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

City Council

City Council Meeting Minutes

December 5, 2016


1.      Roll Call

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


2.       Pledge of Allegiance


3.       Approve Agenda

City Manager Trudgeon advised that Item 14.a had been revised since dissemination of agenda packet materials, with a revised Request for Council Action (RCA) provided as a bench handout, attached to the meeting packet, adding one additional liquor license renewal entity: India Palace.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the agenda as amended, with the revised Item 14.a.

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


4.       Public Comment

Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items, with no one appearing to speak.


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

For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe announced upcoming activities and events, including a Red Cross Blood Drive co-sponsored by the City and Affinity Plus Credit Union; a seminar at the Ramsey County Library Roseville Branch entitled, "Handling the Holidays for Caregivers" and volunteer opportunity at Applewood Park to assist with natural resource management efforts at city parks by helping drag and stack Buckthorn brush.


Councilmember McGehee announced MNSure Navigator assistance through the end of January 2017 at the Roseville Library.


Mayor Roe provided an annual report on CTV's municipal assistance programming, with a total of 654 hours provided to its nine-member cites, 106 exclusively used for City of Roseville community programming and videos airing on municipal channels.


City Manager Trudgeon reported that last week, he, Mayor Roe and Councilmembers Etten and Laliberte had attended a half-day session hosted by the League of Minnesota Cities and Metro Cities organizations providing statewide updates on a variety of interest to cities.  Mr. Trudgeon noted this also provided a great opportunity to network with elected officials and staff peers; as well as hearing a presentation by the Minnesota Secretary of State about the 2016 election process and turnout.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that many communities, including Roseville, shared their concerns with the early absentee voting process this year and suggested possible changes to the cumbersome and overwhelming process experienced this year.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that those attending were promised that the Secretary of State's office would review the process; but he opined that whether or not that resulted in any meaningful changes before the next election remained to be seen.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that the hope was that the early voting process would be taken up at upcoming legislative sessions to make it easier and provide a better approach for dealing with a large influx of voters.


Mayor Roe reported on the second of three Imagine Roseville Community Conversations related to community, policing, and race issues.  Mayor Roe noted approximately 80 people attended; with the intent of the meeting primarily associated with providing ideas growing from earlier conversations.  Mayor Roe noted that the third community meeting would be scheduled early in 2017 summarizing those ideas with which the city could take follow-up actions as indicated.


6.      Recognitions, Donations and Communications


7.            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.


a.            Approve November 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the November 28, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as amended.



·         Page 3, Lines 37, 42 and Page 4, Line 12 (Roe)

Correct formatting numbers and lettering

·         Page 4, Lines 22 - 25 (Roe)

Mayor Roe called staff's attention for the need to change the November 14, 2016 meeting minutes in accordance with the directed statement related to references to bench handouts as noted.

·         Page 19, Line7 (McGehee)

Correct to read: "improvements for its utilities and [chooses to] capture those [monies through] fees, it still essentially had a"

·         Page 23

Lines 8 - 10 Last Sentence (McGehee)

Correct to read: "Councilmember McGehee suggested the city not be so tied into an appraisal early in the process until deciding how [serious it was] [seriously the city was in acquisition].

Line 21 (Roe)

Correct to read: "switching" rather than "moving"

·         Page 25

Line 33 (McGehee)

Strike "and use of"

Lines 35-36 (McGehee)

Strike "somewhat"

·         Page 26, Lines 2 - 10 (McGehee)

Correct to read: "Councilmember McGehee opined that this was one way to get some control of capital needs and get things back into the capital budget, and stated that she didn't consider $400,000 to be [sufficient] [insufficient].  [After having acquired a great deal and even with no development commitments foreseen,] [. Councilmember McGehee noted that] one of the nice things about park land and those sites mentioned, if not developed, [that] the city still retained the land for future development.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the City of Roseville was built on a pay-as-you-go concept, [and while having diverged from that] and to build up a capital fund as proposed makes more sense form a proper economic balance standpoint."


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


b.            Approve November 28, 2016 REDA Meeting Minutes

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the November 28, 2016 REDA Meeting Minutes as amended.



·         Page 3, Line (Roe)

Include quotation marks for "incurring" and "authorizing."


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


8.            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 December 5, 2016 and related attachments.


a.            Approve Payments

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

ACH Payments


83870 - 83939









Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business and Other Licenses

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of various licenses as detailed, dependent on completion of successful background checks for massage licenses.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


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

Councilmember McGehee reminded staff that past City Council directive was that diversity be used when replanting diseased trees (e.g. Emerald Ash Borer).


Councilmember McGehee reported that she had provided information to City Manager Trudgeon to forward on to the Parks & Recreation Commission regarding Burdock and hazards to migratory birds.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA, and Attachment A entitled, "2016 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items," updated October 31, 2016.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


d.            Consider Not Waiving Statutory Liability Limits for 2017

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, a motion to NOT waive the Statutory Liability Limits for 2017.

                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


e.            Confirm Citizen Advisory Commission Reappointment/ Appointment Schedule

Councilmember McGehee asked that staff seek feedback from those commissioners not choosing to continue serving; duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, confirmation of the Citizen Advisory Commission Reappointment/Appointment Process as detailed in the RCA.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


f.             Authorize Contract for Consultant Services to Rewrite Subdivision Code

Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of entering into a Standard Agreement for Professional Services with Kimley-Horn (Attachment A) to lead an update of the Subdivision Code based on the detailed scope of services; and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the documents.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


g.            Consider the Issuance of Premises Permit for Amvets Post 1 to Conduct Lawful Gambling Activities at 2480 Fairview Avenue (Lucky's 13 restaurant)

While not opposed to approving this Premises Permit for Amvets, Councilmember Laliberte stated her preference that the City of Roseville and its own non profits benefit from these proceeds.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11380 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Approving a Lawful Gambling Premise Permit to Amvets Post 1;" located at 2480 Fairview Avenue subject to completion of successful background checks.


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


9.     Consider Items Removed from Consent


9.            General Ordinances for Adoption


a.            Request by City of Roseville to Amend City Code Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts) to Review Regulations Pertaining to the Quantity of Built Improvements Allowed on Properties in the LDR-2 Zoning District (PROJ0017)

Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized recommendations reconsidered by the Planning Commission at the request of the City Council; revising the improvement area limit to 60%, a figure between the 50% in Low Density Residential (LDR) and 65% in Medium Density Residential (MDR) designations.


Discussion ensued regarding making the improvement area permeable versus impervious, with staff clarifying the 35% limit for impervious coverage on a lot remained the same, with the remaining percentage requiring mitigation to address any additional stormwater runoff; size of lots for LDR-1 and LDR-2 designations; and staff providing examples of pervious improvements that didn't count toward the 35% impervious, but counted as improvements (e.g. planting areas with superstructures; geo-grid materials that weren't necessarily paving but considered hard drivable surfaces; or outdoor pools).


Councilmember Willmus asked that, in the future, staff include past City Council meeting minutes, in addition to those of the Planning Commission, providing background information when applicable; duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon. 


When looking at LDR-2 designated properties, Councilmember Willmus advised that he was looking to provide a mechanism or means of construction for a greater level of affordability.  However, as the lot coverage ratio creeps us, Councilmember Willmus opined that it resulted in higher-end homes; therefore, causing him to struggle with the Planning Commission's recommended 60%.


Mayor Roe referenced the visual examples provided from Planning Commissioner Daire with their information, and asked Mr. Lloyd to display the sketch, particularly the LDR-2 example and their specific calculations related to setback scenarios with rear and front yard setbacks at 30'.  Using those examples, Mayor Roe opined that the results appeared to come out well under 60% from his understanding.


Mr. Lloyd noted that he had intentionally omitted too much discussion on the sketch submitted by Commissioner Daire as, while it helped some Planning Commissioners visualize lot proportions, it included only the principle structures for setback examples, but didn't take into consideration driveways or other detached structures on a site (e.g. storage sheds and/or play structures) that could result in being much closer up to the 5' setbacks for property lines.  Mr. Lloyd noted that the lot area available for many improvements aside from the principle structure were not well-represented in those sketches, making it impossible to meaningfully represent that envelope accurately or completely.


If the developable area could reach 60% if meeting setbacks and providing mitigation for additional stormwater, Councilmember Etten asked if the primary structure could in effect cover up to 60% of the lot area.


Mr. Lloyd responded that it could not, as there would then be no room for a driveway under city code provisions; with restrictions addressed for height, setbacks, and allowance on the site for the driveway, sidewalks and other necessary site improvements, even though the lion's share of the area could be the house.


Councilmember McGehee suggested that, if you used permeable pavers for a driveway, you could then have a larger house.


While that might be conceptually true, Mr. Lloyd noted that one qualification worth making in that regard was in assuming permeable paving was used to go beyond the 35% impervious coverage restriction on a property.  Also, Mr. Lloyd noted that any paving system would have to be evaluated by the city's engineering staff to rate their effectiveness and what portion of the installation would actually be considered pervious; as well as short- and long-term maintenance and ramifications should that maintenance fail at any time in the future.   Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised that it wasn't just as simple as someone getting more development based on installation of permeable pavers.


Mayor Roe noted that, even is using permeable pavers, a property owner still couldn't exceed the total improvement area, or get more house if exceeding setback requirements.


While still unable to support the proposed 60', Councilmember Willmus advised that he would consider 55%, opining that would still accomplish the intended.


