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

City Council


City Council Meeting Minutes

October 24, 2016


1.       Roll Call

Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m.  Voting and Seating Order: Willmus, Laliberte, Etten, McGehee and Roe.  City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Mark Gaughan were also present.


Mayor Roe noted Councilmember Laliberte had advised earlier tonight that she was unable to attend tonight's meeting due to illness.


2.         Pledge of Allegiance


3.         Approve Agenda

Councilmember McGehee requested removal of Items 8.f and g from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


4.         Public Comment

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


a.            Sherry Sanders, S. McCarrons Boulevard

Speaking on behalf of the "Do Good Roseville" organization, Ms. Sanders thanked the city and Parks & Recreation department for use of the Lexington Park building for recent "Neighbor to Neighbor" conversations related to racism.  Ms. Sanders reported a great attendance and another good opportunity for sharing experiences, subsequent to the recent city-sponsored event on the same topic. 


b.            Kathy Ramundt, Laurie Road

Speaking on behalf of the "Do Good Roseville" organization, Ms. Ramundt provided a flyer as a bench handout for city staff to promote an additional 3-part video series and community discussion during the month of November 2016 entitled, "Race, the Power of an Illusion."  Ms. Ramundt provided logistics and locations for the series hosted by three different Roseville churches.  For those interested but unable to attend, Ms. Ramundt advised that the videos were also available free online as well and linked on the website and would be linked on the city's website.


c.            Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane

Mr. Grefenberg presented a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, entitled, "Public Comment to the Roseville City Council dated October 24, 2016.  Mr. Grefenberg verbally read his letter.


5.         Council and City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Mayor Roe announced dates and variable hours for absentee voting at Roseville City Hall through the remainder of this general election cycle.


Specific to communication efforts, Councilmember Willmus stated that over the last few months, he had seen advisory commission agenda packets lacking complete information for public review prior to meetings.  As an example, Councilmember Willmus noted the most recent packet for the Human Rights Commission (HRC) that lacked prior meeting minutes and reports or information for those items on the agenda for discussion at the meeting, frequently only allotting a placeholder for those items rather than the information itself.  Councilmember Willmus noted that, when he came into office, there had been issues getting council meeting packets out on time and information made available for the public.  However, in the ongoing attempts to facilitate and improve open governance and transparency, Councilmember Willmus opined that there needed to be a better effort made by and for the advisory commissions to provide that information in a timely manner; and asked City Manager Trudgeon to encourage better efforts in that regard.


Mayor Roe echoed those comments; and City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that request and stated he would work with commission staff liaisons accordingly.


City Manager Trudgeon noted that last week, Roseville had received a Leaders and Local Government Award from the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce for their efforts toward timely and effective digital communications.  Mr. Trudgeon thanked Communications Manager Gary Bowman and Communications Specialist Carolyn Curti for their efforts in keeping those electronic communications updated daily.


Councilmember McGehee reported on her and Councilmember Laliberte's recent attendance at the recent State of the Waters meeting sponsored and hosted by the Ramsey Conservation District.  Councilmember McGehee summarized the meetings and speakers, noting they provided very factual and historical information on water in the State of Minnesota; efforts of the City of Edina in alerting their community of upcoming road work two years ahead to allow residents to plan for retention areas and rain gardens as part of those projects; planning ahead for stormwater work with Legacy Funds anticipated to run out in 2034; and the City of Shoreview's phone app that provided a competitive way for residents to track their water usage.  Councilmember McGehee further reported on pollution in Little Josephine Lake that apparently had been initially caused by a City of Roseville decision in 1972 to route stormwater runoff from city parking lots at City Hall and other public areas directly into that water body, with attempts now being made to correct that error.  Councilmember McGehee noted the importance of conserving water, and the number of days for rivers to recharge compared to over a thousand years required for recharging aquifers; and reported on climate change presentations made at the meeting.  For those interested, Councilmember McGehee noted there was a water stewardship program run similarly to that of a Master Gardener and Master Recycler program, including training and speaking opportunities.


Mayor Roe thanked Councilmember McGehee for her report; and clarified that while the City of Roseville didn't have a phone app as did the City of Shoreview, for those using electronic utility billing in Roseville, they were able to track their usage from previous years and compare it with current usage.  Also, while reminding residents that while the City has a street sweeping program, Mayor Roe asked the community to keep leaves and debris out of the street gutters to keep stormwater runoff systems and ponds free of excess nutrients adding to their pollution.  For those having storm drains directly in front of their property, Mayor Roe asked for their assistance to the city in keeping them cleared to allow storm water to run freely and minimize localized flooding.


6.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


a.            Proclaim National Native American Heritage Month

Mayor Roe read a proclamation recognizing National Native American Heritage Month during November of 2016; urging all citizens to join in appreciation for Roseville's rich and diverse community.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, proclaiming November of 2016 as National Native American Heritage Month in Roseville, MN.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


8.            Approve Minutes

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. City Manager Trudgeon had also submitted corrections to his comments as part of those revisions, also incorporated into the draft as presented tonight.


a.            Approve October 10, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes



·         Page 26, Line 25 (Etten)

Typographical Correction: change "sue" to "sure"

·         Page 29, Line 10 (Roe)

Typographical Correction: strike "communication"

·         Page 41 (Etten)

Line 10-11

Correct to read: "in struggling neighborhoods in Roseville [,as well as other pertinent issues including] extra patrols and monitoring of local motels and their related issues."

Line 27

Clarify identification and title of Mr. Faulconbridge to "President of the Roseville Police Foundation."

Line 44

Typographical Correction: Correct "office" to "officers"

·         Page 42, Line 2 (Etten)

Correct to read: "Roseville, Councilmember Etten opined [the] the city could [only] control that interaction:"

·         Page 43, Line 15 - 16 (Roe)

Correct to read: "document service, all paid through county tax dollars, [and] [while patrol costs in other communities are not paid] by Roseville taxpayers."


Mayor Roe noted a request by Councilmember McGehee to have her full Power Point presentation from this meeting and related to contracting out for Roseville police services made a part of the meeting packet of record going forward for future reference.


City Manager Trudgeon noted City Council policy was for staff and council handouts and presentations to be made part of Requests for Council Action (RCA); while other citizen testimony handouts were attached to meeting minutes at the direction of the City Council.


Councilmember McGehee provided her rationale for seeking her presentation to be included with the staff report, opining almost nothing of a factual nature was included in the meeting minutes, while City Manager Trudgeon's comments and response to her presentation had been more detailed, as well as the comments of her City Council colleagues.  Therefore, Councilmember McGehee asked that her factual information be inserted as an amendment to the meeting minutes in detail, or the presentation included as a bench handout.


McGehee moved to include her Power Point presentation from October 10, 2016 as an attachment to the meeting minutes of that date versus presented within the meeting minutes as an amendment.


Mayor Roe declared the motion failed due of lack of a second.


Mayor Roe sought other suggestions from his colleagues, noting that normally such presentations are included as part of the RCA as an attachment; while the meeting minutes attempt to summarize the presentation.  However, Mayor Roe suggested if the City Council felt there wasn't enough detail in that summary, an opportunity could be provided to supplement that section of the meeting minutes.  If that was the consensus of the body, Mayor Roe suggested tabling approval of the October 10, 2106 meeting minutes to allow Councilmember McGehee to prepare and submit additional text.


Councilmember McGehee stated she would be happy to do so, as long as she was assured it wasn't a waste of her time to do so, based on past experience, and in lieu of no second to her motion tonight. 


Mayor Roe clarified that the draft submitted by Councilmember McGehee would be considered at the time of consideration of those minutes, and acted upon accordingly, similar to any other meeting minutes amendments for consideration.


Councilmember Etten stated he appreciated Councilmember McGehee's point, noting the robust amount of information provided in her presentation, and that it was not included in detail in the meeting minutes.  However, Councilmember Etten noted it was typical and part of the normal process that not all information is included, even when staff makes a presentation.  Councilmember Etten stated he would consider Councilmember McGehee providing some of the finer points she felt were appropriate; however, he stated he would not be supportive of a full rewrite of the meeting minutes as currently presented.  As had been discussed in the past by the City Council, Councilmember Etten noted the intent of what was recorded at a meeting by the Recording Secretary was a record of the discussion versus an exact duplication.  Councilmember Etten stated he would consider an enhancement of what was currently in the meeting minutes taken by Councilmember McGehee from her presentation within the perspective of past discussions and based on what was provide in the RCA and attachments and the meeting minutes summary.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Etten, suggesting it may be beneficial to supplement the RCA and attachments with a copy of Councilmember McGehee's Power Point presentation if that was her desire.


Mayor Roe noted this was standard practice and would happen as usual.


Councilmember Willmus sought clarification that Councilmember McGehee's desire was to supplement the October 10, 2016 meeting minutes.


Councilmember McGehee stated that was her intent as she found nothing factual in the meeting minutes as currently presented.


Mayor Roe reiterated that the meeting minutes were similar to others as usual, and were not intended to record all details.  However, if Councilmember McGehee wished to add to pages 30-31 of the meeting draft minutes with a summary of her information, the City Council could consider that when approving the October 10, 2016 meeting minutes.


City Manager Trudgeon opined he thought the robust presentation and discussion had been captured in the meeting minutes as presented.


