; Pust; Willmus; and
Roe). City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present; and Councilmember Pust
arrived during the Closed Session.
Closed Executive Session
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, going into closed executive session to discuss
pending litigation, subject to attorney-client privilege, in accordance with MN
Statutes section 13d. The pending litigation cases to be discussed
were: City of Roseville v. Xtra Lease and City of Roseville v. Cobalt
Industrial REIT II, et. al.
Roll call
Ayes: McGehee, Johnson, Willmus, and Roe
Nays: None
Mayor Roe convened the City Council in Closed Executive Session at approximately
5:37 pm. The closed session included City Manager Malinen, City Attorney
Mark Gaughan, and attorney Eric Quiring of Ratwik, Roszcak, and Maloney,
representing the City in the Xtra Lease matter.
Pust arrived during closed session, at approximately 6:00 pm.
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, adjourning the closed executive session and returning
to open session at approximately 6:20 pm.
Roll call
Ayes: Pust, McGehee, Johnson, Willmus, and Roe
Nays: None
Mayor Roe re-convened the City Council in Open Session at approximately 6:24 pm.
Roll Call
Mayor Roe called to order the
Roseville City Council regular meeting at approximately 6:26 p.m. and welcomed
everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for June: Johnson; McGehee; Pust; Willmus;
and Roe). City Attorney Mark Gaughan was also present.
2. Approve Agenda
Councilmember McGehee requested
removal of Consent Agenda Item 7.d entitled, “Approve Joint Meeting with School
District on Tuesday, June 26, 2012.
On behalf of staff, City Manager
Malinen requested removal of Business Item 7.g entitled, “Request to Perform
Abatement at 2744 Mackubin Street;” noting that staff and the homeowner were in
the process of resolving the violations.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
approval of the agenda as amended.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust; Willmus; 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, Announcements and Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (HRA) Report
Mayor Roe announced an upcoming
meeting of the Human Rights Commission’s Civic Engagement Task Force on
Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 6:30 pm in the City Hall Council Chambers.
Councilmember McGehee referred the
listening audience to an article in the Business Section of the Star Tribune of
June 11, 2012, featuring Roseville employer, Symantec
5. Recognitions,
Donations, Communications
a. Girl Scout Gold Award Winners
Mayor Roe read specific
proclamations recognizing the projects undertaken by individual Girl Scouts and
recognized their achievements in earning the highest Girl Scout Award, the Girl
Scout Gold Award. Winners were: Emma Carpenter; Hanna Gasaway; Caitlin
Gastecki; and Kallie Nelson.
The proclamations further declared
June 11, 2012 to be Girl Scout Day in the City of Roseville; and honored the
winners. Those present at the meeting included: Emma Carpenter; Hanna Gasaway;
Caitlin Gastecki.
McGehee moved, Pust seconded to
recognize the Girl Scout Gold Award winners for their efforts.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b. Recognize Statewide Human Rights
Essay Contest Winner
On behalf of the community, Mayor
Roe recognized and congratulated Gabriel Cederberg, his family, and teachers
Barbara Grengs and Lucas Ebert of Parkview Elementary School, for Gabriel’s
outstanding accomplishment as first place winner of the 2012 annual state-wide
Human Rights Essay Contest.
At the invitation of Mayor Roe, Gabriel
thanked Ms. Grengs, his seventh grade teacher for her assistance with the
format of his essay; and fellow soccer players on the soccer team who encouraged
him to write the essay; and expressed his pride in representing the City of
Roseville at the state level.
City Manager Malinen, as detailed
in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated June 11, 2012, noted that of the
eleven (11) statewide essay contest held to-date, a Roseville student had taken
first place in eight (8) of those annual contests. City Manager Malinen opined
that this reflected the City’s quality of education achieved by its school
districts; and on behalf of the community, expressed pride in that quality of
education.
6. Approve Minutes
a.
Approve Minutes of May 21, 2012 Meeting
Mayor Roe noted that he had
several additional corrections for the amended version of the meeting minutes.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
several revisions made by Councilmember McGehee from his recollection of the
meeting discussion, as well as his review of the replay of the meeting,
questioning where that additional information came from. Specific areas he was
unable to confirm from the replay included:
·
Page 14, line 42 and page 15, line 3
·
Page 17, lines 40-43 (amended copy, lines 32-36)
·
Councilmember Willmus noted that
these meeting minutes, upon adoption, represented a reflection of the actual
meeting; and sought to ensure, for historical archive purposes, that they were
accurately reflecting the information conveyed at the meeting, not the wishes
of individuals of what they wanted to say, or wished they had said.
Councilmember McGehee offered to
review the tape again; however, she expressed confidence that her comments were
made at the meeting and in response to other comments at the bench,
specifically the number of acres in question and the ratio of green space.
Mayor Roe clarified that the
“folded” copy were the revisions made by Councilmember McGehee; and the
“unfolded” copy represented the final revisions with all individual comments as
received.
After ensuing discussion and at
the suggestion of Mayor Roe, it was the consensus to bring the meeting minutes
back to the next regular business meeting for approval, once Councilmembers had
an opportunity to review them more thoroughly. Mayor Roe asked that individual
Councilmembers go through the “redline” final revisions copy since that
included all contributions to-date.
Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, tabling
discussion of the minutes of the May 21, 2012 meeting until the June 18, 2012
meeting.
Mayor Roe respectfully requested
that individual Councilmembers get their revisions to Administration staff
prior to meeting agenda packet distribution.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
7.
Approve Consent Agenda
There were no additional changes to
the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent
Agenda.
a.