Since the initial improvement area had been 50%, Mr. Lloyd agreed that 55% would achieve some improvement.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1515 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Improvement Area Regulations of Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts of Title 10 (Zoning Code) of Roseville City Code;" amended to a 55% improvement area for LDR-2 parcels.


In a related note, Councilmember McGehee expressed her ongoing interest in moving away from stormwater ponds and raingardens to avoid difficulties for staff to monitor them and ensure their viability, thus her suggestion that some of the improvement area make an attempt to utilize permeable surfaces.


Councilmember Willmus stated his interest in entertaining that discussion at a later date, but not specifically tied to this issue.


Mayor Roe agreed, suggesting it be considered in a broader application for other districts as well.  Mayor Roe further noted his concern in including such a provision in this requested action, without due public process and feedback from the Planning Commission.


City Manager Trudgeon duly noted the additional discussion as part of a future agenda.

                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


b.            Consider Changes to City Code Chapter 314.05: 2017 Fee Schedule

City Manager Trudgeon referenced previous City Council input advising that it had been incorporated into this iteration of the fee schedule. 


For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe noted they could obtain additional information on the fees on the city's website from the November 15, 2016 meeting.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1516 (Attachment A) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 314.05, Fee Schedule: Adopting the 2017 Fee Schedule" as presented.


Councilmember Willmus expressed appreciation to staff for changing language in several areas (e.g. hardscape permits addressing landscaping of a more intense degree than charging inspection or permit fees for residents simply planting shrubs).


Councilmember Laliberte concurred.  However, Councilmember Laliberte pointed out that due to the November 14th meeting running late, only those high points had reviewed (e.g. new fees), without noting some that had significant increases from last year.  Councilmember Laliberte asked that sufficient time be allowed next year to be more conscious about spending time addressing those more noticeable changes.


Roe moved, McGehee seconded, separating out consideration of park dedication fees and changes from the remainder of the Fee Schedule.


Roll Call

Ayes: McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: Etten and Willmus.

Motion carried.


Mayor Roe referenced Attachment C (page 3) addressing park dedication fees for residential and non-residential parcels as recommended by the Parks & Recreation Commission.  However, Mayor Roe opined that personally he considered those changes higher than he's be comfortable approving at this time; and therefore, suggested that they remain the same as 2016 fees at this time.


Roe moved, Willmus seconded, retaining 2016 fees for park dedication the same: residential per unit ($3,500) and non-residential (fair market value at 7%).


Mayor Roe opined that developers looked at this fee as part of the cost for developing in Roseville.  Since additional discussion was pending regarding how those funds would be used going forward, Mayor Roe suggested the level of those dedication fees be part of that broader discussion, and subsequent changes made in fees if/as indicated at that time.


Councilmember Willmus stated one reason he was supportive of the increase was he didn't consider an additional $500 on the residential per unit fee to be a significant deterrent.  Also, Councilmember Willmus opined that, given the considerable investment being made in the city's park system, an additional 3% for commercial parcels was justified and substantiated the proposed increase.


Councilmember Etten stated his agreement with Councilmember Willmus' comments; but if push came to shove, he'd agree to a midpoint figure.  However, Councilmember Etten stated he could not support retaining 2016 fee levels for this area, given research done by staff resulting in finding other neighboring communities also increasing their park dedication fees; with the proposed Roseville fees in line with those rates.  Councilmember Etten opined that the slight increase should not dissuade someone from developing in Roseville, and further opined that he found the proposed fees to be reasonable, but reiterated that he could support an increase in-between 2016 and proposed 2017 rates, but not specifically the current motion by Mayor Roe.


Councilmember McGehee stated her issue was related more to the use of park dedication fees, and stated that she would support these proposed 2017 fees if she was ensured they would go to the CIP Fund and for improvement of existing lands and buildings.  However, Councilmember McGehee opined that this didn't seem to be a consideration at this time; and questioned why this only came up on an annual basis, suggesting that next year's discussion related to park dedication fees be tied to the Park Dedication Fund and how they were allocated.


Councilmember Laliberte stated she was supportive of an increase in the park dedication fees, whether as proposed by staff or an in-between amount as suggested by Councilmember Etten.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that the point had been more than proven that the city was now in a situation with additional assets that needed to be taken into consideration as to their maintenance; and further opined that the proposed fees were still within the realm of reasonable.  Councilmember Laliberte agreed that there are obligations in how those funds are spent, that should be part of future discussions going into 2017.


Mayor Roe stated that the point of his motion was to allow for this discussion as part of a broader policy discussion; and while he remained concerned about the proposed fees, his main intent was to facilitate this discussion.


Roll Call

Ayes: Roe. 

Nays: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Laliberte.

Motion failed.


Mayor Roe called the original motion as stated (with no amendments).


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, enactment of Ordinance Summary No. 1516 (Attachment B) entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 314.05, Fee Schedule: Adopting the 2017 Fee Schedule."


                                    Roll Call (Super Majority)

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


c.            Request to Amend City Code Chapter 304: Lawful Gambling

Finance Director Chris Miller briefly summarized the RCA detail, seeking a confirmation for preferences from the City Council.


Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment, with no one appearing to speak for or against.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, denial of the requested change to City Code, Chapter 304 (Lawful Gambling) allowing for three locations.


Councilmember McGehee opined that by leaving the ordinance at two locations for one local, non-profit organization it provided more opportunities for other community groups to participate.  Councilmember McGehee expressed her disappointment in the Roseville Area Youth Hockey Association (RAYHA) moving to Joe Sensor's Restaurant without adequately alerting or having conversations with Minnesota Brass before then.  Also, Councilmember McGehee referenced the new Lucky's 13 coming in with their own service organization right away, and not a local one; opining this was another example of the need to keep a variety available.


Councilmember Willmus asked staff when the last comprehensive and holistic review of this ordinance has been done.


Finance Director Miller advised that the last time was approximately five years ago when RAYHA requested the change from one to two locations; with only minor revisions made prior to that.


Councilmember Willmus stated that he might agree with Councilmember McGehee; but his main intent in seconding the motion was to consider a more thorough review of the ordinance to provide additional updates, revisions or areas currently omitted; in other words making it time to review the entire document.


Mayor Roe noted that earlier this year, the city had also made a significant change to Section 304.04 of the Lawful Gambling Ordinance related to changing the name of the organization to which the 10% funds are applied, along with other minor revisions.  Mayor Roe further noted that the current ordinance language limited the number of premise permit holders to eight; with that number having been as high as ten in the past.


Councilmember Willmus reiterated that his interest was different than that of Councilmember McGehee in seeking staff, the City Attorney, and the City Council to take a broader look at the entire ordinance.  Councilmember Willmus opined that he wasn't sure this was the time to approve or deny the proposed ordinance; and instead suggested tabling action or leaving the locations at two for now.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Attorney Gaughan advised that he was not aware of any portion of city code that would prevent the RAYHA from applying again after the first of the year if the City Council denied this request, and allowing a thorough review of the ordinance and other potential amendments.


Mayor Roe opined that if the City Council denied this ordinance change now and then reconsidered it at a later date, it would be in violation of its own Rules and Procedures.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that he would need to review that document further before advising the City Council specific to that.


City Manager Trudgeon advised that the City Council couldn't reconsider the request after denial, but would need to start over.


Councilmember Willmus stated his inclination to table action for a full review and then having the request brought back for reconsideration.


Councilmember Laliberte asked for language stating a preference or deference to ensure monies stayed within Roseville; with City Attorney Gaughan advising that was not a legal possibility.


Mayor Roe noted this addressed confusing language in City Code (Chapter 301.01) related to an organization maintaining an address within the city.  Mayor Roe opined that if the purpose wasn't to require that an entity be a Roseville charity, why include that requirement; since a premise permit in Roseville would be for a premise in Roseville.  Therefore, if an organization was not limited by law to a charitable organization within the community in which the premise permit was issued, Mayor Roe questioned why current language required them to have a Roseville address.


Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Willmus' interest in a complete review and how charitable monies are spent by an organization.


Mayor Roe clarified the purpose of the Roseville Community Foundation's oversight of the 10% in charitable gambling proceeds under the city's control under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Foundation.


Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, TABLING action on this request to amend Title Three, Chapter 304 (Lawful Gambling) for a broader ordinance review based on tonight's discussion.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


11.        Presentations


12.        Public Hearings and Action Consideration


a.            Public Hearing to Consider Approving 2017 Liquor License Renewals

Finance Director Miller referenced the revised RCA, attached to the meeting packet, now seeking approval for renewal of twenty-seven different liquor licenses for 2017.  Mr. Miller advised that staff recommended approval, subject to completion of any outstanding background checks still in process.


Mayor Roe opened and closed the public hearing at approximately 7:04 p.m., with no one appearing for or against.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, approval of the requested liquor license renewals for 2017 as detailed in the RCA of today's date (Attachment A as revised).


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


13.        Budget Items


a.            Adopt a Final 2017 Tax Levy and Budget

City Manager Trudgeon advised that beyond the detail provided in the RCA and attachments, he and Finance Director Miller were both available to respond to questions as needed.


For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe asked Finance Director Miller to display several charts outlining recommended budget and levy numbers based on the City Manager's Recommended Budget and revisions made based on City Council direction and additional refinements made to assumptions as the 2016 year progressed (pages 1 and 2 of the RCA).  At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller confirmed that $405,000 in additional reserves was proposed for use in 2017 to lower levy and budget impacts for Roseville taxpayers.  Mayor Roe clarified how those reserves served to mitigate levies, while retaining the projected range for reserves in accordance with current city policy. 


