hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday, May 19th, 2025. Mr. City Manager, would you call the role, please? Council member Stron, here. Council member Grath, here. Council member Bower, here. Council member Schroeder. Mayor Row here. Uh, and council member Schroeder indicated prior to the meeting that she was not able to attend. Um, by way of introduction, we also uh have with us up at the dis our city attorney Rachel Tierney, who's on my right at the end. Uh, and our city manager Pat Trean, who's on my left, a little closer than usual. Um, and we have uh staff uh who will be participating in the meeting and we'll make those introductions as various agenda items come up. We would ask if you have a cell phone to be sure and silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt the meeting this evening. Uh we do have a uh a couple of things for members of the public who are attending the meeting uh in the back of the room under the big clock there's a table with extra copies of tonight's agenda. If you need a copy of the agenda to follow along uh the order of business this evening feel free to pick up one of those. Uh we also do as always uh and as required by state law uh have a copy of all of the meeting materials in a three- ring binder on that same table which is available to the public for reference uh if needed uh over the course of the meeting. However, it is one copy so you do have to show um with those uh a couple of housekeeping matters. Uh we'll ask folks to stand if you're able for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Right. Uh, next on our agenda this evening is approval of tonight's agenda. And as always, I'll check with Mr. Trean uh to see if there are any staff initiated changes to the agenda this evening. Mr. Mayor, staff has no changes to the agenda. All right. Um, and I'll check with city council members. Are there any council requested changes to the agenda or items council members would like removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration this evening? No. No. Does not appear to be the case. Uh, we do one uh quick check-in at the start of each meeting as well with members of the public. Uh, we do have uh at the end of our agenda section 10, which uh begins at the bottom of the first page and carries over slightly onto the second page, what we uh know as our consent agenda. These items are taken up as a single motion and they're usually fairly administrative like approval of our check register and and some things like that. But if somebody is here for one of those items in section 10 this evening, uh this would be a time to let us know. And what we'll do is we'll move that particular item earlier in the meeting so that you don't have to wait till the very end to either make a comment or ask a question. Is there anyone here for an item in section 10 of tonight's agenda, also known as the consent agenda? right? Does not appear to be the case. Um, and we certainly will have opportunities for public comment on the earlier items, the business items, uh, as those come up. Uh, so have no fear. We'll make sure and do that. Um, with that then is there a motion from the council to approve the agenda as presented. So moved. Second. All right. It's been moved by Council Member Bower, seconded by Council Member Strong. Uh, any discussion on the motion to approve the agenda? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. that oppo that excuse me opposed. That passes unanimously four to zero. We have our agenda for this evening. Uh next on our agenda is our first opportunity for public comment. Uh this is uh what's known as sort of general public comment. Uh as I noted before, we'll have opportunities for members of the public to speak or ask questions during various agenda items as they come up. Uh but we do also at the start of each meeting want to provide an opportunity for the public to speak on items related to city business or of interest to people in the community that aren't on this evening's agenda. Uh if somebody is here for that purpose, we would just ask that you uh have a seat at the table in front of one of the microphones uh when it's time. Uh and we will uh ask you to identify yourself by name and either street or address for the record. Uh direct your comments or questions to the council. uh if there's something we're not able to respond to immediately, we may direct staff to do some follow-up or something like that. If it's a question or a concern related to city business, if it's uh something that's related to uh of interest to people in the community, certainly we're happy to have you here to uh promote that as well. Uh so, and there is a three-minute time limit per speaker, but usually most people can say so much in three minutes that we don't have to enforce it, but I will be gentle if I do. Feel free to come on up and uh and once again uh start with your name and streeter address for the record. All right. My name is Alyssa Purdau and I live on 1488 Woodland down the street here. Um, I'm a resident of Roseville and a very busy mom of two young kids and I'm just here to discuss the bee ordinance within Roseville. Um, this past Mother's Day I was trying to enjoy the book a book on my deck and enjoy the day and I was swarmed and attacked and stung by bees um and chased inside. When I closed the door, they were all pelting the door. Um, I looked over to see a very angry bee box in my neighbor's yard that was newly put in. I hadn't seen it before. Um, almost directly on my fence line. We just have a small lot, so it was right there. Um Um, thankfully I noticed it and I had to call my parents cuz my dad is anaphylactic to bees and has to carry an EpiPen, so he couldn't come over unfortunately that day. Um, I also live directly next door to a hospice house um, for those adults spending their final days and my um, next door neighbor also has small children. So, we were all directly affected by this and in danger to the poor beekeeping that happened that day. Um, I went to go talk to my neighbor about this and he said that they were a bit aggressive right now. My bees are aggressive cuz I don't have a queen. So, anyone who knows anything about bees knows that you have to have a queen for them to function um to not have the proper education. The the bees will not survive without a queen. So, and and also when they sting, they die. And so, in this case, all the bees will die eventually. So, in my opinion, it's just abuse to the bee population and putting us all in danger as well. So, when I did some research and called um the local police, they said there was no ordinance on bees in Roseville, which I was kind of bummed to hear this because I have some friends that have bees and there's just like some pretty strict ordinance in other cities. Um, so I'm just recommending that we adopt the city of St. Paul's ordinance, which is really a great guideline of you have to have education in a certain course. Um, at the U of M, they do a really good beekeeping course. You have to have a permit. You have to have fencing for your bees. You have to have a sign that says I have bees. So, for instance, for my dad, when he comes over, he would know like I can be safe. They have bees, but I can stay clear, you know. So, um that that was my um recommendation and what I'm bringing to the council today. Great. Thank you for bringing that forward. Uh and we will take that uh under consideration and I will make sure if we can get your contact information so staff you can just give it to Mr. Trean here uh and then we can follow up and let you know if and when the the city is taking that up. Mr. Tre. Yes. And we've already been in contact over the phone and many emails. So uh we have uh examples of the St. Paul ordinance as she u has indicated. So if the council would like we can schedule that for a future conversation. Uh right now we allow for beekeeping but have no other regulations regarding placement or structures or anything like that. So probably needs to be looked at. Yeah, that would be wonderful. Thank you. I appreciate it. All right. Yep. Thanks for being here. Thank you. Right. Is there anyone else for general public comment this evening? Right. Then we'll move on with our agenda. And uh first up on our agenda uh under our business uh is recognitions and donations. We have a couple of proclamations this evening uh as is usually the practice. I will read the proclamation uh and then the council would uh make a motion uh to approve. The first proclamation this evening, excuse me, is in regard to LGBTQIA plus uh pride month and the proclamation reads as follows. Whereas the city of Roseville supports the LGBTQIA plus community and honors their many contributions to the health of the city and remains committed to treating all people with fairness and respect. And whereas in 1993, Minnesota became the first state in the nation to outlaw both sexual orientation and gender discrimination in the field of employment, housing, and accommodations. And whereas in 2013, the state of Minnesota legalized same-sex marriage. And whereas in 2021, the city of Roseville became the ninth municipality in Minnesota to ban the practice of conversion therapy on LGBTQIA youth and vulnerable adults. And a practice now banned by the state of Minnesota as of 2023. And whereas Roseville continues the tradition for communities across America recognizing their LGBTQIA plus which is lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, interex and ally residents during the month of June and recognizes the plus to symbolize the inclusion of all identities. And whereas LGBTQIA people plus people as the rainbow flag symbolizes come from every group, religion, ethnicity, age, occupation, uh, ability or disability, size, and shape. And whereas members of the Roseville LGBTQTQIA+ community have always served as valuable members of our community uh, and our country in every capacity as homeowners, taxpayers, members of the military, business owners, parents, and employees among others. And whereas it is important to recognize that we are all part of the same community. And whereas LGBTQIA plus residents have enriched the life the enriched the diverse community of Roseville through their participation in city government, the arts, religious and civil institutions, education, and community organizations. And whereas the city of Roseville believes that all people deserve to be protected from bullying, harassment, discrimination, and health disparities and convey a clear message that intolerance is not welcome in our community. And whereas the LGBTQ2IA community allies, including Roseville area high school student groups, provide support and encouragement to Roseville youth with the assistance of the school district staff and administration. And whereas the city of Roseville reaffirms our commitment to promoting full inclusion and equality for every resident of our city, now therefore be resolved, the city of Roseville declares June 2025 to be LGBTQIA plus Pride Month in the city of Roseville. So