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

City Council


City Council Meeting Minutes

January 30, 2017


1.            Roll Call

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


2.         Pledge of Allegiance


3.         Approve Agenda

City Manager Trudgeon requested the addition of Business Item 7.f to consider declaring a vacancy on the Planning Commission.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the agenda as amended


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


4.         Public Comment

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


a.            Sherry Sanders, S McCarron's Boulevard

Ms. Sanders announced and upcoming panel discussion on race entitled, ''Ask a Black Man;''
subsequent to a previous Imagine Roseville community meeting where ideas were
shared.  Ms. Sanders introduced Ms. Niah Harris, who shared this idea and had
been instrumental in facilitating this opportunity for the panel to entertain questions
and provide their insight on topics ranging from policing to politics.


5.         Recognitions, Donations and Communications


a.            Proclamation of Black History Month

Mayor Roe read a proclamation recognizing and honoring the contributions of all members of the community, specifically honoring ''The Crisis in Black Education'' for 2017
focusing on the crucial role of education in the history of African Americans.


Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, proclaiming February 2017 honoring Black History Month during February of 2017 in Roseville, MN; inviting all members of the community to renew their commitment to ensure racial equality, understanding and justice, as amended with typographical corrections.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Proclamation of Optimist Day

Mayor Roe read a proclamation celebrating Optimist Day throughout the world on the first Thursday of every February, sponsored by the Members of Optimist International, to promote efforts in helping and recognizing young people who make a difference in their communities and encouraging a greater exchange of ideas between young people and adults.


Mayor Roe noted that City Manager Trudgeon was among the charter members of this newly formed group in Roseville; with City Manager Trudgeon subsequently introducing another charter member, David Schaps, in tonight's audience.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, proclaiming the first Thursday of February 2017 as Optimist Day in the City of Roseville, encouraging pride in the impact of the city's optimists
in making a difference in the community and lives of community members, as amended with typographical corrections.


                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


6.            Items Removed from Consent Agenda


7.            Business Items (Action Items)


a.            Review of Draft Ordinance Prohibiting the Sale of Dogs and Cats in Pet Stores

City Manager Trudgeon briefly summarized tonight's discussion before deferring to
City Attorney Gaughan; as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) and


City Attorney Gaughan reviewed changes since the last iteration, specifically addressing the formatting and language of the preamble and alterations to the penalty phase providing a non-criminal approach.  As City Attorney Gaughan reviewed the revised draft ordinance, City Manager Trudgeon displayed those changes for the benefit of the public (Attachment B).


Page 1, Section 1 (Background)

City Attorney Gaughan noted this section remained essentially unchanged from the previous draft given no clear direction from the City Council at that time.  Mr. Gaughan noted that this section involved recitals related to action by the City Council to restrict unlawful business.  Mr. Gaughan provided examples from other sections of city code that would provide consistency when the final draft ordinance is brought back for formal adoption.  Mr. Gaughan suggested that one of those alterations be framing recitals as ''City Council findings.'' City
Attorney Gaughan noted the importance that the City Council's findings provide
sufficient basis and substance to regulate sales of dogs and cats.


Page 3, Line 108, Section 501.25.C.1 (Pet Stores)

City Attorney Gaughan stated that the substance of the proposed ordinance was largely the same as the previous draft other than this particular line, with the ordinance citing that sale of dogs and cats was prohibited.  While the previous draft described purchasers, Mr. Gaughan advised that that term was inappropriate, and therefore he changed it to the adopter receiving a Certificate of Source, since dogs and cats would no longer be permitted for ''sale'' under this ordinance.


Page 3, Lines 116 - 118, Section 501.25.D

Specific to this penalty provision, City Attorney Gaughan noted the State of Minnesota mandate for misdemeanor criminal penalties and fines, with another approach being for a municipal administrative offense.  As provided in Section 102 of existing city code, specific to municipal penalties for code violations, Mr. Gaughan noted its reference to administrative penalties and fines, and thus he had included similar language accordingly.  Mr. Gaughan advised that he had included Chapter 102 as Attachment C for reference by the City Council and public.  Mr. Gaughan noted that the provision was for any fine to be levied against the pet store operator versus an employee on shift if and when a violation should occur, essentially holding the owner liable versus an employee. 


Mr. Gaughan noted that, as indicated in Chapter 102, an appeal process would also be in place for this ordinance provision, with the City Manager serving as arbiter.  Mr. Gaughan advised that any administrative fine would be appropriate for inclusion in the city's fee schedule, reviewed and adopted annually, as deemed appropriate under current circumstances and to appropriately cover administrative costs for monitoring and enforcement of these provisions.


City Attorney Gaughan clarified that he wasn't taking a position or advocating one penalty over another; but referenced past discussions on hurdles in pursuing criminal offenses, with the city then held to the strictest burden of proof, in an already overloaded criminal court system.  Having served as a prosecutor in Minnesota for thirteen years, Mr. Gaughan advised that such a criminal offense was considered a low priority for judges; with staff already struggling to have code violation cases heard when a criminal citation was filed to obtain compliance. Mr. Gaughan suggested this may provide rationale for the City Council to consider an administrative fine to keep the process internal and resolved sooner rather than later.