Without objection, Mayor Roe TABLED action on the October 10, 2016 meeting minutes at this time; and asked Councilmember McGehee to submit her comments for inclusion in the meeting minutes for the City Council as a body to reflect upon, since she had expressed her dissatisfaction with what had been captured from her presentation. 


b.            Approve October 17, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the October 17, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes amended.



·         Page 9, Lines 40-41 (Roe)

Add parentheses to previous correction "(the current Roseville Comprehensive Plan)."

·         Page 10, Lines 30-40 (Roe)

Correct duplications of Mr. Cornejo's name


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, McGehee and Roe

Nays: None.

Abstentions: Etten (not present at the meeting)

Motion carried.


c.            Approve October 17, 2016 REDA Meeting Minutes

McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the October 17, 2016 REDA Meeting Minutes as presented.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, McGehee and Roe

Nays: None.

Abstentions: Etten (not present at the meeting)

Motion carried.


9.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) dated October 24, 2016 and related attachments.


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments


83184 - 83325





                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business and Other Licenses

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of new 2016-2017 Massage Therapist Licenses as detailed, dependent on completion of successful background checks.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe

Nays: None.


c.                     Approve General Purchases in Excess of $5,000 and Sale of Surplus Items

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA dated October 24, 2016, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Capital Improvement Plan Summary,: updated September 30, 2016.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


d.            Approve Rosedale Public Improvement Engineering Services Contract

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of a professional services contract (Attachment A) with Kimley-Horn and Associates for Rosedale Public Improvements Engineering Services in the amount of $125,850.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


e.            Receive 2016 Policy Priority Planning Document Third Quarter Update

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, receipt of the 2016 Policy Priority Planning Third Quarter Update as presented.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


9.         Consider Items Removed from Consent


f.             Receive 2016 Third Quarter Financial Report

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA dated October 24, 2016 and related attachments.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that previously contested tax payments deferred until resolved were not reflected in this most recent report.


For the benefit of the public, Councilmember McGehee noted that the city's General Fund reserve balance were now back up to 39% versus the previous 35% of the operating budget, expressing her appreciation for that positive step.  Councilmember McGehee further pointed out that the $1.1 million shown as tax increment financing (TIF) proceeds show up but was not included in that 39% reserve balance, which she found encouraging.  Councilmember McGehee noted an anticipated $800,000 of those TIF proceeds would be allocated to shore up the city's asset fund, while approximately $300,000 would be allocated to roadways, in this case the Twin Lakes Parkway extension.  Councilmember McGehee noted the water and sewer utility funds remained skimpy, and would continue to plague the city.


Mayor Roe thanked Councilmember McGehee for pointing out those items.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, receipt of the 2016 Third Quarter Financial Report.

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


g.            Adopt a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Consider Modifying the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan for Redevelopment TIF District #12

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly reviewed this item as detailed in the RCA dated October 24, 2016 and related attachments.  Mr. Trudgeon estimated the current balance in this TIF District was $830,000.


For the benefit of the public and City Council, Councilmember McGehee asked that staff provided additional information as part of the presentation regarding the limitations on use of those funds, and any projected plans at this time.  Councilmember McGehee advised her recollection was that there were significant restrictions on how those funds could be used.


While City Manager Trudgeon advised that that detailed information would be part of the report at the public hearing, Councilmember McGehee asked that it also be made available in advance for review and thought prior to the public hearing and requested action.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11370 (Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution Calling Public Hearing on the Proposed Adoption of a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing (Redevelopment) District No. 12;" at the City Council meeting of November 28, 2016.

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


10.        General Ordinances for Adoption


a.            Consider Text Amendments to Roseville City Code, Chapter 1004 and 1005 pertaining to High Density Residential (PROJ0039)

City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the RCA as detailed; and referenced a bench handout as part of the report consisting of draft Planning Commission meeting minutes from October 5, 2016 when they deliberated these text amendments and provided their recommendation to the City Council.  Mr. Paschke noted one slight change made by the Commission t their meeting as reflected in their meeting minutes, that building height above 45' but less than 65' be included for HDR-1 and anything above 65' requiring a Conditional Use.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke displayed the proposed changes in outlined in Attachment C.  Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Paschke for the language clarifications, specifically residential Low Density (LDR) and Medium Density residential (MDR).  However, Mayor Roe asked if that caused the high density residential (HDR) to be too specific by calling out the LDR-1, LDR-2, and MDR adjacencies, or if the intent was to consider use versus density zoning. 


City Planner Paschke stated staff's agreement with recommended language specific to zoning, noting that the key to business districts and their use didn't often impact residential uses; but if a residential zoning designation is adjacent to HDR, that use didn't impact the adjacent HDR.  Mr. Paschke noted this left only three other zones under residential, and therefore, it made sense to spell that out accordingly rather than also doing so in the business districts.


As noted by Mayor Roe, City Planner Paschke agreed that it was very infrequent that there would be HDR next to single-family uses without those single family uses being zoned as such.


Referencing Table 1004-06 of Attachment C (page 2), Councilmember Etten noted previous City Council discussion related to HDR-1 and Multi-family uses, and interior setbacks of 20' or 50%.  Under HDR-2 designations, Councilmember Etten noted that remained at 10' and asked why both were not both at 20' or 50%, whichever is greater.


Based on his recollection of that previous discussion, Mayor Roe noted the discussion was about HDR-2 uses adjacent to more intense uses, and suggested that might make more sense.


Councilmember Etten clarified that he was referring to the first line, and reiterated his preference that both be 20' or 50% whichever is greater versus 10' only for HDR-2.


City Planner Paschke recognized the 20' made sense, and suggested making that change as recommended by Councilmember Etten.


From his review of the August 16, 2016 City Council meeting minutes, Councilmember Willmus recalled that the HDR-1discussion was not similar to the Planning Commission's allowance for taller buildings in HDR-1 as part of the Conditional Use process.


City Planner Paschke clarified that a Conditional Use would be required for any height of over 45' in HDR-1.  Mr. Paschke advised that the Commission's discussion included their concern to stipulate that the allowance for a CU only up to 65' be very clear; with staff agreeing that made more sense when requiring a Conditional Use up to that 65' maximum height.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Etten on the need for consistency with the 20' setback requirement in all designated zones.  However, Councilmember McGehee stated she had a problem increasing building height while reducing minimum setbacks.


Mayor Roe and Councilmember Etten clarified that Councilmember McGehee's perception was actually opposite of that, with the setback being increased by stipulating the 20' or 50%, whichever was greater, as Councilmember Etten suggested tonight.  Councilmember McGehee stated her preference for 20' also in business districts if HDR was allowed there to provide more room around the side yards and rear yard.


Mayor Roe opined that provides consistency for Business Districts with HDR; and might make more sense if adjacent to residential uses.  Mayor Roe sought further clarification related to HDR on the Table, specifically 8' for end units and how that impacted side yard building setbacks or if that meant internal to the project itself.


Mr. Paschke agreed that the intent was for separation between units.


Mr. Paschke addressed multi-story row houses or townhome projects (e.g. 4- or 8-plexes) depending on their density that would allow setback of the end unit from interior property lines.  Mr. Paschke noted the illustration in current zoning code showed units around a courtyard, with those setbacks and lot lines potentially different than the standard rectangular product; with 8' allowed for the end unit from the interior.  With this proposed text amendment, Mayor Roe confirmed with City Planner Paschke that all units would be set back 20' from a single-family property.


Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment at this time, with no one appearing for or against.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Planner clarified that Table 1005-03 in Section 6 provided for 6' side yard setbacks for a side wall with windows or adjacent to abutting property in all commercial districts; with no setback requirements if the sidewall had no windows, all tied into four-sided architecture design standards in current code.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1511(Attachment C) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Tables 1004-6, 1005-2, 1005.3 and 1005-4 of Roseville City Code, Title 10 (Zoning Ordinance);"as amended to revise the 10' interior setback to 20' in HDR-2 and accordingly, revise the 10' to 20' in Sections 5, 6 and 7 as it related to residential setbacks.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1511 (Attachment) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Tables 1004-6, 1005-2, 1005.3 and 1005-4 of Roseville City Code, Title 10 (Zoning Ordinance)."


                                                Roll Call (Super Majority Required)

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


11.        Presentations


a.            Superintendent Aldo Sicoli - Partnering for Future/Facility Update

Mayor Roe welcomed Independent School District No. 623 Superintendent Dr. Aldo Sicoli.


Dr. Sicoli thanked the City Council for this annual opportunity to address them; and noted two topics for tonight's discussion: the comprehensive long-range facility planning for the district, and partnering for future endeavors.


Dr. Sicoli announced an upcoming public meeting on November 29, 2016 to hear the combined report of the three committees having worked on these topics over the last few months; and request for community feedback on that report.  Subsequent to that meeting, Dr. Sicoli advised that 2-3 options would be considered by the Options Committee based on the needs identified by the committees and community member input and presented to a process to the District Oversight Team, consisting of School Board members, members of the Operations Team and community members.  Dr. Sicoli stated he then anticipated a decision by the School Board in the spring of 2017.  Dr. Sicoli expressed his public appreciation for the community involvement with this important work.