Councilmember Willmus pointed out an error between the narrative for the net levy increase on the levy side on line 11 of the RCA and the chart, with the chart accurately stating $1,046,450. 


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Finance Director Miller reviewed capital increases for 2017 in the amount of $160,000, but noted an additional $65,000 had been allocated for additional pathway and parking lot maintenance for a total of $225,000.


Councilmember McGehee referenced use of reserves in 2017 in the amount of $375,000 for tax-supported programs continued in the General Fund (page 2, lines 39 - 40).  Councilmember McGehee noted this had been the City Council's practice over the last three years, and even though stating they were not going to repeat that practice without paying those reserves back, an additional amount continued to be spent from reserves annually.  Councilmember McGehee suggested this process, if to continue indefinitely, be made more straightforward and transparent for the public.


Councilmember Willmus referenced information provided to the City Council by Finance Commission Chair Robin Schroeder that the current balance of reserve accounts remained above the city's own mid-point goal (General, Parks, Community Development, License Center, and Communications Funds) for a midpoint goal of $3.6 million and over the maximum goal of $2.3 million.  Also, during the budget process and when looking at material costs, Councilmember Willmus noted that while inflationary multipliers were built into the budget that may vary, on a generalized basis, opined that the City Council typically budgeted and levied beyond that inflationary point.  In doing so, Councilmember Willmus noted that healthy reserve balances continued; and therefore, this provided his rationale in supporting spending down those reserves to bring them more in line with targets and goals.  Councilmember Willmus clarified that he had supporting using those reserve dollars for levy relief and to funnel in part into the CIP; and therefore, stated he would likely continue to do so given the same set of circumstances.


Councilmember Willmus asked for clarification, provided by Finance Director Miller, for use of carryover funds from the 2016 to 2017 budget cycle of total estimated amount ($1,724,000) with $1.1 million from TIF, of which $800,000 had been allocated for building replacement and roadway improvements (e.g. Snelling Avenue, Lydia Avenue, and Lincoln Drive areas).


For the benefit of the public, and as noted in his memorandum dated December 5, 2016 as part of the RCA (Attachment D), page 2, Finance Director Miller referenced his 2016 results projected for the General Fund, prompting Councilmember Willmus' comments about the projected  $1,724,000 carry forward; of which $1.1 was tax increment financing monies realized from decertifying a TIF district, from which all cash had been distributed by Ramsey County to all taxing jurisdictions, with the City of Roseville receiving their share accordingly.


Councilmember Willmus noted this provided an additional $300,000 not previously allocated in addition to original projected operating surpluses.


Mayor Roe suggested that a potential tentative action by the City Council tonight was to allocate the additional $300,000 not yet allocated but now available (Attachment D), page 3.  Mayor Roe noted the Park Fund had a similar situation for 2016, coming in approximately $325,000 ahead of revenues collected versus expenditures.  To Councilmember Willmus' point specific to the memorandum provided by Finance Commission Chair Schroeder, Mayor Roe with both the General Fund and Park & Recreation Funds in terms of how much is available above and beyond that projected mid-term, resulted in approximately $500,000 in additional monies between those two Funds.


Specific to the 2017 levy, Councilmember Willmus noted that the proposed levy increase was proposed at $1,460,240 (RCA, page 1) or a 5.52% levy increase between 2016 and 2017.  Councilmember Willmus proposed a target increase of 3% for a dollar levy of $568,342, utilizing a reduction in cost of living adjustment (COLA) for non-union employees from the City Manager Recommended 2.75% to 2% resulting in a dollar reduction from $263,000 to $191,000 (RCA chart, page 1).


Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, utilizing an additional $406,110 in 2016 carry forward monies to the 2017 budget and levy to reduce the total net levy increase to $568,340 and to reduce the 2017 COLA for non-union employees to 2% rather than the staff-recommended 2.75%. 


Councilmember Laliberte agreed that repurposing the annual carryover funds made sense.  Also, Councilmember Laliberte opined that the City Council had yet to follow its policy for COLA; and agreed with Councilmember Willmus that a 2% increase more closely follows the policy than the proposed 2.75%; therefore, she stated she supported Councilmember Willmus' motion.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in opposition to the motion for what she stated was a variety of reasons.  Councilmember McGehee noted that, in the course of 2016, she had made two proposals which together could have saved every residential property owner of a median priced home approximately $400 annually.  However, Councilmember McGehee noted that the City Council had chosen not to support her proposals or act on either one; but instead had chosen to present a 2017 budget and levy for which those same residents would pay more.  Councilmember McGehee opined that neither of her proposals reduced any amenities in any way or diminish what residents continued to desire in their community; and would have in fact helped many residents with a less than median valued single-family home. 


Councilmember McGehee stated that she strongly supported staff and would continue to do so, opining that they were the community's primary asset. 


Councilmember McGehee stated another example was the License Center that provided benefits to the community, and was highlighted by customers by noting their satisfaction with customer service and service by city staff.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she had sat with this City Council when it authorized and received a comparative study for staffing related to compensation with other communities, indicating the need for improved parity.  However, even after receiving those results, Councilmember McGehee noted that the City Council continued to annually languish in taking action to retain non-union staff at 98% of the average of peer cities; and year after year continuing to heap insult on injury with this type of proposal, essentially saying the city's non-union staff is not worthy to be at 100% parity with employees in peer cities performing similar jobs and establishing a policy of 98% of the average. In addition moving forward from that point three years ago the Council has annually chosen to give non-union staff less COLA than other peer cities.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this pattern of COLA reduction has continued to depress staff salaries in terms of their parity with peer cities, and with the projected levy increases of those peers (Cities of Edina and St. Louis Park for example) and with comparable retail businesses proposing a 7% levy increase for 2017.    Having suggested several options to reduce the levy and burden on taxpayers, Councilmember McGehee stated that she was not happy to do so on the back of the city's non-union staff; stating that she hadn't approved of the original convoluted way the City Council had initiated its policy.  Councilmember McGehee noted that those previously identified cities were offering their employees 3% and 2.7% COLA respectively; and for the City of Roseville to propose a 2% COLA, when looking at 2.75% for the Police and maintenance workers was not appropriate.  Councilmember McGehee offered her interest in looking at other ways to reduce the levy and budget, but reiterated that this wasn't going to be one of them.


Councilmember Willmus opined that when reviewing the policy and what had been done with COLA over the last few years, staff was significantly ahead of that policy.  Councilmember Willmus further opined that it was a disservice to attempt to paint a picture that wasn't supported by facts.


Councilmember McGehee opined that this was what Councilmember Willmus was attempting to do between the policy and actuality over those same years; when larger COLA adjustments had been made for only a few employees of the City when the compensation study found them to be even less comparable than the majority of city employees. That COLA was provided to few select employees to bring them up closer to 98% from the 90% of average where they were at the time of the study.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, Finance Director Miller reported on the various union contracts for 2017 as follows: firefighters at 2% COLA, and all others (Police Sergeants, Police Officers, and 49'ers Maintenance) at 2.75%.


Councilmember Etten stated he did not support the City Manager-Recommended Budget in the COLA area; but stated he also did not support Councilmember Willmus' motion. 


Councilmember Etten noted that he had lost the previous battle in not personally supporting the use of $400,000 in reserves; and therefore didn't support the proposed use of another $406,000 in additional reserves. While not having a problem allocating $406,000 for CIP uses, Councilmember Etten opined that using over $800,000 from reserves was not a responsible way to fund ongoing costs, when those expenses would need to be levied for at some point going forward.  If looking to the community to pay with one-time monies, Councilmember Etten opined that it didn't make sense for budgeted operating costs, but did make more sense applying them toward CIP costs already known and not projected.  However, Councilmember Etten noted that while it may be reducing levy percentages for the short-term, eventually those costs would need to be paid. By paying for them now and leaving them at an amount proposed by the City Manager, Councilmember Etten opined that the City Council was paying for ongoing budgets with ongoing dollars, which he found to be a responsible practice.


Specific to deficits, Councilmember Etten reviewed surpluses and deficits for each year from 2013 going forward; and opined that staff had been presenting a balanced budget taking those variables into account over those years.  Over the last few years, Councilmember Etten opined that staff had been responsible in their use of public monies and had not gone outside what they had been directed to do by the City Council.  Councilmember Etten reiterated that using one-time monies to address ongoing expenses was not a responsible budget process unless something else was removed from the budget to do so. 


Councilmember Etten stated that he was not supportive of cutting staff pay.


Councilmember McGehee seconded what Councilmember Etten stated regarding allocation; and while having no problem allocating reserve funds to the CIP, opined that it had to be levied for and to ensure taking care of ongoing expenses.  Councilmember McGehee noted that the City Council needed to levy for those additional and ongoing expenses since they weren't going to go away; and the city needed to be cognizant that unexpected windfalls weren't guaranteed annually.  As noted by Councilmember Etten, the actual budget and revenue was pretty close every year, but the CIP continued to be a challenge.


Regarding his proposals for the levy, Councilmember Willmus encouraged a substantial allocation to CIP needs with some of the remaining carry forward available; and as a potential discussion item as part of the next step in the budget process tonight.