Page 3, Lines 120-121, Section 4 (Effective Date)

City Attorney Gaughan advised that he had changed the effective day from the previous 30 days to the proposed 180 days to provide affected business owners with time to make other arrangements for their business, recalling that lag time as previously discussed by the City Council.  However, Mr. Gaughan noted that this was up to the City Council's discretion tonight.


City Council Questions

Mayor Roe referenced the two sections of language provided via email by Ms. Coughlin of the Humane Society included as a bench handout, defining ''Animal Rescue
Organizations;'' with additional edits and also addressing rationale in not
allowing overnight boarding of dogs and/or cats at a pet store overnight.






Based on discussion at a previous meeting specific to concerns with overnight boarding of animals, Mayor Roe noted that the concern appeared to be different as it relates to dogs and cats, thus the proposed language.  However, Mayor Roe sought City Attorney Gaughan's input from a legal perspective based on his review.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that he had not had a chance to review the language as yet, but his initial reaction was that he didn't see a concern for equal protection between cats and dogs; and as long as the basis is articulated if there was such distinction between animals, the city would need to clearly articulate why.


City Council Comments/Discussion

Regarding the preamble, with so much language addressing where animals were bred or housed within their first eight weeks, Councilmember Laliberte also noted previous conversations about conditions at locations where they were for sale.  However, Councilmember Laliberte noted that she didn't see that in this draft language, opining there may be too much emphasis on the original breeding situation and not enough emphasis on the sale location and conditions.  Councilmember Laliberte suggested that, if the city found conditions in a store were key to the life-long health of an animal, the city needed to be in a position to monitor that as well.


Mayor Roe opined that made sense and suggested it also related to the city's concern in how to regulate conditions and whether a licensing inspection program may get to that goal; whether two separate findings or combined as one finding.


In addition, Councilmember McGehee noted that there were no federal or state regulations in place to monitor conditions once the animals were in that retail location.


Councilmember Willmus agreed, and also opined that of the paragraphs making up the preamble, he didn't think the first three were uniquely germane to Roseville, while the remaining five paragraphs were and therefore, could serve as a more factual basis for findings.


City Attorney Gaughan referenced page 1, lines 32-33, suggesting additional language if the city believed that findings at the point of sale were unregulated, unhealthy or unsafe for animals and at issue.


While not having the capability for the city to confirm or ensure those conditions,  Mayor Roe suggested adding language at that point such as "and the City of Roseville does not have the resources to address it;"


Councilmember McGehee reviewed her preferred language revisions as follows:

Lines 25 - 30

"WHEREAS [the] inhumane conditions in mass breeding facilities [may] lead to health and behavioral issues in the animals bread in those facilities, which many consumers are unaware of when purchasing animals from pet stores due to both a lack of education on the issue and misleading tactics of [some] pet stores in some cases"

Lines 51 - 55

"WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Roseville believes it is in the best interests of the City of Roseville to adopt reasonable regulations to [discourage] [reduce costs to the City and its residents, protect he citizens of the City who may purchase dogs or cats from a pet store or other business establishment, help prevent] inhumane breeding conditions, promote community awareness of animal welfare, and foster a more humane environment in the City."

Line 110

Councilmember McGehee opined that requiring businesses to retain ''Certificate of Source ''
records for each dog or cat for at least one year may prove burdensome for such
a vigorous business; and instead suggested a shorter timeframe (e.g. 180 days).


For clarification purposes, Councilmember Etten noted that the issues and concerns initially brought up at the Har Mar Pet Shop were related to conditions of the site itself and not necessarily the sources of the animals housed at the store.  With a number of breeding facilities throughout the country, he suggested it might be more appropriate to create a fee schedule and contract with a local veterinarian for monthly inspections to deal with breeder conditions. Councilmember Etten opined that ordinance as proposed did not deal with the initial concerns.  While this may prove a relatively easy ordinance to adopt and enforce, Councilmember Etten reiterated his concern that it didn't address the immediate concerns in the city.


Mayor Roe suggested that another similar option might be to contract with a city having more regulation resources to perform the same service for the City of Roseville, with cost recovery from related businesses depending on City Council agreement.


Councilmember Laliberte suggested another way to identify what was being monitored would be to limit the number of animals in an enclosure, even if for adoption purposes, and the length of time they're there.  If those issues were not addressed, Councilmember Laliberte cautioned that it seemed to provide a way to avoid the system.


Mayor Roe advised that this was his rationale in the provision to not allow boarding animals overnight.  If too many animals are housed in a cage during the day, Mayor Roe opined that this didn't seem to him as problematic as they would be boarded overnight in a store versus in a shelter where they're used to dealing with various situations. 


Councilmember McGehee recognized the issues brought forward by Councilmember Etten, but stated that she wasn't sure she was willing to enthusiastically embark on an inspection program of any frequency, noting there were three other pet stores using the adoption model in Roseville that had presented no problems to-date.  Councilmember McGehee stated that all would need to be inspected and fall under the same and consistent regulations; thus necessitating the need for additional inspections that she wasn't sure was feasible for the city or appropriate.  Councilmember McGehee noted that most shelter animals are only at another site for a few hours to be showcased for possible adoption, and then returned to their foster homes usually by their handlers.  Councilmember McGehee opined that this ordinance would be the least expensive way to address a problem that had been brought to the city's attention.


