City Council Agenda Monday, June 8, 2026 6:00 PM City Council Chambers In accordance with Minnesota Statutes §13D.02 and City policy, Council and Commission members may attend meetings remotely up to three times per calendar year. (Times listed are approximate – please note that items may be earlier or later than listed on the agenda) 6:00 p.m. 1. Roll Call Voting & Seating Order: Strahan, Schroeder, Groff, Bauer, and Roe 6:01 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 6:02 p.m. 3. Approve Agenda 6:03 p.m. 4. Public Comment 6:08 p.m. 5. Recognitions and Donations 6:13 p.m. 6. Items Removed from Consent Agenda 7. Business Items 6:15 p.m. a. Approve Willow Pond Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Project 6:35 p.m. b. Hold a public hearing and consider a request for a Minor Plat of an unaddressed property located at the SW corner of Cleveland Avenue & Centre Pointe Drive North 6:50 p.m. c. Receive Aldine Street Right-of-Way Natural Trail Feasibility Study 7:35 p.m. d. Consider Approval of Aldine ROW Vacation 8:35 p.m. e. Consider Approval of Purchase Agreement with Roseville VFW Post #7555 for a Portion of their Property 8. Council Direction on Councilmember Initiated Agenda Items 8:55 p.m. 9. Approval of City Council Minutes a. Approve Minutes from May 11, 2026 EDA Meeting b. Approve Minutes from May 11, 2026 City Council Meeting c. Approve Minutes from May 18, 2026 City Council Meeting 9:00 p.m. 10. Approve Consent Agenda a. Approval of Payments b. Approve General Purchases Exceeding $10,000 or Sale of Surplus Items c. Approve 2026-2027 Business License Renewals d. Approve the Transfer of the Massage Establishment License for Yun Wellness LLC dba Yun Massage from Xiaoyun Tian to Ryan Marston e. Approve Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for 2026 Pathways to Policing Grant Funds f. Approve Agreement with Department of Public Safety for Funding through the 2027- 2029 Auto Theft Prevention Program g. Approve the renewal of a Short-Term Rental License for 1885 Shady Beach Avenue h. Approve the Short-Term Rental License for 2809 Arona Street Page 1 of 5589:05 p.m. 11. Future Agenda Review, Communications, Reports, and Announcements - Council and City Manager a. Future Agenda 9:15 p.m. 12. Adjourn Page 2 of 558 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6/8/2026 Item No.: 7.a. Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve Willow Pond Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Project 1 2 Background 3 Citywide, there are 200+ public storm ponds that were installed since the 1950’s to meet 4 water quality goals, reduce stormwater rate, and help manage localized flooding issues. 5 Over time, the ponds fill with sediment and the design functionality diminishes. Staff is 6 currently prioritizing ponds to have preliminary engineering completed to quantify the 7 material that needs to be removed, determine potential water quality improvements, and 8 estimate costs based on removals. 9 10 Staff is working towards acquiring pertinent permits to dredge the accumulated sediment 11 from Willow Pond. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requires an Environmental 12 Assessment Worksheet (EAW) as part of their permit application. With Roseville being the 13 responsible government unit (RGU) for the EAW review, staff sent out a request for quotes 14 (RFQ) for consulting services to prepare the EAW on the City’s behalf. By having a 15 consultant prepare the EAW, Roseville would remove any bias from the review process. 16 17 Kimley-Horn prepared the EAW documents in conjunction with City staff that were used for 18 the 30-day public comment period as required by the EAW process. The process consisted 19 of providing public notice through the Pioneer Press and having the document available on 20 the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) portal for review. Roseville also sent a mailing to 21 the residents adjacent to Willow Pond (Cty Rd B2 north to Oakcrest Avenue, Hamline 22 Avenue east to Lexington Avenue). During the comment period, only one comment was 23 received that was submitted by the MN Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) where 24 the EAW didn’t note that Bennett Lake is listed as an Impaired/Special Waters within one 25 mile of the proposed Willow Pond Project. The EAW will be updated based on this 26 comment. 27 28 If the EAW is approved by Council, City staff will complete the MN DNR permit to dredge 29 Willow Pond. Once a permit is approved by the MN DNR, staff will start the process to get 30 bids for the work that will happen during the winter of 2026-27, or during the summer of 31 2027, depending on the preference of the contractor. 32 33 Staff has deferred major pond maintenance for the past two years in preparation for the 34 Willow Pond Project, which is estimated to be over $1 million to complete. Through the CIP, Page 1 of 2 Page 3 of 55835 there is $585,000 annually allocated towards this type of work. 36 37 Policy Objectives 38 It is City policy to improve and maintain drainage to reduce the risk of localized flooding, 39 and to keep infrastructure in good working condition. 40 41 Equity Impact Summary 42 There should be no equity impacts associated with this agreement as maintaining our 43 storm sewer infrastructure benefits all residents and property owners. 44 45 Budget Implications 46 There is no budget implications associated with the review and approval of the EAW. There 47 will be budget implications if the project is approved after receiving bids for the work which 48 is planned for late 2026. There will be additional Council meetings associated with the 49 future project that discuss costs associated with the work. 50 51 Staff Recommendations 52 Staff recommends the City Council approve the EAW and pass a resolution that is required 53 by the MN DNR. 54 55 Requested Council Action 56 Motion to approve the Willow Pond EAW and passing of the resolution. 57 58 Ryan Johnson, Environmental Manager Prepared by: 1. Resolution Attachments: 2. Willow Pond EAW 3. Presentation 59 Page 2 of 2 Page 4 of 558 Attachment 1 1 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING 2 OF THE 3 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 6 Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 8th day of June, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. 7 The following members were present: , , , , and Mayor . 8 and the following were absent: . 9 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 10 RESOLUTION No. 11 RESOLUTION APPROVING WILLOW POND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 12 WORKSHEET (EAW) PROJECT 13 WHEREAS, the City of Roseville (“Proposer”) proposes to dredge approximately 20,000 cubic 14 yards of sediment from Willow Pond; and 15 WHEREAS, the project crosses the threshold of a mandatory environmental assessment 16 worksheet (“EAW”) by proposing a change to the cross section of a Minnesota Department of 17 Resources Public Waterbody per Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart 27; and 18 WHEREAS, the EAW was prepared by Kimley-Horn using the form approved by the Minnesota 19 Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for EAWs in accordance with Minnesota Rules, part 20 4410.1300; and 21 WHEREAS, the City of Roseville submitted a copy of the EAW to all public agencies on the 22 EAW distribution list and published EAW availability in the EQB Monitor on March 31, 2026, 23 in accordance with applicable state laws, rules, and regulations; and 24 WHEREAS, the EAW comment period lasted from March 31, 2026 to April 30, 2026, and three 25 (3) regulatory agencies and no members of the public submitted written comments during the 26 comment period; and 27 WHEREAS, the City of Roseville acknowledges the comments received from the Minnesota 28 Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Metropolitan 29 Council; and 30 WHEREAS, city staff reviewed the proposed record of decision and finds it to be consistent with 31 the evidence submitted to the city and the applicable statutes and regulations, to the best of their 32 knowledge, and recommends the city council approve the findings of fact and record of decision Page 5 of 55833 and determine that no environmental impact statement (“EIS”) is necessary, reasonable or 34 warranted with respect to the Project under the circumstances; and 35 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make findings of fact and a record of decision that no 36 EIS is required with respect to the Project (“Negative Declaration”). 37 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City council does hereby: 38 1. Adopt and approve the findings of fact and record of decision for the Willow Pond 39 Maintenance environmental assessment worksheet in the form which is attached hereto as 40 Exhibit A and hereby makes the findings of fact and conclusions which are contained 41 therein; and 42 2. Find and determine that, based upon the findings of fact and record of decision, no 43 environmental impact statement is required for the Project pursuant to the Minnesota 44 Environmental Policy Act or Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500. 45 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , 46 and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: , , , 47 , and Mayor . 48 and the following voted against the same: . 49 WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 6 of 558Willow Pond EAW Project STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 8th day of June, 2026, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 8th day of June, 2026. _______________________________ Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager Page 7 of 558 Attachment 2 Meeting: City council Meeting date: June 8, 2026 Action agenda item: [Item No.] Executive summary Title: Willow Pond Maintenance EAW findings of fact and record of decision Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution certifying the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) as an adequate examination of the environmental impacts and accepting the record of decision, declaring no need for an environmental impact statement for the Willow Pond Maintenance project. Policy consideration: Does the findings of fact and record of decision for the EAW satisfy the requirements for making a negative declaration regarding the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS)? Summary: Staff requests adoption of findings regarding the EAW for the Willow Pond Maintenance project, located north of County Road B2 West, east of Hamline Ave North, south of Brooks Avenue West, and west of Dunlap Street North. The EAW was distributed for public comment via the city website, a news release, and the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor on March 31, 2026. The EAW examined the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. Projects determined to have the potential for significant environmental effects must do further environmental review, in the form of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The city received comments from three agencies (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Metropolitan Council, and Department of Natural Resources) and no public comments during the comment period. The comments and responses are included in the attached findings of fact and record of decision document (Exhibit A to the Resolution). Responses will be sent to the individual commenters following the city council’s record of decision in accordance with Minnesota Rules. Review of the EAW is complete. City staff find that the Willow Pond Maintenance project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and does not warrant an EIS. Supporting documents: Discussion, Resolution, findings of fact and record of decision (Exhibit A to Resolution) and Willow Pond Maintenance EAW Prepared by: Leila Bunge, Environmental Planner, Kimley-Horn Reviewed by: Ryan Johnson, Environmental Manager, City of Roseville Page 8 of 558 City council meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. [Item No.]) Page 2 Title: Willow Pond Maintenance EAW findings of fact and record of decision Discussion Background: City staff seek to address known problems in Willow Pond including sediment accumulation, deteriorating habitat quality and aesthetic value, and decreasing stormwater function. Given its classification as a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Public Water, the proposed dredging of Willow Pond requires preparation of an EAW pursuant to Minnesota Rules. The city contracted Kimley-Horn to prepare the EAW which was distributed for public comment on March 31, 2026. The EAW analyzed the impacts of the Willow Pond Maintenance project, which includes dredging the bottom of the pond and temporary construction staging. The project site is located north of County Road B2 West, east of Hamline Ave North, south of Brooks Avenue West, and west of Dunlap Street North. The project will not change existing cover types or land uses within the project site. Construction is anticipated to occur for a month during the winter of 2026-2027. Alternatively, if construction occurs during the summer of 2027, contractors would perform a wet dredge and utilize floating barges to remove dredged material. Dewatering may be required to expose the sediment for excavation. The EAW examined the potential for environmental impacts of the proposed project including: a detailed project description, review of required permits, and analysis of land use and zoning; geology, soils, topography; water resources; contamination and hazardous materials; ecological resources; historic properties; visual effects; air/GHG emissions; noise; and transportation. The City received comments from three agencies during the comment period: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) comment stated that they have no comments at this time. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ (MnDNR) comments pertain to required information for compliance with MnDNR permits for dredging a public waterbody; the type, location, and volume of material to be dredged; and mitigation for wildlife impacts. The Metropolitan Council comments pertain to consistency between the project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the EAW as well as a recommendation to consider staged dredging. The City received no public comments. The comments and responses are included in the attached findings of fact and record of decision document (Exhibit A to the Resolution). Responses will be sent to the individual commenters following the City council’s record of decision in accordance with Minnesota Rules. Present considerations: Staff recommend adoption of findings regarding the Willow Pond Maintenance EAW, record of decision, and a negative declaration regarding the need for an EIS. The findings of fact and record of decision document includes all the EAW comments received and the responses to those comments. Page 9 of 558 City council meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. [Item No.]) Page 3 Title: Willow Pond Maintenance EAW findings of fact and record of decision None of the regulatory agency comments indicated the need for an EIS. Next steps: If the attached resolution is approved, staff will distribute the findings per Minnesota Rules to the EQB distribution list, surrounding jurisdictions, and individual commenters. If the council approves the resolution, the negative declaration of need for an EIS will be submitted to the EQB monitor on June 9, 2026 and available in the EQB monitor on June 16, 2026. Resolution No. XX-____ Approving record of decision and the negative declaration of need for an environmental impact statement for the Willow Pond Maintenance project North of County Road B2 West, east of Hamline Ave North, south of Brooks Avenue West, and west of Dunlap Street North Whereas, the City of Roseville (“Proposer”) proposes to dredge approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sediment from Willow Pond; and Whereas, the project crosses the threshold of a mandatory environmental assessment worksheet (“EAW”) by proposing a change to the cross section of a Minnesota Department of Resources Public Waterbody per Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart 27; and Whereas, the EAW was prepared by Kimley-Horn using the form approved by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for EAWs in accordance with Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1300; and Whereas, the City of Roseville submitted a copy of the EAW to all public agencies on the EAW distribution list and published EAW availability in the EQB Monitor on March 31, 2026, in accordance with applicable state laws, rules, and regulations; and Whereas, the EAW comment period lasted from March 31, 2026 to April 30, 2026, and three (3) regulatory agencies and no members of the public submitted written comments during the comment period; and Whereas, the City of Roseville acknowledges the comments received from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Metropolitan Council; and Whereas, city staff reviewed the proposed record of decision and finds it to be consistent with the evidence submitted to the city and the applicable statutes and regulations, to the best of their knowledge, and recommends the city council approve the findings of fact and record of Page 10 of 558 City council meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. [Item No.]) Page 4 Title: Willow Pond Maintenance EAW findings of fact and record of decision decision and determine that no environmental impact statement (“EIS”) is necessary, reasonable or warranted with respect to the Project under the circumstances; and Whereas, the City Council desires to make findings of fact and a record of decision that no EIS is required with respect to the Project (“Negative Declaration”). Now therefore be it resolved that the City council does hereby: 1. Adopt and approve the findings of fact and record of decision for the Willow Pond Maintenance environmental assessment worksheet in the form which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby makes the findings of fact and conclusions which are contained therein; and 2. Find and determine that, based upon the findings of fact and record of decision, no environmental impact statement is required for the Project pursuant to the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act or Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200 to 4410.6500. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council June 8, 2026. Patrick J. Trudgeon, city manager Dan Roe, mayor Attest: Allie Sertich, deputy city clerk Page 11 of 558 City council meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. [Item No.]) Page 5 Title: Willow Pond Maintenance EAW findings of fact and record of decision EXHIBIT A WILLOW POND MAINTENANCE PROJECT, ROSEVILLE Findings of Fact and Record of Decision City of Roseville June 2026 Page 12 of 558 City council meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. [Item No.]) Page 6 Title: Willow Pond Maintenance EAW findings of fact and record of decision 1. Administrative Background The City of Roseville is proposing to dredge approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sediment from Willow Pond. Construction is anticipated to occur for a month during the winter of 2026-2027. Alternatively, if construction occurs during the summer of 2027, contractors would perform a wet dredge and utilize floating barges to remove dredged material. Dewatering may be required to expose the sediment for excavation. Stormwater infrastructure in or near the pond would be upgraded as needed. The City of Roseville is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for this project. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has been prepared in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410. The EAW was mandatory per Minnesota Rules, part 4410.4300, subpart 27: Public waters, public waters wetlands, and wetlands. The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for review and comment to the required distribution list. A notice of availability was published in the EQB Monitor on March 31, 2026. A notice was also published in the X newspaper. This notice included a description of the project, information on where copies of the EAW were available, and invited the public to provide comments. The EAW was made available electronically on the City of Roseville’s website at https://www.cityofroseville.com/willowpond and in hard copy at the following locations: • St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 The EAW comment period extended from March 31 to April 30, 2026. Written comments were received from three agencies. No written comments were received from the public. All comments received were considered in determining the potential for significant environmental impacts. Based on the information in the record, which is composed of the EAW for the proposed project, the comments submitted during the public comment period, the responses to comments, and other supporting documents, the City of Roseville makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Page 13 of 558 City council meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. [Item No.]) Page 7 Title: Willow Pond Maintenance EAW findings of fact and record of decision 2. Findings of Fact 2.1 Project Description The project would consist of dredging up to 1.7 feet of sediment across approximately 11 acres of Willow Pond with an estimated volume of 20,000 CY, a MnDNR Public Waters Wetland, in Roseville, MN. The proposed project would not be phased; construction is anticipated for up to a month in December 2026 or January 2027 if it is completed over the winter. Dewatering would be required to expose sediment and potentially would include continuous 24-hour pumping for the duration of construction depending on the conditions and type of excavation. Water from Willow Pond will be pumped into temporary best management practices (BMPs) for storage. The equipment needed for dredging and dewatering would require a small construction staging area that would be returned to existing conditions after completion of the project. Erosion control BMPs would be installed during construction in accordance with the project stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Alternatively, depending on the contractor’s preference, construction could occur in the summer of 2027, using a wet dredge method and floating barges to remove dredged material. Regardless of timeline and dredging method, stormwater outlet improvements would be made as needed if rebar in pipes or flared ends is exposed. The dredged sediment would consist of Level 2 material and be disposed of off-site at a nearby landfill or reused for industrial purposes. No permanent impacts to the pond or ongoing operations are proposed following construction. 2.2 Corrections to the EAW or Changes to the Project since the EAW was Published There have been no changes to the proposed project design since the EAW was published. No corrections have been made to the EAW. 2.3 Agency and Public Comments on the EAW During the comment period, the City of Roseville received no written comments from the public and three written comments from the following agencies: • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) • Metropolitan Council • Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) Consistent with state environmental rules, responses have been prepared below for all substantive comments received during the comment period. Original comments in their entirety are included in Appendix A. 1) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), April 22, 2026 Comment: “Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed the EAW and have no comments at this time.” Response: Comment noted. Page 14 of 558 City council meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. [Item No.]) Page 8 Title: Willow Pond Maintenance EAW findings of fact and record of decision 2) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, April 30, 2026 Comment: “DNR’s Public Waters Work Rules have specific standards for waterbasin excavations (Minn. R. 6115.0201, subp. 3). To be approved, a proposed project must be intended to achieve one or more of the following public purposes: (1) to improve navigation, swimming, and other recreational uses; (2) to reduce winter fish-kill potential; (3) sediment removal to eliminate a source of nutrients and/or contaminants. To be approved, a waterbasin excavation project must be designed to achieve at least one of the specific purposes mentioned in the rule. While evidence is presented in the EAW indicating the presence of accumulated sediment meeting the MPCA’s dredged material management Level 2, it is not clear that the area and depth of proposed dredging shown in Appendix A, Site Plan, are specifically designed to be the minimal impact solution to address this problem.” Response: The City of Roseville will coordinate with the Minnesota Department of Resources, as necessary, to ensure all requirements for work in Public Waters are met prior to the start of any construction activities in Willow Pond. Comment: “Item 6.b…states that the dredged sediment would consist of Level 2 material. Part 6.d further explains that surveys identified the accumulated sediment as Level 2 Material, which will require disposal in a landfill or reuse for an industrial facility, pending coordination with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). However, Appendix B, Pond Surveys, indicates that out of four sediment samples collected from Willow Pond, only one (Sample 10-005-1) tested as Level 2. The three other samples tested as Level 1, indicating the sediment is non-regulated and suitable for reuse or disposal without any special considerations.” Response: The City of Roseville will coordinate with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, as necessary, to ensure all dredged material is properly disposed of. Comment: “Item 6.b…states that the project will consist of dredging up to 1.7 feet of sediment across approximately 11 acres of Willow Pond. The value of 1.7 feet appears to be sourced from the 2025 WSB Sediment Core Sampling Report in Appendix B, which indicates there is 1.7 feet of accumulated sediment at core location #1. However, Sheet C-01 of the Site Plan for the project indicates up to 3.07 feet of sediment will be excavated from Willow Pond. There is no explanation in the EAW for this discrepancy.” Response: The City of Roseville will coordinate approval of excavation depths with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources prior to the start of any construction activities in Willow Pond. The volume of dredged material will not exceed 20,000 cubic yards. Page 15 of 558 City council meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. [Item No.]) Page 9 Title: Willow Pond Maintenance EAW findings of fact and record of decision Comment: “The EAW identifies Blanding’s turtles as possibly being affected by this project. The EAW discusses the possibility of impact on Blanding’s turtles if work is done in the overwintering period but does not list specific measures to avoid impact if work is done in the active period (April 15-Sept 15). Determining potential for impact would be easier if specific measures were listed in the EAW (possible measures may include items from the Blanding’s fact sheet, as the EAW states, among others).” Response: If the City of Roseville chooses to conduct a summer dredge during the Blanding’s turtle active period (April 15 – September 15), the Blanding’s Turtle Fact Sheet will be reviewed and measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to the species will be considered. Comment: “Appendix A, Site Plan, Sheet C-01 states: ‘APPROXIMATE SEDIMENT REMOVAL QUANTITY = 28,00 TONS (20,000 CUBIC YARDS). VOLUME DETERMINED THROUGH COMPARISON BETWEEN SURVEYED TOP OF SEDIMENT ELEVATIONS IN 2015 (BARR), 2024 (WSB), AND 2025 (BARR), AND BOTTOM OF SEDIMENT POINTS COLLECTED IN AUGUST 2025.’ A more thorough explanation of how the sediment removal volume is calculated will be needed when applying for a DNR Public Waters Work Permit.” Response: Comment noted. The City of Roseville will provide a more thorough explanation of the proposed volume of dredged material during the permitting process with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Comment: “Appendix B, Figure 2-C indicates that the existing stormwater inlets to Willow Pond are all located in the southern portion of Willow Pond. Accordingly, it would be reasonably expected that the majority of accumulated sediment would be located in the southern portion of Willow Pond. However, Sheet C-01 of the Site Plan for the project shows proposed dredging depths that do not appear to correspond to this expectation.” Response: Comment noted. 3) Metropolitan Council, April 30, 2026 Comment: “Information in the project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is inconsistent with information in the EAW. Section 2.1 Special and Impaired Waters states that no impaired waters are located within one mile, however Bennett Lake (impaired for consumption and recreation) is within one mile of the project area. Section 2.5 of the SWPPP indicates that the project does not include any Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMA), but the project site overlays a low vulnerability DWSMA. The information in the SWPPP should be made accurate and consistent with the information in the EAW.” Response: Comment noted. The City of Roseville will prepare an updated SWPPP for the project prior to any construction activities in Willow Pond. Page 16 of 558 City council meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. [Item No.]) Page 10 Title: Willow Pond Maintenance EAW findings of fact and record of decision Comment: “If wet dredging is conducted in the summer, consider implementing staged dredging by working one section of the pond at a time to limit the total disturbed area in each phase.” Response: Comment noted. 2.4 Decision Regarding Need for an Environmental Impact Statement The City of Roseville finds that the analysis completed for the EAW and the additional information considered in this document of findings of fact and conclusions are adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects based on consideration of the four criteria identified in Minnesota Rules, part 4410, subpart 7. 2.4.1 Type, Extent and Reversibility of Impacts The City of Roseville finds that the analysis completed for the EAW is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW described the type and extent of impacts to the natural and built environment anticipated to result from the proposed project. Based on the EAW analysis and mitigation commitments, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in substantial impacts. Below is a summary of the findings regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project are as follows: • Land Use – The project will be compatible with nearby land uses, land uses planned, and zoning. • Soils and Topography – A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater permit is required, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared accordingly. • Water Resources – The proposed project is anticipated to improve the function of Willow Pond and is not anticipated to create any permanent impacts to Willow Pond or other surface waters. • Stormwater Management – The project is anticipated to improve Willow Pond’s function as a stormwater basin. A SWPPP will be prepared to prevent stormwater pollution during and after construction. • Contamination/Hazardous Materials – Any dredged Level 2 material will be appropriately disposed of in a landfill or reused at an industrial site, pending coordination with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. • Wildlife and Habitat – Mitigation measures to control invasive species during construction will be implemented. The city will consider reseeding disturbed grasslands with native seed mixes to avoid impacting the Rusty patched bumble bee. Any tree clearing will occur between November 1 and March 31 to avoid impacts to the northern long-eared bat. The city will consider appropriate mitigation measures to avoid impacting the Blanding’s turtle. The DNR has completed a Natural Heritage Review for the proposed project. • Historic Resources - There are no known historic or archeological resources on site. No impact to historic or archeological resources are anticipated as part of this development. • Visual – The project is anticipated to improve the aesthetic quality of Willow Pond. Page 17 of 558 City council meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. [Item No.]) Page 11 Title: Willow Pond Maintenance EAW findings of fact and record of decision • Air – The project could generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during the excavation and of dredged material. These emissions will be controlled by sweeping, watering, or sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. Contractors will follow best management practices to reduce dust emissions • GHG Emissions – The city will consider potential mitigation measures during construction. • Noise – If overnight pumping is required, the city will obtain a variance from the city code. No other variances from the City of Roseville construction noise ordinance are anticipated. • Transportation – No road closures or major traffic impacts are anticipated as part of the project. A signage plan would be created for construction to notify the public of the proposed project. 2.4.2 Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of the proposed project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. No cumulative potential effects are anticipated for this project. Overall, the project proposes no permanent changes to the existing project site. 2.4.3 Extent to which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by the Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority The mitigation of environmental impacts will be designed and implemented in coordination with regulatory agencies and will be subject to the plan approval and permitting process. Permits and approvals that have been obtained or may be required prior to project construction are shown below: Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal United States Army Corps of To be applied for, if Clean Water Act – Section 404 Permit Engineers applicable State Public Waters Work Permit To be applied for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Temporary Water Appropriations General To be applied for, if Permit applicable Clean Water Act – Section 401 Water Quality To be applied for, if Certification applicable Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Construction Stormwater Permit To be applied for Local Page 18 of 558 City council meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. [Item No.]) Page 12 Title: Willow Pond Maintenance EAW findings of fact and record of decision Unit of Government Type of Application Status To be applied for, if Ramsey County Right-of-way Permit applicable Grading Permit To be applied for Ramsey-Washington Metro Joint City Maintenance Agreement (with City To be applied for Watershed District of Roseville) WCA Review and Approval To be applied for Right-of-way Permit To be applied for Erosion Control, Grading, and Stormwater To be applied for Permit City of Roseville EAW Adoption In progress To be applied for, if Noise Variance applicable 2.4.4 Extent to which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Environmental Studies The City of Roseville has previous experience with construction in wetlands and similar projects have occurred throughout the county. City staff are familiar with the project area. No problems are anticipated that city staff have not encountered or successfully solved previously in similar projects in or near the project site. The City finds that the environmental effects of the project can be anticipated and controlled as a result of environmental review and experience on similar projects. Page 19 of 558 City council meeting of June 8, 2026 (Item No. [Item No.]) Page 13 Title: Willow Pond Maintenance EAW findings of fact and record of decision 3. Conclusions 1. All requirements for environmental review of the proposed project have been met. 2. The EAW and the permit development processes related to the project have generated information that is adequate to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 3. Areas where potential environmental effects have been identified will be addressed during the final design of the project. Mitigation will be provided where impacts are expected to result from project construction, operation, or maintenance. Mitigation measures are incorporated into project design and have been or will be coordinated with state and federal agencies during the permit process. 4. Based on the criteria in Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 5. An environmental impact statement is not required for the proposed project. For the City of Roseville _____________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Dan Roe, Mayor Patrick J. Trudgeon, City Manager Page 20 of 558 Attachment 3 June 8, 2026 City Council Meeting Overview of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Willow Pond Maintenance Project Page 21 of 558Roles of RGU and Proposer • Project Proposer and RGU: City of Roseville • Initiated project and EAW • Responsible for preparation of the EAW • Project Proposer Consultant: • Kimley-Horn prepared the EAW on behalf of the City Page 22 of 558 Willow Pond Maintenance Project • Dredging approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sediment from Willow Pond • Address sediment accumulation, enhance quality of wildlife habitat, improve the aesthetic value of the pond, and improve the pond’s function as a stormwater basin • Required EAW under Mn Rules Subp 27. Public waters, public waters wetlands, and wetlands Page 23 of 558What is an EAW? • An EAW is a brief document designed to lay out the basic facts of a project to determine if additional environmental review is required • The EAW form consists of 22 questions and is published by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Purpose of an EAW • Informs the public about the project • Provides information on future permitting and approvals • Helps identify potential impacts and mitigation strategies • An EAW does not approve or deny a project • It is a source of information to guide other approvals and permitting decisions Page 24 of 558EAW Topics • Climate Adaption • Habitat and Endangered Species • Cover Types • Historic Properties • Land Use • Visual • Geology/Soils • Greenhouse gas analysis • Water Resources • Transportation • Wetlands and Surface Waters • Air and Noise • Groundwater • Cumulative • Stormwater • Contamination and Hazardous Materials Page 25 of 558Impacts and Mitigation Summary Resource Area Mitigation Strategy Land Use No required changes to existing land use or zoning classification of the site. A grading and filling permit will be obtained. Geology/Soils Construction is proposed in the winter timeframe to ensure saturated soils are stable during excavation of dredged material. Page 26 of 558Impacts and Mitigation Summary Resource Area Mitigation Strategy Water Resources - Willow Pond is classified as a Public Water Wetlands and Surface Wetland by the DNR. Dredging is not anticipated Waters to have any permanent impact on Willow Pond. Water Resources – If any wells are encountered during constriction, Groundwater they will be capped and sealed according to MDH regulations. Water Resources – The project is anticipated to improve Willow Stormwater Pond’s function as a stormwater basin. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared to prevent stormwater pollution during and after construction. Page 27 of 558Impacts and Mitigation Summary Resource Area Mitigation Strategy Contamination The dredging will remove ~20,000 cubic yards of Level 2 material, “suitable for use or reuse on properties with an industrial use category.” The city will coordinate with the MPCA on transporting this material to an appropriate landfill or to an industrial site for reuse. Protected Species Invasive species would be controlled on site during construction and disturbed areas would be reestablished using appropriate native and stabilization seed mixes. State requirements necessitate the control and spread of state listed noxious weeds and/or invasive weeds if encountered prior to construction. Page 28 of 558Impacts and Mitigation Summary Resource Mitigation Strategy Area Protected • Reseeding disturbed grasslands with native seed mix is Species recommended by the DNR to avoid potential impacts to (cont’d) the rusty patched bumble bee. • The northern long-eared bat uses select trees, bridges, and other structures to roost during the day and/or night. Tree clearing must occur between November 1 and March 31. • The city will consider a summer wet dredge to avoid impacts to any Blanding’s Turtles that may be using Willow Pond during the hibernation season (September 15 through April 15). Further, the city will consider requiring mitigation measures listed on the Blanding’s Turtle fact sheet to protect any potential populations from construction related impacts. Page 29 of 558Impacts and Mitigation Summary Resource Area Mitigation Strategy Historic Properties The SHPO database response noted several resources nearby; however, no known resources were identified within the project site. According to the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA), there are no identified archaeological sites in or near the project site. Visual Dredging accumulated sediment from Willow Pond is anticipated to improve its aesthetic value. Air The project could generate temporary dust impacts. Contractors will follow best management practices to reduce dust emissions. Page 30 of 558Impacts and Mitigation Summary Resource Area Mitigation Strategy GHG Development will incorporate mitigation measures into the design and development of the project to reduce the project’s GHG emissions. Noise The city’s Code of Ordinances regulates the hour of operation for construction activities. A variance will be obtained from the City for work outside these hours as applicable. Transportation No road closures or major traffic impacts are anticipated as part of the project. A signage plan would be created for construction to notify the public of the proposed project. Page 31 of 558Comment Period Summary • 30-day comment period from March 31-April 30, 2026 • No public comments • 3 agency comments (MPCA, Met Council, MnDNR) • MPCA comment stated that they have no comments at this time. • MnDNR comments pertain to required information for compliance with MnDNR permits for dredging a public waterbody; the type, location, and volume of material to be dredged; and mitigation for wildlife impacts. • Metropolitan Council comments pertain to consistency between the project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the EAW as well as a recommendation to consider staged dredging. Page 32 of 558Does the Project Have Significant Environmental Effects? The project does not have significant environmental effects, according to Minnesota Rules, part 4410.1700, subpart 7: A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects. B. Cumulative potential effects. C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. Page 33 of 558 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6/8/2026 Item No.: 7.b. Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Hold a public hearing and consider a request for a Minor Plat of an unaddressed property located at the SW corner of Cleveland Avenue & Centre Pointe Drive North 1 2 Background 3 General Application & Site Information 4 Property Owner and Applicant: O Center Pointe LLC 5 Location: Southwest corner of Centre Pointe Drive & Cleveland Avenue 6 Application Submitted: May 1, 2026 7 Application Completed: May 5, 2026 8 City Action Deadline: August 29, 2026 9 Land Use Context Existing Land Use Guiding Zoning Site vacant Employment PUD North Courtyard by Marriott/multi-tenant office Employment PUD buildings South Cohesity Employment PUD East Interstate 35W CMU MU-2B West Colder Products NA NA 10 11 The subject site is approximately 4.53 acres or 197,321 square feet in area, and the proposed Centre 12 Pointe Fourth Addition plat would create two lots in conformance with the 1997 Centre Pointe PUD 13 #1177. Plans submitted in support of the proposal are included with this RCA in Attachment 3. 14 Subdivision proposals resulting in three or fewer lots are considered minor plats, requiring City Council 15 to hold the public hearing (unlike a major plat that requires the Planning Commission to hold the public 16 hearing). Page 1 of 3 Page 34 of 55817 Legislative Authority 18 When considering subdivision requests, the role of the City is quasi-judicial; to determine the facts 19 associated with a particular proposal and apply those facts to the legal standards contained in the 20 ordinance and relevant state law. In general, if the facts indicate the application meets the relevant legal 21 standards and will not compromise the public health, safety, and general welfare, then the applicant is 22 likely entitled to approval. The City is, however, able to add conditions to a subdivision approval to 23 ensure that potential impacts on parks, schools, roads, storm sewers, and other public infrastructure on 24 and around the subject property are adequately addressed. Subdivisions may also be modified to 25 promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to provide for the orderly, economic, and 26 safe development of land, and to promote housing affordability for all levels. 27 28 Public Hearing 29 The purpose of the public hearing is to consult the public; it is an opportunity for the public to learn the 30 relevant facts about the proposal, ask clarifying questions, and provide input on the analysis of the facts 31 presented by City staff. 32 33 Preliminary Plat Analysis 34 Roseville’s Development Review Committee (DRC) met to review the proposed subdivision plans and 35 did not have any concerns about the proposal. Specific comments from the DRC review are discussed 36 below. In addition, Attachment 4 has been provided by Engineering staff, which includes various 37 technical comments pertaining to the proposed subdivision and end-use development. 38 39 Proposed Lots 40 The Centre Pointe PUD requires a minimum lot size of 60,000 square feet. Proposed Lot 1 is 137,107 41 sq. ft, exceeding the minimum requirement. Proposed Lot 2 is 60,217 sq. ft., slightly in excess of the 42 minimum requirement. The improvements represented in the plans submitted with the Minor Plat 43 application conform to applicable zoning standards like minimum setbacks and maximum impervious 44 coverage, although a more detailed analysis will be conducted at the time of building permit to ensure 45 conformance with all requirements contained in the City Code. 46 47 Storm Water Management 48 Roseville's Environmental Manager indicated the applicant's engineer has provided plans and staff feel 49 that they can meet the City and Rice Creek Watershed District stormwater requirements. 50 51 Tree Preservation 52 There are very few trees on the subject property, with the majority being located along the existing 53 access road from Centre Pointe Drive that provides access into the large parking lot associated with 54 Cohesity. This access road, and the 10 trees located along it, will be removed and replaced further to 55 the west. Each development will be responsible for their required trees, shrubs, and perennials in 56 conformance with tree preservation and landscaping requirements outlined in the Zoning Code. Based 57 on existing conditions and the applicant’s anticipated development of the lots, such tree preservation 58 and landscaping requirements will be met. 59 60 Park Dedication 61 The Centre Pointe Business Park was mostly developed by Ryan Companies, which included a planned 62 unit development agreement (#1177, 1987) and a developer’s agreement. Park dedication was paid to 63 the city at the time Ryan Companies developed Centre Pointe. More specific to the subject property, 64 payment was made at the time the building permit was issued for the Veritas office building project, 65 which occurred around 2000 and amounted to $3,474.90. 66 67 Public Comment 68 As of the time this RCA was drafted, Planning Division staff had not received any communication from 69 the public. 70 71 Policy Objectives 72 Facilitate development and redevelopment of land consistent with the guidance of the future land use Page 2 of 3 Page 35 of 55873 plan. Ensure all subdivisions of land lying within the incorporated limits of the City fully comply with the 74 regulations set forth in the Subdivision Code or Subdivision Variances are granted where necessary. 75 Regulations and requirements for the subdivision of land are necessary to preserve the health, safety, 76 general welfare, convenience, and good order of the community. 77 78 Equity Impact Summary 79 This analysis is not indicated for quasi-judicial land use decisions. 80 81 Budget Implications 82 There are no budget implications with this proposed minor plat. 83 84 Staff Recommendations 85 Hold the public hearing, then approve the proposed Centre Pointe Fourth Addition plat, based on the 86 content of this RCA and attachments, public input, and City Council deliberation. 87 88 89 Requested Council Action 90 Hold the public hearing, and 91 By motion, adopt the Resolution provided in Attachment 5, approving the proposed Centre Pointe Fourth 92 Addition plat, based on the content of the RCA and attachments, public input, and City Council 93 deliberation. 94 95 96 Prepared by: Thomas Paschke, City Planner 1. Base Map Attachments: 2. Aerial Photo 3. Centre Pointe Fourth Addition Plat and Plan Sheets 4. City Engineer Memo 5. Resolution 97 Page 3 of 3 Page 36 of 558 Attachment 1: Planning File 26-007 2021 - 2033 2195 C E N T R E 2920 P O 2890 2905 I N T E 2001 - 2019 D R COUNTY ROAD C2 W LONG LAKE RD LAKE LONG 2845 Interstate 35W N AVE CLEVELAND 2820 RD RIDGE MOUNT 2815 Location Map Data Sources Disclaimer The maps provided by the City of Roseville are compilations of records, information and data * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (4/26/2026) from various sources, and they are to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not 0 50 100 150 Feet Prepared by: For more information regarding the contents of warrant or guarantee that the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data or maps are complete, this map contact: current, or accurate. The data is offered “as is” and the City of Roseville does not represent that Community Development Department Site Location the GIS data can be used or is accurate for legal, navigational, or any purposes requiring exacting L City of Roseville, Community Development Department, measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. Pursuant Printed: June 2, 2026 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN to Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.03, Subdivision 21, the City of Roseville disclaims any liability for claims based on alleged or actual inaccuracies in the GIS data or maps. For more information, please contact 651-792-7044. Page 37 of 558 C E N T R E P O I AttachmentN 2: Planning File 26-007 T E D R COUNTY ROAD C2 W Location Map Data Sources Disclaimer The maps provided by the City of Roseville are compilations of records, information and data * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (4/26/2026) from various sources, and they are to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not * Aerial Data: EagleView (4/2024) warrant or guarantee that the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data or maps are complete, 0 50 100 Prepared by: For further information regarding the contents of this map contact: current, or accurate. The data is offered “as is” and the City of Roseville does not represent that the GIS data can be used or is accurate for legal, navigational, or any purposes requiring exacting Feet Community Development Department City of Roseville, Community Development Department, measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. Pursuant 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN to Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.03, Subdivision 21, the City of Roseville disclaims any liability for claims based on alleged or actual inaccuracies in the GIS data or maps. For more information, L Printed: June 2, 2026 please contact 651-792-7044. Page 38 of 558Attachment 3 Page 39 of 558Attachment 3 Page 40 of 558Attachment 3 Page 41 of 558Attachment 3 Page 42 of 558Attachment 3 Page 43 of 558Attachment 3 Page 44 of 558Attachment 3 Page 45 of 558Attachment 3 Page 46 of 558Attachment 3 Page 47 of 558Attachment 3 Page 48 of 558Attachment 3 Page 49 of 558Attachment 3 Page 50 of 558Attachment 3 Page 51 of 558Attachment 3 Page 52 of 558Attachment 3 Page 53 of 558Attachment 3 Page 54 of 558Attachment 3 Page 55 of 558Attachment 3 Page 56 of 558Attachment 3 Page 57 of 558Attachment 3 Page 58 of 558Attachment 3 Page 59 of 558 Attachment 4 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Date: June 2, 2026 To: Thomas Paschke, City Planner From: Jennifer Lowry, Roseville Public Works RE: Centre Pointe Business Park 4th Addition Plat The Public Works Department reviewed the proposed plan and plans for the project noted above and offer the following comments with regard to the project’s impact on City services and/or infrastructure: 1. Site Plan o The proposed development did not require a traffic study per the City policy. Additionally, the area has had prior traffic studies performed and review of those studies confirmed that a study is not needed. A minor increase to traffic on Centre Pointe and other nearby roads is expected but will not create any significant issues. o If setbacks, easements, or lot sizes change, the changes will need additional review. o Public Works appreciates that comments previously provided regarding driveway, parking, and sidewalks have been addressed. 2. Utilities o Water . Watermain is available for connections . MDH Water Permit may be required. o Sanitary . Sanitary sewer main is available for connections. . If the new buildings will have commercial kitchens, be aware that the City has a FOG ordinance that requires a 1000 gallon grease interceptor. o Storm Sewer . The development has to meet city, Rice Creek Watershed District, and NPDES stormwater and erosion control standards. . Any onsite stormwater BMP will require an executed Operation & Maintenance Agreement in favor of the City of Roseville that has been recorded with Ramsey County. The template agreement can be found at www.cityofroseville.com/privatebmp. 3. Ramsey County Page 60 of 558 Attachment 4 o A County review of construction plans and a County Right-of-Way (ROW) permit may be required. o The existing Cleveland ROW meets or exceeds the County’s requirements noted in the 2019 Approved Major Street Plan. 4. General o Final construction plans will be approved by the City prior to issuing permits. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and on this project at this time. As the project advances, Public Works Department staff will continue to review any forthcoming plans and provide additional reviews and feedback as necessary. Please contact me should there be questions or concerns regarding any of the information contained herein. Page 61 of 558 Attachment 5 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE * * * * * * * * * * * Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 8th day June 2026 at 6:00 p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION No. 12XXX RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED CENTRE POINTE BUSINESS PARK FOURTH ADDITION PLAT (PF26-007) WHEREAS, Centre Pointe LLC, has submitted a valid application for approval of the proposed Minor Plat of the property in the southwestern corner of Cleveland Avenue and Centre Pointe Drive/County Road C2; and WHEREAS, the property affected by the proposed Centre Pointe Business Park Fourth Addition plat is assigned Ramsey County Property Identification Number 05-29-23-41-0014 and is legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Centre Pointe Business Park Third Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota and; WHEREAS, the proposed plat conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes and planned unit development; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Roseville held a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the proposed Centre Pointe Business Park Fourth Addition plat on June 8, 2026; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, the proposed Centre Pointe Business Park Fourth Addition plat is hereby approved based on the content of the Request for Council Action and attachments dated June 8, 2026, public record, and City Council deliberation. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: ; and the following voted against the same: . WHEREUPON, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 62 of 558State of Minnesota) ) SS County of Ramsey) I, undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 8th day June 2026, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 8th day June 2026. ___________________________ Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager Seal Page 63 of 558 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6/8/2026 Item No.: 7.c. Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Receive Aldine Street Right-of-Way Natural Trail Feasibility Study 1 2 Background 3 Throughout 2025, the City Council considered several potential future uses of the Aldine 4 Street Right-of-Way (ROW) located between Ryan Avenue and Roselawn Avenue, 5 including vacation of the ROW, preservation of the corridor for future use, and development 6 of a pedestrian connection. The discussion generated significant public interest, with 7 residents expressing differing views regarding access, neighborhood connectivity, tree 8 preservation, and potential impacts to adjacent properties. 9 10 To help inform future decisions, the City Council requested that the Parks and Recreation 11 Commission (PRC) evaluate the recreational value of the corridor and its potential role 12 within the City's parks and recreation system. Over meetings held on August 7 (Attachment 13 2) and September 2, 2025 (Attachment 3), the PRC received public comment, toured the 14 site, reviewed a tree inventory and topographic survey, and discussed issues related to 15 accessibility, cost, and environmental impacts. 16 17 Following their review and discussion, the Commission adopted the following motions: 18 Motion #1: The Parks and Recreation Commission acknowledges that the Aldine Street 19 Right-of-Way has value for the Parks and Recreation System. 20 Vote: 7 Yes, 0 No, 1 Abstention 21 Motion #2: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council 22 direct staff to engage a consultant to conduct a feasibility study for a non-traditional 23 pathway through the ROW, evaluating: (1) pathway alignment options, and (2) specific tree 24 impacts; 25 and that a final decision be made immediately following the receipt of the study. 26 Vote: 8 Yes, 0 No. 27 On October 27, 2025, the City Council directed staff to solicit proposals for such a study. 28 On January 26, 2026, the Council authorized an agreement with TKDA to complete the 29 feasibility analysis. 30 31 In response to requests from residents, the City also retained Three Trees Horticulture to Page 1 of 3 Page 64 of 55832 provide an independent arboricultural review of potential tree impacts identified through the 33 study process. 34 35 The Aldine Street ROW Trail Feasibility Study has now been completed and is included in 36 the Council packet (Attachment 1). Dana Schumacher, PLA, ASLA, of TKDA will present 37 the study findings and be available to answer questions from the Council. 38 39 40 Policy Objectives 41 The purpose of the feasibility study is to provide the City Council with information regarding 42 the potential opportunities, constraints, impacts, and estimated costs associated with 43 establishing a pathway connection within the Aldine Street ROW. 44 45 The Parks and Recreation System Master Plan identifies neighborhood connectivity as an 46 important component of the City's park system and encourages connections between 47 neighborhoods, parks, and community destinations. While the Aldine ROW is not identified 48 as a priority corridor within the City's Pathway Master Plan, it has been recognized as a 49 potential local connection between nearby residential areas and Evergreen Park. 50 51 Equity Impact Summary 52 Residents living near the Aldine Street ROW are among the few neighborhoods in 53 Roseville that remain outside of a ten-minute walk to a public park. While a pathway 54 connection through the corridor would not fully achieve the ten-minute walk standard, it 55 could improve pedestrian access by providing a more direct route to Evergreen Park and 56 other destinations. 57 58 In addition, the informal pathway historically used within the corridor does not meet current 59 accessibility standards due to steep grades and narrow clearances. Any future pathway 60 developed by the City would be required to comply with applicable accessibility 61 requirements, improving usability for residents of varying ages and abilities. 62 63 Budget Implications 64 The feasibility study identifies two potential pathway concepts. The preferred alignment 65 (Option 1) is estimated at approximately $120,100, while Option 2 is estimated at 66 approximately $78,100. 67 68 These estimates are preliminary planning-level opinions of probable cost and do not 69 include additional improvements that may be considered outside the ROW, such as 70 enhanced pedestrian crossings, traffic control measures, or other related infrastructure. No 71 funding has been identified or authorized for pathway construction at this time. 72 73 Staff Recommendations 74 Receive the presentation and ask questions of TKDA as needed. 75 76 Requested Council Action 77 Receive the presentation and ask questions of TKDA as needed. 78 79 Page 2 of 3 Page 65 of 558 Matthew L. Johnson, Parks and Recreation Commission Prepared by: 1. Aldine Street Right of Way Pathway Feasibility Study Attachments: 2. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes - August 7, 2025 3. Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes - September 2, 2025 4. Memorandum From Resident Tim Brown Regarding Feasibility Study 5. Bench Handout 3 - Appendix A of Aldine ROW Feasibility Study (Color and Tree Numbers Added) 80 Page 3 of 3 Page 66 of 558 Attachment 1 Aldine Street ROW Trail Feasibility Study City of Roseville, MN May 20, 2026 TKDA Project No. 23607.000 Page 67 of 558Attachment 1 Page 68 of 558 Attachment 1 May 20, 2026 RE: TKDA Project No. 23607.000 Mr. Matthew Johnson Parks and Recreation Director 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Johnson: We are pleased to present this report for the Aldine Street Right of Way Trail Feasibility Study. Thank you for choosing TKDA to provide the services as described in the Proposal for Landscape Architecture Services Document associated with the work. Please reach out to me directly at 651.221.4670 or dana.schumacher@tkda.com if you have any questions or if there are other services TKDA can provide. Sincerely, Dana Schumacher, ASLA, PLA Landscape Architect DKS:alo Page 69 of 558 Attachment 1 Page 70 of 558 Attachment 1 Aldine Street Right of Way Trail Feasibility Study City of Roseville, MN TKDA Project No. 23607.000 May 20, 2026 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dana Schumacher, ASLA, PLA Project Manager Korwin-Kuczynski Date: 05/20/2026 Lic. No.: 41511 Reviewed By: Steven Foss Date: 5/20/2026 TKDA 3311 E. Old Shakopee Road - Suite 300 Bloomington, MN 55425 Page 71 of 558 Attachment 1 Page 72 of 558 Attachment 1 Executive Summary This feasibility study provides a summary of work completed by TKDA for the City of Roseville at the Aldine Street Right of Way located between Ryan Avenue and Roselawn Avenue in Roseville, MN. The purpose of the study was to review existing conditions and determine an accessible route to link Ryan Avenue to Roselawn Avenue that would meander through an existing woodland space with the main priority to protect and preserve the heritage oaks. TKDA considered the existing conditions and 2 options as follows: Option 1: Install raised boardwalks on spread pan supports under oak trees’ critical root zone areas and stabilized gravel paths outside of these areas. Option 2: Install stabilized gravel paths along the entire length of the path alignment. Option 1 is the recommended solution because it preserves the majority of the heritage oak trees with minimal to moderate impact while also providing an accessible route through the site. Option 2 may provide an accessible route through the right of way and is less expensive than Option 1. However, it will have extremely negative impacts on the oak trees that would decline within 5-10 years if this option is advanced. TKDA Contact: Dana Schumacher, PLA, ASLA she/her/hers Senior Registered Landscape Architect Licensed Landscape Architect: MN, CA, IA, IL, SD, TX, WI C 651.221.4670 E dana.schumacher@tkda.com 3311 E. Old Shakopee Rd, Suite 300, Bloomington, MN 55425 Executive Summary Page 1 Page 73 of 558Attachment 1 Page 74 of 558 Attachment 1 Table of Contents Letter of Transmittal Certification Page Executive Summary Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 Existing Information ............................................................................................... 1 2.1 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 TKDA and Arborist Site Visit ............................................................................................ 1 2.3 City of Roseville ................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Feasibility Review ................................................................................................... 1 3.1 Site Observation/Analysis ................................................................................................ 1 3.1.1 Historical Vegetation and Soils ............................................................................ 3 3.2 Arborist Tree Rating System ............................................................................................ 4 3.3 Tree Protection During Construction ................................................................................ 5 3.3.1 Critical Root Zone Protection .............................................................................. 5 3.3.2 Tree Stem Protection........................................................................................... 5 3.4 Grading Study for Path Alignment .................................................................................... 6 3.5 Surface Stormwater Review ............................................................................................. 8 4.0 Findings and Recommended Solution .................................................................. 9 4.1 Findings ............................................................................................................................ 9 4.1.1 Option One: Stabilized gravel path with raised boardwalk sections under oak tree CRZ’s ........................................................................................................... 9 4.1.2 Option Two: Stabilized gravel paths along the entire length including within the CRZ’s ................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Recommended Solution ................................................................................................... 