Approve Payments
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded,
approval of the following claims and payments as presented.
|
ACH Payments
|
$509,064.16
|
|
66277-66370
|
1,103,527.83
|
|
Total
|
$1,612,591.99
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Approve Business and Other Licenses
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of license applications for the applicants as listed in the Request for Council
Action (RCA) dated June 11, 2012 as presented.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding
$5,000
Mayor Roe questioned whether the
City Council hadn’t already awarded the sealcoating contract in action at a
previous meeting, and questioned if this was a duplicate action request.
Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval
of the submitted list of general purchases and contracts for services presented
in detail on the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated June 11, 2012.
|
Department
|
Vendor
|
Description
|
Amount
|
|
Public Works
|
Truck Utilities
|
Pick-up truck lift and plow
|
$7,440.02
|
|
Sewer
|
Ess Brothers
|
Manhole sealing
|
30,000.00
|
|
Streetscape
|
Pearson Brothers
|
Sealcoating services
|
185,584.00
|
|
Streets
|
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc.
|
Aggregate materials
|
11,398.00
|
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e.
Order Feasibility Report and Approve an Agreement between the
City of Shoreview and the City of Roseville for the County Road D
Reconstruction Project
Councilmember Willmus noted that
this work was adjacent to the Emmett D. Williams School; and past requests had
been received for a signalized crosswalk at that location. Councilmember
Willmus asked that staff inquire about that possibility as the project moves
forward.
Johnson
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10987(Attachment A)
entitled, “Resolution Ordering Preparation of Feasibility Report for County
Road D Reconstruction Project.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Johnson
moved, McGehee seconded, approval of a Street Reconstruction Agreement
(Attachment B) between the Cities of Shoreview and Roseville, for the County
Road D Reconstruction Project.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Approve Resolution Supporting the Environmental Assistance Grant
Application for Villa Park Wetland Restoration Project
Councilmember McGehee thanked
staff for their ongoing diligence in seeking grant funds for wetland clean-up
and overall improved water quality issues.
Johnson
moved, McGehee seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10988 (Attachment A)
entitled, “Resolution Supporting the Environmental Assistance Grant Application
for Villa Park Wetland Restoration Project.”
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
8.
Consider Items Removed from Consent
d.
Approve Joint Meeting with School District on Tuesday, June 26,
2012
At the request of Mayor Roe, City
Manager Malinen briefly reviewed the discussions and scheduling to-date of this
joint meeting with Roseville School District No. 623. City Manager Malinen
advised that this was a follow-up of interest expressed by the City Council
during strategic planning discussions for a joint meeting between the City
Council and School Board and staff. City Manager Malinen advised that he and
Mayor Roe had met preliminarily with the Board Chair and Superintendent to
review dates and potential agenda topics; with the resulting meeting scheduled
for June 26, 2012, at 6:30 p.m. at School District offices.
Councilmember McGehee stated that
she would like to participate in this event; however, she was unable to do so
on that date, and questioned if there was any possibility to move it to another
date.
Mayor Roe noted that June 26th
was the regular meeting date of the School Board, and they were hosting the
meeting at their offices.
Discussion ensued regarding other
potential meeting dates, with the School Board thought to be off in July and
not meeting again until August.
While recognizing the preference
to have all members available to participate in the meeting; Mayor Roe noted
that this may prove unrealistic in attempting to accommodate so many
schedules. Mayor Roe polled individual Councilmembers for a majority
consensus.
Councilmembers Johnson and Willmus
stated that the June meeting date was fine with them.
Councilmember Pust stated that she
was fine with the June meeting date; and further noted that any additional
discussion or action would need to come back to both bodies at a future
meeting.
City Manager Malinen identified
preliminary topics as compiled by the School District Board Chair and
Superintendent, along with him and Mayor Roe, is proposed as follows:
·
Collaboration and cooperation
·
Owasso school site intentions, as demolition plans move forward
and preparation is pursued for redevelopment of that site; along with the
impacts on adjacent City-owned athletic fields
·
Senior Citizen programs
·
Update the existing joint work plan created several years ago
Councilmember McGehee sought assurance
that the meeting would be streamed; with Mayor Roe
responding that the preliminary discussions indicated that this
would be the case.
Councilmember Willmus questioned
if the meeting would also be available for replay via C-TV; with Mayor Roe
asking City Manager Malinen to verify that, but opining that he was confident
that it should be available through either the City’s website or C-TV, since it
should default to City rules.
Mayor Roe encouraged Councilmember
McGehee, based on the agenda outlined by City Manager Malinen, to submit any comments
on those items in writing prior to the meeting.
Pust moved, McGehee seconded,
approval of a Special Meeting between the City Council of Roseville and the
Roseville Area School District, scheduled for Tuesday, June 26, 2012 at the
District Offices at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
12. General
Ordinances for Adoption
13. Presentations
a.
Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission (PWETC)
Meeting with City Council
All members of the PWETC were
present and introduced: Chair Jan Vanderwall; Past Chair Jim DeBenedet; Vice
Chair Dwayne Stenlund; and Members Joan Felice and Steve Gjerdingen.
Chair Vanderwall noted the diverse
expertise and individual interests of Members, and how those individual
opinions provided good discussions and a good working commission, resulting in
agreement of what was in the best interest of the City for recommendation to
the City Council. Chair Vanderwall expressed the PWETC’s appreciation of the
City’s Public Works and Engineering staff as well.
As detailed in the RCA dated June
11, 2012, Chair Vanderwall reviewed the PWETC’s activities and accomplishments
over the last year and the proposed work plan for the upcoming year.
Councilmember Pust expressed her
interest in pursuing additional discussions yet this year on organized refuse
collection.
Councilmember Johnson asked that
the PWETC, in their review of the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP),
provide input on the steps taken to-date, as recommended by the CIP Task Force
and major outlay implemented; and whether they thought those steps were
adequate in maintaining the strategies put in place.