Councilmember Willmus also recognized Councilmember Etten's perspective; but beyond that, stated that he looked at the problem at the point of sale and beyond and as a mechanism for animals arriving there in the first place.  Councilmember Willmus noted that the proposed ordinance dealt with a major number of those issues; thus his support for it as drafted.


Mayor Roe suggested that one way to avoid regulating all pet stores would be to specify "related to the [sale] of pets or dogs.''  Mayor Roe
opined that then any store not currently using that business model would not
need to comply.


For those cities doing inspecting, Councilmember Etten suggested a draft of that language for City Council review by comparison, noting that the city may be trying to solve a situation in the wrong way.  While being against puppy mills, Councilmember Etten noted that the city had no evidence that the Har Mar Pet Shop was using this practice, and again reiterated that therefore, the city may not be addressing the problem initially brought before it.


Mayor Roe sought consensus on the time to keep ''Certificate of Source'' records and
the proposed effective date of the ordinance (lines 110 and 122).


Councilmember Willmus agreed with Councilmember McGehee that one year may be too long.  Specific to the effective date, Councilmember Willmus stated that he would support no less than 180 days.


Councilmember Laliberte preferred 180 days in both applications.


Councilmember McGhee stated her support to keep records for 180 days; and agreed with the effective date of 180 days, but also stated she would be agreeable with the effective date being up to a year.


Councilmember Etten agreed with the suggestions made by Councilmember Willmus as to timing.


Mayor Roe suggested modification to the proposed overnight boarding restriction as follows:

[and cats] shall not be kept overnight at a pet store, without provision for their care and monitoring outside of store hours.''


Specific to the definition of animal rescue organizations provided as suggested language by the Humane Society, City Manager Trudgeon referenced their interest in including breeding organizations in that definition to avoid rejection in such cases.



Public Comment

Written comment, attached hereto and made a part hereof, included an email dated January 28, 2017 from Christine Coughlin, representing the Humane Society and providing suggested language revisions; recent emails from Cynthia Eskandary, Tara Bollmann, Terisa Winters Steiber, Brenda Moore, Vicki Mineo, Matt Burns, and Sue Swanigan, each speaking in opposition to a ban on commercial breeders selling and their sales to pet stores; a letter from Arlene Menoke and John King in opposition to and alleging that the was city attempting drive the Har Mar Pet Shop out of business; a letter from Brandon Sinn, DVM at Lambert Vet Supply in Fairbury, NE, speaking against attempts to shut down regulated parts of the industry in support of non-regulated parts; a letter from Jim Foster, VDM at Red Barn Veterinary Services in Shelbina, MO in support of breeding operations; a letter from A. G. Beukleman, DVM, MPVM at Avenue Veterinary Clinic in Sioux Center, IA in support of pet stores and professional breeders; and a letter from Mindy Patterson, President of The Calvary Group o Grover, MO in support of the city's rejection of a ban on pet sales.


Kristin Smith, Blaine, MN and Vanessa Rojos, St. Paul, MN (Pet Store Operators)

Regarding proposed language in the submitted individual paragraphs, Ms. Rojos questioned the term ''pet store'' when discussing overnight boarding and if rescues were
exempt so their animals could be sheltered overnight; and sought a definition
for ''provision.''


Ms. Smith noted the distinction between leaving puppies in a store overnight and adult dogs or cats.


Ms. Rojos and Ms. Smith further questioned the definition of ''Animal Rescue Organizations''
and the rationale in specifying a not-for-profit organization with tax-exempt
status under Section 501.C.3 of the IRS code; opining that any animal rescue
organization should not receive a negative mark dependent on their tax status
and seeking fairness across the board within the industry.


Elaine Hansen, MN Pet Breeder's Association and MN Council of Dog Clubs

Providing a description of the organizations she represents as commercial breeders and trainers of show dogs for performance competitions, Ms. Hansen addressed several concerns.  Ms. Hansen called attention to several things already in law, seeking city review as they deliberate further of MN Statute 325.F.9.1 providing consumer protection of dogs and cats sold by retail pet stores or any person except rescues and shelters under 501.C.3 non-profit status.  Ms. Hansen opined that their experience had found less protection for animals at the time of sale if sold by a non-profit versus a retailer or breeder.


Ms. Hansen expressed further concern for the earlier-stated term ''sale or purchase''
being replaced by ''adoption, with adoption also being considered a sale if
consideration was exchanged for an animal, and if subject to sales tax, and
still having the same literal affect.


Under MN State Statute 347.31, Ms. Hansen stated that a kennel licensed by the Board of Animal Health could have the owner liable for any non-compliance with those applicable standards, whether or not the animals on the premise were owned by him or not.  While a shop owner was required to absorb all costs related to conducting his business (e.g. maintaining his premises, equipment, sales, employees and maintenance), Ms. Hansen noted that he could receive no compensation or control over the source or inventory of non-profits selling on his premises.  Ms. Hansen questioned the viability of that business plan model, without her benefit of having heard from the owner of the Har Mar Pet Shop and ramifications to his business.


Gary Papineau, Owner of Har Mar Pet Shop

Mr. Papineau opined that variety was a good thing for Roseville; and further opined that licensing would serve to add to that diversity.  Mr. Papineau noted that he had attended several of these meetings where animal rights groups had made comments about puppy mills and him and his business specifically. 