Specific to partners for future endeavors, Dr. Sicoli opined the School District was blessed with a community that valued and supported education as a tradition, including the many partners and volunteers involved, even though engaging the community even more was further utilized that great asset.  Dr. Sicoli addressed three areas identified with needs and seeking greater participation levels: reading elementary students, mentoring of elementary or middle school students, and partnering with businesses for internships or job shadowing for students.  


Dr. Sicoli referenced an upcoming meeting on November 15, 2016 at 7:00 pm in the TIES Building at Snelling and Larpenteur Avenues specifically addressing strengthening youth and creating strong communities by mentoring, tutoring and offering business internships end entitled: "Partners for the Future - Coming Together to Create a Better and Brighter Future" with guest speaker R. T. Rybak, President of the Minneapolis Foundation. 


Councilmember Etten thanked Dr. Sicoli for his great leadership with the Roseville School District and for providing the leadership to delve into the big picture for future needs.  Specific to the facilities planning, Councilmember Etten asked if there was a formal process for teaching staff to provide feedback on facilities planning.  Councilmember Etten opined it would prove useful from a teacher's perspective and that of community education and activities directors and other staff related to their schedules and those using facilities on a daily basis.


Dr. Sicoli reported that several teachers had served on the educational needs committee; but agreed their input was invaluable for educational delivery, including facilities.  However, Dr. Sicoli noted the committees were open for public comment from all teachers, and invited them to continue their involvement and feedback to the operational and criteria committees.


Councilmember McGehee asked for the School District's current policy on zero tolerance and suspensions.


Dr. Sicoli reported that it was a big topic, and noted the District's involvement with Ramsey County Attorney John Choi and the task force he'd formed, with school board representatives serving on the task force.  Dr. Sicoli noted that zero tolerance policies came about during a time of adverse behaviors in schools, but opined the policies may have resulted in more expulsions over time than may have been necessary.  From a common sense standpoint, Dr. Sicoli further opined that the policies didn't always correct behavior, but there remained a need to balance that with a safe learning environment for all. 


Dr. Sicoli advised that the School District held regular conversations with principals and others related to suspension numbers and disparities, including a new part-time position assigned to oversee those efforts toward restorative practices.  Dr. Sicoli noted this included positive behavior intervention and support as advocated by the State of Minnesota and alternatives to suspension, seeking better outcomes before suspension.  Dr. Sicoli recognized there was still room for improvement, but agreed it was an important topic affecting the lives of not only students but staff members as well.


Regarding facility planning efforts, Councilmember Willmus asked if those meetings were open to the general public or if there was a way for them to listen to those discussions.


Dr. Sicoli confirmed they were all public meetings, as well as available on the School District's website via a link; and invited people to attend or watch.


Mayor Roe thanked Dr. Sicoli for his attendance and for his timely annual update.  Mayor Roe opined facilities planning was exciting and challenging for the district; and wished them the best with those efforts.    Mayor Roe expressed his excitement about partnering opportunities, and encouraged residents and business owners of all ages to get involved and partner to help students make a good life for themselves.


Specific to Ramsey County Attorney Choi's task force and expulsion/suspension issues, Mayor Roe noted the Northeast Youth & Family Services (NYFS) organization representing the nineteen-city area and their involvement with area school districts in youth development efforts.


Dr. Sicoli confirmed that the school district and NYFS work with the same organizations, including making up the task force, even though it represented a diverse range of roles beyond the school district itself.


12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration


a.            Public Hearing for Public Input on a Portable Recording System, a/k/a Body Worn Cameras Policy

Mayor Roe introduced Police Chief Rick Mathwig, and for the listening audience, clarified that this is a public hearing as mandated by 2016 state legislation to update existing Minnesota Data Practices Statute 13.82, subd. 2, involving portable recording systems, and requirements for governing bodies to incorporate public comment prior to enactment of PRS policies as required by State law before department use of PRS devices.



Chief Mathwig referenced information on the proposed use of body worn cameras, considered portable recording systems, and the purpose of tonight's public hearing to solicit public input.  Chief Mathwig advised that after this public hearing, it was expected that a policy will be in place by mid-January of 2017.    Chief Mathwig noted the city could not test models already available to the department without this public hearing and a policy in place resulting from this process.


Chief Mathwig noted future decision-making by the City Council would be requested, with those additional details pending until choosing a vendor.  Chief Mathwig further noted, even though yet to be vetted, a future proposal would include a ½ time staff person to follow-through on the mandates. 


Chief Mathwig reported that the department had solicited public input to-date on the city website via Survey Monkey, and referenced attachments to the RCA that included a draft of the proposed Roseville policy, a model policy provided by the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) for reference, and a copy of the State Statute mandating the policy.  To-date, Chief Mathwig reported sixteen responses from the website, and introduced them into the record; attached hereto and made a part hereof.


In his review of the model policy from the LMC, Mayor Roe asked if the proposed Roseville policy generally followed that model, specifically seeking which options had been chosen for the draft Roseville policy when more than one option had been included in the LMC model policy.


Chief Mathwig advised that the proposed Roseville policy followed the model policy in general as per mandate, with the red font in Attachment A reflecting those mandatory items and the more discretionary language available.


Councilmember McGehee sought clarification in differences in the acronym "PRS" and "BWC;" with Chief Mathwig explaining the LMC may have produced their model prior to the issuing of the State mandate.


Councilmember McGehee sought further clarification in the LMC model the compliance issue (page 3 of 6 of Roseville draft policy).


Chief Mathwig clarified that that clause (page 3, line 122, Attachment A) was reflected in numerous city policies and in this case took into consideration internal affairs, investigatory and labor union contract policies.  Chief Mathwig advised that these separate policies were necessary in deviating from the model policy and allowed for progressive discipline follow-through.


Councilmember McGehee questioned why recordings are not available as part of a performance review as specifically stated in Attachment A, or why they were excluded, opining she thought they'd prove extremely useful in some cases.


Chief Mathwig clarified that they may be used as part of a written complaint filed against an officer if coaching situations were discovered by the investigator, but as a matter of course, supervisors would not review a day's worth of video to evaluate any given officer.  Chief Mathwig noted the intent of the camera was to document, not to be used in the course of disciplinary action other than to determine use of force issues.


With cameras already being used on squads, Councilmember McGehee asked if these body worn camera tapes would be reviewed if any use of force issues were raised.


Chief Mathwig advised that the tapes would be reviewed that day or within a few days in accordance with current use of force prevention efforts.


Councilmember McGehee questioned why Roseville prisoners were subjected to strip searches when they could only be held for up to four hours; and asked how many were actually performed.


Chief Mathwig responded that it was a possibility that strip searches would be done, and therefore a policy needed to be in place; with the purpose to find contraband.  From his personal experience, Chief Mathwig reported his recollection of only one instance when a strip search was performed, involving the theft of a ring from a jewelry store.  However, Chief Mathwig noted a person's U. S. Constitutional rights were keep in mind when seeking documentation for probable cause with that policy and their right to modesty.  Chief Mathwig clarified that at no time was a person touched during a strip search. 


Under item 8 of the Attachment A, Councilmember McGehee noted data was to be used for administrative purposes, but from her personal perspective, she found it allowed too much wiggle room by listing items but not limiting them, making it open to anything.


While having other concerns, Councilmember McGehee offered to talk to Chief Mathwig off-line, specifically about things she was hearing in general discussions throughout the metropolitan area about that data collection.  Councilmember McGehee stated she was also going to have a big issue with the anticipated cost, opining it was a very expensive thing to do and very personnel-intense, above and beyond storage.  Councilmember McGehee opined it was extremely expensive and should be reserved for a different time and place.


Councilmember Etten asked Chief Mathwig to describe a rough outline for training officers in carrying out this law, and when to turn on the cameras, and the process for downloading and classifying that information; basically how the policy would be implemented department-wide.


Chief Mathwig responded that a working committee, represented by all Police Department crews, had helped develop a Roseville-specific policy as presented in draft form tonight; and gleaned from the LMC model and those of other departments statewide.  Chief Mathwig opined that the committee provided a good cross-section of the department, and included conversion of records management related to this policy, with several meetings held and multiple discussion points outlined.  Chief Mathwig advised that future video training or tutorial tapes would be made available online for officers to ensure they had a firm understanding prior to each employee signing off on the policy.  If at that point, the employee felt they didn't understand the policy, Chief Mathwig advised that they would have the option to talk to a supervisor.  However, Chief Mathwig opined that, based on his past experience with this type of tutorial method, they had proven to work out wonderfully.


Councilmember Etten questioned the ease of the average officer within their shift to download snippets of PRS.


Chief Mathwig reviewed the process to transfer data from a unit to the server or Cloud, and time allotted depending on the size of the cable, with the Cloud taking longer.  Chief Mathwig noted this would be similar to taser use now documented; with the Panasonic units in-house going right to the computer and eventually to the server, and time to transfer data taken into account (reference the appendix to Attachment A).  Chief Mathwig noted there were eight or nine classifications to perform that download, with the taser put into the docking system (e.g. phone, squad or desk top computers), and usually was classified quickly; with officers currently performing squad videos relatively fast, while data transfer takes time.


In a typical shift, Councilmember Etten asked how many such events an officer could anticipate.


