hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday, February 9th, 2026. Mr. City Manager, would you call the role, please? >> Council member Grath >> here, council member Power Bower >> here, >> council member Stron >> here, council member Schroeder >> here, >> Mayor Ro >> here. Uh, and with us at the DIS by way of introduction, we have our city attorney Rachel Tierney who's on my right at the very end. We also have city manager Pat Trean who's on my left at the other end of the day. Uh we have a number of uh staff who will be participating in presentations uh and uh agenda items as the agenda moves forward this evening and we'll make those introductions uh as uh those items come up. Um should note for people in the audience that if you have a cell phone, you want to make sure and silence that to sure that it doesn't disrupt the proceedings this evening uh or otherwise set it appropriately. Uh then also if uh you need a copy of tonight's agenda, there should be extra copies on the table under the clock by the back door uh so you can follow along with the agenda. Uh we also do have one three- ring binder with all of the meeting materials in it and that is available for members of the public to share uh as uh you might need to refer to that as various items are discussed on the agenda this evening. Um we do have a couple of o well several opportunities for public comment this evening. Uh and I just want to note before we proceed with the meeting that our very first opportunity for public comment is uh reserved for comment on items that are not on this evening's agenda. Uh so we will have for instance a discussion related to um our uh police department policy on immigration uh and other matters related to immigration and that is an agenda item. So the appropriate time for public comment on that for instance would be uh at the time of that agenda item. Um, and then obviously if you're here for other agenda items, uh, then that would be the time to comment on those. Uh, but the, uh, general public comment at the start of the meeting is meant for, uh, items that are not on the agenda. And I'll repeat that one more time as we move forward here. Uh, with that, we'd ask folks to stand if you're able for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Right. Next on our agenda then is approval of tonight's agenda. And as always, we'll check with staff first to see if there are any changes that uh staff needs to point out on the agenda this evening. >> Mr. Mayor staff with no changes to the agenda. >> All right. Uh are there any council member requested changes to tonight's agenda or items council members might like removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration this evening? [snorts] All right. Doesn't appear to be the case. Um we also want to check with the audience about that uh what I said the consent agenda. That is section 10 of tonight's agenda 10 A through D. [snorts] This is our approval of our payments uh approving purchases or sale over $10,000 items. uh a couple of other administrative items. These items are usually taken up as a single motion at the end of the meeting uh with limited opportunity for public comment. But if somebody was here this evening for one of those items in section 10, this would be the time to let us know and we'll move that item to the beginning of the meeting so that you'll be able to ask your question or make your comment uh without having to wait till the end of the meeting. Uh so once again, is there anyone here for an item in section 10 of tonight's agenda, also known as the consent agenda? All right. It doesn't appear to be the case. Uh in that case, uh a motion to approve the agenda as presented would be in order. >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Council Member Grath, seconded by Council Member Strong to approve tonight's agenda as presented. [snorts] Any discussion on that motion? >> No. >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. >> That passes unanimously. We have our agenda for this evening. >> Uh that brings us then to once again our first opportunity for public comment. And as I noted before, this is uh general public comment on items that are not on this evening's agenda. These would be items that might be related to city business or of interest to people in the community. Uh but once again, not items that are going to be discussed at the council meeting this evening. Uh is there anyone here to speak under general public comment this evening on a non-aggenda item? Right. Does not appear to be the case. Then we'll go ahead then and move on with our agenda. That brings us then to our first uh uh relatively business item and that is recognitions and donations. And this evening we have an introduction and I'll turn it over to see manager Trean uh to make that introduction. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Tonight I would like to introduce our new finance director. Sam, come on up. Sam Magaranu. [snorts] Uh Sam has joined us starting on January 26. He uh was previously the finance comm uh finance director I should say for uh city of Little Canada. previously uh the finance director for Lake Elmo and the assistant finance director in Stillwater. He also has some private sector experience being an auditor at APDO. Um we found throughout the process and I found directly that Sam has both a deep knowledge and a passion for local government finance has done every single role possible that a finance person would do uh working for local government. So we're really happy to have him on board. He's been here for about two weeks now and diving deep into everything and participating and already thinking about some changes to make as far as how we operate and including the budget process. So, let Sam say a few words, but we won't take too much time tonight. So, >> sure. Thank you, U Pat. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this evening, Mr. Mayor, member of the Counced >> for the opportunity to be the new finance director for the city. It's been two great weeks. Uh, I got to see a lot of things and I'm excited to learn and grow in my career with the with the city of Roseville. So, thank you for having me. >> Thank you for being here and we appreciate you diving right in. Uh, I have purposely made your first two weeks a little easier by not sending you all the spreadsheets that I want to send you. So, you'll appreciate that. Uh, and hopefully you'll be able to maintain friendships with the people that you worked with over in Little Canada and they're not too [laughter] too angry with the city of Roseville. They should take it out on us instead of on you if that's the case. >> I hope not. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, welcome aboard. Appreciate you being here. >> I look forward to working with you. >> All right. Thank you. [snorts] >> All right. That then brings us to our business items this evening. Our first business item 7A is to consider approving an updated Roseville Police Department policy 413 related to immigration matters. uh and also to receive an update uh from the city manager on the city's uh actions regarding operation metro surge. And Mr. Trean is uh moving to the presentation table uh to bring this item before the council. So I'll turn it over to city manager Trean. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I do have a short presentation to give uh really uh reflective of the material that is uh in the packet here tonight. Um so let's just jump right into it. First item we want to talk about is uh what we call Roseville Police Department policy 413 immigration matters specifically 413.6. Uh this section uh is uh treated a little bit differently than our other policies. This is a section starting in 2017 that the city council has oversight on and guidance on what that actual wording is here. So tonight we're talking specifically about 413.6 six which uh u deals with federal requests for assistance. We had been looking at that at the past couple meetings here and had some u suggested revisions at the uh January 22nd city council meeting that which was a special meeting. The council wanted continued work on that policy language specifically um looking at altering the language where talked about ensuring the safety of federal immigration officers. Uh Roseville staff did work with the police department's multicultural advisory committee which is made up of residents in our community and we've had an operation for probably five or six years uh now to review and make some changes to section 413.6. The MAC did meet uh last Monday and made modifications to the language and that's what we're going to present to you tonight. First just for uh context um I wanted to show the current language. This is the language that was adopted in 2017. Uh, and I'll just read this real quickly here. Federal law does not authorize the Roseville Police Department to enforce federal immigration laws. As such, employees shall not inquire about a person's immigration status unless it is directly related to a criminal investigation. Members of the department are authorized to assist ICE when it is related to scene safety and/or the safety of ICE employees as they perform their duties. Members of the department are authorized to cooperate with a task force involving ICE agents as long as the focus of the task force is not immigration enforcement. Members of the department will cooperate with ICE as specifically mandated by federal and state laws. Then finally, requests by federal immigration officials for assistance from this department should be directed to a supervisor. So this is the current language we have in our policy. We're looking to uh change that and this is after um interaction and conversation with the MAC to read as follows. Members shall not and members meaning the police officers, police department employees, members shall not participate in immigration enforcement and shall not inquire about a person's immigration status unless such an inquiry is directly related to local criminal investigations. Department members may respond to the scene of a federal immigration operation when necessary to address public safety concerns, including preventing preventing injury, destruction of property, maintaining order, and/or [clears throat] addressing any immediate safety risks to any person present. This response is consistent with the department's duty to preserve the peace and protect all people from harm. Any assistance provided shall be limited strictly to public safety functions and does not include participation in immigration enforcement activities. The department will comply with federal immigration officials as specifically mandated by state and federal laws and requests for assistance from federal immigration officials should be directed to a supervisor whenever practicable. When feasible, a supervisor should respond to and coordinate calls and requests involving federal immigration activity. So, this is the proposed policy and actually as I think about I think there was a minor grammatical change uh pointed out by the mayor. I'm trying to remember where that was in the policy. Um not sure if we cleaned that up for this slide here or not. >> No, it wasn't. It was in the second paragraph including uh preventing injury to persons or destruction of property and then maintaining order. It was just um being a little more clear about that language. >> Sure. Um so, uh this is the proposed policy. Um, at some point this evening, I would like to uh have the council weigh in on this and um uh if it is uh looks acceptable, uh look to have this passed uh here tonight. I can pause here if you have any questions about this. Uh the chief is here as well or I can just continue with my presentation and we can come back to it as as you would like. >> Why don't we go ahead and pause for questions on this topic and then we can get into the other and then we'll provide a an opportunity for public comment as well. Uh Council Member Schroer. Um um city manager would you please explain who and what the MAC does? >> Yeah, it is a group of uh it varies from a dozen or 20 people that over time uh we started this uh working group uh after the George Floyd murder to really have some uh interaction directly with our community, especially persons of color in our community. uh and we have been meeting off and on for these past five years to really have them participate in looking at all of our policies across the board. Also give us advice on uh interactions uh that are happening in the community, opportunities to uh network uh with people and get to know people, opportunities um and functions to attend as well. They've been a really valuable resource uh over the years and we really appreciate their commitment uh to serving in that. uh this is something they do on their own and they volunteer, but it's really insightful for us to really learn uh from them and take what they have to say and really put it into action. >> And they do work with the police department quite a bit in helping them form their policies and other items. Correct. >> Yeah. On a on a very regular basis. They do. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. I wasn't sure anyone was aware of how deeply embedded they were. >> Great questions. Uh Council Member Strong. Um, I just wanted to take a moment to clarify for the public. I clarified [snorts] for myself and Mr. Trean earlier today, but this um the bodywn camera of the Rosewood Police Department would be um active as it is their policy in other matters um in any interaction they would have with uh ICE or um the Border Patrol or any other agency that's doing um this activity. So just confirming that there would be body warn camera on our uh personnel in that situation even if they had their own just as a way to document the interaction. >> We have very strict policies in body cam um use and for any call uh body cams are mandatory to be on. So it's something that's always uh we do have um functioning whenever we interact after a call or during a call. >> Thank you. >> Right. Other questions for staff on the policy part? I did note that the uh prior policy talked about participation in task forces and I note that that isn't a part of this one and I don't have a problem with that necessarily but I was just curious if that was a specific point of discussion uh as to when the amendment was made uh or suggested by the MAC folks. >> I'm not sure if I can answer that directly. I may have have the chief come on up u and and talk about that. Certainly. Um I think that was discussed and so it's a mission probably means that there was some discussion around that and whether or not that needed to be in there. But I'll let the chief speak to it directly. >> Hello chief. Welcome. >> Yeah. So that language really wasn't relevant to the to the work that we do. Um we do work with some of our federal partners on things like human trafficking. Um but it really does not there's no ties to immigration that we're working on any task force. So we just remove that