Mr. Papineau stated that he was proud of his store and the animals he sold there.  While hearing from opponents at these meetings, Mr. Papineau noted that his regular, satisfied customers weren't present stating that they were unhappy with their pet purchase.  Mr. Papineau opined that licensing would work better than a ban.


Ann Olson, Executive Director, Animal Folks MN, St. Paul, MN

Ms. Olson thanked the city for drafting this ordinance, opining that it addressed their concerns as brought forward previously.  As far as specifics with the proposed ordinance, Ms. Olson stated that they agreed with the 180 day effective date; with other minor points for discussion off line but not impacted by state law.  Ms. Olson noted that, based on their experience in the industry, animals obtained from mass breeding facilities without any knowledge of their genetic conditions, was at the core of rationale in not obtaining animals there.  As mentioned by her at the last meeting, Ms. Olson noted considerable data was available and records on large breeders in MN and IA and volunteered to share that information with the city to further support their position.  Ms. Olson advised that those records would document the purchase of dogs and puppies by the Roseville pet store in question from those large breeders.


Specific to criminal or administrative offenses, Ms. Olson asked that any penalty or fee should be high enough to serve as a true deterrent and relative to the sales price of animals.


Ms. Olson spoke in support of the city continuing with the ordinance revisions; opining it was an efficient and economical way to address the issues.


Kathy Maken, Animal Humane Society

Ms. Maken agreed with the comments of Ms. Olson, and draft ordinance as originally introduced, with revision to 180 days for an effective date.  Ms. Maken agreed this would address the problem being faced with pet stores.  Ms. Maken also offered additional information or clarification on how their shelters were run and pet licensing.


Christine Coughlin, MN State Director, The Humane Society of the U.S., Minneapolis, MN

Ms. Coughlin offered the Society's support for the ordinance as drafted and commended the City Council in addressing the source of the problem in a meaningful way.  Ms. Coughlin also offered to provide additional information; expressing her confidence that this served as the best solution for multiple communities across the country that were also considering such an ordinance versus simply a ''band aid'' approach.  Ms. Coughlin stated that their organization had proof
that the humane model works, with major retailers, with the exception of one, already
having switched to this model. 


City Council Deliberation

Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of moving forward, recognizing the considerable comment to-date from Roseville residents seeking such action.  Given the discussion on the draft ordinance to-date, and revisions made along the way, Councilmember Willmus stated his support for those changes, taking into account City Attorney Gaughan's recommendation to clean-up the preamble of this draft in accordance with tonight's discussion.  Councilmember Willmus questioned if there was consensus regarding the length of time for keeping records.


Councilmember McGehee sought comment from City Attorney Gaughan regarding State Statute 325.F.9 as brought up during public comment tonight specific to consumer protections.


While not having a copy of the Statute before him, based on his recollection of the statute, City Attorney Gaughan responded that the chapter references neglect of animals and more generally the treatment of animals, and wasn't specifically focused toward retail establishments, while it may reference conditions at breeding locations.


Without objection, Mayor Roe asked City Attorney Gaughan to provide more detail in a response when this item next comes before the City Council.


McGehee moved, Willmus seconded, revising language on page 3, line 110 of the draft ordinance, that ''Certificate of Source'' records be retained for 180 days.


Councilmember Willmus also advised that he was going to suggest the original, non-amended language from the Humane Society specific to dogs, stating that he had no issue with cats and their boarding.


Mayor Roe noted that if dogs are not kept overnight, language would cover puppies as well for clarity.  Mayor Roe asked if the intent of the makers of the motion was to revise language as brought forward in the two separate paragraphs related to including dogs and cats as defined in this ordinance as well asanimal rescue organizations.


Specific to the rescue organization, Councilmember McGehee stated that it didn't define by purchase; and she noted several instances in Minnesota where there had been action taken against a particular breeder.  Since the animals all ended up going to rescue for adoption, Councilmember McGehee noted her observations of this occurrence more than one time in Minnesota.


Mayor Roe clarified that the motion now included the two items of language provided as bench handouts with respect to overnight boarding and the definition of Animal Rescue Organizations, as presented and without changes.


At the request of City Attorney Gaughan for the purposes of clarification, without objection, including language in the Whereas clauses or preamble related to ''point of sale'' was included in the motion.


Councilmember McGehee expressed her interest in further amending the motion to address the ''WHEREAS language in lines 51 -' 55 to delete language related to costs to the
city and residents and for their protection as she previously stated (page 2).Mayor
Roe, on consultation with the maker and seconder of the motion, confirmed
inclusion of Councilmember McGehee's requested change in the motion.


Councilmember Laliberte appealed to the makers of the motion to keep records for one year (lines 109-110, page 3).  Given that a pet's health issues may not always be known or apparent even within that timeframe, Councilmember Laliberte opined that she didn't think it would prove burdensome for a business to keep those records longer.



Laliberte moved, Willmus seconded, retaining language as originally presented in lines 109-110 for retaining records for one year.


Discussion ensued, with Mayor Roe subsequently calling for a vote on the amendment to retain records for one year.

Roll Call (Amendment - Record Retention at one year)

Ayes: Laliberte, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: McGehee

                        Roll Call (Original Motion, as amended, with Language Revisions as Noted)

Ayes: Laliberte, Willmus and Roe. 

Nays: None.

Abstentions: McGehee and Etten

Motion carried.