Chief Mathwig stated he would be surprised if there were more than 10-12 occurring in a typical 12 hour shift; and the recorders were only turned on if and when an officer made contact with someone to classify data from that contact and to file their report.


Councilmember McGehee noted that the proposal sought 50 units, and asked why the department couldn't share units among officers from one shift to another.


Chief Mathwig responded that the units would be handled as individual units to protect the integrity of the data and officers; and reviewed some of the operational difficulties in sharing such units during transition with one officer held over for a late call or unavailable to transfer the unit if on call.  As part of the data integrity, Chief Mathwig noted the units would "belong" to the officer as assigned, and therefore data could not be changed or deleted; with the officer wearing the camera unit docking that unit to protect that chain of command for the unit and data itself.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Chief Mathwig advised that the department didn't specifically reach out to block captains with the Survey Monkey.


To get more people aware of this, Councilmember McGehee suggested getting it on the front page of the city website (not the Police Page), on, and try to generate interest from block captains.


Chief Mathwig reported that the department met at least annually with block captains, and since that was coming up soon, advised he would send out the survey now to enhance that outreach effort.


Councilmember Etten reported that the survey was already on, without being able to identify its origination.


Mayor Roe reviewed protocol for the public hearing.



Public Comment

City Manager Trudgeon noted one email comment dated October 24, 2016 provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, from Sara, " strongly supporting requiring all police officers in Roseville to wear body camera in the interest of ensuring justice and accountability for both police and the citizens they encounter"


Mayor Roe and opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:47 p.m., with no one appearing for or against.


Mayor Roe asked Chief Mathwig to provide online responses from Survey Monkey received to-date to be included as part of the official public comment record of this meeting; duly noted by Chief Mathwig


13.        Budget Items


14.        Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Presumptive Penalty Approval - VFW Alcohol Compliance Failure

General Comments/Process

Police Lt. Lorne displayed and summarized the process initiated in May of this year, including information packets mailed out to all 64 licensed establishments and clearly labeled "Alcohol Compliance" and a cover letter and documents outlining the process, expectations, and alerting those establishments of the two compliance checks scheduled in 2016.  Lt. Rosand noted the mailing included the cover letter, a copy of Chapter 302 Liquor Control ordinance for the city, Manager and Server training approved training program for Roseville; a photo copy of a driver's license for anyone under 21, clearly stamped as such, and a certificate for the manager to complete verifying annual training, as well as his business card in case they had any questions or needed additional information.


Lt. Rosand reported no compliance violations during the first round, but noted it was unfortunate that three violations had occurred during the second round performed October 3, 2016. 



Lt. Rosand reviewed the specific circumstances of this compliance failure, and follow-up by the Police Department with the server and manager, detailed in the RCA and attachments.  Lt. Rosand noted there was no one present tonight representing the VFW.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Roseville City Code, Section 302.15, for on-sale license holders for the first violation within thirty-six (36) months; with the mandatory minimum penalty of $1,000 and a one-day suspension; date at the discretion of the Police Chief.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Lt. Rosand reported on discussions with steps going forward to avoid a second failure, reporting that the server was still employed by the VFW to his knowledge.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


b.            Presumptive Penalty Approval - Total Wine & More Compliance Failure

Lt. Rosand reviewed the specific circumstances of this compliance failure, and follow-up by the Police Department with the employee and manager, as detailed in the RCA and attachments.  Lt. Rosand noted there were representatives present from Total Wine & More wishing to speak at tonight's meeting.


Lt. Rosand reviewed the training records included in tonight's packet, and his review of those 48 submissions, and ten brought to the attention of management with five found out-of-compliance and training taken post-violation, with the other five apparently having "slipped through the cracks.  While three others completed their training shortly thereafter, Lt. Rosand opined their explanation for not having completed training before had been found reasonable, but reiterated five had employees had completed their training post violation.  As noted in the requested action, Lt. Rosand advised this was the first violation for this off-sale establishment.


Councilmember Etten asked Lt. Rosand to speak to the SureSellNow training certification, and whether or not it was an online tool.


Lt. Rosand responded that it was, and the cost was $20 per employee, even though this establishment may get a discount due to their large employee volume.  Lt. Rosand stated the establishment had repeated to him that they took training seriously; and noted many smaller establishments could not afford the cost of this type of online training, but still were able to get it accomplished in a timely and consistent manner.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Lt. Rosand confirmed the certificates and forms for this employee training were computer generated. 


Councilmember Etten further requested why the off-sale penalty is less than the on-sale penalty.


Mayor Roe clarified that this policy and ordinance decision had been made by a former City Council, resulting in a change related to off-sale based on the rationale that the sale of alcohol for on-sale establishments was a portion of their revenue, and they could still continue to sell food and other products; while a suspension for an off-sale establishment effectively shut them down as per state law not allowing their sale of any other product.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mayor Roe further clarified that the maximum fine the City Council was able to assess was $2,000 per violation, with the recommended fine for this first compliance failure suggested at $1,000, but ultimately at the City Council's discretion.


Total Wine & More Representatives

Mike Zipser, Regional Vice President, Total Wine & More Midwest; Jeff Bernard, District Manager, Total Wine & More, and Robert Jackson, local store manager.


Mr. Zipser stated their firm took this issue seriously as well as the training of their team members; and apologized for this incident.  Mr. Zipser opined they were very diligent in training their team; and after discussing it with Lt. Rosand, have retained all employees on Roseville's Server/Manager Training Policy.  Mr. Zipser stated that they didn't allow minors to shop in their store without adult supervision; and no purchasing allowed even when accompanied by that adult.  Nr, Zipser further stated that they carded all customers deemed to be under the age of 50, and scanned that proof of identification into their system.  With the size of their company creating millions of transactions, Mr. Zipser advised that they had not had any violations over the last several years prior to this; and even though this was human error, they had immediately trained their entire team on store policies.  Mr. Zipser reiterated that they took this seriously, with a sign on the front of the store clearly stating, "Identification Required."


Councilmember McGehee questioned the viability of carding everyone walking in the door, and how that could be done if minors were not allowed to enter the store, or how they were identified as minors.


Mr. Zipser reviewed their process for carding minor when in the sore with a guardian or parent, but clarified it was not when entering the store.


Mr. Bernard clarified if an obvious minor was observed entering the store, they were asked to leave based on confirming that with their identification card.


Since this was a first violation, Councilmember Willmus stated there was some city flexibility.  However, Councilmember Willmus asked that the firm take due diligence not to have a second violation, a point at which the City Council would become very concerned.


Ms. Zipser stated his understanding, and that the firm would make every effort accordingly.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Roseville City Code, Section 302.15, for off-sale license holders for the first violation within thirty-six (36) months; with the mandatory minimum penalty of $1,000 and a zero-day suspension.


Given the size of the company and assurances heard when this establishment opened three years ago, Councilmember McGehee stated she was more than disappointed with their lack of server training.  However, Councilmember McGehee expressed her hope that Councilmember Willmus' warning would serve as sufficient for them.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


c.            Presumptive Penalty Approval - Smashburger Restaurant Compliance Failure

Lt. Rosand reviewed the specific circumstances of this compliance failure, and follow-up by the Police Department with the employee and manager, as detailed in the RCA and attachments.  Lt. Rosand noted there were representatives present from Smashburger Restaurant wishing to speak at tonight's meeting. 


Lt. Rosand noted Smashburger's counsel, Attorney Kate Becker, had provided training records as of last week for four employees, two that were current and two that were not.  Lt. Rosand noted this was the establishment's second alcohol violations within the 36-month look back period, with the prior violation in May of 2014 under similar circumstances, with a failure and then difficulty with training records at that time as well. Lt. Rosand expressed disappointment that the same scenario was again happening, with four managers/supervisors supposed to be trained, with only two actually trained and the other two found to be out-of-compliance.


Smashburger Representatives

Kate Becker, Minnesota Counsel for Smashburger and Shawn Murphy, District Manager

In addition to Lt. Rosand's information, Ms. Becker reminded that in 2014, this Smashburger location had similar violation challenges with training records, at which time a program had been put in place for front-of-the-house employees from 10-12 at any given time, all required to complete in-house Responsible Server Training.  After the last violation, specific to the Roseville location, Ms. Becker advised that only a Manager on Duty could effectuate a sale of alcohol.  Ms. Becker noted, when she provided training records to Lt. Rosand, they showed that all but two employees had completed that training, all managers, and agreed with Lt. Rosand that the server in this case one of those who was authorized to make a sale, had failed the compliance check.  Since then, Ms. Becker reported that the other two employees were now trained and up-to-date, having been found 14 - 15 months outside the training window; with their subsequent training performed outside and provided to Lt. Rosand.


Ms. Becker stated that Smashburger takes this situation seriously, and did not like appearing before the City Council.  Ms. Becker introduced Mr. Murphy, a recent or new hire to the position of District Manager; and his awareness of the situation and actions he was taking to ensure this never happens again.  Ms. Becker reported that one of those actions had been to hire a full-time manager for this location, and prior to starting employment, would be required to complete server/manager training for alcohol sales.


Going forward, Ms. Becker reported that this establishment planned to have all front office employees complete the training, and enhance the training of all employees with outside training.