moved. Second. It's been moved by council member Grath, seconded by council member Stron to approve that proclamation on Pride Month. Is there discussion on the motion? I just say, you know, I'm very pleased with the steps that Roseville has taken to be an inclusive community and this is one of those things that they've done and I know many members of the community compliment me on all the work that the council and the city has done on this these issues. Additional discussion on the motion. Uh hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero and is approved. The second uh proclamation this evening is in relation to gun violence awareness day and month uh and reads as follows. Whereas Americans are on average 26 times more likely to die by gun homicide than people in other highincome countries. And whereas according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gun violence kills 125 Americans and injures more than 200 every day. Each year, more than 18,000 people in the United States die from gun homicides. And whereas in 2023, firearms were the leading cause of death of children under age 18 in the United States, taking the lives of 4,455 young people. And whereas gun violence disproportionately impacts black, indigenous, and people of color. Black youth are 18 times more likely to die uh than white children uh by gun violence. Hispanic and indigenous people also die by gun violence at twice the rate of white people. And whereas in Minnesota there are on average 527 gunrelated deaths and 1,174 non-fatal injuries each year. This includes 143 homicides and 583 injuries from assaults with guns. And whereas Roseville is not immune to gun violence, including on April 5th, 2022 when an individual recklessly fired shots on West Lake Aaso Boulevard, hitting homes and cars and seriously injuring Roseville police officer Ryan Dubury. And whereas Roseville and cities across the country are working to end gun violence with evidence-based solutions, including integration of social services and mental health support into the public safety work. Uh holding gun turn-in events for community members to dispose of unwanted guns and providing gun locks free of charge to allow residents to better secure their guns in their homes. And whereas protecting public safety is one of the city's most important responsibilities. And whereas upholding Second Amendment rights can and should go hand in hand with the promoting safe and responsible gun ownership and use, including limited gun access for people with dangerous histories. Now, therefore, be resolved that the city of Roseville renews its commitment to ending gun violence. And we pledge to do all we can to keep guns out of the wrong hands and encourage safe, responsible gun ownership to help keep our community safe. Be it further resolved, the city of Roseville declares the month of June, 2025 to be National Gun Violence Awareness Month and recognizes June 6th, 2025 as National Gun Violence Awareness Day. We encourage all residents to support efforts to prevent the tragic effects of gun violence. So moved. Second. Right. It's been moved by Council Member Straw, seconded by Council Member Grath. Uh discussion on that motion. I'd like to just thank the people who are here tonight who worked really hard to make sure we continue to acknowledge this and who show up at so many of our events, including um making sure that youth are educated and securing gun storage, preventing unintentional shootings, youth suicides and school shootings, and just with a goal of really keeping that aspect out of our um everyday occurrence and really un bringing that to the force. So, I appreciate um those who work on this and uh thank you for bringing this forward. Again, I I believe it really shows our commitment and we continue to show that in many ways as a city and I'm very proud to say that um I'm part of that. Other discussion on the motion? I would just note as an example of that at the community and bloom event in McCarron's Lake Park this weekend, we did have Russell police there who were uh providing free gun locks. Uh and also there was another organization that was there um a volunteer organization that helps educate people about gun safety in the community also providing uh free gun locks as well. And so that was a great opportunity especially uh in a community uh that is disproportionately poor uh and and also includes a lot of uh new immigrants to our our country uh and who can tend to be victims of crime and who can tend to be exploited and and as a result get into gun violence. And so I thought that was a a great opportunity to really put as council member Strong was saying our money where our mouth is in this regard. So just wanted to note that. Uh with that we've got the motion before us to approve this uh proclamation. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero. And that proclamation is approved. That then brings us uh to our business items this evening. We have a number of business items that are public hearings. And our first one uh is a public hearing related to certifying unpaid utility charges to the county uh property taxes. Uh and I'll turn over to Mr. Trean to introduce this item for our consideration this evening. Thank you uh Mr. Mayor, mayor and councel, as you mentioned, this is a night to conduct a public hearing to certify the unpaid utility charges and other charges to the property tax roles. As the council knows, on a quarterly basis, we do certify to the county any unpaid false alarm bills, water, sewer, and other charges that are in excess of 90 days uh on the following year's property taxes. We do notify uh the folks of their delinquency. Uh talk about the hearing tonight to contest that and also give a date uh in this case of May 9th where they could pay that delinquency and would not show up on the sales tax. So, every person on the list property tax, I'm sorry. Yeah, on the property tax. You got sales tax on liberty. Yeah. I don't know where that came from. On the property tax. Um and so, uh tonight we're asking for the council to consider adoption of a resolution that lists all the folks that are uh in the properties that are delinquent, but this is an opportunity for a public hearing when folks can come forward and ask questions or contest uh that delinquency. So, we'll turn it over to you, but we are asking for approval of that resolution that's included as attachment one. All right. Thank you, Mr. Treasant. And I just wanted to clarify the resolution and the list uh is a list of addresses and properties, not a list of individuals by name. Um just in case anyone's concerned about that. Um the other thing I would note is that I believe notice has been provided to everybody who appears on the list or to the properties. Okay. So they've had uh notice that this is the hearing this evening. Uh so we'll go ahead and open the public hearing then. Once again, this is on the uh uh certifying the list of delinquent utility and other fees uh to the county for collection with property taxes. Uh and we'll open up the public hearing. If anybody is here to speak to this item, we can go through the uh procedures for public hearings. Is anyone here to speak to the proposal to certify these unpaid utility charges uh to the Ramsey County for tax collection? Does not appear to be the case. One more opportunity. All right. Uh with that, we'll close the public hearing then and move to council consideration. Uh we have the uh resolution and the list attachment uh included with us with the packet materials. Uh the resolution is attachment one. Uh is there a motion with respect to that resolution? So move second. I will say moved by council member Grath, seconded by council member Stron. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Grath, I had one question. Um when we place these on the taxes, is there some sort of a fee or penalty? Yes. Uh if you look on attachment two, you'll notice that there is um a $25 fee in each one. So yeah. So each of these are getting charged a $25 fee. That's something new that we haven't done in the past, right? And it does take staff time and it does. Thanks, Council Member Straw. Do we know um some of the folks on here are regularly on here? Do we know if they ever pay? They pay when they pay their taxes. Yes. Some some properties seem to do that on a pretty regular basis. Um, so you see the same properties on um there's an occasional one that for whatever reason forgot or they're in transition that happens but u we do have some regulars that are on there as you can see. So but they do pay that but because of their tax uh collections they eventually do have to pay they eventually do. Uh I did note just because I was curious in a couple of these properties that are on here are also behind in their taxes to the county. So that can happen as well, but others seem to pay up every year and settle at the annually and pay their taxes. And at any point, if they were behind on their taxes, would we be able to impact their water? So if they we have a policy, and I'm trying to remember off the top of my head, it's like three successive quarters. If they're a non-residential property, uh we do u contact them and we can turn off the water. We've never done that. We have um sent letters in the past and those bills get paid pretty quickly after that. Great. Right. Uh and just also once these are certified because we do it on a quarterly basis and county property taxes are collected in on a different schedule, do um property owners have the ability to to settle that assessment prior to their property tax bill being due? I I'm not quite sure. Um I suppose the county would take um um back taxes in any point u but there's still the penalties that are charged on that. So in theory I think yes. Um we did this in 2010 on a quarterly basis. It's just property sell things aren't added to the end of the year. You may have a new owner stuck with that is not known on in the record. So we try to make sure it's up to date to deal with those transactions. But um as far as I know I think they can probably pay at any time. Right. Thank you. Is there any other uh questions about the or excuse me discussion? We do have the resolution uh motion before us. So uh properly by way of uh discussion right hearing none. All those in favor of the resolution signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero and is approved. Those uh back charges will be or uh those unpaid bills will be certified then to the county. With that, that brings us to um another uh uh item related to uh unfinished business, you might say. We have uh a request to to consider performing an abatement for unresolved code violations at a property at 2941 Victoria Street North. Uh and we have our codes enforcement officer, uh Dave England, with us this evening to introduce this item for our consideration. Welcome, Mr. England. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. As noted and stated, this is a request to perform an abatement of several um violations of city code. Um basically we started out we had an unsafe structure that was erected on this property and um that has been taken down um since we delivered the council notification which tends to get some cooperation. Um, but we have not, um, I don't know if this is on. Um, we have not gotten full compliance. We still have an unlicensed inoperable vehicle, uh, on an improved surface on the property. Yeah, you may have to slide the microphone slightly. I'm sorry, I was looking at that one. Oh, it's not up on the main screen. N or on our monitors. There we go. There it is. All right. So, this is uh, as of about 4:30 today, this is the unlicensed, inoperable vehicle. Um, we still have numerous items stored outside and the uh structure that was there appears to be at the rear of the vehicle now. Um, we've been working with this property owner since last September. Um, he's been very semi communicative um and cooperative. And like I stated that uh once we gave the council notification to the property owner, we've seen some progress, but we are still uh requesting approval to conduct an abatement to remove the vehicle and remove the items that are stored outside and um invoice the property owner for those charges and if they don't pay, we would assess it to the taxes as well. Um I did not see the property owner here, but I don't know if there's a property representative right with us tonight. Is there a representative of the property on Victoria Street that's subject of this requested abatement? Doesn't appear to be the case this evening. Right. Uh I didn't want to interrupt. Is that the end of the presentation? It's it's um it's pretty straightforward. Um but if there's questions, I can try and answer them. Right. Very good. Are there questions from the council? Um, in terms of the uh the items that are stored outside, uh, does the city usually put those in storage when they're collected or is that something that they are disposed of? They are disposed of. Since they are stored outside, they are considered uh, junk. Okay. So, that is important for the property owner to be aware of and we've we've discussed that with him numerous times. Very good. Uh, other questions from the council? Right. Uh, is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this uh requested uh city abatement of this nuisance ongoing at this property on Victoria Street? Anyone from the public wish to speak to this item? All right. Uh, seeing no one, then uh we'll close the opportunity for public comment. We'll move to council consideration. Uh we have the requested action which is a motion to direct the community development staff to abate the remaining public nuisance violations on the property um including the towing of the vehicle and the uh removal of the uh outside stored materials and items. So moved. Second. All right. That is moved by council member Stron. Second by council member Bower. Discussion on the motion. Uh council member Straw is the maker of the motion. Well, I believe that at seven months or so here, we have been exceptionally uh patient and um you know, the goal is never to see someone's stuff be tossed in the trash, but um this has been a lot of time and they've afforded a lot of uh staff energy to get us to this point. And I think if we have indicated that this is the next path, um this is what we need to be doing at this time. Right. Other discussion on the motion council member Bowers is the secondary. No, I would agree with that that I do appreciate the city giving a large amount of time to resolve these things. Fortunately, in some cases, time is not um the issue. All right. Other discussion on the motion hearing? None. Once again, we have the motion before us to authorize the uh city abatement of the nuisance violations remaining on the property at 2941 Victoria Street North in Roseville. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. That passes unanimously and that abatement is authorized. Thank you, Mr. England. That then brings us to a series of uh hearings regarding uh presumptive penalties on uh violations of our alcohol and tobacco uh codes uh and actually state law serving to uh minors. Uh and we'll go through them in turn. We have with us this evening our deputy uh police chief uh Joe Adams here to uh introduce each of these uh and bring us through the process on these various violations. Chief, welcome. Mayor, members of the council, each year, the Roseville Police Department conducts two alcohol compliance checks of all alcohol sale license holders. This year, the first round of checks were completed on March 29th with a total of four failures. For 2025, all businesses with the city liquor license were provided a letter advising them that the city would be conducting all call compliance checks. Due to the total number of failures, I'll provide a brief summary of each incident followed by staff recommendations. Um, if present, we can then allow an opportunity for the businesses to address the council before moving on to the next one. With that, the the first is Lacita on our on our agenda. And on the date of March 29th, our compliance checker went to Lacita to conduct a compliance check. While there, the checker sat at the bar and ordered a beer. An employee then checked identification. However, they proceeded to serve the alcohol to our checker. The server was issued an administrative citation, which has since been paid. Management later provided the necessary training documentation to PD staff. This is Lacasita's second violation in 36 months with the first occurring on August 12th of 2023. It's staff's recommendation for council to issue and administer the presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for on sale license holders for a second violation, which is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 in a five-day liquor license suspension. All right. Uh, thank you, Chief. Is there a representative or representatives from Alaka here this evening who wish to speak to this? It does not appear to be the case. Uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to the uh issuance of the presumptive penalty for Lacita for their second violation within 36 months? Also does not appear to be the case. Uh why don't we go ahead and proceed to consideration of this item? Uh councel, is there a motion? So moved. Second. All right. It's been moved by Council Member Grath, seconded by Council Member uh Stron to uh authorize the uh presumptive penalty, which once again for the second violation in 36 months is a $2,000 fine and a 5-day license suspension. Uh discussion on the motion. Uh Council Member Bower, uh just point out uh for those that are maybe new to listening to this uh to note that uh can you explain the under the ID that's used is a standard ID that's not a fake ID or something tricked. Can you expand a little bit that on that? Absolutely. Thanks, Council Member Bower. So, uh, some years ago, the the state of Minnesota actually took great steps to make sure that, um, checking identification has become a little easier for those as math understandably can get a little bit difficult. Some things that they've done for anybody under 21 is as opposed to a horizontal uh, ID, it's now vertical. Uh, so that's the first tell. Uh obviously it has the date on it as well and under it it says under 21. Uh loud and clear. Uh the checker who goes into the business does not utilize a fake ID. In fact, prior to um beginning the compliance checks, they provide the identification to the officers that are accompanying them, which is photocopied and uploaded into our our um records management system. They're also checked just to make sure that there isn't any kind of fake ID or any extra cash or anything like that on them. So there there is a uh process in place with some redundancy there. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Uh Council Member Agraph. And also I I heard you say that about two weeks before or approximately we send a letter out to notify all the businesses that there will be a check checker coming out. So they are it shouldn't be a surprise to them. Is that correct? That's correct. Council member Graph. So for the alcohol and later we'll speak of tobacco. There is a letter that goes out to all license holders for both alcohol and tobacco letting them know that we'll be conducting two um compliance checks throughout the year. So that is correct. Can I have one more? Sure. And then as far as training goes, what is the requirement for trainer for the servers to be trained? What's the proper policy? So through the city of Roso and they apply for the application, there's a um I forget the exact name of it, but new server training. And in that it does give like a pointer system of things to look at. The city provides its own training, but also on there it also identifies several additional steps that these businesses can take to further train their employees um which is spelled out on there. And then um we also provide for them to use if they'd like a signature line for each one of their employees that comes. That is a lot of times a sticking point for us, however, is we don't check for the training until after the failure. And there are some businesses that lapse or don't train new employees. Um so it is a a process that is imperfect at times. Um but the city definitely provides um the how-to, if you will, during the uh application and each license holder has to renew that annually and provides new staff along with current staff annual training for all call sales. Thank you. Right, Council Member Strod. I just wanted to also add that in the report at least for this particular business it does indicate that the manager um did acknowledge receipt of alco alcoholic compliance um check um you know kind of announcement. So in most of these that is the case. They actually acknowledge at the time yes we received it. So, um it's not just, hey, you should have seen this, but they are acknowledging at the time that they did receive it and acknowledging that it still happened. So, correct, Council Member Strong. And what we'll see a lot of times, and it doesn't always get noted in the report, but sometimes our letter will even be like tacked to where they're ordering it. Like they'll see it. Um, as you'll if some of the the representatives speak today, I think it's a a frustration of the management. it's uh that their employees are are letting that slip through the cracks with all the redundancy that's available to them nowadays. All right. Once again, we do have the motion before us uh to authorize the issuance of the presumptive penalty in the case of Lacita. Uh if there's if there's no additional discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. That uh um presumptive penalty is authorized. Chief, as to the next case, on March 29th, our compliance checker went to Centro to conduct a compliance check. While there, the checker sat at the bar and ordered an alcoholic too Chico. An employee then checked identification. However, they proceeded to serve the alcohol to our checker. The server was issued an administrative citation, which has since been paid. Management later provided the necessary training documentation to PD staff. This is Centro's first violation in 36 months. It's staff's recommendation for council to issue and administer the presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for on sale license holders for a first violation, which is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 and a one-day liquor license suspension. All right. Thank you, Chief. Uh, is there a representative or representatives from Central this evening who wish to speak to this? Feel free to come up and have a seat at the microphone. I may have to pull up another chair if we have more than one person. Hi, council members. Hello. Welcome, mayor. Feel free to call the chair. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Of course. All right. Well, thank you for having us. It is um very unfortunate that we're sitting here, especially as new members of the Roseville community, and we very much love being members and of the Roseville community. Um and I wanted to be here to provide any um answer any questions if you have further questions beyond uh what we are to present and what officer is to present. But um we acknowledge the violation and definitely um do not take this lightly and uh we believe we have a very very strong uh alcohol compliance training program and we've sent documentation and I have the team to back that up as well. um fully um accept the the punishment, but really I think a lot of it comes down to a really bad decision by a really great employee who has had years of bartending experience and was on his way out the door and really made a a really bad decision in the moment and it affects us all and that's part of owning a business and we accept that. Um yeah, what else? I guess whatever questions you might have Right. I was just going to note that yeah, if you could introduce yourself. I'm Jamie Olsson, owner of Centro. Um, and we did receive the letter probably two weeks we after um the check. We didn't have it in hand. And this is because of um our mail policy. It goes to the top. So, people at the store level aren't opening the mail. Um, and that sometimes causes a delay. We have since remedy remedied that. If it looks serious, they're instructed to open it. Um, but like a digital email, I guess, notification would probably get be noticed if if that's possible. Um, and either way, I do stand by our train behind our training program and letter or not, like our staff is uh is trained. It doesn't you're serious about it every day. It doesn't matter if you get a letter or not. So, yeah. Cody Cody Webster, I'm the director of operations with the company. Um, kind of reerate to what Jamie said, um, we go through ALE training twice a year. So, we go above and beyond because we have multiple locations and businesses. We do run ALE training, which is alcohol training at multiple locations across the year to capture those new employees. And we do as much as we can try to reup before that 12-year um, expiration date on this. again, um, bad decision, bad time, accountability on that, but really I think an outlier. Um, and in and what happened. I just want to offer reassurance to the the city and to all of you that we do do our best and we will continue to do our best and I hope this doesn't reflect too poorly on our our business and our operation. All right. Well, we appreciate you being here this evening and talking about your um your process. Um, and I I would note that we do have uh folks who come occasionally because they've um had that bad bad timing, bad decision- making uh and then don't uh come back before the council in this type of situation. So, uh you know, that is certainly something that that uh is is probably the norm uh in most cases, but we do have a couple as you've not seen already, we do have sometimes folks that that end up getting multiple violations within a a three-year period. And I think the thing we look at as a council is, you know, do we see that that the sort of the message has gotten through as a result of the first uh unfortunate occurrence. Uh and if we don't see you ever come back here, that's all right. We we're okay with that. So, all right. Uh other questions from council members or feedback. Just that I'm glad you're doing your training and taking that seriously. I appreciate it. Customer when I my husband and I were there a few months ago, I actually acknowledged, hey, great job. Everyone I can see here is checking IDs and I think it was the next night. I looked at it um the date and I think it was the next night that the violation occurred. So, um, it only takes one. And so, I appreciate your, um, you're taking ownership and your continued, um, diligence. And I I think that's really an important piece to consider in all of this for any of these businesses where it only takes once or twice, but um, we're really trying to protect the public and we take our job and that seriously, and thank you for taking your end of that. Um, upholding that as well. Thank you. Right. Uh, is there any Let's see. We do have a request to authorize the presumptive penalty. Is there a motion from the council in that regard? So moved. Second. All right. It's been moved by council member Strong, seconded by council member Grath uh to authorize the issuance of the presumptive penalty. I should have checked. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak uh to this item this evening? It's not appear to be the case. Uh we've got the motion before us then. Uh any discussion on the motion? just would add one thing because it does go up as the um if you if you do have repeat violation yeah let's hope it doesn't happen for at least three years or ever um or ever preferably preferably and I do want to note this is our first violation with any of our restaurants in seven years so all right um well with that and the only other thing I will add is I know that occasionally I go to an establishment who actually does a electronic check of IDs and I don't know what the technology involved or the cost involved in that is but it seems to be more likely to be foolproof if used. Um so I don't like I said I I don't want to tell people how to run their businesses or how that affects people's business plans but uh it does seem to provide another level of of safety in terms of trying not to have those those things go wrong. But uh just putting that out there. We do have the motion before us in regard to the uh presumptive penalty for central. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously and that penalty is authorized. Thank you again for being here. Hey, Chief Adams. The uh next uh case is in relation to uh Shininoa, right? Our compliance checker went to Shinwa Korean Steakhouse to conduct a compliance check while there. The checker sat at the bar and ordered a beer. An employee then checked identification. However, they proceeded to serve the alcohol to our checker. The server was issued an administrative citation which has since been paid. Uh management later provided necessary training documentation documentation to PD staff. Um however, we did have to follow up. The community action team went and spoke with them last week. Uh this is Shinwa's first violation in 36 months. Um it should however be noted that this is same ownership operates Bonchan which is the same strip mall and failed in the all call compliance check on March 23rd of 2024. The presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for on sale license holders for the first violation is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 and a one-day liquor license suspension. All right. Thank you, Chief. Uh and I believe uh Mr. Mr. Charge, you had something to add to that? Yeah, Deputy Chief Adams mentioned it. So, uh, after a question from Council Member Strong and looking deeper into it, um, the owner of, um, Bonchan and Shininoa are the same person even though they operate under different business entities apparently. Um, and that does afford the opportunity if the council wants to to consider uh to go upward on the presumptive penalty knowing it's the same owner. They're different operations, but the same uh owner. Um, as Shininoa is in front of you tonight, uh, you would, uh, need to consider an upward penalty for Shininoa uh, more than, uh, the first time violation. So, um, that's something to consider. If that's a path you want to go down, the suggestion is that we table action tonight so we can properly notify Shinwa that we are considering um, a departure, an upward departure of the penalty uh, for them to be able to be here and um, discuss and contest that with us. Um, so that's the summary that I got from the attorney and I'll turn it over to city attorney if I'm missing any things as part of that summary. Mayor Row and council members, he said it right. And the key is the opportunity for due process, right? The key is that they they have they need to have the opportunity to understand that you're considering this upward departure and the basis for it and be able to respond to that. Right. Right. Um, and I did have a question too. Um under our code language itself um a single owner can have two licenses, two different licenses and I don't believe that we consider a second violation by the same owner with a different license as automatically requiring the presumptive second violation penalty as I understand it. I just wanted to clarify that that's correct. do license individual businesses and so it's the business itself that license itself that is what your penalties are based on. Um but I think that your code anticipates that something like this might happen that they would have other violations in other businesses and that you would be able to take those into consideration when imposing a penalty. Right. Thank you for clarifying that. Uh, Council Member Strong, not sure who this would question be directed at, but do we know if any other businesses in Roseville with liquor licenses share ownership? Uh, Council Member Strong, I did not do a in-depth dive in on all the different licenses, and we can certainly do that, but I'm not aware of any other ones. Um the only exception is I'm just trying to think out loud if there's any um restaurants for perhaps that have multiple chains here in Roseville that it might be under the same corporate ownership. So I don't want to say absolutely not. I would have to do some more further research, but none that popped to mind. Okay. And are we just um is this corporate ownership or individual ownership? How is that determined? Maybe that's a you question. Um, Council Member Strong, I reviewed the application materials for both licenses and um, the owner is listed as an individual. It's the same person, the same address, the same email, all of the same information. So, it appears to be the same individual. Okay. Thank you. And then I just also wondered if we needed to clarify um, do we need to clarify any of this information? Is this provided to the applicant um the city