Past Chair DeBenedet, opining that
this had been his major area of interest for some time, and as he’d noted at
prior City Council meetings, his main reason for volunteering to serve on the
PWETC. Mr. DeBenedet emphasized the need for the City to not be short-sighted
with maintenance of its infrastructure, particularly that underground and not
easily visible. Mr. DeBenedet expressed his appreciation for the steps taken
to-date by the City;’ however, he noted that “you don’t get something for nothing;”
and rate increases would need to continue or be stable for the short- and
long-term upkeep of that infrastructure. Mr. DeBenedet recognized the City
Council’s rationale in making the rate increases to facilitate the CIP a
two-step process; however, he cautioned that the second phase needed to remain
in place and occur this year or very soon, and not be forgotten or deferred yet
again.
Mayor Roe noted that the Task
Force had not addressed funding for roadway replacement and refurbishment
(Pavement Management Program – PMP), and while there was still a good balance
in the fund, there were not as many gas tax money collections creating stresses
on the PMP with that reduced funding mechanism. Mayor Roe suggested that the
PWETC continue to look at how to address the PMP in the future.
Chair Vanderwall opined that good
maintenance versus more replacement (e.g. mill and overlay as indicated) should
be considered if that could effectively solve the problem and avoid or delay
reconstruction projects.
Mayor Roe concurred; and asked
that the PWETC consider reviewing the Pavement Condition Index calculations
currently used; and whether lower rates would provide a trade-off or create
more problems in the long-run. Mayor Roe asked the PWETC’s detailed review of
those options for recommendation to the City Council.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in
support of organized refuse collection as well; and expressed her interest in
different methods of collection, with many cities having successfully managed
introduction and non-controversial implementation of that option to ensure
licensed haulers hadn’t lost a major number of customers, and creating a
win-win for them and cities. Councilmember McGehee noted that she had
testified before the state legislature to support organized collection and
thanked the PWETC for the information and research they had brought forward
to-date.
Councilmember McGehee requested an
update on tree planting in boulevards to ensure planted trees; and questioned
if the PWETC had educational information or plans for additional groundwater
collection around boulevard trees being included in the City’s Zoning Code.
Member Stenlund advised that the
issue had certainly not been forgotten, and noted that the Minnesota Department
of Transportation (MnDOT), his employer, continued to work on opportunities for
implantation, one of which was the Stockholm process, previously presented and
interesting for Minnesota with our similar climate and first snow melt capture
opportunities. Mr. Stenlund encouraged Councilmembers to check out the Park
and Ride in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, as it used an intercept system
to capture runoff in storm water vaults with trees planted and using that
runoff. Mr. Stenlund advised that options will be discussed and recommended as
part of the Complete Streets Policy on the PWETC work plan, as well as Minimum
Impact Design Standards developed by the State of MN and the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency‘s (MPCA)’s Storm Water Committee.
Councilmember Willmus advised
that, specific to organized refuse collection and his monitoring of PWETC
discussions, he was encouraged by the possibilities. However, one area Councilmember
Willmus requested additional information for was how such a program would be
administered, whether as a function of the Public Works/Engineering Department
or another department within the City. Councilmember Willmus requested
additional feedback from the PWETC on that area; as well as the possibility of
combining solid waste organized collection with the recycling component.
Councilmember Willmus noted that a number of cities were using single stream
recycling, and noted the time that had elapsed since Roseville had considered
that option, suggesting that it may be time to revisit that with new and
emerging technologies available, making it a more environmentally-friendly
option than in the past.
Chair Vanderwall advised that the
PWETC’s perspective, was to await direction and a charge from the City Council
on a defined process for pursuing organized refuse collection (e.g. whether
Public Hearings would be held at the City Council or PWETC level). Chair
Vanderwall opined that there may be additional and multiple modifications to
the program as a result of that process; with the end game indicating the best
option and form and a basis from which to operate (e.g. whether to manage the
program through a management contract or in-house at the Public Works level).
Chair Vanderwall spoke in support of that discussion process being initiated so
all potential points could be discussed. While Chair Vanderwall recognized the
benefit of fewer vehicles on area streets, resulting in increased safety and
longevity of those streets as one consideration, he clarified that the main
concern was the current rate variances experienced among neighbors; and the
PWETC’s belief that those rates could be lowered and standardized throughout
the City of Roseville, based on the experiences of surrounding communities.
Mayor Roe noted, and expressed
appreciation, for the PWETC’s inclusion and productive interaction with haulers
to-date, and asked that they continue to include them in the process, and in
compliance with statutory requirements. Mayor Roe opined that it was the City
Council’s desire, as well as obviously that of the PWETC, to be respectful of
those businesses.
Chair Vanderwall noted the PWETC’s
desire for more dialogue with the haulers; however, he advised that they were
more often than not represented by their legal counsel who presented a standard
statement.
Mayor Roe reiterated the City’s
interest in individual companies being involved in the process.
Councilmember Pust noted the City’s
implementation several years ago of a two-tiered water rate to encourage
conservation rates; and asked if the PWETC had analyzed whether that system had
made as much of or any difference.
Chair Vanderwall opined that it
had not had the desired impact to the extent intended.
Past Chair DeBenedet advised that
the PWETC had discussed reviewing the rate structure last fall; however, at
that time there was not enough information for a meaningful analysis. However,
Mr. DeBenedet concurred with Chair Vanderwall that there was not a significant
impact seen for water use and reduced consumption with such a pricing tier.
Councilmember Pust asked that the
PWETC review peer communities and their success rate with incentivizing water
conservation. Councilmember Pust further questioned if residents were aware of
or educated about conservation efforts, including the rain barrel program.
City Manager Malinen and Public
Works Director Duane Schwartz noted that the City had just recently held a sale
on compost bins and rain barrels, with all rain barrels (approximately 40)
sold.