Councilmember Willmus opined this was very similar to the comments made to this body in June of 2014, describing then a new policy for implementation.  When continuing to say they took this seriously, Councilmember Willmus noted in his short tenure on the Roseville City Council, this was now the third time they were appearing before the body in violation of Roseville's alcohol ordinance; once in 2011, then 2014, and now 2016.  Councilmember Willmus stated this caused him concern about their inability to put in place policies preventing the sale of alcohol to minors.


Councilmember Willmus asked when this liquor license came up for renewal; with Lt. Rosand advising 2017 liquor license renewals were scheduled to come before the City Council at their November 7, 2016 meeting.


Prior to consideration of that renewal, Councilmember Willmus requested that Smashburger management provide a written policy to present to the City Council outlining the steps they plan to take to prevent this happening again in the future.  Councilmember Willmus stated that without such a document and clear intent before him, he couldn't say he could support their liquor license renewal otherwise.  Councilmember Willmus further asked Ms. Becker and Smashburger management to confer with the Roseville Police Department to gain their experience in what works for training and sales and what didn't and then incorporate that expertise into that written policy for City Council consideration prior to their 2017 license renewal.


Ms. Becker duly noted that request and agreed to do so.


Mayor Roe further asked that since there appeared to be ongoing confusion for employees training in the serving of alcohol, but not allowed to do so, creating a potential impression that they may be able to do so.  Mayor Roe asked that the policy and approach be addressed as well and what constituted whether or not an employee was allowed to serve alcohol.


Ms. Becker stated she represented a number of clients in this industry, and had found it common for companies to provide training, but not allow them to sell alcohol.  Ms. Becker noted this could be based on their minimum age requirement for selling alcohol if under 18; or training provided so they can help observe and identify possible signs of intoxication and report that to the manager; or part of security training for the establishment, of what to do and how to handle it if they observed such behavior.  However, Ms. Becker agreed that Mayor Roe raised a valid point that would be reviewed.


Mayor Roe stated his interest was a more specific buy-in from employees if they didn't have the authority.


Ms. Becker noted it was unfortunate in this instance that the person making the sale to a minor was a manager; even though after the 2014 incident a policy was put in place allowing only shift managers to sell alcohol.  Ms. Becker sought to make it clear for the City Council the steps that had been taken, and even though this was one of them, it had still failed, even though the establishment continued to try and was still their plan that one of those employees always on duty was a manager, and that the store could not be opened without a General, Assistant or Shift Manager available. Ms. Becker noted the goal was that those employees were older and more experienced.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Murphy stated that approximately 5% to 6% of their sales are liquor based.  Councilmember McGehee suggested the establishment may consider giving up their liquor license if that was the case.  Councilmember McGehee noted her disappointment with one of the last violations in 2011 or 2014 when the employee making the sale in that case also was a manager, and she had found their attitude to be very lax about the violation.  While the training is available and usually completed, Councilmember McGehee noted there seemed to be little buy-in from employees and a lack of understanding of the importance and consequences of this compliance failure situation.  Therefore, Councilmember McGehee suggested it perhaps was just too small a percentage of what employees typically did during their shifts.


Ms. Becker stated they would get a policy to Lt. Rosand prior to renewal time.


City Manager Trudgeon referenced the bench handout, as part of tonight's RCA, dated October 24, 2016 in response to a question received earlier today referencing this alcohol compliance failure and prior violation March 28, 2011, but outside the 36-month window outlined in ordinance.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, authorizing the Roseville Police Department to issue and administer the presumptive penalty as set forth in Roseville City Code, Section 302.15, for on-sale license holders for the second violation within thirty-six (36) months; with the mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000, amending the proposed five-day suspension to a ten day suspension, with those dates at the discretion of the Police Chief.


City Attorney Gaughan clarified that if there was any deviation from the presumptive penalty in ordinance that deviation needed to be supported by written findings to deviate.  City Attorney Gaughan noted the presumptive policy proscribed in this case was $2,000 with a five-day suspension.


Councilmember Etten identified two findings as aggravating factors in seeking to increase the penalty:

1)   The 2014 violation under the same proscribed penalty per ordinance for a similar violation had resulted in the establishment making promises to change patterns; but instead had resulted in the second violation of like nature, therefore providing no obvious change in that pattern; and

2)   Concerns that 50% f the trained staff for alcohol sales were found to be out-of-compliance with their training.


City Attorney Gaughan further noted that this situation went beyond a second violation, but that it occurred with respect to non-compliance training records for manager/trainers, both outlined as repeat violations in 2014 and 2016.


As seconder to the motion, Councilmember Willmus concurred with the findings outlined by Councilmember Etten and City Attorney Gaughan, and spoke in support of those findings.


At the request of Councilmembers, City Attorney Gaughan reviewed the notice requirements for suspension; and appeal process for the establishment if they chose to file.  Under these circumstances, Mr. Gaughan laid out two options: the suspension to take place at a date far enough in advance that ten-day notice requirements per city code are met and coordinated with the proposed suspension period.  Mr. Gaughan advised that if an appeal was filed, the motion would initiate the process to set a hearing date and provide notice of the proposed ten-day suspension, based on past violations of a similar sort.  Mr. Gaughan noted once the findings were provided to the establishment in writing, the suspension period could not take place until after the ten-day notice period, as outlined in the city's liquor ordinance.


Lt. Rosand noted this had been past practice, to allow a ten-day grace period to allow a firm to file for a hearing, but asked City Attorney Gaughan to provide that documentation for the file.


City Attorney Gaughan suggested bringing back written findings and penalty provisions to the next City Council meeting.


With Mayor Roe noting that was the November 7, 2016 meeting, at which time 2017 liquor license renewals would also be considered, discussion ensued as to the process and preferred action specific to this violation and future consideration of a 2017 renewal of the liquor license.


Mayor Roe reiterated and outlined the procedure for allowing a hearing process based on tonight's motion for a ten-day suspension and findings as noted; and subsequent 2017 license renewal for this establishment.  Mayor Roe opined it should be made clear that as part of consideration for renewal, the City Council wanted to see a clear, written action plan on steps Smashburger proposes for going forward should the City Council decide to renew their liquor license.


Lt. Rosand duly noted that request.


Councilmember Willmus reiterated consideration of any renewal would be separate from and regardless of this action currently before the City Council.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:28 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:34 p.m.  Due to number in the audience awaiting that item, without objection Mayor Roe amended the agenda to address item 14.e prior to Item 14.d (Recycling Contract).


e.         Roseville Deer Management

Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke provided an update and deer population comparisons from 2004 to 2016 to-date provided by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).  Mr. Brokke provided research and available options for deer control as identified by the DNR, Ramsey County, Department of Agriculture (USDA), Metro Bow Hunters Resource Base (MBRB, and Nuisance Animal Removal Service (NARS). 


Mr. Brokke reported three options available for deer control in the metropolitan area include sharp shooting, bow hunting, and trapping; and reviewed timing and logistics for each option.  Mr. Brokke noted an agreement would be required if deer control was chosen and between the city and a specific agency or contractor, as well as communications with local and area law enforcement agencies to define a safety plan.

Public Comment

City Manager Trudgeon noted two bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consisting of emails dated October 24, 2016 from Tim & Patti Eckert, 2653 Matilda Street, in opposition to deer control; and another from Laura Sigler, 1857 Huron Street, in opposition to a controlled deer hunt.


Kate Linder, 631 Heinel Drive

As a 27-year resident of Roseville on Lake Owasso, and a gardener, Ms. Linder summarized her experience with her yard and garden, along with the excessive deer droppings, at a count of 57 piles when she last cleaned them off her yard.  Ms. Linder stated she had noticed the problem getting worse over the last three years and had personally watched it deteriorate.  Ms. Linder strongly urged the City Council to consider changes in Roseville to address the situation.


Karen Rudd, 619 Heinel Drive

As a 21-yer resident, Ms. Rudd stated she had seen a definite increase in the deer population problem over the last five years.  Ms. Rudd referenced a letter she had sent to the Mayor and City Council; and thanked Councilmember Etten for responding to her letter.  Ms. Rudd verbalized the points of her letter, pointing out damage.  Ms. Rudd opined that the rights of people are more important than animals and opined with the totally fearless deer population in Roseville, it was time for the City Council to stop talking about it and take action soon.


Ilona Rouda, 946 Lydia Avenue

As a 31-year resident, Ms. Rouda agreed with the statistics provided in the staff report based on her personal observations, opining she'd never seen deer this aggressive with their destruction of Hosta, prairie plantings, rain garden and vegetable plants.


Ms. Rouda noted she had to install a temporary fence around her vegetable garden to protect it from deer; but after seeing the city's fence policy, questioned if she should have gotten a permit to do so. 


Besides fencing to protect plantings, Ms. Rouda referred to contraceptives in bait food as another option.  Ms. Rouda stated she saw the deer coming up from the swamp area adjacent to Lake Josephine and spoke in support of the deer population being reduced.  Ms. Rouda further opined that if the city took care of the deer population around Lake Owasso, it would make considerable progress with the deer population.  Ms. Rouda agreed with others who think deer are cute, but stated she didn't want them destroying her yard and gardens.