Specific to the CIP point made, Councilmember Etten noted that 20% of the levy increase after the first $400,000 of one-time money should be considered by the City Council as a separate issue and not part of the rampant increase in inflation and daily operations of the city.  Councilmember Etten noted that this was addressing key things not previously taken care of in past decades and included the $225,000; and represented even less of a levy for extra expenses versus taking care of massive CIP needs.  By using this much from reserves, Councilmember Etten noted that the city didn't have another $400,000 or an $800,000 windfall projected at the end of 2017 to make up for or justify cutting the levy percentage, and therefore should be put back in the mix for 2018's budget process.  If not, Councilmember Etten noted that the city would be starting from a 2.55% hole if it approved that part of the Councilmember Willmus motion; severely limiting what the city could do in 2018 without any other inflationary considerations or other unknown or scheduled needs.  Councilmember Etten opined that this did nothing more than defer these problems long-term further down the road versus taking care of CIP needs in the short term.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon advised that of the $405,000 reserve use proposed in the City Manager-recommended budget, $30,000 was set aside for the transportation plan as part of the comprehensive plan update (a one-time use) with the remaining $375,000 or reserves allotted to plug the deficit.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the reserve funds were not set aside for CIP use.


With $225,000 in additional dollars for CIP, Councilmember Etten noted some level was involved in making up that difference - an additional $800,000 versus $400,000 - and suggested all be allocated toward CIP needs to address a significant deficit in several of those funds or as much as possible.  Councilmember Etten opined that this would serve to take care of future levies and general budget needs.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that these reserves are taxpayer dollars that have already been levied, not a windfall, but already paid to the city.  However, Councilmember Laliberte agreed that it was a great idea to put those reserves toward CIP needs; but clarified that from her perspective the city had over-levied and that was why the reserves were available now; with this action serving to address that reality.


Regarding the City's COLA policy, Councilmember Laliberte clarified that this City Council had created that policy and could revisit it at any time.  Since it has been approved, Councilmember Laliberte opined that there had been no recommendations to follow it from staff or the City Council.  If inflation is tracking at 1.5%, Councilmember Laliberte asked if the City Council was supporting a 2% COLA, how could it be said that the city didn't value its staff; while if planning a COLA at 3% that double the rate of inflation, it wasn't necessary.


Specific to the business of the reserves being taxpayer monies resulting from the city over-levying, Councilmember McGehee disagreed with that perspective, especially given the reality of three CIP funds currently running off the cliff, indicating that the city hasn't been taking care of ongoing business needs year after year, and now attempting to address it versus pushing it off further and not resolving the problem.  Councilmember McGehee opined that she had been the only council member providing significant ideas to address expenditures.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the city had not over-levied or wasted taxpayer monies, but had long-neglected infrastructure issues and were trying to protect services in the community.  Councilmember McGehee noted it was repeatedly supported by taxpayers that they wanted their parks system, and therefore they needed to be maintained since they hadn't been in many past years.


Councilmember Etten referenced an email he received earlier from Finance Director Miller noting the $1.1 reserves from 2012 to 2016, it represented a total net increase of $27,650 to the General Fund, opining that confirmed staff wasn't far off in their annual budgeting; and dropped reserve levels accordingly.  Councilmember Etten opined that the perception that the city was overtaxing its residents served to create a misunderstanding with this one-time money, which was not a windfall but unanticipated TIF monies with a specific program and situation targeted.  Councilmember Etten further noted that of that reserve amount $356,000 belonged in the 2015 budget levy due to delayed tax proceeds because of pending tax appeals, and shouldn't really count as an overtax for the 2016 budget year.  Councilmember Etten opined that the responsible action would be to put the monies toward CIP dollars to reduce future levies; since the goal and real purpose should be for thoughtful budgeting.  Councilmember Etten reiterated that he didn't support using money for ongoing budget allocations to reduce the levy with a one-time shot.


Councilmember Willmus clarified that with his next proposal, the city still had the ability to allocate as much as $518,000 toward CIP needs.


Councilmember Etten opined that it still didn't address nor was it relevant to the philosophical question of how much was proposed for use for ongoing expenses.  Even if $900,000 was allocated to CIP from these reserves, Councilmember Etten noted that there was still a need of $20 million in the CIP over the next twenty years, and one way or the other, they were still taxpayer dollars.  While Councilmember Willmus' proposal may avoid a budget shift by reducing the levy percentage now, Councilmember Etten opined that the city would simply have to pay for it at one point, and it will come due.


Councilmember Laliberte asked Councilmember Willmus to clarify the $518,000 proposed by him as part of the next discussion.


Councilmember Willmus clarified that his proposal would be to use $406,000 from the carry forward funds to offset the levy, with a remaining $300,000 still remaining unallocated from TIF.


Assuming City Manager Trudgeon's recommended 2.75% COLA for 2017 was not chosen randomly, Mayor Roe asked City Manager Trudgeon to address the rationale behind his recommendation.


City Manager Trudgeon noted references by individual council members already related to the previous compensation study findings with a number of employees significantly below peer comparisons; and the City Council's policy established in 2013 for Roseville city employees set at 98% of the average.  With that policy in mind, Mr. Trudgeon reported that current comparisons to peer communities indicated that Roseville had still fallen behind the average at 1.45%, or approximately 96% of the policy guidelines.   For 2017, Mr. Trudgeon reported that average COLA for peer communities was 2.56%; and in consideration of current policy guidelines using CPI and ECI indexes, compensation studies, peer city and employee market comparisons, recommended that the City Council reconsider and avoid further slippage with a 2% COLA, even if not fully supporting his recommendation of 2.75%. 

City Manager Trudgeon noted this was also a fairness or equity issue with real numbers for union and non-union employees; with non-union employees continuing behind union employees; with a 2% COLA only further increasing that disparity.  Mr. Trudgeon also cautioned that the city was required to abide by state law regarding pay equity requirements for the male/female pay equity, with significant penalties applied if found out of compliance, possibly up to $10,000 per day.  Mr. Trudgeon noted that the unions were predominantly male, and non-union employees predominantly female, further exacerbating the equity issue, and noted the challenges in addressing those equity issues.  While understanding the City Council's need to moderate the budget, Mr. Trudgeon asked that they consider at a minimum a 2.5% COLA for 2017 if unable to support his recommended 2.75% in order to stay in part with other peer cities.


From a process point of view with the motion currently on the table, Mayor Roe reviewed options for City Council consideration: propose motions to amend this motion and see how they're voted, or to vote on this motion as is and then follow-up with subsequent motions accordingly.


Regarding City Manager Trudgeon's comments, Councilmember McGehee opined that it was obviously demonstrable that the adopted policy was not being supported or followed by the City Council.


Mayor Roe noted that he had historically not supported using reserves to cover operating costs, but had agreed that using reserves for some one-time costs made sense.  However, Mayor Roe admitted that his thinking had also evolved during those years, and two things were pushing that: one the carry forward from 2015 and 2016 dollars representing levied dollars collected, and therefore leading him to feel they were appropriate to use in situations where a projected annual levy increase in a particular year was more notable than desired. 


Mayor Roe noted that the city at one time had a Taxpayer Relief Fund established for that very purpose to bank those unanticipated windfalls, earn interest on them at a time when there was noticeable interest to be earned, and then use that interest to pay down future levy increases.  However, Mayor Roe noted that, in 2007 of 2008, the City Council at that time had decided to roll that fund into the General Fund and eliminate using it that way based on interest earnings being so negligible.  Therefore, Mayor Roe noted that the General Fund had benefited since then, and money collected in it had been levied, making him believe it was appropriate to provide some relief to taxpayers going into 2017.  Mayor Roe stated that his primary reasoning was in recognizing fee increases in the utility side, and his attempt to look at ways to avoid, reduce or control those fees.


Mayor Roe thanked Finance Director Miller for providing the additional back-up information and staff's basis for the recommended changes; but stated that he also wanted to provide the rationale for his personal thinking and his interest in providing some levy reduction for 2017 since the dollars were available to do so.  Mayor Roe stated there was an obvious need to annually review past income and its sources and be realistic about the impact, and then act accordingly in upcoming years.  By winding down some of the increases proposed as part of the CIP funding process that were put in place through levy increases in 2011 and 2012, Mayor Roe opined that by using some of those reserves for the CIP Fund and addressing Park CIP needs as well, it could provide some levy relief to several of those funds still in somewhat precarious situations.


Specific to the COLA situation, Mayor Roe recognized the policy in place, with the CPI index at 1.5%, and Councilmember Willmus' recommended 2% a little ahead of that, but the City Manager's recommended 2.75 too far ahead from his perspective.  Mayor Roe stated that he would be amenable to something in between, but would still suggest any COLA increase be funded from carry forward monies.


In conclusion, Mayor Roe stated his support for using carry forward funding, and allocating any additional carry forward not yet allotted for the CIP.  Mayor Roe clarified that all decisions were not necessary tonight, but could be accomplished through subsequent Council actions in 2017 with those additional reserves remaining in the General Fund until such action is taken.  Mayor Roe stated that he could support Councilmember Willmus' motion; with the caveat that the City Council pay close attention in the next several years with the levy and funding city activities, since he didn't support the proposal lightly without that annual check in place.


Councilmember Etten clarified that the actual carry forward from 208 to 2012 was in reality only $28,000, not the $800,000 presented by his colleague.


Amendment to the Motion (Etten)

Etten moved, McGehee seconded, using only an additional $200,000 from reserves, or one-time money beyond staff's proposal; and allowing a 2.25% COLA increase for non-union employees in 2017; adjusting the levy increase accordingly.


Finance Director Miller estimated that by reducing the COLA to 2.25% for non-union employees, it would represent a change of $50,000; and if using another $200,000 from reserves, it would total $600,000; and result in a 4.2% levy increase versus the 3% proposed by Councilmember Willmus through his motion; and provide just under $800,000 for the 2017 levy increase.