Councilmember Pust further noted
the most heard comment throughout the community was continued build out of pathways;
and asked that the PWETC help get that build out accomplished by providing
options and recommendations to the City Council on funding resources to do so.
Member Gjerdingen noted that
pathways were not considered as a standard part of reconstruction projects over
the next twenty (20) years (e.g. Victoria Street south of County Road B); and
opined that other pathway projects considered retrofits would create more
funding challenges. Member Gjerdingen suggested that the business community be
engaged for their participation in getting pathways in place in commercial
areas.
Member Stenlund suggested that the
business community may be more receptive if advertising their business was part
of that program, such as “adopt a pathway,” similar to that used on highways.
Member Stenlund opined that this could be used most effectively for retrofits,
where less complicated things were needed to complete a pathway (e.g.
striping).
Chair Vanderwall noted, from his
employment with School District No. 623’s Transportation program, their
application for funding – both through joint city/school and individual school
applications – at least three (3) times through the “Safe Routes to School”
grant funding program, without success. Chair Vanderwall noted that this would
provide a funding resource to help connect some of the network.
Past Chair DeBenedet advised that
his first opportunity volunteering for the City had been in developing the
Non-Motorized Pathway Master Plan in 1983. Mr. DeBenedet opined that, if the
level of interest continued to accomplish this, the community needed to step up
and make it happen. While outside funding was an option, Mr. DeBenedet further
opined that it is the City’s pathway system, and the City needed to fund it,
whether through part of the annual budget process, through the Parks and
Recreation Master Plan Implementation process, or bonding. Mr. DeBenedet noted
that a significant portion of the uncompleted pathway system should be funded
and accomplished through the Master Plan Implementation process, with discussions
between the PWETC and the Parks and Recreation Commission to prioritize use and
funding. Mr. DeBenedet opined that it would be nice to make sure everyone
could get anywhere in Roseville safely and efficiently, since that is what the
pathway system was intended to accomplish; and further opined that a lot of
people used the existing pathways. Mr. DeBenedet opined that it needed to be
accomplished, not just thought of as a nice addition to the City.
Chair Vanderwall noted that the
County Road B-2 pathway was a key missing component in the network, and
providing no off-road walking area along it.
Councilmember Willmus concurred,
especially with walking and bicycle traffic to and from schools.
Regarding the tiered water rate
system, Councilmember McGehee advised that she had done her own calculations to
develop a tiered system to generate the necessary revenues instead of the large
increase in the base rate. She noted that she had tried to attain the target
amounts needed by Public Works and found that it was very difficult to attain
that goal. Councilmember McGehee encouraged the PWETC to look at commercial
rates from Roseville and peer communities in their next analysis.
Specific to pathways,
Councilmember McGehee suggested a pedestrian and bicycle overpass over Snelling
Avenue at County Road C, and at Roselawn Avenue as well as other opportunities
when major reconstruction projects were pursued. Councilmember McGehee noted
the significant safety issues along that roadway corridor; and noted her
ongoing advocacy for a pedestrian bridge across Snelling Avenue, while not
having any suggestions for funding such a venture.
Chair Vanderwall noted his ongoing
advocacy for a pedestrian overpass from the south side of Rosedale across
Highway 36 as well.
Member Stenlund noted the
available funding source for roads through the gas tax; however, he noted such
a funding source was not available for pedestrian and bicycle routes. Member
Stenlund questioned if this was fair in the current environment of additional
non-motorized traffic; and whether that was a future source of funding. Member
Stenlund noted the cost of a bridge versus bituminous or concrete pathways
adjacent to roads; and suggested an option may be for donations for a legacy
bridge in Roseville for funding such an endeavor.
Further discussion included costs
or underpasses versus overpasses; safety issues to consider with underpasses;
community surveys indicating ongoing support for walking trails; funding
challenges suggesting a separate CIP specific to pathways; and how to balance
needs in the community and support of the City Council majority for moving
forward versus potential foes of many of those efforts.
Councilmember Willmus stated that
“with respect to the Parks Master Plan we run up against out perennial foe, the
Friends of Twin Lakes, that objects to a lot of things and so frankly I think
that group needs to start hearing directly what the real benefits are because I
am not even sure they’ve taken the time to look at what they are really
fighting against.” Councilmember responded “I don’t think that it is
particularly useful for this body to criticize citizens.”
Member Stenlund personally opined
that the City’s CIP was still underfunded, with funding for underground
utilities and infrastructure not adequate to get where it was needed to create
a system that was proactive versus at crisis response or reactive levels.
Councilmember Johnson expressed
his appreciation for Member Stenlund’s observations; and asked that individual
PWETC members get their comments to the CIP Task Force through Mr. Schwartz, as
they would begin meeting again in the near future. Councilmember Johnson
advised that any remaining concerns needed to be brought to the attention of
the Task Force, since within 45-60 days, the Task Force would be making
additional recommendations to the City Council; and their desire was to provide
a realistic perspective to consider in their deliberations.
Mayor Roe thanked the PWETC for
their attendance at tonight’s meeting, their comments, and their ongoing work
on behalf of the community.
14. Public
Hearings
15. Business
Items (Action Items)
a.
Administer Presumptive Penalty – B-Dale Club Alcohol Compliance
Failure
Police Lt. Lorne Rosand reviewed
the alcohol compliance check process conducted twice annually in Roseville; and
via attachments to the RCA’s dated June 11, 2012, included pertinent materials
provided to licensees for that process. Lt. Rosand noted that sixty-two (62) license
checks had been conducted, with four (4) failures resulting. Attachments to
the RCA also included follow-up by the Police Department subsequent to those
failures, including requesting training records of all employees authorized to
serve alcohol at those businesses failing the compliance checks; and noticing
those businesses of tonight’s meeting where the penalty phase would be deliberated.
Lt. Rosand reviewed the specifics
of the compliance failure of the B-Dale Club, their first violation within the
last thirty-six (36) months.