Without objection, Mayor Roe directed staff to return with revisions as discussed and amended for future consideration by the City Council, at which time staff and City Attorney Gaughan were asked to include staff recommendations for an administrative penalty administrative penalty  as similar to liquor license violations.


b.            Consider Amending City Code, Chapter 304: Lawful Gambling

Finance Director Chris Miller referenced the staff report detail and revised Chapter 304 (Lawful Gambling) outlined in Attachment, based on previous discussions on this issue.  As previously noted by Mayor Roe to Mr. Miller, lines 100-101 of the draft were corrected to delete ''bingo hall license ''references as well as
they had been updated in other areas of the ordinance.


While staff recommendation was for deletion of Section H (Employment of Certified Public Accountants), since this was a requirement for this type of organization, Finance Director Miller advised its inclusion or omission could still be at the discretion of the City Council.


Section 304.04.B, page 5, lines 145-148, (Contributions)

Specific to the trade area, Finance Director Miller noted requirements per State Statute related to defining a trade area, and revised language identifying that trade area for expenditure of gambling profits in and around Roseville.  As defined in Statute, Mr. Miller advised that the surrounding cities or townships had to be contiguous to Roseville, and those ten were listed in Section B accordingly.


Finance Director Miller also noted staff's recommendation to strike redundancy in Section B as noted.


Specific to the percentage of remaining net profits, currently at 3%, Finance Director suggested leaving out reference to an exact percentage, leaving it at ''up to
3%,'' subject to annual review.  Mr. Miller suggested this could then be
addressed annually on the fee schedule review to ensure that the city's
administrative costs were being covered.


At the request of Mayor Roe, Finance Director Miller and City Attorney Gaughan confirmed that the city could require 100% of the profits be spent within that trade area. Mr. Miller also confirmed that the current draft of the ordinance continued with two versus the previously requested three locations at this point.


Councilmember Willmus asked if the city was bound by State Statute or had the option to guide contributions toward youth athletics specifically.


City Attorney Gaughan advised that State Statute didn't reference such a restriction and the city had the authority to adopt more stringent regulations than outlined in state law.  While Mr. Gaughan opined that the city could probably reference particular youth recreational activities, he wasn't going to advise that it would never be subjected to a legal challenge, but since it wasn't specifically addressed in state law, he thought the city should have that authority to stipulate where the contributions went.


Councilmember Willmus asked City Attorney Gaughan to do additional research on whether or not there was any restriction as part of future discussions.


Mayor Roe clarified that the city couldn't restrict profits to an area smaller than the trade area, allowing any such provision to specify activities applicable to the entire ten-city trade area.  Therefore, Mayor Roe opined that the city couldn't restrict profits be used for the Roseville Youth Hockey Association, as an example, if that activity wasn't applicable throughout the entire trade area.


City Attorney Gaughan agreed that the city could not contradict state law by restricting profits be used for a Roseville-specific activity or organization and exclude the ten-city trade area.  City Attorney Gaughan advised that state law stated that the city could restrict all or some of the proceeds be expended within the trade area, and at a minimum must include each city and township contiguous with the city border; but from his understanding did not restrict referencing that it's use to youth activities, as an example.


Councilmember Etten cautioned,  in his opinion that the city should not specifically restrict profits to be used for athletic pursuits, but for a broader use for recreational purposes that would include arts, drama and other activities that were also worthwhile beyond athletics.  However, Councilmember Etten noted the need to take care in how that was worded to avoid supporting the entire Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul in those efforts since they were part of the ten-city trade area, which could prove mind-boggling.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director Miller advised that the 3% captured an approximate annual  total of $60,000 to $65,000, of which approximately $15,000 would go toward the city's administrative and regulatory costs with the balance going toward bingo operator accounting expenses.


Mayor Roe opined that it essentially represented a tax cut for those organizations; while if they paid for their accounting services and city reimbursement it could provide a tax cut for all with removal of the accounting firm cost.


Councilmember Laliberte questioned if the trade area cities needed to be listed specifically or could be specified as only as the ''trade area.''


City Attorney Gaughan advised that state law required definition of the trade area by the City; and therefore recommended that the actual cities be defined accordingly.


Before being stricken from the language, Councilmember Laliberte asked how the requirement for 75% expenditure was monitored.


Finance Director Miller advised that the organizations submitted monthly reports for the city's review and monitoring, and would still be required to do so.


Councilmember Laliberte stated her support for that reporting; with Mayor Roe observing that those organizations filed the reports frequently so they are familiar with the requirements.

Section 304.03.B (Approval of Licenses)

At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, Finance Director Miller clarified that the Gambling Control Board waited for municipal approval via form letter before completing their final approval process. 


Specific to youth athletics or activities, Councilmember Etten referenced information he'd received that an organization supporting those efforts may also use proceeds to fund their own operations (e.g. V.F.W. and/or B-Dale Club) and asked how to avoid pulling the rug out from their support if they are not 100% supporting youth activities, and protecting their operations in the city by not taking away their current source of funding.


Mayor Roe suggested not designating how or where the profits were expended, but just standard application across the trade area.


City Attorney Gaughan cautioned that more specificity would cause the city to wade into a grey area.