Councilmember McGehee opined it was a compromise, and she didn't like it.


Councilmember Willmus opined that his proposal for a 3% levy increase was still running three times the rate of inflation over the last twelve months, and spoke in support of his original proposal; while stating he might be inclined to adjust the COLA to 2.25% as long as the 3% levy increase was covered overall through carry forward funds.


Councilmember Laliberte stated her support for a 2.25% COLA, as she wasn't comfortable with Councilmember Willmus' 2%, nor was she comfortable with City Manager Trudgeon's 2.75% increase; and stated her agreement in taking the monies from carry forward funds and keeping the 2017 levy increase at 3%.


Mayor Roe clarified that that was not what was proposed in the current motion on the floor.


Since only a portion was coming from inflationary increases, Councilmember Etten noted that the city would still continue dealing with a CIP deficit over the next twenty years.  Councilmember Etten stated that other considerations beyond inflation needed to be factored into how the City Council thought about the annual budget and future city needs, recognizing that those increases were not just inflationary in nature.


Councilmember McGehee seconded Councilmember Etten's comments.  Furthermore, Councilmember McGehee stated that she found the discussion of staff compensation particularly egregious, opining that anyone supporting the original motion should not support any additional city assets until the city was in a position that it didn't need to use reserves for ongoing expenses.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the city had over-reached and through past bonding, had created ongoing expenses year after year that were unattainable in its annual levy without dipping into reserves or setting a taxpayer levy accordingly to pay for its assets.  Councilmember McGehee further opined that this represented a complete lie and misuse of taxpayer funds to purchase assets it couldn't afford and then compounding it by use of reserves to fulfill that ongoing budget.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this provided a clear indication that the City Council was not making progress in addressing these needs.


Mayor Roe spoke in opposition to this motion for the reasons he had outlined in his previous comments.


                                    Roll Call (Etten Amendment)

Ayes: Etten and McGehee

Nays: Willmus, Laliberte and Roe. 

Motion failed.


Amendment to the Motion (Willmus)

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, amendment to his original motion to reduce COLA from the recommended 2.75% to 2.25% and making up that difference with carry forward funds to retain a 3% overall levy increase for 2017, through using $56,000 in reserves.


                                    Roll Call (Willmus Amendment)

Ayes: Willmus and Laliberte. 

Nays: McGehee, Etten and Roe.

Motion failed.


                                    Roll Call (Original Motion)

                        Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte and Roe. 

                        Nays: McGehee and Etten.

                        Motion carried


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11382 (Attachment B) entitled, "Resolution Directing the County Auditor to Adjust the Approved Tax Levy for 2017 Bonded Debt" at a total of $3,330,000.00.


                                                Roll Call

                        Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

                        Nays: None.


Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11383 (Attachment C) entitled, "Resolution Adopting the Final 2017 Annual Budget for the City of Roseville;" amended to reduce the budget by $72,000 to establish the 2017 budget in the amount of $51,963,685, of which $29,272,090 is designated for property tax-supported programs.


                        Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: McGehee and Etten.

Motion carried


Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11381 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Submitting the Final Property Tax Levy on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for Fiscal year 2017;" amended from the draft to further reduce "Programs and Services" by an additional $72,000 representing a 2017 COLA at 2% for a revised amount of $16,183,000; achieving a 2017 total levy increase of 3% and setting the 2017 tax levy total at $19,513,060.


Recognizing the reality of previous motion amendments, Councilmember Etten spoke in support of the motion.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:06 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:12 p.m.


14.        Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Adopt the 2017 Final Roseville Economic Development Authority (REDA) Tax Levy

City Manager Trudgeon and Finance Director Miller referenced the RCA, noting the information was the same as presented and preliminarily adopted at the September 2016 meeting.  Mr. Trudgeon advised that REDA staff and the EDA attorney were in the audience to respond to any questions of the City Council.


For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe further noted that the City Council, in their role as REDA, had met earlier this year to discuss the proposed 2017 REDA levy and budget, with this action in line with the decisions made at that time.


At the request of Councilmember Willmus, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that the proposed action for the REDA would in actuality reallocate funds for an REDA reserve in the amount of $124,000.


Community Development Director Collins concurred, advising that in effect, this 35% reserve amount of $124,804 was not in reserve in 2016, but the goal for 2017 was to transfer that amount into an REDA reserve from the current Revolving Loan Program.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11384 (Attachment) entitled, "A Resolution Approving a Special Property Tax Levy for the Benefit of the Roseville Economic Development Authority (REDA), on Real Estate to the Ramsey County Auditor for Fiscal year 2017;" in the amount of $356,585.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.

Abstentions: McGehee.

Motion carried.


b.            Consider Adopting the 2017 Utility Rate Adjustments

Finance Director Miller briefly summarized this RCA request.


Mayor Roe referenced the chart at the top of page 2 (RCA detailing utility rate impacts for a typical single-family home per quarter as a result of these adjustments.


Mayor Roe offered an opportunity for public comment on this item, with no one appearing to speak.


McGehee moved, Etten seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11385 (Attachment A) entitled, "Resolution Establishing the 2017 Utility Rates" as presented.


While this is the only way to achieve the desired results, Councilmember McGehee noted that a fee was essentially the same as a tax.


Councilmember Laliberte stated that obviously there were contributing factors that put the city in this position as had been discussed frequently in the past and pooled with other budget and levy discussion and actions tonight.


Mayor Roe thanked city staff for providing a background for the new rates (Attachment B) related to both base and operating rates to further inform the decision-making process.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


c.            Approve New Positions

City Manager Trudgeon reviewed each position as previously discussed with the City Council by him and various Department Heads, and as detailed in the RCA of today's date. 


Mayor Roe noted that monies for these positions had been authorized by the City Council through their previous budget actions.


Councilmember Laliberte asked for further elaboration, at a later date, from the Police Department on needs and capacity for crime analysis in general being done today and whether or not that is adequate; as well as who was performing those tasks and if that negatively impacted their ability to perform their other work.


Councilmember Laliberte asked Fire Chief O'Neill to address the considerable turnover of on-call firefighters and retirements within the Fire Department and whether or not that had been anticipated or how it impacted the ongoing discussion and planned transitions from a part-time to full-time firefighter department.


Fire Chief O'Neill advised that the majority of the reduction in part-time positions and attrition continued to be, as anticipated, through retirements, along with some taking positions with other communities, or deciding to no longer serve in order to spend more time with their families.  Chief O'Neill reported that four years ago, the department was staffed with 62 part-time firefighters, and with tonight's action, were now at approximately 32 part-time firefighters.   Chief O'Neill advised that this was in line with projections that the department would experience about ten part-time firefighters per year over the next few years and then slow down as current employees moved closer to their employment milestones or reached retirement age.


With the number of part-time firefighters at 32 going into 2017, Councilmember Laliberte asked if the department had achieved that number faster than anticipated.


Chief O'Neill responded that it was what had been anticipated, with at least a ten-person turnover annually; adding that he had already been made aware of four pending retirements coming during the first part of 2017.


Mayor Roe asked Chief O'Neill for a preview of the department's 2018 plan as part of the multi-year transition.


Chief O'Neill provided a brief summary of this Phase 4 of five phases for full transition of the department from part- to full-time with five positions; advising a more detailed, thirty-five to forty-minute presentation and update was planned in February or March of 2017 at a City Council Worksession.  Chief O'Neill advised that this would include background of where the department had been, how it got to its current operational model, and the next or final step needed in 2018.  Chief O'Neill noted that the steps thus far had been cost-neutral, but reported that the 2018 final step would probably not be cost-neutral, and therefore would need a more detailed look and decision-making by the City Council.  Chief O'Neill advised that staff intended the presentation to the City Council before they delved too deep into the 2018 budget discussions; and would provide a preview of 2018 and steps beyond to ensure everyone was on the same page, and still in line with the original plan to achieve that fifth phase for 24 full-time firefighters within that timeline and whether or not the City Council is still comfortable with that and with the department's continued rationale for that staffing level.


As part of that presentation, Councilmember McGehee asked that they would also include options for differences in increasing to full-time staff and use of on-call firefighters as required, and how that can come together.


Chief O'Neill duly noted that request, advising that he would provide cost information associated with both.



Specific to the new positions requested in the Administration Department, Councilmember McGehee further requested that City Manager Trudgeon provide a revised organizational chart, opining that the department appeared to her "chief heavy" as proposed.


City Manager Trudgeon responded that the chart had not yet been created, but advised that it would be shortly if tonight's request is approved.


Mayor Roe clarified that the idea in the requested reorganization was that direct reports within the Administration Department would report to the Assistant City Manager with essentially only Department Heads reporting directly to the City Manager.


Etten moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the newly-created positions as detailed in the RCA of today's date; and authorizing staff to begin the process of recruiting and filling the newly-created positions, as approved with adoption of 2017 budget.


Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.


d.            Authorize Cooperative Service Agreement with the United States Department of Agriculture for the Purpose of Deer Reduction

Parks & Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke briefly summarized this request as detailed in the RCA of today's date, reporting that the agreement had been reviewed by the City Attorney, and proposed four different sites within Roseville.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller confirmed that funds for this would be taken from General Fund reserves.


Mayor Roe provided an opportunity for public comment on this item, with no one appearing to speak.  City Manager Trudgeon noted the receipt of written comment on this issue from Carol Kough, provided as a bench handout attached hereto and made a part hereof.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of a Cooperative Service Agreement between the City of Roseville and the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Services (WS) No. 17 7227 8089 RV; WBS: AP.RA.RX27.72.0117 (Attachment A); and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the document, contingent upon final City Attorney approval.