Nate Arthur, 2629 Fisk Street

Mr. Arthur stated his support for reducing the deer population.  Mr. Arthur noted that he had been personally infected from one of ten tick bites resulting in Lyme disease, and been on antibiotics since then; and therefore considered this a public health and safety issue as well as a nuisance.  Having moved to this property in 2009, Mr. Arthur noted he had received cost-sharing support in 2010 from the Grass Lake Water Management Organization to plant native plants along 1,000 square feet to provide a buffer along the back yard fence bordering the city storm water pond at Victoria Street and County Road E.  Mr. Arthur stated it was obvious deer liked the native plants


Scott Henry, 1807 Alameda Street

As a 34-year resident in the NE quadrant of Larpenteur Avenue and Dale Street, Mr. Henry noted his property backs up to Roselawn cemetery, in the Reservoir Woods area.  Mr. Henry stated it wasn't unusual to see 8 - 10 deer in his yard at a time, with bucks in evidence this year.  Mr. Henry shared photographic evidence of deer rubbing antlers on tree bark causing considerable damage, as well as to other plantings, tomato plants and fruit trees.  Mr. Henry noted the situation had continued to worsen and create more difficulties over the 15 years and asked the city to do something about it.


Rob Reinhart, 523 Heinel Drive

As a resident on NE Lake Owasso for over 35 years, Mr. Reinhart thanked the City Council for their service to the community.  Even though this is his first time attending or speaking at a Council meeting, Mr. Reinhart stated his purpose in speaking up was to try to convince the City Council of how damaging and serious this issue is becoming. Mr. Reinhart opined the situation imposes considerable cost for property owners as the deer have become so tame, becoming daily companions standing in their yard even when he and his family are out in the yard.


After learning of tonight's opportunity to speak, Mr. Reinhart noted several deer cutting across S. Owasso at dusk while driving along the road running parallel to the railroad tracks.  With new homes being constructed in that area and development of the former school property, Mr. Reinhart opined it was driving the deer further into their neighborhood, and stated it was time to do something before serious injury occurred.


Tim Callaghan, 3062 Shorewood Lane

Mr. Callaghan spoke on the other side of the problem, stating his firm belief that he didn't kill any type of wild animal, and whatever the city decided to do, he could not pay any cost associated with this effort and stated his refusal to pay any amount of charge the city takes if it acted on this. 


Mr. Callaghan opined this was a problem in only part of Roseville; and just last week there had been an item discussing traffic in his neighborhood, resulting in closure of a street at the cost to the neighborhood.  Mr. Callaghan opined that perhaps if this problem is found in a particular or select neighborhood, those neighbors should share in the cost to alleviate it rather than the entire community. 


Mr. Callaghan stated that he had not observed any deer; and when discussing deer habitat, he had never seen one in his backyard this year, not had a problem with them destroying his landscape.  Mr. Callaghan opined there were other people agreeing with him and not killing, which he found to be the issue.  Mr. Callaghan stated he had also had Lyme disease, but not from deer, since the disease was usually spread by small rodents with deer just happening to catch it like humans. 


Tom Knutson, "Tri-City Area"

As a 32-year resident in the area, Mr. Knutson stated he observed deer all the time, but had never seen the issues currently being dealt with by the City Council.  Mr. Knutson stated his amazement that the city had such educated deer. 


In reviewing the options provided in the staff report, Mr. Knutson opined the sharp shooting option would probably be best; but with the baiting done prior to the hunt, opined he found it terrorism from his perspective.  Mr. Knutson noted when deer are in the mood to breed they rub tree bark and become destructive. 


Mr. Knutson admitted he came here tonight with an agenda, but was now going in a different way.  However, Mr. Knutson opined trapping was ineffective; and based on his former involvement with Metro Bow Hunters, if the city uses this option, the typical hunt period is between September and the end of December, and over half that timeframe is already over; and asked how the city intended to implement that option before the end of the year if it chose to do so.


Council Deliberation

Before beginning Council discussions, Mayor Roe asked staff to respond to the questions asked during public speaking.


Specific to timing for bow hunting, Mr. Brokke advised that this was accomplished through a special permit; and while not yet committed to this option, would like to have it happen before year end.  Mr. Brokke agreed with the speaker that it was late in the season, but suggested a special permit might be granted at additional cost since it would be outside the season.  Mr. Brokke noted the situation would not be resolved with just one hunt, and would probably need to be repeated.  Mr. Brokke clarified that bow hunters typically pay for a special permit to hunt here rather than somewhere else, and since it's outside the normal deer hunting season, they paid an additional cost to do so.


Specific to contraception and its effectiveness, as per past discussions on that option, Mr. Brokke stated staff's initial background information indicated this was not an option in Minnesota and only done out east in particular areas.  However, Mr. Brokke stated it had proven ineffective, and from his research didn't even believe the option was permitted in Minnesota.  Mr. Brokke noted this was similar to the option to relocate deer, and one of two other areas staff had researched that had been tried elsewhere but ultimately proven ineffective.


Councilmember Willmus noted identification by staff of three areas for implementing control measures; but asked if Ramsey County properties were off limits going forward (e.g. area around Little Lake Josephine) that encompassed larger areas.


Mr. Brokke responded that he thought those Ramsey County areas would remain open for deer management efforts as well.


Councilmember Willmus noted some of tonight's public testimony indicated this was affecting only a small area of Roseville.  However, Councilmember Willmus stated it had been his understanding and observation that the deer population was pretty widespread, including his yard and those of his neighbors, indicating it was a citywide issue.  While three areas had been identified as displayed on maps provided by staff through aerial photos, Councilmember Willmus suggested there were other areas to consider as well if the city chose to move forward.


Councilmember Etten noted online comments and one of tonight's speakers, as well as comments he'd received while door knocking in SE Roseville during his re-election campaign.  Councilmember Etten questioned if the three areas of highest concentration identified by Mr. Brokke provided sufficient assessment, or if future assessment would indicate where to focus versus taking no action at all.


Mr. Brokke responded that, since this is the city's first attempt at deer management, the Lake Owasso area seemed to have the highest concentration at this point, suggesting it might be a good starting point.  In SE Roseville, Mr. Brokke noted the Reservoir Woods area provided more space as well to address the deer overpopulation, and suggested also starting there.  Mr. Brokke expressed his preference to move slow and continue evaluating and monitoring the deer population as any management program moved forward.


Councilmember McGehee stated her appreciation of Mr. Brokke's comment if the city decided to take action.  Councilmember McGehee stated her difficulty in the numbers presented, reviewing them again, and opined it was unfortunate for residents experiencing such big problems, while many residents had moved to the suburbs to have more land and natural areas, some of whom enjoyed feeding deer.  However, Councilmember McGehee admitted one of the unintended consequences of feeding them was their subsequent damage to property. 

Councilmember McGehee opined there were many unknowns here, and any deer management effort would impose on the livelihood of some in Roseville who really liked the deer.  If the city decided to manage this, Councilmember McGehee suggested addressing a certain number and getting the job done quickly and effectively; and not making it a sporting activity in city parks, or using a huge cage or deer stand that young children would observe.  Councilmember McGehee opined that if people were so upset by the situation, they could choose to move elsewhere in the city.  If the city decides to take a professional approach to manage the deer population, even though the sharp shooting method seemed to her like shooting fish in a fishbowl because these are tame deer and shooting them provides no kind ofsport, it would still be the only option she could personally support.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with Mr. Callaghan's comments during public comment, that she also didn't kill things and found this tremendously offensive as well as did other members of the community.  Councilmember McGehee also agreed with Mr. Callaghan's comments about Lyme disease and it not only being a deer disease, but carried by lots of small rodents. 


While being personally opposed to it and she wishing something else could be done, Councilmember McGehee stated if it was the will of the City Council, she felt strongly that a management program be started slowly, and moved cautiously, and that it be done professionally.  Councilmember McGehee opined she didn't think it was appropriate to charge people the cost for management where the deer are found to be living, since the city had the resources to pay these costs properly.


Mayor Roe asked staff for information on the effectiveness of baiting and the area such baiting drew from.


Mr. Brokke responded that staff's research had indicated the baiting drew from a broad area, and had proven very effective, and was done for several weeks before the chosen option was accomplished. 


Specific to selecting a number of deer and/or a location for management, Mr. Brokke confirmed for Mayor Roe that the USDA had been consulted with an initial number of twenty deer identified for eradication, with the USDA agreeing that seemed a reasonable initial target number for an estimated deer population of fifty or more.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, directing staff to move forward and implement deer control measures via the USDA sharp shooting option.


Councilmember Willmus acknowledged all those coming forward over the last few years to address this problem, which he noted was an ongoing issue in the community that he continued to hear about frequently.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus opined it became a function for the city to take measures to reduce the number of deer in the community.  Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee that he would not choose the bow hunting option; but clarified that he also didn't see this as a city program or city-sponsored sporting event.  Councilmember Willmus stated he also didn't much care for the trapping option.  Councilmember Willmus further agreed with Councilmember McGehee that, while deer could carry ticks with Lyme disease, at the end of the day he didn't consider them 100% responsible for those contracting the disease.


Councilmember Willmus opined the deer management issue had clearly been identified and that the city should implement the most effective mechanism to control those numbers.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus opined the USDA sharp shooting option was the best option.