Tim Woller, President & Gloria
Kinsel, General Manager, representing the B-Dale Club
Ms. Kinsel accepted responsibility
for this failure, and that of the server, noting that this was the Club’s first
failure since its existence in 1961. Ms. Kinsel offered sincere apologies, and
while unfortunate and never having happened at the Club in the past, it had
served to get the attention of everyone in the club and changed their behavior
and awareness of the need for their diligence. Ms. Kinsel noted that this had
prompted the Club to redo their compliance and training efforts to ensure
everything was up-to-date; and their practice was to now card everyone.
Mr. Woller reiterated apologies of
the Club; but asked that given the Club’s non-profit status and history of
giving back to the community, asked that this be given consideration. Mr.
Woller admitted that this was a mistake; however, he noted that any penalties
and days closed would significantly and negatively impact the operation of the
Club.
Ms. Kinsel concurred with Mr.
Woller, and asked that this be taken into consideration, with the Club trying
to be a good member of the Roseville community.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Ms. Kinsel reviewed some of the partnerships with the community
through the Parks and Recreation Department, including park improvements,
annual high school senior scholarships, and senior citizen activities in
Roseville. Ms. Kinsel noted that the organization was not a large one, but
they did have a positive impact on Roseville.
Councilmember McGehee questioned
how the server could have failed to notice the under-age driver’s license.
Mr. Woller advised that the
service was during non-business hours at about 11:00 a.m., and normal hours of
operation not beginning until 12:00 noon; with the bartender flooded with
approximately forty (40) people leaving by bus for a casino at that time, and
in a rush to get everyone out the door in time. Mr. Woller noted that the bartender
had been disciplined.
Ms. Kinsel concurred, noting that
this particular server had twenty (20) years of experience in bartending in the
metropolitan area; and agreed that this was a big error on his part.
Councilmember Willmus, while
appreciating the Club’s explanation, their sincere apology, and what they did
in the community, stated that he felt very strongly personally about this and
fully supported the proscribed penalty. Councilmember Willmus opined that this
was a serious violation and the City needed to remain diligent.
Willmus moved, McGehee seconded,
authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the
presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville City Code.
$1,000 fine; 1 day suspension
Mayor Roe echoed the comments of Councilmember Willmus;
and acknowledged that such errors held consequences for the server and the
Club, even when they were recognized as mistakes.
Councilmember McGehee seconded
those comments; and expressed her appreciation that the Club had come forward;
however, she concurred that it was a serious mistake and opined that the City
couldn’t show favoritism.
Councilmember Johnson concurred as
well; opining that if the City started to show favoritism, it would head down a
slippery slope.
Mayor Roe noted that, since this
is the first violation since the inception of the Club, it served to say
something about the organization itself.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
b.
Administer Presumptive Penalty – Green Mill Restaurant Alcohol
Compliance Failure
Lt. Rosand reviewed the specifics
of the compliance failure of the Green Mill Restaurant, their first violation
within the last thirty-six (36) months.
William Sabaluro, Green Mill Representative
Mr. Sabaluro recognized that this
was a violation by Green Mill and advised that the server had been disciplined
for this lapse. However, Mr. Sabaluro expressed confusion about the meaning of
the thirty-six (36) month stipulation.
Lt. Rosand reviewed the penalty
tier for violations within a certain time-frame; with Mayor Roe advising that
this was intended as a “look back” period for the City Council review of any
previous violations, and whether this could be considered a first-time offence.
Mr. Sabaluro advised that the
Green Mill Company, as a result of this failure, had made changes in its
tracking system, and made on-line training available to its servers.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the
presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville City Code.
$1,000 fine and a 1-day suspension
Mayor Roe noted that, while not
having the same discussion as that held during the B-Dale Club deliberation,
the City Council was equally respectful of the Green Mill Restaurant and its importance
to the community.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
c.
Administer Presumptive Penalty – Grumpy’s Restaurant Alcohol
Compliance Failure
Lt. Rosand reviewed the specifics
of the compliance failure of Grumpy’s Restaurant, their first violation within
the last thirty-six (36) months.
Joseph Clerkin (Offending
Bartender) and General Manager Bob Peterson, Grumpy’s Restaurant Representatives
Mr. Clerkin advised that, as the
offending bartender, he was not attending tonight’s meeting to plead for
leniency, but for the record to acknowledge that this was a personal failure on
his part and not that of the Grumpy’s establishment. Mr. Clerkin noted that
Grumpy’s provided extensive training for its servers, and this was simply a
human error on his part, his first ever during his sixteen (16) years as a
bartender, with his and Grumpy’s record was previously spotless. Mr. Clerkin expressed
his appreciation to Grumpy’s that he had retained his job at Grumpy’s, that
showed their respect for him and this simple, human error on his part. Mr.
Clerkin again acknowledged his personal transgression and responsibility and
again apologized to the City Council.
Mr. Peterson noted that Grumpy’s
was very strict with their training, requiring an initial and mandatory four
(4) hour training classes; and when hired between training, required to complete
an on-line course until they could next complete the Grumpy’s course. Mr.
Peterson noted that this was Grumpy’s first violation in their seventeen (17)
years of operation; and offered apologies on behalf of the company as well.
Mr. Clerkin again apologized to
the City Council for his personal failure in carding the person.
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded,
authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the
presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville City Code.
$1,000 fine; 1 day suspension
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Councilmember Johnson expressed
his appreciation for the existence of Grumpy’s Restaurant as a valuable
community asset; but reiterated the City Council’s consistent, hard line with
such compliance check failures. Mayor Roe recognized that all four (4)
violations, while unfortunate and detrimental, were first time violations for
all of the establishments. Mayor Roe opined that this should say something
about how serious community establishments were in their compliance efforts.