9 5.0 Opinion of Probable Cost ....................................................................................... 9 List of Appendices Appendix A Profile Alignments and Plan Appendix B Boardwalks Details Sheet Appendix C Opinion of Probable Costs (OPC) Appendix D Tree Rating Spreadsheet Appendix E Tree Health Post-Construction Appendix F Historical Information –Preexisting Vegetation and Soils Appendix G Related Site Photos Appendix H City Provided RFQ Materials Page i Page 75 of 558Attachment 1 Page 76 of 558 AttachmentMay 1 2026 Prepared for City of Roseville 1.0 Introduction The purpose of this feasibility study is to help the City determine whether a non-paved accessible public pathway connection can be constructed in the Aldine Street Right of Way (ROW) that protects both the sensitive heritage oak trees and neighboring properties, while addressing any stormwater runoff issues and being mindful of construction costs. The following study reviews the available information, explores the feasibility of two options, and provides a proposed remedy and corresponding cost estimates. 2.0 Existing Information 2.1 Summary The existing topographic survey with trees shows several large heritage oak trees located on the property with a cluster on the north end on top of a low mound, 2 more spaced at the middle portion of the property, and another cluster at the south end (see Appendix H for map). The grades in the ROW are fairly level with a mounded area on the north end. There were no signs of erosion or excessive stormwater flow through the area. 2.2 TKDA and Arborist Site Visit TKDA visited the site on Monday, March 23, 2026 with City staff and arborist to walk the entire site and discuss concerns and potential path layouts. The arborist visited the site several more times after this visit to evaluate the proposed path alignment and impact to the trees. 2.3 City of Roseville The City of Roseville provided CAD drawings based upon the RFQ pdf documents provided earlier in the proposal phase. These files include the existing tree identification and topography as well as property survey showing utilities and other features in and adjacent to the ROW property (see Appendix H for drawings). 3.0 Feasibility Review 3.1 Site Observation/Analysis TKDA visited the site on the morning of Monday, March 23, 2026. The weather was calm, sunny, and dry, and the temperature was a few degrees above freezing. Most of the snow cover was gone as well. The city-owned Aldine Street right of way (ROW) property is approximately 30’ wide and 616 feet long (curb to curb) and situated between single family residential lots with Roselawn Avenue along the south border and Ryan Avenue turning north onto Aldine Street at the north end. At the north end, Ryan Avenue was quiet and calm. There are storm and sewer utilities running along the west side of the ROW. Uphill and to the east are several stately Burr oak trees, northern pin oak, and a few old arborvitae trees. There are also some Page 1 Page 77 of 558 Attachment 1 undesirable/invasive buckthorn, poplar, amur maple, green ash, and mulberry trees. The ground cover layer was still dormant but we noticed old fern fronds from the previous season. We climbed up to travel along the route and noted that the first property owner on the east side installed a split rail fence several feet into the ROW property. Further south, there is a sign on the same fence stating that the property is a “certified wildlife habitat.” We noted redosier dogwood, cherry trees, and a large yew in the area. We noted chipmunks, squirrels, bunnies, and birds moving about on the site. Beyond the first lot, the center section of the right of way is less hilly and there are only two single oaks spaced further apart in this area. In this center area, the properties along the east side back up to the site and some encroachment with fencing, storage, as well as a small shed. To the west is an empty wooded lot. There is a large, moss covered concrete stormwater structure in this area. Along the ground were at least two fallen tree stumps that could be interesting stopping points for visitors walking on the trail. Further south, the property is bound by more backyards along the east, side, and backyards of the homes facing south onto busy Roselawn Avenue. In this area, the property to the west has a gravel driveway that is encroaching into the ROW and there are several large Burr oak trees with mowed turf grass underneath. There is a specimen witchhazel tree along the east property line. The last portion of the site along Roselawn Avenue has an encroaching steel chain link fence and has been planted with native perennials. There is another sign posted stating that the space is a “certified wildlife habitat.” There is no sidewalk along Roselawn Avenue on the north side of the street. However, there is a wide bituminous path on the south side of the road next to the University of Minnesota’s agricultural test fields. See Appendix G for relevant site visit photos. Page 2 Page 78 of 558 Attachment 1 3.1.1 Historical Vegetation and Soils The site’s historical soils are labeled as Map unit symbol 860C or, “Urban land-Hayden- Kingsley complex. The Hayden-Kingsley series consists of deep well drained soils that formed in calcareous loamy glacial till on glacial moraines and till plains. These soils are well drained, have moderate permeability, and 0 percent flood frequency. Their slopes range from 3 to 15 percent (see Figure 1). Figure 1 – Soils Map The site’s historical vegetation was deciduous maple, basswood, oak, and elm forests (see Figures 2 and 3). Figure 2 – Minnesota Map and Vegetation Description Page 3 Page 79 of 558 Attachment 1 References Wendt, Keith M. and Coffin, Barbara A (1988). Natural Vegetation of Minnesota at the time of the public land survey 1847-1907. MN Department of Natural Resources Biological Report No. 1 Figure 3 – Oak Woodland and Brushland 3.2 Arborist Tree Rating System Provided by Jason Johnson, certified arborist, Three Trees Horticulture The existing trees were rated with a system measuring current health and viability with a range between 1 and 5 where, a tree with a rating of 1 is in excellent condition and a tree with a rating of 5 is mostly dead or dead. Below is a description of each rating. 1. Excellent: Perfect specimen, sound, and vigorous. 2. Good: Minor defects in less than 10% of the canopy, lacking full symmetry. 3. Fair: Up to 30% crown dieback, chlorotic leaves, or minor decay. 4. Poor: Severe decline, with over 70% of the canopy affected, or significant structural defects. 5. Very Poor/Dead: Structurally unsound or dead. The arborist analyzed the oak trees within the Aldine Street right of way (ROW) to determine their current health rating. The spreadsheet (see Appendix D) shows the change in rating based on the trail construction design. The oak trees at the south end and middle sections will have moderate impact from the raised boardwalk construction. Oak #12 and #13 on the north end as well as the two black cherry trees will have significant impact because their Page 4 Page 80 of 558 Attachment 1 critical root zones will be greatly impacted with excavation needed to maintain a 5% maximum grade on the path. 3.3 Tree Protection The preservation of existing trees throughout the construction process requires a comprehensive and proactive approach that addresses both below-grade root systems and above-grade stem integrity. Two principal areas of concern — protection of Critical Root Zones and prevention of mechanical damage to tree stems — must be addressed through coordinated planning, physical safeguards, and ongoing oversight. 3.3.1 Critical Root Zone Protection Bur and White Oaks develop extensive lateral root systems that spread well beyond the canopy drip line — often 1.5 to 3 times the crown radius. The Critical Root Zone (CRZ), typically calculated at a radius of one foot per inch of trunk diameter, captures the most biologically active feeder roots, which are concentrated in the top 12 to 18 inches of soil. Any construction activity within this zone carries significant risk of root damage and must be carefully managed. Bur and White Oaks are particularly vulnerable to soil compaction caused by construction equipment. Compaction reduces pore space in the soil, restricting the movement of oxygen and water to root systems. Even a single pass from heavy equipment within the CRZ can initiate a cycle of long-term decline. For this reason, raised boardwalk sections supported on pads are the preferred method of crossing CRZ areas, eliminating the need for grading or surface preparation directly over root zones. Unlike many other tree species, Bur and White Oaks typically exhibit a slow decline pattern following root damage, with visible symptoms often not appearing for three to ten years after the causative event. This delayed response makes preventive measures essential, as remediation after the fact is rarely effective. Construction teams should operate on the assumption that root damage is permanent and cumulative, even when no immediate stress response is observed. Root cutting or disturbance during the April through July high-risk window creates potential entry points for oak wilt fungus (Bretziella fagacearum). This pathogen spreads readily through the grafted root connections common among neighboring oaks of the same species, meaning that damage to a single tree can threaten an entire stand. Construction scheduling should avoid root disturbance within this seasonal window wherever possible, and any unavoidable cutting should be immediately treated with wound sealant. It should be noted that any path construction within the Critical Root Zone of the existing oaks — regardless of the construction method employed — represents a likely compromise of tree health and preservation standards. Even the least invasive approaches, including raised boardwalk systems, involve some equipment access, ground disturbance, and ongoing foot traffic within zones that best management practices would otherwise designate as entirely off- limits to construction activity. Proceeding with path construction through these areas is likely to adversely affect the long-term health of the trees. 3.3.2 Tree Stem Protection Physical injury to the bark and cambium layer, whether caused by equipment contact, material storage, or repeated foot traffic, can compromise a tree’s vascular system, creating entry points for pathogens and insects that may lead to long-term decline or mortality. Temporary protective fencing or barrier wrapping should be installed around tree trunks prior Page 5 Page 81 of 558 Attachment 1 to the commencement of any construction activity and maintained throughout the duration of the project. Rigid trunk guards or wooden planking secured around the stem can provide an effective buffer against incidental equipment strikes. Signage identifying protected trees should be posted at key locations to reinforce awareness among all contractors and subcontractors working on the site. It is equally important that no materials, equipment, or spoils be staged within the designated protection zone at any time during construction. See Appendix E for post-construction oak tree care. References Matheny, N., & Clark, J. R. (1998). Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. International Society of Arboriculture. Matheny, N., Smiley, E. T., Gilpin, R., & Hauer, R. (2023). Managing Trees During Site Development and Construction: Best Management Practices (3rd ed.). International Society of Arboriculture. 3.4 Grading Study for Path Alignment Finding the best accessible route through the oaks trees proved challenging. Americans with Disabilities (ADA) and local building code rules include the following design rules for accessibility and safety: 1. 1:20 (5%) maximum longitudinal slope on pathways. 1:48 (2%) maximum cross slope on pathways. 2. 4’ minimum path width on trails requires a passing zone of at least 5’ wide provided every 250 feet maximum of path length. 3. Ramps at 1:12 (8.33%) are also considered accessible but require handrails on both sides which would impact the oak roots greatly with post footings. 4. Tactile warning strips (eg. truncated domes) are required at curb lines and shall be set in concrete pad. 5. Walking surfaces shall be stable, firm, and slip resistant. 6. Boardwalk maximum height above grade is 30” or less with no handrails. Typical gravel pathways are not considered accessible because the gravel is usually too loose or rough and difficult to navigate. However, if a stabilizer is added to a specific gravel mix prior to installation, the surface can be considered accessible and compliant. The organic stabilizer additive acts as a binder that creates an even and durable natural pathway. The stabilizer is recommended for slopes up to 5%. For slopes over 5% or more high traffic areas, a wax polymer blend is used to keep an even surface (see Figure 4). Page 6 Page 82 of 558 Attachment 1 Figure 4 – Gravel Cross-Section The other major challenge is to minimize impact inside the oak trees’ critical root zones (CRZ). Many of the oaks on site have at least a 20’ radius, or, 40’ diameter CRZ (1x diameter at breast height or dbh) which means that there is no way to avoid impacting these zones with a new path in a 30’ wide right of way property. A solution to minimize compaction and excavation of the CRZ’s is with a raised boardwalk system set on wide pad feet on top of the existing grade. The exact alignment and location of the “feet” is flexible and can be adjusted during construction if there are obvious tree roots in the way. See Appendix B for boardwalk construction details. Construction access to the site is limited due to the adjacent residential lots. Access is only available at the far north end and south ends of the site. Construction will need to be extra vigilant within the CRZ’s of the oak trees and this means that a lot of the work will need to be done within a very narrow corridor – much of it by hand or with a small wheeled dingo type machine (see Figure 5). It is recommended that the boardwalks be set in place first so that the oak roots remain undisturbed during construction of the rest of the trails. The new boardwalk can be covered with plywood to protect the planks so that materials can be brought in without traversing and compacting the ground surface. Page 7 Page 83 of 558 Attachment 1 Figure 5 – Dingo and Electric Cart on Wheels The gravel path construction will involve compacting the gravel after excavating down 7” total for installation of 4” of class 5 aggregate base and 3” of stabilized gravel on top. It is recommended to use a non-vibrating compactor or even a hand tamper in areas within the CRZ’s (north end). In order to avoid grading further into the CRZ on the north end, large glacial boulders set into the upslope on the path can take up the grade difference and provide a rustic edge. An air spade can also be helpful in locating tree roots to avoid (if possible) during construction. See Figure 6 for images of boulder edge, compactors, and air spade. Figure 6 – Boulder Edge, Compactors, and Air Spade 3.5 Surface Stormwater Review There are no concerns with changes in surface stormwater flow. Stormflow is unchanged in areas with raised boardwalks since the water can continue under the walk. In gravel path areas, the alignment follows the natural grades except for the far north end where some additional excavation will be needed to keep the slope under 5%. This path down to the north end would also have a 2% max cross slope which will help reduce erosion down the center of the path. There is more impervious surface area in Option 2. However, the amount is not enough to trigger any stormwater requirements. Page 8 Page 84 of 558 Attachment 1 4.0 Findings and Recommended Solution 4.1 Findings There is no accessible path alignment that will completely avoid the existing oak trees’ critical root zone (CRZ) areas. The right of way property is 30 feet wide and many of the oak trees have a 40 foot diameter CRZ. However, there are ways to minimize the impact and still provide an accessible route through the property that retains a majority of the oak trees. 4.1.1 Option One: Stabilized gravel path with raised boardwalk sections under oak tree CRZ’s This option includes gravel paths in areas outside of the oak tree CRZ’s and raised boardwalk in areas under the oak tree CRZ’s except for two oaks at the north end where grades are too steep for a boardwalk. This option satisfies the need for an accessible path while also preserving a majority of the existing oak trees. The boardwalk system is more expensive than the gravel paths but the value of the existing oak trees outweighs this additional cost. A total of two oak trees would be greatly impacted with this option. 4.1.2 Option Two: Stabilized gravel paths along the entire length including within the CRZ’s This option includes gravel paths for the entire length of the path alignment, including areas under the oak tree CRZ’s. This option satisfies the need for an accessible path but does not preserve a majority of the existing oak trees. Gravel paths are less expensive than the boardwalk system but the loss of the oak trees does not justify the cost savings. A total of fourteen oak trees would be greatly impacted with this option. 4.2 Recommended Solution Based upon TKDA’s experience and input from the arborist, TKDA recommends that the City proceed with Option 1 – Stabilized gravel path with raised boardwalk sections under oak tree CRZ’s. This option provides the optimal solution for both long-term tree health and accessibility. With either option, it is imperative to note the need to use a qualified contractor and arborist that understands the sensitive site conditions of heritage oak trees and who has worked on similar projects and can provide an extensive list of past work and references. 5.0 Opinion of Probable Cost The opinion of probable construction costs are made on the basis of Landscape Architect’s experience and qualifications and represent Landscape Architect’s judgment as an experienced and qualified professional generally familiar with the construction industry. However, because the Landscape Architect has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or over contractors’ methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, Landscape Architect cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual Construction Cost will not vary from opinions of probable construction cost prepared by Landscape Architect. Option 1 and 2 involve installing gravel paths with concrete landings on either end with tactile warning strips. On both options, there is a section at the north end where glacial boulders can be used to line the path and help retain the existing grades in the CRZ’s to minimize disturbance to tree roots. Due to the sensitive site conditions with the existing oak trees, much of the work will need to be done carefully with small machine or by hand. The opinion Page 9 Page 85 of 558 Attachment 1 of probable cost for Option 1 is $100,082 and $65,086 for Option 2. See Figures 7 and 8 for a breakdown of costs. Figure 7 – Opinion of Probable Cost – Option 1 Page 10 Page 86 of 558 Attachment 1 Figure 8 – Opinion of Probable Cost – Option 2 Page 11 Page 87 of 558Attachment 1 Page 88 of 558 Attachment 1 Appendix A Profile Alignments and Plan Page 89 of 558 Attachment 1 966 966 BOARDWALK CONCRETE PAD ON PADS, 5% MAX 4' CHAIN LINK FENCE 4' WIRE FENCE EXISTING OAK TREE 965965DRAIN INLET CRZ (TYP.) 964 PI: 2+05.99 PC: 3+21.97 PI: 0+31.05 PT: 1+85.65 PI: 2+30.16 ROW PROPERTY LINE 2+00 0+00 PC: 1+71.40 965 3+00 PI: 0+74.76 30' PT: 1+58.57 STUMP PC: 2+44.33 962 1+00 963 PT: 2+65.44 963 966 4' WIDE GRAVEL PATH 964 SHED PI: 0+52.24 ROW PROPERTY LINE 5% MAX SLOPE 966 POWER POLE 965 BOARDWALK PASSING ZONE (5' WIDE PATH) 964 GUY WIRES (TYP.) PC: 1+47.00 4' SEMI-PRIVACY FENCE 963 ON PADS, 5% MAX EVERY 250' MIN. 962 4' WIRE FENCE 0 10 20 40 6' PRIVACY FENCE WITCHHAZEL PLAN NORTH SOUTH END OF RIGHT OF WAY SCALE IN FEET TRUE NORTH EXISTING CURB CUT GLACIAL BOULDER EDGE TO RETAIN SLOPES (TYP.) CONCRETE PAD 965 966 STREET SIGN (ARROW) STORM INLET BOARDWALK 963 CONC. STRUCTURE ON PADS, 5% MAX PT: 6+10.08 MANHOLE 962 964 967 PT: 6+50.34 PC: 5+06.75 968 966 PC: 6+33.60 DEAD OAK PI: 4+79.22 PT: 5+19.27 967 965 ROW PROPERTY LINE 5+00 6+51.81 6+00 968 962 PRC: 4+23.32 967 PT: 4+52.93 PT: 3+75.05 30' 4+00 PC: 5+38.76 969 PC: 5+89.99 964 STUMPS 4' SPLIT RAIL WOOD PC: 3+81.76 PRC: 4+04.01 PCC: 4+43.56 WITH WIRE FENCE PT: 5+88.39 ROW PROPERTY LINE PASSING ZONE (5' WIDE PATH) EXISTING OAK TREE PC: 5+57.77 EVERY 250' MIN. POWER POLE 4' BLACK CHAIN TALL EVERGREEN CRZ (TYP.) PT: 5+57.51 (TYP.) LINK FENCE 0 10 20 40 HEDGE NORTH END OF RIGHT OF WAY SCALE IN FEET 0 1 ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MEASUREMENT AT THE BUILDING AND/OR SITE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. IF NOT ONE INCH ON THIS DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. K:\n-z\Roseville\23607000\04_Production\01_CAD\01_Xrefs\C3D-Design_mth.dwg ## ## ## ## DESIGNED I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PROJ. NO. May 19, 2026 - 11:03am 19, 2026 May ## ## ## ## ### PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A ® ### ## ## ## ## DRAWN DULY LICENSED ### UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ###. ACCESSIBLE TRAIL ROUTE THROUGH ALDINE STREET RIGHT OF WAY ## ## ## ## ### DRAWING NO. ### ### ### ### CHECKED SIGNATURE: DATE: ### TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR ROSEVILLE, MN NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONS ### PRINTED NAME: ### LIC. NO.: ### #### PLOT DATE: PLOT FILENAME: Page 90 of 558 Aldine TrailAttachment 1 Centerline 975 Station=0+91.65 Oak No. 54 Station=0+37.74 Oak No. 57 Station=0+54.37 Oak No. 56 Station=1+05.48 Station=1+15.63 Oak No. 53 Oak No. 52 Station=1+23.46 Oak No. 51 Station=1+92.77 Hardwood No. 49 Station=2+53.31 Station=2+13.11 Oak No. 48 Hardwood No. 45 Station=1+85.65 Begin Boardwalk Station=2+40.81 970 End Boardwalk Station=1+43.02 End Boardwalk Station=0+10.74 Boardwalk Begin Boardwalk 30" MAX. HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE FOR BOARDWALK 2+40.81 965.750 0+74.77 965.500 0+52.24 Station=0+88.05 Oak No. 55 PROPOSED CENTERLINE 963.250 964.887 0+31.05 OF TRAIL GRADE 1+43.02 9" MIN CLEARANCE FOR BOARDWALK 964.000 0.29% 965.554 2+03.82 BOARDWALK 963.555 CONSTRUCTION 0+00.00 1.11% ABUTMENT 963.250 2.89% 3.65% 2+69.56 965 4.73% 0.00% 2.00% 2.03% BOARDWALK 0.00% PROPOSED BOARDWALK ABUTMENT (TYP.) 2.71% BOARDWALK PAN FEET 1+85.65 SUPPORTS EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED SOUTH END 964.000 BOARDWALK RIGHT-OF-WAY BOARDWALK PAN FEET 961.9 964.9 962.8 963.3 964.3 964.6 962.43 963.25 964.00 965.30 965.68 965.44 SUPPORTS Aldine Trail Centerline0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 975 6+51.81 964.937 Station=5+96.04 Hardwood No. 7 Station=5+55.86 Oak No. 13 Station=5+75.09 Oak No. 12 6+47.31 Station=3+63.46 Hardwood No. 37 Hardwood Station=3+97.47 Hardwood No. 36 Station=4+11.83 Hardwood No. 33 Station=4+89.27 Station=4+55.42 Oak No. 20 Hardwood No. 30 964.943 Station=6+43.40 Oak No. 2 970 Station=4+68.01 Begin Boardwalk Station=5+06.91 30" MAX. HEIGHT ABOVE End Boardwalk GRADE FOR BOARDWALK 4+68.01 5+06.91 9" MIN CLEARANCE FOR 964.933 966.668 4.46% BOARDWALK CONSTRUCTION PVI STA: 5+62.75 4.99% PVI ELEV: 969.16 4.46% LENGTH: 30.00 963.500 3+93.55 HIGH PT. STA: 5+61.92 0.12% 965 HIGH PT ELEV: 968.81 3+60.51 1.92% 962.000 PROPOSED BOARDWALK PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF TRAIL GRADE 4.54% EXISTING GRADE BOARDWALK PAN NORTH END FEET SUPPORTS RIGHT-OF-WAY BOARDWALK ABUTMENT (TYP.) 963.4 965.2 968.2 968.3 965.0 963.7 964.94 967.30 968.58 966.36 964.59 963.62 962.00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+52 6+50 0 1 ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MEASUREMENT AT THE BUILDING AND/OR SITE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. IF NOT ONE INCH ON THIS DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. K:\n-z\Roseville\23607000\04_Production\01_CAD\01_Xrefs\C3D-Design_mth.dwg ## ## ## ## DESIGNED I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS May 19, 2026 - 1:11pm 19, 2026 May PROJ. NO. ## ## ## ## ### PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A ® ### ## ## ## ## DRAWN DULY LICENSED ### UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ###. ACCESSIBLE TRAIL ROUTE THROUGH ALDINE STREET RIGHT OF WAY ## ## ## ## ### DRAWING NO. ### ### ### ### CHECKED SIGNATURE: DATE: ### TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR ROSEVILLE, MN NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONS ### PRINTED NAME: ### LIC. NO.: ### #### PLOT DATE: PLOT FILENAME: Page 91 of 558 Attachment 1 Appendix B Boardwalks Details Sheet Page 92 of 558 Attachment 1 NOTES DESIGN CRITERIA 1. THE PEDESTRIAN BOARDWALK IS DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2015 iNTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE & ASCE 7-10 AND THE LOAD COMBINATIONS PRESCRIBED WITHIN FOR ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN, WITH THE FOLLOWING: DESIGN LOADS: DEAD LOAD = 12 PSF PEDESTRIAN LOAD = 60 PSF GROUND SNOW LOAD = 60 PSF WIND LOAD = 107 MPH VEHICLE LOAD = N/A MATERIAL STRESSES: WOOD DECKING: = SYP #1 WOOD JOISTS = SYP#1 WOOD CURB RAILS = SYP #1 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION CL 1' - 4 7/8" 1. THE ENGINEER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION MEANS AND METHODS OR FOR SUPERVISION OF CONSTRUCTION. 3" 10 7/8" 3" 2. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE CROSS-CHECKED WITH EXISTING FIELD 4" DIMENSIONS AND APPROVED FABRICATION DRAWINGS FOR THE VARIOUS MATERIALS AND BUILDING COMPONENTS. ALL DISCREPANCIES ARE TO BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTANTION OF THE ENGINEER. 11 GA. GALV. SITEWORK 4" STEEL PLATE C L 1. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS TO VERIFY ALL CONDITIONS AT THE PROJECT SITE, INCLUDING UNDERGOUND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING 7/16" DIA HOLES 3" ANY EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES. 1 3/4" 5 CURB C C TREATED 5/4 x 6 DECK L L S5 RAIL BOARDS W/ (2) #12 DECK 8' - 0" FASTENERS: SCREWS PER BOARD 1' - 4 7/8" 2' - 0" 2' - 0" 2' - 0" 2' - 0" 1. FASTENERS AND CONNECTORS IN CONTACT WITH TREATED LUMBER SHALL BE HOT-DIP GALVANIZED. TREATED 2x4 TOP RAIL 2x4 TREATED 3" 10 7/8" 3" CURB RAIL 2. DECK SCREWS SHALL BE EVERCOTE #8 x 3" DECK MATE SQUARE DRIVE BY 4 PHILLIPS FASTENER PRODUCTS CO. 2x4 TREATED BLOCKING S1 BOARDWALK DECK 3. ALL STEEL CONNECTORS SHALL BE HOT-DIP GALVANIZED. WOOD 3" 3 3/4" CUSTOM GALV. 1. ALL STRUCTURAL DIMENSIONAL LUMBER SHALL COMPLY WITH THE GALV. PLATFORM BRACKET PLATFORM BRACKET AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL'S 2015 NATIONAL DESIGN SPECIFICATION FOR W/ (2) 1/2" DIA THRU-BOLTS WOOD CONSTRUCTION (2015 NDS). 2. ALL WOOD MEMBERS SHALL BE PRESERVATIVE TREATED IN ACCORDANCE C 4" L CUSTOM GALV. WITH THE AMERICAN WOOD COUNCIL REQUIRMENTS FOR PRESERVATIVE 10 7/8" 10 1' - 4 7/8" 4 - 1' BEARING PAN TREATED LUMBER. TREATED 4x4 BOARDWALK (16 7/8" X 16 7/8" ) 11 GA. GALV. POST 3. ALL WOOD MEMBERS SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF 19% STEEL PLATE AT THE THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. 3" 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL TEMPORARY BRACING DURING HANDLING AND ERECTION. 5. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ALL FINAL BRACING, AS SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. 6 BEARING PAN - STANDARD 4 BOARDWALK POST CONNECTION DETAIL 2 BOARDWALK SIDE ELEVATION S1 1 1/2" = 1'-0" S1 1 1/2" = 1'-0" S1 1/2" = 1'-0" 3 S1 CL CL 4' - 3 1/2" CL CL POST 1 3/4" 4' - 0" 1 3/4" 8' - 0" C L 3 1/2" 3' - 5" 3 1/2" 1 3/4" CLEAR 2x6 BLOCKING (TREATED) SIMPSON LU26Z TREATED 2x4 CONTINUOUS HANGER 3/4" 1 TOP RAIL 2x8 CL POST 3/8" DIA GALV. HEX TREATED 2x4x 0'-3 1/2" HEAD BOLT W/ 4 POST RAIL BLOCKING @ 2'-0" 4" - 1' NUT & WASHERS S1 CONNECTION OC 2x6 SIMPSON A35Z BOARDWALK DECK HANGER @ SIDE JOISTS 4" - 1' 0" - 4' (2) 2x8 (2) 2x8(2) 4' - 3 1/2" 3 - 4' 3" 4 FT BOARDWALK Standard 2x6 City,State Project Name: Sheet Title BOARDWALK PLAN & DETAILS TREATED 2x8 JOIST Revisions: CUSTOM GALV. 4" - 1' BEARING PAN 2x8 (16 7/8" x 16 7/8" ) CL POST 1 3/4" 1 5/4x6 DECKING 2x4 RAISED (TREATED) 4x4 POST (TREATED) CURB RAIL 2x6 BLOCKING 1 3/4" 1' - 4" 1' - 4" 1' - 4" 1 3/4" (TREATED) CUSTOM GALV. 2 BEARING PAN (16 7/8" X 16 7/8" ) S1 Project #: Issued for: REFERENCE Date: 3/2/2022 Sheet Number BOARDWALK RAILING BRACKET BOARDWALK CROSS-SECTION BOARDWALK PLAN - TYPICAL PANEL 5 3 1 S1 S1 1 1/2" = 1'-0" S1 1/2" = 1'-0" S1 1/2" = 1'-0" Page 93 of 558 Attachment 1 Appendix C Opinion of Probable Cost (OPC) Page 94 of 558 Attachment 1 PROJECT ALDINE STREET ROW TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY LOCATION ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA CITY/CLIENT CITY OF ROSEVILLE TKDA PROJECT No. 23607.000 Opinion of Probable Cost - Option 1 Permits are not anticipated and not included in this estimate ITEM UNIT TOTAL NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 MOBILIZATION (5% of subtotal) 1.0 LS$ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1.0 LS$ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 3 TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND SIGNAGE AT OAK CRZ'S 1.0 LS$ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 4 TREE REMOVALS (inc invasives) AND PRUNING LOW BRANCHES 1.0 LS$ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 5 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 1.0 LS$ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 6 TREE INNOCULANT (14 oaks and 2 cherry) 1.0 LS$ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 7 EARTHWORK EXCAVATION FOR GRAVEL PATHS 1.0 LS$ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 8 4' CLEAR WIDTH BOARDWALK w/ TOE KICK and SPREAD PAN FEET 230.0 LF$ 170.00 $ 39,100.00 9 BOARDWALK ENGINEERED DRAWINGS 1.0 LS$ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 10 BOARDWALK PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION (plywood sheets) 1.0 LS$ 250.00 $ 250.00 11 BOARDWALK ABUTMENT TO MEET GRAVEL PATH 6.0 EA$ 250.00 $ 1,500.00 12 4' WIDE GRAVEL BASE (4" depth) 32.0 TON$ 230.00 $ 7,360.00 13 4' WIDE STABILIZED GRAVEL (3" depth) 24.0 TON$ 618.00 $ 14,832.00 14 (2) 5' x 5' CONCRETE PADS AT TRAIL ENTRANCE 50.0 SF$ 20.00 $ 1,000.00 15 DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP (TRUNCATED DOMES) IN CONC. PAD 16.0 SF$ 80.00 $ 1,280.00 16 2-3' GLACIAL BOULDERS (75 lineal feet) and LANDSCAPE FABRIC 12.0 TON$ 480.00 $ 5,760.00 17 RESTORATION NATIVE SEED DISTURBED AREAS 1.0 LS$ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 18 SIGNAGE 2.0 EA$ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 100,082.00 20% CONTINGENCY $ 20,016.40 TOTAL $ 120,098.40 BID TABULATION Page 1 Page 95 of 558 Attachment 1 PROJECT ALDINE STREET ROW TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY LOCATION ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA CITY/CLIENT CITY OF ROSEVILLE TKDA PROJECT No. 23607.000 Opinion of Probable Cost - Option 2 Permits are not anticipated and not included in this estimate ITEM UNIT TOTAL NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1 MOBILIZATION (5% of subtotal) 1.0 LS$ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1.0 LS$ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 3 TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND SIGNAGE AT OAK CRZ'S 1.0 LS$ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 4 TREE REMOVALS (inc invasives) AND PRUNING LOW BRANCHES 1.0 LS$ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 5 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 1.0 EA$ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 6 TREE INNOCULANT (14 oaks and 2 cherry) 1.0 LS$ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 7 EARTHWORK EXCAVATION FOR GRAVEL PATHS 1.0 LS$ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 8 4' WIDE GRAVEL BASE (4" depth) 46.0 TON$ 213.00 $ 9,798.00 9 4' WIDE STABILIZED GRAVEL (3" depth) 36.0 TON$ 618.00 $ 22,248.00 10 (2) 5' x 5' CONCRETE PAD AT TRAIL ENTRANCE 50.0 SF$ 20.00 $ 1,000.00 11 DETECTABLE WARNING STRIP (TRUNCATED DOMES) 16.0 SF$ 80.00 $ 1,280.00 12 2-3' GLACIAL BOULDERS (75 lineal feet) and LANDSCAPE FABRIC 12.0 TON$ 480.00 $ 5,760.00 13 RESTORATION NATIVE SEED DISTURBED AREAS 1.0 LS$ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 14 SIGNAGE 2.0 EA$ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 65,086.00 20% CONTINGENCY $ 13,017.20 TOTAL $ 78,103.20 Page 96 of 558 Attachment 1 Appendix D Tree Rating Spreadsheet Page 97 of 558 Aldine Right of Way Tree Inventory Attachment 1 Page 1 of 3 Current Option 1 Health Option 2 Health Tag ID DBH Species Health 5 Yrs Post-Const. 5 Yrs Post-Const. 1 21,10 Oak white 2 3 3 2 15,13,11 Oak northern pin 2 3 3 3 5 Arborvitae 4 4 Arborvitae 5 4 Ash green 6 28 Oak white 2 3 3 7 8 Cherry black 1 4 4 8 12 Cherry black 1 4 4 9 3 Ash green 10 8 Ash green 11 8 Ash green 12 32 Oak bur 1 4 4 13 12 Oak northern pin 3 4 4 14 4,4 Box elder 15 3 Box elder 16 9 Box elder 17 7 Box elder 18 7 Box elder 19 6 Box elder 20 19 Oak bur 1 2 3 * Health rating scale: 1=Excellent 2=Good 3=Fair 4=Poor 5=Very Poor/Dead Aldine Right of Way Tree Inventory Form A drop in the tree health rating by year five could indicate a tree is in decline. A drop in the tree health rating by two indicates a tree will likely be in decline. Page 98 of 558 Aldine Right of Way Tree Inventory Attachment 1 Page 2 of 3 Current Option 1 Health Option 2 Health Tag ID DBH Species Health 5 Yrs Post-Const. 5 Yrs Post-Const. 21 3 Box elder 22 8 Elm american 23 4 Elm american 24 5 Elm american 25 10 Elm american 26 8 Siberian elm* *not native 27 18 Siberian elm* *not native 28 15 Elm american 29 7,4 Box elder 30 14 Elm american 31 30 Bur Oak 5 5 5 32 6 Box elder 33 6 Elm american 34 4 Box elder 35 11 Elm american 36 16 Green ash 37 24,17 Maple silver 3 4 4 38 3 Box elder 39 14 Maple silver 40 20,7 Maple silver 2 4 4 * Health rating scale: 1=Excellent 2=Good 3=Fair 4=Poor 5=Very Poor/Dead Aldine Right of Way Tree Inventory Form A drop in the tree health rating by year five could indicate a tree is in decline. A drop in the tree health rating by two indicates a tree will likely be in decline. Page 99 of 558 Aldine Right of Way Tree Inventory Attachment 1 Page 3 of 3 Current Option 1 Health Option 2 Health Tag ID DBH Species Health 5 Yrs Post-Const. 5 Yrs Post-Const. 41 3 Elm american 42 4 Box elder 43 3 Green ash 44 3 Maple silver 45 21 Maple silver 2 5 5 46 4 Box elder 47 11 Box elder 48 28 Oak bur 1 2 5 49 8 Basswood 1 3 4 50 3 Witch Hazel 1 1 1 51 26 Oak bur 1 3 5 52 25 Oak bur 1 3 5 53 21 Oak bur 2 3 4 54 21 Oak bur 1 2 4 55 20 Oak bur 2 3 4 56 22 Oak bur 1 2 4 57 23 Oak bur 2 3 4 * Health rating scale: 1=Excellent 2=Good 3=Fair 4=Poor 5=Very Poor/Dead Aldine Right of Way Tree Inventory Form A drop in the tree health rating by year five could indicate a tree is in decline. A drop in the tree health rating by two indicates a tree will likely be in decline. Page 100 of 558 Attachment 1 Appendix E Tree Health Post-Construction Page 101 of 558 Attachment 1 Post-Construction Oak Tree Care Aldine Street Right of Way — Supplemental Maintenance Recommendations Recommended Post-Construction Care Measures Arborist Monitoring — It is recommended that the City retain a qualified arborist to conduct regular site visits following construction. The purpose is to detect early signs of decline, oak wilt infection, or root-zone stress. It would be prudent to conduct a formal re-assessment at the one- , three-, and five-year marks to track actual outcomes of tree health. 1. Plant Growth Regulator (PGR) Re-Application — Three-Year Intervals The initial PGR/inoculant treatment included in the Option 1 construction budget ($3,000 for 14 oaks and 2 cherry trees) is an important first step in supporting root recovery. PGR efficacy diminishes over time, and re-application at approximately three-year intervals is recommended throughout the post-construction recovery period. Budget approximately $2,500–$3,500 per treatment cycle, with the project arborist determining which trees require re-treatment at each interval based on ongoing health assessments. 2. Insect Protection via Stem Injection Construction stress significantly increases oak vulnerability to opportunistic borers such as two- lined chestnut borer (Agrilus bilineatus). Preventive stem injection with a systemic insecticide is recommended for trees that sustained root zone disturbance. Treatment is estimated at $250– $350 per tree; a full-site treatment of all oak trees on site would represent an estimated investment of $3,500–$4,900. Re-evaluation and targeted re-treatment should occur every two to three years as directed by the arborist. 3. Supplemental Watering — During and Post-Construction Adequate soil moisture is critical to the survival of trees with compromised root systems. The following schedule is recommended: • During construction: Supplement whenever rainfall is less than one inch per week, applying water slowly within the CRZ. • Year 1 post-construction (highest priority): Minimum 10–15 gallons per inch of trunk diameter per week during the growing season (May–October) in dry periods. • Year 2 post-construction: Continue supplemental watering during drought periods; frequency reduced based on observed tree recovery as assessed by the arborist. 4. Post-Construction Site Access Given the site’s original access limitations via only the north and south ends, ongoing maintenance will be subject to the same entry constraints used during construction, with access Page 102 of 558 Attachment 1 limited to the north and south ends of the ROW. The raised pathway further restricts equipment access within the site, which will affect ongoing tree care activities, including routine pruning, watering, and treatment applications. All future maintenance visits will need to be carefully planned to accommodate these constraints. Page 103 of 558 Attachment 1 Appendix F Historical Information –Preexisting Vegetation and Soils Page 104 of 558 Attachment 1 F.0 Preexisting Soils and Vegetation F.1 Soils Page 105 of 558 Attachment 1 F.2 Vegetation Page 106 of 558 Attachment 1 Appendix G Relevant Site Photos Page 107 of 558 Attachment 1 G.0 Site Photos Photo 1 – South End Photo 2 – South End Photo 3 – Certified Wildlife Sign - South Photo 4 – Witchhazel from South Photo 5 – Fallen Tree Stump Photo 6 – Storm Inlet Page 108 of 558 Attachment 1 Photo 7 - Certified Wildlife Sign – North Photo 8 – Oak 12 from South Photo 9 – Oak 12 from North Photo 10 – Oak and Cherry from North Photo 11 – North End Photo 12 – North End Page 109 of 558 Attachment 1 Appendix H City Provided RFQ Materials Page 110 of 558 HERSCHEL ST 1662 1652 1640 2016 1666 WHEELER ST 1630 1678 Attachment 1 1688 ALDINE ST ALDINE 2008 2009 2008 2009 2009 2000 1667 1659 1649 1675 1639 2000 2001 2000 2001 2001 1629 1685 1710 S RIDGEWOOD LN 1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1993 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1700 1660 1650 1642 1670 1632 1624 1686 RYAN AVE 75 71 63 47 45 41 77 MID OAKS LN 1760 1716 1738 1732 1754 1742 1770 1778 1706 85 50 44 MID OAKS LN 90 68 MID OAKS RD OAKS MID 87 24 23 33 96 89 17 25 22 91 98 1715 1731 1725 1739 1763 1745 1749 1775 1785 15 1705 19 14 93 100 11 Exhibit V: Aldine Ave Right-of-Way Vacation DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, Data Sources and Contacts: information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to 0 25 50 75 100 Feet * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (5/01/25) be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose Prepared by: Right-of-Way Vacation Area * City of Roseville Engineering Department requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies For further information regarding the contents of this map contact: are found please contact 651-792-7075. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), Engineering Department mapdoc: ExhibitV_AldineAve.mxd City of Roseville, Engineering Department, and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to May 21, 2025 defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which map: ExhibitV_AldineAve.pdf 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. ´ Page 111 of 558 964 964 963 963 967 969 962 962 968 965 968 967 966 967 964 963 962 964 965 966 965 0 15 30 60 SCALE IN FEET SHEET NO. ALDINE STREET TOPO EXHIBIT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1 1 Xrefs:, Border Drawing Plot Date: 08/29/2025 Drawing name: R:\PublicWorks\CAD\Projects\2025\Aldine Tree Project\Production_01.dwg SHEET NO. OF SHEETS Page 113 of 558 Aldine Right of Way Tree Inventory Tag ID DBH Species Untagged: 1 21,10 Oak white abundant buckthorn 2 15,13,11 Oak northern pin ~5 White poplar 3 5 Arborvitae ~5 White mulberry 4 4 Arborvitae ~3 amur maple 5 4 Ash green 6 28 Oak white 7 8 Cherry black 8 12 Cherry black 9 3 Ash green 10 8 Ash green 11 8 Ash green 12 32 Oak bur 13 12 Oak northern pin 14 4,4 Box elder 15 3 Box elder 16 9 Box elder 17 7 Box elder 18 7 Box elder 19 6 Box elder 20 19 Oak bur 21 3 Box elder 22 8 Elm american 23 4 Elm american 24 5 Elm american 25 10 Elm american 26 8 Siberian elm* *not native 27 18 Siberian elm* *not native 28 15 Elm american 29 7,4 Box elder 30 14 Elm american 31 30 Elm american 32 6 Box elder 33 6 Elm american 34 4 Box elder 35 11 Elm american 36 16 Green ash 37 24,17 Maple silver 38 3 Box elder 39 14 Maple silver 40 20,7 Maple silver 41 3 Elm american 42 4 Box elder 43 3 Green ash 44 3 Maple silver 45 21 Maple silver Page 114 of 558 Aldine Right of Way Tree Inventory 46 4 Box elder 47 11 Box elder 48 28 Oak bur 49 8 Basswood 50 3 Witch Hazel 51 26 Oak bur 52 25 Oak bur 53 21 Oak bur 54 21 Oak bur 55 20 Oak bur 56 22 Oak bur 57 23 Oak bur Page 115 of 558 Attachment 2 ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 7, 2025 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: Arneson, Beckman, Botzek, Donaldson, Harris, Kooistra, Matts-Benson, Penny. ABSENT: Boulton, Her. STAFF: Johnson. 1. ROLL CALL Roll Call Commissioners: Arneson, Beckman, Botzek, Donaldson, Harris, Kooistra, Matts-Benson, Penny. 2. APPROVE AGENDA Commissioner Botzek moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Penny seconded. Roll Call Ayes: Arneson, Beckman, Botzek, Donaldson, Harris, Kooistra, Matts-Benson, Penny. Nays: None. Abstain: None. 3. RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT No members of the public chose to speak, as all were present in relation to items on the agenda. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Donaldson moved to approve the June 3, 2025 minutes. Commissioner Harris seconded. Roll Call Ayes: Arneson, Beckman, Botzek, Donaldson, Harris, Kooistra, Matts-Benson, Penny. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Page 116 of 558 Attachment 2 5. BUSINESS ITEMS a) INITIAL DISCUSSION OF ALDINE STREET RIGHT OF WAY Staff reviewed maps with the Commission to show the location of the Aldine right-of-way. Staff explained that a right-of-way is a legal designation for City-owned property that allows the public or utilities to access land for public use, typically for transportation or utilities. The City owns and manages numerous acres of right-of-way throughout Roseville. Staff noted that the Public Works Department occasionally identifies right-of-way segments that are no longer needed for future roadway purposes and may propose vacating them to adjacent property owners. This process includes a public hearing to gather community feedback. Staff highlighted that this right-of-way was not identified as a priority route in the City’s Pathway Master Plan, which guides future pathway projects. However, the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan does identify this segment as a potential “constellation link” which is a conceptual connector that would support system-wide recreation access. Staff reviewed Goals 4.1, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 of the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan with the Commission. These goals provide guidance for the future development and management of pathways. On April 21, 2025, Public Works presented a proposal to vacate a one-block segment of Aldine Street between Ryan Avenue and Roselawn Avenue. During the public hearing, several residents provided feedback to the City Council, with opinions both in support of and in opposition to the vacation. Following the hearing, the City Council directed Public Works to explore the feasibility of establishing a formal pathway within the right-of-way and requested that the Parks and Recreation Commission consider whether a non-traditional pathway could be feasible for this location. The issue was further discussed at the June 16 and July 21 City Council meetings. Concerns were raised regarding the impact a traditional pathway might have on existing vegetation, including the removal of mature trees and the need for significant grading. Staff reported that the Aldine right-of-way is 30 feet wide. The current informal pathway extends beyond the right-of-way and onto private property. Staff noted that multiple neighboring properties have encroached into the right-of-way, resulting in deviations from a direct route. While challenging conditions exist within the right-of-way, staff indicated that these challenges do not appear to be insurmountable. Staff outlined potential pathway options within the right-of-way. A traditional bituminous pathway could be constructed; however, this option would likely require the removal of a Page 117 of 558 Attachment 2 number of established trees. Alternatively, a non-traditional pathway may be feasible and less impactful on existing vegetation, though it would still need to meet ADA requirements, including a minimum width of four feet, slope adjustments, and appropriate curb cuts. To date, community feedback has reflected a range of perspectives. Many neighbors have asked the City Council to preserve some form of access from Roselawn Avenue to Aldine Street. Adjacent property owners have petitioned the City Council to vacate the right-of-way. Additional themes from community input include a desire to preserve as many existing trees as possible, interest in finding a harmonious solution, and a willingness from residents to participate in developing potential options. As part of its exploration of the Aldine right-of-way, the City Council requested the Commission’s input on the following questions: • Would a non-traditional pathway or park in this location be valuable to the Parks and Recreation system? • Is a non-traditional pathway viable in this location? • What impact would this have on existing trees and vegetation? • What are the estimated installation costs? • How would such a pathway be maintained? Staff reiterated that the Parks and Recreation Commission is not the final governing body and will not make the ultimate decision regarding the Aldine right-of-way. The Commission has been tasked with providing input to the City Council on the questions outlined above. Staff also noted that Commissioners will not be asked to weigh in on matters beyond the scope of these questions. Staff outlined the following planned actions: • Conduct a topographical survey including tree locations • Analyze grades and potential impacts on vegetation • Evaluate the usefulness of the right-of-way for the Parks and Recreation system • Return to the City Council with findings for a decision Commissioner Harris acknowledged that she lives near the property in question. She stated that she did not feel it was necessary to recuse herself, as she believes she can respond to the questions posed to the Commission without personal bias. Vice-Chair Beckmann asked how existing encroachments within the right-of-way would be addressed. Staff responded that, at this time, they anticipate any encroachments would be removed. Page 118 of 558 Attachment 2 M. Erickson, 93 Mid Oaks Ln. Erickson, an adjacent property owner, asked the Commission to apply the “but-for test” when evaluating the Aldine right-of-way in relation to Roseville Parks. She explained that in legal applications, the test is used to determine whether one action is the direct cause of another, and suggested it is also useful in evaluating the reasoning for City action. She made the following points: • New Park Question: Asked whether the City would create a new 30' x 590' (.4 acre) park absent pressure from some City Council members and residents to formalize an unimproved shortcut while avoiding ADA requirements. • Neighborhood Context: Cited City Council meeting minutes that she felt supported her claim and questioned whether a 30' x 520' single-purpose park, with zero buffer between eight 60+ year-old homes, would otherwise be pursued. • Community Support: Asked if there is professional, inclusive, and impartial evidence of widespread neighborhood support for diverting limited park resources to create a limited- access shortcut. • Precedent: Questioned whether there is precedent for a park of this size, purpose, and proximity to existing homes. She concluded by asking Commission members to consider the broader context motivating the City Council’s request for input regarding the Aldine St. right-of-way. J. Reinert, 1667 Ridgewood Ln. S. Reinert relayed that the neighborhood has a strong pedestrian character, which he considers an asset. He enjoys meeting new neighbors and greeting familiar ones along the connecting paths that contribute to the area’s pedestrian-friendly environment. He emphasized the following points: • Neighborhood Asset: The Aldine Street right-of-way is a critical feature for both the neighborhood and the City. • Community Impact: Without the path, many neighbors are unhappy, while its removal would benefit only a few adjacent property owners. • Personal Use: He uses the path daily for medical reasons, as it reduces walking time. • Overall Value: He believes removing the path would not benefit Roseville or the neighborhood. P. Veach, 1661 Ridgewood Ln. N. Veach stated that she used the Aldine St. right of way weekly and considers it a special feature of the neighborhood. She values the right of way for its wooded and serene atmosphere and noted that wildlife also uses the corridor. She emphasized that she does not view it as a shortcut, but rather as a pathway she relies on regularly, and she advocated for the continued use of the land as a pathway. Page 119 of 558 Attachment 2 S. Aschenbrenner, 2016 Herschel St. Aschenbrenner noted that she enjoyed using the Alding St. right of way and appreciated the extensive tree cover, emphasizing the importance of preserving the trees. She shared that short walks have become much longer and more difficult since she has not been able to use the pathway. She expressed excitement about the possibility of a parks solution and stated that she believes many neighbors would be willing to come together to create a solution that, while it may not satisfy everyone, would provide an important opportunity for community. C. Gallaher, 2009 Herschel St. Gallaher stated that she has used the Aldine St. right-of-way for 36 years and finds it to be a safer alternative to walking along Snelling Avenue, where she feels the sidewalk is not wide enough for pedestrian safety. She expressed gratitude for the path that was added along Fairview Avenue and asked the Commission to consider the potential benefits of maintaining a connecting path, including supporting property values and fostering a stronger sense of community. D. Gault, 2021 Herschel St. Gault shared that he has lived in Roseville for 32 years and has walked on the path more than 3,300 times. He stated that the Aldine St. right of way has become a divisive issue within the neighborhood and expressed his belief that now is the time for healing. He noted that he would not use the Aldine St. right of way unless all neighbors could come to a mutual agreement and emphasized the importance of finding common solutions together. He explained that he stopped walking the Aldine St. right of way after realizing that adjacent property owners were unhappy with its use and concluded that his relationships with neighbors are more important to him than continued access to the path. A. Lottie, 90 Mid Oaks Ln. Spoke on behalf of her three school-age children, noting that the Aldine St. right of way provides them with a safe route to friends’ houses and as a walking route to school. She emphasized that in a world with limited independence for children, the Aldine St. right of way offers them an important opportunity for independence, as their family feels comfortable allowing the children to walk alone on the path because they are familiar with the neighbors along the route. She expressed hope that a creative solution can be found to preserve the path. T. Brown, 93 Mid Oaks Ln. Is a civil engineer and adjacent property owner, he stated that the Aldine St. right of way provides valuable privacy for his home and open space for wildlife. Additionally, he raised several concerns in response to the City Council’s questions for the Parks and Recreation Commission: • Value/Connectivity: Asked what parks or neighborhoods the proposed trail would connect. Page 120 of 558 Attachment 2 • Viability/Drainage: Noted that a storm sewer with beehive catch basins runs through the corridor to prevent basement flooding in nearby homes. He expressed concern that grading for a trail could disrupt drainage, introduce sediment into the receiving lake, raise the water table, and potentially cause basement flooding to return. • ADA Compliance: Questioned how the steep grade could be maintained, to support the existing irrigation system, while also meeting ADA pathway requirements. • Access/Safety: Expressed concern about pedestrian access from Roselawn Avenue, citing high traffic volumes (approximately 3,000 trips per day per MnDOT). He stated that children walking in the parking lane during rush hour poses safety risks and may require special crossing treatments. Brown concluded by noting he has additional concerns and hopes adjacent property owners will have the opportunity to share them. D. Wiswell, 1731 Shryer Ave. W. Has lived in the neighborhood since 2016, stated that she frequently used the path to walk her dog and expressed concern about the loss of safe access for children in and out of the Mid Oaks neighborhood. She shared the following points: • Neighborhood Access: Stated it is disheartening that children can no longer easily reach friends’ houses, Evergreen Park, or schools using the path. • Community Transition: Noted that the neighborhood is transitioning to younger families and that she values accessibility for children to move safely between neighborhoods. • Established Feature: Emphasized that the Aldine St. right of way path has been a longstanding feature of the neighborhood and should be preserved. • Equity for Children: Felt that discontinuing the path would be a disservice to children who rely on it to reach friends and schools safely. • Safety: Stated that use of the Aldine St. right of way along Roselawn is safer than requiring children to walk farther along Roselawn to access other neighborhoods. She concluded by expressing a desire to find a collaborative solution that would preserve the established path while fostering cooperation among neighbors. Commissioner Donaldson asked staff to explain the difference between parks and trails. Staff relayed that the Pathway- Master Plan is managed by Public Works. The Master Plan is driven by Public Works, with input from the Parks and Recreation Department to determine the creation of pathways. The Parks and Recreation Department handles any trail within a park as well as providing maintenance to any trail within Roseville. The Commission discussed how existing pathways in the City were originally established and considered the precedent for creating new pathways. Page 121 of 558 Attachment 2 Staff asked what materials they could provide at the next meeting to assist the Commission in making a recommendation. The Commission requested the following additional information: • Existing and planned sidewalks in the area • Information on trees and vegetation within the right-of-way • Potential drainage concerns • Guidelines to help ensure the recommendation remains objective • A City Attorney letter regarding the legality of using the Aldine right-of-way as a park The Commission also discussed whether the City of Falcon Heights should be consulted. Staff relayed that Falcon Heights has not yet been included in the discussion but noted that this could be part of the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Harris inquired about the possibility of a site visit. Staff responded that Open Meeting Law requirements would need to be followed but agreed to look into arranging a tour of the site. b) MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS CENTER UPDATE (STANDING ITEM) Staff reported that on June 16, 2025, the City Council reviewed options for the Maintenance Operations Center (MOC) and License and Passport Center/City Dance Studio (LPCDS). The Council indicated support for Concept C, which would relocate daily maintenance operations to a renovated facility south of Woodhill Drive and place yard and storage functions north of Woodhill Drive. Concept C also calls for construction of a two-story LPCDS on the southwest corner of the Veterans Park parcel, with expanded shared parking alongside the VFW. This approach reduces yard space and operational efficiency compared to the full Campus Master Plan but preserves much of Veterans Park and allows the VFW to remain in place. At its July 7 meeting, the City Council considered whether LPCDS operations should be moved off-campus but voted 3–2 to construct the facility on the City Campus. On July 21, the Council approved release of a Request for Proposals for architectural services and a Request for Qualifications for construction management at-risk services to move the project forward. Chair Matts-Benson stated that she feels Concept C represents a potentially great outcome to a complex problem. The Commission discussed how the new concept would affect Veteran’s Park. Staff noted that little work has been done in the park in recent years due to uncertainty about the property’s future and indicated that the park would likely be approached as a blank concept plan when planning begins. Page 122 of 558 Attachment 3 ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 2, 2025 6:30 p.m. PRESENT: Beckman, Botzek, Donaldson, Harris, Her, Kooistra, Matts-Benson, Penny. ABSENT: Arneson, Boulton. STAFF: Johnson. 1. ROLL CALL Roll Call Commissioners: Arneson, Beckman, Botzek, Donaldson, Harris, Kooistra, Matts-Benson, Penny. 2. APPROVE AGENDA Commissioner Botzek moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Donaldson seconded. Roll Call Ayes: Beckman, Botzek, Donaldson, Harris, Her, Kooistra, Matts-Benson, Penny. Nays: None. Abstain: None. 3. RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT No members of the public chose to speak, as all were present in relation to items on the agenda. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Penny moved to approve the August 7, 2025, minutes. Commissioner Harris seconded. Roll Call Ayes: Beckman, Botzek, Donaldson, Harris, Her, Kooistra, Matts-Benson, Penny. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Page 123 of 558 Attachment 3 5. BUSINESS ITEMS a) DISCUSS AND CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE ALDINE STREET RIGHT OF WAY Staff provided background information on the Commission’s initial discussion of the Aldine Street right-of-way (ROW), which took place at the August 7, 2025 Parks and Recreation meeting. Since that time, the following actions have been completed: • Several commissioners toured the site. • Staff prepared site inventories of trees and topography. • Staff researched accessibility requirements and tree preservation. Staff emphasized that the Commission’s goal is to work toward an eventual recommendation for the City Council. The Commission reviewed the list of questions provided by the City Council, noting that not all questions need to (or can) be answered immediately. These questions include: • Should the ROW become a park trail? • Does it provide recreational value? • How many trees impacted/removed? • Detailed impacts on vegetation and trees? • Neighborhood engagement process? • Use Park Dedication funds? • Does a 30-foot-wide park make sense in Roseville? Staff presented the results of the site analysis, which included the following findings: • 57 inventoried trees, including 24 with a trunk diameter greater than 10” DBH (Diameter at Breast Height, the standard measurement). • 7 large oaks measuring over 20” DBH. • 8 invasive green ash trees (estimated removal cost: $3,000–$5,000). • Ground cover primarily consists of invasive buckthorn. • Encroachments reduce overall accessibility. • The right-of-way is located near several homes, with one as close as 18 feet. • Preliminary Analysis: Informal trail routes appear possible with limited impact. Because the right-of-way would serve as a community connective trail, it must comply with PROWAG (Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines) standards, which include: • A firm and stable surface. • Maximum slope of 5% and maximum cross slope of 2%. • Minimum width of 48 inches, with designated passing spaces. • Required curb cuts and ramps. • Use of a non-bituminous path is possible. Page 124 of 558 Attachment 3 As part of the tree inventory, staff identified several considerations regarding tree preservation at the site: • Key concern: large oak trees, with current conditions mixed and in some cases unknown. • Risks: potential damage from soil compaction, grading, and heavy traffic. • A traditional trail design would likely result in significant tree loss. • A non-traditional approach could reduce overall impacts. • Possible next step: engage an arborist and engineer to determine the potential best trail route and ways to mitigate tree loss. The Commission reviewed the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan guidance for pedestrian community connections, focusing on Goals 4.1, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6. Staff noted that the Master Plan identified this right-of-way segment as a potential “constellation link,” a conceptual connector intended to support system-wide recreation access. However, this segment was not identified as a priority route in the City’s Pathway Master Plan, which serves as the guide for future pathway projects. Staff reviewed metrics related to park access impacts for the right-of-way: • The ROW is located within Constellation K. • Closest Park: Evergreen Park (Community Park). o Distance via ROW: 0.51 miles. o Distance via streets: 0.69 miles. • The Mid Oaks neighborhood falls outside the Trust for Public Land (TPL) 10-minute walk-to-a-park radius goal. Currently, 94% of Roseville residents fall within the TPL 10- minute walk-to-a-park standard. o Evergreen Park (via Fairview): 0.86 miles. o Falcon Heights Community Park: 0.86 miles. o Evergreen Park (via ROW): 0.68 miles. • The Commission reviewed existing pedestrian connections near the ROW Staff reviewed potential cost considerations for the right-of-way: • Hardscape path: $84,000–$177,000. • Non-concrete path: $20,000–$60,000 (including design and site work). • Volunteers and staff could assist with clearing invasive species and creating informal paths. • Engineering work would still be required to address slopes and accessibility. The Commission revisited several questions that had been discussed at the previous meeting: • Other neighborhood connections were created during the platting process. • The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) can make a recommendation without the ROW becoming a park. • The PRC may provide advice on community engagement and implementation. • Flooding risk is considered minimal with appropriate mitigation. Page 125 of 558 Attachment 3 • If the ROW were vacated, ownership would transfer to adjacent neighbors, and the City would no longer have control. • A potential crosswalk at Roselawn would require review and approval by both the City and Falcon Heights. Staff reviewed the next potential steps, possible recommendations, and additional considerations with the Commission: • Joint meeting with the City Council scheduled for September 15, 2025. • At that meeting, the Commission could: o Provide an update on progress. o Share recommendations (if ready). o Propose next steps. o Seek clarification from the Council. • Possible Recommendations: Recommendation One o Does ROW provide parks and recreation value? Yes → move to Recommendation Two No → Option 1: Vacate No → Option 2: Retain without change • Possible Recommendations: Recommendation Two o If the parcel has Parks and Recreation value, what should happen next? 1. Study alignment/tree impacts 2. Begin non-traditional trail planning 3. Begin hardscape path planning 4. No trail; vacate ROW 5. Take no action now, but preserve ROW for future • Additional Considerations o Convert ROW to parkland (pending legal review)? o Use Park Dedication funds? o Does the Commission have feedback on an implementation method? The Commission discussed whether there is a precedent for right-of-way land being used as a park or trail. Staff noted that precedent does exist: some ROW segments have been used to provide access to parks, and natural spaces are also part of the City’s Park System. However, this parcel would be unique as it would be the smallest in the system and the only one to potentially combine both uses. Vice-Chair Beckmann asked if there was an estimated cost for an arborist to assess the trees. Staff responded that they anticipated the cost would range from $500 to $2,000, depending on the level of detail required in the assessment. Commissioner Donaldson asked how the trail would be maintained in the winter. Staff acknowledged that it could be difficult to plow an unpaved, winding trail during winter months. Page 126 of 558 Attachment 3 Commissioner Penny asked about existing encroachments and how they would be addressed. Staff explained that, under City policy, homeowners are responsible for removing encroachments at their own expense. The Commission also discussed potential concerns related to the site’s trees, particularly the oak and box elder species. J. Reinart, 1667 Ridgewood J. Reinart, 1667 Ridgewood, spoke in strong support of saving the path. He noted that he does not have a preference for the type of trail surface but emphasized the importance of maintaining the connection. He shared that his own use of nearby walking paths has decreased and expressed concern that removing this path would be a disservice to the broader Roseville community. Noting that the path connects the neighborhood to key city amenities, including parks, trails, and the local school. He reaffirmed that retaining the pathway is in the best interest of the City and that the trees along the ROW can be protected while preserving access. A. Lottie, 90 Mid Oaks Ln. A. Lottie, 90 Mid Oaks Lane, shared her support for retaining the path. She explained that she previously lived on the ROW, moved away, and later returned to the neighborhood nearby because her family missed Roseville and the community. She emphasized that this is not about creating a new path but about improving an existing one that already serves as a quiet, shared space connecting neighbors. Ms. Lottie noted that the path provided her children with a safe, more direct route to Brimhall School, which they could take independently because they knew the neighbors along the ROW. While other routes exist, they are farther and less safe, as they require crossing Roselawn Avenue or walking along the Snelling Avenue frontage road, which is both busy and in poor condition. She expressed appreciation for the City’s efforts to study the land carefully and to prioritize tree protection. Her hope is that some form of the longstanding neighborhood path can be retained, as it is important not only to current residents but also to future neighbors. With the school year beginning, she reiterated how much her family misses the path, as her children especially prefer walking to school, rather than riding the bus, even during the winter months. S. Quinn, 89 Mid Oak S. Quinn, 89 Mid Oaks Lane, spoke in opposition to converting the ROW into a park. She stated that her home abuts the property and that she did not purchase her home with the expectation of living next to a park, noting that she likely would not have purchased it had that been the case. Ms. Quinn expressed disappointment that the Commission packet did not address how converting the ROW to a public park would impact surrounding neighbors. She emphasized that 21 residents (soon to be 24) live in adjacent homes, and their loss of privacy was not highlighted. She further raised concerns about long-term tree damage, noting that the driplines of many mature trees extend beyond the proposed 30-foot path. She stated that no treatment could fully Page 127 of 558 Attachment 3 prevent tree loss if roots are disturbed. Ms. Quinn also referenced recent City Communications celebrating an award for natural resources management, which highlighted the importance of preservation. She urged the Commission to prioritize saving both the mature trees and the privacy of the abutting neighbors, who did not expect or want to live next to a park. O. Gault, 2021 Herschel St. O. Gault, 2021 Herschel Street, spoke in favor of retaining the path. She noted that she walks the path year-round and, although it has never been shoveled, neighbors continue to use it in the winter. She emphasized that residents are not asking for anything new but simply want to continue using the existing walking path, which she has relied on for the 30 years she has lived in the neighborhood. Ms. Gault explained that she was unaware until the initial vacate notice that some abutting property owners did not want people walking on the ROW. In response to the closing of the path she created an on-line petition, and within one week it received 98 signatures representing 68 households, all supporting the continuation of the path. She expressed regret that the issue has become divisive between abutting homeowners and the rest of the neighborhood. However, she emphasized her hope that both the path and the greenspace can be preserved. D. Urswell, 1731 Shryer D. Urswell, 1731 Shryer Avenue, spoke in favor of preserving the path. She expressed concern for children living on Mid Oaks, noting that without the path they cannot move between neighborhoods without running across busy streets. She emphasized that the path has served as a well-established neighborhood connection for more than 30 years and that it is unfair to isolate children by removing it. Ms. Urswell stated that children should have the opportunity to take the healthier route of walking along the path, rather than being forced to rely on motor vehicles to travel between neighborhoods or access local community amenities. J. Pribyl, 1738 Skillman Ave. J. Pribyl, 1738 Skillman Avenue, spoke in support of the path. He stated that he enjoys using the path and appreciates that this unique situation is being given thoughtful and creative consideration. He noted that the path serves as a connector between neighborhoods as well as to the University of Minnesota agricultural fields, which welcome walkers and provides a large open space for recreation that his family takes advantage of often. Mr. Pribyl also highlighted the importance of the trees, noting that they have long existed alongside and within the ROW. He expressed appreciation that everyone’s input is being considered and that the process has allowed neighbors to hear and understand each other’s perspectives. Page 128 of 558 Attachment 3 A. Quinn, 89 Mid Oak A. Quinn, 89 Mid Oaks Lane, emphasized that the situation has changed since he purchased his home. He noted that the size of the right-of-way has decreased over time and that there have been concerns with unwanted activity in the area. He also pointed out that portions of the existing path are located on private property, meaning the path cannot remain in its current location and would need to change. He added that any changes would affect the trees and observed that everyone seems to be in agreement about the importance of preserving them. The Commission acknowledged that there are valid points on both sides of the issue. Commissioners emphasized the importance of protecting the privacy of adjacent neighbors while also recognizing the value of maintaining neighborhood connections to parks and trails. The Commission discussed and agreed that the ROW provides Parks and Recreation value, noting that this has been acknowledged historically as the Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified the right-of-way segment as a potential “constellation link.” Commissioners also discussed whether the property would be best classified as a park or as a right-of-way, and how that decision could impact the preservation of trees. In addition, the Commission considered how future property ownership changes could affect both the neighborhood and its natural resources. Commissioner Donaldson moved to recommend to the City Council that the Parks and Recreation Commission acknowledges that the Aldine right-of-way has value for the Parks and Recreation System. Commissioner Kooistra seconded. Roll Call Ayes: Beckman, Botzek, Donaldson, Harris, Kooistra, Matts-Benson, Penny. Nays: None. Abstain: Her. The Commission discussed potential options for moving forward with a recommendation to the City Council, emphasizing that tree preservation should remain a top priority. Commissioners agreed that a non-traditional pathway would be the most favorable option, as it would have the least impact on the trees, unless a detailed study determined that the existing trees are not viable. Chair Matts-Benson moved that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council direct staff to, as expeditiously as possible, engage with a third party to conduct a detailed study of a non-traditional path that includes: 1. Pathway alignment options and, 2. Specific tree impacts and that a final decision be made immediately following the receipt of the study. Vice- Chair Beckmann seconded. Page 129 of 558 Attachment 3 Roll Call Ayes: Beckman, Botzek, Donaldson, Harris, Her, Kooistra, Matts-Benson, Penny. Nays: None. Abstain: None. Vice-Chair Beckmann moved to wait to discuss the “additional considerations” until the feasibility study has been conducted. Chair Matts-Benson seconded. Roll Call Ayes: Beckman, Botzek, Donaldson, Harris, Her, Kooistra, Matts-Benson, Penny. Nays: None. Abstain: None. b) PREPARE FOR JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPT. 15, 2025 The Commission reviewed the PowerPoint presentation prepared by staff for the upcoming joint meeting with the City Council. Commissioners discussed who would lead the discussion for each topic and what information should be included in the presentation. Specifically, they suggested having the Park Tour, Campus Master Plan, Recreation Program Quality, and the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan on the “Other Discussion Topics” slide. They also recommended highlighting the goals of “Supporting and grow the three Friends groups” and “Reviewing and advising on the Volunteer Program” when discussing the Parks and Recreation Commission Goals. c) MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS CENTER UPDATE (STANDING ITEM) Requests for Proposals (RFP) have been issued for an architect, and a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) has been issued for a construction manager for the project. Proposals will be reviewed within the next week, with an anticipated recommendation to the City Council for an architect by the end of the month, followed by a recommendation for a construction manager shortly thereafter. 