Councilmember Laliberte stated she was unsure as to whether she supported restricting profits to youth activities.  While recognizing that there were many organizations currently directing proceeds to that effort, Councilmember Laliberte noted there were also needs in the community among seniors and other groups and organizations needing to benefit from additional funding.


Councilmember McGehee agreed that the funds should be open to all.


Section 304.02, Items A. and D. Page 3, (Number of Licenses and Permits)

With the current maximum number of Premise Permits limited to eight, and each organization unable to conduct lawful gambling at more than two locations, Mayor Roe noted limitations at this point with current language.  As part of that discussion, Mayor Roe questioned the purpose in limiting Premise Permits (e.g. control of vice-like activities or to avoid competition) and suggested that the market place determine how many Premise Permits there could be.  Mayor Roe questioned how many locations would want more than 2-3 entities conducting lawful gambling.


Councilmember Etten stated that he would be fine with three locations per organization as long as the number of Premise Permits was increased to at least ten.


If the city considered location limits as a percentage of premise permits versus actual number of locations per organization, Mayor Roe opined that it may deter one organization monopolizing the market place.

Discussion ensued regarding using a percentage versus a certain number of  locations per  organization; resulting in both Councilmembers Etten and Willmus supporting numbers versus a percentage to avoid confusion and provide clarity in reading the ordinance.


Councilmember McGehee stated that she wasn't supportive of any more than two locations per organization citing the Joe Sensers location as an example; with Mayor Roe noting that a location could self-limit themselves depending on the particular business model and/or preference.


Councilmember McGehee stated that expanding the number of licenses didn't control what she preferred to control, to open up the opportunity for more participation by many local entities within the broad trade area. Councilmember McGehee opined that several organizations were currently very dominant and well organized in their support of local athletic organizations; while she would also like to find space for other organizations within the city to participate (e.g. Rosetown Players, orchestras, etc.).


Mayor Roe opined that Councilmember McGehee's interest lay in allowing for more Premise Permits; with Councilmember McGehee also clarifying that she would still only support two locations per organization.


Since games of chance (e.g. scratch off and lottery tickets) were readily available at many places, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if the number of Premise Permits or locations per organization actually addressed for the city what time had already naturally changed.  Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of raising the number of Premise Permits, opining it would be self-limiting by the organization itself.  While preferring language to avoid monopolization of available opportunities, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was not rigid at two locations per organization.


Willmus moved, Roe seconded, directing staff to amend ordinance language, in appropriate sections in Sections 304.02.A and B respectively, to allow three locations per organization and a total of twelve Premise Permits in the City of Roseville.


Councilmember Willmus suggested the need for some mechanism to avoid one organization monopolizing opportunities, asking that staff and this and/or future City Councils be mindful of that.


Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion, allowing for more entities to get into the business at their choice; while also limiting monopolization by one organization, while honoring the previous request by the Roseville Youth Hockey Association.


Councilmember McGehee opined that there probably would be no great clamoring of people seeking expansion, but there may be interest by a number of organizations seeking more locations. 


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Finance Director Miller reported that the most recent request to reach the current eight Premise Permits available had come from the newly-opened Lucky's 13 Pub.


Councilmember McGehee opined that by allowing for three locations per organization, it was no longer self-limiting and would create more chance for monopolization by one organization.  Councilmember McGehee stated her preference for more Premise Permits with two locations per organization; with future adjustments made if and when indicated.  Therefore, Councilmember McGehee stated that she would not support the motion.


Mayor Roe and Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the motion.


Roll Call

Ayes: Laliberte, Willmus, Etten and Roe. 

Nays: McGehee.

Motion carried.


Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, directing staff to include language that 100% of the remaining net profits shall be expended in the City's trade area as defined in the draft ordinance.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


Section 304.05, Lines 162-167, Page 6 (Law Enforcement and Administrative Costs)

Without objection, Mayor Roe clarified that the revised ordinance language would come back with the ''up to 3%'' language as proposed by staff in the draft.


Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7: 55 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 8:02 p.m.

c.            Public Hearing and Consideration of the Currency Exchange 2017 License Renewal for Pawn America Minnesota, LLC, located at 1715 Rice Street

City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this renewal request, as detailed in the staff report.


Mayor Roe opened the public hearing at approximately 8:05 p.m. to consider renewal of the 2017 Currency Exchange License for Pawn America Minnesota, LLC, located at 1715 Rice Street.

Public Comment

Sherry Sanders, S McCarrons Boulevard

Ms. Sanders noted her attendance and comment two years ago regarding this business's business license renewal.  Ms. Sanders reported that the business had complied with the request for a privacy fence; but noted unfortunately that there remained ongoing issues, particularly with trash in the parking lot, and blowing into adjacent properties and rights-of-way on a consistent basis.  Ms. Sanders also reported holes in the fence since it was built that may be due to how it was built and/or installed.  Ms. Sanders reported that she had spoken with the store manager who claimed that she had no information.  Ms. Sanders further reported that the City's Public Works Department cleaned up the alley at least on an annual basis.  Given that ongoing non-compliance, Ms. Sanders asked that the city withhold this approval or their business license renewal until the situation was resolved.


At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon responded that City Planner Paschke would need to follow-up with Finance Director Miller on the annual pawn shop business license renewal.


Mayor Roe recognized the concerns expressed by Ms. Sanders, but clarified the specificity of this public hearing to consider only the currency exchange license renewal.