language because it really it really wasn't relevant to the work we do. All >> right. Thank you for clarifying that. And then while you're here, I just wanted to get a sense as to the um the level of consensus among the MAC folks as they as this language was finalized in that process. Uh was it fairly fairly consistent across the group or were there still u uh folks that were concerned about aspects of the language or can you just I mean I I don't want certainly you don't have to name names or anything like that, but if you can maybe just help clar uh characterize that the the end of the discussions with the MAC folks. >> Sure. Uh so we sent it out to the MAC members ahead of time so they had some time to review it. Um not all of them could obviously come to the meeting. It was on a Monday in the middle of the day so it was a little bit tricky. Um but they did have the opportunity to to email and provide input. And then from that meeting is kind of where we uh drafted this uh part of the policy that was then sent back out to the MAC members just to make sure that we captured what the feeling was in the group. Um and we did get a few edits just some minor wording edits that came back. And so I'm not aware of any um additional feedback um after we pushed out this final policy. This kind of captured the input that we heard from them. >> Okay. No, thank you for that. I appreciate that. Other questions for staff. >> All right. Thank you, Chief. And the rest of the presentation, Mr. Trean. >> So, [snorts] uh the last part of this presentation, I just want to provide an update on all the activities that we have done. And I know uh some of this might be repetitive, but I think it's important to really state uh what we have all done um as um a community uh as a city organization as a result of the community input and the community interest in this matter. So uh starting on June, I'm sorry, January 15th, we did place signs in our parking lots and facilities that our park and park our parking lots and the parks and uh facilities will only be used for those type of uses and no other uses allowed uh unless permitted by the city. This is something that would uh prevent the staging uh by ICE or other agencies in our parking lot. We do know that's it's a challenge to enforce and we are asking people to provide us information when they do notice that that and that is something we'll follow up with the attorney general and possible future action. Um >> and the email address is >> is complaint city of roseville.com not plural just complaint at cityof roseell.com. >> Right. Thank you. We also reviewed and made language changes to several other police department policies. One about uh automated license plate readers to make it very clear that that information is not shared with immigration officials. It had not been in the past, but we said that very directly. Uh we also um add made some changes to our first amendment assemblies to make sure the constitutional rights of people expressing their first amendment right were protected and also in our uniform regulations made sure that uh it was clear that uh our officers would always be identified by name and a badge and that facial coverings would not be used unless there are special circumstances such as weather or um some other uh undercover needs for that. On the 22nd, we did have a special meeting and the city council did pass a use of city resources ordinance and a resolution prohibiting the use of city resources for federal immigration enforcement. On January 26th at the Roseville council meeting, we did uh issue had an issue had a statement issued by the city council denouncing the federal immigration enforcement actions. Also on the 26th, the council did pass a resolution urging the governor to issue an executive order for a temporary eviction and foreclosure moratorium during the period of operation metro surge. And a letter to that effect was sent down the following day. Also on the 26th, the city council did add a federal legislative priority uh to have a law, a federal law prohibiting federal law enforcement agencies from using facial coverings to obscure their identity as part of their work and also requiring that they display identification of the name and agents uniforms unless special conditions exist as defined under that law. So that is another asset we're going to uh promote to our elected representatives out in Washington. We've [clears throat] also been doing other things uh throughout uh the ensuing weeks here. We continue to main page and maintain a web page uh on our city web page u uh about information for community members uh and resources about knowing your rights and ways that they can help. This page is found at immigrant resources and I'll just pop this up if I can. Oh, I see I knew that wouldn't work. So here, let me switch to this. This is the immigrant resources page. I think you have to leave presentation mode. [clears throat] >> Yeah, sorry. Should have practiced this before. There we go. So, this is on our on our page. This is something that does change on a regular basis. So, I'd urge people to um keep checking this out. It does have our statement as well as information about our um uh resolutions and ordinances we've passed. uh some playback of the videos and then also um information about knowing your rights, other legal resources, additional resources folks can use and information about food shelves. As I said, as we get more information, we do do update that. We also uh have on our Grow Roseville site which is uh uh focused towards businesses information about uh immigration enforcement and have um uh once again a lot of links relevant to businesses from the National Immigration Law Center, the Chamber of Commerce, our uh city website as well as uh information from Hospitality Minnesota and we also have frequently asked questions uh on there. We also have created uh a specific page on our website about automated license plate reader technology that has our policy also our report um including the audit that we have done every year to make sure we're in compliance with all state uh laws. We also have a list of agencies that use our license plate readers uh for people uh to take a look at for transparency sake. And we also have a flat portal which provides a lot of information uh about um the flot cameras that are in use in the city here including the organization granted access the number of uh cameras and our and some of our policies in place there and kind of some stats about that. So that's all live and will continue to be updated as moving on. So just for transparency sake I want to make sure that that was clear that we do have that information. Let me get back to PowerPoint. We continue to make sure our park buildings, including our restrooms, are locked unless there's an event occurring. We're starting to hear some feedback from people that as the weather's getting nicer that they can't access the uh restrooms, but we do know it is important to make sure that uh those are safe spaces and not places that are used by federal immigration officials. We do also allow lastmoment cancellations and are providing refunds to groups that cancel the reservation in one of our facilities if it's related to federal immigration enforcement with really no questions asked. [clears throat] We have been u reaching out to various community members and organization to set up a trusted messenger program so we can form a two-way communication line to members of our community that we can share information