6. COMMISSION DIRECTION ON MEMBER INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS Commissioner Penny requested adding the following items to a future Commission agenda: • The potential of adding electric vehicle chargers as a future park amenity. • Opportunities for collaboration between the Parks and Recreation Commission and the community group at Parkview School working on an inclusive playground. Page 130 of 558 Attachment 4 June 2, 2026 TO: Roseville Mayor Dan Roe & the Roseville City Council and Roseville Voters FROM: Tim Brown, P.E. (retired), Adjacent Property Owner, 93 Mid Oaks Lane RE: ALDINE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY Thank you for taking the time and effort to review my comments regarding the Aldine ROW trail proposal which has the potential to have a significant impact on my adjacent property use, enjoyment, and monetary value. I read the TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY and found the arborist's work in Section 3 thorough and revealing. FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 3. Tree Study The arborist's rating of tree quality is consistent with our observations in that the trees in the ROW are mostly in good or very good condition (Appendix D). Further we have observed that the trees on the adjacent lots are also in very good condition. Appendix D also shows the existing quality of each ROW tree and the quality expected after construction damage. Every living Oak tree shows significant reduction in quality and health due to the proposed construction in either option. The arborist's analysis in Section 3.3.1 (page 5) also raises red flags for this proposal. 1. From Paragraph 2, "Even a single pass from heavy equipment within the critical root zone (CRZ) can initiate a cycle of long-term decline." 2. It also points out in paragraph 4 that disease from damage to one tree's roots, stems, or trunk can be communicated to adjacent trees via extensive roots and infect and kill an entire stand. 3. Paragraph 5 states that either of the two construction options/methods included in the study "is likely to adversely affect the long-term health of the trees." Alarmingly, the above findings together suggest that this work could initiate Oak Wilt killing of oaks in the ROW and transfer Oak Wilt across entire stands of oak throughout the Mid Oaks neighborhood. The question I heard from the City Council to initiate the study was: is there an ACA compliant pathway through the ROW that would avoid loss of trees? Clearly the Arborist has answered NO. A very clear NO. And not just the ROW trees but all the Oak Trees in adjacent lots could be at risk from damage- initiated disease. This study makes it clear the risks and costs of this proposed project far outweigh the benefit to the City at large. It also warns of a potential tragic loss of many of these quality trees inside and ouside of the ROW. Once these trees are damaged or gone, they cannot be reclaimed. Page 1 Page 131 of 558 Attachment 4 FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 4. Findings and Recommended Solutions Feasibility Studies are crucial to a successful project and to be most useful they must be accurate and complete in examining issues and options. One essential element: The No-Build Scenario, is not included in the Study. It allows for a broad perspective on the project goals and benefits versus the cost compared to other options. The example below is my evaluation of the benefits and costs to the City in the case of NOT building this trail: Table 1. Aldine Street Right-Of-Way Trail No-Build Option CITY COST PROS: 1. No tree damage in the ROW or risks of tree disease spread to private lots. Maintains $0 the existing high-quality trees and canopy. 2. ROW Vacation and no trail construction. The savings to tax-payers of more than $0 $120,000 (this number does not include a safe crossing at Roselawn, ADA ramps, long term maintenance, the cost of construction plan development, or resident costs to remove existing encroachments). 3. Residents maintain the area without City responsibility. Residents provide a Tree $0 Conservation Restriction to protect these oaks in perpetuity. 4. Pedestrians retain available safe crossings of Roselawn Ave at both Fairview Ave and $0 at Snelling Ave 5. Preserving oak trees is complementary and consistent with Rewilding Roseville initiative toward maintaining the tree canopy and the Envisioning Roseville ’23 report that found Roseville is "a community that treasures and preserves natural areas $0 and prioritizes conservation and sustainability." CONS: 1. Pedestrian access between Ryan Ave and Roselawn Ave is less than 1/4 mile longer. TOTAL $0 Section 4.1 Findings states that "there is no accessible path alignment that will completely avoid the existing oak trees' CRZ areas." Section 4.1.1 states that Option 1 will directly impact 2 trees and Section 4.1.2 states Option 2 will impact 14 trees. This assumes all the precautions in Study Section 3.3 for the contractor are perfectly implemented. Over my years of working to protect valuable trees during trail construction it is clear to me that contractors in general are not reliable protectors of valuable trees. The competitive bidding process and the need for profit often short-change the tree protection methods. Add that to the difficulty of access for this site and you have a recipe for tree loss well beyond the study’s prediction. Please allow us to continue to vigorously protect these amazing community assets and vote to abandon a trail project here and vacate the Aldine Street ROW. Thank you for your consideration, Tim P. Brown, P.E. (retired) Note: Besides being an adjacent property owner, I practiced for 30 years as a licensed Professional Engineer (P.E.). I have decades of Civil Engineering project experience including as staff for the cities of Rosemount and Lakeville, and in the position of Parks Engineer for the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. During these years I managed many trail and park improvement projects with complicated safety and tree issues. Page 2 Page 132 of 558 966 966 BOARDWALK CONCRETE PAD ON PADS, 5% MAX 4' CHAIN LINK FENCE 4' WIRE FENCE EXISTING OAK TREE 965965DRAIN INLET CRZ (TYP.) 964 PI: 2+05.99 PC: 3+21.97 PI: 0+31.05 PT: 1+85.65 PI: 2+30.16 ROW PROPERTY LINE 2+00 0+00 PC: 1+71.40 965 3+00 PI: 0+74.76 30' PT: 1+58.57 STUMP PC: 2+44.33 962 1+00 963 PT: 2+65.44 963 966 4' WIDE GRAVEL PATH 964 SHED PI: 0+52.24 ROW PROPERTY LINE 5% MAX SLOPE 966 POWER POLE 965 BOARDWALK PASSING ZONE (5' WIDE PATH) 964 GUY WIRES (TYP.) PC: 1+47.00 4' SEMI-PRIVACY FENCE 963 ON PADS, 5% MAX EVERY 250' MIN. 962 4' WIRE FENCE 0 10 20 40 6' PRIVACY FENCE WITCHHAZEL PLAN NORTH SOUTH END OF RIGHT OF WAY SCALE IN FEET TRUE NORTH EXISTING CURB CUT GLACIAL BOULDER EDGE TO RETAIN SLOPES (TYP.) CONCRETE PAD 965 966 STREET SIGN (ARROW) STORM INLET BOARDWALK 963 CONC. STRUCTURE ON PADS, 5% MAX PT: 6+10.08 MANHOLE 962 964 967 PT: 6+50.34 PC: 5+06.75 968 966 PC: 6+33.60 DEAD OAK PI: 4+79.22 PT: 5+19.27 967 965 ROW PROPERTY LINE 5+00 6+51.81 6+00 968 962 PRC: 4+23.32 967 PT: 4+52.93 PT: 3+75.05 30' 4+00 PC: 5+38.76 969 PC: 5+89.99 964 STUMPS 4' SPLIT RAIL WOOD PC: 3+81.76 PRC: 4+04.01 PCC: 4+43.56 WITH WIRE FENCE PT: 5+88.39 ROW PROPERTY LINE PASSING ZONE (5' WIDE PATH) EXISTING OAK TREE PC: 5+57.77 EVERY 250' MIN. POWER POLE 4' BLACK CHAIN TALL EVERGREEN CRZ (TYP.) PT: 5+57.51 (TYP.) LINK FENCE 0 10 20 40 HEDGE NORTH END OF RIGHT OF WAY SCALE IN FEET 0 1 ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MEASUREMENT AT THE BUILDING AND/OR SITE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. IF NOT ONE INCH ON THIS DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. K:\n-z\Roseville\23607000\04_Production\01_CAD\01_Xrefs\C3D-Design_mth.dwg ## ## ## ## DESIGNED I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PROJ. NO. May 19, 2026 - 11:03am 19, 2026 May ## ## ## ## ### PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A ® ### ## ## ## ## DRAWN DULY LICENSED ### UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ###. ACCESSIBLE TRAIL ROUTE THROUGH ALDINE STREET RIGHT OF WAY ## ## ## ## ### DRAWING NO. ### ### ### ### CHECKED SIGNATURE: DATE: ### TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR ROSEVILLE, MN NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONS ### PRINTED NAME: ### LIC. NO.: ### #### PLOT DATE: PLOT FILENAME: Page 133 of 558 Aldine Trail Centerline 975 Station=0+91.65 Oak No. 54 Station=0+37.74 Oak No. 57 Station=0+54.37 Oak No. 56 Station=1+05.48 Station=1+15.63 Oak No. 53 Oak No. 52 Station=1+23.46 Oak No. 51 Station=1+92.77 Hardwood No. 49 Station=2+53.31 Station=2+13.11 Oak No. 48 Hardwood No. 45 Station=1+85.65 Begin Boardwalk Station=2+40.81 970 End Boardwalk Station=1+43.02 End Boardwalk Station=0+10.74 Boardwalk Begin Boardwalk 30" MAX. HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE FOR BOARDWALK 2+40.81 965.750 0+74.77 965.500 0+52.24 Station=0+88.05 Oak No. 55 PROPOSED CENTERLINE 963.250 964.887 0+31.05 OF TRAIL GRADE 1+43.02 9" MIN CLEARANCE FOR BOARDWALK 964.000 0.29% 965.554 2+03.82 BOARDWALK 963.555 CONSTRUCTION 0+00.00 1.11% ABUTMENT 963.250 2.89% 3.65% 2+69.56 965 4.73% 0.00% 2.00% 2.03% BOARDWALK 0.00% PROPOSED BOARDWALK ABUTMENT (TYP.) 2.71% BOARDWALK PAN FEET 1+85.65 SUPPORTS EXISTING GRADE PROPOSED SOUTH END 964.000 BOARDWALK RIGHT-OF-WAY BOARDWALK PAN FEET 961.9 964.9 963.3 962.8 964.3 964.6 962.43 964.00 963.25 965.30 965.44 965.68 SUPPORTS Aldine Trail Centerline0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 975 6+51.81 964.937 Station=5+96.04 Hardwood No. 7 Station=5+55.86 Oak No. 13 Station=5+75.09 Oak No. 12 6+47.31 Station=3+63.46 Hardwood No. 37 Hardwood Station=3+97.47 Hardwood No. 36 Station=4+11.83 Hardwood No. 33 Station=4+89.27 Station=4+55.42 Oak No. 20 Hardwood No. 30 964.943 Station=6+43.40 Oak No. 2 970 Station=4+68.01 Begin Boardwalk Station=5+06.91 30" MAX. HEIGHT ABOVE End Boardwalk GRADE FOR BOARDWALK 4+68.01 5+06.91 9" MIN CLEARANCE FOR 964.933 966.668 4.46% BOARDWALK CONSTRUCTION PVI STA: 5+62.75 4.99% PVI ELEV: 969.16 4.46% LENGTH: 30.00 963.500 3+93.55 HIGH PT. STA: 5+61.92 0.12% 965 HIGH PT ELEV: 968.81 3+60.51 1.92% 962.000 PROPOSED BOARDWALK PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF TRAIL GRADE 4.54% EXISTING GRADE BOARDWALK PAN NORTH END FEET SUPPORTS RIGHT-OF-WAY BOARDWALK ABUTMENT (TYP.) 963.4 965.2 968.2 968.3 965.0 963.7 964.94 967.30 968.58 966.36 964.59 963.62 962.00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+506+52 0 1 ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS BY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION MEASUREMENT AT THE BUILDING AND/OR SITE BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. IF NOT ONE INCH ON THIS DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY. K:\n-z\Roseville\23607000\04_Production\01_CAD\01_Xrefs\C3D-Design_mth.dwg ## ## ## ## DESIGNED I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS May 19, 2026 - 1:11pm 19, 2026 May PROJ. NO. ## ## ## ## ### PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A ® ### ## ## ## ## DRAWN DULY LICENSED ### UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF ###. ACCESSIBLE TRAIL ROUTE THROUGH ALDINE STREET RIGHT OF WAY ## ## ## ## ### DRAWING NO. ### ### ### ### CHECKED SIGNATURE: DATE: ### TRAIL FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR ROSEVILLE, MN NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION OF REVISIONS ### PRINTED NAME: ### LIC. NO.: ### #### PLOT DATE: PLOT FILENAME: Page 134 of 558 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6/8/2026 Item No.: 7.d. Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Consider Approval of Aldine ROW Vacation 1 2 Background 3 At the June 16, 2025, City Council meeting, the Council considered the City-initiated 4 proposed vacation of Aldine right-of-way (ROW) between Roselawn Avenue and Ryan 5 Avenue but took no action. After the meeting on June 16, 2025, adjacent residents to this 6 ROW signed a valid petition to vacate the ROW (Attachment 3). At the July 21, 2025 City 7 Council meeting, the Council considered the resident-petitioned vacation of the Aldine 8 ROW. At that time, the Council tabled the vacation until a feasibility study was completed 9 on the corridor to determine if a pathway was feasible. 10 11 A new mailing notice was sent out on May 28, 2026, and a new public hearing is required. 12 13 As indicated at the previous Council meetings, the right-of-way to be vacated is only the 30- 14 foot ROW that was dedicated through the Plat of Mid Oaks in 1938. The Ramsey County 15 Recorder’s Office confirmed the western 20 feet is private property. Attachment 10 is a 16 survey exhibit that the City’s surveyor completed after the last Council meeting. It shows 17 where the City ROW is, where the informal walking path is located in relation to the ROW, 18 and where City utilities are. The survey confirms that much of the existing walking path is 19 on private property. Since the last Council meeting, the City has acquired a utility easement 20 from one of the property owners and is working to acquire a utility easement at a future 21 date from another property owner. 22 23 As detailed in the previous council action, Aldine Street ROW Trail Feasibility Study was 24 completed. The feasibility study identified two potential options with cost ranging from 25 $78,100 to $120,000 plus additional costs for crosswalk treatments, if enhancements were 26 determined to be needed. 27 28 In regard to pedestrian connectivity in the area, if a pathway was installed in the Aldine 29 ROW, the pathway would be 590 feet in length and provide a trail connection at a ¼ mile 30 spacing instead of the ½ mile spacing between Fairview Avenue and Snelling Avenue. A 31 pathway would provide shorter connections between neighborhoods and the Roselawn 32 pathway. Without the connection, the walk is approximately 1,900 feet (~3.3x) further via 33 Fairview Avenue or approximately 2,700 feet (~5x) further via Snelling Avenue. This Page 1 of 4 Page 135 of 55834 segment is listed as a constellation link in the pathway master plan (Attachment 11) but not 35 a pathway master plan segment. Both pathway master plan segments and constellation 36 links were scored using the latest pathway master plan scoring criteria. This constellation 37 segment scored 7 points. The current plan has pathway scores that go from 5-25, so this is 38 on the lower end. 39 40 Meeting minutes from the June 16, 2025 meeting are included as Attachment 6. Meeting 41 minutes from the July 21, 2025 meeting are included as Attachment 7. Comments received 42 prior to the July 21, 2025 meeting are included as Attachment 8. Comments received after 43 that meeting are included as Attachment 9. 44 45 The vacation resolution was publicly noticed in the newspaper on May 25, 2026 and June 46 1, 2026, and a mailing to the affected residents postmarked May 28, 2026, per State 47 Statute requirements. Affidavits of Publication and Mailing are available in the office of the 48 City Engineer. Since this is a new petitioned vacation instead of the City-led vacation 49 process held previously, a new official public hearing is required. 50 51 If the right-of-way is vacated, the area will revert to the underlying property owners which, 52 in this case, are the residents directly to the east, while utility easements would be retained 53 over the vacated area. The owners will benefit from having more control over the former 54 right-of-way areas. This also helps with confusion and disagreements over how the right-of- 55 way area should be maintained with regard to vegetation control and debris management. 56 Some of the adjacent property owners have inquired (Attachment 4) about amending the 57 petition to include dedication of a conservation easement. The City Attorney will provide 58 their opinion if this can be considered at the meeting. 59 60 Since this is a petitioned vacation, a simple majority or three-fifths vote is required to 61 approve vacation of this right-of-way. No vacation will be official until such time as the City 62 Manager executes and records a Notice of Completion. 63 64 Policy Objectives 65 This action is intended to “right-size” the City’s property rights and property management 66 responsibilities for Roseville’s current and future needs. 67 68 Equity Impact Summary 69 Although the ROW is currently not dedicated as a pathway segment, if the corridor is not 70 improved as a pathway, current non-motorized users will be more negatively impacted due 71 to the longer distances required to be travelled. If the ROW is improved, it will meet ADA 72 requirements and it will be more accessible to all users. 73 74 Budget Implications 75 Aside from costs related to filing the vacations with Ramsey County, publishing the public 76 notices, and the mailings to notify the residents, there are no direct costs to the City of 77 Roseville to vacate right-of-way corridors. 78 79 If the Council decides to install a pathway in the ROW, there will be future pathway costs. 80 81 Staff Recommendations Page 2 of 4 Page 136 of 558 82 Staff recommends that the City Council approve one of the following actions: 83 84 1. Motion to approve resolution vacating Aldine Street Right-of-Way. 85  a. Only a utility easement would be retained. No pathway could be installed. 86 87 2. Motion to approve retaining right-of-way and designate a public pathway and to update 88 the Pathway Master Plan. 89  a. This would retain the right-of-way for a future pathway and would be added to the 90 Pathway Master Plan. It does not give authorization to construct the pathway. The 91 determination when to construct the pathway, how to construct the pathway and how to 92 fund it would be made at a future date. 93 94 If the vacation is not approved, and no other motion is made and approved, the status of 95 the Aldine ROW will remain as-is. This defers future use of this right-of-way to a future 96 date. 97 98 Requested Council Action 99 Conduct a public hearing (Attachment 2) receiving any public comments related to 100 proposed right-of-way vacation. 101 102 Consider approval of a resolution approving the right-of-way vacation of a portion of Aldine 103 Street that is located between the properties located adjacent to the properties located at 104 77 Mid Oaks Lane, 85 Mid Oaks Lane, 87 Mid Oaks Lane, 89 Mid Oaks Lane, 91 Mid Oaks 105 Lane, and 93 Mid Oaks Lane in the plat of Mid Oaks. [Attachment 1] 106 107 A three-fifths vote is required for approval of the resolution, as the vacation is petitioned. 108 109 Alternative action 110 • Consider a motion to approve retaining right-of-way and designate a public pathway 111 and to update the Pathway Master Plan. 112 113 If the vacation is not approved, and no other motion is made and approved, the status of 114 Aldine ROW will remain as-is. 115 116 Jesse Freihammer, Public Works Director Prepared by: 1. Resolution Attachments: 2. Public Hearing Agenda 3. Vacation Petition 4. Tree Conservation Restriction Proposal 5. Map of Vacation Area 6. June 16, 2025 Meeting Minutes Excerpt 7. July 21, 2025 Meeting Minutes Excerpt 8. Comments received prior to July 21, 2025 Council Meeting 9. Comments received after July 21, 2025 10. Existing Conditions Survey 11. Segments of Pathway Master Plan 12. Presentation 13. Bench Handout 1 - Petition 14. Bench Handout 2 - Resident Comments 15. Bench Handout 5 - 7.d Resident Comments after 6-5 evening Page 3 of 4 Page 137 of 558 16. Bench Handout 6 - 7.d Rachel Brown Email 117 Page 4 of 4 Page 138 of 558 Attachment 1 1 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING 2 OF THE 3 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 6 Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 8th day of June, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. 7 The following members were present: , , , , and Mayor . 8 and the following were absent: . 9 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 10 RESOLUTION No. 11 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF 12 ALDINE STREET 13 WHEREAS, the City Council pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412.851 desires to consider 14 the vacation of Aldine Street that is located adjacent to the properties located at 77 Mid Oaks Lane, 15 85 Mid Oaks Lane, 87 Mid Oaks Lane, 89 Mid Oaks Lane, 91 Mid Oaks Lane, and 93 Mid Oaks 16 Lane in the plat of Mid Oaks; and 17 WHEREAS, the portion of Aldine Street that is being vacated is legally described on the attached 18 Exhibit A and as shown on the attached Exhibit B; and 19 WHEREAS, a petition from adjacent property owners has been filed with the City of Roseville 20 requesting the vacation of Aldine street as described in Exhibit A; and 21 WHEREAS, the City Clerk published, posted, and mailed notice of a public hearing as required 22 by law, and a public hearing was held on the proposed vacation on the 8th day of June, 2026; and 23 WHEREAS, a public street is not currently, nor is planned to be, constructed within this right-of- 24 way; and 25 WHEREAS, the City Council in its discretion has determined that the vacation will benefit the 26 public interest because this portion of Aldine Street is not needed for current or future right-of- 27 way purposes. 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville, that: 29 1. That portion of Aldine Street that lies adjacent to 77 Mid Oaks Lane, 85 Mid Oaks 30 Lane, 87 Mid Oaks Lane, 89 Mid Oaks Lane, 91 Mid Oaks Lane, and 93 Mid Oaks 31 Lane in the plat of Mid Oaks is hereby vacated, with the exception that an easement 32 for utility purposes within the vacated area is reserved. RS160\1\914424.v5 Page 139 of 55833 2. City staff and consultants are hereby authorized and directed to file a notice of 34 completion of vacation proceedings. 35 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , 36 and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: , , , 37 , and Mayor . 38 and the following voted against the same: . 39 WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RS160\1\914424.v5 Page 140 of 558Vacation of a Portion of Aldine Street STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 8th day of June, 2026, with the original thereof on file in my office. th WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 8 day of June, 2026. _______________________________ Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager RS160\1\914424.v5 Page 141 of 558 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Vacated Area That portion of Aldine Street lying adjacent to Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Block 4 dedicated in the plat of Mid Oaks, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota. RS160\1\914424.v5 Page 142 of 558 EXHIBIT B Depiction of the Vacated Area RS160\1\914424.v5 Page 143 of 558 Attachment 2 AGENDA FOR PUBLIC HEARING Vacation of Right-of-Ways Pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 412.851 A. Mayor calls the meeting to order and announces the purpose of the meeting and format for the hearing. "This is a public hearing to consider whether to vacate public easements and right of ways.” “This vacation request was initiated by a petition from adjacent property owns. The Council will consider resolutions to approve vacating the rights-of-way as described in the resolution." THE FOLLOWING AGENDA CAN BE USED AS THE FORMAT FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING: B. City Manager comments including, brief description of proposed vacated easement, published and mailed notices, and written objections to the proposed vacation. It is suggested that the City Manager should make a general comment regarding the published and mailed notices. This should include the following language: "Published and legal mailed notices have been provided for this public hearing. Legal notices appeared in the city's legal newspaper, The Pioneer Press, on May 25 and June 1, 2026. Mailed notices were sent on May 28, 2026. Affidavits of publishing and mailing are available in the office of the City Engineer." Prior to the hearing proceeding, the City Manager should read all written objections for the proposed resolutions. C. City Engineer by this time has provided specific information for vacations including a description and proposed resolution. D. Mayor opens hearing to the public. It is suggested that the following comments be made by the Mayor: "In an attempt to provide everyone an opportunity to be heard and yet conduct the hearing in an efficient manner, we would suggest that rules be used for the hearing for this project. These would include the following: 1. Individuals should identify themselves by giving their name and address and should speak into the microphone. 2. Each speaker will be allowed to speak only one time and should limit questions and comments to three minutes. 3. Be courteous. No comments from audience or applause during question/ comment period.” Page 144 of 558E. Mayor closes hearing. After all citizen comments have been completed, the Mayor should indicate that the public hearing is closed and turn the hearing over to the City Council for action. F. Council action on proposed vacation. Note: Only a 3/5ths vote is required for the resolution, as the vacation was petitioned. 1. Resolution approving the right-of-way vacation of a portion of Aldine Street that lies within the plat of Mid Oaks. (Resolutions provided by City Engineer.) Page 145 of 558Page 146 of 558The Aldine Street right-of-way (ROW) was established in 1938 as part of the Mid Oaks Plat, with legal description The portion of Aldine Street that lies adjacent to 77 Mid Oaks Lane, 85 Mid Oaks27 Lane, 87 Mid Oaks Lane, 89 Mid Oaks Lane, 91 Mid Oaks Lane, and 93 Mid Oaks28 Lane in the plat of Mid Oaks. The planned road segment was never built, and the City has no current or future plans to build a road. In fact, City staff identified this ROW back in 2022 as one of many ROW no longer necessary for public benefit, so the City proposed it for vacation (Figure ·1 ). The City Council had the opportunity to take action regarding the ROW at its June 16, 2025, meeting. The City Council did not vote in favor of the proposal to vacate the ROW, which required a supermajority vote to approve. Staff presented an alternative option: direct City staff to add the segment to the City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan. The City Council did not take this action, nor did it direct staff to take any other action to delineate a public benefit of the ROW segment. The June 16 City Council vote completed the city-initiated ROW vacation process. For the June 16 meeting, City staff prepared a feasibility memo regarding the potential for path installation in the ROW. The staff memo provided various facts, including the following: • This segment is not in the Pathway Plan. • Because there are existing paths along both Fairview and Snelling, Pathway Plan path spacing goals are already met. • Constructing a path that meets Pathway Plan standards would remove dozens of mature trees and could harm remaining trees. • Preliminary cost estimates for path construction range up to $177,00, excluding costs for required enhancements to create a sate crossing at Roselawn. • The segment scored very low (7 in a range of 5-25), placing it 71-75 in a list of 79 an ordered list of rankings. The score was calculated by City staff using the Pathway Plan ranking criteria and process. Owners of all 8 abutting properties are in favor of this ROW vacation request and signed the Petition for Vacation. As noted in the staff memo, ROW vacation would help with confusion and disagreements over how the right-of-way area should be maintained with regard to vegetation control and debris management. We abutting property owners would appreciate clarity regarding use of and responsibilities for the segment. Using the City's own plans, processes, and criteria, this ROW segment is not needed for City purposes. We therefore petition the City through this owner-initiated request to vacate the Aldine ROW, retaining utility easements (Figure 2). Thank you. Page 147 of 558Page 149 of 558 Attachment 5 HERSCHEL ST 1662 1652 1640 2016 1666 WHEELER ST 1630 1678 1688 ALDINE ST ALDINE 2008 2009 2008 2009 2009 2000 1667 1659 1649 1675 1639 2000 2001 2000 2001 2001 1629 1685 1710 S RIDGEWOOD LN 1994 1995 1994 1995 1994 1993 1988 1987 1988 1987 1988 1987 1700 1660 1650 1642 1670 1632 1624 1686 RYAN AVE 75 71 63 47 45 41 77 MID OAKS LN 1760 1716 1738 1732 1754 1742 1770 1778 1706 85 50 44 MID OAKS LN 90 68 MID OAKS RD OAKS MID 87 24 23 33 96 89 17 25 22 91 98 1715 1731 1725 1739 1763 1745 1749 1775 1785 15 1705 19 14 93 100 11 Exhibit V: Aldine Ave Right-of-Way Vacation DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, Data Sources and Contacts: information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to 0 25 50 75 100 Feet * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (5/01/25) be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose Prepared by: Right-of-Way Vacation Area * City of Roseville Engineering Department requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies For further information regarding the contents of this map contact: are found please contact 651-792-7075. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), Engineering Department mapdoc: ExhibitV_AldineAve.mxd City of Roseville, Engineering Department, and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to May 21, 2025 defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which map: ExhibitV_AldineAve.pdf 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. ´ Page 150 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June16,2025 Page3 Mayor Roe suggested that Nine North should keep considering appropriate policies forvideo content, especially as AI technology progresses. He thanked Mr. Ongstad for the presentation. b. Consider Approval of Aldine ROW Vacation Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer briefly highlighted this item as detailed in the Request For Council Action and related attachments dated June 16, 2025. Mr. Freihammer provided background on the Aldine right-of-way vacation, noting that the city owns only the eastern 30 feet of the right-of-way. He explained that the feasibility report indicated constructing a pathway would impact numerous trees and cost between $84,000 and $177,000. Councilmember Groff asked whether city staff had been going through Roseville to identifypieces ofland that have not been used or connected, and that the Council has been initiating some of those. Mr. Freihammer explained that back in 2022, the staffsubmitted a list to the council of properties the city wanted to vacate, and this right-of-way was included on that list. This marked the fifthphase ofright-of-way vacations brought back forreview. Councilmember Groff explained that when this item was first presented, the city was unaware of the pathway. Mr. Freihammer indicated that it was correct. The city was not aware of an existing pathway, which was not identifiedon the pathway master plan. Councilmember Strahan asked Mr. Freihammer if he could confirm whether a pathway had been cut there fora potential path. Mr. Freihammer indicated that on the north side ofRyan, there is a curb cut, but he did not have any history about why it exists. However, it was probably done in the 90s when the road was redone. Councilmember Schroeder asked if the city were to proceed with the pathway, a number of mature trees would have to be removed. Mr. Freihammer indicated that it was correct. Creating any type of improved pathway there would impact the trees, resulting in significant tree loss. Mayor Roe sought clarification on the impact of asphalt on tree health, even if no trees would be removed. Mr. Freihammer explained that, depending on the type oftree, some trees are more susceptible than others. If the city were to improve the pathway, it would need to Page 152 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June16,2025 Page4 meet ADA requirements and be leveled to some degree, which would also impact the trees. Councilmember Strahan asked for confirmation on whether any items in the pathway could obstruct it, such as semi-permanent fixtures, fences, and the like. Mr. Freihammer explained that he had walked that corridor once, and a complete survey had not been conducted, so he did not know for certain, but he thought there were probably some encroachments. Councilmember Bauer asked which side of the street the public utilities are on and whether the city needs to secure them. Mr. Freihammer explained that the city has a sanitary line running along most of the corridor and a storm sewer that spans the entire length of the corridor. He noted that these are located within the existing twenty feet. He also indicated that staff will need to collaborate with the City Attorney on a process to ensure the city secures those easements. Mayor Roe asked if the city also has any utilities in the thirty-footsegment. Mr. Freihammer explained that the city lacked utilities in that corridor, but there are power lines and other semi-public utilities. This is why there is a thirty-foot easement retained in the proposed vacation resolution: to access those utilities. Mayor Roe opened the floor for public comment and explained the rules, with Councilmember Strahan emphasizing the need for civility from everyone. Public Comment Ms. Anne Lottie, Mid Oaks Lane Ms. Lottie shared her family's experience and conveyed a message of unity and hope regarding the path issue at hand. She indicated that she had mixed feelings and could empathize with both sides. She noted that her family uses the path regularly and has friends and neighbors who live along it. She found it sad to see the tight-knit community become divided, as the path has been connecting people and neighbors for decades. She addressed safety concerns regarding the children who walk the path, as well as the sense of community that surrounds it. She also discussed the environmental impact of paving the pathway and mentioned that a less formal option, such as a natural footpath or low-impact pathway, could be constructed. She advocated for some form of compromise. She explained that the Aldine path has contributed to the community's fabricand connections fordecades. She urged the council to maintain the right-of-way as it is for now, hoping for a plan that preserves an informal, quiet, natural footpath. Page 153 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June16,2025 Page5 Ms. Eleni Skevas Mid Oaks Lane Ms. Skevas addressed the council and thanked Ms. Lottie for her excellent presentation. She also advocated for the city to maintain the right-of-way and highlighted that the footpath provides access to Evergreen Park and Brimhall, making it a lovely walk for the community. Mr. Joe Donaghue Ridgewood Lane South Mr. Donaghue explained that he uses the pathway twice a day and has done so for years, since he discovered it while walking his dogs. He thought it was a wonderful pathway filled with nature, and he enjoyed it. He agreed with the previous speakers. Ms. Mary Bland Ridgewood Lane Ms. Bland indicated that she has been walking the pathway for between 40 and 50 years and feels it is a little piece of heaven. She hopes the council will consider preserving it for futuregenerations to enjoy as well. Mr. Andrew Rehmann, Mid Oaks Lane Mr. Rehmann stated that he has been using the pathway since 1994. He mentioned having a five-year-oldson who will start at Brimhall, and he is looking forward to his son being able to use the path. He indicated that he used the pathway as a child and hopes his children will have the same opportunity. Mr. Art Quinn, Mid Oaks Lane Mr. Quinn indicated that he supported keeping the path. He explained that he didn't mind people walking up and down it. He noted that he would consider the idea of a natural path because he didn't want trees to be removed for a paved pathway. Ms. Olivia Gault, Herschel Street Ms. Gault stated that she spoke at the last meeting in support of maintaining a natural pathway. She expressed her surprise at the animosity toward people using the path. She explained that she and two other neighbors collected 98 signatures from fellow residents in just one week, asking to preserve the path. Mr. Kyle Fitzwater, Mid Oaks Lane Mr. Fitzwater indicated that he and his husband have lived at 32 Mid Oaks Lane for the past 21 years. He urged the council to vote against vacating the land in question. He explained that generations of familieshave come to rely on the access and use of the pathway. The path has become a safe alternativethat allows adults, children, and pets to avoid traffic.The path is a neighborhood asset and serves many residents and neighbors. Ms. Michelle Pribyl Skillman Ave Ms. Pribyl explained she was at the meeting to speak in favorof not vacating the pathway. She frequently uses the trail to walk her dog and enjoy a beautiful stroll in the neighborhood. They appreciate the woodland path as it is and support keeping it as an informational pathway while preserving as many trees as possible. Page 154 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June16,2025 Page6 Ms. Carla Lewis, Mid Oaks Lane Ms. Lewis indicated that she lives in the neighborhood and considers herself a neutral party. Her concern is that there is considerable confusion regarding what will happen with the pathway. She mentioned that some residents who do not use the path and do not have dogs are worried about its appearance. She understands that for liability reasons, there may need to be pavement, maintenance, and additional liability considerations. She would like to know what the pathway will look like and how it will impact those who live very close and own property adjacent to it. Mr. Kevin Watson, Aldine Street Mr. Watson explained he lived three doors up from the start of the path. He has three kids, a large dog, and uses the path frequently. He understood that many people use the path and enjoy it, but he thought they have to think about the people who are coming with new development in the area, and he thought it would be a nice connection to a neighborhood to connect with people or places that are across Roselawn. Mr. Tim Brown, Mid Oaks Lane Mr. Brown indicated that he attended the meeting a couple of months ago and was one of the adjacent property owners who, for several reasons, prefer the vacation of the right-of-way. He explained that one of his concerns was about the talk of a "magical dirt trail" and how it would become an amenity the city planned to engage in and take responsibility for, but it might not be suitable foreveryone unless it was ADA compliant. He believed the Council needed to consider that whatever is approved should be accessible to people in wheelchairs and those with limited mobility. He noted that many bikers zoomed through the trail, which raised safety concernsfor pedestrians. He believed that making the pathway ADA compliant and ensuring a safe connection at Roselawn was necessary forpublic safety. Ms. Cindy Gallaher, Herschel Street Ms. Gallaher indicated that she attended the last meeting and believed that, regarding ADA compliance, the pathway could use crushed rubber or limestone instead of asphalt, as this would have a less significantimpact on the area. Ms. Mindy Erickson, Mid Oaks Lane Ms. Erickson asked the Council to vote to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way. She indicated that the right-of-waywas established about seven decades ago for a street that was never built and was identified by city staffin 2022 as no longer necessary for public benefit. This segment is not included in the Roseville pathway plan because it is approximately a quarter mile from existing paths along both Fairview and Snelling, and the existing path spacing already meets the layout goals. In addition to deviating from layout norms, a city path on this right-of-way could create a peculiar singular deviation from path location norms. It would create the first and only city path situated between eight residential properties. The segment Page 155 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June16,2025 Page7 ranks very low when all city path priorities are taken into account. She asked the council to vote forthe original city proposal, which included the complete vacation of the Aldine Street right-of-way. Ms. Rachel Brown, Roselawn Avenue West Ms. Brown believed the staff did an excellent job presenting the two options and explaining the reasoning behind the vacation. However, she found the pathway to be intrusive, noting that part of it crosses private property. She agreed that if the pathway were to be constructed, it should be done correctly and made ADA accessible. Ms. Sherri Middendorf, Mid Oaks Lane Ms. Middendorf indicated that her property abuts the path and that she supports the vacation because much of the path currentlyruns on private property. Rerouting the path would disrupt a lot of the tree canopy that everyone cherishes. Mr. Joe Pribyl, Skillman Avenue Mr. Pribyl requested that the city consider a broader context. There is a nice right­ of-way between Aldine and Roselawn. Still, there is also a network of other right­ of-ways in the neighborhood that work in conjunction with this one, making the . area more walkable and inherently safer, especially when pedestrians and those using these walkways do not have to share a surface with motorists. He concurred with all the comments regarding what contributes to the greatest good achievable with the available resources. He acknowledged the need forADA compliance but believed it unnecessary to engage in further discussion about the idea that if it were not ADA compliant, it could not be used by anyone with a disability. They aim to be sensitive to everyone. He felt they could collaborate to create a solution that works well for all, maintaining a public space that serves the greater good and benefitsthe most significantnumber of people, allowing everyone to contribute in a way that benefitsthem. Ms. Stephanie Kiihn Ashenbrenner, Herschel Street Ms. K.iihnAshenbrenner explained that she had spoken at the last meeting, where this was presented, and she believed a more creative response was needed that struck a balance, allowing for a win-win situation. She questioned whether the decision needed to be made at this meeting, suggesting that there were still alternatives to consider and that a full evaluation of them might be in everybody's best interest. Ms. Sarah Quinn, Mid Oaks Lane Ms. Quinn explained that she has lived in her home forfour years, even though the property technically belongs to the city; she had taken care of it lovingly. She indicated she has eliminated all of the buckthom and has a beautifulunderstory of wooded plants there. She noted that she had never minded the people walking back there, but she wanted to save the trees. Given that the entrances were each on private Page 156 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June16,2025 Page 8 property, she did not know how the path could exist as it did now. She asked the council to vacate the right-of-way. Mayor Roe closed public comment. He thankedthe public fortheir comments and emphasized the importance of finding a solution that benefits the community. The council discussed the feasibilityof constructing a pathway, the impact on trees, and the potential costs involved. Councilmember Groffasked about the public use of the right-of-way and the city's ownership of utilities in the area. Mr. Freihammer confirmed that the city owned the sanitary and storm utilities in the area and would work with the city attorneyto secure the necessaryeasements. The Council considered the options of vacating the right-of-wayor retaining it for a public pathway, with a focuson findinga compromise that addressed community concerns. The Council acknowledged the complexity of the issue and the need for further discussion and evaluation. Groff moved, Strahan seconded, denying the right-of-way vacation of Adline, not adopting the Resolution. Council Discussion Councilmember Groff indicated these issues are challenging, having listened to the comments tonight. However, once the council approves a right-of-way vacation, there is no turning back. If this occurs, that property is permanently lost, and the city will never regain it. He believed enough discussion was presented tonight regarding pathways and other alternatives. Perhaps considering a different type of pathway or exploring a surface that could be ADA compliant is worthwhile. As a councilmember, he feltuncomfortable proceeding with a decision that would result in the permanentdissolution of the right-of-way, which is why he is voting to deny the vacation. Councilmember Strahan reiterated her earlier comments and expressed hope that this would not serve as a divider in the neighborhood, but rather as a chance for opportunity. Councilmember Schroeder explained that if this passes, it must be acknowledged that twenty feet is no longer available, making that part of the path not an option for people to walk through others' property. Please respect the owners' rights and Page 157 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June16,2025 Page 9 wishes. She stated she did not want to see anything done to the mature trees, so she would not support making this an officialpath. Councilmember Bauer agreed with Councilmember Schroeder. His concernfor the future is that if the city were to return this property to the neighborhood for their decision, what would happen? He worried that if the city continues to designate this as a right-of-way, it will be necessary to improve the pathway, potentially resulting in the loss of trees. Vacating this property does not mean a path cannot exist; it simply means the neighborhood will have the authority to decide. He believed it made sense to vacate this and hand it back to the neighborhood to determine the next steps. He expressed significant concern that the city should not maintain involvement. Mayor Roe reminded everyone that the motion is not to adopt the resolution or vacate the right-of-way, essentially maintaining the status quo. He was not sure that this is the ideal solution due to many of the points made. For example, a point was made about the current setup being unavailable because it could be on private properties, which would require workarounds. If the city pursues the step of identifying it as a planned pathway, the status quo may be impaired because development will be ongoing. The City still has the issue of private property conflict. He believed that vacating it provides some certainty to the property owners, but it does not address access and long-term use. There may be other solutions out there that none of them are aware of at this point. In the future, there could be some kind of action to return the property to a form of private ownership that mightnot necessarily involve the adjacent property owners. Mayor Roe explained that if this is a City facility, it is City property, and the City must take action to improve it. He noted he would support maintaining the status quo although it is not an ideal solution. Roll Call Ayes: Groff and Strahan. Nays: Bauer, Schroeder, and Roe Mayor Roe indicated the motion failed and asked if there was another motion to be made. Schroeder moved, Bauer seconded, adoption of the Resolution (Attachment 1) entitled, "Resolution Approving the Vacation of a Certain Portion of Aldine Street". City Manager Trudgeon noted a bench handout for the resolution. Mr. Freihammer clarified the bench handout regarding the maintenance of the utility easement along the right-of-way. Page 158 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June16,2025 Page10 Mayor Roe confirmed with the maker and seconder of the motion that the bench handout resolution was what was being moved. Councilmember Schroeder stated that this is what the staff presented. Initially, it was meant to pass this as the city has done with many other properties. She expressed significant concern about the tree canopy, and now that the city doesn't have the twenty feet, it changes many things. Councilmember Bauer seconded Councilmember Schroeder's thoughts. He indicated that he had complete confidence that the best use of this for the neighborhood is to vacate it, giving it back to the neighborhood, allowing them to decide what to do with it going forward, and providing clarity for the future. Councilmember Groff did not believe it would be returningto the neighborhood. It conveys the property to the adjacent property owners. He did not want to mislead the residents by suggesting that it was being returned to the neighborhood, as they do not have the option to work on and build a pathway through that area. Councilmember Bauer clarified that returning it to the neighborhood would allow them to develop their solutions and collaborate on either maintaining this path or considering other options, as the mayor previously mentioned, such as forming a pathway association or something similar. Councilmember Strahan agreed with Councilmember Groff. If the city returnsthis pathway to the owners on the east side, it effectively becomes their property and is no longer available for the community to consider. Mayor Roe expressed uncertainty about whether the vacation was the right decision at this time. He believed he had the luxury of opposing both motions while maintaining the status quo. Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder and Bauer. Nays: Groff, Strahan, and Roe Mayor Roe clarified that the motion to vacate the right-of-way has failed, and the status quo remains in effect. He acknowledged the need for further investigation and possible futureactions to address the right-of-way and pathway issues. Recess Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:08 p.m. c. Joint Meeting with Finance Commission Mayor Roe briefly highlighted this item as detailed in the Request For Council Action and related attachments dated June 16, 2025. Page 159 of 558 Attachment 7 Excerpt from City of .SEVILLEMinnesota, USA Regular City Council Meeting Minutes City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Monday, July 21, 2025 1. Roll Call Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Groff, Bauer, Strahan, Schroeder, and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Rachel Tierneywere also present. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve Agenda Groffmoved, Bauer seconded, approval of the agenda as presented. Roll Call Ayes: Groff, Bauer, Strahan, Schroeder, and Roe. Nays: None. 4. Public Comment Mayor Roe invited audience members to provide public c01mnents on non-agenda items. A resident living near North Heights School expressed concern about the absence of a school zone near a playground and requested information on zoning standards. Mayor Roe said he would have stafffollow up on that question, hopefully during the item about County Road C. 5. Recognitions, Donations, and Communications a. Americans with Disabilities Act Anniversary Observance Proclamation Mayor Roe read the Ame1icans with Disabilities Act Anniversary Observance Proclamation. Strahan moved, Schroeder seconded, proclaiming July 26, 2025, Americans with Disabilities Act Anniversary Observance Day. Council Discussion Councilmember Strahan recognized the Parks Department and all the great work they are doing, including installing playground equipment. She believed it was a key effort for the city to show its support for this and to keep moving forward. Page 160 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 21, 2025 Page4 Councilmember Strahan welcomed another move toward a city with an electric fire trnck, setting an example as a forward-thinking community in clean energy. Mayor Roe explained to members of the public what equipment certificates are. Roll Call Ayes: Groff, Bauer, Strahan, Schroeder, and Roe. Nays: None c. Consider Approval of Aldine ROW Vacation Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer briefly highlighted this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action and related attachments dated July 21, 2025. Mr. Freihammer submitted the petition to vacate part of Aldine Street's right-of­ way. Residents initiated the petition due to the low priority given to the pathway and the associated environmental and financial costs of building an ADA­ accessible path. He explained the history of the right-of-way, the survey results, and the potential costs of constrncting a city path. He mentioned that the council was asked to either approve the vacation or to retain the right-of-way and designate it as a public pathway. City Attorney Tierney submitted a memo on the legal issues of designating dedicated right-of-way as parkland without a specific transportation connection. Mayor Roe thanked Mr. Freihammer for the presentation. He also expressed appreciation to Attorney Tierney for the memo, as he believed that after the last meeting about this matter, the idea of possibly considering a park-based solution had occurred to him and might have occurred to others as well. The question was whether that could be a possibility. Mayor Roe summarized the memo fromthe city attorney. Public Comment Mayor Roe opened the floorfor public comment. Ms. Mindy Erickson, Mid Oaks Lane Ms. Erickson requested that the Council vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way. She explained that in 2022 and again over the past fewmonths, city staff used the city's own criteria, processes, and plans to determine whether there is a city purpose for retaining the right-of-way. In 2022, city staffdetermined that this segment, along with many others across the city, was no longer needed for its original city use. The 1938 Mid Oaks plat described the segment as Aldine Street. This portion of Aldine Street was never built and is no longer planned. More recently, staff and city officials evaluated the constrnction of a city path. The June 10 path feasibility Page 161 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 21, 2025 Pages memo reports that building an ADA-accessible city path in the right-of-way would be both environmentally damaging and expensive. The memo also notes that the segment ranked extremely low compared to paths already planned across the city. And finally, the recent land survey by the city shows that about three-quarters of the length of the much-discussed dirt shortcut was on private property west of the right-of-way, in the open, flat, low corridor around the stonn sewer aligmnent. The city establishes processes and plans, in part, to guide fact-based decision-making amid misinfonnation, conflicting opinions, and emotion. Please cast your vote to respect the city's processes and plans, to preserve dozens of mature trees, to recognize the city investments already made in paths along Fairview and Snelling, and to redirect the city's limited resources-both time and money-toward critical infrastructure, housing, public safety, and other city-wide challenges facing our community. Please vote to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way promptly. Mr. John Reinart, Ridgewood Ln S Mr. Reinart urged the Council to vote against the petition. He explained he and his wifebought their starter home on Ridgewood Lane 35 years ago and have enjoyed living in the neighborhood ever since. As long as he could remember, they had used that path. For the past decade, he has had a home office for his employer, Oracle, where he works as a software engineer. He stated he uses the path multiple times a day; enjoying it and using it daily for medical reasons, taking walks, and reaping the health benefits. The city, considering closing the path, does not benefit the neighborhood. It seems to benefit only a few people, but it does a disservice to the much larger majority. Mr. Dan Gallaher, Herschel Street Mr. Gallaher stated that his familyhad lived about two blocks away fromthe north entrance to the trail since 1989, using the path in question frequently during that time. To understand the issues at hand and explore the potential justification for vacating public land forprivate use, he explained that he conducted online research to detennine the basis for this decision and found a Minnesota statute that speaks to the vacation of streets. It is 412. 