Councilmember McGehee stated her opposition to this plan until the feeding ban approved by the City Council had a chance to work and animals given the opportunity to relocate.  Councilmember McGehee also expressed her concern with the timing for the shoot between January and March of 2017, at which time pregnant does would be shot.


Mr. Brokke also assured Councilmember McGehee that shooters were able to differentiate and not shoot pregnant deer.


Councilmember Laliberte referenced the financial plan (Attachment B) and denoting 125 White Tail Deer, and why that particular number had been chosen.  Councilmember Laliberte also asked why the length of term in referred from December to September when the work was confined to the months between January and March in the contract itself.


Mr. Brokke clarified that it was simply a reference to do with the number of deer repeatedly observed on average, and not a number in the contract.  Specific to the term addressed, Mr. Brokke advised that this was the standard agreement for the Department of Agriculture in their Cooperative Service Agreements and not necessarily the target time period for eradication. 


At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Mr. Brokke advised that donation of the processed deer would be determined by the DNR and Department of Agriculture through a list of needy families in the area, with Roseville families given the first opportunity before moving down the list of needy families previously identified by those agencies.  Mr. Brokke confirmed that the processing costs of the deer meet wound not be an additional cost to the City of Roseville but part of the other agency's cost of doing business.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that the proposed costs were for reducing the herd to twenty.


Mr. Brokke advised that while projections focused on twenty, as recommendations by the DNR, Department of Agriculture, and Ramsey County, they were based on different times and the number of visits made to the site.  Mr. Brokke advised that the agencies anticipated reducing the deer population by up to five per night per visit, thus their number of twenty.  In general, Mr. Brokke reported that the number was based on bringing the deer population back to a reasonable habitat number of between 15 - 19 deer versus current estimates of a population of fifty-two deer in the Roseville area.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that she always felt the lower population of 15 - 19 deer was what the community was able to tolerate in the past.


Mayor Roe opined that even reducing the herd to 32 would still make them above the target of 15-19 deer.  Mayor Roe further opined that even with historical deer population counts prior to a few years ago in the 30-40 range, the city hadn't fielded near the complaints or dealt with the issues it had of late.  Even if the habitat was not able to support that many, Mayor Roe opined that at least this initial reduction in the population would bring things more in line with past years and fewer conflicts with residents.


Councilmember Laliberte reiterated that she was comfortable getting the deer population levels to the previously more tolerable levels.


Mayor Roe noted the grey area in needing to balance the humaneness and theoretical habitat that could be supported with those who enjoyed having the deer within the community, each having their own valid points of view.


                                                Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


Mayor Roe thanked the Parks & Recreation Commission and Mr. Brokke for their work on this issue; and thanked the public for their feedback and public discussion throughout the process.


15.        Business Items - Presentations/Discussions


a.            Pet Store Licensing

As detailed in the RCA and related attachments, City Manager Trudgeon provided an updated draft ordinance regarding the sale of dogs and cats by pet stored (Attachment B), as modeled by the Humane Society of America, Animal Folks Minnesota and the Animal Humane Society.  Since this citizen-requested ordinance was a result of media coverage about conditions of animals being sold at the Har Mar Mall Pet Store in Roseville, Mr. Trudgeon advised that the owner was in attendance tonight, as he had been at the September 19, 2106 City Council meeting (Meeting minutes attached as Attachment A), to present his viewpoint.  Mr. Trudgeon sought direction to staff; noting that City Attorney Gaughan had reviewed the draft ordinance and may also have additional comments.


Mayor Roe recognized City Attorney Gaughan at this time, who advised that his review at this point had not been in-depth depending on the direction of the City Council.  However, Mr. Gaughan encouraged the City Council to think about what it was trying to accomplish before getting into too deep of a discussion about a potential ordinance, given that this is ordinance would serve as a criminal ordinance, with past discussions having taken place as to the limitations of such a law used as a regulatory enforcement mechanism.  Once the City Council defines its preferred intent and direction to staff, Mr. Gaughan advised that he could then highlight some of those limitations and points within this proposed ordinance.


As part of his review of public comment protocol and process, Mayor Roe clarified that the City Council was not being asked to adopt an ordinance tonight, but simply to provide feedback and direction to staff in the context of this proposed ordinance model.  Mayor Roe stated that he was interested to hear additional public comment tonight from the audience, at which time things could change further.


Councilmember McGehee stated that the most helpful thing to her at this point would be to hear in particular from people with experience in ways to handle this situation or suggestions to help the City Council in their subsequent discussion rather than elaborating on the background of puppy mills, but to provide useful information from which to frame future discussions or action.


Mayor Roe agreed that was a very well-stated objective put forth by Councilmember McGehee.


Public Comment

Written email comment specific to this issue had been received and provided as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof, as follows:

Dated December 4, 2016 Diane Hilden; Roseville resident, in support of a humane pet store model; dated December 1, 2016 from Bonnie, Roseville resident, in support of an ordinance prohibiting the sale of dogs and cats acquired from breeding facilities; dated December 1, 2016 from Ward & Cindy Schwie, Roseville residents, in support of a humane ordinance in Roseville; and dated December 5, 2016 from Sara Barsel and Randy Neprash, Roseville residents, in support of a human pet store ordinance model.


Christine Coughlin, MN State Director, The Humane Society of the United States, 2615 34th Avenue S, Mpls., MN (HSA)

Ms. Coughlin referenced her previous attendance at the September 2016 City Council meeting and discussion at that time around this humane model ordinance regulating Roseville pet stores.  Ms. Coughlin advised that this model was a collaborative effort of the HSA, addressing the origin of pets arriving for sale and responsible breeders not selling to pet stores.  Ms. Coughlin reviewed challenges with the well-established pipeline offering pets from mass breeding facilities to pet stores, and their lack of compliance with federal standards; noting their organization received a constant stream of complaints about those facilities.  Ms. Coughlin stated her confidence that their model ordinance worked, and provided for a viable business-friendly option through collaboration with shelters and rescues to offer pets to the public.  Ms. Coughlin assured the City Council and Roseville community that the ordinance had been drafted thoughtfully, and proven to work as it had been upheld in district and state courts on its constitutional grounds.  Ms. Coughlin noted other speakers from tonight's audience to offer their real world experience with this issue; and advised that since the September discussion, twenty-five more American cities had passed an ordinance similar to this model, now making that total 205.


Angel Duart, Angel's Pet World, with locations in two Wisconsin communities

Ms. Duart reviewed her experience with their stores, with the first opened in 2003/2004 and their subsequent decision in 2010 to go the humane route to acquire puppies. 


Ms. Duart stated that, in the six to seven years they sold puppies, they were initially unaware about mills and rescues, but in the end realized they were frequently and repeatedly dealing with multiple health issues from puppies purchased from mass breeders.  Ms. Duart noted those health problems often required 24/7 care by staff from a variety problems and diseases related to neglect, and many from genetic conditions whether or not that could be proven.  Ms. Duart advised that this became very expensive for them as well as new pet owners with veterinary care; and therefore they had decided to get away from that practice.  Ms. Duart reported that the State of Wisconsin didn't have similar regulatory laws at that time, but followed those already established in Minnesota.  Ms. Duart noted that she frequently covered veterinary bills for new pet owners; and typically was unable to prove genetic conditions even with a veterinarian's concurrence to seek recourse from the larger breeders, and if then typically only up to a $400 purchase price.  Ms. Duart noted that it wasn't unusual for their company to have from $45,000 to $80,000 in veterinary bills annually, not counting those covered by pet owners themselves.


Ms. Duart admitted it was scary when first going the humane route; but also noted that if a pet was returned to the mass breeder it was typically put down anyway; so in taking a big leap of faith, they did so.  To this day, Ms. Duart reported that they had developed great relationships and partnerships as a result of their decision to go the cat and dog rescue and adoption route; developed creative ideas for marketing and selling; and continued to grow their customer base and sales. 


Ms. Duart clarified that a certification from mass breeders didn't mean much at all; and had proven to not be right for animals or for customers.


Ann Frenchick, 449 Woodhill Drive

Ms. Frenchick provided her summary of dialogue and comments from Roseville residents that she had extracted from, presented as a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof.  Ms. Frenchick advised that, since she didn't have permission from those submitting statements to the online site, she hadn't identified the authors, but assured the City Council that they were direct quotes since the September 2016 discussion by the city.


Ms. Frenchick asked the City Council to support an ordinance to stop pet sales in Roseville from commercial breeding facilities.  Ms. Frenchick spoke to her personal experience from observing the Har Mar Pet Shop, especially the stench that initially got her involved.  Ms. Frenchick opined this HSA model ordinance was a good model to follow and would allow the current practice in Roseville by offering adoption events in a humane manner that every pet store should follow.  Ms. Frenchick stated that she wanted Roseville to be a leader in humane pet sales. 


Anne Sumner, 228 W County Road B

Ms. Sumner expressed her agreement with the previous speakers, stating that she felt strongly about this too.


Ann Olson, Executive Director, Animal Folks Minnesota - Legislative Action, 892 Osceola Avenue, St. Paul, MN

Ms. Olson referenced her personal research on puppy mills and stated her full support for the model ordinance to avoid harm to animals and consumers.   Ms. Olson reported on kennels and their length, stating that Minnesota had some of the largest, with approximately 1,000 breeders in several Minnesota communities, along with other USDA licensed breeders and others throughout the United States and supplying pet stores.  Ms. Olson opined that this ordinance provided a huge opportunity for the city to promote a humane business model and prevent consumers from purchasing sick pets. 