but more importantly we can hear information back from them and really make sure that they're up to date as much as possible on what the city's doing. but we are also hearing from them directly and what uh their concerns and issues are out there. So that's in process. We're also looking at um the need for some more flexible license center appointments. As you know, we have driver's licenses and passports. Uh some people may not feel safe going um during regular business hours. And so we are exploring we can have some alternative hours for people to have a a private appointment with us uh maybe when we're not uh open uh to do that. We're exploring to see kind of what that need is um out there and then obviously how do we get the word out to make sure people do feel safe on that. We will be talking uh at our next meeting on the 23rd of the city council acting as the EDA to look about how we can um use some of our funds that we have available for rent assistance for people that are really struggling u making rent payments due to operation metro surge. And then also we're just finalizing some uh u information resources uh that we will send out to multifamily property owners and renters um regarding their rights around immigration enforcement and obviously posted on our website. So once again just gathering a lot of information and and helping people navigate through this very difficult time. [clears throat] Two things I want to call out specifically. Uh we have created a document and there were documents in in the lobby there about what you need to know about immigration enforcement city of Roseville from the police department's perspective. You may have seen a similar document uh from the St. Paul police. So we really model that after that talks about what we do not do check immigration and what we will do. Uh we will respond to 911 calls. Uh we also have added information on what our uh police uniforms and uh our vehicles look like so people are very clear they're dealing with Roseville police. Then at the lower left is hard to see on this slide here of course but is information how to um um lodge a complaint uh about federal immigration uh official u behavior on there. We have taken that out on Friday I think today to uh the faith communities as well as dropping them off at the multif family complexes. Um, so people have that information available and we're happy to provide more more copies if necessary. We were able to get a Spanish translation done today. So we do have a Spanish translation as well and we'll work on some additional languages moving forward here. We want to make it sure it's clear that people understand uh what the role of the police department is and certainly when we can be of assistance, we will do what we can to help. Then uh just want to talk about a food drive uh that we're partnering with the um school district, the food and personal products drive actually starting today through the rest of the week. We're asking people uh for these type of items that are listed here to drop off at the city hall uh and we'll collect that and that'll go to the uh high school food shelf to help uh families in need uh there. So really uh kudos to uh the staff in the police department in in getting this connection made here. Uh and we're hopefully that people uh will donate um any of these type of um products that are here. Those are the things that we have uh learned that are most needed items. Um so please um donate if you can. [clears throat] The last two things uh I just wanted to uh bring up and have a conversation is first is just an update on the state of Minnesota lawsuit uh that uh attorney general Ellison has filed along with city of Minneapolis and St. Paul about the current uh mig immigration enforcement uh actions occurring in Minnesota. I'll turn over to city attorney Kierney just to give a verbal update to the council on that. [clears throat] >> Uh well, I think the the last thing that happened was there was a the district court issued an order on the state and Twin Cities application for a preliminary injunction um in joining essentially the federal government from enforcing immigration um arrests in the state of Minnesota. that injunction was denied. Um, it's a very well-ritten order. If you're interested in reading it, I'd be happy to circulate it. Um, the next step, we don't know what the attorney general's office is going to do just yet. They're not likely to share that with us till they make the decision and that be comes public, but they have a couple options. One is to appeal the denial of the preliminary injunction. Um, they could file for a preliminary injunction under a different legal theory, or they could just keep the case going. But the case isn't dead yet. um it it's still even without the preliminary injunction, the case will move forward on its merits. And so that's kind of the next step. The other question that I get uh is um what can we do as a city? Um my office is working with the attorney general's office and drafting starting work on some amicus briefs to support the lit to to support the litigation. And so um I can obviously share more information with Pat if that's something the council would like to consider. uh questions on that particular matter maybe from the council. Council Bower, >> as far as you know, in your discussions with the attorney general, they have not asked for cities uh to sign on or to for assistance. As far as you know, like requests in your dealings with the attorney general's office. >> Two two answers to your question. First, I'm not the individual in my office that's been communicating directly with them. It's my understanding that at some point they are going to be seeking assistance of cities seeking seeking support from cities, but they haven't decided exactly what they want that to look for. Some cities have obviously come forward and filed briefs um largely from the perspective of a prosecutor. Um the one that my firm is looking at is more of a in terms of a a city as an entity rather than as a law enforcement from a law enforcement perspective. Um I we will work closely with the attorney general's office and with the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul and make sure that the support that we give is as helpful as we can be, but also really demonstrates the perspective of cities and the kind of unique position of cities. Um, understand though the attorney general when they file a lawsuit on behalf of the state of Minnesota, the city of Roseville is fully covered by that lawsuit. So any any relief that is given under that lawsuit would apply to the city of Roseville. >> Thank you. >> Other questions? Council member Strong. Just wondering if there's a need or um a reason that we should take action now when we're not quite sure what the action would be. It feels like we're kind of they don't know what their next step is or they haven't told us. So, is there a next step for us right now? >> Council member Strong, I don't think um that there's something urgent that you need to do. I think we will hear if there is an urgent need for cities. Um at at this point we haven't been given direction from the attorney general's office how we can be most helpful but they're aware that there are cities that are interested in understanding how they could help. Um if something does become more urgent of course I will reach out um to city manager Trean and and get that message to you all as well so that if there's an urgent decision that needs to be made it can be done so. But let's be clear litigation does not move quickly. So, I I'd be pretty surprised to find an urgent need. Um, at this point, I think they're probably still determining their next steps. They're likely to hold their um litigation strategy decisions close until they be they become public. And so, the fact that we don't have clear direction at this point of how we can be most helpful isn't really a surprise. >> Thank you, >> Council Member Grath. >> Is this um done in federal court or in state court? >> Federal. >> Federal. Thanks. >> Other questions? Um, is there any objection to getting the update on the status of the working on an amicus brief and seeing if that's something the council wants to um participate in at the appropriate time? >> I would like that. >> Okay. I don't hear objection to that. So, I think that's the direction. >> Understood. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, and then on the uh last item there, Mr. Treasure, >> last [clears throat] item on this slide anyway. Yes, on on this slide, uh the safe and stable communities coalition. Uh I have sent you all um um some information about um uh this coalition as we understood it. I think the mayor first learned about it Sunday before last and um uh me the following day. So we did do some followup. There were uh 12 cities that um came together unbeknownst to most other cities. Um so it was a surprise to all of us that they were talking because we were never approached. Those cities were Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Columbia Heights, Eden Prairie, Edina, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Maplewood, Minnitankka, Richfield, and St. Louis Park. So, mostly in the West Metro, uh, except for Maplewood. Uh, pretty quickly, um, uh, Ramsey, uh, uh, county city managers and administrators kind of got online trying to figure out what this was happening and talked to Maplewood here. So, we do have some more information about that. And this is really a nonpartisan coalition working together to have a collective voice um to uh talk about and um ask for change uh from what's happening as part of operation metro surge. And their work is really centered around three core messages. Safety over partisanship, economic stabilization, and local control and constitutional rights. My understanding now there's at least 30 cities that are looking to join this and probably more and more will be looking to do this. This would be kind of a um a kind of u working with uh a consultant uh a lobbyist to help u message uh this to the appropriate officials to advocate uh for uh help and change at the state level and the federal level. Uh it's hard to know exactly what the cost would be. they've already engaged as lobbyists, but the more people that uh join um the less it would be. Uh with 30 uh cities joining this, that'd be about $2,000 roughly or so. So, relatively minor cost on this. So, uh I'm just bringing this information forward to you. I know uh residents have asked about this too, and you've all asked about this as well. Uh if this is something we want to pursue, I can um do a little bit more leg work to get us in involved in that and move forward with joining this coalition. but wanted to bring that information up for you for discussion tonight. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Trean. Uh questions from the council, council member Strong. >> And I didn't have a question. I mean, I was another person that uh brought this forward. um you know and I wanted to know more information and in our conversations in the last week or two um um city manager Trean it sounds like um various members of various cities have worked with this same lobbyist firm before and feel really strongly about the work they're doing in this way and I think it is such a wide swath of cities that um and largely metro um but largely suburban um we've often kind follow the lead of St. Paul or Minneapolis. So, I appreciate being able to take that suburban um perspective, especially some of these first ring suburbs who have very similar concerns that we do in this situation. So, I I would support us moving forward with um you know, moving forward to it, at least making sure we understand what we're undertaking and um if you know, moving ahead with being part of this coalition, I think we learn a great deal in that cooperation. >> Right. Other questions or thoughts? Council Gra, >> I really think this is important to move ahead with as we get more information because uh as we all know, we can all contact our representatives, our legislators, but when more people do it, especially in larger groups, you get a stronger voice. So, I think this is important and it would show uh the powers that we're trying to address that we're serious about this and we have a large number of people and cities behind it. Uh, Council Member Sher, >> would there be a possibility to get someone from this group to be at a meeting so we could have a conversation with them about this? >> I can certainly ask. Um, they have, like I said, a third party contracted for the most part. It's just kind of a grassroots of u managers uh and elected officials kind of working this together from around the metro area. But they do have a point of contact person that I've heard from. So I can I'll ask >> might be an interesting thing to have somebody actually who's who's part of this to be able to be here to um give us a uh summary of it and then also for us to be able to ask questions. >> Okay. >> Other questions, comments, feedback. >> I think initially I was leerary as as always when you know we're given the opportunity to join something uh that involves you know hiring consultant and that sort of thing. you want to really understand sort of what the what the background is and what's behind it and that sort of thing. And it from the information that I've seen, I think definitely it's, you know, something that we should should take a close look at being a part of and continue to have the conversations with the people that are organizing this. I know a number of uh Ramsey County cities, as you mentioned, are uh either at at various stages of getting involved and or considering that involvement. And so I think we're, you know, right in with that. And certainly if our if we can try to have something on our agenda for the 23rd that seems to make sense in terms of that. Um you know I don't think that anything they're they're lobbying for seems to be anything terribly controversial from the point of view of cities and the impacts to our residents and our businesses uh and our communities. And so um I think it would be appropriate to continue to have that conversation. Um anything else Mr. Trean on activities that the city is involved in uh over the last few weeks here? No, that's all I have tonight. I I don't want it to sound like that that's a wrap. That's what we're doing. This is work that's going to continue day after day, uh week after week here. And as situations change, we'll pivot to address those issues. Certainly, uh we have some great ability to be very nimble, uh providing information out there. So, we'll continue to do that and if there's situations arise that we need to deal with, we have uh the ability to come in front of you for uh specific action um or direction. So, work continues. Um, but uh that's all I have for tonight to present to you. >> Right. And maybe just a quick opportunity for council members uh to to weigh in on anything they've been involved in. And I might kick that off by just noting that