851; the critical part that's relevant to this discussion is that it says no vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so. This path is frequentlyused. It's used by many people in the neighborhood. The petition that you received addresses this point, and consequently, it's . challenging for him to understand how making that path unavailable by vacating the land for private ownership would be in the public interest. And so, he would ask the city council not to do that, not to vacate the land, but to take public land and give it to people who have been occupying it for 60 years, perhaps longer. So that's one point. The second point is simply that you're all familiar with the 2040 comprehensive plan. He would like to draw their attention to the final part of the first sentence of that plan, where it states that the plan is intended to develop over the coming decades and reflects the desires of the entire community. And he would argue that the overwhelming number of people in this community favor maintaining a path of some sort through there. He has heard Page 162 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 21, 2025 Page 6 several times references to trees and damage to trees. He stated it was nonsense. It's very easy to put a path through there without damaging any trees. No trees need to come down. He thought that was obvious to anybody who would walk the path and look at it. So, he would urge the council not to vacate the land. It belongs to the public now, and it should remain so. The city should be allowed to make a path through that area for the continued enjoyment of the many dozens, perhaps 100 people, who use that path. Thank you for your time. Ms. Anne Lottie, Mid Oaks Lane Ms. Lottie explained she lived at 90 Mid Oaks Lane with her husband and three children. She stated that her family'sperspective is somewhat unique, as they used to live in one of the Mid Oaks homes that abutted the path for 17 years; the path was a quiet, lightly used feature of their backyard. It gave them a chance to say hello to the occasional passerby and their kids a place to explore and play in the woods. At the start of the pandemic, they relocated 30 minutes away to an outer­ ring suburb, where neighbors were farther apart and tended to keep to themselves. Four years later, this last summer, they moved back to the Mid Oaks neighborhood just around the cornerfrom their old house. She noted they missed their village, its warmth, its walkability, and most of all, its strong sense of community. She thanked the city for conducting a survey and providing clarity regarding property lines. Since the last meeting, her family has effectively stopped using the path. Their school route is now uncertain. If the remaining 30 feet are vacated, she fearedthey • would lose the opportunity for a practical, common-sense path solution. She explained she would happily clear buckthorn, lay mulch, etc, to create a clearly defined path that is fullyon the right of way. If a path ceases to exist, it would be a great loss, not so much for her, even though she enjoyed passing through the woodland, but for all the kids. Yes, they can ride the bus to school or walk the longer, less saferoute along Fairview or Snelling A venues to friends' houses. And while those options are feasible. They don't offer the same joy, freedom, or connections. The Aldine path has been in existence fordecades. Over the years, the route has shifted, fences have been erected, vegetation has encroached, and epic stick battles have ensued. Native woodlands have been restored, and their community has felt a connection. Please vote against vacation tonight, not to take sides, but to give the city and its community time to come together and find a thoughtfulsolution, one that preserves a simple footpathand the spirit of connection it represents. Ms. Mary Parnell, Ryan Ms. Parnellstated she lives at 1760 Ryan. If Wheeler were extended fromBrimhall to Roselawn, it would run along the east side of their property. She noted that they currentlyexperience trafficfrom Roselawn through their home on Wheeler because there are hard-surface walkways between Schreyer and Skillman, and again, between Eldridge and the school. She explained they haven't discouraged anyone fromdoing that. They have a similar wooded area, which she called no man's land, between their home and the home on Roselawn, but she asked the council to vote Page 163 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 21, 2025 Page 7 against vacating it. She mentioned that it might be better to finda creative solution for the existing easement rather than increasing traffic, as there is a need for schoolchildren to travel fromthose neighborhoods to their school. There is no fence right at Roselawn. There's about a six-foot piece offencethat needs to be removed. The fence running north and south could stay in place, and the path could be placed on the other side of that fence. Creating a simple, natural path instead of a paved one wouldn't have to cost much, and maybe neighbors could help with that. Ms. Janet Risinger, Schreyer Ms. Risinger explained that she lived at 1797 Schreyer, which is not very close, but close enough to the pathway that they have used since moving into their home in 1991. She stated that they love that path, but ever since she discovered it, she has never understood why the chain-link fence is up at the end. And to her, the simple solution is to have that fence put where the line should be, so that you can walk where it is and not where the path should be, instead of going through the driveway of that neighbor. She noted she would like to know the reason why that chain-link fence is there. It doesn't seem like it's in the right place. Mr. Donald Gault, Herschel Street Mr. Gault explained that he lives at 2021 Herschel Street here in Roseville. He stated that he and his wife moved into their house 32 years ago, so they have lived there for nearly half their lives. He noted he would not go into details about that, but he has truly been living in Roseville for almost half of his life. One thing he wanted to start with was saying that they love living in Roseville. He was reading the city newspaper, which talks about the work this city does that all of you lead, which is to connect us. You create a connected, caring community. He has walked on that path thousands of times-literally thousands. If you take 32 years, multiply that by two or three times a week at a minimum, and by 52 weeks a year, it totals 16,384 walks down that path. During those times, he has seen neighbors with homes bordering the path, and everyone waves and smiles at each other. There has never been any concern he's known of until this issue of vacation came up. He said this should be funnybecause vacation always sounded like a happy word to me, but this situation has caused great harm. He was not saying that to judge anyone here or to criticize city staffor any of you. No one truly understood what you were doing, and he thought at the time that this vacation request went through, there were probably dozens or hundreds of similar requests. One question he had was, have any other communities come forward with concernsand care about vacation requests like this one has raised? He was not asking the council to say yes or no tonight. What he was asking was for the council to help find and lead a healing process for our community. When they drove to City Hall tonight, he noticed, and he thought many of the residents did, that they were looking at each other, wondering, "Are you on my side or the other side?" He explained that they are neighbors, and our country is struggling right now, and everyone needs to be the adults who show how people can live and care for each other. So, whatever happens tonight, we must move forward and find ways to be caring neighbors again. Page 164 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 21, 2025 Page 8 Mr. Daniel Ruen, Mid Oaks Lane Mr. Ruen stated he lived at 20 Mid Oaks Lane. He noted he had lived there with his spouse, Claire, for the last four years. He wanted everyone to imagine a playground where kids have been playing together for years and have even grown to love each other. Then, a PTA Working Group and a playground use Task Force decided to allocate the tire swing area to only one group of kids, who happen to use it more frequently than others. Naturally, the kids will start fighting,but it's not the PTA Task Force's fault. They're just applying this rule across the school district. However, what those kids need at that moment is for the principal, school counselor, or some caring teachers to step in and say, "Hey, you know what? We didn't think this through. Let's bring everyone together and figure this out for everyone's best interest. 11 He knew all analogies can break if stretched too far. He didn't see himself as a child who couldn't work things out with neighbors, but he hoped everyone would take away two important points fromhis analogy. First, this isn't their fault. As this gentleman said, "Well, this isn't our fault. The city imposed this situation. 11 It's really on all of you to help us address it, not just legally but relationally. Second, we are trying to followthe rules given to us, but we need your support to think outside those rules with the help of a neutral third-party mediator. Because, beyond wanting a community walking path-which I support-we need positive, trusting relationships in our community. He truly enjoys his neighbors, especially Art and Sarah, who are here, and Tam, along that right-of-way. Our relationships are essential now, and will be more so in the future.Lastly, he believed the city was overlooking a key opportunity to build resilience as a trusting community. At the last meeting on this issue, he heard many say, "We want to work together on a compromise. We ask for your help to be creative. We want to slow this down. We can find a different way forward.11 He explained he was willing to volunteer his time, so he asked, if the city can't guide them through such situations, what will happen when they face 15 inches of rain, straight-line winds knocking down trees, or a tornado? Or what if ice accumulates and causes more people to disappear for ridiculous reasons? We just heard alarming reports fromthe county. These challenges are already here. It means they will need each other, and the residents will need the city. As a resident, he was not very encouraged by what he had experienced so far. So, he urged the council to look beyond this situation, beyond legal or policy issues, and think about the real investment in Roseville: our relationships. It's not purely about money; it's about our collective will. He explained he is a pastor at St. Anthony Park Lutheran Church, working closely with the Community Council and Community Foundation, which offers resources for pro bono, neutral third-party mediators, perfectfor this kind of situation. He would be happy to share that infowith the city. Please, slow down this process, work with the residents, and fulfill their roles as teachers, principals, and counselors, so we can strengthen our resilience and relationships. Ms. Michelle Pribyl, Skillman Avenue W Page 165 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 21, 2025 Page 9 Ms. Pribyl explained that she lives at 1738 Skillman Avenue West. She mentioned that she had emailed everyone over the weekend, so she wouldn't read her email now, but she wanted to highlight a fewkey points to ensure everyone heard them. First, she thanked Mr. Freihammer foranswering her question about the path and the constellation related to the Parks Department. It's important to note that not only those present who signed the petition about using the path recognize its importance, but the Parks Department also acknowledged it as crucial for connecting the neighborhood to schools and the park system. In her work, she often navigates conflicting rules to find creative design solutions-that's what we need here: an innovative solution that can address multiple issues. There are precedents for options that are not necessarily what was initially proposed for the path. It doesn't need to be a six- to ten-foot-wideconcrete or asphalt path; there are ADA-compliant paths made of crushed rock, which are much narrower, and we have examples of this in Roseville. Sunset Park, mentioned earlier, utilizes some of the crushed rock on County Road B, allowing you to see how it's applied there. Additionally, paths just north of this area, such as the one between Aldine and Ridgewood, are about four feet wide, narrower than the pathways shown. There's also precedent for pathway easements on private property. We have focused on creating a pathway within the existing right-of-way, which she understood was the topic tonight. However, she understood that an easement might be needed for utilities on the current private property, and there could be an opportunity to create a new pathway easement that follows the existing path. This could help preserve trees, fences, and other vegetation while allowing fences to remain intact for neighbors. She believes there is a way forward that can keep the community connected, and she hopes the council will consider it. Mr. Tim Brown, Mid Oaks Lane Mr. Brown stated he lives at 93 Mid Oaks Lane. He explained they face the right­ of-way, so they have frequent, ongoing experience with that area. What they mainly see is that it's a convenient shortcut, which adds value. It doesn't reach the recreational level that has been somewhat implied here, and honestly, they don't see much trafficthere. Their position is that this public right-of-way was dedicated in 1938 and hasn't received any maintenance, improvements, or development fornearly 90 years. It is neglected-a no man's land-just a dirt path that comes and goes, cutting through private property and being freelyused. Bikes race through, people walk their dogs off-leash, and they don't pick up after them. It's a chaotic and poorly maintained area, raising many questions about what should be done there. He explained that they strongly support the city's policy of adjusting property rights and management responsibilities, allowing property owners to benefit fromreleasing land from the right-of-way. They also see that the city's pathway plan doesn't prioritize this area highly in terms of value. He mentioned there are many projects around the city, some much larger in scope, that are prioritized fortransportation purposes. When setting priorities, this should probably be low on the list due to its limited quality and usage. For these reasons, they ask the council to vacate that right-of-way so residents can properly Page 166 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 21, 2025 Page 10 maintain it and move forward, as this has been a challenging process over the summer. Mr. Richard McGehee, Mid Oaks Lane Mr. McGehee explained that he lives at 77 Mid Oaks Lane and has lived there for 50 years. He mentioned that he was somewhat surprised by what he heard tonight because he has lived near that path forthe same 50 years, and he does not recall seeing so many people walking down there. There are occasional pedestrians, but it's not as busy as described, and he hasn't seen the romanticism being depicted. What he has observed there, besides some people walking their dogs, includes some kids in the past who gathered and used it as a spot to smoke marijuana. He knows it is legal now, but it wasn't back then. He has also seen kids causing mischief in that area. Finally, he thought it was quite harsh to suggest that those who bought the property without much knowledge should now have the fence taken down. It just seems like a particularly cruel thing to do to your neighbors. Mr. Joe Pribyl, Sldllman Avenue West Mf. Joe Pribyl stated he lived at 173 8 Skillman A venue West in Roseville. He thanked the council forallowing more public comment on the issue. He just wanted to say that every time we have a public comment, the longer this process continues, the more information we learn, and it's important. To think that a decision could have been made weeks ago, or even longer, to vacate this property without the information we now have would suggest that we made a hasty decision. There probably needs to be more time to consider the options, especially given what we are learning now, tonight, and recently. He could see a real danger in vacating public land to private owners because once the discussion is closed, the land will likely never be available for public use again, and he did not know what process would be needed for it to be made available again. Many of the concerns expressed can be or have been addressed. He wanted to emphasize that we all come with goodwill. We can find reasons to vacate and reasons not to, but there is a clear majority opinion, if not consensus, about what to do with this connection. At the very least, he asked that the city avoid making hasty decisions or decisions based on ideology that may have already predestined the outcome forthis right of way. Please consider the views of the majority of the public, especially those who live here, and strive to find a fair solution for everyone. Ms. Rachel Brown, Roselawn Avenue W Ms. Rachel Brown explained that she lives at 1705 Roseland Avenue West and wanted to thank the Mayor and Council members for the opportunity to speak again. She finds it interesting that the survey continues to be referenced or that people claim the majority, and she understands there's a large crowd here today. However, she has spoken to many who aren't present but have been respectful, kind, and thoughtful-people who have stopped walking on the private trail on their private land. She urges the council not to define what constitutes a majority based solely on the number of people present. Many have moved on after learning the Page 167 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 21, 2025 Page 11 facts. She wanted to address three points. First, she asked the council not to do anything. As an English teacher by training, she intentionally used a double negative, "do not do nothing," because people act as if this issue is settled. She understands the sense ofloss for those who enjoyed the shortcut trail. But many are not interested in the facts, and misinfonnation persists, particularly regarding the 20-foot detail. In some comments and documents, it was falsely claimed that land was ceded or given back, which is not true. The city did not return twenty feet; it was never the city's to give. The original ownership dates to the 1950s, when city officials considered some land exchanges but never finalized them. So, it has always been private land. It's troubling that some continue to spread this misinformation. It's also clear where her land begins, as you can walk right through the driveway past her house. What's less clear is the northernhalf, which Council Member Schroeder has seen, but she doesn't know if anyone else has, since the survey was completed. Nearly three-quarters of the shortcut runs on private property, and people continue to walk on it, oftenignoring property lines. She has had to post signs and ask people to respect private property. She states she now sits on her frontstoop, wondering if someone might just wander by. She's fine with the usual neighborhood sounds, but imagine someone walking along your home, backyard, or side yard. For the six property owners involved, the current or proposed trail would move closer to their yards, nearer to patios, play areas, and backyards. She has endured months of people walking over her bee balm, despite her efforts to deter them with signs. She thanks the council for listening. She asks the council to vote to vacate the land, respecting that this community, built around these eight property owners, has been gentle and respectfulin its engagement with staff and the council. Please prioritize decisions that benefit those most impacted: the eight property owners. Mr. Kevin Watson, Aldine Street Mr. Watson explained that he lives a couple of doors down from the north end of the trail. He asked the council to consider two options. First, a prescriptive easement over the current path on private property, which would maintain public use of that path. You can consult your city attorney about what that process might involve, or the city could assist neighbors in establishing a new path on the existing right-of­ way; a new dirt path could avoid trees if fences were relocated. It sounds like this plan is part of the constellation, although he was unsure what that meant. The constellation plan has been considered over the years and envisioned, perhaps not recently or by this council, but it exists. He sent the council an email with many examples of dirt paths and connections throughout the Northeast Metro. One example he wanted to highlight tonight was the final drive. At the end of Heinle Drive, near Lake Owosso, there's a path extending fromthe cul-de-sac, crossing the railroad, and serving as a dirt path between the railroad and County Road C, ending at County Road C. There's no ADA ramp or crosswalk, similar to the trail at the end of Al dine Drive. Some say this is a trail to nowhere because it terminates at Roselawn, but it connects the Mid Oaks neighborhood to Brim Hall and Evergreen Park. It also provides access for residents in Ridgewood and Woodside Page 168 of 558Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 21, 2025 Page 12 neighborhoods to farm fields, the Roselawn trail, or the State Fair. Likewise, the Heinle trail probably links to Central Park or the County Road C trail. Recently, you learnedthis has been identifiedas a connection. He encouraged the council to honor that constellation plan and support the neighborhood. It seems that volunteers, including myself, are willing to help install a dirt path if fencescan be moved to access the right of way. Thank you. Mayor Roe closed the public comment period. He expressed gratitude to residents and acknowledged the need for furtherreview and possible action on the petition. Mayor Roe and councilmembers discussed the need foradditional information and the potential benefits of a parkway woodland path. Councilmember Strahan highlighted the absence of fence permits for certain properties and how it affects the use of the path. Councilmember Groff apologized for the city's part in the issue and proposed focusing on shared solutions. Councilmember Schroeder expressed concernabout tree removal and the safety at the path's end. Councilmember Bauer highlighted the importance of maintaining the neighborhood's beauty and discussed the challenges of developing a path. Mayor Roe proposed delaying the issue so the Parks and Recreation Commission could review it. Groffmoved, Strahan seconded, to table this item until further information is received fromthe Parks and Recreation Commission about the possible use of the right-of-way as a park containing a more natural type of path. Roll Call Ayes: Groff, Strahan, Schroeder, and Roe. Nays: Bauer Recess Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 8:16 p.m. and reconvened at approximately 8:24p.m. d. Receive County Road C Project Update and Crossings to Acorn Park Assistant Public Works Director/City Engineer Jennifer Lowry brieflyhighlighted this item as detailed in the Request for Council Action and related attachments dated July 21, 2025. Page 169 of 558Page 170 of 558It was infonnally suggested that there may be room for a creative third option: the neighborhood working together to create and maintain an info1mal path in the right-of-way, perhaps a wood chip path that winds around the few trees at the south end. Toward this option and as a staiiing point, we are asking the city to fo1mallysmvey the remaining right-of-way, so that it is clear what land is and is not included in the right-of-way. Thank you. Sincerely, Olivia Gault Cindy Gallaher Stef Kiihn Aschenbrenner lil1 A PathFrom Aldine1 .heic lil1 B PathFrom Aldine2.heic lil1 C PathFrom Aldine3.heic lil1 D PathlnWoods1 .heic lil1 E PathlnWoods2.heic Page 171 of 558Page 172 of 558Page 173 of 558Page 174 of 558Page 175 of 558been created by this process. I get it's complicated and the easy answer is to just vacate the ROW and move on, but this trail is one of the things that makes this neighborhood special and stand out from any other neighborhood in town. Below I have a handful of thoughts and ideas I'd like you to consider and direct staff to bring back for discussion. The City needs to conduct a survey of this ROW. Where is the path, where are the fences, sheds, big trees, etc.? That's the first step to make a decision about the future of this path. The comment at the meeting after both votes failed was that status quo remains. But that's not the case because the western portion of this trail is more than likely on private property as the western 20ft of ROW were given back to the properties to the west. Now you have residents knowingly or unknowingly walking on private property along this trail. The status quo for the past 50 years is most likely gone. Again, a survey should be conducted. The western 20ft of ROW that never was is peculiar. Clearly a mistake by the forefathers of the City. Mistakes happen. The City never did the correct title work and installed city infrastructure under private property. The only way for the City to remedy that is to pursue a prescriptive easement and to pay the market rate for that easement after an appraisal. I believe when you are pursuing this acquisition, you could do the same for the trail and pay for the path to remain on private property through that easement. The public has been using this path, similar to the infrastructure underground, for over 50 years and likely has a legal right to continue to use the path. Shouldn't be too heavy of lift since the City will already be pursuing this for the underground infrastructure. If the City does pursue this, I'd suggest they adequately delineate the path to ensure people don't walk on private property. A low split rail fence should be sufficient. The other option is to reroute a path on the 30ft ROW. I think you have a willing group of volunteers that would clear buckthorn, weed trees, etc. to make a new path. This is my assumption. I'm sure the neighbors would take any help the City public works staff would give them as well. A day or two by them would clear it pretty quick. Prime the clearing with a week or two of goat munching perhaps??? Scapegoat Farms is one I'm familiar with. But the problem with a new path is the fenced yard along Roselawn.... and by association, the fence at the intersection of Ryan/Aldine off the corner Mid Oaks property. The fenced yard is a problem. It's been there for 20+ years. How was it permitted in ROW? Was it permitted? I believe the City should ask the property owner to move the fence onto private property. If the City did in fact permit this fence, the City should pay to move the fence back to private property. Right this wrong. I understand the path used to travel through the fenced area before the fence was installed. Lastly, so much was made about this path being ADA and needing to be concrete or asphalt to do so.... and in turn destroying the trees to make the room. Liabilty concerns were thrown around loosely which needed clarity on it's accuracy. Is this ADA requirement a city policy? If so, does the Pathways Master Plan contradict that policy. The plan states, "Non-paved pathways will be limited in use (walking, hiking, etc.)." Limited is not the same as never. Regardless, city policies can always be tweaked by the will of the City Council. The neighborhood DOES NOT want a paved or concrete path. The abutting neighbors don't want that either. I believe I heard many abutting neighbors say they only supported the vacation because they didn't want an asphalt path that destroys the trees. One abutting neighbor said he would be ok if the path just remained as is. This focus by the City that the path needs to be paved and ADA is Page 176 of 558 distracting and is exacerbating that animosity between neighbors. Someday, when the underground infrastructure needs to be replaced, and the trees are cut down to do so, put in the asphalt ADA path. But there are plenty of examples in Roseville and the northeast metro where pathways are dirt, bark chips, grass or gravel. While many are in parks (county parks especially), there are some that serve as shortcuts or neighborhood connections. Attached you'll find a pdf I put together that I started compiling 'non- paved" paths over the past several weeks as I visited different communities in the area. I took some pictures (some from google maps) and attached a map for each. In the first example, it's the best example I could find in Roseville to the situation we are dealing with. Maybe some of you are familiar. At the west end of Heinel Dr., there's a paved path that travels west for about 800 feet. Then it terminates as there's a railroad crossing that never got completed. Probably because Railroads don't like ped crossings and they are notoriously difficult to deal with. But the resiliency of the neighborhood prevailed and they have completed the connection with a dirt footpath up to County Rd C and outlets just East of the Victoria/County Rd. C intersection. Looking at old aerials, I think this is old Heinel Dr. ROW that used to cross the railroad. It's a very similar situation and by all accounts, the neighborhood accepts it as a dirt path. It's not ADA compliant. Is the City any more liable for this path than the Aldine scenario. More so since theres an actual paved trail that deadends? A trail to nowhere for those in a wheelchair. I don't think there's any liability in either situation. These paths just exist because the neighborhood/community wants them, not necessarily because formal city decisions choose where paths should be. If you've gotten this far, I appreciate your interest and support to help keep the Aldine trail connection. I'm asking the City Council to be creative and do the right thing to keep this community asset and also respect the private property owners rights to enjoy their properties. You have talented staff I know can present you with a variety of options that can satisfy the neighborhood and the abutting neighbors. The City staff may not have known about it, but it's still a community asset organically created by generations of neighbors. Don't strip this away from our neighborhood because once the ROW is vacated, the trail is never coming back no matter how good the neighbors get along. Bottom line, this trail can exist in Roseville. It SHOULD continue to exist. There are examples of trails like this in Rosevile and the surrounding region. Lets slow down..... and keep these vital community connections! Page 177 of 558Trail Connection from County Rd. C to Heinel Dr. There’s a bituminous path from the end of the Heinel culdesac to the west until it crosses the railroad track. The asphalt trail doesn’t continue over the tracks but becomes a dirt path up to County Rd. C. The dirt path is not ADA accessible. The day I visited, I saw a woman on a bike ride up the trail on the southside of County Rd. C on the trail. Walk her bike across the county road, jumped on her bike on the dirt path. There are no ped ramps to access this trail on County Rd. C. Page 178 of 558The Lake Josephine County Park has parkland east of Lexington Ave. There are no amenities but there is a trail connection that connects the neighborhood to Lexington Ave, the Dairy Queen and the Lake. There’s also connections between the neighborhood as well. It’s a dirt path in Roseville and not ADA accessible with no ped ramps from Brenner Ave. or Lexington Ave. I’d guess most users are neighbors that use it to walk their dog and loop the neighborhood. Page 179 of 558In North Oaks at their Southpointe Park, they have a gravel path that connects the parking lot to the neighborhood. Additionally there’s a dirt path between the City of North Oaks parking lot and the park. This trail is organic and allows for overflow parking. Clearly accepted by the City. Page 180 of 558In Arden Hills there are quite a few un paved paths thru their community. The specific one I highlight goes straight between two homes through the woods to Valentine Hills Elementary. This appears to be a nice short cut for the neighborhood. Page 181 of 558The City of Vadnais Height has a grass path connection between Garceau Lane and Arcade Street. A great connection for a dog walk or walking to the commercial district. Page 182 of 558Also in Vadnais Heights there’s a grass path between Centerville Road and the Bridgewood Park which connects to a couple other neighborhoods. Page 183 of 558In Falcon Heights, there used to be a dirt path connecting these streets near the school together. It worked this way for decades. Again, there’s no rush to pave this trail. Falcon Heights Community park has a network of unpaved trails with a partially paved connection to the neighborhood. Page 185 of 558Page 186 of 558Page 187 of 558Page 188 of 558both environmentally damaging and expensive, and the segment was ranked extremely low compared to paths that are already planned across the City. The segment was not added to the Roseville Pathway Plan. Owners of all 8 abutting properties favor ROW vacation and signed the Petition for Vacation. As noted in the staff memos from both the April 21 the June 16 Council Meetings, ROW vacation would help with confusion and disagreements over how the area should be maintained with regard to vegetation control and debris management. Abutting property owners would appreciate clarity regarding use of and responsibility for the segment. Please cast your vote to respect the City’s processes and plans, safeguard dozens of mature trees, value the substantial investments already made in building accessible paths along both Fairview and Snelling, and direct the City’s limited resources – both time and money – toward the high-priority issues facing our city. Please vote to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way on July 21. Thank you for your service to our community. Melinda Erickson and Tim Brown Mid Oaks Lane Page 189 of 558Page 190 of 558Page 191 of 558Page 192 of 558Page 193 of 558Page 194 of 558Page 195 of 558Page 196 of 558Page 197 of 558id Oaks Lane Page 198 of 558Page 199 of 558Page 200 of 558 From: Rachel Brown To: Erik Henricksen Subject: Aldine Streetvacation. Date: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 7:15:20 AM Attachments: RBrown - Aldine Vacation April 2025.pdf Caution: lbis email originated outside 01u· organization;please use caution. Hi Erik, Attached is a letter about the Aldine Street vacation. Looking fo1wa.rdto meetingyou next Monday. -Rachel Page 201 of 558 Rachel Brown RoselawnAvenue West Roseville, MN 55113 April 16, 2025 Erik Henricksen Assistant City Engineer 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Erik, I am writing to thank you, the other city staff,and the City Council for working to vacate the unused Aldine Street right-of-way that runs along the full length of my property at 1705 RoselawnAvenue West. I am in full support of the vacation and deeply hope that the City Council Members will vote in favor of the proposed resolution at the meeting on April 21, 2025. The home was built in 1934, well beforethe 20-footright-of-way was set on what is now my property. Since I moved here in 2000, I have been a diligent steward of the city land along my property line - mowing grass, mulching leaves, and pruning trees and bushes. The proposed vacation will allow me to have more control over these activities on the 2,640 square feet that is set to be released to me (132 ft. x 20 ft), subject to utility easement. More importantly, the vacation will let me address the problem created when the right-of-way was established in 1951 and made more problematic when the existing garage was extended a bit (sometime in the 1960s): there is no viable option forme to have a driveway that is solely on my property and connects to my garage. The existing gravel driveway is expensive to maintain, a challenge for snow removal, and non-compliant with city code. When I received notice of the vacation, I was delighted to have a long-awaited resolution to this problem. As I plana home remodel, including a garageto replace/expandthe very small 1-car one, I amlooking forwardto having access to landthat will allow me to create a code-compliant driveway that is paved and fully on my property. Again, many thanks for your work on this. Please let me know if there is anything I cando to make this happen as plannedon April 21. Rachel Page 202 of 558From: SHAWN CHA To: Erik Henricksen Subject: Vacating areas and paths Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 6:54:56 PM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Hi Erik, We recently received two letters from the city regarding some of the paths surrounding our neighborhood. I was made aware by a few people around our home that there are letters being sent in regarding keeping the path. However, I own a home that sits directly on the path and I kindly request that the use of these paths be vacated. Thank you, S & M Page 203 of 558Page 204 of 558 Bench Handout 2 Item 7.a 4/21/2025 From: Rachel Brown To: Dan Roe Subject: AldineStreet Vacation Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:50:37 AM I Youdon't oftenget email fro- I earnwhy this is important Caution: This email originated outside om organization; please use caution. Hi Mayor Roe, I am one of the 8 tmderlying property owners of the Aline Street Vacation (Area V) that you will be voting on tonight. I ask you to please vote Yes on the full vacation of the Area V tonight. All 8 prope11y owners are eager to have full access to our land (subject to the utility easement). We also all agree that we do not want a formal, city-code compliant paved path that would completely alter om landscapes, change our use of our prope1ties, disrupt our lives during planning and construction, remove or distress, existing oak trees, and cost the city a lot of time and money. And forme, personally, the full vacation lets me finallyaddress signifiantissues on my prope11y where I have lived for 25 years. 1) The ROW line is just a few feet frommy garage ently. (First photos below shows the approximate line from two perspectives). The house, built in 1934, well before the 1950's ROW was enacted, had a small tuck-under garage. A 1960s addition (white siding part) extended the garage a bit, but either way, the ROW was ve1y close to the garage. This means that in order to have car access to the garage, my driveway must be on the ROW land. 2) Because of this, I have a gravel driveway that is not code-compliant and is expensive to maintain. (Third photo shows one of the gravel piles, left on the lawn after a season of snow removal.) Full re-graveling costs about $2,000 and needs to be done eve1y 2-3 years. 3) The raising of the roof line in the 1960s remodel also created an issue with the back bedroom windows - they were originally windows to the outside; now they open into the garage (fowthphoto). This is a problem.that I intend to coITect with a garage/house remodel. But without the ROW po1tion returnedto me, there is little space for me to build a normal garage. All this to say, I was ve1y thankfulto learn of the city's plan to vacate the ROW for me and the other underlying prope11y owners of this land. My fiance and I have begun work with an architect on the home and garage design, but we cannot move fo1ward with this until the ROW issue is resolved. So we really hope you will vote yes for the full vacation tonight. Thank you foryour consideration. Page 205 of 558Best, Rachel Page 206 of 558Page 207 of 558 Bench Handout 4 Item 7.a 4/21/2025 To: Roseville City Council Director of Public Works, Jesse Freihammer Assistant City Engineer, Erik Henricksen I am writing to the Council as I will be unable to attend the meeting tonight. However, I have learned that there may be discussion of the creation of a formal City pathway along the Aldine/Roselawn easement. There are several reasons I believe a formal City pathway here is unnecessary, unsafe, costly, and damaging to the neighborhood environment. I am hopeful that the Council will vacate the easement as recommended by Public Works for the reasons outlined below. 1. The City has held this land forwell over 40 years without a plan or identifieduse. 2. This trail is not now and has never been part of the Pathway Master Plan and does not appear to meet the usual and standard criteria for such a designation. 3. This right-of-way area has never been maintained by the City. 4. Toundertake any formal pathway project would result in the destruction of many large, heritage trees, including some that have been used by significantwildlife in our area. 5. Construction of a formalpathway would have considerable financial costs for both construction and maintenance, costs borne by the public for very limited. 6. The school district provides safe bus service to all school age children on Mid Oaks Lane and Mid Oaks Road with a pick-up point on the Lane for elementary students. 7. The current safe and accessible Fairview pathway links to pathways along Roselawn and across Snelling and both north and south along Fairview. 8. There is no pedestrian crossing along Roselawn at the point of this pathway, and Roselawn is a busy street, especially at rush hour. 9. There is excellent access forthe entire area north of this proposed vacated area to the well-maintained, established, safe, and accessible pathway along Fairview. 10. The predominant use of this trail is by dog owners accessing the University Fields. The safer and easier route is to use the existing Fairview pathway and accessing the Roselawn pathway and University Fields at the four-way stop and pedestrian crossing at Fairview and Roselawn. Thank you for your consideration. Tam Tam McGehee Easement Adjacent Homeowner Page 208 of 558Page 209 of 558neighbors use this ROW for outdoor storage or dumping leaves. Most have fences that buffer them from the ROW, although the end property at Mid Oaks/Roselawn extended the fence into the middle of the public ROW back in the 80s/90s I'm writing today to ask the City Council to direct the City staff to explore what it might take to retain or make a permanent trail/sidewalk through the easement known as area V (the extension of Aldine Street from Aldine/Ryan intersection to Roselawn). I believe this trail would support your current Strategic Plan priorities related to environmental sustainability, pedestrian connectivity and inclusivity. The City has owned this ROW for decades. Affording more time to explore a permanent trail solution through it would be prudent. Lastly, I recognize the old farmhouse uses the ROW to access their garage. I'm confident there's an option for the City and the homeowner to work around a trail. https://share.icloud.com/photos/0efm9Mm3Gu11kKDgaudZ4HXuw Lastly, as far as the neighborhood, I have no concerns about the vacation of ROW for Area U and W. The extra area surrounding the existing sidewalks can be given to the neighbors as they are maintaining them anyway. I envision a similar solution could be created for the Aldine extension. These trails are such an amenity to the neighborhoods and kids walking to Brimhall Elementary for school. I would imagine some also use this Aldine ROW to walk to school or baseball practice at Evergreen Park. I plan to be at the meeting tonight to make a similar request, but wanted to share the video if you haven't walked this stretch yet. Kevin Page 210 of 558Page 211 of 558packet materials, current transportation and pathway plans were used to identify the list of ROW no longer needed by the City. ROW vacation benefits to the City and adjacent property owners were noted to include more owner control of property use and clarity regarding responsibility for vegetation control and debris management. A turnback of the Aldine ROW that includes a 20-foot pathway easement would place an undue burden on property owners and would not align with the purpose of the City’s ROW vacation actions. Property owners would be forced to assume responsibility and risk without receiving the rewards of property ownership. The Aldine ROW also has about a dozen mature oak trees, which would be vulnerable during and after construction of a potential future pathway. The 2021 City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan (Plan) includes detailed maps of existing and proposed paths. Proposed pathways were vetted and prioritized according to a well-defined process. Plan maps (pages 44-49) illustrate pathway placement and spacing norms across Roseville and a few short sidewalk segments between residential properties. There are no long pathways, existing or proposed, between residential properties. The Aldine ROW is not in the 2021 Plan, presumably because there are already two off-street paths with controlled intersection crossings within about ¼ mile of the Aldine ROW. Inserting a spontaneous pathway on the Aldine ROW would create both a dangerous, uncontrolled crossing at Roselawn and a singular departure from Roseville’s normal pathway placement and spacing. Roseville’s mission statement says in part that the City will provide ethical and efficient government, and that the City aspires to prioritize environmental conservation. Methods for upholding the mission statement are laid out in processes and planning documents. The City-proposed Aldine ROW vacation has been impeded by misinformation and emotion. Fortunately, the City has established processes and thoughtful plans in-place to aid unbiased, fact-based decision-making when faced with disagreement. As career civil servants ourselves, we respect and appreciate the effort and expertise of City staff, the value of established processes and precedent, and the significance of forward-looking planning documents. We are also grateful to you, the citizen elected officials of Roseville, who have agreed to impartially and equitably act in good faith on behalf of all Roseville residents. Please vote to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way retaining the existing utility easement, as the City originally proposed and in alignment with the 2021 City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan. Page 212 of 558 Sincerely yours, Melinda Erickson and Tim Brown Mid Oaks Lane CC: City Manager Trudgeon and Public Works Direct Freihammer Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 213 of 558Page 214 of 558Page 215 of 558Page 216 of 558standards detailed in the 2021 City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan (Plan). The Plan describes path essentials such as preferred location on ROW, accessibility by all, and sufficient width for both bikers and pedestrians. ROW also provides clarity of the City’s responsibility for tree trimming, dead tree removal, other long-term maintenance activities and costs, and liability. City liability should be clear because a new path will create a dangerous mid-block intersection at Roselawn, a high-volume, fast-moving traffic road during rush hour when kids travel to and from school. As a homeowner, a ROW turnback that includes a path easement is a worst-case scenario: new responsibility, risk, liability, and costs while receiving no beneficial use of “our” property. In contrast, a ROW turn-back would clarify our full responsibility and allow our beneficial use. The dozen beautiful oak trees and many other mature trees in the ROW would be preserved. In our opinion, we already have enough asphalt, including two existing off-street paths, along both Fairview and Snelling, each just ¼ mile away. We value protecting every mature tree in the ROW more than we value the convenience of using the neighborhood shortcut: Oaks over Asphalt. A ‘footpath petition’ reportedly has many signatures intended to show wide support for the neighborhood shortcut. Unfortunately, the online petition version included misconceptions and misstatements regarding this process. Also, during the April 21 public comment period some shortcut advocates voiced opposition to a paved path. We also support Oaks over Asphalt in the Aldine ROW, but we disagree regarding a City-sanctioned neighborhood shortcut for privileged use by only the able-bodied. Additionally, a formal City shortcut on the Aldine ROW would create an irregular, singular occurrence in the entire City of Roseville: the first and only long City path sited between numerous (8) residential properties (Plan maps, pages 44-49). Roseville’s mission statement says in part that the City will provide ethical and efficient government, and that the City aspires to prioritize environmental conservation. Please put the mission statement into action by respecting Plan spacing and siting norms, valuing the substantial investments already made building accessible paths along Fairview and Snelling, safeguarding mature trees, and spending limited City resources – our taxes – on higher-priority paths than a neighborhood shortcut just ¼ mile from two existing paths. Please vote to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way with a utility easement, as the City originally proposed. Sincerely yours, Melinda Erickson and Tim Brown Page 217 of 558 Mid Oaks Lane CC: City Manager Trudgeon and Public Works Direct Freihammer Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 218 of 558Page 219 of 558Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Dear Councilmembers, Comment, Question or Concern I'm writing to convey by opposition to the city building a trail between Ryan and Roselawn. The project will clearly harm the old growth trees in the area. The feasibility report by Dana Schumacher clearly shows the loss section 3.3.1 and Appendix D. It is imperative that Roseville keep as much as it's old growth canopy as possible. I have no opinion on whether or not the right of way should be vacated. Thank you, Anne Mockovak Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 220 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 9:03:13 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville 2 Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 7:29 AM To: Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com>; Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 8:37 AM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 221 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Vacate the Aldine Street Right of Way Contact Information Name: Brad K. Jacobson Address: Virginia Ave. City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Field not completed. Please Share Your Like many of my fellow Roseville resident, I have a serious concern that building an accessible path through the Aldine Comment, Question or Street right‑of‑way would create significant, irreversible Concern environmental damage while offering minimal public benefit. The City‑funded arborist report makes clear that the large, century‑old oaks and surrounding trees are currently healthy, yet both proposed path designs are “likely to adversely affect the long‑term health of the trees” and that “even a single pass from heavy equipment within the (tree) critical root zone can initiate a cycle of long‑term decline.” These findings indicate that most assessed trees, and many smaller, unassessed trees, would be killed or permanently compromised. Page 222 of 558 The study also acknowledges the risk of oak wilt spreading through interconnected root systems, meaning tree loss could extend far beyond the construction corridor and into the surrounding neighborhood canopy. Financially, the quoted $120K construction estimate omits major costs, including a safe Roselawn crossing and long‑term maintenance. For a short, seasonal path located just a quarter‑mile from two existing year‑round routes, this represents poor fiscal stewardship. Finally, the feasibility study does not evaluate a No Build option, despite its clear advantages: preserving environmental benefits, avoiding unnecessary spending, and reducing long‑term City maintenance obligations. For these reasons, I strongly urge the Council to vote to vacate the Aldine Street right‑of‑way and avoid a project that is environmentally harmful, fiscally inefficient, and unnecessary. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 223 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 9:03:28 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville 4 Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 7:30 AM To: Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com>; Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 9:59 AM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 224 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Vacate Aldine Street Right-of-way Contact Information Name: Christine Hochstatter Address: Millwood Ave City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your I support the Roseville City Council approving the resident petition to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way. Comment, Question or Concern There are about 50 established, beneficial trees in the right-of- way: white oak, bur oak, silver maple, American elm, box elder, and others. This urban forest provides food, homes, and shelter for dozens of species of insects, birds, and mammals, as well as shade to adjacent yards and homes. Undeveloped, this area of urban forest could live decades to centuries longer. Using the City’s own plans, processes, and criteria, this right-of- way segment is not needed for City transportation purposes, and building any type of new, accessible shortcut would be expensive Page 225 of 558 and environmentally damaging. Building a new shortcut would divert funds away from City-wide amenities at a high environmental cost. In contrast, vacating the right-of-way would “right-size” the City’s property management responsibilities, leave all environmental benefits intact, and cost the City nothing more. Please vote for fiscal and environmental responsibility by voting to vacate the right-of-way. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 226 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, May 18, 2026 4:30:39 PM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville Another Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 7:51 AM To: Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com>; Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Another one sent to the Council. ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 12:16 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine Street Right-of-Way Page 227 of 558Contact Information Name: Dayle Zelenka Address: Giesmann St City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Roseville has many wonderful parks, trails and public spaces, and I support them wholeheartedly. However, I have previously Comment, Question or lived in a location where strangers repeatedly walked through my Concern yard at all hours of the day. It was unduly stressful and made me feel unsafe. I would prefer that city funds not go toward a project that would make others feel the same. Please consider relinquishing the right-of-way to the local homeowners near Aldine. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 228 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 9:03:41 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville 6 Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 7:31 AM To: Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com>; Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 3:07 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 229 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Vacating the Aldine Street right of way Contact Information Name: Fae Wilson Address: County Rd B2 W City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Field not completed. Please Share Your As we learn more and more each day of the personal health and environmental benefits of trees in our communities, it does not Comment, Question or make sense to remove or endanger existing trees in our city. Concern https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/build- healthy-cities/cities-stories/benefits-of-trees-forests/ Nor does it make sense to use our taxpayer dollars for a project that benefits only a handful of our Roseville residents. Fiscal responsibility goes hand in hand with environmental responsibility. Please vote to support vacating the Aldine Street right of way to Page 230 of 558 save our trees. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 231 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, May 18, 2026 4:30:31 PM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville For the June 8th packet. Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 7:49 AM To: Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com>; Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Sent to the Council. ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2026 5:47 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 232 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine Street Right-of-Way Contact Information Name: Gena Zelenka Address: Giesmann St City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your It saddened me to hear about this somewhat absurd project to cut down older oak trees for a 3rd public path for people to enjoy Comment, Question or nature and the beauty of trees. Even though we are not Concern immediately impacted by this action we believe it is a waste of public money and a crime against nature. Why don't you spend our money and plant more trees or cut down those that are dead and dying and replant? There has got to be a better way to use tax money. And even if our taxes were not being used, it's still a horrible idea, a strike against Roseville and Nature. Please rethink this. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such Page 233 of 558as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 234 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 9:03:35 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville 5 Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 7:31 AM To: Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com>; Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 2:09 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 235 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way Contact Information Name: Jacob Chatterton Address: Brooks Ave W City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your I want to voice my support for the Roseville City Council approving the resident petition to vacate the Aldine Street right- Comment, Question or of-way. Concern In this time of rising property taxes, I think it is absolutely irresponsible to be spending taxpayer money on an unnecessary shortcut connecting two roads. We're talking here about building a shortcut path would be a convenience for only a few Roseville residents. What else could this taxpayer money be spent on? We can also talk about the environmental impact. You're considering tearing down an urban forest of over 50 beneficial trees. We've already seen too many trees being torn down in Page 236 of 558 Roseville. We'll never get these trees back. And you also risk causing damage to the neighboring trees. I hope that someone will read this and consider the overwhelming negative impacts of this shortcut project. Vote to vacate. It's the fiscally and environmentally responsible choice. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 237 of 558From: Pat Trudgeon To: Jesse Freihammer; Matthew Johnson Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 8:33:23 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 8:55 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine Street ROW Contact Information Name: Janna King Address: Skillman Ave W City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer Email to be contacted? Page 238 of 558Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Re: Alsine St ROW proposed trail. Comment, Question or Concern It sounds like neighbors feel the trail is not necessary. Mature oaks are a precious keystone species and should not be endangered! The City should maintain the ROW and not build the trail. Who knows what infrastructure may be needed 50 years from now. We’ve experienced Dutch elm and Emerald ash borer. Perhaps there will be an infrastructure need and no trees! It’s deeded public ROW and should be maintained as such. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 239 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 9:03:20 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville 3 Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 7:30 AM To: Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com>; Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 9:18 AM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 240 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine Street right-of-way Contact Information Name: Jenna Truong Address: county road c west City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your • The $120K price tag quoted by TKDA is a gross underestimate of actual costs. Costs not Comment, Question or mentioned at all are (1) design and construction of a safe Concern crossing at Roselawn and (2) long- term maintenance. For a seasonal path ¼ mile from two existing, year-round paths? All assessed trees will be killed or notably damaged and put at risk for long, slow death from developing either path design Oak trees are particularly sensitive to damage from construction. Page 241 of 558 The consultant’s estimated tree damage is the “best-case scenario” and assumes an excellent contractor who follows all tree-safety protocols exactly - an exceptionally difficult prospect given the number, size, and location of the 50 trees; and that the construction zone is 30 feet wide, 590 feet long, and has substantial slopes. The arborist notes that “even a single pass from heavy equipment within the (tree) critical root zone can initiate a cycle of long-term decline. The No Build option is not even included in the “feasibility” study. The “No Action” option is always considered in an engineering feasibility study. In this case, the No Build option has many benefits, including “right-sizing” the City’s property management responsibilities, leaving all environmental benefits intact, and costing the City nothing more. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 242 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:20:18 PM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville A 3rd one. Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:20 PM To: Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com>; Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 1:16 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 243 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine right-of-way trail report Contact Information Name: Joseph Pribyl Address: Skillman Avenue West City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Dear City Council Members, Comment, Question or I am a Roseville resident with an interest in the future of the Concern Aldine right-of-way, a matter that is on the agenda for the City Council meeting on June 8. I understand the right-of-way trail report will be discussed during this meeting. Would it be possible for me to receive a copy (i.e. PDF sent to my email address) of the right-of-way trail report prior to the City Council meeting on June 8; ideally the week before? Thank you for all the time and consideration you've given to the matter of the Aldine right-of-way. Whatever its future will be, I appreciate the many voices you've listened to through the Page 244 of 558 process of deciding what will happen, and the priorities you look to balance in making your thoughtful decision. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 245 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 12:52:42 PM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 12:41 PM To: Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com>; Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 12:32 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 246 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Mid Oaks Lane Area Plans Contact Information Name: Julie Watkin Address: COUNTY ROAD B W City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to No Reply Necessary be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your I am writing in opposition to the plans for developing an accessible path in the Mid Oaks Lane Area. To develop this Comment, Question or would be expensive and environmentally irresponsible. Do the Concern right thing and to protect these trees - Roseville is such a great suburb with green spaces - let's keep it that way. Although unrelated and not a Roseville decision, the closing and development of the former U of M golf course is a tragedy. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Page 247 of 558Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 248 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 9:03:47 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville 7 Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 7:31 AM To: Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com>; Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 3:14 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 249 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine Street Project Concerns Contact Information Name: Kara Simmons Address: Pascal St City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to No Reply Necessary be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Dear Roseville government officials, Comment, Question or I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed project Concern on Aldine Street which would require the removal of large, old growth trees. From my understanding, this project benefits very few residents while costing the rest of the citizens of Roseville not only tax dollars but valuable nature. The removal of these trees is a permanent detriment to both human and animal residents of our city. It would take generations to try and claim back what is lost once it became evident the mistake that was made, just so a few people could have a shorter walk. There are alternative paths very close by to the proposed project, and I believe it's about time people start prioritizing what is best for the Page 250 of 558 whole over what is slightly more comfortable for themselves. I urge you to cancel this project. Our tax dollars and manpower can and should be spent on things that enhance the lives of as many Roseville citizens and visitors as possible. There are things much more deserving of our money and attention that would continue to make this a great place to live. Thank you, Kara Simmons 25-year Roseville resident Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 251 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 9:03:05 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville 1 Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 7:29 AM To: Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com>; Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 7:59 AM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 252 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Please vacate the Aldine ROW Contact Information Name: Keith Knepper Address: Draper Ave City: Roseville State: Minnesota Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Dear Council Member, Comment, Question or I am contacting you regarding the upcoming vote on the Aldine Concern ROW. I'm asking you to preserve both the habitat and our tax dollars by voting to vacate the ROW. Those trees are irreplaceable in any of our lifetimes. They support established wildlife that is losing habitat in our area everyday. Unless we make decisions that will preserve habitat, future generations of our city will not be able to enjoy the natural element we do today. The cost can be avoided entirely and used for higher priority Page 253 of 558 purposes. It seems like everyone benefits from a vote to vacate. Thank you for your consideration, Keith Knepper Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 254 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 9:03:56 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville 8 Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 7:32 AM To: Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com>; Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 3:30 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 255 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject I ask that the City Council vote to vote to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way on June 8. Contact Information Name: Kristin Sandau Address: Mount Ridge Road City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your I ask that the City Council vote to vote to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way on June 8. Comment, Question or Concern We, as Roseville Residents, value fiscal responsibility and good stewardship of century-old tree systems. The proposed 30-foot- wide right-of-way has about 50 beneficial trees, and there is no good reason to kill these trees, which is what will likely happen per 3 City path studies which reviewed this scenario. This expert review has caused many neighbors who previously wanted it to change their minds. Adjacent homeowners have already formally agreed to protect oak trees in perpetuity. While I may not be able to give my residential opinion about a Page 256 of 558 golf course, I can certainly convey to my city council to respect our wishes regarding this City vote. Thank you. Kristin Sandau (Roseville homeowner since 1997) Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 257 of 558From: Pat Trudgeon To: Jesse Freihammer; Matthew Johnson Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 4:45:11 PM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 4:21 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine Street right-of-way Contact Information Name: Laura Carroll Address: Lydia Ave W City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer Email to be contacted? Page 258 of 558Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your I am concerned that the city is considering this new pathway for a Comment, Question or number of reasons, including the environmental and economic Concern impacts. Please officially vacate this ill-conceived petition and move onto business that is necessary and will serve a larger portion of the community. Thank you. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 259 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 11:44:40 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 10:58 AM To: Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com>; Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 10:43 AM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 260 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Comment for the 6-8-26 members of City Council Meeting to Vacate the Aldine Street Right-Of-Way Contact Information Name: Linda Lange Address: Burke Ave West City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Field not completed. Please Share Your To: Roseville City Council Re: Aldine Street Right of Way Path to Chop down Old Growth Comment, Question or Trees Concern From: Linda Lange, Burke Ave West Roseville Date: 6-3-26 Dear Council Members, Question: What can citizens of Roseville do to help save our climate? Answer: Saving century-old oak trees from extinction by vacating the Aldine Street right-of-way. Page 261 of 558 Trees have proven, positive environmental impacts. Trees convert polluting carbon dioxide into energy, providing life sustaining oxygen. Old growth oaks are exceptional specimens capable of vast carbon dioxide conversion, based on their huge size, and far-reaching roots and canopies. Humans cannot do this. Trees shade the ground, lowering the temperature, particularly in urban areas, thus saving humans, plants, and animals from excessive heat. Humans cannot do this. Trees provide habitat for bugs, birds, and mammals. Humans cannot do this on the same scale. Trees are stable, long-term reservoirs for polluting carbon dioxide. Humans cannot do this. Trees are flood control devices because of their heft and root structures. Humans are not flood control devices. Established old growth Tree Killing Elevated Path is not a Legacy to be proud of. Taxes spent to implement this pathway at the expense of trees for the benefit of a few is a sacrifice of the many. Taxes spent to undercut citizens from WALKING a bit further is not a health-minded solution. Minnesota after all has harsh winters; few citizens walk then anyway. It is not shameful to end this tree-devastating boondoggle of a tax dollar waste of money at this City Council meeting. Every City Council action has a legacy impact on the overall fiscal stability of its citizens. Spending on this construction project is not even a valuable asset. Metro mobility rides for local disabled folks would be a far better and CHEAPER investment. A legacy to be proud of is regard for the planet, for avoiding degradation of nature’s trees, for health and well-being of fitness of citizens (including transportation subsidies), for carbon dioxide sequestration, and for saving tax dollars for worthy public safety projects commonly called police and fire departments. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Page 262 of 558Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 263 of 558June 3, 2026 Mayor Roe, Council Members, and Roseville residents, As a homeowner adjacent to the Aldine Street right-of-way (ROW), I offer two observations “from my backyard.” First: the City has posed the greatest threats to the health and well-being of the dozen majestic oak trees and other large trees in the ROW, both in the past and projecting into the future. Past work by the City or City contractors killed big ROW trees. Both path feasibility studies prepared over the past year were unambiguous that building an accessible path in the ROW would devastate its currently healthy urban forest. From my perspective, unless the right-of-way is vacated, the corridor remains at risk of environmental devastation by the City at a huge financial cost to the City (aka all Roseville taxpayers). Alternatively, we adjacent Mid Oaks Lane homeowners formally offered to protect the trees with a legally binding agreement, such as a conservation easement, to be permanently placed on our property records. This offer to the City would protect the trees in perpetuity for community benefit and cost the city nothing more. Second: the Aldine Street ROW was originally taken from the platted adjacent lots specifically to build Aldine Street, a requirement for plat approval by Ramsey County back in 1938. But the platted Aldine Street was too close to the platted western part of Mid Oaks Lane: 150 feet rather than 300 feet away, which is the typical minimal street spacing in Roseville, elsewhere in the state, and now specified by MN-DOT for an intersection between a residential street and a busier street (Roselawn Ave, formerly called Co Rd A2). By the time the City started to consider building Aldine Street in the '50s, when houses were being built and the platted Mid Oaks streets were built, Aldine Street was not built, presumably because of the "too close" spacing issue. “But for” the requirement that the 1938 plat include Aldine Street, the 30 feet would have originally been platted as part of the western Mid Oaks Lane lots. These western Mid Oaks Lane lots would then have been of similar depth to the other Mid Oaks lots and other lots in our neighborhood. Instead, these western lots are shallower. Isn’t 88 years long enough to wait for the City to correct a mistake perpetuated since 1938? On June 8, please vote to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way, both to protect the trees in perpetuity and to remedy a long-standing oversight by your predecessors. Thank you, Mindy Erickson Mid Oaks Lane Page 264 of 558From: Pat Trudgeon To: Matthew Johnson; Jesse Freihammer Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 8:32:11 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 4:50 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine Street right-of-way path Contact Information Name: Nancy Morales Address: Rosewood Lane S City: Roseville State: Minnesota Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer Email to be contacted? Page 265 of 558Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Dear Roseville City Council members, Comment, Question or Concern I am a Roseville resident (Midland Hills) and wish to express my support to vacate the proposal for an Aldine Street right-of-way path. There are already two accessible paths within one quarter mile of this location. The loss of mature trees as well as the cost to construct and maintain a project that will benefit only a small number of residents does not seem reasonable. Adjacent Mid Oaks Lane homeowners formally offered to protect the trees with a legally binding agreement permanently placed on their property records. This offer would protect the trees in perpetuity and cost the city nothing more. In Midland Hills we are already losing a huge green space to development, so saving these precious oxygen-producing community trees that are also homes for birds and wildlife is important to me. I urge you to vote to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way on June 8. Thank you, Nancy Morales Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 266 of 558From: Pat Trudgeon To: Jesse Freihammer; Matthew Johnson Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 4:45:44 PM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 4:24 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Urban Forests Contact Information Name: Leah Ybarra Address: Pascal St City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer Email to be contacted? Page 267 of 558Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Hello, Comment, Question or Concern I am writing to express my concern over the growing threat to Roseville's urban canopy. We have lived in Roseville for 25 year, and have watched our precious micro-forests dwindle to make way for more developments as well as to be used as park spaces. While we love public parks/spaces, they must not come at the expense of essential, irreplaceable urban wild spaces. I would like to share a research paper my daughter wrote on this topic for one of her classes, but I do not see how to add a link to this form. Having grown up in Roseville, she cherished these urban forests and has been alarmed to see the rate they have been declining. Today, we are specifically asking the council to vote to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way and take action to protect all remaining urban forests. Please consider that we must protect these spaces for the benefit of all. Once removed, we cannot get them back. Best Regards, Leah Ybarra Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 268 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 9:20:25 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville 9 Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 9:17 AM To: Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com>; Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 9:04 AM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 269 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way. Contact Information Name: Sandra E Poindexter Address: Dunlap St N City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your I support the Roseville City Council approving the resident petition to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way. Surely there are Comment, Question or better ways to spend our limited resources than on this narrow Concern strip of land with a redundant purpose. Sincerely, Sandra Poindexter Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Page 270 of 558Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 271 of 558From: Pat Trudgeon To: Matthew Johnson; Jesse Freihammer Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 4:42:31 PM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 2:33 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine Street right-of-way Contact Information Name: Stephanie S. Billecke Address: Lydia Ave West City: Roseville State: Minnesota Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer Email to be contacted? Page 272 of 558Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your I am writing to ask that you vacate plans related to the Aldine Comment, Question or Street right-of-way project. We are in a time of extreme climate Concern risk, and I find it incomprehensible that we would voluntarily destroy any trees in Roseville. Climate scientists have underscored the critical importance of tree preservation, yet we have been slow to get on this bus. Please, it's not worth it to cut down more trees, especially for a project like this one. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 273 of 558From: Pat Trudgeon To: Matthew Johnson; Jesse Freihammer Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 4:41:16 PM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 1:47 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine street path Contact Information Name: Sue Knoblauch Address: Transit Ave City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer No Reply Necessary to be contacted? Page 274 of 558Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Please consider stopping the construction of the path on Aldine Comment, Question or St. Listen to the arborist when they indicated construction would Concern affect not only the trees you take down but the remaining trees would eventually be harmed as well. People can walk a short distance to another trail. Why add yet another trail for the city workers to maintain. Please stop the decision to make this trail. It is unnecessary. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 275 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 10:27:13 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville 10 Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 10:21 AM To: Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com>; Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 10:13 AM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 276 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Vote to acate the Aldine Street right-of-way on June 8. Contact Information Name: Terry Fritz Address: Belmont Ln W City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Please vote to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way on June 8. The trees and wildlife that would be impacted by a paved path Comment, Question or are very important not only to many residents as well to the Concern health of our environment as well. From my house I have heard owls, which are becoming more and more rare, from that area of Roseville. The native woods and trees are what make this city beautiful and inviting. Another path and right-of-way are unneeded. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Page 277 of 558Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 278 of 558June 3, 2026 TO: Roseville Mayor Dan Roe & the Roseville City Council and Roseville Voters FROM: Tim Brown, Mid Oaks Lane RE: ALDINE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION In 1938 Ramsey County approved the plat for the Mid Oaks Addition which included a 30 foot strip of right-of-way easement across the western portion of 6 lots on the western edge of the plat. It was mapped as Aldine Street and was clearly intended for use as a Street. Though this potential use was abandoned within 20 years or so, the easement was not vacated and stands in limbo some 88 years after establishment. In April of 2025 the City Council initiated a vacation process to "right size" the City's property holdings and clearly place responsibilities for maintenance on underlying property owners. During this process the City Council and City Staff have done a thorough examination of potential transportation use and found that the benefit of developing a transportation infrastructure here is not commensurate with the cost. Therefore, the intended use of this easement will likely never be met. We support the vacation currently under consideration and the benefits it brings to the City and the adjacent residents. Opponents of the vacation would like the City to retain the easement assuming that will allow people to walk through as a short cut between the center of the neighborhood to the north and the University of Minnesota's trial fields. The cost in Oak trees and in dollars of establishing a pathway that meets ADA and City requirements is prohibitive. Otherwise, a dirt-worn trail short- cut serves a small number of residents and doesn't alone justify the continuance of the easement or the cost for maintenance and the safety issues posed by the outlet mid-block of a busy street. From the start of the process, the vacation opponents have apparently recognized the limited justification for the easement and resorted to emotional appeals. Over the year of meetings amid public comment and letters we have been accused of: 1. Initiating this process 2. Greedily trying to steal public property 3. Threatening and intimidating opponents 4. Being anti-community 5. Being responsible for the problems facing America 6. Putting a fence across the easement to block passage 7. Plotting to remove the Oak trees once the easement is vacated. Page 279 of 558None of these accusations are true or based on any knowledge or conversations with us. It appears to be a cynical attempt to distract and vilify those of us in favor of the vacation. Especially frustrating is the charge that we are not advocates for our beautiful Oak trees. 88 years since the imposition of the easement and the trees are standing strong and healthy. Several generations of homeowners on 6 lots have respected and helped the trees thrive. The Oak trees are a primary reason we purchased our home. Every landscaping move we make we consider them first. Toward stewardship of the Oaks in our yard and the ROW, we have removed hundreds of square feet of impervious surface from inside the trees drip lines. We have spent hundreds of dollars watering these trees during time of drought. We spent $3,500 to carefully remove an aggressive Siberian Elm that was damaging the Oaks in the easement. We have also spent many hours removing other understory invasive plants in the Easement and elsewhere. We will continue to fight for these trees. From the start of this process we have had the trees front and center to our motivations. The City of Roseville has no Tree Protection Ordinance nor strong Tree Protection Policies. The City of Roseville has presented a project for feasibility which has the potential to cause wide-spread loss of the Mid Oaks namesakes. Meanwhile the concern that we, who have most to lose by damage to the Oaks, will cut these trees down is infuriating. Please finally end this imposition on our lots of this easement without justification. We want to continue to conserve and steward this land as long as we can and pass it to the next generation with a full canopy. Thank you Tim Brown, Mid Oaks Lane Page 280 of 558 From: Jesse Freihammer To: Beth Kolodjski Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 8:15:13 AM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville Jesse Freihammer, P.E. Public Works Director Office 651.792.7041 | Cell 651.444.9810 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 8:11 AM To: Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com>; Jesse Freihammer <Jesse.Freihammer@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 5:55 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Page 281 of 558Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine Street Contact Information Name: Vivian Ramalingam Address: Acorn Road City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your I am puzzled by the project currently proposed for little Aldine Street. Mature trees are to be felled, and those that remain are to Comment, Question or have their roots disturbed by the stress of construction and the Concern traffic of dog-walkers who are enticed by the charm of having a poop-path especially for them. As this little street runs along BEHIND established houses, who will make sure that the elect few will pick up their dog-deposits, so as not to befoul the ambient air that embraces the bedrooms of these established houses? Two options are suggested for the paving of this special route, gravel or “boardwalk.” It takes very little imagination to grasp that the established, well-paved streets that parallel the little street, Page 282 of 558 Ryan Avenue and Roselawn Avenue, provide more secure walking, and more incentive to remove the unsightly waste left on their routes by the pooper patrol. As a historian, I feel it necessary to mention that trees have already been sacrificed in the name of Aldo Manuti, whose Aldine Press (as it is known in English) was the major publisher of literary monuments worthy of humanistic study in the Italian Renaissance. Leave Aldine Street alone, and don’t deprive the Roseville community of its trees and precious old natural habitats. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 283 of 558From: Rachel Brown To: Pat Trudgeon Cc: Jesse Freihammer; Erik Henricksen; Dan Roe; Robin Schroeder; Matt Bauer; Wayne Groff; Julie Strahan Subject: Other feasibility questions (cost, impact) for Aldine ROW path options Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 1:42:11 PM Please include this email in the meeting packet for the June 8th Council meeting. Thank you! Rachel *** Mr. Trudgeon, Thank you for providing access to the Aldine Street ROW Feasibility Study early enough for people to review before the June 8 meeting. While the study did address some of the questions about costs (e.g., cost estimates for two path options, 5 year impacts on trees), there are still many that were not included. I know you and City staff are busy with other work and there is not much time before Monday. But will you please provide answers to the questions below before or during the June 8 meeting? Even if there is not time to get hard numbers for all the cost questions, I hope even the questions themselves will help Council assess the extraordinary expense and impact of a possible path before they make their decision on the ROW vacation petition. Thank you. Rachel Brown Roselawn Ave W QUESTIONS Use 1) Is it true that a path - either option - would be for pedestrians only? I did not see reference to bike traffic in the study or proposed plans. At only 4 feet wide, the path is well below the 10-feet needed for shared use by pedestrians and bikers, as noted in the Roseville Bike Plan. With the turns, slight change in grade, and speed issues, there are significant safety concerns for mixed use. 2) If no bikes are to be allowed, this may be surprising to people. How would the City communicate a no biking restriction? 3) Given issues we have seen with people continuing to walk and bike (including dog-powered and electric bikes) on the private land to west of the ROW, how would the City enforce a no biking restriction? 4) When and how would a path - either option - be closed for the snow/ice season? Ice and snow are particularly concerning for the boardwalk option, given how the wood would become very slippery. It has been mentioned before that City staff would not plow or shovel a Page 284 of 558 path in this area. Similar to the no biking question, how would this be communicated and enforced? Initial Cost 5) How much would it cost to install a crosswalk at the south end, crossing Roselawn? As noted in the study, Roselawn does have a high traffic level, even more so at times like now when other construction projects (e.g., 280) divert traffic into our neighborhood. Without that crosswalk, there are serious safety concerns. 6) Given experience with other projects in Roseville, does City staff believe that the cost estimate provided by TKDA is accurate for either option and if not, what are their estimates? For example, the necessary construction method in the 30 foot space - building the path from either end in in portions and then using each stretch of path to build on to the next - seems particularly inefficient and seems likely to be more expensive that the cost noted. Utility Issues 7) With a path, how would City staff or contractors access the power lines and other poled utilities? This includes to periodically clear trees branches and brush. Would a path - either option - allow for staff to access the space to do the needed work, without damaging the trees further? 8) There is a 16.5 foot sewer easement, from the ROW west into properties at 1705 Roselawn and 1706 Ryan. But my understanding is that there was also to be sewer easement to the east as well. If so, how would City staff or contractors access the sewer if needed, particularly at the corner where all of the sewage that runs from all the Roselawn houses from Fairview to the ROW turns north. Note that that critical manhole seems to be very close to the boardwalk in the boardwalk path option. Maintenance 9) What would be the ongoing costs to maintain a path - either option - annually and long term. This would include re-grading and resupplying the gravel and, for the boardwalk option, ongoing patchwork maintenance and full replacement at the end of its anticipated lifespan. 10) What would be the plan and cost for tree maintenance in the space? With many trees in danger of decline, there will be tree loss. Some trees when close to death may be strategically removed. Others may fall, adding damage to nearby trees, structures, and the path. How will City staff or contractor access those trees and the related damage spots via the path - either option - without inflicting more damage on the other trees? Page 285 of 558From: Pat Trudgeon To: Jesse Freihammer; Matthew Johnson Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 2:31:02 PM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 2:27 PM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Vacation of Aldine Street Right-of-Way: Public Hearing, City Council Meeting June 8, 2026 Contact Information Name: Sandra Armstrong Address: Aldine St City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113-5601 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer Email Page 286 of 558to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your June 3, 2026. Comment, Question or Support for Vacating the Aldine Right-of-Way: Concern Dear Council Members, Last year, I originally signed the petition to oppose the ROW vacation to save the pathway. I thought the path would stay the same- a narrow dirt walkway through a pretty forested area. In the fall, when I learned more detail from the surveys and pathway development plan, I changed my mind in favor of vacating the ROW. With the recently released TKDA feasibility report, I must restate that I support the ROW vacation. The forested area in question would be effectively ruined by developing the pathway. This forest represents a small but important Roseville wild area: trees and vegetation will be killed or damaged and many resident nonhuman animals would be displaced. For the past 27 years I’ve lived adjacent to the pathway on Aldine Street. I have enjoyed seeing the wildlife that depend on this undisturbed forested area. Examples: many birds (including turkeys, owls, hawks, bald eagles), coyotes, raccoons, opossum, red and grey squirrels, and more. These creatures (also plants and trees) are Roseville residents and deserve consideration. I think we need to preserve this wild area and others that we still have in Roseville. I recently read the latest May/June 2026 issue of the Roseville City News: there is a major article on pages 4-5 about "Rewilding Roseville". I agree that we should be preserving these suburban wild areas, rather than damaging/cutting down healthy trees to enlarge and develop this pathway that relatively few people will likely use. I’ve reread the minutes and public comments from the Council meeting of June 16, 2025: people noted how they’ve enjoyed this path through a beautiful wooded area. But if this path were to be modified (either Option 1 or 2 of the feasibility report), its natural beauty would be lost. For example, Option 1 was predicted to have the least impact on trees: it would consist of a 4’ wide pathway of raised boardwalk on pads (pad material unknown), and gravel containing a stabilizer, with 5’ square concrete pads at each end of the path. Page 287 of 558 As described in section 3.4 of the TKDA feasibility report and Figure 4 (pages 6-7), making the path ADA-compliant will be difficult and would involve significant work. Cost: over $120,000 for Option 1; over $78,000 for Option 2. With continuing inflation, the actual costs will likely be higher. In my opinion, we currently have significant economic challenges in our state and country and should be prudent about how we spend our money. This is not the time to be spending hard-earned tax dollars for a project that is not essential and will diminish the quality of our neighborhood. Respectfully, Sandra Armstrong Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 288 of 558From: Pat Trudgeon To: Jesse Freihammer; Matthew Johnson Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 1:55:31 PM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 11:36 AM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine ROW vacation Contact Information Name: Sara Quinn Address: Mid Oaks Land City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer Email to be contacted? Page 289 of 558Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Dear Mayor Roe and City Council, Comment, Question or Concern I am asking you to approve the petition to vacate the Aldine ROW. Protecting the oak trees has always been at the forefront of our vacation petition. The recent feasibility study shows that any path will be detrimental to the health of the oaks. Several smaller trees will also be sacrificed for a path. The petitioners have formally promised to protect these oaks if you approve the vacation. Please vote yes to vacate the Aldine ROW. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 290 of 558From: Pat Trudgeon To: Jesse Freihammer; Matthew Johnson Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 1:53:36 PM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 11:19 AM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine ROW Contact Information Name: Tam McGehee Address: Mid Oaks Lane City: ROSEVILLE State: Minnesota Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer No Reply Necessary to be contacted? Page 291 of 558Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Field not completed. Please Share Your I am writing on this issue as an adjacent property owner who has Comment, Question or cared for a portion of this ROW for many years. I have removed Concern nettle, burdock, Siberian elm, green ash and buck thorne from much of the adjacent area. I have pruned, watered, and fertilized the major oaks in the adjacent ROW area. I have planted native plants in my yard and part of the ROW and have certified my yard as a wildlife habitat. I am writing in support of a motion to vacate the Aldine ROW. The Council has examined this issue extensively and spent a considerable amount of public money to study the options. This area of heritage trees, including oaks, cannot be safely used as a “pathway” or “shortcut” without putting the existing ROW trees at risk as well as adjacent oaks residing in private yards. (Refer to the Feasibility Study and the analysis of Tim Brown.) As seen in the Feasibility Study, the “path” which was referred to by residents as having been used in the past did not and does not intersect with the existing ROW except for a very short portion in the very center of the ROW. Both “entrances” to the limited ROW portion are entirely on private land. Given the report by TKDA and the area previously used as a “shortcut” being outside the ROW, it seems to me that the initial staff recommendation for vacation was proper and correct. The ROW was established in 1938, 88 years ago, as a government requirement necessary to obtain approval of the Mid Oaks Plat. The document itself calls out public use of “Streets, Avenues, Lanes, and Roads”. Aldine Avenue is not now nor can it be an Avenue, Street, Lane, or Road from Ryan to Roselawn. It is simply an ROW which is “surplus” land because it is not possible to use it for its specified purpose. The standard use of such land is to return it to the adjacent property owners from whose lots it was originally subtracted. I appreciate the City’s effort to be sure that all voices were heard and acknowledged by requesting a feasibility study. The consultants hired did a thorough analysis and identified many shortfalls and costs of building anything within the ROW. Building a pathway in the 30’ ROW would exact a heavy financial price and an even heavier environmental price. The financial price would fall on all the residents of Roseville while providing limited value to a very few. It is hard to evaluate the environmental loss Page 292 of 558 should the trees become unhealthy, diseased, or die over the next few years due to any work within their root zones. Given the City’s climate and sustainability goals, this potential unnecessary tree loss is difficult to support and painful to imagine. I believe all appropriate steps have been taken and impacts studied to arrive at the correct decision. The Aldine ROW has been “surplus” land since 1938. I urge you to return the 30’ Aldine ROW to the adjacent property owners and to support a conservation agreement that ensures the ongoing health and protection of these trees and Roseville’s flyway canopy for next 88 years and beyond. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 293 of 558From: Pat Trudgeon To: Jesse Freihammer; Matthew Johnson Subject: Fw: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 1:53:22 PM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 11:09 AM To: *RVCouncil <city.council@cityofroseville.com>; Rebecca Olson <rebecca.olson@cityofroseville.com>; Pat Trudgeon <pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine ROW vacation Contact Information Name: Richard McGehee Address: Mid Oaks Lane City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer No Reply Necessary to be contacted? Page 294 of 558Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Field not completed. Please Share Your I have resided at Mid Oaks Lane for over 50 years. I bought Comment, Question or my home here because of the many oaks in the yard and the Concern ROW. I have worked to keep my oaks healthy with regular watering, fertilizing, and pruning. This care has included some of the oaks in the ROW. I am now writing to urge the Council to return the Aldine ROW to the adjacent land owners and to consider implementing the Tree Conservation Restriction document signed by adjacent land owners. I fully support this document or an equivalent document that ensures the ongoing protection and health of the major trees within the ROW in perpetuity. I feel very strongly about the protection of these trees because I am also an expert in environmental mathematics and climate change models, subjects I research and teach as a faculty member at the University of Minnesota. The loss of any trees contributes to the degradation of the Earth’s environment and to the changing climate that the planet is now experiencing. I applaud the City’s commitment to preserve the health of its trees, and I urge the Council to apply that commitment to the stand of trees within the Aldine ROW by returning them to the care of the adjacent land owners. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 295 of 558 Attachment 11 City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan 6. PREFERENCE LIST OF PATHWAY SEGMENTS Previous versions of the Pathway Master Plan included a list of priority projects and ranking based on qualitative evaluation criteria as defined by the Pathway Advisory Committee (a defunct group of citizens that served as a steering committee for the Pathway Master Plan). Committee members identified the list of priority projects and individually scored them based on the evaluation criteria. The scores were then weighted and added up to provide a composite score and rank for each project. While the ranking process was beneficial, there was concern that scoring system provided inconsistent results, and that future updates could result in different ranking results. As part of the 2017 Pathway Master Plan update, the PWETC revised the scoring system and evaluation criteria for use in this plan. The updates were intended to be simplified, quantitative, and easily replicated for future use. The PWETC assessed and consolidated the 10 previous evaluation criteria down to 6 criteria. The PWETC then modified the scoring for each criterion and established quantifiable measurement tools using readily available GIS data and City maps. In addition, the PWETC revised the list of projects for evaluation to eliminate previously completed pathway segments and divide up longer segments to reduce the potential for over-scoring due to project length. Based on the updated evaluation criteria, City staff utilized GIS data to apply the scoring system to the updated list of preferred projects. The following evaluation criteria were used by the PWETC to rank projects based upon the applied scoring system. Evaluation Criteria 1) Connects multiple destinations. Provides safe and convenient access to businesses, schools, churches, work, parks and other community amenities and destinations. Add one point for each type of destination within 1/4 mile of pathway • 1-Each-Institutional use (school, university) within 1/4 mile • 1-Each-Park/Open Space use within 1/4 mile • 1-Each-Public facilities within 1/4 mile • 1-Total-Industrial/Office use (employment centers) within 1/4 mile • 1-Total-Commercial use within 1/4 mile Measurement tool: City’s Future Land Use Map 2) Volume of usage. The pathway corridor has shown a consistent need for facility development based on its ability to serve the surrounding population and employment base. Total population within 1/4 mile of pathway • 3-Population is 3,000 or greater October 11, 2021 Page 29 Page 297 of 558 City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan • 2-Population is 2,000 to 2,999 • 1-Population is 500 to 1,999 • 0-Population is less than 500 AND Total employment within 1/4 mile of pathway • 3-Employment is 3,000 or greater • 2-Employment is 2,000 to 2,999 • 1-Employment is 100 to 1,999 • 0-Employment is less than 100 Measurement tool: US Census Block Dataset 3) Connects to regional system. Provides linkage to the larger network of pathways that extend beyond Roseville. The pathway serves longer trips within Roseville and into neighboring cities. • 3-Regional corridor (county road, regional/state trail, RBTN route) • 2-Local pathway that directly connects to regional corridor or Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Trails and Parks Constellation Link. • 1-Pathway provides local connection only Measurement tool: City’s Pathway map and regional bikeways mapping 4) Addresses a gap or barrier in the transportation network. Addresses a pathway network gap along the transportation network and/or crosses a major barrier. Eliminates a major barrier or safety concern in the pathway network that may inhibit bicycle or pedestrian travel. • 5-Provides enhanced safe crossing (grade separated or improved intersection) of major highway (I-35W, TH 36, Snelling Avenue) or railroad • 4-Completes pathway along A-Minor Arterial roadway • 3-Completes pathway along Other Arterial roadway • 2-Completes pathway along Major Collector roadway • 1-Completes pathway along a Local roadway Measurement tool: City’s Roadway Functional Classification Map 5) Connects to Transit Connects bus stops, transit hubs, or provides a connection to other transit. • 3-Transit Center or park and ride within 1/4 mile of pathway • 2-A-BRT Station within 1/4 mile of pathway • 1-Bus stop within 1/4 mile of pathway October 11, 2021 Page 30 Page 298 of 558 City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan Measurement tool: GIS, transit routes and stops 6) Connects High-Density Residential to Transit or Parks (Max 5 Points) Improves access for densely populated areas to the City’s transit and park facilities. • 2-Per 100 units-Pathway connects multi-family residential or mixed use area to transit stop or park within 1/8 mile walking distance • 1-Per 100 units-Pathway connects multi-family residential or mixed use area to transit stop or park within 1/4 mile walking distance Measurement tool: GIS, City’s Existing Land Use Map, transit routes and stops Scoring Results The following table shows the cumulative results of scoring the preference list of pathway projects using the evaluation criteria established by the PWETC. See Attachment 6 for a more detailed Project Preference List and Scoring Results. Segments with * next to the project name are new segments added to the plan. Segments with # next to the project name are segments that are shown on the Parks & Recreation System Master Plan Trails and Parks Constellation link. Segments that are highlighted in green are pathway segments on arterial roadways with volumes greater than 4,000 ADT which do not have a pathway on either side of the roadway. October 11, 2021 Page 31 Page 299 of 558City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan October 11, 2021 Page 32 Page 300 of 558City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan October 11, 2021 Page 33 Page 301 of 558City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan October 11, 2021 Page 34 Page 302 of 558 City of Roseville Pathway Master Plan The results of the scoring exercise will be used by the City to assist in prioritizing future pathway projects as part of the annual capital improvement program update. However, it is important to note the list of preferred projects will not be implemented based on the ranking results, as this list is intended to be updated periodically. In addition, there are several factors that can affect the timing and cost of developing pathway projects. These factors include coordination with planned roadway improvements (when it may be most feasible to construct new pathway segments), the availability of right-of-way, utilities, constructability, and magnitude of project in terms of both length and cost. For example, if a proposed pathway project is located along a roadway that is programmed for reconstruction, then coordinating the pathway improvements with the road improvements is the best opportunity to implement the project (regardless of project ranking). Likewise, the ability for a proposed pathway project to obtain external funding could also accelerate the development of such a project. October 11, 2021 Page 35 Page 303 of 558 Attachment 12 Aldine Petitioned ROW Vacation Public Works Page 304 of 558Resolution 1 PORTION OF ALDINE STREET THAT LIES WITHIN THE PLAT OF MID OAKS Same ROW Vacation considered on June 16, 2025 and July 21, 2025. 30 feet of ROW as dedicated in the Mid Oaks Plat. If vacated, a utility easement would be retained by the City since there are existing utilities in the corridor. Page 305 of 558Aldine Vacation Existing Conditions Zoomed Image Survey shows the “walking path” Page 306 of 558Aldine ROW Vacation Memo Aldine Pathway Feasibility Summary 1. Only have 30’ of potential ROW for a pathway. 2. Segment is 590’ long. 3. TKDA study identified two potential options. 4. Costs vary between $78,100 and $120,100 plus additional costs for crosswalk treatments, if enhancements were determined to be needed. 5. Aldine pathway would provide ¼ mile connection. Without the connection the walk is approximately 1,900 feet (~3.3x) further via Fairview Avenue or approximately 2,700 feet (~5x) further via Snelling Avenue. 6. Based on Pathway Master Plan scoring criteria, the preference points are 14 (Constellation Link CK-2). The current plan has pathways that go from 5-25. This pathway would rank 23. Page 307 of 558 Aldine Vacation Constellation Link CK2 • Shown in Pathway Master Plan (Attachment 7 – • The P&R Master Plan states (B-37-39): Trails and Parks Constellation Concept) Importantly, the parks and recreation system master plan does • Not an official Pathway Master Plan Segment not intend to dictate the type of connection (a sidewalk, trail, or Those pathways are Attachment 5 in the plan striped shoulder, for instance), as responsibility to implementing • a pedestrian or bicycle facility outside of a park falls to the Public • Attachment 7 map shows constellation segments Works Department. However, the links posed in the constellation that are not Pathway Master Plan Segments and sector diagrams aim for alignment with the city’s existing • The ranking would be 23rd (14 points) in the Pathway Master Plan, with a final location for the link being combined project preference list coordinated with Public Works and the Pathway Master Plan. Page 308 of 558Aldine ROW Vacation Requested Council Action Open Public Hearing Consider approval of a resolution approving the right-of-way vacation of a portion of Aldine Street that is located between the properties located adjacent to the properties located at 77 Mid Oaks Lane, 85 Mid Oaks Lane, 87 Mid Oaks Lane, 89 Mid Oaks Lane, 91 Mid Oaks Lane, and 93 Mid Oaks Lane in the plat of Mid Oaks. [Attachment 1] A 3/5th vote is required since this is a petitioned vacation. A utility easement would be retained. No pathway could be installed. Alternative action Consider a motion to approve retaining right-of-way and designate a public pathway and to update the Pathway Master Plan If the vacation is not approved, and no other motion is made and approved, the status of vacation will remain as- is. Page 309 of 558June 3, 2026 Mayor Roe and Council members, On behalf of myself and about 730 people from about 600 Roseville households, I transmit to you the following clear request from all of us: Please vote for fiscal and environmental responsibility by voting to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way. Vacating the right-of-way would “right-size” the City’s property management responsibilities, leave all environmental benefits intact, and cost the City nothing. I want to acknowledge that the City Council could have taken the easy route last summer: deny the resident petition to vacate on the heels of denying the City’s own petition to vacate. But you did not take the easy route; you took the harder, longer route to ask the right questions. You put the City’s aspirational statements regarding accessibility and environmental preservation into action by asking experts to (1) study whether an ADA-compliant route is feasible, and (2) evaluate potential impacts to significant trees, including both intentional and long-term unintentional impacts. The consultant/arborist path feasibility study is unambiguous: developing an accessible path is possible but would severely damage the existing healthy urban forest. Please keep upholding the City’s value of accessibility through your decision. Vote yes to vacate because denying the petition to vacate solely to allow privileged right-of-way use by the able-bodied would be inconsistent with the City’s stated values and would be questionable as an official City position. Public facilities and public grounds should be inclusive for use by people with mobility impairment. Mobility- based exclusion is at odds with City, State, and Federal requirements – and at odds with the espoused City aspiration that public spaces are suitable for all people regardless of ability. The following attachments document the City-wide and neighborhood support for you voting to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way on June 8: • Attachment 1 (page 2): The full statements of support. • Attachment 2 (page 3): Maps illustrating the ~600 Roseville households in support of the City Council voting to approve vacation of the Aldine Street right-of-way. • Attachment 3 (pages 4-12): Numbered list of the ~730 individual supporter names and the street on which they live. Street numbers redacted for privacy but could be provided to the City. • Attachment 4 (page 13): Numbered list of the subset of ~85 supporter names in the neighborhood bordered by Roselawn, Fairview, County Rd B, and Snelling. Many of these neighbors signed last year’s “path petition” but changed their minds. Please vote YES on June 8 to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way. Respectfully yours, Melinda Erickson 93 Mid Oaks Lane Page 1 of 13 Page 310 of 558Attachment 1 – Full statements of support to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way. General statement of support to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way I support the Roseville City Council approving the resident petition to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way. There are about 50 established, beneficial trees in the right-of-way: white oak, bur oak, silver maple, American elm, box elder, and others. This urban forest provides food, homes, and shelter for dozens of species of insects, birds, and mammals, as well as shade to adjacent yards and homes. Undeveloped, this area of urban forest could live decades to centuries longer. Using the City’s own plans, processes, and criteria, this right-of-way segment is not needed for City transportation purposes, and building any type of new, accessible shortcut would be expensive and environmentally damaging. Building a new shortcut would divert funds away from City-wide amenities at a high environmental cost. In contrast, vacating the right-of-way would “right-size” the City’s property management responsibilities, leave all environmental benefits intact, and cost the City nothing more. Please vote for fiscal and environmental responsibility by voting to vacate the right-of-way. Neighborhood statement of support to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way* I support the Roseville City Council approving the resident petition to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way, a follow-up to the April 2025 City-initiated petition to vacate. The City’s recent studies show that developing an accessible path in the right-of-way will kill or risk killing most of the 50 established trees in the right-of-way. I live in the neighborhood, and I am OK using the existing paths on Fairview or Snelling because I value conserving these neighborhood trees more than I value the convenience that a new path may provide. I support the City Council approving the petition to vacate the right-of-way to “right-size” the City’s property management responsibilities, leave all environmental benefits intact, and cost the City nothing more. Please put the Roseville Mission Statement of “...aspiring to be a community that prioritizes environmental conservation…” into action. Vote for environmental conservation by voting to vacate Aldine Street right-of-way. * Many of our neighborhood supporters also signed last year’s “path petition.” Neighbors changed their minds after having misrepresentations corrected and the facts about monetary and environmental costs revealed. Page 2 of 13 Page 311 of 558Attachment 2 – Maps of the about 600 Roseville households that support the City Council voting to approve vacating the Aldine Street right-of-way Page 3 of 13 Page 312 of 558Attachment 3 – Numbered list of supporter names and the street on which they live. Page 4 of 13 Page 313 of 558Attachment 3 – Numbered list of supporter names and the street on which they live (continued). Page 5 of 13 Page 314 of 558Attachment 3 – Numbered list of supporter names and the street on which they live (continued). Page 6 of 13 Page 315 of 558Attachment 3 – Numbered list of supporter names and the street on which they live (continued). Page 7 of 13 Page 316 of 558Attachment 3 – Numbered list of supporter names and the street on which they live (continued). Page 8 of 13 Page 317 of 558Attachment 3 – Numbered list of supporter names and the street on which they live (continued). Page 9 of 13 Page 318 of 558Attachment 3 – Numbered list of supporter names and the street on which they live (continued). Page 10 of 13 Page 319 of 558Attachment 3 – Numbered list of supporter names and the street on which they live (continued). Page 11 of 13 Page 320 of 558Attachment 3 – Numbered list of supporter names and the street on which they live (continued). Page 12 of 13 Page 321 of 558Attachment 4 – Numbered list of supporter names in the neighborhood bordered by Roselawn, Fairview, County Rd B, and Snelling. This is the neighborhood subset of names from among all those in Attachment 3. Many of these neighbors also signed last year’s “path petition.” Neighbors changed their minds, however, after having misrepresentations corrected and the facts about monetary and environmental costs to develop an accessible path revealed. Page 13 of 13 Page 322 of 558 Bench Handout 2 Item 7.d ....____________________ June 8, 2026 _ From: noreply@civicplus.com Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 1 :08 PM To: *RVCouncil; Rebecca Olson; Pat Trudgeon Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Vacation of the Aldine easement -· ····---------- Contact Information Name: Antoinette Mennell Address: City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 --------------·---------·-·-·-·-··-··--· This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. _Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to No Reply Necessary be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. ________.,,,, ___ _ Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Please vote now to vacate the Aldine easement. In this era of Comment, Question or rising taxes and other expenses, we should not be spending Concern money on an unneeded path and/or park that will require initial investment and continued spending for maintenance. Our area has sufficient paths and parkways. We should preserve the fine old oaks and wildlife habitat that would be destroyed if the easement is not vacated. Unless restricted by law, all co rrespondence to and from Roseville City government offices,--·- ------------- including information submitted through electr------------onic forms such as this one, 1 Page 323 of 558Page 324 of 558Page 325 of 558Page 326 of 558Page 327 of 558Page 328 of 558Page 329 of 558Page 330 of 558Page 331 of 558Page 332 of 558Page 333 of 558Page 334 of 558Page 335 of 558Page 336 of 558Page 337 of 558Page 338 of 558Page 339 of 558Page 340 of 558Page 341 of 558Page 342 of 558Page 343 of 558Page 344 of 558Page 345 of 558Page 346 of 558Page 347 of 558Page 348 of 558Page 349 of 558Page 350 of 558Page 351 of 558Page 352 of 558Page 353 of 558Page 354 of 558Page 355 of 558Page 356 of 558Page 357 of 558Page 358 of 558Page 359 of 558Page 360 of 558 Attachment 8 Mayor Roe and Council members, Thank you for directing City staff and others to spend time studying the Aldine Street right-of-way (ROW) over the past 6 months. The survey of established trees and the rough elevation survey provide certain details – but they omit many important factors. As you deliberate next steps in your decision- making, please consider the surveys from the multi-dimensional perspective of tree locations, tree drip lines locations (locations of the edges of the tree canopies), ground elevation and slope within tree drip lines, tree species, tree ages and natural life spans, city fiscal priorities, and the broad environmental benefits provided by established trees. Below are a few photos and other information to aid your visualization and contemplation of the currently healthy urban forest in the ROW. The tree survey tagged about 50 established, beneficial trees (excluding ash and Siberian elm): white and bur oak (estimated ages 75–140 years), silver maple (27–70 years old), American elm (12–60 years old), box elder (9–33 years old), and others. This patch of urban forest provides food, homes, and cover for dozens of species of insects, birds, and mammals, as well as shade to adjacent yards and homes. Undeveloped, this area of urban forest could live decades to centuries longer. White oak trees have a natural life span of 500 to 600 years; bur oaks 200 to 400 years. Silver maples live 100 to 150 years, while American elms can live 175 to 200 years. Even box elder trees live 60 to 75 years. Oak trees are particularly valuable species within Minnesota’s forest ecosystems. Oaks are also particularly vulnerable to root damage and eventual death from construction disturbances. Construction disturbances can include compaction, cutting away soil and roots, filling in soil or other material over roots, and raising soil pH due to placement of high-pH substances such as limestone gravel. Protective fencing at each tree or group of trees’ drip line is the ‘best practice’ for construction around established trees. Root protection is especially important around oaks. Figure 1 illustrates placement of effective, protective drip line fencing in a Falcon Heights construction site at Roselawn and Cleveland. You can use your own eyes to test whether constructing a new, accessible shortcut outside of established tree drip lines is possible in the 30-foot- wide Aldine Street ROW. Just take the 590-foot walk from Ryan at the north end of the ROW, to Roselawn at the south end, to run your own little experiment. Looking up, walk and try to find a continuous, end- to-end route in the ROW that is outside of the canopies of the 14 oak trees (Figure 2); ignore the other 3 dozen established trees for your experiment. Page 361 of 558Page 362 of 558Attachment 8 Page 363 of 558 Attachment 8 State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to be Email contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Mayor Roe and Council members, Comment, Question or I am a Roseville resident not previously engaged in the Aldine Concern Street right-of-way matter, and this issue has been much discussed with my neighbors and with residents on both sides of this issue. Your decision on this matter affects the quality of our community, the healthy ecosystem, and the tax burden on the city as we are voting to approve another huge property tax increase for schools, and we urge you to vote against any funding of any new outside experts, and to deny any requests to spend money on studying the destruction of mature tree canopy, and to oppose the use of city tax funds to install some kind of pathway that only a handful of residents desire. • Spending money to build (or further study) a shortcut in the Aldine Street right-of-way would divert funds away from City- wide amenities, and while we are considering to vote in favor of increasing taxes for school purposes, any move to waste money on this pet project we see as undisciplined in the light of our city’s budget needs and we may reconsider the way we vote on that. • Any plan to create a city owned and maintained shortcut here will destroy healthy and beautiful trees that make our city great. The area in question has dozens of established, beneficial trees which we see out of our home, and which provide canopy for animal life that makes our community a serene and peaceful one. Building any type of accessible shortcut in a location that was never in the parks priorities is wasteful, will kill and damage an unknown number of these healthy trees, and reduce the value of our houses. • The shortcut through private property adjacent to the Aldine Street right-of-way has been effectively closed since June. Prior to the raising of this issue early in 2025, very few people used this shortcut, and after this issue was raised we noticed a big spike in shortcutters, which since June has trickled down to very few people cutting through this property. Residents have adjusted to the absence of the shortcut. Dogs are being walked. People are exercising. Children are getting to school safely. The parks department has not said this is a priority in an Page 364 of 558 already tight budget, this right-of-way segment is not in theAttachment City 8 of Roseville Master Pathway Plan, and the Plan’s path spacing goals are already met by the existing paths along Fairview and Snelling. Please respect the City’s processes and plans, safeguard dozens of mature trees, and direct the City’s limited resources toward City-wide amenities by voting to vacate the right-of-way. Please vote for fiscal responsibility and environmental preservation, and please stop any pursuit of investing precious tax dollars to this shortcut. It would seem that voting to vacate the right of way is a good way to just prevent this kind of waste and to remove the liability to the city. In any event, spending more city money on this local shortcut is just wasteful in light of our parks priorities and our city’s fiscal position, and we most strongly oppose any such wasteful spending of time and resources. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 365 of 558Attachment 8 Page 366 of 558Attachment 8 Page 367 of 558Attachment 8 Page 368 of 558 Attachment 8 Address: City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer to be No Reply Necessary contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your Please vote to vacate the Aldine ROW. Building an accessible Comment, Question or shortcut in the Aldine Street right-of-way would divert funds Concern away from City-wide amenities and toward a local convenience. Please vote for fiscal responsibility – directing the City’s limited resources toward the many high-priority issues facing our city – by voting to vacate the right-of-way. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 369 of 558Attachment 8 Page 370 of 558At the end of the day, in my opinion, the former "path" was at best a "shortcut" used by a veryAttachment few 8 residents. Since the "path" turned out to be located on private property and was subsequently closed by the property owners, nothing has changed. The children are still going to school (the bus stops at the end of their driveway), children and adults are still safely visiting friends, and the dogs that usually went to the field are still being taken there. The City has negotiated access to its infrastructure with the private property owners as necessary as the infrastructure thought to be in the easement turned out to be on private land. As a resident and one who, for 40+ years, has had pruned, had fertilized, and have watered 2 of the large oaks that in the easement, I cannot tell you how distressing it is to contemplate their potential deminse as part of an effort to create an expensive, unsafe, and unnecessary "shortcut." To the issue of the trees, I am also attaching a previous document, (e.g. Trees, arks,P and Pathways, 9/10/25) sent to the Parks and Recreation Commission which indicates the tree protection zone (TPZ) for many of the trees standing in the easement. In some cases, this protection zone exceeds the entire width of the easement itself. I hope the Council now feels they have now gathered sufficient information to evaluate the issue before them and will support the request by the adjacent property owners to approve the vacation of the Aldine Street easement. Thank you, Tam Tam McGehee 2 Attachments, Page 371 of 558 Attachment 8 Memorandum TO: Roseville City Council FROM: Tam McGehee DATE: October 27, 2025 RE: Vacation of Aldine Easement The Council has carefully executed its process of deliberation on the issue of the vacation of the Aldine Street easement. The vacation was brought forward twice, both times supported unanimously by all adjacent property owners and City staff. Both times the Council sought additional information most recently from the Parks and Recreation Commission. During this time several items became clear and were supported by substantial and careful work by staff and commissioners. This process seems to have made some things clear: 1. All contiguous property owners support and request the vacation of the easement (e,g. letter from Ericksons, Mid Oaks Lane, dated October 2025). 2. The Parks and Recreation Commission does not appear interested in developing a non- ADA compliant pathway. 3. The Parks and Recreation Commission is not interested in expending Park Dedication Funds to develop a pathway or park on this easement. 4. An ADA compliant pathway requires 20 feet that is level and clear of impediments. 5. An ADA compliant pathway in this 30-foot easement would result in the loss of some 30+ mature trees, particularly oaks. 6. This 30-foot by 590-foot strip of land is not appropriate or necessary as a park. 7. A vast majority of the neighborhood does not want trees removed or threatened. 8. All data presented by residents (e.g., 9.15.2025 letter to Parks and Recreation Commission) show that the “tree protection zone” for most of these mature trees exceeds the 30-foot easement width, including trees on adjacent property. 9. This site is not on the City’s Pathway Master Plan. If placed on the Pathway Master Plan and analyzed using the City’s pathways criteria, this site is at the lowest priority. 10. Since the existing pathway which is on private land has been closed, all activities in the neighborhood have continued—children are getting to school, children are visiting their friends, and dogs are being walked—and getting to the University Fields. 11. Returning this easement property by vacation spares all Roseville residents the unnecessary expense and liability of either retaining or developing the easement. 12. All city utilities for water and sewer are located on private land, not the easement. Access to this infrastructure has been negotiated with the private landowners. This 30-foot easement is identified as “Aldine Street” in the 1938 Plat Map of Mid Oaks. There is no Aldine Street nor space to construct a “street, lane, or avenue” in this 30-foot easement. It appears that the easement’s specified purpose is no longer possible, hence the City staff correctly recommended that the property be vacated and returned to the adjacent owners. This vacation is therefore appropriate and would remove the City’s responsibility for and maintenance of the easement. Page 1 of 2 Page 372 of 558 Attachment 8 MN Statute, 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS, states that the council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. Vacation of a public way may be made upon a finding that it appears in the public interest to do so. Among other things, the Council can consider public benefit and conservation of natural resources. A vacation of the Aldine Easement is overwhelmingly in the public interest and can be supported by any or all of the following findings. Public Interest: 1. The easement has no value to the public as a street, road, or alley, as discussed above. 2. Any marginal value of use of the easement as a pathway, if any, is vastly outweighed by the public benefits of vacation: A. Vacation saves taxpayers the considerable expense of constructing and maintaining an acceptable pathway (even if possible without damaging adjacent owners). B. Vacation frees resources for other pathway projects in the city of higher priority. C. Vacation accepts and approves the unanimous request of contiguous property owners. D. Vacation frees the City of the maintenance and liability of the area. E. Vacation makes the neighborhoods north of Ryan and those along the easement more secure by the elimination of through-foot and non-motorized vehicle traffic. F. Vacation eliminates legal discussions and work to determine whether conversion to a part or path is possible under MN Law. G. Vacation conserves natural resources by: i. The mature trees are and will continue to be a benefit to the entire community as a wildlife corridor. ii. The mature trees will continue to sequester carbon, clean the air, and reduce noise in the neighborhood. There has been more than enough study, research, review, evaluation, hearings, and communication by all parties involved to determine that vacation of this easement is the best decision in the public interest, legally, financially, and environmentally. All of this information is part of the record before the City Council and strongly supports a determination that vacation of the Aldine right-of-way is in the public interest. I urge the City Council to vote to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way under consideration. Page 2 of 2 Page 373 of 558 Attachment 8 TO: Roseville City Council, Roseville City Manager FROM: Tam McGehee DATE: 09/10/2025 RE: Aldine Vacation Information I wanted to be sure that the Council had all the information that has been provided to the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the protection of the trees existing in the ROW. After much testimony regarding the “magic” and “trees” along this ROW, it seems that protecting that canopy and the trees that create it should be of primary consideration. To that end, I have attached a memo that I sent to the Parks and Recreation Commission with its attendant attachments. • Attachment 0 is my memo to the Parks and Recreation Commission • Attachment 1 is a memo by Mindy Erickson regarding trees • Attachment 2 are copies from the ISA Manual regarding computations • Attachment 3 are copies from the GIS maps of Cottontail Park If the City does not feel it already has enough credible evidence that construction of such an ADA compliant path would likely damage and/or kill many of the mature trees in the 30’ ROW, I urge you to hire an impartial expert who is not seeking further employment opportunities with the City of Roseville. Dr. Lee Frelich is the best, and likely the least expensive, expert the city could engage for this purpose. He is Director of the University of Minnesota Center for Forest Ecology, is internationally known and respected as an expert, and provides much pro bono information in our state. In fact, I heard Dr. Frelich speak for the local League of Women Voters 2 or 3 years ago, and he will be speaking to the Ramsey County Master Gardeners later this month. Apart from the tremendous loss of mature canopy, there are other considerations in this issue such as number of individuals served, costs for construction (tree removal, grading), liability, legal process for converting an ROW to a park, and ongoing maintenance of the pathway. And, is this really a park? Inset in red of ROW in Cottontail Park. Page 374 of 558 Attachment 8 Attachment 0 Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission, I wish to reinforce the information earlier provided by Dr. Mindy Erickson regarding protection of the trees in the ROW. (Attachment 1) I have included a graphic comparison between Cottontail Park which was discussed as a model for converting the Aldine ROW into a park for the purpose of developing a path. (Attachment 3) Cottontail Park is very large relative to the ROW and the path there is limestone and relatively level. The Cottontail Park path is located over 50’ from the nearest residence, not 18 to 30 feet as it would be if a path were created in the Aldine ROW. As Dr. Erickson noted, the International Society for Arboriculture has provided guidelines and best practices. With trees in the 30’ ROW identified it is possible to compute the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for the trees using the book entitled Managing Trees during site Development and Construction, Third Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture. (Attachment 2) The book defines the tree protection zone (TPZ) as the “area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees. The size and shape of a TPZ should consider tree species’ response to construction impacts, size, condition, and maturity….”