Councilmember Etten stated he arrived at this difficult decision; and even though loving the nature in Roseville, he also knew people were part of that nature picture, with many enjoying hunting and fishing as a way of life, Councilmember Etten opined the current natural system in Roseville is out of balance and the city needed to step in with appropriate control measures at this time.  Councilmember Etten stated that for him, deer standing their ground against people, the loss of plant and trees creating negative and expensive issues, and their interaction with people becoming more aggressive and dangerous, caused him to see the need for rebalancing their population in Roseville.  Councilmember Etten opined that the loss of habitat and development along County Road C and Dale Street and along S Owasso Blvd. near Lady Slipper Park, in an area already impacted by deer, had exacerbated an already existing problem.


Councilmember Etten opined it was an appropriate action for the city to move forward at this time, and to consider other areas of the city as it moved forward.


Councilmember McGehee stated she would be abstaining based on her personal reasons, but asked her colleagues to think about those residents appreciating natural areas in the community as it moved forward.  Councilmember McGehee noted the sustaining and increasing natural areas in Roseville was the second most requested item in the Parks & Recreation survey completed in recent years; and asked that they consider additional park, open and green space moving forward.  Councilmember McGehee agreed with the option chosen in this motion as stated by Councilmember Willmus, and agreed with the speaker tonight about deer standing their ground and potentially more of a problem with bucks during rutting season.


If this is the will of the City Council, Councilmember McGehee asked that staff consult with the USDA and DNR and implement the program properly to ensure the most problematic areas are targeted.  Councilmember McGehee also agreed with Councilmember Etten that it was unfortunate to lose vegetation; but from her perspective, the issue of serious interaction between people and deer asmuch more problematic.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion even though he wasn't generally supportive of killing wildlife either; and certainly wouldn't support preserving habitat by changing the zoning of areas already designated specifically for residents.  However, as stated by Councilmember Etten, Mayor Roe agreed that the current deer population was not in balance to support this appropriate number of wildlife; making it a quality of life issue for residents of Roseville.  While not supporting this action specifically about plantings, Mayor Roe did speak in support of that as a consideration, noting it was unreasonable for residents to spend a significant amount of money to replace valuable trees.


Mayor Roe clarified that this action was not being taken to eradicate the entire deer population in Roseville; opining there would still be some to enjoy; but stated the necessity of managing the deer population by serving the city's citizens as well.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Nays: None.

Abstentions: McGehee.

Motion carried.



Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 9:32 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 9:33 p.m.

d.            Agreement for Comprehensive Recycling Services

Public Works Director Marc Culver updated the City Council on staff negotiations with Neighborhood Recycling Corporation, d/b/a Eureka Recycling to-date.


Mayor Roe recognized Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson; and Mr. Culver noted the considerable time and effort spent by Mr. Johnson in developing the request for proposals (RFP) and working with Eureka Recycling, thanking him for the great job.


As detailed in the RCA, Mr. Culver reviewed the differences in the proposal, specifically the new portion of the program for servicing parks and pathways with recycling options.  Mr. Culver reviewed those price variables from the original proposal and agreement proposal after negotiations that addressed prices for parking lot pick-up, building walk-up and pathways based on per cart pulls.  Mr. Culver advised that it was suggested that a pilot program be implemented at Central Park at an annual cost of approximately $10,000.  Mr. Culver advised that for services beyond 2017 for park and pathway service, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to the initial agreement would be brought before the City Council annually for their approval.


Mr. Culver further reviewed differences in the current agreement with Eureka and proposed agreement, including a five-year contract versus a three-year contract; changes in the revenue share component due to drastic disparities in the commodities market to sell recycled materials; processing fees per ton; and changed in the original service cost per unit for park collection.  Mr. Culver stated the most notable issue in the proposed agreement was a proposed removal of a floor price of zero.


Council Deliberation

Councilmember Willmus expressed concern with the proposed floor price; and asked if staff could explore additional negotiation.  Councilmember Willmus also asked the length of the park pilot program.


Mr. Culver advised that, as currently laid out in the draft agreement, the proposed pilot program was just for the 2017 season, with the Parks & Recreation Department determining in February when best to roll out the carts and when to pull them back in; with data collection obtained during that initial pilot program.  Mr. Culver advised that the Parks & Recreation Department would also formalize and define how broad that pilot program should be; with the suggestion for 20 carts in Lexington Park initially to see how it worked.


Councilmember Etten agreed that the Parks & Recreation Department should work out the details.  However, Councilmember Etten asked how the ten-month calendar period had been determined and whether it considered park use during the high and low periods.  Councilmember Etten stated his appreciation for initiating this park recycling effort.


Mr. Culver advised that part of the schedule took into consideration that it will take two months to get the carts rolled out; and while recognizing Lexington Park use is good throughout the year, it is typically heavier in the spring, summer and fall months.


Councilmember McGehee thanked Mr. Culver and Mr. Johnson for their work, opining the RFP was good as was the subsequent proposal from Eureka, even with an anticipated small increase.  Given the drop in recycling material markets, Councilmember McGehee questioned if anything could be resolved with the floor price, but stated she didn't have a problem with it.  Councilmember McGehee stated she was especially happy that the park component was being initiated, and recognized it needed a lot of study but provided a nice opportunity to analyze it and change it up through working with the Parks & Recreation and Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commissions and neighbors in the immediate area.  Given everything the city was trying to accomplish, Councilmember McGehee opined this was a good proposal, and expressed her interest in how the park component worked out.


Councilmember Willmus stated he was still hung up with the floor price, especially the potential financial risk for the city.  Councilmember Willmus agreed the adjustments taking place in the agreement with revenue sharing, savings on processing fees, and service costs per unit were reasonable.  However, Councilmember Willmus stated it was a bid deal for him with the floor price based on the volatility in the recycling market, and asked for a summary of staff discussions to-date with Eureka Recycling. 


Mr. Culver reported that staff had held considerable discussion with Eureka on the floor price and had attempted to include additional language to decrease the city's risk associated with it if things in the commodities market took another dive.  Mr. Culver noted that 2015 was a particularly bad year related to the glass market, and if this revenue sharing agreement model had been in place at the time, the city could have paid tens of thousands of dollars extra in 2015.  However, Mr. Culver noted the market was continuing to improve, and those issues return, it may prompt additional discussions and adjustments with Eureka, the least of which could be removing glass from the recycling stream if the cost became so out of line that it was costing the city more to recycle it.


Mr. Culver admitted there was some risk for the city, thus discussions on additional language as requested by the city.  However, Mr. Culver reported that Eureka had indicated that in order to increase their risk and reduce risk for the city further, they would need to increase unit prices.  Given the 5% overall increase proposed for recycling costs between 2016 and 2017, and the 2% increase moving forward in the five-year contract, Mr. Culver advised that staff had felt the city could absorb that increase or negative costs in revenue sharing versus paying a definite increase in service cost.  While not great by any means, Mr. Culver reported that with the improving commodities market, the city was actually experiencing a $900 positive in revenue sharing in 2016 to-date.


Councilmember Willmus noted there had been a significant decline in the market during part of that period.


Councilmember Willmus asked if the city had any way out the contract if it started to experience significant increases in the floor price that the city had to pay; or the contract was unbreakable for the proposed full five-year term.


Mr. Culver stated it would not be considered a breach of contract if prices began to sour, but advised at that time, the city would initiate preliminary discussions with Eureka to adjust and possibly eliminate materials from the recycling stream to control those costs.  Mr. Culver noted there were clauses within the proposed contract addressing remediation using a professional mediation service.


City Attorney Gaughan noted this proceeding was addressed in the legal action clause in the contract.


Councilmember McGehee sought clarification that the city's choices were to either accept the risk or pay a higher fee.  Councilmember McGehee sought additional detail on the process the city would need to undergo if commodity prices soured.


Mr. Culver reviewed the process, but noted Eureka would be the expert on ramifications if that situation occurred.  Mr. Culver noted there were other consequences to consider, such as if someone continued to recycle glass after it was no longer accepted, it would increase the city's residual rates and impact costs.  Mr. Culver noted that the City of Roseville continues to have high participation rates with low residual rates based on national comparisons.  Mr. Culver advised that this also allowed Roseville to keep its very low recycling rates compared with other Minnesota communities. 


As staff negotiated pricing and risks with Eureka, Mr. Culver advised that Eureka indicated the market and themselves as a business would be insignificant trouble beyond the City of Roseville if the market dropped considerably, creating significant costs in processing costs.  Mr. Culver reported that the City of St. Paul's recent renewal had similar provisions at 80% with no floor within their contract.


Councilmember Willmus reiterated that he continued to have a problem with the city being asked to sign an open-ended contract without knowing costs, making him inclined to not support a motion approving the agreement.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of an Agreement for Comprehensive Recycling Services with Neighborhood Recycling Corporation, d/b/a Eureka Recycling (Attachment A).


Councilmember Etten stated his appreciation for Councilmember Willmus' concerns, but noted the numbers were from an exceptionally bad year serving to define the city's risk, even though some improvement had been realized in 2016 to-date and remaining historically low compared to the past.  Councilmember Etten opined this provided some viewpoint of what could happen; and expressed appreciation for the lower processing fees in this proposed contract.  Councilmember Etten stated there was a need for give and take in any contract, and past experience with and services from Eureka had been good.  Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in implementing the park services going forward.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with the comment of Councilmember Etten; and the proven service by Eureka over time as a good and fair partner to the city.  If changes were experienced during the five-year term, Councilmember McGehee stated her confidence that things could be figured by both parties out if and when necessary.