um I think I noted at our last uh meeting that uh uh there was going to be a call with count with excuse me, Congresswoman uh Betty McCollum the the next day. Uh and then it turned out the Ramsey County League of Local Governments also had representatives of uh Congresswoman McCollum's office at their meeting that that Friday morning. Um the the Tuesday morning meeting was very much focused on particular grant programs that a couple of cities in in her district are actively pursuing and and and mostly an update for them and it was about a half hour. So there really wasn't a lot of opportunity to to to have discussion about especially our legislative priority for the feds. Uh but at the Friday discussion sponsored by the Ramsey County legal local governments, we we had a lot of participation from a lot of the cities school districts and the county uh representatives. I think it was very well attended when we had the two two staff members from uh Congresswoman McCollum's office. much more discussion about the concerns and needs of the city uh cities uh and also you know some feedback from those representatives on sort of what the lay of the land is at the federal level which wasn't super inspiring but at the same time you know I think we have a fairly good understanding if you've been following the media sort of what the what the situation is with uh uh probably a tougher road in the House of Representatives and and maybe more of a chance in the Senate. Uh certainly the Senate has some some rules at the federal level that you know that potentially give the minority a little more power in decision-m and and what legislation happens. But definitely uh as you may have seen uh the the other federal government funding bills were passed through and signed off. This particular area DHS was delayed for two more weeks um to have some more discussions and negotiations which I understand are ongoing. Uh, believe me, I'm not intimately involved in the negotiations. So, all I know is that they're ongoing from what I've seen in media reports. Um, but, um, I think, you know, the reality is just given the the makeup of the legislative bodies and and all of that that there's some there's some challenges there. But I think we have, you know, everyone, including [snorts] people in the public, need to continue to reach out to federal elected representatives and keep that uh keep your voices being heard about the need uh for what we talked about, which is, you know, federal restrictions on enforcement agencies, you know, having facial coverings and not identifying themselves. Uh there was just a story in the paper today about sort of uh playing musical license plates on these vehicles that are involved in enforcement where you know the the license plates don't have any relevance to the vehicles that are being used and things like this. I think all of these things which by the way I will note and was noted in the article is in contradiction to state of Minnesota law as to Minnesota law enforcement entities. Any law enforcement entity that is a state or local entity in Minnesota that uses unmarked vehicles has to make sure that that vehicle has an a a current and appropriate registration and tags and license plate with the state of Minnesota. Um squads, marked squads are a little different. There's other regulations for that, but certainly for what they call unmarked vehicles in Minnesota anyway, our law enforcement agencies have to follow that. So unfortunately once again with the federal government there's a lot of things that they can do that uh that state law doesn't necessarily impact which is uh very unfortunate. So I wanted to provide that update. Um uh Pat and I uh Mr. Treasur and I were at um a uh previously scheduled Mountains View School District meeting last Thursday evening where they uh on an annual basis bring city administrators and elected officials, typically mayors from the cities that you know uh cross the borders with that school district. Uh and it was usually it's an opportunity to share sort of updates on what's going on in each city and what the school district is up to. But uh you can imagine that the topic of conversation was uh this operation metro surge situation. We learned a lot about what the Mountains View School District is doing and you know how they're they have uh as part I think under the umbrella of the school district they have the Ralph Reer food shelf uh which I believe is in Mounds View. Correct. Um and they've had a lot of people you know coming there to get to get food assistance. uh they do at that est that entity provide a limited amount of rental assistance sort of on a no questions asked basis. Uh certainly I think you know faith communities are providing uh that similar type of assistance to people. Um but all the cities that were there talked about because we're all getting these funds from the state uh sales tax to help with affordable housing. Uh we're all talking about ways to use that to help with uh assistance for rent and and those sorts of things as well. uh you know both generally as well as specific to the needs related to operation metro surge. Uh so those conversations went on. I think the only point I of all of that [clears throat] is is that there's a lot of collaboration going on uh whether it's formal or informal. And so that's kind of what I've been involved with, but I would certainly open it up to other council members to talk. Council member Sher down the line. >> Yes. Um um and I'm the representative for Roseville on the um Ramsey County League of Local Governance is the meeting that the mayor's talking about on on Friday and um there was 43 pe uh different entities that were signed up for that particular. So it's it's cities, it's the county, it's the schools and we even have watersheds involved. So, I mean, we have all these different entities working together to try to um help each other and share things and figure out what the community needs. And then at at the um league or at the Ramsey County League of Local Governance, we continue to um also reach out to the state and federal representatives to try to get some of our um our concerns and and needs um heard. And so, um, like the mayor said, there's a lot of cooperation going on. You know, in a way, it's kind of behind the scenes, but there's a lot of it going on. And we are, um, trying to learn about different policies from one another and different ways to handle things and even learning about these different groups to join. And so, we are are diligently working on that. And and some of us um are at us more formal groups. And then I think there's some of us also working on the more informal conversations as well. So yeah, I just wanted to add that as well. >> Right, Council Member Strong. >> Um, yes, I used to be the liaison to the local electeds. Um, I am not officially any longer. However, in the last week, I've speak spoken to Lee Fininky, Representative Lee Fininky, Representative David Gotfried, Senator Umu Verbeton, and Senator Marty about all of our concerns here as residents, and they share our concerns. Uh Lee Fininky is planning on bringing forward a bill um banning facial coverings and some of the license um plate issues. Obviously at a state level there's not much we can probably do uh against federal, but there's many there's a lot of moving parts. John Marty is uh working in all of his different um working groups and committees um as you know the most senior person in the Senate to um to you know work on many different things and