. The method of determining the TPZ used in the publication takes the diameter at breast height (DBH) and multiplies by a factor between 6 and 18 based on the species’ construction tolerance and the trees’ maturity. A chart for construction tolerance by species and a chart for maturity of individual trees is provided in the publication. (pg.19) It is further recommended that “when the minimum calculated TPZ is less than 5 ft in radius, a 5 ft radius should be recommended…” (Attachment A) An example supplied states, “a mature tree with medium tolerance to construction damage (a factor of 12) and a 30-inch trunk diameter would have a TPZ radius of 360 inches which is equal to 30 ft” (pg.18)—the entire width of the ROW. Additional best management practices state that “if trees on adjacent properties have branches and roots extending into the construction area, TPZs should be established on the project site itself. Tree protection measures for trees on adjacent properties should be similar to those for on- site trees.” (pg.20) It should be noted here that many of the adjacent properties contain large oaks whose roots and branches extend well into if not across the ROW. A group of trees, in a stand or where closely spaced, share root space and shelter each other from wind. The best management practices for groups of trees suggests that “preserving a mix of tree ages, species, and understory plants within a stand will conserve a natural assemblage and reduce exposure to interior vegetation.” (pg.21) Using the measurements and information created by the city and the best management practices of the International Society of Arboriculture, one can compute a few of the TPZ for mature trees Page 375 of 558 Attachment 8 along the ROW. Working with only the oaks which are known to have considerable issues with soil disturbance, compaction, and change in grade, white being more susceptible than Burr, I used Medium species tolerance for Mature Burr oaks (12) and Low species tolerance for Mature White oak (15). (Chart pp19). Near Ryan, Tag Species DBH TPZ 6 White Oak 28 35’ 12 Burr Oak 32 32’ Near Roselawn, 48 Burr Oak 28 28’ Near Roselawn, partial group 51 Burr Oak 26 26’ 52 Burr Oak 25 25’ 55 Burr Oak 20 20’ 57 Burr Oak 23 23’ With the information compiled by the city departments of Parks and Recreation and Public Works, it appears irrefutable that any attempt to install even a “dirt path” within the 30-foot ROW would result in significant mortality among the large, mature oaks. Work of the type necessary to level the grade would negatively impact and possibly kill oaks in the ROW and possibly some on the adjacent private properties along Mid Oaks Lane. In addition, due to the narrow dimensions of the ROW, any pathway would be much closer to residential homes than the paths in Cottontail are to residential homes. We appreciate thoroughness and the work done by the city to complete a survey of the ground, to map the topography, and to identify the trees within the ROW. We hope the Commission will support best management practices find that this area is unsuitable for either a park or a path. Thank you, Tam and Dick McGehee Page 376 of 558 Attachment 8 Attachment 1 ` Dr. Mindy Erickson’s memo regarding the trees and their protection. Hello Parks and Recreation Commission members, As you continue your consideration of the five questions from the City Council about the Aldine Street right-of-way (ROW), please consider, first and foremost, protection and preservation of the many majestic oaks and other trees in and near the ROW. All stakeholder groups agree that tree preservation is paramount. Many of the established trees have a dripline diameter that exceeds 30 feet. The ROW is only 30 feet wide, so there are inherent limitations to following construction “best practices” in proximity to these established trees. The International Society of Arboriculture and other sources note key facts and best practices related to construction projects around established trees: 1. A barrier or fence surrounding trees at the driplines is one of the most effective damage- prevention measures during construction. A barrier at a tree’s dripline during construction protects both the above-ground portion of the tree and the highly sensitive root system. 2. Most established trees, including oaks, will not tolerate any appreciable disturbance of the root system without showing some adverse effects. Few, if any, species, will withstand extensive changes in aeration of soil around the root system without being injured. 3. Reduced aeration of soil around the root system can suffocate tree roots. Reduced aeration is caused by compaction of soil under trees due to movement of machinery, trampling, piling construction materials, and purposeful mechanical compaction. 4. Fill to raise a grade causes many changes in soil aeration, drainage, and soil microflora. Clay fill can result in reduced aeration, lower nitrogen, higher pH, and improper drainage. 5. Cuts to lower a grade should position new retaining walls at or near tree driplines so that the original depth of soil covering the root systems will be maintained. Removal of large amounts of soil from the root system of an established tree will cause permanent damage. 6. Most common shade tree species, including oaks, grow best in slightly acidic soil. Limestone gravel is alkaline and can raise soil pH, making soil more alkaline. When soil Page 377 of 558 Attachment 8 becomes too alkaline, it interferes with the tree's ability to absorb essential nutrients, leading to nutrient deficiencies and increased vulnerability to other damaging stresses. 7. Construction-related tree injury increases vulnerability to drought, winter, disease, and pests. 8. Invisible, irreparable tree injury may present itself only long after construction ends. Environmental conservation is espoused in Roseville’s mission statement. All stakeholder groups agree that preservation and protection of the oaks and other established trees in the ROW is a predominant factor in decision-making. Please carefully weigh whether rerouting a shortcut from private property to the ROW is “valuable” or “viable” on balance with endangering dozens of established trees. Construction damage can cause long, slow tree death years after project completion. Two nearby City paths already exist, so is the risk of killing any to many of the established trees a reasonable trade-off for a shortcut? Thank you for your consideration of the majestic oaks and other trees in and around the ROW. Melinda Erickson Mid Oaks Lane Page 378 of 558 Attachment 8 Attachment 2 This contains the relevant charts for computing the tree protection zones for trees within a construction site. It has one graphic, the species chart showing tree tolerance of disturbance, and the multiplication factors based on tree maturity. It also contains a picture of the book cover as well as the inside page indicating that it is the Third Edition, published in 2023 by the International Society of Arboriculture. Page 379 of 558Attachment 8 Page 380 of 558Attachment 8 Page 381 of 558Attachment 8 Page 382 of 558 Attachment 8 Attachment 3 There are three maps created using the city’s GIS program showing the size of Cottontail Park. This was the park used as an example of a park with unpaved walking paths. Map one shows the relative size of the park, 270+ feet wide and 600-700 feet long. Substantially larger than the Aldine ROW at 590 feet by 30 feet wide. The second map shows graphically the difference between Cottontail Park and the ROW, shown in red and drawn inside the map of the park. The third map shows the closest residences to the park trails, 54.2 feet on one side and 97.9 feet on the other. The corner of the Aldine ROW is only 18 feet from the nearest home. Page 383 of 558Attachment 8 Page 384 of 558Attachment 8 Page 385 of 558 Attachment 8 October 22, 2025 Mayor Roe and Roseville City Council members, Since the City’s first formal consideration of vacating the Aldine Street right-of-way (ROW) in April, much additional work has happened. Two City Departments drafted findings memos, three surveys were completed by City staff, and six City Council or Park and Recreation Commission meetings have considered or touched on the matter. It has been established that the ROW was platted as “Aldine Street” in the 1938 Mid Oaks Plat, and that the road segment was never built, and further that the City has no plan to ever build the road. Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer’s June 10 path feasibility memo to the City Council noted the following: • This segment is not in the City of Roseville Master Pathway Plan (Plan). • Plan path spacing goals and intent are met by existing paths along Fairview and Snelling. • Using the Plan ranking criteria and process, the segment scored as a very low priority within a list of ordered rankings of city-wide proposed paths. • Constructing a path that meets Plan standards would likely destroy some of the 14 oaks and 35 other established trees, and harm surviving trees. • Preliminary cost estimates for path construction range up to $177,000 plus the costs for creating a safe crossing at Roselawn as well as long-term maintenance of the path. At its September 2 meeting the Park and Recreation Commission presented mixed messages regarding its interest in and commitment to building a park or path in the ROW. While they acknowledged that the ROW has some value for Recreation they also determined that the ROW would serve only as a local shortcut rather than as a city-wide amenity and that its 30-foot by 590-foot dimensions and small size (0.4 acre) would preclude its function as a traditional park. They reiterated that tree preservation is a top priority, and that building any type of accessible shortcut will damage an unknow number of beneficial trees. And that funding for professional arborist and engineering studies are needed to quantify environmental and monetary costs. Finally, Park Commissioners concluded that potential ROW improvements would not merit use of Park Dedication Fees. The ROW dimensions and size, limited geographic relevance and lack of connection to a park or other defined public feature make it a low funding priority. Evaluating the City’s own plans, processes, and priorities, this ROW segment is clearly poorly suited to City transportation purposes. Building any type of accessible shortcut would be expensive and environmentally damaging. Establishing a park is not strongly supported by the Commission, as evidenced by reluctance to support Park Dedication Fees to fund a project. Local residents have adjusted to the absence of the former shortcut, affirming that the Snelling and Fairview paths meet neighborhood needs. People and dogs are walking along Roselawn and elsewhere. Kids are getting safely to school. Socializing between neighborhoods continues. We ask again that you respect the City’s processes and plans, safeguard dozens of mature trees, and direct the City’s limited resources toward city-wide amenities rather than a shortcut that would be a convenience to a very small proportion of Roseville’s 35,000 residents. Please vote to vacate the Aldine Street right-of-way. Thank you, Tim Brown and Melinda Erickson, - Page 386 of 558Page 387 of 558Page 388 of 558Page 389 of 558Page 390 of 558Page 391 of 558Page 392 of 558Page 393 of 558Page 394 of 558Page 395 of 558Page 396 of 558Page 397 of 558Page 398 of 558Page 399 of 558Page 400 of 558Page 401 of 558Page 402 of 558Page 403 of 558Page 404 of 558Page 405 of 558Page 406 of 558Page 407 of 558Page 408 of 558Page 409 of 558Page 410 of 558Page 411 of 558Page 412 of 558Page 413 of 558Page 414 of 558Page 415 of 558Page 416 of 558Page 417 of 558Page 418 of 558Page 419 of 558Bench Handout 5 Item 7.d June 8, 2026 Page 420 of 558Page 421 of 558Page 422 of 558Page 423 of 558Page 424 of 558Page 425 of 558Page 426 of 558Page 427 of 558Page 428 of 558Page 429 of 558Page 430 of 558Page 431 of 558Page 432 of 558Page 433 of 558Page 434 of 558Page 435 of 558Page 436 of 558Page 437 of 558Page 438 of 558Page 439 of 558Page 440 of 558Page 441 of 558Page 442 of 558Page 443 of 558Page 444 of 558Page 445 of 558Page 446 of 558Page 447 of 558Page 448 of 558Page 449 of 558Page 450 of 558Page 451 of 558Page 452 of 558Page 453 of 558Page 454 of 558Page 455 of 558Page 456 of 558Page 457 of 558Page 458 of 558Page 459 of 558Page 460 of 558Page 461 of 558Page 462 of 558Page 463 of 558Page 464 of 558Page 465 of 558Page 466 of 558From: noreply@civicplus.com To: *RVCouncil; Rebecca Olson; Pat Trudgeon Subject: Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:25:11 PM Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Subject Aldine Way - Please Vacate Right-of-way and reject construction of expensive shortcut Contact Information Name: Bryan Wyberg Address: City: Roseville State: MN Zip: 55113 This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. How would you prefer Email to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your I am writing to urge the Council to vacate the Aldine Way right-of Comment, Question or way and to reject the construction of an unnecessary and Concern expensive short cut that duplicates existing routes to reach the same point. I want the trees left as they are. I do not want my tax dollars spent to benefit a small number of folks at the expense of the general population. The suggestion to not vacate but not construct is a sham and offers no protection to the trees or the taxpayers. Page 467 of 558 The feasibility study is incomplete, ignores obvious costs, and does not acknowledge arborist recommendation that a boardwalk would even result in excessive tree injury and likely eventuial death. Please reject the special interest request to build a shortcut through these magnificent trees. Thank you. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Due to Minnesota Open Meetings Law, Councilmembers are not allowed to use the "reply-all" function if it includes other Councilmembers for their response back to the emailer. Any response back to the sender will be just to that individual and will not include other Councilmembers. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 468 of 558From: Pat Trudgeon To: Allie Sertich Subject: Fw: Other feasibility questions (cost, impact) for Aldine ROW path options Date: Monday, June 8, 2026 4:34:45 PM Attachments: Outlook-Roseville ----------------------------------------------- Patrick Trudgeon | City Manager O: 651.792-7021 | | F: 651.792.7020 pat.trudgeon@cityofroseville.com 2660 Civic Center Drive | Roseville, MN 55113 Facebook | Twitter | YouTube ---------------------------------------------------- From: Pat Trudgeon <Pat.Trudgeon@cityofroseville.com> Sent: Monday, June 8, 2026 3:31 PM To: Cc: Jesse Freihammer <jesse.freihammer@cityofroseville.com>; Erik Henricksen <Erik.Henricksen@cityofroseville.com>; Dan Roe <Dan.Roe@cityofroseville.com>; Robin Schroeder <robin.schroeder@cityofroseville.com>; Matt Bauer <matt.bauer@cityofroseville.com>; Wayne Groff <wayne.groff@cityofroseville.com>; Julie Strahan <julie.strahan@cityofroseville.com>; Matthew Johnson <Matthew.Johnson@cityofroseville.com> Subject: Re: Other feasibility questions (cost, impact) for Aldine ROW path options Rachel, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Here are the responses from staff: QUESTIONS Use 1) Is it true that a path - either option - would be for pedestrians only? I did not see reference to bike traffic in the study or proposed plans. At only 4 feet wide, the path is well below the 10-feet needed for shared use by pedestrians and bikers, as noted in the Roseville Bike Plan. With the turns, slight change in grade, and speed issues, there are significant safety concerns for mixed use. Although designed for walkers, at this time, the City would not restrict cyclists from using the path. This pathway is actually wider than the required 3-feet for an ADA mountain bike path. Page 469 of 558 2) If no bikes are to be allowed, this may be surprising to people. How would the City communicate a no biking restriction? If such a restriction were needed, we would install signage. However, it is VERY unlikely we would effectively and actively enforce it. 3) Given issues we have seen with people continuing to walk and bike (including dog- powered and electric bikes) on the private land to west of the ROW, how would the City enforce a no biking restriction? We typically wouldn't proactively police this. As with any private property, residents are able to install fencing or signage on their private property. 4) When and how would a path - either option - be closed for the snow/ice season? Ice and snow are particularly concerning for the boardwalk option, given how the wood would become very slippery. It has been mentioned before that City staff would not plow or shovel a path in this area. Similar to the no biking question, how would this be communicated and enforced? Similar to natural trails elsewhere, the pathway would not be "closed" but would not be maintained. Initial Cost 5) How much would it cost to install a crosswalk at the south end, crossing Roselawn? As noted in the study, Roselawn does have a high traffic level, even more so at times like now when other construction projects (e.g., 280) divert traffic into our neighborhood. Without that crosswalk, there are serious safety concerns. About $5,500 which would include an ADA ramp on the south side of the street and crosswalk blocks and signage. We have a similar crosswalk on Roselawn east of Snelling at Simpson which has similar traffic volumes. 6) Given experience with other projects in Roseville, does City staff believe that the cost estimate provided by TKDA is accurate for either option and if not, what are their estimates? For example, the necessary construction method in the 30 foot space - building the path from either end in in portions and then using each stretch of path to build on to the next - seems particularly inefficient and seems likely to be more expensive that the cost noted. We believe the cost estimate is as accurate it can be at the stage. The final cost may be more or may be less depending on a lot of variables such as scope change, pricing of materials, unexpected delays, etc. Page 470 of 558 Utility Issues 7) With a path, how would City staff or contractors access the power lines and other poled utilities? This includes to periodically clear trees branches and brush. Would a path - either option - allow for staff to access the space to do the needed work, without damaging the trees further? All trees in utility easements are at some risk of being damaged to maintain utilities. For overhead utilities, we have limited ability to regulate trees in utility easement or right-of- way if they are doing maintenance for example to trim trees to maintain clearance for the power lines. Either pathway option will likely make the damage risk less as there will be better access. 8) There is a 16.5 foot sewer easement, from the ROW west into properties at 1705 Roselawn and 1706 Ryan. But my understanding is that there was also to be sewer easement to the east as well. If so, how would City staff or contractors access the sewer if needed, particularly at the corner where all of the sewage that runs from all the Roselawn houses from Fairview to the ROW turns north. Note that that critical manhole seems to be very close to the boardwalk in the boardwalk path option. Installing a pathway would not make utility work harder for the city. We would use our easement machine in this area for routine maintenance. We have numerous improvements in similar ROW’s or easements already such as fences, pathway and retaining wall that we already work around. Depending on the type of work the pathway could actually help prevent damage to trees by providing better access. Maintenance 9) What would be the ongoing costs to maintain a path - either option - annually and long term. This would include re-grading and resupplying the gravel and, for the boardwalk option, ongoing patchwork maintenance and full replacement at the end of its anticipated lifespan. As with any City parcel, an active pathway would require somewhat greater attention such as mowing and Natural Resources. In speaking with vendors, the boardwalk would have a lifespan of 20 years (give or take), so I would estimate around $50,000 every 20 years, and annual maintenance (largely natural resource or repacking etc) of perhaps $3,000-$7,000 annually. 10) What would be the plan and cost for tree maintenance in the space? With many trees in danger of decline, there will be tree loss. Some trees when close to death may be strategically removed. Others may fall, adding damage to nearby trees, structures, and the path. How will City staff or contractor access those trees and the related Page 471 of 558Page 472 of 558*** Mr. Trudgeon, Thank you for providing access to the Aldine Street ROW Feasibility Study early enough for people to review before the June 8 meeting. While the study did address some of the questions about costs (e.g., cost estimates for two path options, 5 year impacts on trees), there are still many that were not included. I know you and City staff are busy with other work and there is not much time before Monday. But will you please provide answers to the questions below before or during the June 8 meeting? Even if there is not time to get hard numbers for all the cost questions, I hope even the questions themselves will help Council assess the extraordinary expense and impact of a possible path before they make their decision on the ROW vacation petition. Thank you. Rachel Brown QUESTIONS Use 1) Is it true that a path - either option - would be for pedestrians only? I did not see reference to bike traffic in the study or proposed plans. At only 4 feet wide, the path is well below the 10-feet needed for shared use by pedestrians and bikers, as noted in the Roseville Bike Plan. With the turns, slight change in grade, and speed issues, there are significant safety concerns for mixed use. 2) If no bikes are to be allowed, this may be surprising to people. How would the City communicate a no biking restriction? 3) Given issues we have seen with people continuing to walk and bike (including dog-powered and electric bikes) on the private land to west of the ROW, how would the City enforce a no biking restriction? 4) When and how would a path - either option - be closed for the snow/ice season? Ice and snow are particularly concerning for the boardwalk option, given how the wood would become very slippery. It has been mentioned before that City staff would not plow or shovel a path in this area. Similar to the no biking question, how would this be communicated and enforced? Initial Cost 5) How much would it cost to install a crosswalk at the south end, crossing Roselawn? As noted in the study, Roselawn does have a high traffic level, even more so at times like now when other construction projects (e.g., 280) divert traffic into our neighborhood. Without that crosswalk, there are serious safety concerns. Page 473 of 558 6) Given experience with other projects in Roseville, does City staff believe that the cost estimate provided by TKDA is accurate for either option and if not, what are their estimates? For example, the necessary construction method in the 30 foot space - building the path from either end in in portions and then using each stretch of path to build on to the next - seems particularly inefficient and seems likely to be more expensive that the cost noted. Utility Issues 7) With a path, how would City staff or contractors access the power lines and other poled utilities? This includes to periodically clear trees branches and brush. Would a path - either option - allow for staff to access the space to do the needed work, without damaging the trees further? 8) There is a 16.5 foot sewer easement, from the ROW west into properties at 1705 Roselawn and 1706 Ryan. But my understanding is that there was also to be sewer easement to the east as well. If so, how would City staff or contractors access the sewer if needed, particularly at the corner where all of the sewage that runs from all the Roselawn houses from Fairview to the ROW turns north. Note that that critical manhole seems to be very close to the boardwalk in the boardwalk path option. Maintenance 9) What would be the ongoing costs to maintain a path - either option - annually and long term. This would include re-grading and resupplying the gravel and, for the boardwalk option, ongoing patchwork maintenance and full replacement at the end of its anticipated lifespan. 10) What would be the plan and cost for tree maintenance in the space? With many trees in danger of decline, there will be tree loss. Some trees when close to death may be strategically removed. Others may fall, adding damage to nearby trees, structures, and the path. How will City staff or contractor access those trees and the related damage spots via the path - either option - without inflicting more damage on the other trees? Page 474 of 558 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6/8/2026 Item No.: 7.e. Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Consider Approval of Purchase Agreement with Roseville VFW Post #7555 for a Portion of their Property 1 2 Background 3 The City and the Roseville VFW Post #7555 have been discussing the purchase of the 4 western portion of the VFW property for the use of the City as part of the Civic Campus 5 Master Plan improvements. The property purchased will be used for stormwater 6 management purposes related to the overall project and will eventually serve as shared 7 parking space for the City and VFW. 8 9 On May 19, 2026, VFW membership agreed to enter into a purchase agreement with 10 Roseville to sell the western 30,960 square feet of their property for the amount of 11 $400,000. The sale, as negotiated by the parties, was contingent on the following: 12 1. At no additional cost, the VFW will provide the City with a stormwater easement 13 covering the entire VFW parking lot. 14 2. The City will reconstruct the entire VFW parking lot due to the stormwater 15 infrastructure installation at its cost, including that portion remaining on the VFW 16 parcel, to include 150 overall parking spaces for joint use by the City and VFW 17 subject to the following conditions: 18 a. The existing 1990 joint use agreement will be terminated, and the VFW and 19 the City enter into a new joint use agreement for the parking lot that covers 20 the following items: 21 i. Identification of primary spaces to be used by the public for the License 22 and Passport Center, the City’s dance studio, and Veterans Park and 23 primary spaces for VFW patrons. 24 ii. Cross access easements to allow for parking and access related to the 25 License and Passport Center/Dance Studio, the Maintenance 26 Operations Center, and Veterans Park to occur on the VFW-owned 27 parking lot and for VFW-related parking to occur on the City-owned 28 parking lot. 29 iii. Inclusion of language in the agreement governing how disputes are 30 resolved, overflow parking is managed, and special event parking. 31 b. The new joint agreement will cover the reconstruction of the current parking 32 lot and maintenance of the future parking lot. Specifically, the agreement will 33 memorialize the following: Page 1 of 3 Page 475 of 55834 i. The responsibility of the City to construct the new parking lot at its own 35 cost 36 ii. The responsibility of the VFW to provide all necessary permissions and 37 approvals related to the construction of the new parking lot. 38 iii. A mutually agreed plan for temporary parking for the VFW during the 39 construction of the new parking lot. 40 iv. All ongoing (snow plowing, lighting and landscape maintenance), 41 short-term (pavement repairs, crack sealing, and pavement markings), 42 and long-term (milling and overlay and reconstruction) maintenance 43 costs are split equally between the City and the VFW. 44 3. As part of this purchase, the City, at its own cost, will subdivide the existing tax 45 parcel (03.29.23.44.0033) into two tax parcels (the city purchased land and the 46 remainder of existing VFW property). 47 48 With the approval of the purchase agreement, staff will work with the VFW in finalizing the 49 joint use agreement and documents necessary for closing on the property. Staff will bring 50 forward the joint use agreement for City Council approval at a later date. 51 52 53 Policy Objectives 54 The acquisition of a portion of the VFW property for the Civic Campus Master Plan 55 supports the City's Strategic Plan, specifically the goal to “Implement the civic master 56 plan on time, within budget, and with community input” under the Reliable and 57 Sustainable Infrastructure strategic direction. This purchase also aligns with the desired 58 impact that “Roseville’s assets and infrastructure are effectively, efficiently, and 59 sustainably planned, maaged, and funded.” 60 61 62 Equity Impact Summary 63 The acquisition of a portion of the VFW property supports greater access to City services 64 and facilities. Expanding the Civic Campus footprint enables the City to design public 65 spaces, programs, and facilities that are more accessible and responsive to the needs of all 66 residents. By consolidating civic functions in a centrally located area, the City can improve 67 service delivery, and ensure that future infrastructure investments benefit a broad and 68 diverse cross-section of the community. 69 70 71 Budget Implications 72 The City's bond counsel, Mary Ippel of Taft Law, has reviewed the reasons for the 73 purchase of the VFW property and its subsequent use and has determined that sales tax 74 funds can be used for the transaction, the installation of stormwater infrastructure, and 75 restoration of the property as follows: 76 77 1) The purchase of the portion of the VFW property can be fully funded with the use of the 78 local sales tax. Page 2 of 3 Page 476 of 558 79 80 2) The installation of stormwater infrastructure to serve the overall project can partially be 81 funded by the local sales tax. Only stormwater infrastructure costs that serve the 82 Maintenance Operations Center can utilize local sales tax dollars. The exact breakdown of 83 revenue sources will need to be determined at a later date once the stormwater 84 infrastructure is fully designed. 85 86 3) The restoration of property disturbed by the stormwater infrastructure installation can be 87 fully funded by the local sales tax dollars as long as it is restored to its original state (park 88 and parking lot). 89 90 Based on that legal opinion, the $400,000 purchase cost will be covered by local sales 91 collected for the Maintenance Operations Center project. To date, the City has received 92 $4.1 million in local sales tax revenue since July 2025. 93 94 Staff Recommendations 95 Staff recommends the City Council approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City 96 Manager to enter into the purchase agreement with Roseville VFW Post #7555 for the 97 purchase of a portion of their parking lot. 98 99 Requested Council Action 100 Motion to approve the resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to enter into the 101 purchase agreement with Roseville VFW Post #7555 for the purchase of a portion of their 102 parking lot. 103 104 Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager Prepared by: 1. Aerial Photo of Property Purchased from the Roseville VFW Attachments: 2. Survey of Property Being Purchased from Roseville VFW 3. Legal Opinion from Bond Counsel Mary Ippel regarding use of local sales tax 4. Draft Purchase Agreement 5. Resolution 105 Page 3 of 3 Page 477 of 558 Atachment 1 22 Parking Stalls 36 Parking Stalls City Parcel 30,960 sq ft VFW Parcel 52,568 sq ft WOODHILL DRVE Data Sources * Ramsey County GIS (10/03/2025) * City of Roseville Community Development * City of Roseville Finance Department DISCLAIMER: City Shared Easement- 26,550 sq ft This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of VFW Parking Lot Split records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area 0 10 20 30 40 shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Prepared by: Engineering Department Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic Feet features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 651-792-7075. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any 12/29/2025 damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. L VFWParcel Page 478 of 558 Attachment 2 -And - Lot 1, Block 2 The Lexington Total Square Footage: 30,959.1 sq.ft Page 479 of 558 Attachment 3 2200 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-2210 Tel: 612.977.8400 | Fax: 612.977.8650 taftlaw.com Mary L. Ippel 612.977.8122 MIppel@Taftlaw.com June 2, 2026 VIA E-MAIL Pat Trudgeon City Manager City of Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Re: Maintenance Facility Dear Pat: The city is authorized pursuant to special legislation and voter approval to issue General Obligation Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (the “Bonds”) to finance the construction of a new maintenance facility. As set forth in your attached letter dated May 28, 2026, it is necessary for the construction to occur that certain project costs, as described in the letter, be incurred by the city so that the construction can take place. Pursuant to the special legislation, the Bonds will be issued under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 which authorizes municipality to issue bonds for acquisition and betterment of facilities, in this case the maintenance facility. Chapter 475 defines “acquisition” to include purchase, condemnation, construction, and acquisition of necessary land, easements, buildings, structures, machinery or equipment and “betterment” to include reconstruction, extension, improvement, repair, remodeling, lighting, equipping and furnishing. All of the costs referenced in your letter constitute acquisition and betterment costs. You have asked certain questions in your letter. In regard to question 1, because the acquisition of the portion of the VFW parking lot is necessary for the installation of the stormwater management utility required for the maintenance facility it can be financed by the Bonds. In regard to question 2, the stormwater management utility will be sized to accommodate the maintenance facility and also the License Passport Center and Dance Studio (the “license facility”) proposed to be constructed by the city on an adjacent site. The city will need to allocate the stormwater maintenance costs related to each facility. The portion of the stormwater management that is attributable to the maintenance facility can be financed by the Bonds. Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP / Taftlaw.com / The Modern Law Firm 201001063v1 Page 480 of 558 Attachment 3 Pat Trudgeon June 2, 2026 Page 2 Additional capacity added to the stormwater management utility related to the license facility cannot be financed by the Bonds as the city’s authority to issue the Bonds only relates to the maintenance facility. In regard to question 3, the costs of restoring the parking lot, both on city owned land and on land owned by the VFW can be financed by the Bonds. The restoration of the VFW parking lot is a condition of the sale of the land and would be considered an acquisition cost of the land. The restoration of the city owned land can be financed by the bonds because it is a reconstruction cost caused by the construction of the maintenance facility. In regard to question 4, the cost of restoring Veterans Park from the damage caused by the installation of stormwater management and staging for the maintenance facility can be financed by the Bonds because it is a reconstruction cost caused by the construction of the maintenance facility. If the city as a part of the reconstruction of Veterans Park determined to add additional facilities that were not a part of the park prior to the damage to the park, such additional facilities would not be considered a reconstruction cost and could not be financed by the Bonds. If you have additional questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Mary L. Ippel MLI:cln Attachment 201001063v1 Page 481 of 558 PURCHASE AGREEMENT This Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of ______________, 2026 (“Effective Date”), by and between the Roseville/Anderson-Nelson Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #7555, a non-profit corporation under the laws of Minnesota (the “Seller”) and the city of Roseville, MN, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota (the “Buyer”). 1. Property. Seller owns the property located at 1145 Woodhill Drive, Roseville, Ramsey County, Minnesota which is legally described on Exhibit A hereto (the “Existing Parcel”). Seller agrees to sell and Buyer agrees to buy a portion of the Existing Parcel Land which is legally described on Exhibit B hereto (the “Land”)1 and all structures, fixtures and improvements located on the Land (collectively, the “Property”). 2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property is $400,000.00 (Four-Hundred Thousand Dollars) (the “Purchase Price”). At Closing and upon full performance of this Agreement by Seller, the Purchase Price, as adjusted for closing costs and prorations as set forth in this Agreement, shall be paid to Seller by certified check or wire transfer. 3. Earnest Money. Within five (5) business days after this Agreement is fully executed, Buyer shall deposit Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) (together with any interest earned thereon, “Earnest Money”) with All American Title, Roseville, Minnesota (“Title Company”) by certified check or wire transfer. The Title Company shall hold the Earnest Money in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Earnest Money shall be refundable as set forth in this Agreement. The Earnest Money shall be applied towards payment of the Purchase Price. 4. Conveyance Terms; Seller’s Contingency. At Closing, Seller agrees to execute and deliver a Warranty Deed conveying marketable fee title of the Property to Buyer, subject only to the Permitted Encumbrances (defined below). Seller’s obligations to execute and deliver said Warranty Deed shall be contingent upon, Seller’s determination, in Seller’s commercially reasonable discretion, that the parties have satisfactorily negotiated the Parking Lot Easement, Stormwater Easement and Maintenance and Repair Agreement referenced in Section 7(e) of this Agreement. 5. Examination of Title. (a) Title Commitment. Within five (5) business days after the Effective Date, Seller shall produce any abstracts, title policies, surveys, or other documents relating to title, in Seller’s possession or control, to Buyer. Buyer may order a title commitment from Title Company that obligates Title Company to issue a Title Policy insuring Buyer’s title to the Property in the amount of the Purchase Price, (“Title Commitment”), and includes a copy of all documents set out as exceptions on the Title Commitment and all judgment, bankruptcy, lien, and tax searches. (b) Survey. Buyer may obtain a current ALTA survey of the Property (“Survey” together with the Title Commitment, the “Title Evidence”) at Buyer’s cost. (c) Title Objections. On or before the Contingency Date (defined below), or within five (5) business days of Buyer’s later discovery of a defect in the marketability of Seller’s title to the Property that was not previously ascertainable from the Title Evidence, but in no event later than five (5) business days prior to the Closing Date, Buyer may give Seller written 1 NTD: Will need proposed legal description for new lot. 1 1093236.v6 Page 482 of 558 notice of alleged defect(s) in the marketability of Seller’s title to the Property and state the curative actions requested of Seller (“Objections”). Any specific matter expressly identified by the Title Evidence and not objected to by Buyer within the time period stated above shall be a “Permitted Encumbrance”, provided, however, Seller must satisfy all liens on the Property on or before the Closing regardless of whether Buyer provides Objections. If Buyer timely notifies Seller of Objections, Seller will use Seller’s best efforts to cure Buyer’s Objections. If the Objections are not cured within thirty (30) days of Buyer’s Objections, Buyer will have the option to do any of the following: (i) terminate this Agreement and receive a refund of the Earnest Money; (ii) or waive the Objections and proceed to Closing. If Buyer terminates this Agreement as permitted under this Section, the Earnest Money shall be returned to Buyer. 6. Due Diligence; Inspections. At all times prior to the Closing, Buyer and its employees, agents and contractors have the right, upon notice to Seller, to access the Property to conduct non-invasive and invasive inspections and investigations deemed reasonably necessary in Buyer’s sole discretion to determine the condition of the Property, including, but not limited to, land surveys, wetland delineations, ecological surveys, archeological surveys and testing, Phase I and II environmental assessments, limited site investigations and geotechnical investigations (collectively, “Inspections”). Seller agrees to cooperate in answering questions about the Property as necessary to complete the Inspections. Buyer agrees to indemnify Seller for damages caused by Buyer’s Inspections. Buyer agrees to reasonably repair damage to the Property caused by the Inspections and to return the Property to substantially the same condition as existed prior to Buyer’s Inspections. These obligations of Buyer shall not be construed to require Buyer to perform any removal or remediation of any hazardous substances revealed by Buyer’s actions nor fix any damage caused by Seller. The terms of this Section 6 shall survive expiration or any termination of this Agreement, provided that Buyer’s obligations herein shall be limited to those conditions which existed upon the date of such termination or expiration of this Agreement. 7. Buyer’s Contingencies. In addition to satisfaction with title and survey in accordance with Section 5, Buyer’s obligations in this Agreement are contingent upon Buyer’s satisfaction or waiver of each of the following contingencies on or before the date set forth for such contingency below: (a) Inspection. Buyer’s determination, in Buyer’s sole discretion, on or before the Contingency Date (defined below), that it is satisfied with the condition of the Property and the results of the Inspections. (b) Approvals. Buyer’s determination, in Buyer’s sole discretion, on or before the Contingency Date, that it has received all approvals, both internal and external, required for Buyer’s purchase and intended use of the Property, including, but not limited to, governmental, project and land use approvals and permits and internal environmental approvals. Seller agrees to cooperate with Buyer at all times in connection with Buyer’s applications for such governmental approvals and permits. Buyer shall be responsible for the costs and expenses associated with securing such approvals and permits necessary for Buyer’s intended development and use of the Property. (i) Subdivision. Buyer’s obligations hereunder are expressly contingent upon Buyer applying for and receiving approval to subdivide the Existing Parcel in order to legally establish the Property. Seller shall take all reasonable efforts to assist Buyer in such process, provided that Seller makes no representations regarding the outcome of any application or process required by the City Code. If the Buyer is unsuccessful in obtaining subdivision approval, for any reason, Buyer may terminate this Agreement and recover its earnest money. 2 1093236.v6 Page 483 of 558 (c) Project Feasibility. Buyer’s determination, in Buyer’s sole discretion, on or before the Contingency Date, that it is satisfied with the feasibility of the project for which Buyer is purchasing the Property. (d) Closing on Additional Property Rights. Buyer’s determination, in Buyer’s sole discretion, on or before Closing, that Buyer has acquired all property rights necessary for Buyer to proceed with development of the project for which Buyer is purchasing the Property. (e) Additional Agreement. Buyer’s determination, in Buyer’s commercially reasonable discretion, that it has satisfactorily negotiated and entered into the following agreements with Seller: (i) Parking Lot Easement. An easement agreement providing reciprocal easements to and from Buyer and Seller allowing each party to utilize the entire surface parking lot for its business operations. Such easement agreement shall be subject to specific terms and conditions related to the identification of parking spaces for visitor use, processes related to use of the parking areas for special events, and a dispute resolution mechanism. The easement shall further include customary terms and conditions. (ii) Stormwater Easement. An easement agreement permitting Buyer to make and maintain certain improvements on Seller-owned land adjacent to the Land which include but are not limited to subterranean stormwater catchment systems, grading, and other necessary and appropriate improvements. Such easement agreement shall be subject to customary terms and conditions. (iii) Maintenance and Repair Agreement. An agreement providing that the Buyer shall be responsible for conducting all maintenance and repair of the Property and the Seller-retained land used for surface parking, and providing that Seller shall be responsible for 50% of the costs of such ongoing maintenance and repair. Such agreement shall be subject to customary terms and conditions. As used this Agreement, “Contingency Date” shall initially mean October 31, 2026, unless Buyer elects to extend such date as provided below. Buyer shall have one (1) option to extend this Contingency Date, for a period of up to ninety (90) days, provided that Buyer notifies Seller of its election to extend on or before the date which would have otherwise been the Contingency Date. If any contingency set forth in this Section 7 has not been satisfied or waived by Buyer on or before the Contingency Date or such other date set forth for the contingency above, then Buyer may terminate this Agreement on or before the Contingency Date or such other date set forth for the contingency above. Upon such termination, the Earnest Money shall be returned to Buyer within ten (10) calendar days from the date of Buyer’s notice of termination. If Buyer does not provide a written notice of termination by the date required, Buyer shall no longer have a right to terminate this Agreement under this Section because of such contingency. All the contingencies set forth in this Section are specifically for the benefit of the Buyer and may be waived by Buyer at any time. 8. Closing. (a) Time and Place. The closing of this transaction shall occur on the date that is October 31, 2026 (“Closing”) or upon such earlier date agreed upon by the parties in writing, at the offices of the Buyer or the Title Company, or by depositing the required closing documents 3 1093236.v6 Page 484 of 558 and money in escrow with the Title Company. In the event that the Contingency Date is extended in accordance with the terms herein, the Closing shall similarly be delayed by the same number of days as the Contingency Date, or to another date mutually agreed to by the Parties. (b) Seller’s Obligations at Closing. At Closing, Seller shall execute and deliver the following to Buyer: (i) Warranty Deed subject only to Permitted Encumbrances; (ii) Seller’s Affidavit; (iii) Resolutions authorizing Seller’s conveyance of the Property and identifying the individuals authorized to execute the deed; (iv) A non-foreign affidavit in accordance with Section 1445(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code; (v) Completed well disclosure certificate or a statement on the deed that there are no wells; (vi) Signed settlement statement; (vii) Information necessary to complete the certificate of real estate value; (viii) Executed parking lot easement; (ix) Executed stormwater maintenance easement; (x) Executed maintenance and repair agreement; and (xi) Such other documents as may be reasonably requested by Buyer, its counsel or Title Company to evidence the performance by Seller of its obligations under this Agreement. (c) Buyer’s Obligations at Closing. Upon receipt of Seller’s closing documents, Buyer shall pay to Seller the full amount of the Purchase Price, as increased or decreased by prorations or adjustments set forth in this Agreement. Buyer and Seller agree that the Earnest Money shall be delivered to Seller at the Closing and applied towards payment of the Purchase Price. Buyer shall also deliver executed copies of the: (i) parking lot easement, (ii) stormwater maintenance agreement, and (iii) executed maintenance and repair agreement. (d) Closing Costs. Seller will pay: (i) deed tax, if any; and (ii) the cost to make title marketable if any; (iii) one-half of the cost related to recording the parking lot easement, stormwater maintenance easement, and maintenance and repair agreement; and (iv) such other costs as are typically the responsibility of Seller pursuant to Minnesota custom or law and not specifically addressed elsewhere herein. Buyer will pay: (i) all costs of the Title Commitment; (ii) all costs of recording the Warranty Deed; (iii) the premium for Buyer’s policy of title insurance; (iv) the closing fee charged by the Title Company; (v) one-half of the cost related to recording the parking lot 4 1093236.v6 Page 485 of 558 easement, stormwater maintenance easement, and maintenance and repair agreement; and (vi) such other costs as are typically the responsibility of Buyer pursuant to Minnesota custom or law and not specifically addressed elsewhere herein. 9. Prorations. (a) Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. On or before the Closing, Seller shall pay all special assessments levied against the Property as of Closing including, without limitation, any installments of special assessments and interest payable with general real estate taxes payable in the year of Closing. General real estate taxes and installments of special assessments payable therewith which are payable in all calendar years prior to the calendar year of Closing shall also be paid by Seller. General real estate taxes for the Property due and payable in the year of Closing shall be prorated between Buyer and Seller as of the date of Closing. Seller shall also pay, on or before the Closing, all deferred taxes for the Property (including green acre taxes) and all special assessments levied or pending against the Property as of the Closing, including, without limitation, any installments of special assessments (or estimates thereof) and interest thereon payable after the Closing. (b) Other Costs. Any other costs pertaining to the Property not specifically prorated in this Agreement shall be paid and prorated as of the Closing. 10. Covenants; Operation. Seller covenants and agrees as follows from the Effective Date until the Closing or earlier termination of this Agreement: (a) Exclusive Right to Purchase. Seller will not enter into any other contracts for the sale of the Property, nor will Seller grant any rights of first refusal or options to purchase the Property or any other rights to others that might prevent the consummation of this Agreement. (b) Contracts Affecting the Property. Seller shall not amend any existing or enter into any new agreements or contracts related to or affecting the Property which will be in force and effect after the Closing (c) Personal Property. Seller shall remove all personal property from the Land on or before Closing. (d) Seller’s Cooperation. Seller shall cooperate with Buyer in obtaining governmental and third-party approvals, consents and agreements, and shall execute such applications, permits, agreements and other documents as may be reasonably required by Buyer, provided that such items may only effect the Property as of the Closing. Seller shall not be entitled to any compensation or reimbursement of costs in connection with such cooperation. (e) Pre-Closing Operations. During the period from the Effective Date to the Closing, Seller shall operate and maintain the Property in good and clean condition and shall not encumber the Property with any additional liens or agreements affecting the use of the same without Buyer’s written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 5 1093236.v6 Page 486 of 55811. Seller’s Representations and Warranties. Seller represents and warrants to Buyer that the following statements are true and accurate as of the Effective Date and again on the date of Closing: (a) Each individual executing this Agreement is of legal age and under no legal disability and that has the legal authority to enter into this Agreement and sell the Property. (b) Seller is not a foreign person, foreign corporation, foreign partnership, foreign trust or foreign estate, as defined in Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code. (c) There have been no bankruptcy proceedings involving Seller during the time Seller has had any interest in the Property. (d) There are no unsatisfied judgments of record against Seller. (e) There are no state or federal tax liens filed against Seller. (f) There has been no labor or materials furnished to the Property for which payment has not been paid. (g) There are no unrecorded mortgages, contracts, purchase agreements, options, leases, easements or other agreements or interest relating to the Property. (h) There are no persons in possession of any portion of the Property other than pursuant to a recorded document and there are no recorded leases or memorandums of leases. (i) To the best of Seller’s actual knowledge, that there are no encroachments or boundary line questions affecting the Property. (j) Seller is the fee owner of the Property subject only to Permitted Encumbrances. (k) The Property has legal access to a public right of way. (l) Seller has not received notice of any new public improvement project(s), the cost of which a governmental entity may assess against the Property. (m) To the best of Seller’s actual knowledge, the Property and the improvements thereon, if any, are not in violation of any statute, law, ordinance or regulation. (n) To the best of Seller’s actual knowledge there is no action, litigation, governmental investigation, condemnation or administrative proceeding of any kind pending against Seller or involving any portion of the Property, and no third party has threatened Seller with commencement of any such action, litigation, investigation, condemnation or administrative proceeding. (o) Seller is not in default in the performance of any of Seller’s obligations under any mortgage, contract for deed, easement agreement, covenant, condition, restriction or other instrument relating to the Property. (p) Seller has not engaged a real estate agent to represent Seller and assist in the transaction. (q) As of the date of this Agreement, Seller has not received any actual notice alleging any material violation of Environmental Laws affecting the Property. Except as expressly set 6 1093236.v6 Page 487 of 558 forth herein, Seller makes no representations or warranty concerning environmental conditions affecting the Property. Buyer acknowledges that it shall rely solely upon Buyer’s own inspections and investigations regarding hazardous substances and environmental laws. The term “Environmental Law” shall mean any and all federal, state and local laws, statutes, codes, ordinances, regulations, rules, policies, consent decrees, judicial orders, administrative orders or other requirements relating to the environment or to human health or safety associated with the environment, all as amended or modified from time to time. At Closing, Seller shall issue a bring-down certificate of this representation. (r)  To the best of Seller’s actual knowledge, there are no wells located on the Property. OR  All wells located on the Property are described on the Minnesota Well Disclosure Statement attached as Exhibit B. (s)  Sewage generated at the Property goes to a facility permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. OR  Sewage generated at the Property does not go to a facility permitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the individual sewage treatment system located on the Property is described on the Minnesota Disclosure of Sewage Treatment System attached as Exhibit C. OR  No sewage is generated at the Property. (t) To the best of Seller’s actual knowledge, there are no underground or above ground storage tanks of any size or type located on the Property nor has an underground or above ground storage tank previously located on the Property had a release. (u) As required by Minnesota statute, to the best of Seller’s knowledge, methamphetamine production has not occurred on the Property. The representations and warranties contained in this Section shall survive and shall be true and correct on the Effective Date and as of the Closing. Seller shall indemnify and hold Buyer harmless from, any expenses or damages, including attorneys’ fees, that Buyer incurs by reason of, or arising out of, any breach of any of the above representations and warranties, whether such breach is discovered before or after Closing. The representations and the indemnification obligation of Seller shall survive Closing or any termination of this Agreement for a period of six (6) months and thereafter terminate. 12. Condemnation. If, prior to the Closing, eminent domain proceedings are commenced against all or any part of the Property, Seller shall immediately give notice to Buyer of such fact and at Buyer’s option (to be exercised within thirty (30) days after Seller’s notice), this Agreement shall terminate, in which event neither party will have further obligations under this Agreement, and the Earnest Money shall be refunded to Buyer. If Buyer shall fail to give such notice then there shall be no reduction in the Purchase Price, and Seller shall assign to Buyer at the Closing all of Seller’s right, title and interest in and to any award made 7 1093236.v6 Page 488 of 558 or to be made in the condemnation proceedings. Prior to the Closing, Seller shall not designate counsel, appear in, or otherwise act with respect to the condemnation proceedings without Buyer’s prior written consent. 13. Casualty. If the improvements on the Property are substantially damaged prior to Closing, Seller will immediately notify Buyer, in writing of such damage. Within twenty (20) days of Buyer's receipt of Seller's notice Buyer may, at Buyer's option, terminate this Agreement by written notice to Seller and the Earnest Money shall be refunded to Buyer. If Buyer does not terminate this Agreement within said twenty (20) day period, the parties will fully perform their obligations under this Agreement, and Seller will assign to Buyer Seller's rights to any and all insurance proceeds which Seller is entitled to receive on account of such casualty loss. If, prior to the Closing, the improvements on the Property are damaged less than substantially, Seller will promptly repair such damage, and the parties will proceed pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement with the date of Closing extended for a period of time not to exceed ninety (90) days. For purposes of this Section the term "substantially damaged" will mean damage that requires repairs that cost more than ten percent (10%) of the Purchase Price. 14. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given by any party upon the other is given in accordance with this Agreement if it is directed to Seller by delivering it personally; if mailed by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid; if deposited cost paid with a nationally recognized, reputable overnight courier; or if transmitted by email; in each case properly addressed as follows: If to Seller: Roseville/Anderson-Nelson If to Buyer: City of Roseville Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #7555 2660 Civic Center Drive 1145 Woodhill Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Roseville, MN 55113 Attn: City Manager Attn: Post Commander Notices shall be deemed effective on the date of delivery if given by personal delivery or email (provided that an email delivered on a day other than a business day or any day after 5:00 p.m. central time shall be deemed delivered the next business day), the next business day after deposit if delivered by overnight courier, or on the third business day after deposit if delivered by U.S. mail. Any Party may change its address for the service of notice by giving written notice of such change to the other party, in any manner above specified, ten (10) calendar days prior to the effective date of such change. 15. Buyer’s Default; Seller’s Remedy. Buyer shall be in default under this Agreement if Buyer fails to observe, perform or comply with any term, condition or obligation under this Agreement to be so observed, performed or kept by Buyer and such failure continues for a period of thirty (30) calendar days following Seller’s delivery of written notice to Buyer of the failure. Following Buyer’s default, Seller shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice of such termination to Buyer and shall thereafter be entitled to retain the Earnest Money as liquidated damages. The termination of this Agreement and retention of the Earnest Money will be the sole and exclusive remedy available to Seller for a default by Buyer under this Agreement. The terms of this Section 15 shall survive Closing or any termination of this Agreement. 16. Seller’s Default; Buyer’s Remedies. Seller shall be in default under this Agreement if Seller fails to observe, perform or comply with any term, condition or obligation under this Agreement to be so observed, performed or kept by Seller as required herein. Following Seller’s default, Buyer shall have all rights, remedies and damages available at law or in equity and the right to specific performance of Seller with respect to all obligations of Seller hereunder and to refund of the Earnest Money. All rights, remedies 8 1093236.v6 Page 489 of 558 and damages available to Buyer shall be cumulative and not alternative. The terms of this Section 16 shall survive Closing or any termination of this Agreement. 17. Intentionally Omitted. 18. Termination. If this Agreement is terminated by either Buyer or Seller pursuant to a right of termination expressly set forth in this Agreement, neither Party shall have any further rights or obligations under this Agreement, except for the obligations concerning the Earnest Money as set forth in this Agreement, and to the extent any rights or obligations expressly survive such termination. 19. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota, exclusive of its choice of law provisions. Any disputes hereunder shall be heard in state and federal courts located in Ramsey County, Minnesota, and both parties hereto unconditionally and irrevocably waive any objection to such venue. 20. Entire Agreement. This Agreement shall constitute the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect to the matters contained herein. No modification, amendment or waiver may be accomplished to the terms of this Agreement without the written consent of both parties. 21. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement, and, to that extent, the provisions of this Agreement are intended to be and shall be deemed severable. 22. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their legal representatives, successors, heirs and assigns. [The remainder of this page has been left blank intentionally. Signature page to follow.] 9 1093236.v6 Page 490 of 558 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Buyer have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. SELLER: Roseville/Anderson-Nelson Veterans of BUYER: Foreign Wars Post #7555 By: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Name:_______________________________ Its:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ [Signature Page to Purchase Agreement] S-1 1093236.v6 Page 491 of 558 Exhibit A Legal Description of the Existing Parcel The West 240 feet of the East 637.3 feet of the South 286 feet of the following described parcel: The Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 3, Township 29, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying North of the South line of County Road “C” and East of the East line of North Ridge Plat 1, except the West 257 feet of the South 33 feet of the East 490 feet thereof. Torrens Property A-1 1093236.v6 Page 492 of 558 Exhibit B Legal Description of the Property B-1 1093236.v6 Page 493 of 558 Attachment 5 1 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING 2 OF THE 3 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 7 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 8 Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the ____day of ______ 202__, at 9 6:00 p.m. 10 11 The following members were present: , , , , and Mayor . 12 and the following were absent: . 13 14 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 15 16 17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE 18 CITY OF ROSEVILLE AND THE ROSEVILLE/ANDERSON-NELSON VFW POST # 19 7555 FOR A PORTION OF THE PARKING LOT AT 1145 WOODHILL DRIVE, 20 ROSEVILLE, MINNESOTA 21 22 RESOLUTION No. 23 24 WHEREAS, Pursuant to Minnesota Laws 2023, Chapter 64, Article 12, Section 45, the Minnesota 25 Legislature authorized the City of Roseville to impose a local sales and use tax to provide revenues 26 to pay the costs of collecting and administering the tax to the commissioner of revenue of the state 27 of Minnesota and to finance the capital and administrative costs related to the funding of 28 designated projects as defined in 2023, Chapter 64, Article 12, Section 45; and 29 30 WHEREAS, the voters of Roseville approved the sales tax in order to construct a public works 31 and parks operations facility (the “Center”) at the November 5, 2024, referendum; and 32 33 WHEREAS, the Center will require stormwater management facilities, and such facilities are to 34 be located under a parking lot on the property at 1145 Woodhill Drive, in the City of Roseville 35 (the “Property”) which is currently owned by the Roseville/Anderson-Nelson VFW Post # 7555 36 (the “Seller”); and 37 38 WHEREAS, the acquisition of the portion of the Property is necessary for the installation of the 39 stormwater management utility required for the Center; and 40 41 WHEREAS, in addition, an existing strip mall containing a city-owned and operated license and 42 passport center and a dance studio (the “LPCDS”) will be torn down to make way for the Center; 43 and 44 Page 494 of 558 Attachment 5 45 WHEREAS, the Council desires to replace the LPCDS with a building to be constructed which 46 will be located adjacent to 1145 Woodhill Drive in the City of Roseville; and 47 48 WHEREAS, in order to provide parking for the LPCDS, the LPCDS and the Seller will enter into 49 certain agreements to share parking facilities; and 50 51 WHEREAS, the City and the Seller have negotiated a purchase agreement, a form of which is 52 attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, (the “Purchase Agreement”) setting forth the terms and 53 conditions of the purchase of the Property. 54 55 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville that: 56 57 1. It is determined that it is in the best interest of the City that the City purchase the 58 Property for a purchase price of $400,000. 59 60 2. The Purchase Agreement is hereby in all respects authorized, approved and 61 confirmed and the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute and 62 deliver the Purchase Agreement for and on behalf of the City in substantially the form now on file 63 with the City but with such modifications, additions or deletions as shall be deemed necessary, 64 desirable or appropriate by the Mayor and the City Manager that do not alter the substance of the 65 transaction in order to carry out the intent and purposes of this Resolution, the execution thereof 66 to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any and all modifications therein. 67 68 3. In addition to execution of the Purchase Agreement, the Mayor and the City 69 Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute, on behalf of the City, any and all other 70 documents related to the Purchase Agreement and take any other actions deemed necessary to 71 carry out the intentions of this Resolution. 72 73 74 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , 75 and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: , , , 76 , and Mayor . 77 and the following voted against the same: . 78 79 WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 80 Page 495 of 558 Attachment 5 81 82 83 84 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) 85 ) SS 86 COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) 87 88 89 I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of 90 Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and 91 foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the day of, 92 , 20 with the original thereof on file in my office. 93 94 WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this day of , 20 95 96 97 98 SEAL 99 100 ___________________________________ 101 Patrick J. Trudgeon, City Manager Page 496 of 558 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6/8/2026 Item No.: 10.a. Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approval of Payments 1 2 Background 3 State Statute requires the City Council to approve all payment of claims. The following summary of 4 claims has been submitted to the City for payment. 5 Check Series # Amount ACH Payments $967,453.53 115623-115802 $1.186,244.33 Total $2,153,697.86 6 7 A detailed report of the claims is attached. City staff has reviewed the claims and considers them to be 8 appropriate for the goods and services received. 9 10 11 Policy Objectives 12 Under MN State Statute, all claims are required to be paid within 35 days of receipt. 13 14 15 Equity Impact Summary 16 Local governments play an important role in building racially equitable and inclusive regional economies. 17 Payments to vendors contribute to the local economy by supporting businesses within the community, 18 including those owned by people of color. Ensuring equitable distribution of contracts and payments 19 among vendors, particularly minority-owned businesses, can help promote economic equity. This 20 supports the broader goals of reducing racial economic disparities as well as Roseville's aspiration to 21 have a community that is economically prosperous with a stable and broad tax base and vibrant small 22 businesses. 23 24 25 Budget Implications 26 All expenditures listed above have been funded by the current budget, from donated monies, or from 27 cash reserves. 28 29 30 Staff Recommendations 31 Staff recommends approval of all payment of claims. Page 1 of 2 Page 497 of 55832 33 34 Requested Council Action 35 Motion to approve the payment of claims as submitted. 36 37 38 Prepared by: Ebonie Cannady-Accounting Technican II Attachments: 1. Checks for Approval 39 Page 2 of 2 Page 498 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE ATTACHMENT 1:CHECKS FOR APPROVAL GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 100 General Fund Department: 00-00 GENERAL 100-00-00-210300 State Income Tax METLIFE INSTITUTIONAL GROU Remittance Check 7,624.28 7300 100-00-00-210300 State Income Tax METLIFE INSTITUTIONAL GROU Remittance Check 7,624.28 7300 100-00-00-210500 Life Ins. Employee METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANC METLIFE PREIMIUM APRIL 2026 3,115.29 7216 100-00-00-210500 Life Ins. Employee METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANC METLIFE PREIMIUM APRIL 2026 241.32 7216 100-00-00-210500 Life Ins. Employee METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANC METLIFE PREIMIUM APRIL 2026 5.35 7216 100-00-00-210502 Employer Life Insurance METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANC METLIFE PREIMIUM APRIL 2026 656.00 7216 100-00-00-210502 Employer Life Insurance METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANC METLIFE PREIMIUM APRIL 2026 22.45 7216 100-00-00-210600 Union Dues Deduction LELS Remittance Check 3,358.00 7187 100-00-00-210600 Union Dues Deduction LELS Remittance Check 219.00 7187 100-00-00-210600 Union Dues Deduction LELS Remittance Check 73.00 7187 100-00-00-210600 Union Dues Deduction LELS Remittance Check 730.00 7187 100-00-00-210600 Union Dues Deduction Local Union 49 Remittance Check 1,050.00 115629 100-00-00-210600 Union Dues Deduction Roseville Firefighters Loc Remittance Check 3,996.40 7211 100-00-00-210900 Long Term Disability METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANC METLIFE PREIMIUM APRIL 2026 4,157.54 7216 100-00-00-210900 Long Term Disability METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANC METLIFE PREIMIUM APRIL 2026 410.41 7216 100-00-00-211100 ICMA Def Comp Mission Square Remittance Check 2,243.56 7182 100-00-00-211100 ICMA Def Comp Mission Square Remittance Check 4,172.00 7182 100-00-00-211100 ICMA Def Comp Mission Square Remittance Check 150.00 7182 100-00-00-211100 ICMA Def Comp Mission Square Remittance Check 497.28 7182 100-00-00-211100 ICMA Def Comp Mission Square Remittance Check 4,167.00 7182 100-00-00-211100 ICMA Def Comp Mission Square Remittance Check 2,295.05 7269 100-00-00-211100 ICMA Def Comp Mission Square Remittance Check 4,172.00 7269 100-00-00-211100 ICMA Def Comp Mission Square Remittance Check 150.00 7269 100-00-00-211100 ICMA Def Comp Mission Square Remittance Check 576.73 7269 100-00-00-211100 ICMA Def Comp Mission Square Remittance Check 4,167.00 7269 100-00-00-211101 Mission SQ Roth Mission Square Remittance Check 400.00 7182 100-00-00-211101 Mission SQ Roth Mission Square Remittance Check 400.00 7269 100-00-00-211200 MN Child Support Payments MN Child Support Payment C Remittance Check 313.79 115673 100-00-00-211200 MN Child Support Payments MN Child Support Payment C Remittance Check 313.79 115781 100-00-00-211202 HRA Employer ING ReliaStar Remittance Check 10,790.00 7205 Total Department 00-00 GENERAL 68,091.52 Department: 01-00 CITY COUNCIL 100-01-00-430000 Professional Services Redpath and Company LLC 2025 FINAL AUDIT PROGRESS AND STATEME 15,935.00 115652 100-01-00-430000 Professional Services TimeSaver Off Site Secreta CC MINUTES 595.51 7284 100-01-00-430000 Professional Services TimeSaver Off Site Secreta E&I MINUTES 219.50 7284 100-01-00-430000 Professional Services TimeSaver Off Site Secreta CC MINUTES 592.51 7284 100-01-00-430000 Professional Services TimeSaver Off Site Secreta CC MINUTES 645.75 7284 100-01-00-433000 Advertising St. Paul Pioneer Press APRIL ADVERTISING 397.08 115696 Total Department 01-00 CITY COUNCIL 18,385.35 Department: 02-00 ADMINISTRATION 100-02-00-420000 Office Supplies Greenhaven Printing BUSINESS CARDS 47.50 7276 100-02-00-420000 Office Supplies Innovative Office Solution APRIL OFFICE SUPPLIES 160.48 7198 100-02-00-430000 Professional Services Metro-INET MAY IT SERVICES 86,124.00 7290 100-02-00-430000 Professional Services Shred-N-Go, Inc. SHREDDING DAY & ADMIN SHREDDING 85.30 115775 100-02-00-430099 Drug Testing Vault Health RANDOM DRUG AND ALCOHOL TEST 55.37 115718 100-02-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Alerus Financial NA COBRA APRIL 25 SERVICE FEE PAID MAY 2 165.00 115730 100-02-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Envisio Solutions, Inc. ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 21,000.00 7261 100-02-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE NFP Insurance Services, In ACA AND BSWIFT MONTHLY FEES 740.20 115722 100-02-00-441100 Tuition Reimbursement Cari McCollor TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 1,500.00 7263 100-02-00-443500 Minor Equipment Dell Marketing, L.P. 2026 COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS 1,162.78 7212 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 1/20 Page 499 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 100 General Fund Department: 02-00 ADMINISTRATION 100-02-00-448000 Miscellaneous NATIONAL COMPUTER TECHNOLO WCAG TRAINING 2,500.00 115733 Total Department 02-00 ADMINISTRATION 113,540.63 Department: 04-00 FINANCE 100-04-00-430000 Professional Services Metropolitan Courier Corp. APRIL 2026 SERVICE CHARGE 853.21 115646 100-04-00-430000 Professional Services TimeSaver Off Site Secreta FC MINUTES 385.51 7284 100-04-00-430000 Professional Services TimeSaver Off Site Secreta FC MINUTES 369.75 7284 100-04-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Bellefeull, Szur & Associa SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE BS&A 89,484.00 115726 100-04-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Bellefeull, Szur & Associa BS&A ONLINE SERVICES SUPPORT 2026-202 2,568.00 115726 Total Department 04-00 FINANCE 93,660.47 Department: 06-00 LEGAL DEPARTMENT 100-06-00-430000 Professional Services Erickson, Bell, Beckman & APRIL MONTHLY RETAINER 15,861.30 7273 Total Department 06-00 LEGAL DEPARTMENT 15,861.30 Department: 08-00 CENTRAL SERVICES 100-08-00-424000 Operating Supplies ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVIC COFFEE FILTERS 24.60 115750 100-08-00-424000 Operating Supplies ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVIC COFFEE 423.84 115750 100-08-00-424000 Operating Supplies Innovative Office Solution APRIL OFFICE SUPPLIES 951.26 7198 Total Department 08-00 CENTRAL SERVICES 1,399.70 Department: 10-00 POLICE DEPARTMENT 100-10-00-420000 Office Supplies Greenhaven Printing BUSINESS CARDS - RUTH AND DIAS 125.85 7201 100-10-00-420000 Office Supplies Innovative Office Solution APRIL OFFICE SUPPLIES 554.52 7198 100-10-00-420000 Office Supplies MacQueen Equipment SHIPPING CHARGES 26.23 7183 100-10-00-420000 Office Supplies SOS OFFICE FURNITURE OFFICE CHAIRS (3) 1,196.25 115647 100-10-00-420000 Office Supplies SOS OFFICE FURNITURE OFFICE CHAIR AMY 393.25 115647 100-10-00-422000 Clothing Emblem Enterprises, Inc UNIFORM ROCKERS - CSO, RESERVES, EXPL 307.99 115699 100-10-00-422000 Clothing STREICHER'S NEW HIRE DIAS 279.98 7197 100-10-00-422000 Clothing STREICHER'S NEW HIRE UNIF DIAS 3,236.63 7197 100-10-00-422000 Clothing STREICHER'S NEW HIRE NAMEPLATE DIAS 40.98 7197 100-10-00-422000 Clothing STREICHER'S NASPO VEST CARRIER_VANGRINSVEN 324.00 7197 100-10-00-422000 Clothing STREICHER'S VEST NAME TAGS - DIAS 45.97 7250 100-10-00-424000 Operating Supplies Galls, LLC UPDATED BADGES (40) - NEW DESIGN DUE 6,027.06 7199 100-10-00-424000 Operating Supplies Interstate All Battery Cen LIT0235 PROCEL BATTERIES (250) 1,000.00 115754 100-10-00-424000 Operating Supplies LAKER PROMOTIONS COMMUNITY OUTREACH SUPPLIES 5,277.02 115671 100-10-00-424000 Operating Supplies Lakes Floral, Gift & Garde SUBURBAN RAMSEY COUNTY LE MEMORIAL SE 284.00 115654 100-10-00-424000-PD0002 Operating Supplies Bridging Inc HOMELESS OUTREACH HOUSEHOLD ESSENTIAL 310.00 115665 100-10-00-424000-PD0002 Operating Supplies MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HE HOMELESS OUTREACH BIRTH CERT CN265003 26.00 115679 100-10-00-430000 Professional Services BluePearl Minnesota Pratic VET CARE K9 CAL 2,106.48 115664 100-10-00-430000 Professional Services Language Line Services TRANSLATION SERVICES - MARCH 184.18 115639 100-10-00-430000 Professional Services Language Line Services TRANSLATION SERVICES - MONTHLY 89.92 115639 100-10-00-430000 Professional Services Leads Online POWERPLUS INVESTIGATION SYSTEM (PAWN) 7,251.00 115770 100-10-00-430000 Professional Services LIBERTY ARMS DESTRUCTION FIREARM DISPOSAL / DESTRUCTION (15) 1,350.00 7299 100-10-00-430000 Professional Services Lynn Lembcke Consulting ALPR AUDIT: OCTOBER 20, 2023 THROUGH 2,250.00 115660 100-10-00-430000 Professional Services Martin McAllister, Inc. FITNESS FOR DUTY EXAM 3,000.00 115631 100-10-00-430000 Professional Services Masa Consulting, Inc. MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT SERVICES FOR AP 3,900.00 7208 100-10-00-430000 Professional Services TACTICAL SOLUTIONS SQUAD RADAR CERTIFICATIONS (18) 808.00 115762 100-10-00-430000 Professional Services University of Minnesota Ve ROOSTER K9 CARE 33.81 115641 100-10-00-430000-PD0006 Professional Services AXTELL GROUP LLC MNLEAP ACCREDITATION PROJECT- QUARTER 27,500.00 115668 100-10-00-430001 Dispatching Services Ramsey County 911 DISPATCH SERVICES FOR THE MONTH O 34,581.67 115645 100-10-00-430001 Dispatching Services Ramsey County CAD SERVICES FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 5,196.17 115645 100-10-00-430004 Police Explorer Program Galls, LLC EXPLORER CLOTHING (BOOTS) 347.95 7199 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 2/20 Page 500 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 100 General Fund Department: 10-00 POLICE DEPARTMENT 100-10-00-430004 Police Explorer Program Galls, LLC HANDCUFFS (2) EXPLORERS 119.40 7275 100-10-00-430004 Police Explorer Program John Alan Roberto EXPLORER UNIFORMS EMBROIDERY 345.00 115661 100-10-00-430004 Police Explorer Program STREICHER'S NAME PLATES EXPLORERS 35.97 7197 100-10-00-431000 Telephone Verizon MONTHLY DATA FEES MAR 1,080.27 115655 100-10-00-431000 Telephone Verizon MONTHLY CELL CHARGES MAR 4,381.34 115655 100-10-00-431000 Telephone Verizon CELLULAR DATA APRIL 1,080.27 115655 100-10-00-431000 Telephone Verizon DATA MARCH-APRIL 26- ACC#487223064-00 40.01 115773 100-10-00-437000 Contract Maint. - Vehicles Ramsey County RAMSEY COUNTY FLEET SUPPORT FEE FOR M 570.96 115645 100-10-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE CITY OF ST. PAUL RADIO MAINTENANCE FEB 540.00 115626 100-10-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Ramsey County FIELD OPS (3) 30.00 115645 100-10-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Thomson Reuters ONLINE/SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION CHARGES 1,435.46 115636 100-10-00-440000 Conferences CITY OF ST. PAUL PDI WOMEN'S LEADERSHIP CONF - RESKI, 600.00 115626 100-10-00-440000 Conferences RACHEL THRASHER REIMB FOR AXON CONF LODGING (4/6-4/9) 1,019.73 115678 100-10-00-441000 Training CITY OF ST. PAUL TRAINING WOMEN LEADING THE WAY KROSNO 600.00 115626 100-10-00-441000 Training CITY OF ST. PAUL FEMALE PISTOL SKILLS TRAINING KROSNOW 500.00 115626 100-10-00-441000 Training Forest Lake Sportsmen's Cl RANGE RENTAL ON 4.29.26 400.00 115769 100-10-00-441000 Training MN BCA BCA ADVANCED NARCOTICS INVESTIGATIONS 450.00 115635 100-10-00-442000 Memberships & Subscription Tri-County Law Enforcement ANNUAL DUES 90.00 115640 100-10-00-442000-PD0006 Memberships & Subscription Lexipol, LLC LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCREDITATION WORKBEN 575.10 115777 100-10-00-442000-PD0006 Memberships & Subscription PowerDMS, Inc. POWERDMS STANDARDS FOR MN LAW ENFORCE 600.00 7215 100-10-00-443500 Minor Equipment Dell Marketing, L.P. PD DESKTOP COMPUTERS SERGEANTS (2) 1,890.88 7212 100-10-00-443500 Minor Equipment Dell Marketing, L.P. 2026 COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS 1,242.22 7212 100-10-00-443600 Software Operating Charges Metro-INET MICROSOFT 365 LICENSE DIAS 197.00 7214 Total Department 10-00 POLICE DEPARTMENT 125,878.52 Department: 13-00 FIRE DEPARTMENT 100-13-00-320700 Rental Licensing BLAKE OLSON REFUND OF RENTAL LICENSE ECHECK PAYME 150.00 115675 100-13-00-320700 Rental Licensing BLAKE OLSON REFUND OF RENTAL LICENSE ECHECK PAYME 20.00 115675 100-13-00-422000 Clothing Aspen Mills Inc. LAFORTE 200.00 115624 100-13-00-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten GRAINGER HEADLIGHT 350.08 115627 100-13-00-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten Henry Schein, Inc. DEXTROSE 17.94 115658 100-13-00-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten Jefferson Fire & Safety, I CLAS A/B FOAM 1,625.00 7200 100-13-00-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten Lube Tech & Partners, LLC LUBRIPLATE PAIL 332.78 115774 100-13-00-424000 Operating Supplies Alex Air Apparatus 2 LLC BATTERY PACK 1,074.00 7195 100-13-00-424000 Operating Supplies Fikes, Inc. STATION PAPER TOWELS, SOAP, DISPENSER 547.60 7207 100-13-00-424000 Operating Supplies Fikes, Inc. PAPER TOWELS AND DISPENSER 295.15 7207 100-13-00-424000 Operating Supplies GRAINGER CORD REEL 1,350.62 115627 100-13-00-424000 Operating Supplies Greenhaven Printing BUSINESS CARDS 142.50 7276 100-13-00-424000 Operating Supplies Uline STATION SUPPLIES 483.59 7278 100-13-00-430000 Professional Services RICHARD B GASAWAY INCIDENT ASSESSMENT 8,000.00 115674 100-13-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Adam's Pest Control Inc FALL PREVENTION 299.88 7203 100-13-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Adam's Pest Control Inc QUARTLERY PREVENTION 154.12 7203 100-13-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Brothers Fire & Security STATION ACCESS MAINTENANCE 1,381.42 115761 100-13-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Dell Marketing, L.P. 2026 COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS 1,682.03 7212 100-13-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Metro-INET NEW FF ACCOUNTS 2,660.00 7214 100-13-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Muska Electric Co CORD REELS 825.00 7186 100-13-00-441000 Training TWIN CITIES TRANSPORT & RE TRAINING CARS 375.00 115747 Total Department 13-00 FIRE DEPARTMENT 21,966.71 Department: 13-13 FIRE DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION 100-13-13-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185464-5 3,667.83 7237 Total Department 13-13 FIRE DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION 3,667.83 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 3/20 Page 501 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 100 General Fund Department: 13-18 EMERGENCY SERVICES 100-13-18-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185463-4 80.23 7236 Total Department 13-18 EMERGENCY SERVICES 80.23 Department: 20-20 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 100-20-20-420000 Office Supplies CES Imaging MONTHLY FEE 75.00 115763 100-20-20-424000 Operating Supplies Frontier Precision, Inc. SURVEYING SUPPLIES 346.58 115623 100-20-20-424000 Operating Supplies Frontier Precision, Inc. SURVEYING SUPPLIES 389.00 115623 100-20-20-442000 Memberships & Subscription The MN Transportation Alli MEMBERSHIP 6/1/26-5/31/27 875.00 115716 100-20-20-443610 METRO-INET IT CHARGES Metro-INET ENGINEERING INTERN LICENSE - DROBERTS 199.00 7262 Total Department 20-20 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 1,884.58 Department: 20-21 STREET DEPARTMENT 100-20-21-420000 Office Supplies Innovative Office Solution APRIL OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.73 7198 100-20-21-424000 Operating Supplies CITY OF ST. PAUL ASPHALT PATCHING MATERIAL 452.85 115742 100-20-21-424000 Operating Supplies Fra-Dor Inc. PATHWAY PATCHING ASPHALT DISPOSAL 60.00 115697 100-20-21-424000 Operating Supplies Fra-Dor Inc. PATHWAY PATCHING ASPHALT DISPOSAL 120.00 115697 100-20-21-424000 Operating Supplies Hirshfield's Inc. BEADS M247 DUAL COAT 50 LB BAG, WHITE 1,474.26 115748 100-20-21-424000 Operating Supplies JEREMY ESTENSON BOLLARD RESIZING 1,050.00 115734 100-20-21-424000 Operating Supplies MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, ASPHALT PATCHING MATERIAL 1,453.77 115630 100-20-21-424000 Operating Supplies Ramsey/Washington Recyclin TRASH DISPOSAL 39.87 115729 100-20-21-424000 Operating Supplies Sign Solutions USA, LLC L&R POWER DRIVE CAP FOR 2.25. SHIPPIN 184.90 115662 100-20-21-424000 Operating Supplies Tessman Company PELLET MULCH 120.00 7251 100-20-21-424000 Operating Supplies White Cap, LP SOURCEWELL CONTRACT #091422-WCP / 20 271.96 115778 100-20-21-424000 Operating Supplies WM Corporate Services, Inc TRASH DISPOSAL 160.67 115705 100-20-21-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Upper Cut Tree Service TRIM TREE AT 1890 CO RD D WEST 1,213.00 115706 100-20-21-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Upper Cut Tree Service REMOVE TREE AT 2107 ALAMEDA ST 704.00 115706 100-20-21-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Upper Cut Tree Service STUMP GRINDING AT 1812 DALE CT 175.00 115706 Total Department 20-21 STREET DEPARTMENT 7,487.01 Department: 20-22 STREET LIGHTING 100-20-22-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185475-8 189.78 7242 100-20-22-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185475-8 39.76 7243 100-20-22-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185477-0 15,284.92 7245 100-20-22-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185475-8 2,273.54 7241 Total Department 20-22 STREET LIGHTING 17,788.00 Department: 20-30 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 100-20-30-421000 Motor Fuel Mansfield Oil Company of G 2026 FUEL CONTRACT 9,622.92 115649 100-20-30-421000 Motor Fuel Mansfield Oil Company of G 2026 FUEL CONTRACT 8,698.30 115765 100-20-30-422000 Clothing Cintas Corporation UNIFORM 43.76 115709 100-20-30-422000 Clothing Cintas Corporation UNIFORM 43.76 115709 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten Cintas Corporation NITRILE GLOVES 97.02 115709 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO. VEHICLE BATTERY 383.71 7233 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO. MOTOR OIL 176.71 7233 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten GRAINGER WARNING LIGHT STROBE 114.20 115690 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten Grainger Inc COIN CELL BATTERY 260 MAH, PK 20 27.98 115743 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten Jeff Belzers Roseville Chr COOLANT BOTTLE 145.50 115724 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten Lawson Products CARRIAGE BOLT GRADE; NYLON LOCK NUT G 224.91 115703 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten MCMASTER-CARR ABRASION RESISTANT WRAPAROUND WIRE SL 55.11 115691 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten MCMASTER-CARR ALL WEATHER EPDM RUBBER BUNGEE CORD W 89.37 115691 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten MCMASTER-CARR 18-8 STAINLESS STEEL LEFT HAND HEX DR 26.01 115744 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten MIDWAY FORD CO. SOCKET 27.50 115692 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten MIDWAY FORD CO. LIGHT BULB 22.32 115692 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 4/20 Page 502 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 100 General Fund Department: 20-30 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten MTI Distributing, Inc. REPLACEMENT BRAKE PAD SERVICE KIT 323.94 7270 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten Napa Auto Parts VEHICLE BATTERIES 735.98 7268 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten Napa Auto Parts TRAILER CONNECTION AND FUSE HOLDER 74.73 7268 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten Suburban Tire Wholesale, I VEHICLE TIRES 1,515.72 115710 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten Ziegler Inc GLASS ITEM 2469987 511.07 7272 100-20-30-437000 Contract Maint. - Vehicles Jeff Belzers Roseville Chr REPLACE LEFT ENGINE MOUNT RIGHT FRONT 539.60 115724 100-20-30-437000 Contract Maint. - Vehicles Jeff Belzers Roseville Chr RECHARGE A/C SYSTEM 612.34 115724 Total Department 20-30 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 24,112.46 Department: 23-00 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 100-23-00-424000 Op Supplies-City Hall GRAINGER FLOOR SCRUBBER PW BLD 3,962.93 115627 100-23-00-424000 Op Supplies-City Hall Staples Advantage, Inc. J SERIES TISSUE 2 PLY 1000 SHE 320.00 7283 100-23-00-424000 Op Supplies-City Hall Staples Advantage, Inc. CLEANING SUPPLIES 596.91 7283 100-23-00-424000 Op Supplies-City Hall Staples Advantage, Inc. GLOVES BK EXM NTRL PF MD 185.60 7283 100-23-00-430000 Professional Services McGough Property Managemen FACILITY MGMT SERVICE LABOR 3/30-4/26 3,040.00 7279 100-23-00-430000 Professional Services McGough Property Managemen 04/2026 EXPENSES 2,824.83 7279 100-23-00-436001 Utilities-City Hall DG Minnesota CS 2021, LLC SOLAR PRODUCTION - MAR 2026 3,295.86 7258 100-23-00-436001 Utilities-City Hall DG Minnesota CS 2021, LLC SOLAR PRODUCTION - FEB 2026 1,004.14 7258 100-23-00-436001 Utilities-City Hall Xcel Energy 51-5185469-0 3,523.95 7188 100-23-00-436003 Utilities-City Garage Xcel Energy 51-5185469-0 1,908.29 7188 100-23-00-436003 Utilities-City Garage Xcel Energy 51-5185469-0 1,050.43 7188 100-23-00-439001 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE - CIT Cintas Corporation 4X6 TRAFFIC MAT CH 43.19 115644 100-23-00-439001 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE - CIT Cintas Corporation 3X10 TRAFFIC MAT PD 49.60 115644 100-23-00-439001 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE - CIT Cintas Corporation 4X6 TRAFFIC MAT CH 43.19 115760 100-23-00-439001 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE - CIT Cintas Corporation 3X10 TRAFFIC MAT PD 49.60 115760 100-23-00-439001 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE - CIT Davis Lock & Safe Inc SERVICE CALL & ONSITE LABOR TO REKEY 528.00 115695 100-23-00-439001 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE - CIT Gilbert Mechanical Contrac SPRINKLER PIPE HAS A PINHOLE LEAK. CH 1,222.06 115757 100-23-00-439001 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE - CIT SANDSTROM LAND MANAGEMENT, CITY HALL GROUNDS (APRIL 2026)/ROSEVI 2,137.85 7210 100-23-00-439003 Contract Maint.- City Gara MN Pollution Control Agenc HAZARDOUS WASTE FEES 410.85 115772 100-23-00-439003 Contract Maint.- City Gara OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OF T DOOR #12 WILL ONLY GO UP 2 FEET PW 451.70 115707 100-23-00-439010 Contract Manit. - HVAC Yale Mechanical PMS AND FILTER CHANGES PER CONTRACT. 1,379.00 7281 100-23-00-439010 Contract Manit. - HVAC Yale Mechanical PMS AND FILTER/BELT CHANGES PER CONTR 1,379.00 7281 100-23-00-439011 Fiber Maint. & Locates Arvig, Inc. FIBER MAINTENANCE 287.56 115651 100-23-00-439011 Fiber Maint. & Locates Zayo Group LLC CITY FIBER SERVICES 4,553.52 115648 Total Department 23-00 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 34,248.06 Total Fund 100 General Fund 548,052.37 Fund: 101 General Fund Donations Department: 10-00 POLICE DEPARTMENT 101-10-00-424014 Shop w/ Cop - Supplies PCS PTSA SHOP WITH A COP OUTREACH - FAMILY FUN 600.00 115676 Total Department 10-00 POLICE DEPARTMENT 600.00 Total Fund 101 General Fund Donations 600.00 Fund: 103 Contracted Engineering Svcs Department: 00-00 GENERAL 103-00-00-230000 Deposits ALL STATE COMPANIES INC. ESCROW REFUND 1,000.00 115785 103-00-00-230000 Deposits CREATIVE HOMES, INC. ESCROW REFUND 5,250.00 115677 103-00-00-230000 Deposits FIELDSTONE FAMILY HOMES ESCROW REFUND 6,000.00 115787 103-00-00-230000 Deposits MTD INC. ESCROW REFUND 5,250.00 115735 Total Department 00-00 GENERAL 17,500.00 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 5/20 Page 503 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 103 Contracted Engineering Svcs Total Fund 103 Contracted Engineering Svcs 17,500.00 Fund: 104 Accounting Services Department: 04-00 FINANCE 104-04-00-430000 Professional Services Redpath and Company LLC 2025 FINAL AUDIT PROGRESS AND STATEME 9,000.00 115652 Total Department 04-00 FINANCE 9,000.00 Total Fund 104 Accounting Services 9,000.00 Fund: 110 Telecommunications Department: 09-00 COMMUNICATIONS 110-09-00-430000 Professional Services Metro-INET DOMAIN RENEWAL FOR CITY WEBSITES 704.85 7290 110-09-00-430000 Professional Services North Suburban Access Corp APRIL MONTHLY MUNICIPAL MEETING SERVI 2,522.20 7252 Total Department 09-00 COMMUNICATIONS 3,227.05 Total Fund 110 Telecommunications 3,227.05 Fund: 200 Recreation Fund Department: 40-40 RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 200-40-40-420000 Office Supplies Greenhaven Printing BUSINESS CARDS 47.50 7276 200-40-40-431000 Telephone T Mobile CELL PHONES FOR DEPT ACCT#967323742 255.49 115771 200-40-40-432000 Transportation BAILEY, ARISSA MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 24.65 7266 200-40-40-432000 Transportation BAILEY, ARISSA MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 98.60 7304 200-40-40-432000 Transportation BAILEY, ARISSA MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 24.65 7266 200-40-40-432000 Transportation BAILEY, ARISSA MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 24.65 7266 200-40-40-432000 Transportation Churcher, Ayanna MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 24.65 7265 200-40-40-432000 Transportation Elizabeth Leverty MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 24.65 7289 200-40-40-432000 Transportation Elizabeth Leverty MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 24.65 7259 200-40-40-432000 Transportation Elizabeth Leverty MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 24.65 7289 200-40-40-442000 Memberships & Subscription ASCAP, Inc. ASCAP LICENSE PAST DUE 10.61 115632 200-40-40-443500 Minor Equipment Dell Marketing, L.P. 2026 COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS 1,412.67 7212 200-40-40-443500 Minor Equipment Dell Marketing, L.P. 2026 COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS 238.49 7212 200-40-40-443610 METRO-INET IT CHARGES Metro-INET SEASONAL STAFF LICENSES 600.00 7262 Total Department 40-40 RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 2,835.91 Department: 40-41 RECREATION FEE PROGRAMS 200-40-41-344000-PR0253 Fee Program Revenue LENA VASQUEZ ROSEBROOK RENTAL REFUND 272.19 115736 200-40-41-344000-PR0253 Fee Program Revenue ROGER SCHUBRING REFUND FOR ARBORETUM RENTAL 150.00 115737 200-40-41-424000-PR0249 Operating Supplies Taho Sportswear, Inc. SUMMER STAFF SHIRTS 365.00 7271 200-40-41-424000-PR0255 Operating Supplies Taho Sportswear, Inc. SUMMER STAFF SHIRTS 350.00 7271 200-40-41-424000-PR0290 Operating Supplies Taho Sportswear, Inc. RUN FOR THE ROSES SHIRTS 4,092.50 7235 200-40-41-430000-PR0202 Professional Services Willie McCray ADULT MEN'S BASKETBALL REFEREE PAYMEN 1,771.00 7209 200-40-41-430000-PR0210 Professional Services GEORGE ANASTOS MAY 14TH AARP CLASS PAYMENT 105.00 115786 200-40-41-430000-PR0212 Professional Services Willie McCray ADULT SOFTBALL LEAGUE UMPIRE PAYMENT 4,046.00 7209 200-40-41-430000-PR0212 Professional Services Willie McCray ADULT SOFTBALL UMPIRE PAYMENT 3,298.00 7256 200-40-41-430000-PR0212 Professional Services Willie McCray ADULT SOFTBALL UMPIRE PAYMENT 2,618.00 7256 200-40-41-430000-PR0212 Professional Services Willie McCray ADULT SOFTBALL UMPIRE PAYMENT 3,264.00 7285 200-40-41-430000-PR0218 Professional Services Norman R. Rolando SAFETY AWARENESS CLASS SPRING 2026 582.40 115741 200-40-41-430000-PR0227 Professional Services ANTHONY TYUS ADULT SAND VOLLEYBALL REFEREE PAYMENT 120.00 7301 200-40-41-430000-PR0227 Professional Services Austin Beatty ADULT SAND VOLLEYBALL REFEREE PAYMENT 192.00 7291 200-40-41-430000-PR0227 Professional Services Breanna Burmester ADULT SAND VOLLEYBALL REFEREE PAYMENT 120.00 7286 200-40-41-430000-PR0227 Professional Services ERIN DUFFY ADULT SAND VOLLEYBALL REFEREE PAYMENT 376.00 7296 200-40-41-430000-PR0227 Professional Services Katherine Walen ADULT SAND VOLLEYBALL REFEREE PAYMENT 60.00 115776 200-40-41-430000-PR0227 Professional Services KRISTIN JOHNSON ADULT SAND VOLLEYBALL REFEREE PAYMENT 120.00 7297 200-40-41-430000-PR0227 Professional Services LUKE ROETTGER ADULT SAND VOLLEYBALL REFEREE PAYMENT 180.00 7298 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 6/20 Page 504 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 200 Recreation Fund Department: 40-41 RECREATION FEE PROGRAMS 200-40-41-430000-PR0227 Professional Services NATALIE JONES ADULT SAND VOLLEYBALL REFEREE PAYMENT 120.00 7303 200-40-41-430000-PR0227 Professional Services Patrick Hubbard ADULT SAND VOLLEYBALL REFEREE PAYMENT 184.00 115755 200-40-41-430000-PR0227 Professional Services RILEY CHANG ADULT SAND VOLLEYBALL REFEREE PAYMENT 60.00 7302 200-40-41-430000-PR0227 Professional Services SOPHIE R JACQUES ADULT SAND VOLLEYBALL REFEREE PAYMENT 124.00 115780 200-40-41-430000-PR0227 Professional Services THOMAS IMHOF ADULT SAND VOLLEYBALL REFEREE PAYMENT 60.00 7292 200-40-41-430000-PR0265 Professional Services Jessica Lee MUSIC TOGETHER PAYMENT 1 FOR SPRING 2 1,029.15 115764 200-40-41-430000-PR0270 Professional Services Elizabeth Fletcher MAR-MAY PAYMENT 841.50 7257 200-40-41-430000-PR0273 Professional Services City of Little Canada PAYMENT FOR ADULT TRIP ON MARCH 19 1,520.00 115714 200-40-41-436000-PR0253 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-0010626247-6 1,703.69 7246 Total Department 40-41 RECREATION FEE PROGRAMS 27,724.43 Department: 40-42 RECREATION NON FEE PROGRAMS 200-40-42-424000-PR0101 Operating Supplies Groth Music ENVELOPES 8.10 115628 200-40-42-424000-PR0299 Operating Supplies Taho Sportswear, Inc. PARADE TSHIRTS 189.00 7271 200-40-42-438000 Rental On Site Companies-OSSTC MAY PORTABLES 2,213.50 115693 200-40-42-438000-PR0101 Rental Roseville Area Schools Com COMMUNITY BAND RENTAL - RAHS 1,462.50 115643 Total Department 40-42 RECREATION NON FEE PROGRAMS 3,873.10 Department: 40-50 NATURE CENTER 200-40-50-436000-PR0119 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185470-3 645.18 7189 Total Department 40-50 NATURE CENTER 645.18 Department: 40-53 SKATING CENTER 200-40-53-372300 Concession Sales Roseville Figure Skating C SHARE OF CONCESSION DURING COMPETITIO 472.47 115694 200-40-53-420000 Office Supplies Definitive Technology Solu TONER 33.00 115656 200-40-53-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten R & R Specialties of Wisco ZAM PARTS 442.50 7249 200-40-53-424000 Operating Supplies GRAINGER DOOR STOPS 599.94 115627 200-40-53-430000 Professional Services MR Cutting Edge ZAM BLADE SHARPENING 146.00 115653 200-40-53-430000-PR5504 Professional Services MATTHEW RICHARDS REIMBURSEMENT 631.23 115712 200-40-53-436000 Utilities DG Minnesota CS 2021, LLC SOLAR PRODUCTION - MAR 2026 962.08 7258 200-40-53-436000 Utilities DG Minnesota CS 2021, LLC SOLAR PRODUCTION - FEB 2026 433.45 7258 200-40-53-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185473-6 16,293.83 7240 200-40-53-438000 Rental Airgas USA, LLC CYLINDER RENTAL 7.50 7274 200-40-53-438000 Rental Airgas USA, LLC CYLINDER RENTAL 25.50 7274 200-40-53-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE GILBERT MECHANICAL CONTRAC FIRE SPRINKLER INSPECTION 430.00 115638 200-40-53-442000 Memberships & Subscription Comcast 8772 10 529 0022405 MAY 2026 14.16 115634 200-40-53-442000 Memberships & Subscription Comcast 8772105290754643 18.88 115751 Total Department 40-53 SKATING CENTER 20,510.54 Total Fund 200 Recreation Fund 55,589.16 Fund: 204 PARK MAINTENANCE Department: 40-43 RECREATION MAINTENANCE 204-40-43-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten MTI Distributing, Inc. 99-3410 SWITCH 239.89 7270 204-40-43-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Mainten Tri State Bobcat, Inc FUEL CAP 11.37 115758 204-40-43-424000 Operating Supplies Fikes, Inc. ROLL TOWEL, TOILET TISSUE, CORELESS R 1,204.48 7254 204-40-43-424000 Operating Supplies Fikes, Inc. TOILET TISSUE, ROLL TOWEL, BLACK ROLL 1,144.00 7282 204-40-43-424000 Operating Supplies MIDC Enterprises ACCLIMA CS3500 TWO WIRE 64 STA WATER 2,446.80 115746 204-40-43-424000 Operating Supplies MTI Distributing, Inc. GR WHEEL ST CUP 480.04 7234 204-40-43-424000-PR0627 Operating Supplies Trade Press Inc. WASHING STATION & COMMUNITY ORCHARD B 90.00 115779 204-40-43-424000-PR0627 Operating Supplies Wagners Greenhouses, Inc. VARIOUS PLANTS/FLOWERS FOR ARBORETUM 848.51 115766 204-40-43-424000-PR0627 Operating Supplies Wagners Greenhouses, Inc. VAROUS PLANTS AND FLOWERS FOR ARBORET 2,522.53 115766 204-40-43-424000-PR0627 Operating Supplies Wagners Greenhouses, Inc. DIASCIA BREEZEE, HEDERA BALTIC, JUNCU 210.30 115766 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 7/20 Page 505 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 204 PARK MAINTENANCE Department: 40-43 RECREATION MAINTENANCE 204-40-43-430000 Professional Services Braun Intertec Corporation GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION, SUB UTILITY 3,353.25 115688 204-40-43-430000 Professional Services Killmer Electric Co., Inc. FIXED TENNIS/BASKETBALL COURT LIGHTS 2,684.80 115698 204-40-43-430000 Professional Services Killmer Electric Co., Inc. REPLACED LAMPS AT RINK AT AUTUMN GROV 1,081.80 115698 204-40-43-430000 Professional Services PILLAR TITLE SERVICES, INC DEED COPY FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION TAX I 125.00 115783 204-40-43-430000 Professional Services PILLAR TITLE SERVICES, INC DOCUMENT PULL FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION T 125.00 115783 204-40-43-430000 Professional Services PILLAR TITLE SERVICES, INC TORRENS CERTIFICATES FOR LEGAL DESCRI 125.00 115783 204-40-43-430000 Professional Services PILLAR TITLE SERVICES, INC VESTING DEED FOR PARCEL NO. 152923110 125.00 115783 204-40-43-430000 Professional Services PILLAR TITLE SERVICES, INC DEED FOR LEGAL FOR PARCEL NO. 1329232 125.00 115783 204-40-43-430000 Professional Services Steri-Clean Franchise Minn HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT CLEAN-UP AT 1950 2,753.60 115663 204-40-43-430000 Professional Services USDA APHIS General PERSONNEL, SUPPLIES & MATERIALS, PROG 12,703.00 115717 204-40-43-430000-PR0400 Professional Services Upper Cut Tree Service STUMP GRINDNG AT APPLEWOOD PARK 423.50 115706 204-40-43-430000-PR0400 Professional Services Upper Cut Tree Service TRIM/REMOVE FOUR TREES AT CITY HALL C 2,518.00 115759 204-40-43-431000 Telephone T Mobile CELL PHONES FOR DEPT ACCT#967323742 221.42 115771 204-40-43-431000 Telephone Verizon DATA MARCH-APRIL 26- ACC#487223064-00 356.36 115773 204-40-43-431000-PR0627 Telephone Verizon DATA MARCH-APRIL 26- ACC#487223064-00 35.01 115773 204-40-43-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185471-4 5,160.82 7190 204-40-43-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185471-4 88.29 7191 Total Department 40-43 RECREATION MAINTENANCE 41,202.77 Total Fund 204 PARK MAINTENANCE 41,202.77 Fund: 221 Municipal Jazz Band Department: 40-45 BIG BAND ACTIVITIES 221-40-45-430000 Professional Services FREDERICK MELVIN BALLEW IV APRIL DIRECTOR PAY BIG BAND 250.00 7293 Total Department 40-45 BIG BAND ACTIVITIES 250.00 Total Fund 221 Municipal Jazz Band 250.00 Fund: 260 Community Development Department: 00-00 GENERAL 260-00-00-230130-CD1320 Development Escrow Ehlers & Associates, Inc. FINANCIAL REVIEW FOR HSS TIF - ESCROW 243.75 115700 Total Department 00-00 GENERAL 243.75 Department: 56-17 BUILDING PERMITS & INSPECTIONS 260-56-17-322000 Technology Fee BLAKE OLSON REFUND OF RENTAL LICENSE ECHECK PAYME 5.10 115675 260-56-17-420000 Office Supplies Innovative Office Solution APRIL OFFICE SUPPLIES 38.40 7198 260-56-17-430007 Electrical Inspections Stephen Tokle Inspections, APRIL 2026 TOKLE PAYMENTS 11,881.76 115666 260-56-17-431000 Telephone Verizon DATA MARCH-APRIL 26- ACC#487223064-00 38.39 115773 260-56-17-443500 Minor Equipment Dell Marketing, L.P. 2026 COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS 581.39 7212 Total Department 56-17 BUILDING PERMITS & INSPECTIONS 12,545.04 Department: 56-57 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 260-56-57-420000 Office Supplies Greenhaven Printing BUSINESS CARDS 48.30 7276 260-56-57-430000 Professional Services TimeSaver Off Site Secreta VB MINUTES 178.00 7284 260-56-57-430000 Professional Services TimeSaver Off Site Secreta PC MINUTES 194.25 7284 260-56-57-433000 Advertising St. Paul Pioneer Press APRIL ADVERTISING 68.68 115696 260-56-57-443500 Minor Equipment Dell Marketing, L.P. 2026 COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS 2,297.26 7212 Total Department 56-57 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2,786.49 Total Fund 260 Community Development 15,575.28 Fund: 265 License Center Department: 05-00 DEPUTY REGISTER 265-05-00-420000 Office Supplies Innovative Office Solution APRIL OFFICE SUPPLIES 138.19 7198 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 8/20 Page 506 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 265 License Center Department: 05-00 DEPUTY REGISTER 265-05-00-424000 Operating Supplies Staples Advantage, Inc. J SERIES TISSUE 2 PLY 1000 SHE 80.00 7283 265-05-00-424000 Operating Supplies Staples Advantage, Inc. CLEANING SUPPLIES 149.23 7283 265-05-00-424000 Operating Supplies Staples Advantage, Inc. J SERIES TISSUE 2 PLY 1000 SHE 54.81 7283 265-05-00-430000 Professional Services Cintas Corporation 3X5 TRAFFIC MAT/4X6 TRAFFIC MAT/3X10 89.36 115708 265-05-00-430000 Professional Services Electro Watchman, Inc. LICENSE CENTER SECURITY- UPDATED ENTR 35.00 7232 265-05-00-430000 Professional Services SANDSTROM LAND MANAGEMENT, CITY HALL GROUNDS (APRIL 2026)/ROSEVI 440.00 7210 265-05-00-432000 Transportation Mary Dracy MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 357.43 7194 265-05-00-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185478-1 638.93 7193 265-05-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE ECR Software Corporation CATAPULT LICENSE 4,500.00 115715 265-05-00-443500 Minor Equipment Dell Marketing, L.P. 2026 COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS 805.19 7212 265-05-00-443500 Minor Equipment SOS OFFICE FURNITURE CHAIRS 1,099.10 115713 265-05-00-448000 Miscellaneous Shred-N-Go, Inc. LICENSE CENTER SHREDDING THRU APRIL 157.30 115659 Total Department 05-00 DEPUTY REGISTER 8,544.54 Total Fund 265 License Center 8,544.54 Fund: 400 Equipment Revolving Department: 10-00 POLICE DEPARTMENT 400-10-00-452000 Vehicles / Equipment MacQueen Equipment 2303 STRIP / 2601 NEW SQUAD CONVERSIO 26,476.39 7183 400-10-00-452000 Vehicles / Equipment MacQueen Equipment NEW SQUAD BUILD 2602 27,343.98 7183 400-10-00-453000 Other Improvements Dell Marketing, L.P. COMPUTER AND MONITORS - SEAN JOHNSON 1,189.82 7212 400-10-00-453000 Other Improvements Kiesler's Police Supply, I RIFLE PARTS (2 SCOPES) 4,208.70 115721 400-10-00-453000 Other Improvements SHI International Corp SQUAD PRINTERS - 14 SHIPPED (TOTAL 28 5,089.56 7196 400-10-00-453000 Other Improvements STREICHER'S LESS LETHAL 40MM LAUNCHER 2,601.30 7197 Total Department 10-00 POLICE DEPARTMENT 66,909.75 Total Fund 400 Equipment Revolving 66,909.75 Fund: 401 Fire Equipment Department: 13-00 FIRE DEPARTMENT 401-13-00-453000 Other Improvements MES SERVICE COMPANY LLC GLOVES 820.43 7204 401-13-00-453000 Other Improvements MES SERVICE COMPANY LLC GLOVES 147.93 7277 401-13-00-453000 Other Improvements MES SERVICE COMPANY LLC GLOVES 282.31 7277 Total Department 13-00 FIRE DEPARTMENT 1,250.67 Total Fund 401 Fire Equipment 1,250.67 Fund: 404 Finance Equipment Revolving Department: 04-00 FINANCE 404-04-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Dell Marketing, L.P. 2026 COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS 3,673.31 7212 404-04-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Dell Marketing, L.P. 2026 COMPUTER REPLACEMENTS 238.49 7212 Total Department 04-00 FINANCE 3,911.80 Total Fund 404 Finance Equipment Revolving 3,911.80 Fund: 408 Pathway Maintenance Fund Department: 20-20 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 408-20-20-438000 Rental BNSF Railway Company LAND LEASE 2026-2027 16,000.00 115749 Total Department 20-20 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 16,000.00 Total Fund 408 Pathway Maintenance Fund 16,000.00 Fund: 409 CENTRAL SERVICES FUND Department: 08-00 CENTRAL SERVICES 409-08-00-438100 Rental-Copier Machines Definitive Technology Solu COPIER RENTAL 4,094.78 115657 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 9/20 Page 507 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 409 CENTRAL SERVICES FUND Department: 08-00 CENTRAL SERVICES 409-08-00-438101 Postage Meter GreatAmerica Financial Ser POSTAGE MACHINE RENTAL 332.00 7260 Total Department 08-00 CENTRAL SERVICES 4,426.78 Total Fund 409 CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 4,426.78 Fund: 410 GENERAL FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND Department: 23-00 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 410-23-00-453000-PW2620 Other Improvements ELECTRO WATCHMAN GARAGE DOOR REPAIR 366.25 7178 410-23-00-453000-PW2620 Other Improvements MIDWEST BLINDS ROLLER SHADES 1,935.58 115669 Total Department 23-00 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2,301.83 Department: 40-53 SKATING CENTER 410-40-53-453000 Other Improvements API Garage Door OVAL ZAMBNONI GARAGE DOORS 13,900.00 115725 Total Department 40-53 SKATING CENTER 13,900.00 Total Fund 410 GENERAL FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND 16,201.83 Fund: 411 Recreation Improvements Department: 40-40 RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 411-40-40-430000-PR0401 Professional Services Tree Trust LTD ACCESS TREE REMOVALS AT LANGTON L 1,635.00 115752 411-40-40-430000-PR0401 Professional Services Tree Trust LTD ACCESS TREE REMOVALS AT OASIS PAR 2,025.00 115752 411-40-40-430000-PR0401 Professional Services Tree Trust LTD ACCESS TREE REMOVALS AT PIONEER P 2,325.00 115752 411-40-40-430000-PR0401 Professional Services Tree Trust LTD ACCESS TREE REMOVALS AT APPLEWOOD 1,120.00 115752 411-40-40-430000-PR2601 Professional Services AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTI ROSEBROOK PARK IMPROVEMENTS 625.00 7230 411-40-40-430000-PR2601 Professional Services Landscape Structures Inc. PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT/MATERIALS FOR RO 131,122.50 115711 411-40-40-430000-PR2601 Professional Services LHB Inc PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THROUGH FEB 27 7,094.75 7280 411-40-40-430000-PR2601 Professional Services LHB Inc PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THROUGH MAY 1 2 683.50 7280 411-40-40-430000-PR2601 Professional Services LHB Inc PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THROUGH APRIL 3 1,234.25 7280 411-40-40-453000-PR2318 Recreation Improvements Midwest Groundcover INSTALL CERT ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER AT 9,450.00 115727 411-40-40-453000-PR2334 Recreation Improvements MINT ROOFING COMPLETED REPAIRS PER 2026 TOP SITE R 8,755.00 115732 411-40-40-453000-PR2334 Recreation Improvements MINT ROOFING COMPLETED REPAIRS PER 2026 TOP SITE R 2,920.00 115732 Total Department 40-40 RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 168,990.00 Department: 40-43 RECREATION MAINTENANCE 411-40-43-430000-PR2602 Professional Services Stantec Consulting Service PROJECT MANAGEMENT; INVASIVE WOODY PL 18,152.52 7255 Total Department 40-43 RECREATION MAINTENANCE 18,152.52 Total Fund 411 Recreation Improvements 187,142.52 Fund: 413 MAINTENANCE FACILITY Department: 20-00 PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL 413-20-00-430000 Professional Services LHB Inc MOC AND LPCDS 89,845.11 7206 413-20-00-430000 Professional Services LHB Inc REIMBURSABLE FEES 1,225.19 7280 Total Department 20-00 PUBLIC WORKS GENERAL 91,070.30 Total Fund 413 MAINTENANCE FACILITY 91,070.30 Fund: 414 PASSPORT / LICENSE CENTER Department: 05-00 DEPUTY REGISTER 414-05-00-430000 Professional Services LHB Inc MOC AND LPCDS 45,817.77 7206 Total Department 05-00 DEPUTY REGISTER 45,817.77 Total Fund 414 PASSPORT / LICENSE CENTER 45,817.77 Fund: 417 STREETSCAPE 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 10/20 Page 508 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 417 STREETSCAPE Department: 20-20 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 417-20-20-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE SANDSTROM LAND MANAGEMENT, STREETSCAPE MAINT THRU APRIL 6,304.00 7210 Total Department 20-20 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 6,304.00 Total Fund 417 STREETSCAPE 6,304.00 Fund: 600 Sanitary Sewer Department: 00-00 GENERAL 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable ADITI & SAYAN BISWAS UB refund for account: 025817-000 0.74 115684 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable ADITI & SAYAN BISWAS UB refund for account: 025817-000 7.71 115684 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable CINDY SHELDON UB refund for account: 009109-000 0.74 115801 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable CINDY SHELDON UB refund for account: 009109-000 9.81 115801 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable DANIEL MEYER UB refund for account: 024179-000 1.74 115680 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable DANIEL MEYER UB refund for account: 024179-000 8.92 115680 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable DAVE MISHLER UB refund for account: 025965-000 64.90 115685 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable DAVE MISHLER UB refund for account: 025965-000 58.82 115685 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable JODY LULICH UB refund for account: 005516-000 0.76 115739 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable JODY LULICH UB refund for account: 005516-000 5.04 115739 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LARRY LEHMANN UB refund for account: 005420-000 6.16 115681 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LEVI & LEAH ORTMANN UB refund for account: 024981-000 18.19 115799 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LEVI & LEAH ORTMANN UB refund for account: 024981-000 71.80 115799 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LOUISE ARBUCKLE UB refund for account: 018944-000 1.82 115686 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LOUISE ARBUCKLE UB refund for account: 018944-000 4.06 115686 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable M S RELOCATION SERVICES UB refund for account: 027255-000 0.29 115791 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable M S RELOCATION SERVICES UB refund for account: 027255-000 1.90 115791 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable NATHAN REKUSKI UB refund for account: 025604-000 1.73 115793 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable NATHAN REKUSKI UB refund for account: 025604-000 5.71 115793 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable PATRICIA STILLWELL UB refund for account: 001064-000 21.50 115788 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable PATRICIA STILLWELL UB refund for account: 001064-000 47.77 115788 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable PINEWOOD LLC UB refund for account: 027360-000 6.93 115802 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH UB refund for account: 000954-000 9.88 115682 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH UB refund for account: 000954-000 48.51 115682 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable STANLEY WU UB refund for account: 022988-000 1.29 115794 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable STANLEY WU UB refund for account: 022988-000 9.49 115794 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable WALTER J TROJE UB refund for account: 004399-000 1.28 115800 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable WALTER J TROJE UB refund for account: 004399-000 8.25 115800 Total Department 00-00 GENERAL 425.74 Department: 50-00 SANITARY SEWER 600-50-00-420000 Office Supplies Innovative Office Solution APRIL OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.73 7198 600-50-00-424000 Operating Supplies USA BLUE BOOK EHC-33 GREASE CONTROL BACTERIA 25 LB 466.87 115768 600-50-00-430000 Professional Services Ehlers & Associates, Inc. 2025 UTILITY RATE STUDY UPDATES 1,240.00 115753 600-50-00-430000 Professional Services Gopher State One Call LOCATE TICKETS 4/2026 257.85 7181 600-50-00-430000 Professional Services InfoSend, Inc. APRIL 2026 BILLING 161.51 7288 600-50-00-431100 Postage InfoSend, Inc. APRIL 2026 BILLING 413.73 7288 600-50-00-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-0011038709-9 1,820.02 7247 600-50-00-438000 Rental 2277 ROSEVILLE LLC MONTHLY LEASE SPACE PAYMENT 1,823.75 7294 600-50-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Erickson Electric Company, WAGNER LIFT STATION ELEC. REPAIR 1,758.80 115723 600-50-00-445000 Metro Waste Control Board Metropolitan Council WASTE WATER SERVICES 311,124.02 7184 600-50-00-448600 Credit Card Fees INVOICE CLOUD APRIL INVOICE AND CC PROCESSING FEES 4,529.88 7264 600-50-00-453000-PW2506 Other Improvements Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2025 CIPP DESIGN SERVICES 126.00 115756 Total Department 50-00 SANITARY SEWER 323,729.16 Total Fund 600 Sanitary Sewer 324,154.90 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 11/20 Page 509 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 610 Water Fund Department: 00-00 GENERAL 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable ADITI & SAYAN BISWAS UB refund for account: 025817-000 0.42 115684 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable ADITI & SAYAN BISWAS UB refund for account: 025817-000 8.10 115684 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable CINDY SHELDON UB refund for account: 009109-000 0.53 115801 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable CINDY SHELDON UB refund for account: 009109-000 10.31 115801 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable DANIEL MEYER UB refund for account: 024179-000 0.48 115680 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable DANIEL MEYER UB refund for account: 024179-000 9.38 115680 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable DAVE MISHLER UB refund for account: 025965-000 3.20 115685 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable DAVE MISHLER UB refund for account: 025965-000 61.82 115685 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable DWAYNE ALBRECHT UB refund for account: 001872-000 151.81 115790 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable ESTATE OF MICHAEL KADE MIL UB refund for account: 000686-000 51.95 115792 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable JASON JEPPESEN UB refund for account: 027212-000 18.73 115789 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable JODY LULICH UB refund for account: 005516-000 0.27 115739 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable JODY LULICH UB refund for account: 005516-000 5.30 115739 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable JOSHUA LEONHARDT UB refund for account: 019285-000 29.57 115687 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable KELSEY & CHARLES ARRINGTON UB refund for account: 023764-000 19.55 115740 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LARRY LEHMANN UB refund for account: 005420-000 0.33 115681 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LARRY LEHMANN UB refund for account: 005420-000 6.47 115681 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LEVI & LEAH ORTMANN UB refund for account: 024981-000 3.88 115799 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LEVI & LEAH ORTMANN UB refund for account: 024981-000 75.46 115799 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LOUISE ARBUCKLE UB refund for account: 018944-000 0.22 115686 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LOUISE ARBUCKLE UB refund for account: 018944-000 2.82 115686 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LOUISE ARBUCKLE UB refund for account: 018944-000 4.26 115686 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable M S RELOCATION SERVICES UB refund for account: 027255-000 0.10 115791 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable M S RELOCATION SERVICES UB refund for account: 027255-000 2.00 115791 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable MAHTOMEDI LLC UB refund for account: 026851-000 181.66 115683 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable NATHAN REKUSKI UB refund for account: 025604-000 0.31 115793 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable NATHAN REKUSKI UB refund for account: 025604-000 5.99 115793 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable NORWOOD INN & SUITES UB refund for account: 007028-001 1,462.93 115738 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable PATRICIA STILLWELL UB refund for account: 001064-000 2.58 115788 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable PATRICIA STILLWELL UB refund for account: 001064-000 50.20 115788 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable PINEWOOD LLC UB refund for account: 027360-000 10.59 115802 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH UB refund for account: 000954-000 2.64 115682 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH UB refund for account: 000954-000 50.96 115682 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable STANLEY WU UB refund for account: 022988-000 0.51 115794 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable STANLEY WU UB refund for account: 022988-000 9.98 115794 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable WALTER J TROJE UB refund for account: 004399-000 0.45 115800 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable WALTER J TROJE UB refund for account: 004399-000 8.66 115800 Total Department 00-00 GENERAL 2,254.42 Department: 51-00 WATER FUND 610-51-00-420000 Office Supplies Innovative Office Solution APRIL OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.73 7198 610-51-00-424000 Operating Supplies Core & Main LP WATER BREAK REPAIR PARTS STOCK 8,341.08 115720 610-51-00-424000 Operating Supplies FERGUSON WATERWORKS #2518 F1-9.39 X 25 CLMP/8X25 REPAIR CLAMP 826.06 7253 610-51-00-424000 Operating Supplies MARTIN MARIETTA MATERIALS, ASPHALT PATCHING MATERIAL 465.89 115630 610-51-00-430000 Professional Services CALIBRATIONS AND CONTROLS CALIBRATIONS ANNUAL BOOSTER STATION S 610.00 7295 610-51-00-430000 Professional Services Gopher State One Call LOCATE TICKETS 4/2026 257.85 7181 610-51-00-430000 Professional Services InfoSend, Inc. APRIL 2026 BILLING 161.52 7288 610-51-00-430000 Professional Services Twin City Water Clinic, In APRIL DISTRIBUTION SAMPLES 680.00 115745 610-51-00-431100 Postage InfoSend, Inc. APRIL 2026 BILLING 413.73 7288 610-51-00-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185476-9 5,175.79 7244 610-51-00-438000 Rental 2277 ROSEVILLE LLC MONTHLY LEASE SPACE PAYMENT 1,823.75 7294 610-51-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE Advanced Engineering & Env WORK ON SCADA LIST FOR LIFT STATIONS, 1,568.00 115767 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 12/20 Page 510 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 610 Water Fund Department: 51-00 WATER FUND 610-51-00-443600 Software Operating Charges Comcast 706 SHRYER - BOOSTER STATION 522.13 115633 610-51-00-444000 St.Paul Water St. Paul Regional Water Se MONTHLY WATER BILL - APRIL 519,229.11 115637 Total Department 51-00 WATER FUND 540,081.64 Total Fund 610 Water Fund 542,336.06 Fund: 620 Golf Course Department: 00-00 GENERAL 620-00-00-209001 Use Tax Payable Xcel Energy 51-5185467-8 (69.20) 7238 Total Department 00-00 GENERAL (69.20) Department: 52-51 CEDARHOLM GOLF COURSE 620-52-51-372000 Green Fees DAVE RISINGER CEDARHOLM PRE-PAID GREEN FEES REFUND 54.75 115784 620-52-51-424000 Operating Supplies FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO. GOLF CART BATTERY 63.71 7179 620-52-51-424000 Operating Supplies Fikes, Inc. RESTROOM SUPPLIES 353.35 7254 620-52-51-424000 Operating Supplies Goodin Corp. MALE ADP, RED BRASS ADAPTER, HEX BUSH 70.83 7180 620-52-51-424000 Operating Supplies MTI Distributing, Inc. FLX HEADS 2,867.50 7185 620-52-51-424000 Operating Supplies Reinders Inc. GRASS SEED AND FERTILIZER 2,212.50 115642 620-52-51-425000 Merchandise for Sale Callaway Golf Company MERCHANDISE FOR SALE 1,976.46 115625 620-52-51-425000 Merchandise for Sale Callaway Golf Company MERCHANDISE FOR SALE 662.40 115625 620-52-51-425000 Merchandise for Sale Callaway Golf Company MERCHANDISE FOR SALE 2,750.46 115689 620-52-51-425000 Merchandise for Sale Callaway Golf Company MERCHANDISE FOR SALE 270.00 115625 620-52-51-425000 Merchandise for Sale Callaway Golf Company MERCHANDISE FOR SALE 261.96 115625 620-52-51-425000 Merchandise for Sale Capitol Beverage Sales, LP ALCOHOL FOR RESALE 326.65 7231 620-52-51-425000 Merchandise for Sale Capitol Beverage Sales, LP ALCOHOL FOR RESALE 223.40 7267 620-52-51-425000 Merchandise for Sale COMPASS GROUP NAD COFFEE FOR RESALE 558.77 115782 620-52-51-430000 Professional Services South-Town Refrigeration REPAIR BEER COOLER 1,430.66 115650 620-52-51-431000 Telephone T Mobile CELL PHONES FOR DEPT ACCT#967323742 34.06 115771 620-52-51-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185467-8 1,075.78 7238 620-52-51-442000 Memberships & Subscription MINNESOTA GOLF ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP 90.00 115702 620-52-51-452000 Vehicles / Equipment MTI Distributing, Inc. TORO BLOWER 11,165.57 7234 Total Department 52-51 CEDARHOLM GOLF COURSE 26,448.81 Total Fund 620 Golf Course 26,379.61 Fund: 640 Storm Drainage Department: 00-00 GENERAL 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable ADITI & SAYAN BISWAS UB refund for account: 025817-000 4.51 115684 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable CINDY SHELDON UB refund for account: 009109-000 5.73 115801 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable DANIEL MEYER UB refund for account: 024179-000 5.21 115680 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable DAVE MISHLER UB refund for account: 025965-000 34.38 115685 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable JODY LULICH UB refund for account: 005516-000 2.95 115739 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LARRY LEHMANN UB refund for account: 005420-000 3.60 115681 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LEVI & LEAH ORTMANN UB refund for account: 024981-000 41.99 115799 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LOUISE ARBUCKLE UB refund for account: 018944-000 2.37 115686 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable M S RELOCATION SERVICES UB refund for account: 027255-000 1.11 115791 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable NATHAN REKUSKI UB refund for account: 025604-000 3.33 115793 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable PATRICIA STILLWELL UB refund for account: 001064-000 27.93 115788 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH UB refund for account: 000954-000 28.37 115682 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable STANLEY WU UB refund for account: 022988-000 5.55 115794 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable WALTER J TROJE UB refund for account: 004399-000 4.82 115800 Total Department 00-00 GENERAL 171.85 Department: 54-00 STORM WATER 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 13/20 Page 511 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 640 Storm Drainage Department: 54-00 STORM WATER 640-54-00-420000 Office Supplies Innovative Office Solution APRIL OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.74 7198 640-54-00-430000 Professional Services Gopher State One Call LOCATE TICKETS 4/2026 257.85 7181 640-54-00-430000 Professional Services InfoSend, Inc. APRIL 2026 BILLING 161.52 7288 640-54-00-430000 Professional Services TimeSaver Off Site Secreta PWET MINUTES 283.50 7284 640-54-00-431100 Postage InfoSend, Inc. APRIL 2026 BILLING 413.73 7288 640-54-00-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185472-5 117.19 7192 640-54-00-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-0012990252-6 21.20 7248 640-54-00-436000 Utilities Xcel Energy 51-5185472-5 935.61 7239 640-54-00-438000 Rental 2277 ROSEVILLE LLC MONTHLY LEASE SPACE PAYMENT 1,823.75 7294 Total Department 54-00 STORM WATER 4,021.09 Total Fund 640 Storm Drainage 4,192.94 Fund: 650 ENVIRONMENTAL Department: 00-00 GENERAL 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable ADITI & SAYAN BISWAS UB refund for account: 025817-000 2.65 115684 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable CINDY SHELDON UB refund for account: 009109-000 3.36 115801 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable DANIEL MEYER UB refund for account: 024179-000 3.06 115680 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable DAVE MISHLER UB refund for account: 025965-000 20.17 115685 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable JODY LULICH UB refund for account: 005516-000 1.73 115739 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LARRY LEHMANN UB refund for account: 005420-000 2.11 115681 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LEVI & LEAH ORTMANN UB refund for account: 024981-000 24.64 115799 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable LOUISE ARBUCKLE UB refund for account: 018944-000 1.39 115686 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable M S RELOCATION SERVICES UB refund for account: 027255-000 0.65 115791 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable NATHAN REKUSKI UB refund for account: 025604-000 1.96 115793 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable PATRICIA STILLWELL UB refund for account: 001064-000 16.40 115788 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH UB refund for account: 000954-000 16.66 115682 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable STANLEY WU UB refund for account: 022988-000 3.26 115794 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable WALTER J TROJE UB refund for account: 004399-000 2.83 115800 Total Department 00-00 GENERAL 100.87 Department: 65-00 SOLID WASTE RECYCLE 650-65-00-424000 Operating Supplies Northstar Maintenance Mana COMPOSTABLE PRODUCTS 499.52 115728 650-65-00-430000 Professional Services Emerge Enterprises, Inc. 2026 CLEAN UP DAY MATTRESSES 820.00 115719 650-65-00-430000 Professional Services Lightning Disposal, Inc. CLEAN UP DAY 8,037.58 115701 650-65-00-430000 Professional Services RETOLD RECYCLING INC 2026 CLEAN UP DAY LINENS 663.80 115670 650-65-00-430000 Professional Services Shred-N-Go, Inc. SHREDDING DAY & ADMIN SHREDDING 4,875.00 115775 650-65-00-430000 Professional Services The Retrofit Companies Inc 2026 CLEAN UP DAY ELECTRONICS 1,474.00 7202 650-65-00-430000 Professional Services WM Corporate Services, Inc RECYCLING SERVICES THRU APRIL 60,037.50 115704 Total Department 65-00 SOLID WASTE RECYCLE 76,407.40 Total Fund 650 ENVIRONMENTAL 76,508.27 Fund: 710 Risk Management Department: 00-00 GENERAL 710-00-00-210503 DENTAL Delta Dental Plan of Minne DENTAL CLAIMS APRIL 2026 10,788.91 7177 710-00-00-210503 DENTAL Delta Dental Plan of Minne DENTAL AMIN FEE APRIL 2026 2,103.83 7177 Total Department 00-00 GENERAL 12,892.74 Department: 61-00 RISK MANAGEMENT 710-61-00-441000 Training U.S. COMPLIANCE, LLC APRIL 600.00 115672 Total Department 61-00 RISK MANAGEMENT 600.00 Total Fund 710 Risk Management 13,492.74 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 14/20 Page 512 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number Fund: 723 Housing & Redevelopment Agency Department: 00-00 GENERAL 723-00-00-119118 Senior Deferred Loans Center for Energy and Envi LOANS AND ADMIN FEE 25,000.00 7287 Total Department 00-00 GENERAL 25,000.00 Total Fund 723 Housing & Redevelopment Agency 25,000.00 Fund: 725 EDA Operating Fund Department: 57-00 EDA - GENERAL 725-57-00-430000 Professional Services TimeSaver Off Site Secreta EDA MINUTES 178.00 7284 725-57-00-430000 Professional Services TimeSaver Off Site Secreta EDA MINUTES 228.75 7284 Total Department 57-00 EDA - GENERAL 406.75 Department: 57-56 EDA - PROGRAM 725-57-56-430000 Professional Services Golden Shovel Agency MARKETING SERVICES 1,050.00 7213 Total Department 57-56 EDA - PROGRAM 1,050.00 Department: 57-73 EDA - OWNERSHIP REHAB PROGRAM 725-57-73-430000 Professional Services Center for Energy and Envi LOANS AND ADMIN FEE 1,600.00 7287 Total Department 57-73 EDA - OWNERSHIP REHAB PROGRAM 1,600.00 Total Fund 725 EDA Operating Fund 3,056.75 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 15/20 Page 513 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number --- TOTALS BY GL DISTRIBUTION --- 100-00-00-210300 State Income Tax 15,248.56 100-00-00-210500 Life Ins. Employee 3,361.96 100-00-00-210502 Employer Life Insurance 678.45 100-00-00-210600 Union Dues Deduction 9,426.40 100-00-00-210900 Long Term Disability 4,567.95 100-00-00-211100 ICMA Def Comp 22,590.62 100-00-00-211101 Mission SQ Roth 800.00 100-00-00-211200 MN Child Support Payments 627.58 100-00-00-211202 HRA Employer 10,790.00 100-01-00-430000 Professional Services 17,988.27 100-01-00-433000 Advertising 397.08 100-02-00-420000 Office Supplies 207.98 100-02-00-430000 Professional Services 86,209.30 100-02-00-430099 Drug Testing 55.37 100-02-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 21,905.20 100-02-00-441100 Tuition Reimbursement 1,500.00 100-02-00-443500 Minor Equipment 1,162.78 100-02-00-448000 Miscellaneous 2,500.00 100-04-00-430000 Professional Services 1,608.47 100-04-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 92,052.00 100-06-00-430000 Professional Services 15,861.30 100-08-00-424000 Operating Supplies 1,399.70 100-10-00-420000 Office Supplies 2,296.10 100-10-00-422000 Clothing 4,235.55 100-10-00-424000 Operating Supplies 12,588.08 100-10-00-424000-PD0002 Operating Supplies 336.00 100-10-00-430000 Professional Services 20,973.39 100-10-00-430000-PD0006 Professional Services 27,500.00 100-10-00-430001 Dispatching Services 39,777.84 100-10-00-430004 Police Explorer Program 848.32 100-10-00-431000 Telephone 6,581.89 100-10-00-437000 Contract Maint. - Vehicles 570.96 100-10-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 2,005.46 100-10-00-440000 Conferences 1,619.73 100-10-00-441000 Training 1,950.00 100-10-00-442000 Memberships & Subscriptions 90.00 100-10-00-442000-PD0006 Memberships & Subscriptions 1,175.10 100-10-00-443500 Minor Equipment 3,133.10 100-10-00-443600 Software Operating Charges 197.00 100-13-00-320700 Rental Licensing 170.00 100-13-00-422000 Clothing 200.00 100-13-00-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 2,325.80 100-13-00-424000 Operating Supplies 3,893.46 100-13-00-430000 Professional Services 8,000.00 100-13-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 7,002.45 100-13-00-441000 Training 375.00 100-13-13-436000 Utilities 3,667.83 100-13-18-436000 Utilities 80.23 100-20-20-420000 Office Supplies 75.00 100-20-20-424000 Operating Supplies 735.58 100-20-20-442000 Memberships & Subscriptions 875.00 100-20-20-443610 METRO-INET IT CHARGES 199.00 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 16/20 Page 514 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number 100-20-21-420000 Office Supplies 6.73 100-20-21-424000 Operating Supplies 5,388.28 100-20-21-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 2,092.00 100-20-22-436000 Utilities 17,788.00 100-20-30-421000 Motor Fuel 18,321.22 100-20-30-422000 Clothing 87.52 100-20-30-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 4,551.78 100-20-30-437000 Contract Maint. - Vehicles 1,151.94 100-23-00-424000 Op Supplies-City Hall 5,065.44 100-23-00-430000 Professional Services 5,864.83 100-23-00-436001 Utilities-City Hall 7,823.95 100-23-00-436003 Utilities-City Garage 2,958.72 100-23-00-439001 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE - CITY HALL 4,073.49 100-23-00-439003 Contract Maint.- City Garage 862.55 100-23-00-439010 Contract Manit. - HVAC 2,758.00 100-23-00-439011 Fiber Maint. & Locates 4,841.08 101-10-00-424014 Shop w/ Cop - Supplies 600.00 103-00-00-230000 Deposits 17,500.00 104-04-00-430000 Professional Services 9,000.00 110-09-00-430000 Professional Services 3,227.05 200-40-40-420000 Office Supplies 47.50 200-40-40-431000 Telephone 255.49 200-40-40-432000 Transportation 271.15 200-40-40-442000 Memberships & Subscriptions 10.61 200-40-40-443500 Minor Equipment 1,651.16 200-40-40-443610 METRO-INET IT CHARGES 600.00 200-40-41-344000-PR0253 Fee Program Revenue 422.19 200-40-41-424000-PR0249 Operating Supplies 365.00 200-40-41-424000-PR0255 Operating Supplies 350.00 200-40-41-424000-PR0290 Operating Supplies 4,092.50 200-40-41-430000-PR0202 Professional Services 1,771.00 200-40-41-430000-PR0210 Professional Services 105.00 200-40-41-430000-PR0212 Professional Services 13,226.00 200-40-41-430000-PR0218 Professional Services 582.40 200-40-41-430000-PR0227 Professional Services 1,716.00 200-40-41-430000-PR0265 Professional Services 1,029.15 200-40-41-430000-PR0270 Professional Services 841.50 200-40-41-430000-PR0273 Professional Services 1,520.00 200-40-41-436000-PR0253 Utilities 1,703.69 200-40-42-424000-PR0101 Operating Supplies 8.10 200-40-42-424000-PR0299 Operating Supplies 189.00 200-40-42-438000 Rental 2,213.50 200-40-42-438000-PR0101 Rental 1,462.50 200-40-50-436000-PR0119 Utilities 645.18 200-40-53-372300 Concession Sales 472.47 200-40-53-420000 Office Supplies 33.00 200-40-53-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 442.50 200-40-53-424000 Operating Supplies 599.94 200-40-53-430000 Professional Services 146.00 200-40-53-430000-PR5504 Professional Services 631.23 200-40-53-436000 Utilities 17,689.36 200-40-53-438000 Rental 33.00 200-40-53-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 430.00 200-40-53-442000 Memberships & Subscriptions 33.04 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 17/20 Page 515 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number 204-40-43-423000 Vehicle Supplies & Maintenance 251.26 204-40-43-424000 Operating Supplies 5,275.32 204-40-43-424000-PR0627 Operating Supplies 3,671.34 204-40-43-430000 Professional Services 23,201.45 204-40-43-430000-PR0400 Professional Services 2,941.50 204-40-43-431000 Telephone 577.78 204-40-43-431000-PR0627 Telephone 35.01 204-40-43-436000 Utilities 5,249.11 221-40-45-430000 Professional Services 250.00 260-00-00-230130-CD1320 Development Escrow 243.75 260-56-17-322000 Technology Fee 5.10 260-56-17-420000 Office Supplies 38.40 260-56-17-430007 Electrical Inspections 11,881.76 260-56-17-431000 Telephone 38.39 260-56-17-443500 Minor Equipment 581.39 260-56-57-420000 Office Supplies 48.30 260-56-57-430000 Professional Services 372.25 260-56-57-433000 Advertising 68.68 260-56-57-443500 Minor Equipment 2,297.26 265-05-00-420000 Office Supplies 138.19 265-05-00-424000 Operating Supplies 284.04 265-05-00-430000 Professional Services 564.36 265-05-00-432000 Transportation 357.43 265-05-00-436000 Utilities 638.93 265-05-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 4,500.00 265-05-00-443500 Minor Equipment 1,904.29 265-05-00-448000 Miscellaneous 157.30 400-10-00-452000 Vehicles / Equipment 53,820.37 400-10-00-453000 Other Improvements 13,089.38 401-13-00-453000 Other Improvements 1,250.67 404-04-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 3,911.80 408-20-20-438000 Rental 16,000.00 409-08-00-438100 Rental-Copier Machines 4,094.78 409-08-00-438101 Postage Meter 332.00 410-23-00-453000-PW2620 Other Improvements 2,301.83 410-40-53-453000 Other Improvements 13,900.00 411-40-40-430000-PR0401 Professional Services 7,105.00 411-40-40-430000-PR2601 Professional Services 140,760.00 411-40-40-453000-PR2318 Recreation Improvements 9,450.00 411-40-40-453000-PR2334 Recreation Improvements 11,675.00 411-40-43-430000-PR2602 Professional Services 18,152.52 413-20-00-430000 Professional Services 91,070.30 414-05-00-430000 Professional Services 45,817.77 417-20-20-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 6,304.00 600-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable 425.74 600-50-00-420000 Office Supplies 6.73 600-50-00-424000 Operating Supplies 466.87 600-50-00-430000 Professional Services 1,659.36 600-50-00-431100 Postage 413.73 600-50-00-436000 Utilities 1,820.02 600-50-00-438000 Rental 1,823.75 600-50-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 1,758.80 600-50-00-445000 Metro Waste Control Board 311,124.02 600-50-00-448600 Credit Card Fees 4,529.88 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 18/20 Page 516 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number 600-50-00-453000-PW2506 Other Improvements 126.00 610-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable 2,254.42 610-51-00-420000 Office Supplies 6.73 610-51-00-424000 Operating Supplies 9,633.03 610-51-00-430000 Professional Services 1,709.37 610-51-00-431100 Postage 413.73 610-51-00-436000 Utilities 5,175.79 610-51-00-438000 Rental 1,823.75 610-51-00-439000 CONTRACT MAINTENANCE 1,568.00 610-51-00-443600 Software Operating Charges 522.13 610-51-00-444000 St.Paul Water 519,229.11 620-00-00-209001 Use Tax Payable (69.20) 620-52-51-372000 Green Fees 54.75 620-52-51-424000 Operating Supplies 5,567.89 620-52-51-425000 Merchandise for Sale 7,030.10 620-52-51-430000 Professional Services 1,430.66 620-52-51-431000 Telephone 34.06 620-52-51-436000 Utilities 1,075.78 620-52-51-442000 Memberships & Subscriptions 90.00 620-52-51-452000 Vehicles / Equipment 11,165.57 640-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable 171.85 640-54-00-420000 Office Supplies 6.74 640-54-00-430000 Professional Services 702.87 640-54-00-431100 Postage 413.73 640-54-00-436000 Utilities 1,074.00 640-54-00-438000 Rental 1,823.75 650-00-00-202000 Accounts Payable 100.87 650-65-00-424000 Operating Supplies 499.52 650-65-00-430000 Professional Services 75,907.88 710-00-00-210503 DENTAL 12,892.74 710-61-00-441000 Training 600.00 723-00-00-119118 Senior Deferred Loans 25,000.00 725-57-00-430000 Professional Services 406.75 725-57-56-430000 Professional Services 1,050.00 725-57-73-430000 Professional Services 1,600.00 --- TOTALS BY FUND --- 100 General Fund 548,052.37 101 General Fund Donations 600.00 103 Contracted Engineering Svcs 17,500.00 104 Accounting Services 9,000.00 110 Telecommunications 3,227.05 200 Recreation Fund 55,589.16 204 PARK MAINTENANCE 41,202.77 221 Municipal Jazz Band 250.00 260 Community Development 15,575.28 265 License Center 8,544.54 400 Equipment Revolving 66,909.75 401 Fire Equipment 1,250.67 404 Finance Equipment Revolving 3,911.80 408 Pathway Maintenance Fund 16,000.00 409 CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 4,426.78 410 GENERAL FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND 16,201.83 411 Recreation Improvements 187,142.52 413 MAINTENANCE FACILITY 91,070.30 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 19/20 Page 517 of 558 INVOICE DISTRIBUTION REPORT FOR CITY OF ROSEVILLE GL # Invoice Check GL Number Line Desc Vendor Name Description Amount Number 414 PASSPORT / LICENSE CENTER 45,817.77 417 STREETSCAPE 6,304.00 600 Sanitary Sewer 324,154.90 610 Water Fund 542,336.06 620 Golf Course 26,379.61 640 Storm Drainage 4,192.94 650 ENVIRONMENTAL 76,508.27 710 Risk Management 13,492.74 723 Housing & Redevelopment Agency 25,000.00 725 EDA Operating Fund 3,056.75 Total For All Funds: 2,153,697.86 06/03/2026 11:38 AM Page: 20/20 Page 518 of 558 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6/8/2026 Item No.: 10.b. Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve General Purchases Exceeding $10,000 or Sale of Surplus Items 1 2 Background 3 City Code section 103.05 establishes the requirement that all general purchases or contracts in excess 4 of $10,000 be separately approved by the City Council, independent of the budget process or other 5 statutory purchasing requirements. In addition, State Statutes generally require the Council to authorize 6 the sale of surplus vehicles and equipment. Attachment 1 includes a list of items submitted for Council 7 review and approval. 8 9 Staff will note that, unless noted otherwise, all items contained in this report were previously identified 10 and included in the adopted budget or Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) submitted for Council review 11 during the most recent budget cycle. This information package included a CIP Project/Initiative summary 12 which identified the type of purchase, estimated cost, funding source, and other supporting narrative. 13 Where applicable, these project/initiative summaries are included with Attachment 2. 14 15 16 Policy Objectives 17 Required under City Code 103.05. 18 19 20 Equity Impact Summary 21 Payments to vendors contribute to the local economy by supporting businesses within the community, 22 including those owned by people of color. Ensuring equitable distribution of contracts and payments 23 among vendors, particularly minority-owned businesses, can help promote economic equity. This 24 supports broader goals of reducing racial economic disparities as well as Roseville's aspiration to be a 25 community that is economically prosperous with a stable and broad tax base and vibrant small 26 businesses. 27 28 29 Budget Implications 30 Funding for all items is provided for in the current budget or through pre-funded capital replacement 31 funds. 32 33 34 Staff Recommendations 35 Staff recommends the City Council approve the submitted purchases or contracts for service and, where 36 applicable, authorize the sale/trade-in of surplus items. Page 1 of 2 Page 519 of 55837 38 39 Requested Council Action 40 Motion to approve the submitted purchases or contracts for services and, where applicable; the 41 sale/trade-in of surplus items. 42 43 44 Prepared by: Phil Weix - Assistant Finance Director Attachments: 1. Over $10,000 Items for Purchase or Sale_Trade-In 45 Page 2 of 2 Page 520 of 558 Attachment 1: Over $10,000 Items for Purchase or Sale/Trade-in General Purchases or Contracts Budget P.O. Budget / Division Vendor Description Key Amount Amount CIP Public Works (Streets) Sir-Lines-A-Lot 2026 Centerline Striping (a) $ 25,000 $ 30,232 2026 Operating Police Baycom, Inc Squad Computer Replacements (b) $ 150,000 $ 134,672 2026 CIP Key Sir-Lines-A-Lot was the only contractor of four to respond to the City's RFQ with a quote to paint 267,538 LF of streets as part of the 2026 Annual Contractual Pavement Painting. This is part of the 2026 operating budget in the streets department (a) which budgeted $25,000 for centerline painting. The request is overbudget due to lack of bids and rising costs. There is an additional $5,000 in the budget for pavement contractors which will be used to help cover the additional costs. This request is for the purchase of 38 new squad computers to replace the current 30 aging units. The Police Department maintains a scheduled technology replacement program to ensure staff have secure, reliable, and efficient equipment necessary to support operations and public service. 30 of the 32 current units were purchased in 2020 and have reached their maximum life. Due to the increase in staffing over the last 5 years, 8 additional computers will be purchased to bring (b) the total to 40. The cost will be $134,672 for the 38 replacements. This is part of the 2026 CIP budget where there is $150,000 budgeted. The remaining budget will be used for 8 additional IT management licenses needed at $1,100 per license. There will also be additional expenses for extra computer mounts. The total will fall just below the budgeted $150,000 amount. Page 521 of 558 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6/8/2026 Item No.: 10.c. Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve 2026-2027 Business License Renewals 1 2 Background 3 Chapter 301 of the City Code requires all applications for business and other license 4 renewals be submitted to the City Council for approval. The City has received renewal 5 applications for the businesses listed on Attachment 1 for the 2026-2027 license year. The 6 number of applications submitted are: 7 8 24 Cigarette/Tobacco Products Licenses 9 4 Age Restricted Cigarette/Tobacco Products Licenses 10 2 Private Gas Pump Licenses 11 16 Gas Station Licenses 12 23 Massage Therapy Establishment Licenses 13 4 Veterinary Examination Licenses 14 15 The following businesses have had violations in the past 2 years. The appropriate 16 administrative fines have been paid. 17 -Noble Tobacco, 1681 Rice St #105. Tobacco Failure on 3/29/2025 18 -Speedway, 2295 Rice St. Tobacco Failure on 3/29/2025 19 -Holiday, 1215 Larpenteur Ave W. Tobacco Failure on 10/12/2024 and 3/29/2025 20 21 Policy Objectives 22 Required by City Code. 23 24 Equity Impact Summary 25 There is no anticipated racial equity impact. 26 27 Budget Implications 28 The correct fees were paid to the City at the time the applications were made. 29 30 Staff Recommendations 31 Staff has reviewed the applications and has determined that the applicants listed on 32 Attachment 1 meet all City requirements. Staff recommends approval of the licenses 33 pending any outstanding items. 34 35 Requested Council Action Page 1 of 2 Page 522 of 55836 Motion to approve the business license renewals listed on Attachment 1, pending receipt of 37 any outstanding items. 38 39 Prepared by: Allie Sertich, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: 1. Bench Handout 4 - Updated 2026 Business License Renewal Requests 6-8-26 40 Page 2 of 2 Page 523 of 558 Attachment 1 Bench Handout 4 Item 10.c June 8, 2026 Cigarette/Tobacco Products License Rosedale BP B-Dale Corner Store Jade Inc. Murphy Petro Inc. 2441 Fairview Ave N 2164 Dale St Roseville Marathon Chuchao Liquor DMTS, LLC Kong Mong Liquor 2216 County Rd D W 700 County Rd B W Roseville Winner Clark #2376 Rod Petroleum Inc. Hule Co 2163 N. Snelling Ave 2719 Lexington Ave Speedway #4115 Cub Foods #6694 Northern Tier Retail LLC Jerry’s Enterprise, Inc 2785 N. Hamline Ave 1201 Larpenteur Ave Speedway #4210 Cub Stores Holdings, LLC Northern Tier Retail LLC dba Cub Wine & Spirits 2172 Lexington Ave 2100 Snelling Ave #42 Speedway #4502 Cub Stores Holdings, LLC Northern Tier Retail LLC dba Cub Foods 2380 W. County Rd D 2100 Snelling Ave Speedway #4520 Grab N Go Northern Tier Retail LLC Rodit & Company Inc. 2295 Rice St 1595 Highway 36 West #602 Speedway #7030 Holiday Northern Tier Retail LLC Holiday Stationstores, LLC 2151 N Dale Street 1583 W County Rd C Top Ten Liquors Holiday Yayin Gadol, LLC Holiday Gas 2021, LLC 1611 County Rd C W 1215 Larpenteur Ave. W Total Wine & More MGM Liquor Minnesota Fine Wines & Spirits LLC Spirits and More, LLC 2401 Fairview Ave N Suite 105 1149 Larpenteur Ave W Tri-City BP Quickmart LLC S&Z Inc 2815 Rice St 3110 Cleveland Ave N Page 524 of 558Walgreens #15560 2700 Lincoln Drive Roseville Winner Rod Petroleum Walgreens #13685 2163 N. Snelling Ave 2635 Rice St Age Restricted Cigarette/Tobacco Products License Discount Smoke Shop/Roseville Smoke Shop Inc Speedway #4115 2113 Snelling Ave N Northern Tier Retail LLC 2785 N. Hamline Ave Noble Tobacco, LLC 1681 Rice St Speedway #4210 Northern Tier Retail LLC Roseville Tobacconist Cigars & E-Cigs 2172 Lexington Ave 2217 Snelling Ave N Speedway #4502 Roseville Smoke Shop Inc. Northern Tier Retail LLC 1732 Lexington Ave N 2380 W. County Rd D Gas Pumps – Private License Speedway #4520 Midland Hills Country Club Northern Tier Retail LLC 2001 Fulham Street 2295 Rice St Ryder Truck Rental Speedway #7030 Ryder Systems, Inc. Northern Tier Retail LLC 2580 Long Lake Rd 2151 N Dale Street Gasoline Station License Tom’s Mobile Service B-Dale Corner Store 1935 Rice ST Murphy Petro Inc. 2164 Dale St Tri-City BP S&Z Inc Clark #2376 3110 Cleveland Ave N 2719 Lexington Ave Troy’s Corner Auto Care Holiday Troy’s Automotive, LLC Holiday Stationstores, LLC 2171 Hamline Ave N 1583 W County Rd C Massage Therapy Establishment License Holiday AA Massage Holiday Gas 2021, LLC 696 County Road B W 1215 Larpenteur Ave. W Ataraxis Massage and Wellness Quickmart LLC 2353 Rice St. #130 2815 Rice St Birch Tree Bodywork, LLC Rosedale BP 2499 Rice St. #71 Jade Inc. 2441 Fairview Ave N Elements Massage 2100 Snelling Ave N, #66B Roseville Marathon DMTS, LLC Emphasis Skin and Body 2216 County Rd D W 3101 Old Highway 8 NW #201 Page 525 of 558 Grace Healed Me Veterinarian Examination & Inoculation Center 2353 Rice St #105 License Como Park Animal Hospital Healing Shores Reiki & Massage LLC 621 Larpenteur Ave W 2332 Lexington Ave N Petco #602 HeartSpark! Bodywork for the Mind & Spirit 2575 N. Fairview Ave 2201 Lexington Ave N #101 St. Francis Animal & Bird Hospital Juut Salon Spa VetCore of Minnesota 1641 County Rd C 1227 Larpenteur Ave W 1235 Larpenteur Ave W Massage by Jennifer 2191 Snelling Ave N Suburban Animal Hospital 2581 Cleveland Ave N Massage Xcape 1767 Lexington Ave N New Dragon Acupressure Massage 509 Rosedale Center, Space 698 Optimal Wellness Wave, LLC 2489 Rice St #130 Oriental Lake Spa 2216 County Rd D W, Suite F Red Clover Clinic 2233 Hamline Ave N, #433 Restora Massage 2353 Rice St. Steiner Naturopathy 2353 Rice St, #208 Sunshine Spa 1315 Larpenteur Ave W, Suite J Tang Massage 2585 Hamline Ave N, Suite C Terrassage Body Works, Inc. 1721 County Rd B2 W #106 Woodhouse Spa Rosedale 1595 Highway 36 W #945 Yun Massage 1736 Lexington Ave N Zen Asian Spa 2334 Lexington Ave N Page 526 of 558 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6/8/2026 Item No.: 10.d. Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve the Transfer of the Massage Establishment License for Yun Wellness LLC dba Yun Massage from Xiaoyun Tian to Ryan Marston 1 2 Background 3 Chapter 301 of the City Code requires all applications for business and other licenses to be submitted to 4 the City Council for approval. The following applications are submitted for consideration: 5 6 Massage Therapy Establishment License 7 Yun Wellness, LLC 8 1736 Lexington Ave N 9 Roseville, MN 55113 10 11 Ryan Marston has submitted an application for an existing Massage Therapy Establishment located at 12 1736 Lexington Ave N. The LLC "Yun Wellness LLC" has been transferred to his name (previously 13 under Xiaoyun Tian, his spouse, and the current license holder for Yun Massage). 14 15 Policy Objectives 16 Required by City Code. 17 18 Equity Impact Summary 19 There is no anticipated racial equity impact. 20 21 Budget Implications 22 The correct fees were paid to the City at the time the application(s) were made. 23 24 Staff Recommendations 25 Staff has reviewed the application(s) and have determined that the applicant(s) meet all City 26 requirements. Staff recommends approval of the license transfer for Yun Wellness, LLC. 27 28 Requested Council Action 29 Motion to approve the Massage Therapy Establishment license transfer for Yun Wellness, LLC. 30 31 Prepared by: Allie Sertich Attachments: 1. Yun Wellness LLC Application and LLC Transfer_Redacted 32 Page 1 of 1 Page 527 of 558Page 528 of 558Page 529 of 558Page 530 of 558Page 531 of 558Page 532 of 558Page 533 of 558 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6/8/2026 Item No.: 10.e. Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety for 2026 Pathways to Policing Grant Funds 1 2 Background 3 For many years, the Roseville Police Department (RPD) has taken proactive measures to recruit, hire, 4 and retain highly qualified candidates. As part of this effort, RPD works to broaden its applicant pool and 5 reduce barriers to entry into the profession, recognizing that attracting candidates from non-traditional 6 backgrounds continues to be a challenge. The department values candidates who bring a wide range of 7 life experiences, skills, and perspectives that strengthen service delivery and enhance connections with 8 the community. 9 Since 2019, the Roseville City Council has authorized RPD to apply for and accept funding through the 10 Minnesota Department of Public Safety’s Pathways to Policing Program. Over multiple grant cycles, 11 RPD has successfully secured and utilized Pathways funding to reduce financial barriers for aspiring 12 officers. These funds have supported tuition, books, equipment, and educational expenses for 13 Community Service Officers (part-time) and Cadet Officers (full-time) pursuing Minnesota Peace Officer 14 licensure. 15 On March 16, 2026, the City Council authorized RPD to apply for additional Pathways to Policing grant 16 funding for the 2026–2027 grant cycle. RPD has now been awarded $50,000 through the Minnesota 17 Department of Public Safety Pathways to Policing Program for the grant period beginning in summer 18 2026 through June 30, 2027. 19 The awarded funds will support two candidates at up to $25,000 each to assist with tuition, salary, 20 equipment, fringe benefits, and other educational expenses associated with completing the Skills 21 program and becoming eligible for Minnesota POST licensure as a peace officer. 22 Recruitment and retention continue to be significant challenges for law enforcement agencies 23 nationwide. Attracting candidates into the profession, particularly individuals from non-traditional 24 backgrounds, remains increasingly difficult. The Pathways to Policing program helps offset financial 25 barriers and supports the development of qualified future officers. 26 By maintaining access to Pathways funding, RPD can continue supporting CSOs and Cadets in 27 achieving licensure and transitioning into full-time sworn positions. In addition to investing in current 28 employees, the availability of tuition and educational assistance serves as a valuable recruitment tool for 29 the CSO and Cadet programs, which are critical components of the department’s long-term hiring 30 strategy. Like many law enforcement agencies, RPD has experienced ongoing challenges not only in 31 hiring licensed officers, but also in recruiting qualified candidates for CSO and Cadet roles. Offering 32 educational support through the Pathways program enhances the competitiveness of these positions, 33 particularly for candidates who may face financial barriers to pursuing a law enforcement career. 34 Strengthening this pipeline helps ensure a sustainable, high-quality applicant pool for future sworn 35 vacancies. Page 1 of 3 Page 534 of 55836 The City Attorney has reviewed the contract. 37 38 39 Policy Objectives 40 Acceptance of the Pathways to Policing grant funds supports the City’s strategic priorities related to both 41 Responsive Services and Safety and City Operations. This grant aligns with the Responsive Services 42 and Safety strategic priority to develop and implement a prioritized multi-year resource allocation 43 strategy and structure to ensure people, resources, training, and technology are in place to respond to 44 the needs of the community. One of the identified success indicators within this strategic priority is that 45 grant funding contributes to improved resources and organizational capacity. The Pathways to Policing 46 grant directly supports this objective by helping fund the recruitment, development, and training of future 47 police officers while strengthening the department’s long-term staffing pipeline. 48 The grant opportunity also advances the City Operations strategic goal that the City attracts and retains 49 a diverse and innovative group of employees who support the mission, vision, and values of the strategic 50 plan. By reducing financial barriers associated with peace officer education and supporting internal 51 career pathways for Community Service Officers and Cadets, the City enhances recruitment and 52 retention efforts while building a sustainable workforce prepared to meet the evolving needs of the 53 community. 54 55 56 Equity Impact Summary 57 The Pathways to Policing program promotes equity by addressing financial barriers that can limit access 58 to careers in law enforcement. The cost of peace officer education, including tuition, books, equipment, 59 and training expenses, can present significant obstacles to entry into the profession. 60 By providing educational and employment-related support to Community Service Officers and Cadet 61 Officers, RPD creates meaningful opportunities for individuals who may not otherwise be able to pursue 62 licensure. This program helps cultivate a workforce that reflects a broad range of experiences and 63 perspectives representative of the community. 64 Increasing representation and expanding access to the profession strengthens cultural competency, 65 enhances relationships with diverse populations, and improves the department’s ability to deliver fair, 66 inclusive, and responsive public safety services. 67 68 69 Budget Implications 70 The Minnesota Department of Public Safety awarded RPD $50,000 in Pathways to Policing grant 71 funding for the period beginning in summer 2026 through June 30, 2027. 72 The grant will fund two candidates at up to $25,000 each for tuition, salary, equipment, fringe benefits, 73 and related educational expenses associated with completing the Skills program and obtaining 74 Minnesota POST eligibility. 75 A one-to-one local match is required. The required match is already incorporated into the Police 76 Department’s adopted budget through existing Cadet and Community Service Officer salaries, tuition 77 reimbursement allocations, and training expenditures. As a result, there is no additional budgetary 78 impact to the City. 79 80 Page 2 of 3 Page 535 of 55881 Staff Recommendations 82 Staff recommends the City Council accept the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Pathways to 83 Policing grant funds. 84 85 Requested Council Action 86 Motion to accept $50,000 in grant funding from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Pathways to 87 Policing Program for the grant period beginning in summer 2026 through June 30, 2027. 88 89 Prepared by: Erika Scheider, Chief of Police Attachments: 1. Pathways to Policing Grant Contract 90 Page 3 of 3 Page 536 of 558 Attachment 1 Grant Contract Agreement Page 1 of 3 Minnesota Department of Public Safety ("State") Grant Program: 2026 Pathways to Policing Grant Minnesota Office of Justice Programs 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 2300 Grant Contract Agreement No.: A-PTP-2026-ROSEVLCI- Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 022 Grantee: Grant Contract Agreement Term: Roseville, City of Effective Date: 6/1/2026 2660 Civic Center Dr Expiration Date: 6/30/2027 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55113 Grantee's Authorized Representative: Grant Contract Agreement Amount: Roseville, City of Original Agreement Amount $ 50,000.00 Attn: Sarah Mahmud, Police Services Manager 2660 Civic Center Dr Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Grant Matching Requirement: Phone: (651) 792-7205 Original Agreement Match Amount $ 50,000.00 Email: sarah.mahmud@cityofroseville.com State's Authorized Representative: Federal Funding CFDA/ALN: N/A Minnesota Office of Justice Programs Attn: Kristin Lail, Grants Administrator FAIN: N/A 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 2300 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 State Funding: Minnesota Session Laws of 2025, Chapter Phone: (651) 230-3358 35, Article 2, Section 3, Subdivision 7 Email: kristin.lail@state.mn.us Special Conditions: Attached and incorporated into this grant contract agreement. See Exhibit B. Under Minn. Stat. § 299A.01, Subd 2 (4) the State is empowered to enter into this grant contract agreement. Term: Per Minn. Stat.§16B.98, Subd. 5, the Grantee must not begin work until this grant contract agreement is fully executed and the State's Authorized Representative has notified the Grantee that work may commence. Per Minn.Stat.§16B.98 Subd. 7, no payments will be made to the Grantee until this grant contract agreement is fully executed. Once this grant contract agreement is fully executed, the Grantee may claim reimbursement for expenditures incurred pursuant to the Payment clause of this grant contract agreement. Reimbursements will only be made for those expenditures made according to the terms of this grant contract agreement. Expiration date is the date shown above or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will: Perform and accomplish such purposes and activities as specified herein and in the Grantee's approved 2026 Pathways to Policing Grant Application ("Application") which is incorporated by reference into this grant contract agreement and on file with the State at 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 2300, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55101. The Grantee shall also comply with all requirements referenced in the 2026 Pathways to Policing Grant Guidelines and Application which includes the Terms and Conditions and Grant Program Guidelines (https://mndps.intelligrants.com), which are incorporated by reference into this grant contract agreement. Budget Revisions: The breakdown of costs of the Grantee's Budget is contained in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated into this grant contract agreement. As stated in the Grantee's Application and Grant Program Guidelines, the Grantee will submit a written change request for any substitution of budget items or any deviation and in accordance with the Grant Program Guidelines. Requests must be approved prior to any expenditure by the Grantee. Matching Requirements: (If applicable.) As stated in the Grantee's Application, the Grantee certifies that the matching requirement will be met by the Grantee. Payment: As stated in the Grantee's Application and Grant Program Guidance, the State will promptly pay the Grantee after the Grantee presents an invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services and in accordance with the Grant Program Guidelines. Payment will not be made if the Grantee has not satisfied reporting requirements. DPS Grant Contract Agreement Non-State (rev. March 2024) Page 537 of 558 Grant Contract Agreement Page 2 of 3 Certification Regarding Lobbying: (If applicable.) Grantees receiving federal funds over $100,000.00 must complete and return the Certification Regarding Lobbying form provided by the State to the Grantee. DPS Grant Contract Agreement Non-State (rev. March 2024) Page 538 of 558 Grant Contract Agreement Page 3 of 3 1. ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION 3. STATE AGENCY Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as Signed: required by Minn. Stat. § 16A.15. (with delegated authority) Signed: Title: Date: Date: Grant Contract Agreement No./P.O. No.: A-PTP-2026-ROSEVLCI-022 / 3-112167 NHTSA Project Number (indicate N/A if not applicable): N/A 2. GRANTEE The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant contract agreement on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances. Signed: Print Name: Title: Date: Signed: Print Name: Title: Date: Signed: Print Name: Title: Date: DPS Grant Contract Agreement Non-State (rev. March 2024) Page 539 of 558 Grant Contract Agreement Exhibit A Budget Summary Budget Category: Equipment Line Item Description State Match Cadet 1 and Cadet 2 Equipment $4,005.56 $4,005.56 Category Total $4,005.56 $4,005.56 Budget Category: Salaries Line Item Description State Match Cadet 1 and Cadet 2 Salaries $26,907.84 $26,907.84 Category Total $26,907.84 $26,907.84 Budget Category: Travel and Training Line Item Description State Match Cadet 1 and Cadet 2 Tuition and Expenses $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Category Total $12,000.00 $12,000.00 Budget Category: Fringe Benefits Line Item Description State Match Cadet 1 and Cadet 2 Fringe Benefits $7,086.60 $7,086.60 Category Total $7,086.60 $7,086.60 Budget Total $50,000.00 $50,000.00 DPS Grant Contract Agreement Non-State (rev. March 2024) Page 540 of 558 Grant Contract Agreement Exhibit B Special Conditions $25,000.00 is available from June 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. $25,000.00 is available from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027. DPS Grant Contract Agreement Non-State (rev. March 2024) Page 541 of 558 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6/8/2026 Item No.: 10.f. Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve Agreement with Department of Public Safety for Funding through the 2027-2029 Auto Theft Prevention Program 1 2 Background 3 On February 23, 2026, the City Council authorized the Roseville Police Department (RPD) to apply for 4 grant funding through the Minnesota Automobile Theft Prevention Program administered by the 5 Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. The program provides funding to support prevention, 6 investigation, response, and prosecution efforts related to automobile theft and associated crimes. 7 8 RPD was recently notified that it was awarded the maximum available funding amount of $309,000 over 9 a three-year period for continuation of the department’s dedicated auto theft investigator position. The 10 grant period runs from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029, and provides reimbursement of up to 11 $100,000 annually toward salary and fringe benefits, along with up to $3,000 annually for training 12 expenses. The program is highly competitive, and of the agencies statewide that qualified to apply 13 based on auto theft-related statistics, only 13 investigator positions were funded. 14 15 Since 2021, RPD has utilized this funding to maintain an embedded Community Action Team (CAT) 16 investigator dedicated exclusively to auto theft and auto-related crimes. In addition to investigating stolen 17 vehicle cases and recovering stolen vehicles, the investigator handles related crimes including catalytic 18 converter thefts, identity theft and fraud involving vehicle dealerships and repair shops, and 19 sophisticated organized groups involved in “re-VIN’ing” vehicles and bypassing electronic ignition 20 systems. 21 22 The position has also strengthened regional coordination and intelligence sharing with neighboring 23 jurisdictions and statewide partners. As a first-ring suburb located between Minneapolis and St. Paul, 24 Roseville frequently experiences criminal activity that quickly crosses city boundaries. The dedicated 25 investigator has helped ensure proactive collaboration with other agencies, allowing RPD to identify 26 crime trends, pursue organized offenders, and prevent Roseville from becoming a gap in metro-area 27 enforcement efforts. These collaborative efforts have contributed to reductions in auto thefts and related 28 crimes across the region. 29 30 RPD has experienced declines in motor vehicle thefts in recent years. Similar decreases have also 31 occurred in other auto-related crimes, including catalytic converter thefts. While multiple factors have 32 likely contributed to these reductions, the proactive and collaborative work of the dedicated auto theft 33 investigator has played an important role through focused investigations, public education, intelligence 34 sharing, offender identification, and coordinated enforcement efforts. 35 36 37 38 39 Page 1 of 3 Page 542 of 55840 Auto Theft and Recovered Stolen Vehicles Reported to RPD Year Auto Thefts Carjackings Recovered Stolen Vehicles 2023 138 0 91 2024 115 4 60 2025 83 2 56 41 Without a dedicated investigator assigned to these cases, many auto theft and related offenses would 42 be difficult to investigate due to the existing caseloads carried by other detectives. The position allows 43 RPD to prioritize investigative follow-up, pursue leads that may otherwise go unaddressed, support 44 victims, coordinate with prosecutors, recover stolen vehicles, and disrupt organized criminal activity 45 impacting Roseville and surrounding communities. 46 47 Acceptance of this grant will allow RPD to continue the existing grant-funded CAT auto theft investigator 48 position for an additional three years. The current grant expires June 30, 2026, and this funding would 49 extend the position through June 30, 2029. This does not create a new position, but instead sustains an 50 established and effective investigative resource that has become an important component of RPD’s 51 regional crime reduction efforts. 52 53 The grant agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney. 54 55 Policy Objectives 56 Acceptance of the Minnesota Automobile Theft Prevention Program grant directly aligns with the City’s 57 Responsive Services and Safety strategic goal and supports the desired impact of ensuring services 58 remain responsive to ongoing needs, keeping the community safe and secure, and positively impacting 59 residents’ quality of life. 60 Continuation of the dedicated auto theft investigator position helps ensure the resources are in place to 61 effectively respond to evolving crime trends and community needs. This proactive approach strengthens 62 RPD’s ability to prevent crime, support victims, and enhance overall public safety while demonstrating 63 responsible stewardship through the use of external funding opportunities. 64 65 This grant also aligns with the City’s success indicator of pursuing and obtaining grants and other 66 outside funding sources to enhance services and improve public safety resources. By securing 67 competitive state grant funding, RPD is able to sustain critical investigative capabilities and regional 68 partnerships without creating additional financial burden on the City’s general fund. 69 70 71 Equity Impact Summary 72 Automobile theft affects community members across all demographics; however, the impacts can be 73 especially significant for historically disadvantaged populations who may face greater barriers to 74 recovery after a loss. Reliable transportation is often essential for maintaining employment, accessing 75 healthcare, attending school, securing childcare, and meeting daily needs. When a vehicle is stolen, the 76 disruption can jeopardize economic stability, limit access to critical services, and increase personal 77 stress. 78 Individuals with fewer support systems, limited mobility options, or inflexible work schedules may 79 experience compounded challenges following a theft. For some residents, replacing a vehicle or 80 navigating insurance processes may not be immediately possible. Page 2 of 3 Page 543 of 558 81 Maintaining a dedicated auto theft investigator supports a comprehensive approach to prevention, 82 investigation, victim assistance, and community education. These efforts help reduce victimization and 83 improve access to resources. 84 85 86 Budget Implications 87 The grant award totals $309,000 over three years, providing reimbursement of up to $103,000 annually, 88 including up to $100,000 per year toward salary and fringe benefits and up to $3,000 per year for 89 training expenses. 90 As in prior years, any salary or benefit expenses exceeding the annual grant amount would be the 91 responsibility of the City. The Police Department’s operating budget can absorb costs above the grant 92 amount for the second half of 2026. Any additional expenses for future years would be incorporated into 93 the department’s annual operating budget requests. 94 There is no obligation for the City to continue funding the position following the expiration of the grant. 95 96 97 Staff Recommendations 98 Staff recommends accepting the Minnesota Automobile Theft Prevention Program grant award 99 administered by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension in the amount of $309,000 for the 100 period of July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029. 101 102 Requested Council Action 103 Approve acceptance of the Minnesota Automobile Theft Prevention Program grant award. 104 105 Prepared by: Erika Scheider, Chief of Police Attachments: 1. 2026 Auto Theft Prevention Grant Contract 106 Page 3 of 3 Page 544 of 558 Attachment 1 Grant Contract Agreement Page 1 of 3 Minnesota Department of Public Safety ("State") Grant Program: 2027-2029 Auto Theft Prevention Program Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Dedicated Investigator Grant Provider Org 1430 Maryland Ave E Grant Contract Agreement No.: A-ATPP-2027-ROSEVLCI- St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 006 Grantee: Grant Contract Agreement Term: Roseville, City of Effective Date: 7/1/2026 2660 Civic Center Dr Expiration Date: 6/30/2029 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55113 Grantee's Authorized Representative: Grant Contract Agreement Amount: Roseville, City of Original Agreement Amount $ 309,000.00 Attn: Sarah Mahmud, Police Services Manager 2660 Civic Center Dr Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Grant Matching Requirement: Phone: (651) 792-7205 Original Agreement Match Amount $ 0.00 Email: sarah.mahmud@cityofroseville.com State's Authorized Representative: Federal Funding CFDA/ALN: N/A Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Provider Org FAIN: N/A Attn: Chris Huhn, Supervisory Special Agent 1430 Maryland Ave E State Funding: 65B.84 St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 Phone: Special Conditions: N/A Email: chris.huhn@state.mn.us Under Minn. Stat. § 299A.01, Subd 2 (4) the State is empowered to enter into this grant contract agreement. Term: Per Minn. Stat.§16B.98, Subd. 5, the Grantee must not begin work until this grant contract agreement is fully executed and the State's Authorized Representative has notified the Grantee that work may commence. Per Minn.Stat.§16B.98 Subd. 7, no payments will be made to the Grantee until this grant contract agreement is fully executed. Once this grant contract agreement is fully executed, the Grantee may claim reimbursement for expenditures incurred pursuant to the Payment clause of this grant contract agreement. Reimbursements will only be made for those expenditures made according to the terms of this grant contract agreement. Expiration date is the date shown above or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will: Perform and accomplish such purposes and activities as specified herein and in the Grantee's approved 2027-2029 Auto Theft Prevention Program Dedicated Investigator Grant Application ("Application") which is incorporated by reference into this grant contract agreement and on file with the State at 1430 Maryland Ave E, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55106. The Grantee shall also comply with all requirements referenced in the 2027-2029 Auto Theft Prevention Program Dedicated Investigator Grant Guidelines and Application which includes the Terms and Conditions and Grant Program Guidelines (https://mndps.intelligrants.com), which are incorporated by reference into this grant contract agreement. Budget Revisions: The breakdown of costs of the Grantee's Budget is contained in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated into this grant contract agreement. As stated in the Grantee's Application and Grant Program Guidelines, the Grantee will submit a written change request for any substitution of budget items or any deviation and in accordance with the Grant Program Guidelines. Requests must be approved prior to any expenditure by the Grantee. Matching Requirements: (If applicable.) As stated in the Grantee's Application, the Grantee certifies that the matching requirement will be met by the Grantee. Payment: As stated in the Grantee's Application and Grant Program Guidance, the State will promptly pay the Grantee after the Grantee presents an invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services and in accordance with the Grant Program Guidelines. Payment will DPS Grant Contract Agreement Non-State (rev. March 2024) Page 545 of 558 Grant Contract Agreement Page 2 of 3 not be made if the Grantee has not satisfied reporting requirements. Certification Regarding Lobbying: (If applicable.) Grantees receiving federal funds over $100,000.00 must complete and return the Certification Regarding Lobbying form provided by the State to the Grantee. DPS Grant Contract Agreement Non-State (rev. March 2024) Page 546 of 558 Grant Contract Agreement Page 3 of 3 1. ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION 3. STATE AGENCY Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as Signed: required by Minn. Stat. § 16A.15. (with delegated authority) Signed: Title: Date: Date: Grant Contract Agreement No./P.O. No.: A-ATPP-2027-ROSEVLCI-006 / 3000112056 NHTSA Project Number (indicate N/A if not applicable): N/A 2. GRANTEE The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant contract agreement on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances. Signed: Print Name: Title: Date: Signed: Print Name: Title: Date: Signed: Print Name: Title: Date: DPS Grant Contract Agreement Non-State (rev. March 2024) Page 547 of 558 Grant Contract Agreement Exhibit A Budget Summary SFY27: Enhancing RPD’s Dedicated Auto Theft Investigator Initiative Budget Category: Salaries Line Item Description State Dedicated Auto Theft Investigator Salary $80,000.00 Category Total $80,000.00 Budget Category: Travel and Training Line Item Description State Auto Theft Investigator Training $3,000.00 Category Total $3,000.00 Budget Category: Fringe Benefits Line Item Description State Dedicated Auto Theft Investigator Fringe $20,000.00 Category Total $20,000.00 Component Total $103,000.00 SFY28: Enhancing RPD’s Dedicated Auto Theft Investigator Initiative Budget Category: Salaries Line Item Description State Dedicated Auto Theft Investigator Salary $80,000.00 Category Total $80,000.00 Budget Category: Travel and Training Line Item Description State Auto Theft Investigator Training $3,000.00 Category Total $3,000.00 Budget Category: Fringe Benefits Line Item Description State Dedicated Auto Theft Investigator Fringe $20,000.00 Category Total $20,000.00 Component Total $103,000.00 SFY29: Enhancing RPD’s Dedicated Auto Theft Investigator Initiative Budget Category: Salaries Line Item Description State Dedicated Auto Theft Investigator Salary $80,000.00 Category Total $80,000.00 DPS Grant Contract Agreement Non-State (rev. March 2024) Page 548 of 558 Grant Contract Agreement Exhibit A Budget Category: Travel and Training Line Item Description State Auto Theft Investigator Training $3,000.00 Category Total $3,000.00 Budget Category: Fringe Benefits Line Item Description State Dedicated Auto Theft Investigator Fringe $20,000.00 Category Total $20,000.00 Component Total $103,000.00 Budget Total $309,000.00 DPS Grant Contract Agreement Non-State (rev. March 2024) Page 549 of 558 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6/8/2026 Item No.: 10.g. Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve the renewal of a Short-Term Rental License for 1885 Shady Beach Avenue 1 2 Background 3 Chapter 313 of City Code requires the licensing of non-owner-occupied short term rentals of dwelling 4 units, subject to certain exemptions. On May 26, 2026, an application for the renewal of a short term 5 rental license was submitted by the property owner (Attachment 1). The property is a four-bedroom, 6 single family home. The property owner has certified and attested to the requirement of lodging tax 7 payment, as well as the maximum occupancy of four or less unrelated adults or one family. City records 8 indicate there have been no nuisance or property maintenance violations during the last license 9 period. The original short-term rental license for 1885 Shady Beach Avenue was issued on June 22, 10 2021. Short term rental licenses include the requirement of minimum stays based on on-season (10 11 days) and off-season (7 days) times of the year. 12 13 Upon issuance, the license will be valid for 365 days and will require notification to residential properties 14 within 300 feet of the subject property. If approved, this property will be one of ten properties with a 15 current short term rental license. A copy of the license must be posted in the rental unit, along with 16 copies of City Code Sections 404, 405 and 602. A draft of the license is provided as Attachment 2. 17 18 The applicant has supplied all required license information and paid the license fee of $540.00. In 19 accordance with Section 313.03, the process for licensure is outlined in Chapter 301, which requires 20 presentation to the City Council. Based upon the requirements outlined in the ordinance, the property 21 owner is entitled to the license. 22 23 Policy Objectives 24 Licensing is required by Chapter 313, effective as of February 8, 2021 and most recently revised on 25 February 12, 2024. The purpose of the license is to ensure that non-owner-occupied short-term rentals 26 of dwelling units is conducted, operated, and maintained so as not to become a nuisance to the 27 surrounding neighborhood or an influence that fosters blight and deterioration or creates a disincentive 28 to reinvest in the community. The operation of a short-term rental property is a business enterprise that 29 entails responsibilities required of the owner, local agent, and guests. 30 31 Equity Impact Summary 32 This analysis is not indicated for business license requests. 33 34 Budget Implications 35 The correct fees were paid to the City at the time of application submittal. 36 37 Staff Recommendations Page 1 of 2 Page 550 of 55838 Staff recommends approval of a one year Short-Term Rental License for 1885 Shady Beach Avenue. 39 40 Requested Council Action 41 By motion, approve the Short-Term Rental License for 1885 Shady Beach Avenue. 42 43 David Englund, Building Official Prepared by: 1. Application Attachments: 2. Draft License 44 Page 2 of 2 Page 551 of 558STR-R26-004 Attachment 1 Menu Reports Help File Date: 05/26/2026 Application Status: In Review Application Detail: Detail Application Type: Short-Term Rental License Renewal Address: 1885 Shady Beach Ave N Roseville MN 55113 Custom Fields: UNIT DETAILS Unit Type Number of Bedrooms Single-Family Home 4 CERTIFICATION AND ATTESTATION Attestation to Occupancy Limits Attestation to Payment of Lodging Tax √ √ Contact Info: Contact Type Organization Name Contact Primary Address Status Name License Holder Active Michelle Mulvehill Agent - Active - Individual Mailing, PO Box 17254 ... Active Michelle Mulvehill Owner Name: Owner Address: DBA Name: Total Fee Assessed: $556.20 Total Fee Invoiced: $556.20 Balance: $556.20 Workflow Status: Task Assigned To Status Status Date Action By License Issuance Initiated by Product: AV360 Page 552 of 558 ATTACHMENT 2 City of Roseville Short-Term Rental License This certificate must be posted in the rental unit This rental dwelling unit is hereby licensed in accordance with Chapter 313 of Roseville City Code. • The Property Owner must comply with all License Number: STR‐0012 requirements set forth in Roseville City Code. This license may be suspended or revoked for violations Owner: Michelle Mulvehill of that code. • Property owners must notify the City of any changes Phone:651‐XXX‐XXXX Email:mmvt@me.com in ownership or type of occupancy. • Licenses are non‐transferable; new owners must apply for a new license. Address: 1885 Shady Beach Ave Expiration: 6/20/2027 The City, its designees, the City Council, or its officers, agents, or employees do not warrant or guarantee the safety, fitness, or suitability of any dwelling in the City. Owners or occupants should take whatever steps they deem appropriate to protect their interests, health, safety, and welfare. MINIMUM STANDARDS AND CODES FOR RENTAL UNITS including but not limited to: In the Unit: Occupancy: Carbon Monoxide (CO) Detectors must be within 10 feet of bedrooms; Smoke Detectors must be in each sleeping room, each Rental Units may house 4 unrelated adults or 1 family. hallway outside sleeping rooms, and on each story, including the basement but not uninhabitable attics/crawl spaces. CO and Storage/Waste: Smoke Detectors must NOT be disabled. Rubbish must be stored in appropriate containers and removed regularly. Containers must be stored out of public view except on Exits must be free from obstruction inside and out and Exterior the day of collection and cannot remain at the curb for more than Doors should open and close easily, be weather tight, and 24 hours. Outdoor Storage of junk is prohibited. lock/unlock from the inside without a key or special knowledge. Vehicles/Driveway/Parking: The Water Heater and Furnace must be clear (by at least 3 feet) of boxes, junk, or flammable materials; the Water Heater must have a TPR All Vehicles parked outside must be parked on an approved hard valve and relief valve discharge pipe. surface (not grass), street operable, and display current registration and proper license plates. Toilets must flush and Bathrooms must have an exhaust fan or window. Please observe all No Parking signs. Parking is not allowed on City streets after a snowfall of more than 2 inches until the Taps must have working hot and cold water; no leaking pipes or streets have been plowed. dripping Faucets. Do not put Snow into the street or onto neighboring properties. Outlets, Switches, and Panel Boxes must have covers; kitchens Yard: and bathrooms should have grounded GFCI Outlets. Grass/Weeds exceeding 8 inches are prohibited on any property. Rooms used for sleeping should have 1 window or 2 approved Noise: means of egress. Prohibited Music is any music audible at the property line or from the adjacent apartment, common hallway, or 50 ft away from the Interior Walls, Ceilings, and Window Sills must be clean and free source between 10 PM and 7 AM. Additionally, any Events (like of peeling paint. parties) that disturb others are prohibited. Floors must be structurally sound and Flooring in good condition Power Lawn Mowers or other Power Equipment may be operated with no trip hazards such as ripped carpet or missing tiles. outside only between 7 AM and 9 PM on weekdays or between the hours of 9 AM and 9 PM on weekends or legal holidays. Snow Working Light Fixtures must be in all halls, stairways, laundry removal equipment is exempt. rooms, and furnace rooms. Pets: Handrails must be on all stairs with more than 4 steps and be Keeping more than 2 Dogs requires a kennel license from the firmly attached with no missing or loose spindles. Police Department. Animal Waste must be removed regularly. Extension Cords may be used only for portable appliances. Address Numbers must be clearly visible from the street. WHEN ISSUES ARISE For an emergency, call 9‐1‐1 • For maintenance issues, contact the property owner (see contact information in box above). • For legal matters (such as leases), contact the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office at 651‐296‐3353 or www.ag.state.mn.us • If the property owner is not maintaining the property, call Roseville Code Enforcement at 651‐792‐7014. Minnesota Statute 504B.181, subd.2(b) requires landlords to notify residential tenants that the handbook Landlords and Tenants: Rights and Responsibilities is available to them. Published by the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, the handbook can be accessed at www.ag.state.mn.us Page 553 of 558 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6/8/2026 Item No.: 10.h. Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve the Short-Term Rental License for 2809 Arona Street 1 2 Background 3 Chapter 313 of City Code requires the licensing of non-owner occupied short-term rentals of dwelling 4 units, subject to certain exemptions. On May 8, 2026, an application for a new short-term rental license 5 was submitted by the property owner (Attachment 1). The property is a three-bedroom, single-family 6 town home. The property owner has certified and attested to the requirement of lodging tax payment, as 7 well as, the maximum occupancy of four or fewer unrelated adults or one family. There have been no 8 nuisance or property maintenance violations associated with the address. Staff have verified that there 9 are no other licensed short-term rental properties within 500 feet of this property. Short-term rental 10 licenses include the requirement of minimum stays based on on-season (10 days) and off-season (7 11 days) times of the year. 12 13 Upon issuance, the license will be valid for 365 days and will require notification to residential properties 14 within 300 feet of the subject property. If approved, this property will be the eleventh licensed short-term 15 rental in the City. A current copy of the license must be posted in the rental unit, along with current 16 copies of City Code Sections 404, 405 and 602. A draft of the license is provided as Attachment 2. 17 18 The applicant has supplied all required license information and paid the license fee of $540. In 19 accordance with Section 313.03, the process for licensure is outlined in Chapter 301, which requires 20 presentation to the City Council. Based upon the requirements outlined in the ordinance, the property 21 owner is entitled to the license. 22 23 Policy Objectives 24 Licensing is required by Chapter 313, effective as of February 8, 2021 and most recently revised on 25 February 12, 2024. The purpose of the license is to ensure that non-owner-occupied short-term rentals 26 of dwelling units is conducted, operated, and maintained so as not to become a nuisance to the 27 surrounding neighborhood or an influence that fosters blight and deterioration or creates a disincentive 28 to reinvest in the community. The operation of a short-term rental property is a business enterprise that 29 entails responsibilities required of the owner, local agent, and guests. 30 31 Equity Impact Summary 32 This analysis is not indicated for business license requests. 33 34 Budget Implications 35 The correct fees were paid to the City at the time of application submittal. 36 37 Staff Recommendations 38 Staff recommends approval of a one year Short-Term Rental License for 2809 Arona Street. 39 Page 1 of 2 Page 554 of 55840 Requested Council Action 41 By motion, approve the Short-Term Rental License for 2809 Arona Street. 42 43 David Englund, Building Official Prepared by: 1. Application Attachments: 2. Draft License 44 Page 2 of 2 Page 555 of 558STR-A26-002 Attachment 1 Menu Reports Help File Date: 05/08/2026 Application Status: In Review Application Detail: Detail Application Type: Short-Term Rental License Application Address: 2809 Arona St N Roseville MN 55113 Custom Fields: UNIT DETAILS Unit Type Number of Bedrooms Townhome 3 CERTIFICATION AND ATTESTATION Attestation to Occupancy Limits Attestation to Payment of Lodging Tax √ √ Contact Info: Contact Type Organization Name Contact Primary Address Status Name Property Owner Active Valerie Mukete Owner Name: Owner Address: DBA Name: Total Fee Assessed: $556.20 Total Fee Invoiced: $556.20 Balance: $0.00 Workflow Status: Task Assigned To Status Status Date Action By License Issuance Initiated by Product: ACA Page 556 of 558 ATTACHMENT 2 City of Roseville Short-Term Rental License This certificate must be posted in the rental unit This rental dwelling unit is hereby licensed in accordance with Chapter 313 of Roseville City Code. • The Property Owner must comply with all License Number: STR‐XXX requirements set forth in Roseville City Code. This license may be suspended or revoked for violations Owner: Valerie Mukete of that code. • Property owners must notify the City of any changes Phone:651‐XXX‐XXXX in ownership or type of occupancy. • Licenses are non‐transferable; new owners must Email: vbmukete@gmail.com apply for a new license. Address: 2809 Arona St N Expiration: 6/9/2027 The City, its designees, the City Council, or its officers, agents, or employees do not warrant or guarantee the safety, fitness, or suitability of any dwelling in the City. Owners or occupants should take whatever steps they deem appropriate to protect their interests, health, safety, and welfare. MINIMUM STANDARDS AND CODES FOR RENTAL UNITS including but not limited to: In the Unit: Occupancy: Carbon Monoxide (CO) Detectors must be within 10 feet of bedrooms; Smoke Detectors must be in each sleeping room, each Rental Units may house 4 unrelated adults or 1 family. hallway outside sleeping rooms, and on each story, including the basement but not uninhabitable attics/crawl spaces. CO and Storage/Waste: Smoke Detectors must NOT be disabled. Rubbish must be stored in appropriate containers and removed regularly. Containers must be stored out of public view except on Exits must be free from obstruction inside and out and Exterior the day of collection and cannot remain at the curb for more than Doors should open and close easily, be weather tight, and 24 hours. Outdoor Storage of junk is prohibited. lock/unlock from the inside without a key or special knowledge. Vehicles/Driveway/Parking: The Water Heater and Furnace must be clear (by at least 3 feet) of boxes, junk, or flammable materials; the Water Heater must have a TPR All Vehicles parked outside must be parked on an approved hard valve and relief valve discharge pipe. surface (not grass), street operable, and display current registration and proper license plates. Toilets must flush and Bathrooms must have an exhaust fan or window. Please observe all No Parking signs. Parking is not allowed on City streets after a snowfall of more than 2 inches until the Taps must have working hot and cold water; no leaking pipes or streets have been plowed. dripping Faucets. Do not put Snow into the street or onto neighboring properties. Outlets, Switches, and Panel Boxes must have covers; kitchens Yard: and bathrooms should have grounded GFCI Outlets. Grass/Weeds exceeding 8 inches are prohibited on any property. Rooms used for sleeping should have 1 window or 2 approved Noise: means of egress. Prohibited Music is any music audible at the property line or from the adjacent apartment, common hallway, or 50 ft away from the Interior Walls, Ceilings, and Window Sills must be clean and free source between 10 PM and 7 AM. Additionally, any Events (like of peeling paint. parties) that disturb others are prohibited. Floors must be structurally sound and Flooring in good condition Power Lawn Mowers or other Power Equipment may be operated with no trip hazards such as ripped carpet or missing tiles. outside only between 7 AM and 9 PM on weekdays or between the hours of 9 AM and 9 PM on weekends or legal holidays. Snow Working Light Fixtures must be in all halls, stairways, laundry removal equipment is exempt. rooms, and furnace rooms. Pets: Handrails must be on all stairs with more than 4 steps and be Keeping more than 2 Dogs requires a kennel license from the firmly attached with no missing or loose spindles. Police Department. Animal Waste must be removed regularly. Extension Cords may be used only for portable appliances. Address Numbers must be clearly visible from the street. WHEN ISSUES ARISE For an emergency, call 9‐1‐1 • For maintenance issues, contact the property owner (see contact information in box above). • For legal matters (such as leases), contact the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office at 651‐296‐3353 or www.ag.state.mn.us • If the property owner is not maintaining the property, call Roseville Code Enforcement at 651‐792‐7014. Minnesota Statute 504B.181, subd.2(b) requires landlords to notify residential tenants that the handbook Landlords and Tenants: Rights and Responsibilities is available to them. Published by the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General, the handbook can be accessed at www.ag.state.mn.us Page 557 of 558 FUTURE MEETING AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS June 8, 2026 June 15 – City Council Meeting June Events • June 13 – Juneteenth Celebration – Central Park • Joint Meeting with Finance Commission • June 17 – Discover Your Parks (DYP) – Valley Park – 6:30 pm • Receive Presentation of Popular Financial Report • June 22- 28 Rosefest • Receive Update on Autumn Grove Playground Project • June 22 – Rosefest Parade – 6:15 pm • June 24 – DYP – Superhero Carnival – Langton • Receive Presentation and Consider Approval of Civic Lake Park – 6:00 pm Campus Concept Plans • June 25 – Taste of Rosefest – 5:00 pm • Authorize abatement for unlicensed/inoperable vehicle at • June 27 – Party in the Park – Central Park – 3-11 pm 2001 Asbury St. July 6 – City Council Meeting July Meetings • Discuss Leaf Site Closure • July 13 – City Council Work Session • July 20 – EDA Meeting • Consider Approval of Climate Equity Action Plan • July 20 – City Council Meeting Page 558 of 558