When assisting to construct and support this HSA model ordinance, Ms. Olson noted their research about canine and feline health to keep animals well, which this model supported, under advisement of their attorney's. 


Ms. Olson encouraged the City Council to keep the ordinance brief and pattern legal language similarly to that of the model, but primarily focusing on three areas: prohibiting purchase from commercial facilities; allowing for an adoption phase; and requiring a certificate of source (e.g. cage card).  Ms. Olson offered her organization's assistance to the city with additional research at their request.


Mary LaHay, 1321 - 41st Street, Des Moines, IA

Ms. LaHay noted that pet stores originated in USDA-licensed facilities in her state of Iowa; and advised that having the misfortune of being home to the second largest number o breeders in the nation, actions taken by Minnesota also directly affected the kennel situation in Iowa. 


Ms. LaHay reported that she had been monitoring kennels for eight years; and opined that the reality was even worse than those issues being reported or than most people were aware of.  Having visited several kennels that had recently passed USDA inspections, Ms. LaHay reported on some of the things she had witnessed, opining the conditions and findings would not be acceptable to any reasonably compassionate person.   Ms. LaHay admitted that compliance at those facilities was woefully inadequate with conditions seriously affecting dogs; and asked that the City of Roseville adopt an ordinance, reiterating that it would impact conditions in Minnesota and in Iowa.


Damaris Welles, 224 Cottonwood N, St. Paul, MN, Metro Chair of Red Lake Rosie's Rescue

Ms. Welles reported that for the last nine years, she had worked to bring unwanted and stray animals from the Red Lake Indian Reservation to the Twin Cities for fostering and adoption, averaging about 830 animals annually.  Ms. Welles advised that their organization relied on adoption opportunities with Petco and Chuck & Don's, garnering valuable interaction and partnerships.  Ms. Welles noted that many of the animals had special needs, having experienced trauma and abuse, and while all their rescue animals are highlighted online, many people overlook them in that venue versus meeting them along with other animals and discovering their wonderful personalities perfect for companionship.  Ms. Welles noted that these stores promote events, which also brings in additional customers for them.  However, without those adoption events (e.g. Cages for Cats), it would be much harder to find good homes for animals.  Ms. Welles opined that this model ordinance was easy to implement and would provide a win-win for the community and consumers.


Katy Mock, Chief Government Affairs and Community Engagement Officer, Animal Humane Society, 402 Ford Road, St. Louis Park, MN

Ms. Mock reported that their organization has a 95% placement rate in other metropolitan communities using this type of ordinance model; and stated she and many involved in the organization were present in tonight's audience to lend their support to encourage the City Council to pass this ordinance to require that all pet stores in Roseville transition into this humane pet store model.  Ms. Mock reported that the HSA has two full-time investigators working to stop the sale of puppy mill dogs in Minnesota; and opined that this was a great opportunity for the City of Roseville to take a leadership role in that effort.


Daniel Bade, 1106 62nd Avenue N, Brooklyn Center, MN, Happy Tails Rescue in Fridley

Mr. Bade reported on the work of his organization in providing a solution to rescue animals.  Mr. Bade noted that just last week, the organization had received a call from Texas where a significant number of dogs were scheduled to be euthanized, but instead had been transported to Minnesota.  Mr. Bade advised that each animal receives a health certificate before their transport, and upon arrival, they are vetted by over 200 volunteers.  Mr. Bade assured the City Council that by approving this ordinance they wouldn't be taking away the supply of dogs, but opined that the humane model worked, and provide fully vetted and healthy dogs; and would more keep the supply going and a pet store thriving. 


Lindsay Madvig, 245 17th Avenue NW, New Brighton, MN

Based on her personal experience in purchasing pet store dogs, Ms. Madvig reported on expensive health issues she'd undertaken.  Ms. Madvig reported that she now served to foster pets through a rescue, and noting how heartbreaking some of the situations were, asked that the City Council take under serious consideration making this decision.


Carol Kough, Roseville

Having been involved in animal rescue for over thirty years and investigating for the USDA for five years, Ms. Kough addressed some of her experiences with these USDA inspected mass breeders given a limited number of inspectors in the U.S., and dogs she'd encountered that had been sold for research. Ms. Kough noted that she had worked with the U of MN and the Mayo Clinic; and asked the City Council to do something about this mass breeding situation.  Ms. Kough opined that Minnesota was the worst puppy mill place in entire nation with the most puppy mills and USDA inspections being meaningless.  When purchasing an animal, Ms. Kough encouraged consumers to insist on inspecting the kennels to determine the reality of housing the animals.


Gary Papineau, Owner of Har Mar Pet Shop

Mr. Papineau noted the information tonight about rescues, and further noted that three of the four pet shops in Roseville already provided an opportunity for consumers to get a rescue dog.  However, Mr. Papineau advised that to receive a pure-bred puppy, consumers came to his shop.  Mr. Papineau reported that he personally inspected the breeders he uses, and would stand behind the dogs he sold; with customers confirming the dogs purchased from him were the best dogs they'd ever had.  Mr. Papineau stated that he had asked those customers to provide their testimonials to the City Council since this issue came up in September and their experience using his pet shop.  Mr. Papineau further reported that the kittens sold in his shop were neighborhood rescues.


Mr. Papineau opined that there should be a choice and a variety of options for pet purchase in Roseville.  Mr. Papineau suggested pet store licensing versus an ordinance, opining that he was all for licensing and willing to pay a fee, as well as being willing to have his store inspected by a veterinarian monthly or quarterly.  Mr. Papineau advised that he was open to any kind of licensing, but an ordinance outright banning sale of puppies from breeders wasn't the way to go.


Council Direction to Staff

Councilmember Willmus thanked those speaking tonight.  Councilmember Willmus stated that he had been supportive of looking at something the city could do to limit the sale of dogs and cats coming from mills, something he'd long been concerned about.  As a dog owner, Councilmember Willmus reported that he considered them members of the family, and obtained them through fosters or adoptions.  When purchasing them, Councilmember Willmus advised that he looked for people with a dog recently having puppies versus large commercial breeding operations.  Councilmember Willmus stated he was supportive of putting an ordinance in place prohibiting the sale of dogs and cats at pet stores; and would support the foster program.  While not yet knowing if this draft ordinance is the best for Roseville, Councilmember Willmus stated his interest in leaving tonight's meeting with some direction to staff to bring something back that would work for Roseville with the intent to get to the root to prohibit sales and move toward the foster model.


Councilmember Laliberte noted that the last time this issue was addressed she had also expressed her support for an ordinance similar to this model that would encourage adoption models as used in other Roseville pet stores.  Councilmember Laliberte clarified that she wasn't looking to put anyone out of business, but stated everyone needed to adapt to the changing environment.  As a lifelong dog owner, Councilmember Laliberte noted that she had procured them in a number of different ways, usually for a particular breed from a particular breeder.  However, Councilmember Laliberte noted that some of her family members had also used the adoption route with success.  Councilmember Laliberte stated that she wasn't sure if she was comfortable with the draft model ordinance as presented, but was open to input from the City Attorney regarding the criminal aspect of it and how this model would move the city toward a humane model versus another approach.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested staff review pet ordinances of other cities, consult with the City Attorney, and then bring something back to the City Council that will work for Roseville.


In terms of an ordinance, Councilmember McGehee stated that she wasn't sure if this model was the right one or not, particularly with a criminal or non-criminal aspect if there wasn't an alternative way to accomplish the same thing.  Councilmember McGehee stated she was not in favor of puppy mills, having housed many rescue animals at her home, and in agreement with Ms. Kough about the sparse visitations and inspections and inadequate housing of pets for sale.  Councilmember McGehee opined that the model from the Wisconsin speaker provided a more aggressive use of rescues and puppies and kittens available in-store most of the time, but not housed there necessarily, but rotating the sites with volunteers from rescue agencies.  Noting Mr. Papineau's perspective, Councilmember McGehee stated her interest in a solution for both sides.


Councilmember Etten stated his support for finding a way to not allow a supply of dogs and cats from puppy mills, such as using a program like "Paws to Paws Adoption." Councilmember Etten expressed his interest in the care of animals proposed by Mr. Papineau with licenses and veterinary inspections; and noted the draft model ordinance did not allow for multi-day housing for animals in consideration of their health.


Mayor Roe concluded that the two basic concerns seemed to be sourcing of animals through puppy mills, and breeding operations not being up to par.  While that is something the city has to be concerned about, Mayor Roe noted the need to also preserve another business model besides only that of adoption; questioning if that needs to be preserved in Roseville.  Citing the larger cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul sure with greater capability for inspections, licensing and a regulatory environment for that type of business model based on their larger staffs and areas of expertise, Mayor Roe noted that if the city went to that model, it would in effect be eliminating any other business model in Roseville across the board.  Mayor Roe noted his interest in weighing a long-term business in the community against the pros and cons of what is best for the community as a whole.   Mayor Roe stated he was also concerned with the misdemeanor penalty under state law or if there were other options available.


Mayor Roe noted mention of the "Cattery," and one of his concerns since the beginning of this discussion in the welfare of pets while at a pet store.  Therefore, Mayor Roe stated his interest in eliminating the possibilities of overnight boarding of animals at a pet store, even rescue animals, based on concerns for their welfare, and assuming that those hosting animals at a pet store would be doing so for a period of time.   If it was still necessary to do so, Mayor Roe suggested that the length of time be limited and the responsibility of shelter partners to provide assurances of the proper care of those animals being housed.  If the city considers an ordinance, Mayor Roe stated that he wanted it to address how that worked and ensure that no long-term boarding of animals took place in pet stores, since it affected the health and welfare of the animals themselves.