code in completion of 302.15 where they would have notification or they would know that there was the possibility of an upward deviation um with this possibility. That's the reason that I'm recommending you table this so that the staff can make that notification. Tell them the council will be considering this on this date. they may consider departing upward from the presumptive penalty and give them the opport and and tell them because we believe that you are under common ownership with this other business who had this other violation and then they can come back before you and contest any of the details that might lead to that upper upward penalty. Okay. Thank you. So in other words, the notification of this action this evening does not include the sort of the potential for upward or explicitly state that there is the potential for that. Is that it does not correct. Okay. is it is just for the single violations. If there's no interest in going upward departure, you could proceed with business. But if you do want to explore that, then the recommendation is to table it so we can do the proper notification and then deal with it at a future meeting. Right. And just an example, in a past case, I believe we did have uh one or two instances over the years where um we the council considered multiple violations in the uh action on a request for a renewal of a license and we did the same thing. We tabled action on that request for a renewal uh so that we could provide the notice of the potential for a council action different than approving the renewal. Uh so that's sort of the the precedent I guess that we have in our organization as well in terms of that. All right. I do want to check if there is a representative uh from Shininoa here this evening just to be sure. Doesn't appear to be the case. So all the more reason we need to if we're going to consider an upward um uh deviation that we would want to provide that do do that notification. Council member Strong. I just wanted to add that um it just was a recollection and a simple Google search on my part that you know when this um owner came forward they mentioned that they were related. you know, I'm not keeping track of these items. And my goal isn't really to cause an undue hardship, but I also want to be fair to owners who um who have an entity that um you know, it doesn't seem fair if one owner gets multiple tries to get to that same place. So, as we're looking and we're um putting out the um penalty for second offenses on these type of things and um somebody is able to have a first violation, even though they're they share a wall with the other entity, I just want to make sure that we're taking into consideration the other owners um who who are doing it and who are actually having to pay that um graduated as as uh council member Grath mentioned. a penalty for having a second violation. So, while it's not my intention to um to compound on this situation, I do think that we should at least um maybe have further discussion about it. I I think it and then if not this time maybe rethink our our ordinance on how we would address that in other businesses moving forward so that people would um have that in mind if they opened multiple uh small businesses in a short you know on a small area was an example they have like three in Minneapolis so if they were to have three different violations in Minneapolis what would that mean so I I just think we maybe it's a situation that's not fully considered in uh our application materials or what we've presented to these this single owner in the past. Right. So, I guess the the maybe the thresh threshold question for the council on this one is does the council uh want to uh consider the presumptive penalty as outlined in the code or deviate from that? If the council wishes to deviate, then it would be appropriate at that point to do a motion to table. Um what's the sense of the council in that regard? I would sort of like to address this now uh but also look at it as an educational component to this because it is new information to me. I'm just thinking if you are a manager in one business, yes, you're connected with the overall but but they might be handled somewhat differently. They might be doing their training together, but they might not be. Um, so I would like more discussion about it before we pass a higher penalty on these people right now. I would to go with the standard. I see. Okay. Uh, council member Bower, I'd welcome further discussion just to understand more about uh questions related to our application process being able to, you know, is that an individual that needs to be named or is it a separate entity? Um also the question of like who actually when we are handing out these um penalties where are they addressed to? Is it to the business entity or is it to the individual? I think that's important. I think building on what council member um Gra is stating you know the separation is important. The structures are you know multiple businesses need to be structured differently. Um very much together and very much separate. I think that needs to be factored. to have that further discussion. I'm reading paper if you will. Okay. So, I I I wasn't sure that I would second the motion to table. There wasn't a motion to table. I I would rule that there was not a motion to table. Um I just want to clarify too because my sense from council member Grath was uh not necessarily to table, but to potentially take action this evening on what was before the council. So, I just want to make sure that I understood that either correctly or that is correctly. I I felt like we should address this but also we should pursue this either in a council discussion later on. Okay. So more discussion on a policy but not on the specific case and that's where I heard definitely uh more of you know maybe maybe policy discussion but actually tableabling the case to have that that further discussion. Um my motivation for that is to have the discussion that council member Prof wants and maybe prior to then having bringing this then forward afterwards. Right. And certainly and and I'm I'm glad that you clarified that at the end of your comments and again here uh because certainly uh I think having that discussion with this particular case present if that's part of understanding more about this particular uh owner's operations we can't do that with them not here this evening. So certainly I think that that would that would tend to lend itself to the tableabling. Um, I think that, um, um, you know, certainly I don't know yet that I might look differently at how we have our code written because I think our code is written around the license holder and not necessarily, you know, if they happen to be multiple an owner of multiple entities. Um but I do if if the council wishes to have more discussion about how this particular case works in terms of how this particular business and ownership functions and if that might impact the decision on the case as to whether to escalate or not. Certainly the council has the option if this is tabled to not escalate. That is legitimately still one of the outcomes that could happen even if we do table this. Um, so I'm I'm trying not to have the motion to table yet before us because we can't have any further discussion. I'm trying to sus out a couple of things. Uh, council member Bower. Uh, going back more a little bit more in my comments. Um, even if we have the discussion about, you know, adjustments to this policy, um, for that, we would have to have a council action for that to take effect to then change, you know, for some reason we want to change this and to have that be involved with this current situation that's in front of us. Um I think that's a bit much to ask in just you know in one meeting. So for that reason I am fine separating out these two having the conversation about maybe adjusting this in the future more adding more clarification to the city code and then still having this. So I'm very much open to what we decided to do here today. Yet my comments about tableling I think was just misstatement. Oh okay. All right. Uh, council member Strong, I I would be open to furthering the discussion, not to necessarily presumptively accelerate the fines, but I would want to make sure that I think that first question I had about knowing if other business licenses were shared across ownership. I wouldn't want to create a situation where only one owner is penalized in this situation. You know, I think it would be I I don't think that's a good precedent to set that only one organization if we're doing it for one group, we're doing it for another. So, I guess I would want that additional information in order to make a fair assessment of and I don't know, you know, maybe we won't know that at this point, but I think furthering that conversation is important. And quite honestly, I I would also appreciate council member Schroeder's um voice in this particular as we look at anything that may or may not change moving forward. I think it it would u be helpful to have the whole council and all of our perspectives because I think we each bring a different um vision to that and I think that's what makes our work more um more helpful for the community. Right. I I do want to be clear too, we we have a specific case before us of a violation. We have the presumptive penalty in code uh before us. Um certainly we can have the policy discussion at any time about how we might want to adjust or change our code. Um I think I was hearing from council member Stron that you would like to have some of the information about other license holders and potentially multiple owners having m multiple licenses um as part of your consideration of this case. I believe that's what I heard that it wasn't no it wasn't just for the policy general policy discussion it was related to the discussion of this case or the consideration of a possible escalation of the penalty in this case I think in this situation um unless we had some clarity around how our application process is and that we are aware that the owner who share who has multiple entities is aware that this um acceleration of penalty ities across entities is a possibility. I think we'd probably have to have a or a ordinance change or or tightening up with a date from which that is effective. I don't know coun Mr. Tre. Mr. Tre. Uh so you know these are two separate issues. I just want to be very clear. If you table the action to consider the upward penalty, we'll do the notice. They will have to come forward. You'll have to consider the facts of the particular matter. if we want to look at changing the ordinance and I'm not sure how much we are able to do that but if we come back and do that regardless of what you decide with an amendment to the ordinance you can't apply that retroactively right to the thing so there really are two separate things so we can certainly schedule a future discussion on on this um but I think the other question in front of you tonight should be the one that you should be really focused