Councilmember McGehee expressed
her appreciation of the server coming forward and apologizing.
d.
Administer Presumptive Penalty – Old Chicago Restaurant Alcohol
Compliance Failure
Lt. Rosand reviewed the specifics
of the compliance failure of the Old Chicago Restaurant, their first violation
within the last thirty-six (36) months; however, he noted that there was a
secondary issue with the failure of the company to comply with City Code,
Section 302.08 for Manager and Server Training requirements. Lt. Rosand
referenced previous City Council action and additional penalty related to the
Smash Burger Restaurant in late 2011.
Lt. Rosand reviewed training
records of the server failing the compliance check, noting that the last
alcohol training had been in Kansas in 2009, and not updated annually, as
required by Roseville.
During the follow-up after failure
and review of all employee training records, Lt. Rosand noted that fifteen (15)
employees had expired training beyond annual requirements.
Mr. Darcy Nelson, Old Chicago
Restaurant General Manager and Representative
In reference to training materials,
Mr. Nelson advised that five or six (5-6) years ago when they had failed a
compliance check in Roseville, Old Chicago had sought training regulations from
Roseville, interpreting those requirements for training every three (3) years,
which the company had accomplished. However, Mr. Darcy noted that apparently
new requirements were enacted of which Old Chicago had not been advised,
creating this perceived employee training non-compliance issue. Mr. Darcy
advised that Old Chicago had remained under the assumption that all employees
in the front of the house needed to be trained and/or recertified every three
(3) years, or within sixty (60) days of employment for new hires. Mr. Darcy advised,
if this was not the case, it was an error on his part. Mr. Darcy advised that
the compliance failure had been that of the server, who had failed to card the
buyer; and that, since Old Chicago took this very seriously and had a zero tolerance
status, the employee was immediately terminated. Mr. Darcy advised that Old
Chicago’s training was very strict, through a national training association,
and reiterated his not being aware that their training program did not meet the
City’s current requirements.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, Lt. Rosand reviewed the process for notification of all licensees, and
referenced supporting documentation in several areas that provided that
information and the Police Department contact information for any training
questions or clarification.
Mayor Roe noted that when he and
Councilmember Pust had served as a City Council subcommittee and recommended
revisions to City Code several years ago, part of the licensing requirement
included specifics related to verifying training as part of the license
application process.
Councilmember Johnson concurred,
noting that within the last 24-36 months, a letter had been sent out by the
Chief of Police to every manager, clearly outlining this mandatory, not elective,
training and the two-tiered penalty system.
Councilmember Pust concurred with
Councilmember Johnson.
Mayor Roe, while recognizing that
training opportunities may not have been taken advantage of, the annual
reminder as pointed out by Lt. Rosand and other opportunities had been made
available to all licenses.
Pust moved, Johnson seconded,
authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the
presumptive penalty as set forth in Section 302.15 of Roseville City Code for a
$1,000 fine and a one (1) day suspension; and that Old Chicago Restaurant be
fined an additional $1,000 for not complying with City Code requirements
related to alcohol training.
Councilmember Johnson questioned
if the additional fine for training non-compliance should be acted upon tonight
or at a future meeting, similar to the action for Smash Burger’s violation.
Councilmember Pust advised that
the delay in dealing with Smash Burger’s violation was due to that being the
first occurrence of that happening in Roseville under its City Code, and the
need to review several issues prior to making a decision. However,
Councilmember Pust noted that now the City Council had set a precedent and
could confidently move forward with this action.
Mayor Roe concurred, also noting
that this was the second compliance check for Smash Burger, and since the
violation was closer to the renewal period, there were additional due process
and adequate notification issues that had been considered as well in that
specific instance.
Councilmember Johnson noted that
these failures could also come under consideration in next year’s renewals;
with Mayor Roe concurring that they could be part of the City Council’s
consideration for renewal applications.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
e.
Adopt Cleanup Assistance Policy Regarding Sanitary Sewer Back-ups
Public Works Director Duane
Schwartz and Assistant Finance Director Brenda Davitt provided an overview of
the proposed policy as revised, based on previous City Council discussions and
direction to staff; and as detailed in the RCA dated June 11, 2012.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed those
revisions as they related to actual work performed by remediation contractors;
flexibility in the policy to allow the City Council to have discretion
depending on the severity of an event and/or on a case by case basis; and information
provided by Finance Director Chris Miller on the estimated annual cost of the
program, with recommendations for base sewer rates adjusted for residential
properties accordingly.
Regarding installation of backflow
prevention devices, Mr. Schwartz advised that staff recommended limiting
reimbursement up to $300 per home for the device only, not its installation,
since those costs were quite variable and could be quite expensive based on the
device selected and their location in the home. Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City’s Building Officials had determined that the devices could not be required
by City Code unless the City performed a study to identify specific properties
that could or would be vulnerable to such a backup, based on their topography
and/or nature of the significant events. However, Mr. Schwartz advised that
staff was not recommending such a provision at this time.
Regarding an effective date for
implementation of the policy, Mr. Schwartz advised that upon consultation with
the City Attorney, they recommended that the policy not be pre-dated prior to
its adoption.
Councilmember Pust spoke in
support of the policy, and thanked staff for development of it. Councilmember
Pust expressed one concern regarding process and how and if the City was
notified in conjunction with a private contractor, when the homeowner would
sign the agreement, and how and when it was accurately determined if the backup
was in the City’s system or the private system.
Mr. Schwartz clarified that the
policy would not cover homeowner private lines, only if the City checked the
main line and it was determined that it was or was not a City main issue.
Councilmember Pust expressed
concern with how the policy was written (page 1) and how it was determined
which part of the system was city versus private. Councilmember Pust expressed
concern that the public may not have a clear understanding of that language;
and suggested the need for more clarification and not leaving it open to
interpretation.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed typical
scenarios and when the City was notified; advising that the City would know
where and when a backup occurred and where that backup was specifically located.