Councilmember McGehee spoke to animals staying in the store, noting that the relationship between Petco and the Companion Rescuefor housing the rabbits, but volunteers came in daily to exercise the rabbits and clean cages.


Councilmember Laliberte noted previous discussions also allowed her to share her concerns in the city's ability to inspect or enforce an ordinance.  Since then, Councilmember Laliberte noted that the city had entered into a contractual relationship with a local veterinarian to take in stray dogs; and questioned if some type of arrangement could be added for this purpose, while still defining what was being inspected, and as noted by Mayor Roe, how often those inspections were performed by a veterinarian.


As with Councilmember McGehee's comments, Councilmember Laliberte noted that Petco housed rabbits and cats; and from her understanding they were housed in cat cubes for 2-3 days at the most and then switched out, with store personnel feeding them each morning, and adoption volunteers exercising them and spending time with them socially.  At the most, Councilmember Laliberte stated that two cats shared a cube, typically because they were litter mates.


Regarding Councilmembers McGehee and Laliberte comments regarding a longer term presence of animals at a site, Mayor Roe questioned if an ordinance needed to require a certain time period or specify that arrangements were made for provider's accountability for that.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that wasn't a work around situation, but should be set by the City Council.


If the intent was to require further oversight on behalf of those organizations looking to adopt out regarding the licensing aspect, Councilmember Willmus stated that he wasn't sure he was in favor of going that route.  Councilmember Willmus opined that the changes being considered could be accomplished just as effectively through an ordinance versus licensing or inspections, since the city was not in a position to address that nor did it have the expertise to know what it was needing to inspect.


Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Willmus, suggesting setting up a contractual arrangement between stores and rescues and putting rescues in charge of that oversight, it would provide adequate protection for the animals.


City Attorney Gaughan noted several points that immediately rose to his attention when considering the specificity of criminal penalties and in language of the draft ordinance (Attachment B) prohibiting the sale of dogs or cats.  Mr. Gaughan also addressed Section 502.25 C.1 regarding a Certificate of Source provided to purchasers that contradicted a law that doesn't exist in the Roseville ordinance.  Also, Mr. Gaughan noted that the ordinance references pet store operations as the person subject to criminal penalties as the person involved in the business (owner or operator), but asked if that included their employees if the business owner or operator wasn't on site, and questioned whether criminal charges could also be brought absent those employees or vicariously, or how appropriate it may be on a case by case scenario if the employee violated company policy; in other words, in that case who was the responsible party, the owner or the employee.  Mr. Gaughan cautioned the City Council to consider these things very carefully when taking steps to pursue criminal charges, and possibly taking away the liberties of an individual; especially when a government body was held to the highest standard beyond a reasonable doubt.  Mr. Gaughan also noted, in the understaffed court arena with an already overworked case load, this type of case would most likely end up at the bottom of the docket and not be considered a high priority for prompt action.


Mayor Roe noted that some of the city's penalties were more on the administrative side.


City Attorney Gaughan agreed that overwhelming code violations provided for both criminal and/or civil sanctions depending on the type of violation, making those options available to consider whether civil abatement or criminal prosecution was the most appropriate; with the city typically steering away from criminal prosecution unless the behavior doesn't cease.  However, Mr. Gaughan reminded the City Council that those actions carried all sorts of complexities; but offered his willingness to work with staff to further flesh out the issues.


Without objection, Mayor Roe noted the City Council's support for the City Attorney and staff to perform that due diligence and provide recommendations for the more appropriate scheme to penalize behavior through an ordinance such as this.


At the request of the council, City Manager Trudgeon opined that staff could have something prepared by the January 30, 2017 City Council meeting for discussion and issues to consider in a revised draft ordinance.


If other pertinent issues came up between now and then, Mayor Roe allowed that staff could defer this item if so indicated.


City Attorney Gaughan counseled that the city should have some sort of reference incorporated into the ordinance as a basis through formatting similar to existing city ordinances (preambles versus "whereas's").


Councilmember McGehee stated her lack of interest in the prosecutorial aspect; opining that Mr. Papineau cared for animals, and suggested a lighter hand in assisting him in transitioning his business model.


Mayor Roe clarified that the City Council was not making any presumption that anyone was violating the ordinance if and when it went into effect.


City Attorney Gaughan suggested that, if and when criminal activity is observed, the city could propose to seek criminal sanctions, if indications are that someone is profiteering, and perhaps fine penalties may be all that are needed.


Councilmember Willmus suggested including a trigger for criminal sanctions, thorough documentation of repeated violations; with Mayor Roe agreeing in a process similar to that used for code enforcement issues such as a continual or repeated nuisance situation.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 9:43 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 9:44 p.m.


b.            City Facility Needs Discussion

A bench handout was received via email dated December 4, 2016 related to this item from Roger Hess, Jr., a Roseville resident, attached hereto and made a part hereof.


As a result of discussions at the November 14, 2016 City Council meeting, City Manager Trudgeon noted staff's further analysis and four options outlined on page 2 of the RCA of today's date.


Councilmember Willmus reported that last week he had met with Public Works Director Marc Culver and toured the maintenance facility.  After that tour, Councilmember Willmus opined that the city should take a serious look at the potential of renovating what was already available on that footprint; and if they hadn't yet done so, encouraged his colleagues to tour the facility as well.  Councilmember Willmus opined that there was an opportunity to increase storage capacity on that site, and options available that had been casually dismissed at previous meetings due to lateness of the hour when discussion took place.  Councilmember Willmus opined that those options were worthwhile discussing and considering.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that the $2.5 million estimated by staff for Options A, B and D for seasonal storage (acquisition and construction) remained to be determined (TBD) for Option C at the maintenance facility site.


Also for Option D (Veteran's Park site), Councilmember Etten noted that he was concerned with that option due to parking and the existing lot's current use and the parking at a premium at the current License Center.  Councilmember Etten opined that the city didn't own enough space for adequate parking, in addition to the lost park space.  Specific to the revenue bond, Councilmember Etten asked if the amount projected in the RCA was the maximum amount the city could obtain based on current revenue ($1,223,200).


City Manager Trudgeon confirmed that this was the number identified by Finance Director Miller based on estimates and assumptions for current revenues at the License Center.


Councilmember McGehee reported that she had been in the maintenance facility several years ago, but was willing to tour it again.  In looking over the options provided by staff in the RCA, Councilmember McGehee opined that if the city could acquire the strip mall reasonable with additional space for more parking and office space, combined with tying it and Veteran's Park to the current city campus, it would keep things in the general area without further congesting an already cramped space, especially for parking already overtaxed during some events and activities.  In the short term (e.g. ten years) at the strip mall, Councilmember McGehee opined that it would provide for the city to have the License Center remain at the location people were used to, while allowing the city to generate funds through leasing extra space beyond a reasonable space to house the Historical Society.  Councilmember McGehee stated that with that available parking and space, and its proximity to City Hall, she saw that whole area as having the greatest potential and included all the amenities the city had now and was seeking for future growth.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this option provides an opportunity to expand the city campus in a meaningful way versus satellite storage of materials that belonged on site.


Mayor Roe suggested that a tour be set up for the City Council to view the maintenance facility with staff available, duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon.


Mayor Roe asked if it made sense to have a professional advise the city on space efficiencies and needs; and if so, questioned what an approximate cost of such a service would be.  Mayor Roe suggested part of the equation should be, if looking at an existing building that was currently receiving rental revenue for space not needed by the city short-term, costs for the city serving as a landlord of that building should be factored into the revenue stream, potentially as part of the transition and financial analysis calculations.   While he found that option worth consideration, Mayor Roe stated his curiosity about future use of the existing maintenance facility to maximize its use and how that fits into the big picture; opining that expert advice would be helpful for that component as well.  Mayor Roe noted other portions on the city campus (e.g. old sally port area) and expressed curiosity about re-use of those sites as well, noting that it had been brought up a number of times in the past, with arguments made for not using it; and asked for that discussion to be refreshed as well.


Councilmember Willmus agreed with Mayor Roe, stating his interest in a more comprehensive review of the current city space and its potential re-use, modification or renovation; opining that should all be part of the discussion.  Regarding additional properties adjacent to the existing city campus, Councilmember Willmus stated his interest in looking at those options as well.


City Manager Trudgeon reported that city staff had been utilizing the services of an individual with this expertise, but noted the need for further discussion with someone authorized by the City Council for a more in-depth and comprehensive review.


Mayor Roe noted the sale of the fire station on Fairview Avenue was also a source of revenue; and suggested this be part of the discussion as well, to have a better idea of what the city's return on that site may be; and as appraisals are done, that site be included as well.


City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that request.


Councilmember Laliberte expressed her interest in and support of a logistic space planner as part of this process, opining it was an important step.  Councilmember Laliberte also stated her interest in a tour of the maintenance facility; and whether or not it was possible to build up a level and if so, what use was more prudent to consider.  Councilmember Laliberte stated her support of having these long-overdue discussions; and thanked staff for the options presented, while opining there may be others yet to be considered.


16.        City Manager Future Agenda Review


17.        Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings


18.        Adjourn Meeting

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:57 p.m.


Mayor Roe wished all a Happy Holiday!


                                    Roll Call

Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte and Roe. 

Nays: None.