City Attorney Gaughan agreed that this was probably a condition specific to the pawn shop business license.  Mr. Gaughan advised that staff would need to provide evidence in addition to this public comment before pursuing enforcement action for violations, reserving any adverse action on the license as appropriate in light of that particular condition that may be attached to the business license.


City Planner Paschke advised that, prior to responding to any violation, he would want to check with staff in land use codes for their interaction with the business and to address any follow-up concerns with them in order to rectify them.  Mr. Paschke noted that it was possible the trash accumulated may not actually be from Pawn America, but simply accumulating on their lot; and therefore may or may not be related to the business license as conditioned.  From his recollection, Mr. Paschke stated that the fence was actually tied to the business license, but asked for time to follow-up internally first.


Councilmember Willmus stated that when hearing from adjacent property owners, the City Council wanted to be made aware of issues; clarifying that when the business or pawn broker license came back before the city, he would want more information on the provisions regarding the fence and any other complaints to-date.


City Manager Trudgeon duly noted that information request for follow-up.


Mayor Roe thanked Ms. Sanders for bringing this to the city's attention; and advised that staff would address the complaint through investigation with land use conditions on the pawn broker permit for compliance as well as when that license came up for renewal.  Mayor Roe directed staff to report back to the City Council and follow-through with this complaint.


At the request of Ms. Sanders as to how she could be aware of compliance, or  if she needed to provide photo documentation of violations, at the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon clarified that there was no public notice for businesses licenses or their annual renewal.


City Planner Paschke offered to personally follow-up with Ms. Sanders on staff's course of action, as well as seeing that she was registered to sign up for email updates for future action.


Mayor Roe closed the public hearing at approximately 8:10 p.m., with no one else appearing for or against.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the requests by Pawn America Minnesota, LLC, located at 1715 North Rice Street, Roseville, MN for renewal of their license to operate currency exchange business in Roseville, MN for the 2017 calendar year.

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


d.            Consider Renewal of Speak Up! Roseville Contract

As detailed in the staff report, Communication Manager Garry Bowman summarized the update on the Speak Up! Roseville contract.


Councilmember Willmus stated his appreciation for Mr. Bowman's footnote regarding other social media platforms, especially regarding Facebook directing people to the Speak Up! Roseville site.  However, as a standalone program, Councilmember Willmus opined that he didn't think much of this platform, finding it cumbersome to use especially on a mobile device; and therefore, saw no reason to continue the contract when more efficient platforms were available.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, authorizing staff to provide formal 30-day written notice to Granicus of termination of their contract with the City of Roseville.


Councilmember Etten concurred with the comments of Councilmember Willmus, opining other tools were available with more efficiencies.  Councilmember Etten opined that the user numbers may have been improved by one particularly hot topic, but generally he found less expensive and more accepted options available.


Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the motion, suggesting the money saved on this contract would be better applied to an additional newsletter edition or by increasing post card mailings outside social media options.


While being initially supportive of this option, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she wouldn't rally for continuing the contract, expressing her disappointment with the little engagement resulting from this tool.  Councilmember Laliberte admitted it was cumbersome to use on a mobile platform, along with limiting in the amount of customization available for the city.  Councilmember Laliberte noted the concerns expressed to her by people not knowing if their comments had been heard, and a lack of dialogue with those users and the city. Councilmember Laliberte opined that the city may have failed or at least the perception was that the city didn't deliver, whether that was the city's doing or the system's inability to document that follow-up.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that it was a good idea that just didn't work.


Mayor Roe agreed that the program didn't work as advertised; and agreed that there were more effective means of receiving input and encouraging dialogue.  Mayor Roe agreed that perhaps a hard copy newsletter or paying for more engagement options as part of the comprehensive plan update process may prove better uses for the money.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.            Update on the Greater Notification Pilot Program and Fee Changes to Certain Application Processes


As detailed in the staff report, Senior Planner Thomas Paschke sought any feedback on this pilot program.  At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke clarified next steps, as outlined in lines 35-39 (page 2) of the staff report, with code amendments implemented unless directed otherwise by the City Council.


At the request of Councilmember Etten, City Planner Paschke clarified that the 2017 Fee Schedule as adopted by the City Council included estimated costs for this program, or any escrow increases as applicable, with staff continuing to monitor that on an annual or more frequent basis as needed.  Mr. Paschke noted that adjustments to existing fees could be addressed on application forms until code language was in place and the existing fees adjusted to reflect nay additional costs.  Mr. Paschke noted that most of the changes to fees would be addressed on the Open House application form and yet not part of city code, but under revision for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council in the near future.


At the request of Councilmember McGehee, City Planner Paschke reported that staff did not receive a significant number of responses about State Fair Parking.  As was typical with many events or activities in Roseville that occurred periodically but were not daily or weekly year-round, Mr. Paschke advised that they may not become a major concern until the event or activity was actually occurring.  However, Mr. Paschke confirmed no one appeared at the Open House as part of the State Fair's Interim Permit (IU) renewal recently to provide comment for the applicant and/or staff to address any of those concerns.  However, Mr. Paschke reported that those citizens still had an opportunity to comment and engage at the Planning Commission's public hearing and subsequent City Council consideration of the IU renewal. 


Councilmember Willmus suggested a Facebook blast by staff before those opportunities and/or before the State Fair comes up; with that request duly noted by City Manager Trudgeon.