Mr. Schwartz clarified one past circumstance when the backup was attributed to
a failure in the Metropolitan Council’s Trunk line that routes through
Roseville, and the City being alerted immediately that the City’s system could
not discharge appropriately due to the failure of the Met Council’s line.
At the request of Councilmember
McGehee, referencing another back-up situation, Ms. Davitt clarified that it
was immediately apparent of a failure in the City’s line, but that the failure
was caused by rags and tree roots, even though the City had regularly
maintained the line, and technically the City was not liable for the
homeowner’s costs. However, Mr. Schwartz advised that the City crew was called
in and cleared the blockage from that line, even though the City was not liable
for the backup.
As further discussion ensued, Mr.
Schwartz clarified that the proposed policy did not consider fault in its
provisions.
At the request of Councilmember McGehee,
City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised that, as discussed at a previous meeting, in
making the policy effective upon its adoption and not pre-dating it to address
previous occurrences, the City Council was able to ensure a particular process
was in place under this policy and manage who was performing cleanup work;
however, they could not necessarily do so from those past events since this
process was not followed. City Attorney Gaughan cautioned that if previous
events were considered, it could set the City up having a policy in place and
immediate issues about it not complying and not setting up a good practice.
Councilmember McGehee spoke in
support of this version of the policy; and related to Councilmember Pust’s
concerns about clarification, opined that the City Council should direct staff
to mail a copy of the policy and explanation and description of backflow
preventers and homeowner responsibilities to all residential properties in
Roseville. Councilmember McGehee opined that this explanation should include a
demonstration of where private and city lines began and ended; and make that
available as a full package to avoid misunderstandings in the future.
Councilmember McGehee also opined that insurance options and provisions for
homeowners should also be made available for people to check with their insurance
carriers.
Mayor Roe noted that previous
discussions had included the education program that went along with this
policy.
Councilmember Willmus, recognizing
the City Attorney’s concerns regarding reviewing past cases and excluding them from
this policy, opined that the City Council could still review those cases
individually and separately from this policy. Councilmember Willmus spoke in
support of such a case by case review.
Councilmember Pust questioned how
to handle situations when a homeowner contacted a neighbor or relative for
assistance with a blockage and the City wasn’t alerted immediately; and how
those people would be covered and/or reimbursed.
Mr. Schwartz advised that,
typically, a homeowner would have their private contractor clean a blockage in
their line, but not the City line. Mr. Schwartz reviewed various options to
alert and educate the public about this policy; and reminders to call the City
first. Mr. Schwartz advised that it was typical that homeowners would incur
costs after the City had been notified and verified where the blockage
occurred.
Ms. Davitt noted that most
residents typically called their own plumber to look at the situation, and the
plumber then called the City.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust, Mr. Schwartz concurred that this was a typical, industry-wide process.
Councilmember McGehee observed
that a blockage in a private line was less massive in volume that that in a
City line.
Mayor Roe questioned procedurally
if it made more sense from staff’s perspective to have the policy adopted by
motion as a policy, or as an ordinance and included as part of City Code
supported by the City Council majority. Mayor Roe provided his rationale in
considering it as an ordinance that may make it more public through publication
and incorporated in City Code.
City Manager Malinen advised that
staff’s recommendation was to have it remain as a policy, not an ordinance or
law, to allow more flexibility. City Manager Malinen noted that staff would
administer the policy in whichever way the City Council chose to adopt it.
Regarding educational aspects, City Manager Malinen opined that adoption as a
policy and not an ordinance allowed for more flexibility for the City Council
and the community as a whole. City Manager Malinen noted that, from staff’s
perspective, funding issues for the policy may come into play. Councilmember
Pust stated that she thought policies and ordinances were equally enforceable.
Pust moved, Willmus seconded,
adoption of the Residential Sanitary Sewer Backup Cleanup Assistance Policy
(Attachment A).
Councilmember McGehee offered a
friendly amendment stipulating that the policy be mailed out to all residential
homeowners with the education sheets or list of definitions as she previously outlined
in her comments; for the purpose of ensuring confidence that all homeowners were
aware of what they could or could not do.
Councilmember Pust questioned the
need to include this as part of the motion; opining that staff could simply be
directed to include the information in upcoming water bills, or left to their
discretion. However, Councilmember Pust opined that one mailing is not the
best way to provide educational information, as well as a mailing being costly,
and needing further discussion and a process established following that discussion.
Ms. Davitt noted that including
the information in a water bill could be done; however, she noted that billing
was staggered and it would take three (3) months to canvass the entire community.
Ms. Davitt also noted that a third-party vendor processed the billings; and
staff would need to verify with them the ability to include this information.
Mr. Schwartz noted, with
concurrence by individual Councilmembers, that educational information could
also be included in City newsletters and on the City’s website, and on Channel
16 as a documentary.
Mayor Roe noted that a number of
people use electronic payments, and didn’t receive a mailed bill; with Ms.
Davitt advising that staff could provide the material electronically as well as
in the mail as applicable.
Mayor Roe recommended, with
consensus of the body that the process for educating the public not be included
as part of tonight’s motion; and direct staff to proceed in accordance with
tonight’s discussion.
Mayor Roe had several
typographical corrections that he provided to staff, as well as some
recommended revisions, amending the latest staff presentation, including:
·
Change references throughout the document from “City system” to
City mains.”
·
Page 2, Section #, lines 62-72: change references from “City
Council” to
“City.”
Additional discussion among
Councilmembers and City Attorney Gaughan included the effective date of the
policy, similarities with past action an snowplowing incidents and
consideration of case by case issues; mechanisms in place to fund claims outside
the City’s insurance coverage; and legal implications in pre-dating the policy.