on right so that and that's that's the good very good point so the as our code is written the council always has the ability to deviate up or down from on the presumptive penalty on the basis of findings that the council has. Um so I guess the question really before us this evening is do we want to look to the possibility of deviating in this case up or down presumably up I guess um or are we prepared to take action on the penalty as it is if we don't wish to consider deviating upward or downward in this case uh then we have the action requested before us. we could still, as Mr. Trean mentioned, have the policy discussion as a follow-up and relate it to our code going forward. Um, but if we if we feel that we need to have a discussion as a council about the potential of deviating in this case and it's once again, it's discretionary on the part of the council. We choose to deviate and we choose why we want to deviate. Obviously, we have to provide findings as to that as to that reasoning. Uh but you know that is that is our discretion with any uh violation of our alcohol serving and and um lency code uh that we have and then we as I mentioned there was a there was another case where we consider that in respect to renewal of a license. I believe uh our attorney I just want to give you one point of clarity to maybe help with this discussion a little bit. Your ability to deviate doesn't always require you to table the item and reconsider at a second meeting. The reason that's required here is because the lency couldn't have known that this dual license would be part of your consideration. But for example, if you read a police report and and and the it's alarming and just on the face of the report the information that they knew would be considered, you decided to deviate upward or downward. That's perfectly fine for you to do. the reason for this extra notice is because we'd be bringing in this extra information that they should have a right to address. I just wanted to give you that clarity. Okay. Thank you for that clarity. I appreciate that. Council member Power, I'd like to make a motion to administer the penalty as stated uh in the packet which is uh for a first time violation. I will second that. It's been moved by Council Member Bar, second by Council Member Grath to approve the presumptive penalty in this case. uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion uh council B. Well, I think the discussion here was good and I think we it's a discussion that we should have in the larger context. I think one of the nice things that we do here as a council as we had with the prior code violation is to not surprise businesses and residents and my concern is with moving this upwards uh is to me that feels a little bit of a surprise even though it is within our city code. I'd much rather have that uh have a discussion maybe make that more clear and so going forward in situations like this it'll be known to lences those that both are current lenses and those that are applying for a liquor license to know that this situation exists. I believe there's also some edge cases with, you know, ownership outside of Roseville and other things that need to be further discussed. But in this case, um I don't believe that um we should continue with how we've handled these things in the future. And I do look forward to that future conversation uh about what to do in situations with licenses that have multiple licenses. Right. And as the secondary, council member Grahoff, well, I want to thank council member Strong for bringing this up because I think it is a really important discussion for us to have that we hadn't really talked about in previous ones. So, I'm glad we're doing that. I do think we should just go ahead with this one. Um, but I do want to there's an educational part to this. We probably have to put something obviously notify everybody in the city who owns liquor licenses so they are understand what the situation is and then in the future we would need to address it ahead of time so that they would be notified and could come and speak to it. I'm looking forward to the future discussion. Other discussion on the motion council. Um I think it comes down to what I've mentioned in the past. I don't feel right about um moving that penalty up unless we have some um certainty that there aren't other businesses that would have been in the same situation that we haven't known and so we have let them go by and so like I said I would welcome the opportunity in the future outside of this to discuss that and and kind of clarify that so that people know. Um, but I I think, you know, we do need to kind of look at making sure that it applies the same to each business and they know what the penalty um that the presumptive penalty how it would be ch could be changed. Again, I wouldn't want it just to be because I felt like it um it it should be um equitably applied. Right. And I would just note that I think that the timing is such that we should be able to have something in place. I would think uh before the next round of renewals and and you know and license applications hopefully uh start kind of heating up at the end of the year. So I think the timing works out. I'm supportive of the motion to administer the presumptive penalty in this case. Um, I think the council historically has um has not taken the notion of of um deviating upward on penalties lightly. Um even when there may appear to be pretty strong evidence. I think the council has been uh in prior iterations of the council have been, you know, concerned about about that. And so I think that we've tried to use that responsibility responsibly and and I appreciate the conversation we've had this evening. Uh with that we have the motion before us to authorize the administration of the presumptive penalty for shininoa for a first violation within 36 months. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously and that uh penalty is authorized. That brings us then to our fourth case which is for game center. And I turn it over again to Chief Adams. Thank you. Our compliance checker went to Game Center to conduct a compliance check. While there, the checker ordered an alcoholic beverage. An employee then checked identification. However, they proceeded to serve the alcohol to our checker. The server was issued administrative citation which has been paid. Uh management also provided the necessary training documentation. This is their first violation in 36 months. It staff's recommendation for council to issue and administer the presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for on sale license holders for a first violation, which is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 and a one-day liquor license suspension. All right. Thank you, Chief. Other questions uh for staff on this particular case? I had a question. Council Gra. So, I was reading through and it says that the drink was served, but then the server said they wanted to take the drink back once he realized the mistake. Is there any other information to add to that part of the conversation? Thank you, Council Member Gra. And so, that does happen on occasion. It did happen in this case. I don't have additional information on that, but that is not uncommon for them to serve the alcohol and then maybe have second guess or second thoughts. Um the stance on this is that the alcohol has been served to the to the minor in this case or in that indiv. Um it's not like they held on to it, I guess, for lack of better cause. Okay. Thanks. Right. Uh is there a representative from Game Center here who wishes to speak to this this evening? We just ask that you introduce yourself and your role with the organization. Um I am Josiah Northy. I am a lead or manager at Game Center. The CEO intended to be here but thought the date was the 16th. Um so he left yesterday. Uh so I will be representing. Um as far as I even as a manager was aware, I I just found out today that we were supposed to receive mail. Um no one told any of us in advance. uh that there was mail saying there was going to be a check as far as I can recall. Um everybody has their licenses um up to date and uh we've taken measures to prevent this in the future. We've put right next to the register there's uh the date for you know 2004 plus the current day to make sure that people know exactly what day is um available to be served on the licenses. Right. questions for uh the representative from game center. And with that, do you have the notice that the license is the other way when they're under 20 pictures of sample licenses? Uh yes, we will um I think it's a good idea because we're here to tell you how to write, but it is kind of an obvious thing when you open a license one way compared to the other. Yeah, it should click. But I understand everyone's busy in Yeah. And we do get um we have it's more of a game space than a serving space really. So we have some like nationwide events that happen. So we get people from other states and stuff and sometimes the licenses just look different anyways. Oh, I see. So it's not necessarily some other places. Um not fail proofs. Doesn't technically work for all of them, but All right. Um other questions for the representative. Well, thank you for being here this evening. We appreciate that. And wish we would have seen the uh the the higher up, but uh we understand those things happen. Uh and you're you're representing the organization admirably uh in that uh that filling pinch hitting raw. Yes. Uh with that, I'll just check is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? Does not appear to be the case. Uh we've got the request before us to issue the presumptive penalty for first violation within 36 months to game center uh which is the one day suspension of the $2,000 fine. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. Right. It's been moved by council member Grath, second by council member Stron. Uh discussion on the motion. No. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. That passes unanimously. That author that per uh penalty is authorized. And I just want to note that it's it's it's you know something to note as an organization when you're uh dealing with a a public that could be from all across the country. That that probably puts extra pressure on the the notion of the training and and how effective it is. And and you know once again we don't want to tell you how to do your business but we have had people come up here before uh and say we're we're rethinking our model because you know the serving of the alcohol and the risk associated with it just may not match up. Once again not telling you how to do anything and we certainly wish you uh you know all success in whatever uh model you wish to pursue and uh just want to make sure that our licenses are responsible uh for service to uh you know adults and not minors. Yeah. Thank you. All right. I believe we had the vote on that one. So, it's been pro approved. Thank you again. Uh, that brings us then to our next case, uh, which is, uh, now we switch to tobacco cases and we have noble tobacco next. And I'll turn over once again to Chief Adams. Thanks, Mayor. Uh, a couple things to note for for the tobacco. We also sent a letter um to our tobacco license holders in relation to this. Um, I'll be speaking about two today. However, I do want to note um, due to a notification error, there will be a third that I'll bring uh, forward to council at a later date. Uh but the two in front of you are the two that we're going to speak of today. And additionally um I believe for the first time the city's taken advantage of a state grant where we are going to do an additional round coming up here of tobacco compliance checks. However, that's for educational purposes only. Um so that will not be brought in front of council, but that's something that the state offers in a grant that we applied for and received. Um so we'll be doing an additional round. So this will be our first time doing a funded um educational round of tobacco compliance checks. So, I'm looking forward to that as well. As as stated, uh, mayor, um, our compliance checker on the same date, which I believe is March 29th, went to all tobacco license holders as well. Uh, on that day, our checker went to Noble Tobacco to conduct a tobacco compliance check. While there, the checker ordered a pack of cigarettes. An employee then checked identification. However, they proceeded to serve the al uh the tobacco to our checker. The employee was init issued an administrative citation, which has been paid. Uh, this is Noble Tobacco's second violation in 36 months with the prior occurring on August 11th, 2023. It's staff's recommendation for council to issue and administer the presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for tobacco license holders for a second violation, which is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 in a 3-day license suspension. Great. Thank you, Chief. Are there questions uh for staff on this particular case? Councilman, not related to state, but the grant noting is that grant will that also cover um cannabis when we have those come or is it mo only for tobacco? Great question, Council Member Bower. This one individually is for tobacco only. Um so it follows they they reimburse the city for each tobacco license that we do the check on. So we told them upfront how many tobacco licenses we have. That's the reimbursement we get for definitely something that we'll keep an eye on for for the the cannabis who should have come across. Um but not something that's included in this one. Thank you. Y other questions. Right. Do we have a representative of Noble Tobacco this evening who wishes to speak? Welcome. Have a seat and once again just introduce yourself and your role with the organization. Hey everybody. Uh it's my pleasure to be here. I'm honored to be here. Uh my name is Muhammad Abu Farerra. Uh I'm the manager of Noble Tobacco. Uh the son of the owner and uh recently I became the manager. Uh before that the first ticket we got, I wasn't in charge. And then um after I got in charge, I did get a guy uh who got trained and uh I trained him to check the IDs. He did check the ID on that day, but I did teach him like how to check every ID, but he didn't see like uh I didn't know I have to teach him like how to read the numbers, which is like pretty obvious. I I showed him where to look for uh the date that flips every day. And uh he did sold her and which is not uh pleasing. I am sorry about what happened and I'm here uh on behalf of my family uh to reduce the penalty and not have the shop closed and uh I'm sorry about what happened. Thank you for being here and for your comments. Are there questions for the representative of Noble Tobacco? Right. Um and um is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? All right. Doesn't appear to be the case. Uh council, we've got the request before us to issue the presumptive penalty. We also have the request from the uh license holder uh to reduce the uh or to not have the uh suspension as part of the penalty. Uh council discussion and consideration. You know, this is we have to take these things seriously and we can't treat people differently when they have violations. We make every effort to send out notifications and have people trained. So, I I think that um for me the suspension has to stay as recommended. Is that a motion? That will be a motion. Second. It's been moved by Council Member Gra, seconded by Council Member Bower uh to issue the presumptive penalty. Uh discussion of the motion. Uh Council Member Gra, is the maker. Anything to add? um we don't want to see you back here again. Please keep your training up to date and make sure they know that you know this costs money and I I run a business. We all are involved with businesses and things. Of course, it's not a thing we take lightly. Yeah, definitely either. So, I agree with you. Thank you. Uh other discussion on the motion as a second or council member Bower. Yes, these are always difficult cases because it's you have an employee that made a mistake and not necessarily reflective of what the owners are, but the owners are responsible and it's nice to hear the additional steps and the work that you're doing and with those I we don't expect to see you here again and that'd be wonderful. Thank you. Right. Other discussion on the motion. And I would just add that it's it's it works to the benefit, I guess, of of businesses who have licenses for these types of products that it happens in Minnesota that the age for tobacco and the age for alcohol are both the same. Uh and so that notion of the the license being different for the underage versus the uh of age is very helpful. the fact that it says under 21 hopefully as that gets instituted into the training and under your efforts uh at the management that uh as council member uh Rough said we won't see you back here. Uh but we do I do agree that we do have to be uh equitable in terms of our application of penalties and we understand as council member Bower said that there is an impact almost every license holder we have is a small business uh in one way or another. even sometimes franchises of of large chains are individuals who are uh trying to make make a business go. So we we do understand that and um we considered all of that in our decision as to what our penalties would be. Uh but we had to weigh that against you know the the cost to the community of underage individuals uh purchasing products that are inappropriate for those individuals. So with that we do have the uh motion before us uh and all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously and that penalty is authorized. And thank you again for being here this evening. Thanks. Yeah, you too. And our final case this evening uh is uh the tobacco compliance check for Holiday Gas. And uh once again uh Chief Adams, our compliance checker went to Holiday Gas on Larpenter to conduct a compliance check. While there, the checker ordered cigarettes. An employee then checked identification. However, they proceed proceeded to serve the tobacco to our checker. The employee was issued an administrative citation which has since been paid. Uh this is Holiday's second violation in 36 months with the prior occurring during our last compliance check on October 12th, 2024. It's staff's recommendation for the council to issue and administer the presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for tobacco license holders for a second violation, which is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 and a three-day license suspension. Right. Thank you, Chief. Is there a representative from Holiday this evening with us or with us this evening? Does not appear to be the case. Uh questions from the council for uh staff. Uh council member Grath. Um when we have checkers go out, they have a Minnesota ID. Correct. It's not from another state. That is correct. Council member, so that the uh change in license would would apply, but they be able to see on our checker. Yep. Great question. said that they had other states and so on. I was just making sure we had that. Other questions? Uh, Council Bower, following on that comment, this is a driver's license and not a Minnesota identification card, correct? That presented. That is correct. Though it could be I I suppose at times they they both denote the the same orientation based on age, but this individual did have a driver's license. I'm not aware of what the identification cards even look like. Thank you for clarifying that. Right. Um, is there a motion or is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? Does not appear to be the case. Is there a motion on this presumptive penalty for holiday? So moved. Second. Right. Moved by Council Strong. Seconded by Council Member Bower. Uh, discussion of the motion. Council Strong is the maker. I'm disappointed that this has happened so quickly in this location which is pretty new. So, I do hope that the management will take it seriously and um look at how they can prevent having this happen again since they really haven't been open a very long time. So, um we we don't want the next steps which are even more um dire in their situation. And granted, they have other businesses. It's not simply a tobacco shop, but um you know, it impacts their entire business, I'm sure. No doubt. Uh, council member Bowers is the second. Nothing to add. Right. Other discussion on the motion. Um, I would just echo council member Stron's comments and and also note a level of disappointment too. Uh, because I think this is a concern we had with our tobacco establishments uh, and have had for a while because they have those other lines of business within the same um, um, business. Right. I I think that the focus on the on the the um ID checking and the education doesn't always seem to be there. It's a little different with the dedicated tobacco shop sometimes because that's their business. They know that it's an age restricted product. Uh not that convenience stores or other license holders who have multiple lines of business don't know that, but it just seems to be it's a it's a frustrating uh lack of focus on that notion of how important it is to check the IDs for for those products. Uh so just echo and add to those comments. Uh with that we've got the request before us to issue the presumptive penalty for a second violation within uh less than 36 months in this case uh for a holiday on Larpenter. All those in favor signify by saying I opposed. That passes unanimously. That presumptive penalty is authorized. Thank you chief for being here for all these items. We we hate that we see this much of you here and we hope that we don't see this much of you on after the second check. Have a good evening. You too. Thanks. All right, then that brings us to uh council direction on a council member initiated item. Uh we had at our last meeting, council member Grath requested a discussion related to the city streetlight policy be brought forward and put on a council agenda for uh the future. Uh and that is back