Councilmember Willmus stated things may not work out with both parties to the agreement of both, especially when the commodities market couldn't be forecast out five years.  Therefore, Councilmember Willmus stated an easy solution would be to provide a system of checks and balances within the contract now versus approving how it's presented tonight.  Councilmember Willmus opined that, if the City Council sat at the dais and touted its fiscal stewardship for the community to him this was an area for consideration at this time.


Mayor Roe asked Councilmember Willmus if he envisioned that provision to be better language in the floor price clause protecting the city, or if he was suggesting better language specifically related to termination.


Councilmember Willmus opined the best position for the city would be  to have an escape clause a better clause would be no clause.  However, with over two months still remaining in the current Eureka contract with the city, Councilmember Willmus opined there was sufficient time and his preference would be to pursue further discussion and to negotiate a better contract.  Councilmember Willmus agreed that Eureka had done a great job for Roseville and in their working relationship to-date, as well as other products they had brought forward.  Councilmember Willmus stated he had nothing to say about Eureka or their service to Roseville.  However, Councilmember Willmus stated this was a financial issue that could have considerable impact on the city.


Councilmember Etten asked staff what type of "out clause" they envisioned from their discussion with Eureka to-date that they might be able to support.


Mayor Roe suggested the city's strategy not be revealed publicly in this meeting.


Mr. Culver responded that without going into specificities, staff had tried inserting a clause addressing a percentage of either processing or pick-up costs, but had been unsuccessful in garnering that language.  Mr. Culver stated staff's agreement to continuing negotiations with Eureka, but anticipated any such provision will increase base costs for the city.


Mayor Roe spoke in opposition to the motion; and while not having as much concern as that expressed by Councilmember Willmus, stated the open-ended nature of the contract did cause him concern.  Mayor Roe suggested revisiting the issue with the intent to establish a point that the contract has to be reopened if nothing else.  Mayor Roe noted both parties were in this together and would both be in trouble if the commodities market dropped again, and suggested both the contractor and city look at a different approach going forward if that should happen and address such an opportunity versus how the contract is currently written.  Mayor Roe noted that the city typically has some way to protect its interests better.


Councilmember McGehee asked if there was anything in the contract as it now stands that would provide an opportunity to renegotiate.


City Attorney Gaughan noted that any contract can be amended to the mutual agreement of both parties, including such a provision in the proposed contract as presented.  However, Mr. Gaughan noted the question was if there was mutual agreement to do so.  In order to protect the city's interest, Mr. Gaughan submitted that the city would not be interested in a mutual consent to renegotiate clause, but that the city could retain the right to unilaterally terminate the contract or renegotiate specific terms.


Mayor Roe noted that provision was not in this current proposed contract.


Councilmember Willmus noted Mayor Roe had touched upon a resolution, something that could serve as a trigger mechanism; and offered his support for such language.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee.

Nays: Willmus, Etten and Roe.

Motion failed.


Willmus moved to continue negotiations with Eureka based on the structure of this proposed agreement; but inserting a floor or triggering mechanism to allow the contract to be reviewed if and when a certain threshold is reached, to be determined by city staff during negotiations, at which time the contract will be reopened and renegotiated.


City Attorney Gaughan reiterated his concern is renegotiation depending on such a provision.  By way of example, Mr. Gaughan noted a result of such a provision as suggested could be if and when something specific occurred and both parties would then renegotiate, it required both sides to come to an agreement, while that may work in the disfavor of one party an in favor of the other party, making it difficult to arrive at a successful negotiation and resolution.  Mr. Gaughan suggested the City Council leave things less specific in terms of what staff and his office should try to accomplish, whether that be a renegotiation provision or a more favorable termination provision for that reason.  If the city is looking for a way out, Mr. Gaughan stated that was a termination provision.



At 10:00 a.m., Willmus moved to extend the meeting curfew to the completion of this item.


Mayor Roe declared the motion failed due to lack of a second.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting curfew through Item 15.a.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.

Willmus moved, clarifying his earlier motion, Etten seconded, directing staff to continue negotiations with Comprehensive Recycling Services, d/b/a Eureka Recycling, specifically related to a floor triggering termination based on revenue sharing.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe.

Nays: None.


d.            Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


a.            Request to Amend City Code, Chapter 304: Lawful Gambling

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the request as detailed in the RCA, and a letter from the Roseville Area Youth Hockey Association dated October 4, 2016 (Attachment A).  Mr. Miller noted Chapter 304 as originally conceived in 1992, limited one location for each non-profit organization.  However, Mr. Miller noted the city had modified that provision in 2011 allowing each organization up to two locations.  With this request from the Youth Hockey Association, Mr. Miller advised it would require another revision to Chapter 304 at the City Council's discretion. 


Mr. Miller noted representatives from Joe Senser's Restaurant and officials from the Youth Hockey Association were present to speak to this request.


Mayor Roe welcomed April Borash, Gambling Manager for the Roseville Area Youth Hockey Association and Leah Vogelsong, Assistant Manager; along with Tom Howarth, representing Joe Senser's Restaurant.


Ms. Borash reviewed the Association's mission statement; and rationale for requesting this additional location, and working relationship with the restaurant, and desire to support them as a family restaurant and safe environment in which to conduct lawful gambling, and shared mission goals.  Ms. Borash noted that the current operator at the restaurant was not Roseville-specific; and in an effort to grow their Association and its efforts, spoke in support of this request.  Ms. Borash noted their current annual budget was approximately $400,000 and included approximately 500 families; opining that the Association's track record should speak for itself and its partnership with Roseville.


Mr. Howarth advised that they were looking to make a change in their charitable gambling partner and this made the most sense for them.


Councilmember McGehee stated, while she wasn't opposed to the Association at this location, she would not support three places for one organization in Roseville.  Councilmember McGehee stated she also wasn't enthusiastic about removing Minnesota Brass for the purpose of replacing them with the Hockey Association at the restaurant, even though they were clearly not sports-affiliated, but still active in the Roseville community.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the city's rationale in laying down the original ground rules in the first place was to allow reasonable participation; but by seeking a third location for one organization, she didn't find reasonable or appropriate.  Councilmember McGehee offered her support for the mission of the Youth Hockey Association, and the obvious link with Joe Senser's Restaurant; but reiterated that she could not support removing the established organization to insert another one.


Ms. Borash responded that it was similar to buying from the U.S.A. compared to something made in another country; opining that the Youth Hockey Association was a homegrown charity from Roseville that wanted to continue growing in Roseville.  Ms. Borash noted their organization had proven that all of their money goes directly back into the city, where they wanted to continue growing, and using other vendors in the community to achieve that growth.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Howarth confirmed that their restaurant would have only one non-profit gambling organization on site, and not the Minnesota Brass organization.


With the goal of the Youth Hockey Association to fund youth hockey so as not to overburden parents, and considering their sizable generation of money annually, Councilmember Etten asked how much remained not funding hockey.


Ms. Borash responded that she estimated their budget was approximately $500,000; and the association made approximately $300,000, with donations to the city funding upkeep of the skating center and equipment and other Roseville recreation activities.


Councilmember Willmus stated there was no question about the Youth Hockey Association and their commitment to Roseville.  Councilmember Willmus stated he had remaining questions in order to make an informed decision, and while not opposed to this request, he didn't think he was in a position to approve the request wholeheartedly without those questions being answered and being able to talk to city staff more in depth on this and the potential future impact with other organizations.


Mr. Howarth clarified that Joe Senser's will no longer be a site for Minnesota Brass whether or not the Youth Hockey Association is granted this request; and further clarified the Hockey Association was not pushing that organization out.  Mr. Howarth advised that the Hockey Association was simply their choice for a replacement most meeting the goals of their organization and mission statement.


Mayor Roe thanked representatives for their attendance tonight and for presenting their request.  In his review of current ordinance, Mayor Roe noted the city currently allowed eight premise permits, and as of 2015, seven were listed, with one remaining from that total maximum amount.


Finance Director Miller confirmed that number; however, he noted staff's awareness of one new restaurant coming to Roseville that had expressed interest in that remaining premise permit.


Mayor Roe asked if state statutes or city code had any restrictions on donations from one premise, or limiting the number of organizations a premise can support for charitable gambling operations.


Finance Director Miller advised that he would need to follow-up on that, stating that he was aware that the Roseville Bingo Hall had a limit of five at that premise itself.   However, as far as individual restaurants or more than one specific site, he would need to confirm those requirements.


Mayor Roe asked staff to provide that information before moving forward.  Mayor Roe stated he still needed to understand, as requested by Councilmember Willmus, the pluses and minuses with an organization potentially getting gambling revenue from three different premises.  Mayor Roe noted the overall increase in proceeds even without a change in the number of premises; also something to consider.


Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to provide the additional information and review of state statutes and city code for presentation to the City Council for their further consideration.


e.            City Manager Future Agenda Review


f.             Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


g.            Adjourn Meeting

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:18 p.m.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe. 

Nays: None.