Councilmember Willmus asked that
the motion on the floor be considered; and any additional action be considered
as a subsequent action or separate motion.
Roe moved, McGehee seconded, an
AMENDMENT to the policy adding a clause to make the effective date of the
policy, July 1, 2011, with the provision that those with claims provide
evidence of those substantiated costs incurred related to clean-up.
At the request of Councilmember
Pust as to his rationale for the effective date, Mayor Roe advised that it was
based on the timing of the rain event on July 16, 2011.
Roll Call (Amendment)
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
Roll Call (Original Motion as
Amended)
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
f.
Request to Perform Abatement at 2432 Lexington Avenue
Permit Coordinator Don Munson
reviewed violations at this owner-occupied, single-family home, located at 2432
Lexington Avenue, owned and occupied by Happy Sibande.
Mr. Munson advised that the
Volunteer Coordinated Services Group had removed debris last year; however,
this abatement was specific to remaining work to be done. Mr. Munson noted
that the volunteer group had performed all the work they could do on this
property.
Mr. Munson provided an update,
including pictures, of current violations, consisting of outside storage of
plywood (violation of City Code, Section 407.02.D and 407.03.H); shed needing
completed siding and painting on one side (violation of City Code Section
407.02.J & K Standards and Structure Maintenance). Mr. Munson estimated
that the cost of the abatement that would encompass removing plywood, and
completion of siding and painting of the shed for a total of $850.00.
Mr. Munson advised that there had
been no response from the homeowner to any notices sent to-date.
Willmus moved, Johnson seconded,
authorization to the Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance
violations at 2432 Lexington Avenue, by hiring a general contractor to remove
the plywood, and complete the siding and painting of the shed, at an estimated
cost of $850.00; with actual abatement and administrative costs billed to the
property owner; and if not paid, staff is directed to recover costs as specified
in City Code, Section 407.07B.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
g.
Request to Perform Abatement at 2744 Mackubin Street
As previously noted, this item was
removed at the request of staff.
h.
Request to Perform Abatement at 1136 Sandhurst Drive
Permit Coordinator Don Munson
reviewed violations at this owner-occupied, single-family home, located at 1136
Sandhurst Drive. Mr. Munson noted that the current owner and resident is Adam
Thorpe; and that the property was currently in foreclosure, having been
included in the Sheriff’s sale in May of 2012.
Mr. Munson provided an update,
including pictures, of current violations, consisting of removal of brush,
junk, debris and household items (violation of City Code Sections 407.02.D and
407.03.H). Mr. Munson estimated the cost for the abatement to be approximately
$400.00. Mr. Munson clarified that the abatement would include moving the
cooler and trellis to the back yard.
Mr. Munson advised that no
response to notices; and a personal visit by staff with the owner had been
unsuccessful.
Johnson moved, Willmus seconded,
authorization to the Community Development staff to abate the public nuisance
violations at 1136 Sandhurst Drive, by hiring a general contractor to remove
brush, junk, debris and household items, at an estimated cost of $400.00; moving
the cooler and trellis into the back yard; with actual abatement
and administrative costs billed to the property owner; and if not paid, staff
is directed to recover costs as specified in City Code, Section 407.07B.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
i.
Waive Competitive Selection Process – Legal Services
City Manager Malinen summarized
the requested action, as detailed in the RCA dated June 11, 2012; and staff’s
recommendation to waive the competitive selection process outlined in the
City’s Professional Services Policy; authorizing the City Manager to negotiate
an extension of civil and prosecution services for a period of up to three (3)
years.
Discussion included presumed
satisfaction with those terms by Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn (EBBQ);
how to define satisfactory outcome in the negotiation process based on economics;
satisfactory or exceeding satisfaction of current services of the firm; the
steps in the negotiation process; and involvement of the City Council in the
future based on those negotiations, whether successful or not.
City Manager Malinen clarified
that the law firm was aware that he would be bringing this forward to the City
Council tonight; but that there had been negotiations to-date prior to City
Council approval of the motion.
Mayor Roe noted that, ultimately,
anything negotiated required City Council action, or seeking another option.
Noting that quite often those
items are included on the Consent Agenda, Councilmember Pust opined that it
would be more appropriate for the City Manager to negotiate a contract with the
firm, and then return seeking a waiver of the Professional Services Policy for
the competitive selection process.
McGehee moved, Johnson seconded, directing
the City Manager to negotiate with the firm of Erickson, Bell, Beckman &
Quinn (EBBQ) for ongoing legal services for civil and prosecution services for
a period of up to three (3) years; and to return to the City Council with a
preliminary contract for review and approval
Councilmember Pust moved a
friendly amendment, supported by the makers of the motion, that the motion
includes seeking formal waiver of the competitive selection process at that
time.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust;
Willmus; and Roe.
Nays: None.
16. Business
Items – Presentations/Discussions
14. City Manager Future Agenda Review
City Manager Malinen reviewed
upcoming agenda items.
Councilmember Willmus reminded
Councilmembers and staff that previous preference had been expressed that joint
meetings with advisory commissions be held around the table for a more informal
format.
Mayor Roe apologized that this
preference was apparently overlooked.
15.
Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings
Mayor Roe, with concurrence by
Councilmember Johnson, noted future discussion for consideration of the
quantity of off-sale licenses in Roseville.
Councilmember McGehee, after
clarification, indicated that she would provide information to the council
through Mr. Malinen regarding possible future discussion and consideration of a
Council Resolution of support for the “Move to Amend” movement declaring that
corporations were not people and therefore did not have similar rights.
16. Adjourn
Willmus moved, Johnson seconded,
adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:03 pm.
Roll Call
Ayes: Johnson; McGehee; Pust; Willmus;
and Roe.
Nays: None.