before the council for direction as to whether uh or how to proceed on that. Uh we've received some information in the packet uh on the council's uh decision making as to the original policy adoption. Um, and so the question tonight is whether to put this on a future agenda and any direction to staff in that regard. Uh, because this was requested by Council Member Grath, I'll turn it over to Council Member Grath uh to uh promote uh this being on a future agenda. Sure. Thank you, Mayor. And um the reason I brought this forward is we did implement this policy last year, March 4th, 2024. So, it's been over a year now. And anytime we talk about policies, we always say, "Well, as we go down the road, hopefully if we learn things, we can bring it back for discussion." The only calls I've had on our street light um policy that we play put in place last year is are ones that they don't want the street lights installed. And um I did go through the the documentation here. Of course, for safety reasons and things, there are reasons to have it, but there are parts places where we're we're putting them where the street is already very lit up. The ones I'm specifically speaking about are along Highway 36 and along Highway um 33 35W. So, uh the the residents there have been calling me and saying, "Why are we putting in extra street lights here where it's already this this lit up?" I said, "Well, one of the policies we have is to put it at certain intersections, and that's why that had happened. had gone through, but they just felt like there should be some way of petitioning the council or requesting to the city that it not be installed for a couple reasons. One thing, they cost some money. You know, it's not a huge amount of money, but street lights do do cost money and they and if they're not necessary and redundant, uh why are we doing that? So my my thought is we should visit this, revisit this and have a discussion with council members of course about safety but also about when it is not necessary how would the residents respond and what would be the policy. We have lots of discussion in this um ordinance about if they request the light but we don't have anything about if they don't want the light. So I would like a balance put into that or at least a discussion by the council on that. So that was my reason for bringing it up. Great. Uh, is there any objection from the council to putting this on a future agenda for council discussion? Hearing no objection, that will be the direction then. All right. And from what I understand, Council Member Grath, you're looking to bring it back, but also look at potentially an exception policy or some conversation around what could be considered um despite what the policy says. Maybe there's some opportunities for people to petition or if the council make a decision to not in particular instances. Exactly. To to wave the requirement for a light, let's say, at a corner or at least at that time, you know, I don't know if things change in the future. Sure. If Highway 36 goes away or something goes dark, who knows? Who knows? But uh and also I noticed in our policy right now that it it does have uh commercial zones are handled differently. So I would like a little clarification for residents on that. So that when I'm speaking to them, I feel more confident too. Great. Okay. Um, and we should note too that it probably makes sense, as you noted, Council Member Grath, that uh probably after a year of this being in effect and implementation, there's any feedback from staff as to other feedback that they may have heard that we haven't heard. Uh, that's worth noting uh one way or another. Um, and so that can be part of that discussion. I would rather actually have that part of that discussion as opposed to this evening since this is just whether we put it on a future agenda. Um uh and that's directed to the council as well. Uh so it is it has been directed. Is there any other things that you would like to be part of that discussion? Council member Strong or long where does it go? Um I just I think maybe if if someone if a neighborhood wants says we don't want it but maybe the neighborhood turns over. What's the what happens then if if the neighborhood does want it or vice versa if there's a neighborhood that does have one and now they're saying, "Well, we want it taken out." Like, I want to I think it'd be we need to clarify what starts or stops it. I also want to make sure that we're taking into consideration not just the homeowner, but people who if it's a thoroughfare that people are walking that we I think a lot of the part of the reason that we brought this up to begin with was for safety. And so I want to make sure that we're bringing that up. And then as we talked about our lights, we talked about what type of lights and if they were louvered versus downfacing and all this stuff. So maybe maybe if there's some mechanism of what type of um you know if they're low light and then they you know I think just some um discussion about what types of lights and then how people were to start and stop that would be helpful because I think there's more to it than just do we get to say no. And I think some of that discussion may have been part of our discussion back in March of last year. So it'd be good to maybe revisit some of the things that came up at that time. at all part of that follow-up discussion. So, thank you. All right, with that then uh we move to consideration of city council minutes. We've got one set of minutes, which is the minutes from our May 5th council meeting uh as presented. Any uh discussion or change? No, this item was just to consider whether to put it on a future agenda and so we'll have an opportunity for public comment when this comes back for discussion on that future agenda and we'll make sure and get the notification out to folks. So, I apologize if there was any misunderstanding about what the action was by the council this evening in this regard. Uh, but it really is just meant to be a council discussion as to whether to put it on a future agenda, which it is now done. So, thank you for being here and your patience and I'm sorry that there isn't a further opportunity for input at this time. Uh, but the the policy applies to staff and the council as well. Uh, with that then once again we've got our city council minutes from uh May 5th for consideration. Uh council any uh changes or corrections? Uh or a motion to approve as presented? Move to approve. Second. All right. It's been moved by council member Graph, seconded by Councilman Bower to approve the minutes from May 5th as presented. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero. And those minutes are approved. That brings us to the consent agenda. Mr. Trojan, if you can give us a brief description of the items on the consent agenda. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and we have a fairly um um short uh consent agenda for tonight. Item 10 A approves payments in the amount of $783,91460. Agenda item 10D, I'm sorry, B approves the payment for replacement heat pump at the Roseville Skating Center. Agenda item 10 C approves entering into a professional services agreement with Brown Intertech for construction materials testing for the 2025 pavement management project in the amount of $24,927. Then finally, agenda item 10D approves a resolution to uh apply for the mind local partnership program grant to fund a portion of the Snelling Avenue pathway from Asbury Street uh to the northern border of Roseville. And that is the consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Trejan. Is there a motion with respect to the consent agenda this evening? Some moved. Second. It's been moved by council member Stron, seconded by Council Member Grath. Uh discussion on the motion. Uh hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those items are approved. Uh that then brings us to uh future agenda review. Mr. Treasur, if you would give us an update on future agenda items coming up. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As you know, next Monday is Memorial Day, so obviously no council meeting. Our next meeting is June 2nd. At that meeting, we'll have a couple um items that will probably take some time, but uh first will be the consideration of the ethics complaint that the ethics commission had a hearing on last week. Uh the county road B assessment hearing and then received the report from BKV regarding the civic campus master plan and report back on the work they have done to date. On the 16th, we'll consider the Aldine rightaway vacation uh once again have a joint meeting with the finance commission. Uh start kind of some uh of discussion about uh the 2026 budget and look at the property tax base with the information we have any legislative changes. Obviously, the sessions set to expire at midnight tonight. They'll probably be in special session. So, we'll see to what impact that is and any uh city council budget goals that they may have just be initial discussion. And then we'll also receive the Axel groups uh police department allocation study. My understanding that is now complete. So it'll be ready to for presentation. We will try to get that to you uh earlier uh than the packet just so you have an opportunity to read through it. My understanding I haven't don't have it in my hands yet but it's a quite a lengthy report. So um want to make sure you have ample time and thank you council member Stron uh for pointing out we should have the Rosefest uh parade uh on there. So there you are at uh June 23rd um at 6:15 is when the parade starts. So, I'll provide you some additional information on when to get there and we'll have a truck and everything and all the other rules on that. But that'll be coming up at the end of June and you can see the uh July meetings that we have scheduled. All right. Thank you very much. Are there questions on the future agenda from council members or items that uh maybe we discuss? I don't think there was anything this evening that necessarily comes in depending on the timing of the the traffic light discussion or the street light discussion. Um, all right. Uh, are there any council member initiated items for future meetings or reports or announcements from council members? Council member, just to thank you for the great support for Northeast Youth and Family Services. I thought it was a We had our leadership lunchon last Wednesday. It was very well attended and I appreciate all the support from the council and the city. I think it was their biggest one yet. I think it was seemed that way. Great. Good speaker and good information. Right. Right. If there's no further business before the council, the only other item on our agenda is a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. Been moved by council member Stron, second by council member Bowerer to adjurnn. No discussion on a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. That passes unanimously at 40 to zero. And we are adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Thank you everyone.