Councilmember McGehee stated her support of continuing the broader notification area.


Mayor Roe referenced the action coming before the Planning Commission this week, seeking to alert staff to his preference that ordinance language be clear on what developer and city requirements are beyond simplifying it to state an applicant should simply contact the Community Development Department.


City Planner Paschke clarified that staff's goal was for the City Councils adoption by resolution of a policy versus code language and requiring a 2-3 month process for City Council amendment versus implementing changes through policy that can be modified as needed.  Mr. Planner advised that this was staff's rationale in not including that in the Planning Commission report, as the City Council would be taking that action via resolution.


However, Councilmember Etten agreed with Mayor Roe's concerns, opining that city code language should reference that policy if it informed the code so people would understand that connection.


Community Development Director Kari Collins agreed that code language should point to the policy.  However, since the open house and notification policy is administrative in nature, Ms. Collins stated that those details often made city code more rigid.  Ms. Collins stated that staff was more comfortable having this laid out in policy, she reiterated that something should be referenced in city code.


Even for those things that are basic open house processes, Mayor Roe opined that policies outlining more specifics still needed to be included as basic requirements as part of the ordinance to inform the Community Development Department, Planners, and City Council's in future generations, through a minimum of having a basic goal in code as a place to reference that type of information.


Councilmember Laliberte opined that reference to another document was necessary if and when guiding another document, and as talked about with the pet ordinance, set the stage for why a process was determined to expand notification for purposes of transparency.  Councilmember Laliberte opined that such minimum documentation put in place today would inform tomorrow's policies.


f.             Declare Vacancy on Planning Commission

As briefly noted by City Manager Trudgeon and as a result of the resignation of Commissioner Cunningham mid-term, this vacancy process could coincide with current applications being sought for other commissions.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, declaring an additional vacancy on the Planning Commission, and directing staff to advertise for applications to serve on the commission for the remaining term through March 31, 2018, with an application deadline of February 20, 2017.


With agreement by his colleagues, Councilmember Willmus thanked Commissioner Cunningham for her service to the city and on the Planning Commission.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


8.            Approve Minutes


9.            Approve Consent Agenda

At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Trudgeon briefly highlighted those items being considered under the Consent Agenda; and as detailed in specific Requests for Council Action (RCA) and related attachments dated January 30, 2017.


a.            Approve Payments

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


ACH Payments


84373 - 84508





                                                Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


b.            Approve Business & Other Licenses & Permits

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of a Gambling Exempt Permit for a Bingo game scheduled at Saint Rose of Lima School, located at 2072 Hamline Avenue N on February 26, 2017.


                                    Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


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

Councilmember Laliberte noted that Metropolitan Cities would be advocating more funding for diseased tree removal from the state to municipalities.


Mayor Roe also noted additional lobbying efforts to address Emerald Ash Borer issues.


Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of general purchases and contracts for services as noted in the RCA and Attachment A entitled, ''2017 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items,'' updated
January 23, 2017.


                                                Roll Call

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

                        Nays: None.


d.            Authorize Staff to Release RFP for Transportation Plan

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the Transportation Plan Request for Proposals (RFP) for Issuance as presented; authorizing staff to seek proposals for subsequent review and recommendation to the City Council at their March 27, 2017 regular business meeting.


                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


e.            Approve Annual Contract with Northeast Youth and Family Services (NYFS)

Willmus moved, Etten seconded, approval of the annual contract with Northeast Youth and Family Services to provide services to at-risk youth and families in Roseville, at a cost not to exceed $54,530, as included in the adopted 2017 City Budget.

                        Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


10.      Council & City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements

Councilmember Etten reported on his recent attendance and topics covered by the Center for Social Inclusion (CSI) at the recent League of Minnesota Cities conference.  Councilmember Etten highlighted discussions on race and bias, achieving equality moving forward, and clear steps to change patterns and policies.  Councilmember Etten noted that this organization works directly with the League of Minnesota Cities, and anticipated it as a potential organization for the city to consider becoming part of in 2018.


11.        Councilmember Initiated Future Agenda Items and Future Agenda Review

For the benefit of the public, City Manager Trudgeon briefly summarized and highlighted upcoming agenda issues.



Mayor Roe announced that, in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 13D.03 and exceptions to Open Meeting Laws, he would entertain a motion to move into Closed Executive Session for the purpose of the City Manager's Performance Review.  For the benefit of the public, Mayor Roe advised that the City Council was required to report the results of the closed meeting no later than the next subsequent meeting.


Also, Under Statutory B cities, Mayor Roe advised that the City Manager had the option of an open or closed meeting for the review; with City Manager Trudgeon confirming his choice of the closed option.


Etten moved, McGehee seconded, recessing the City Council meeting at approximately 8:37 p.m. and convening in Closed Executive Session, per State Statute.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.



Mayor Roe convened the City Council in Closed Executive Session at approximately 8:45 p.m.


In addition to the Councilmembers, City Manager Trudgeon and City Attorney Gaughan were also present.



At approximately 9:45 p.m., Willmus moved, Etten seconded, adjourning the Closed Executive Session and reconvening in Open Session.


Roll Call

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

Nays: None.


12.        Adjourn

Willmus moved, Laliberte seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:46 p.m.


                        Roll Call

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

            Nays: None