View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Council Meeting Minutes
January 30, 2017
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
3. Approve Agenda
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
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
4. Public Comment
Mayor Roe called
for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items.
Sherry Sanders, S McCarron's Boulevard
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.
Donations and Communications
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.
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.
Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
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.
Items Removed from Consent Agenda
Business Items (Action Items)
Review of Draft Ordinance Prohibiting the Sale of Dogs and Cats
in Pet Stores
Manager Trudgeon briefly summarized tonight's discussion before deferring to
City Attorney Gaughan; as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) and
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).
1, Section 1 (Background)
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.
3, Line 108, Section 501.25.C.1 (Pet Stores)
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.
3, Lines 116 - 118, Section 501.25.D
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
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.
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.
3, Lines 120-121, Section 4 (Effective Date)
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
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.
RESCUE ORGANIZATION: ANY NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION WHICH HAS TAX-EXEMPT
STATUS UNDER SECTION 501(C) (3) OF THE U.S. INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, WHOSE
MISSION AND PRACTICE IS, IN WHOLE OR IN SIGNIFICANT PART, THE RESCUE OF ANIMALS
AND THE PLACEMENT OF THOSE ANIMALS IN PERMANENT HOMES, does not obtain
animals from a breeder or broker for payment or compensation, AND WHICH
DOES NOT BREED ANIMALS"
SHALL NOT BE KEPT OVERNIGHT AT A PET STORE. CATS, AS DEFINED IN THIS ORDINANCE
FROM ANIMAL RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS, ANIMAL SHELTERS OR ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITIES
TO BE SHOWCASED FOR ADOPTION, SHALL NOT BE KEPT OVERNIGHT AT A PET STORE
WITHOUT PROVISION FOR THEIR CARE AND MONITORING OUTSIDE OF STORE HOURS.''
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
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
City Council Comments/Discussion
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.
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.
addition, Councilmember McGehee noted that there were no federal or state
regulations in place to monitor conditions once the animals were in that retail
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.
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.
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;"
McGehee reviewed her preferred language revisions as follows:
25 - 30
[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"
51 - 55
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."
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).
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Roe sought consensus on the time to keep ''Certificate of Source'' records and
the proposed effective date of the ordinance (lines 110 and 122).
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.
Laliberte preferred 180 days in both applications.
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.
Etten agreed with the suggestions made by Councilmember Willmus as to timing.
Roe suggested modification to the proposed overnight boarding restriction as
[and cats] shall not be kept overnight at a pet store, without
provision for their care and monitoring outside of store hours.''
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
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.
Smith, Blaine, MN and Vanessa Rojos, St. Paul, MN (Pet Store Operators)
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
Smith noted the distinction between leaving puppies in a store overnight and
adult dogs or cats.
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.
Hansen, MN Pet Breeder's Association and MN Council of Dog Clubs
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.
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.
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.
Papineau, Owner of Har Mar Pet Shop
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.
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.
Olson, Executive Director, Animal Folks MN, St. Paul, MN
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.
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.
Olson spoke in support of the city continuing with the ordinance revisions;
opining it was an efficient and economical way to address the issues.
Maken, Animal Humane Society
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.
Coughlin, MN State Director, The Humane Society of the U.S., Minneapolis, MN
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
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.
McGehee sought comment from City Attorney Gaughan regarding State Statute
325.F.9 as brought up during public comment tonight specific to consumer protections.
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.
objection, Mayor Roe asked City Attorney Gaughan to provide more detail in a
response when this item next comes before the City Council.
moved, Willmus seconded, revising language on page 3, line 110 of the draft
ordinance, that ''Certificate of Source'' records be retained for 180 days.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
moved, Willmus seconded, retaining language as originally presented in lines
109-110 for retaining records for one year.
ensued, with Mayor Roe subsequently calling for a vote on the amendment to retain
records for one year.
Call (Amendment - Record Retention at one year)
Willmus, Etten and Roe.
Call (Original Motion, as amended, with Language Revisions as Noted)
Willmus and Roe.
McGehee and Etten
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.
Consider Amending City Code, Chapter 304: Lawful Gambling
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.
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.
304.04.B, page 5, lines 145-148, (Contributions)
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.
Director Miller also noted staff's recommendation to strike redundancy in
Section B as noted.
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.
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
Willmus asked if the city was bound by State Statute or had the option to guide
contributions toward youth athletics specifically.
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.
Willmus asked City Attorney Gaughan to do additional research on whether or not
there was any restriction as part of future discussions.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Laliberte questioned if the trade area cities needed to be listed specifically
or could be specified as only as the ''trade area.''
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.
being stricken from the language, Councilmember Laliberte asked how the
requirement for 75% expenditure was monitored.
Director Miller advised that the organizations submitted monthly reports for
the city's review and monitoring, and would still be required to do so.
Laliberte stated her support for that reporting; with Mayor Roe observing that
those organizations filed the reports frequently so they are familiar with the
304.03.B (Approval of Licenses)
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.
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.
Roe suggested not designating how or where the profits were expended, but just
standard application across the trade area.
Attorney Gaughan cautioned that more specificity would cause the city to wade
into a grey area.
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.
McGehee agreed that the funds should be open to all.
304.02, Items A. and D. Page 3, (Number of Licenses and Permits)
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
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.
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.
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
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.).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Roe and Councilmember Laliberte spoke in support of the motion.
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.
304.05, Lines 162-167, Page 6 (Law Enforcement and Administrative Costs)
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.
Public Hearing and Consideration of the Currency Exchange 2017
License Renewal for Pawn America Minnesota, LLC, located at 1715 Rice Street
Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this renewal request, as detailed in
the staff report.
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.
Sanders, S McCarrons Boulevard
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.
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.
Roe recognized the concerns expressed by Ms. Sanders, but clarified the
specificity of this public hearing to consider only the currency exchange
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
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.
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.
Manager Trudgeon duly noted that information request for follow-up.
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.
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.
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
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
Consider Renewal of Speak Up! Roseville Contract
detailed in the staff report, Communication Manager Garry Bowman summarized the
update on the Speak Up! Roseville contract.
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.
moved, Etten seconded, authorizing staff to provide formal 30-day written notice
to Granicus of termination of their contract with the City of Roseville.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
McGehee stated her support of continuing the broader notification area.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Declare Vacancy on Planning Commission
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.
by his colleagues, Councilmember Willmus thanked Commissioner Cunningham for
her service to the city and on the Planning Commission.
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.
Willmus moved, Etten
seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented and
84373 - 84508
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,
Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of
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.
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
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
Approve Annual Contract with Northeast Youth and Family Services
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.
& City Manager Communications, Reports, and Announcements
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.
Councilmember Initiated Future Agenda Items and Future Agenda
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
Etten moved, McGehee seconded,
recessing the City Council meeting at approximately 8:37 p.m. and convening in
Closed Executive Session, per State Statute.
Ayes: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.
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
At approximately 9:45 p.m., Willmus
moved, Etten seconded, adjourning the Closed Executive Session and reconvening
in Open Session.
Willmus moved, Laliberte
seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:46 p.m.
McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe.