City of � ## ¥.E ## LLE ## Minnesota, USA ## Regular City Council Meeting Minutes ## City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive ## Monday,June16,2025 1. ## Roll Call Mayor Roe called the meeting to order at approximately 6:00 p.m. Voting and Seating Order: Schroeder, Groff, Bauer, Strahan, and Roe. City Manager Patrick Trudgeon and City Attorney Rachel Tierney were also present. 2. ## Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Roe acknowledged the tragic murder of former Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark, as well as the shooting of Senator Hoffman and his wife, who miraculously survived. A moment of silent reflection was observed. 3. ## Approve Agenda Groff moved, Schroeder seconded, approval of the agenda as presented. ## Roll Call Ayes: Schroeder, Groff, Bauer, Strahan, and Roe. Nays: None. 4. ## Public Comment Mayor Roe called for public comments by audience members on non-agenda items. No one came forward to speak. 5. ## Recognitions, Donations, and Communications a. ## Proclaim July 2025 Parks and Recreation Month Mayor Roe read the proclamation for Parks and Recreation Month. The proclamation highlights the importance of parks and recreation in promoting community health, economic prosperity, and environmental well-being. Strahan moved, Groff seconded, proclaiming July 2025 Parks and Recreation Month. ## Council Discussion ## Councilmember Strahan thanked Mr. Matt Johnson, Di.rector of Parks, for his continued attentiveness to the public and his sensitivity to everyone's needs. She pointed out that on Saturday or Sunday afternoons, anyone can visit a park, and the Attachment 6 Excerpt from ## Regular City Council Meeting ## Monday,June16,2025 ## Page3 Mayor Roe suggested that Nine North should keep considering appropriate policies for video 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 identify pieces 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 staff submitted 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 fifth phase of right-of-way vacations brought back for review. 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 identified on the pathway master plan. Councilmember Strahan asked Mr. Freihammer if he could confirm whether a pathway had been cut there for a potential path. Mr. Freihammer indicated that on the north side of Ryan, 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 of tree, some trees are more susceptible than others. If the city were to improve the pathway, it would need to ## Regular 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-foot segment. 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 fabric and connections for decades. 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. ## Regular City Council Meeting ## Monday,June16,2025 ## Page5 ## Ms. Eleni SkevasMid 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 BlandRidgewood 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 future generations 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-old son 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 families have come to rely on the access and use of the pathway. The path has become a safe alternative that 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 favor of 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. ## Regular 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 for everyone 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 concerns for pedestrians. He believed that making the pathway ADA compliant and ensuring a safe connection at Roselawn was necessary for public 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 significant impact 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-way was established about seven decades ago for a street that was never built and was identified by city staff in 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 ## Regular 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 for the original city proposal, which included the complete vacation of the Aldine Street right-of-way. ## Ms. Rachel Brown, Roselawn A venue 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 currently runs 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 for ADA 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 benefits the most significant number of people, allowing everyone to contribute in a way that benefits them. ## Ms. Stephanie Kiihn Ashenbrenner, Herschel Street Ms. K.iihn Ashenbrenner 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 for four 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 beautiful understory 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 ## Regular 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 thanked the public for their comments and emphasized the importance of finding a solution that benefits the community. The council discussed the feasibility of constructing a pathway, the impact on trees, and the potential costs involved. Councilmember Groff asked 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 attorney to secure the necessary easements. The Council considered the options of vacating the right-of-way or retaining it for a public pathway, with a focus on finding a 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 felt uncomfortable proceeding with a decision that would result in the permanent dissolution 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 ## Regular 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 official path. Councilmember Bauer agreed with Councilmember Schroeder. His concern for 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 might not 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. ## Regular City Council Meeting ## Monday,June16,2025 Page 10 ## Recess 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 returning to 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 returns this 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 future actions to address the right-of-way and pathway issues. ## 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.