has met with the Supreme Court here in Minnesota and and really it sounds like if anybody knows who to call but um the general frustration on the lack of the ability to hold the federal uh government accountable and then I'm the representative for 9 north which is the cable commission And of the 10 cities involved, we had a long discussion about what each of our cities was doing. And again, a very helpful time to discuss um and a lot of the cities looked to us because we had um kind of got out of the gate a little bit faster and had started some things um and so appreciated our work and you know much of the things we're talking about here today are things that we've learned about or from each other. So thanks. >> Great. Uh, council member Bar. >> Yes. As council member Sher put out, there's both more formal and informal. I guess I just fall on more of the informal side, which is a lot of conversations with other elected officials at the city levels uh with just frank phone calls, brainstorming, informal meetups and discussions about possible ideas, brainstorming uh solutions that could be brought up or some city will investigate to then bring up to like the League of Minnesota City or the Ramsey County League or other different groups to make that happen. um also as well as sharing what's happening, what's working in our city, what's not working in our city. Um and also just sharing reports of things that we're seeing um to see if someone else has ideas as well. So, a lot more of that informal stuff. Lots of phone calls, Zooms, and Teams discussions to see what what uh everyone's thinking and working on. And some of those have been fruitful. Uh some work in some cities, some don't work in be applicable to us. But, uh keeping all that going and so it's kind of a continual kind of brainstorm on that informal side. Council member Grath >> and I agree with all of those things. We do a lot of that interaction with other council members in neighboring cities and so on. But um I think the thing I want to stress again is I'm I'm the leazison to the north northeast youth and family services board and [snorts] we are dealing with trauma for children in schools. So that's the main focus that organizations had and they're just really overwhelmed right now and they know they will be for the next number of years from this action. So keep that in your in mind when you're you're thinking of groups to support. The other thing that I've been getting a lot of is actually I don't know if I want to say it's heartening but uh emails from people throughout the country that I know or family members and they're asking what they can do and that's really been kind of heartening to feel like people are paying attention throughout the country and throughout the world really. Um I want to give a shout out to Do Good Roseville because they did a very good uh review in the last letter. I if you haven't read it and if you don't get their newsletter, you should look at it. Um Kathy Ramont did a really good review of what's been happening not only in Roseville but in the surrounding areas but stressing mostly Roseville because that's what do good Roseville stresses but also what can be done and there was a list of I can't even tell you how many things I I thought it was excellent and anyone here could find something they could do in that group in that um from you know financial support to food food support to uh just helping your neighbors and all those things. So, take a look at that and um uh stay strong. There were two other things I did want to mention uh that I just remembered as others were talking and that was that I I don't think it's breaking any news that the the sort of the the uh police chiefs have been in some conversations with each other and and potentially with other folks trying to work some things through from that point of view as well. and we've gotten some or maybe are in the process of potentially getting some more advice from the Ramsey County Attorney's Office as well for local law enforcement and sort of the what what can and can't be done and how things might proceed. So, we've got that those lines of communication going on as well. So, I did want to to add those uh notes as well, but certainly uh I think as others uh have have noted that doesn't mean that we're and as you said yourself, Mr. Judge, that doesn't mean that we've exhausted all the possibilities. uh is just trying to to note some of the things that have been uh underway and ongoing in this process. Uh with that, if there's no further updates from from the staff or council perspective, I do want to uh provide an opportunity for members of the public to weigh in on uh certainly especially the uh updated version of the policy 413 uh.6 six related to police involvement with immigration enforcement and certainly uh any other topic related to this uh that folks may want to speak to. Uh I do want to just go through really quickly the rules of the road for public comment. Uh by council rule, each speaker has a three-minute time limit which I try to enforce uh generously and gently. Uh we do ask that you begin your comments by uh stating your name and either your address or your street uh or whatever you're comfortable sharing as an identifier uh as relates to the official public record of these comments. Um if you have a name that's a little bit uh unlikely for us to guess the spelling of. Once you're finished with your comments, you can step off to the side and there's a clipboard. You can just write your name on it uh as legibly as you can so that we can make sure and get that spelling correctly for the record. But we sort of ask that you do that once you're done with your comments uh so that uh somebody else that's after you can begin their comments and continue uh their comments and we can uh keep the process hopefully moving fairly efficiently for folks. So once again the three-minute time limit uh state your name and and uh address or street to identify for the record. Um I'll address comments and questions to the council uh and then if there's any questions we can answer as a follow-up, we'll do that at the end of all the comments or questions. uh and uh if things require follow-up, we may have to bring information back uh at a later time. Uh and uh uh please uh don't have conversations with each other. Uh this is an opportunity for the council to hear from you. Uh that is the the main purpose of this comment uh period. Uh I think I'll stop with that. Oh, and one opportunity to comment per agenda item. So for each person. So uh if you can't finish your comments in the three minutes, uh certainly you can follow up with the council. Uh, and if you happen to have something in writing, Mr. Trean can take that and uh, get copies to the council as well. So, with that, we'll open it up for uh, members of the public. Oh, and the only other thing I'll say is we do have the two chairs and two microphones. So, if somebody is speaking at one, feel free to queue up at the next one and be ready to go. And if you want to be the next person after that, we've got some open chairs in the front seats to keep the line moving along. And now with that, thank you for your patience. Uh, open it up for public comment. >> Can we get the text up on the screen again? Uh, >> Mr. Trean, can you bring that up? Cynthia White. I'm a Roseville resident. Um, first I'd like to quickly thank all of you um and the police chief in particular for the work that you've been doing. I know that it's been um heavy duty going. Thank you. Um second of all, I support the safe and stable communities effort um wholeheartedly. I've been researching that a little bit on my own. Um, but mostly what I want to do is um thank you for the police the uh policy 413 language changes. Um, I have um in front of me, if I can read it, um, John Choy sent a letter to all of the police chiefs in Ramsey County affirming county officials authority to investigate allegations against federal officers. I wanted to I assume that that's what you were referencing, Mayor Row. Um, and I wanted to affirm that the policy, the language changes in 413 are consistent with um, any conversation that John Choy has had with um, our police chief. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> you bet. >> All right. Well, hello everyone. Uh, my name is uh, it just works. I forget. Yeah. Uh my name is Andy. Uh I live over by like Acorn Park on like Rice and Wooers. Um so I had a bunch of stuff, but I was going to talk about this. Uh I have some misgivings about the last section. What it was was requests by federal immigration officials [snorts] for assistance from this department should be directed to a supervisor. And what it's become has got like all these wiggle words. You guys like conjured up so many wiggly little words. Requests for assistance from federal immigration officials should be directed to a supervisor whenever practicable. What what happened to the old strong language? When feasible, a supervisor should respond to and coordinate call. This entire thing is just wiggly wiggly wiggly wiggly and you had something that was honestly pretty concise. My on the old my only change would be should should be changed to ought, right? I mean, I think you should have the moral imperative of a word like ought there. So, I would love to hear more from y'all on what happened. Like, why did we decide that now it's only whenever practicable that you talk to your supervisor when it's feasible and all these awful wiggle words. I'd love to see that go away. I mean, especially in the context of like as established, you guys can't really actually do anything against the federal government because there's like this stacking hierarchy and they just auto trump you. But you guys can be bureaucratic, right? like I like why can't a random cop on the street. Ah man, I I'd love to help but I got I got to call my supervisor and like you go back you call the like this is the sort of practical reality of what we're facing, right? I'm not expecting like gunfights in the streets from Roseville Police Department. I get that, but like they could go talk to their supervisor. So I find that language pretty disappointing. I think you should change it. Um I liked that you guys were talking about rent assistance. That's cool. I think you should do whatever you can there. More food assistance stuff as well. Um, I'll say I I think it's kind of embarrassing to be talking about like laws in the context of the flock cameras, which I don't like. I've talked about before, but like the federal government [snorts] is not abiding by any of our laws, right? Like I I don't you could write anything. You could have the strongest language in the world and they're just going to take that data if they want it. Uh, so I mean I think there's like a lot more consideration that has to go into the fact that that data is never going to be safe. You can't keep it safe. You can't guarantee that no matter what your laws are that it will be safe. The federal government will just take it. So the only real answer is to stop creating that data so they cannot take it. Um so yeah I mean I think I think that's really like the the two that I wanted to focus on there was like I would love to see that language go back to the old one change the word should to be aunt in the old one and I don't understand or maybe there's a reason someone could explain that that'd be awesome. And then yeah I think we got to get rid of the plot cameras. There's just no way you guys have any real way to stop the federal government from using that to track constitutional observers. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Uh, is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Come on up. >> Um, hello. I'm I'm Tori. I live over the intersection near Snelling and C2. Um, I like all the links and resources that are on the website and all those updates with that. However, I do think it might be beneficial to start looking into creating a statement in regards to drones. I've noticed a lot like an increase of drones throughout Roseville Skies, especially the past three days. Um, so I think that could be nice to at least have like a statement on the page in regards to like, okay, Roseville police drones versus like the big scary federal drones that we've been seeing. Um, and I think that's my my only thought wasn't going to come up, but I was like, these drones are starting to freak me out. So, it would be very nice to see Roseville make a statement on the difference of drones when Roseville Police Department does use drones and if there's anything we could do to report the federal drones, which I'm going to assume the answer is no, but you like to like to think. So, thank you for your time. comments, other public comment. >> Hello and welcome. >> I'm Carrie Galley. I live near Highway 36 in Dale Street and a lot of my questions over the last few days have been answered this evening. So, thank you for that. Um, thank you for sharing what you're learning from other cities, other municipalities, and all that. It's just helpful for us in community to know that work is going on and I encourage you to continue to share additional updates as they come forward um and to continue to give all this you know this whole operation metro surge the attention that you are giving it now um until they're gone. So we are probably a few months still ahead of us in that type of work. Uh thank you to the attorney for sharing you know the perspective on the lawsuit because that's super helpful to know. Um, and I'm not necessarily qualified to speak to the police policy, but I really want to thank you for making the updates. Um, and if I recall correctly, some of the updates made in the um the couple of first few paragraphs are now more protective of community members than the last version. So, thank you for that. But I do want to say it's really important to get this policy right. Um, and you know, maybe you could answer the question if you had looked and compared Minneapolis's policy, St. Paul's policy, um, if that was taken into consideration. I'm also glad to hear that the MAC was involved in drafting the language. I am curious. I have a question if the equity and inclusion commission was consulted or if they were part of writing the language. Um, and I will certainly defer to people who are more qualified on behalf of protecting the community as to if this language accomplishes that. Um, so those were the main things I wanted to say. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Uh, additional public comment at this time. >> All right. Go ahead and close the opportunity for public comment. We appreciate the feedback. Uh we did actually in response to a question from a member of the public uh get some information from the PD in relation to drones. Um and I won't read the whole thing, but there is a little bit of information there that's probably helpful. The main thing was as to who's responsible for uh enforcement on those. And so I'm just apologize. I'm doing a little scrolling here to find it. Ah, there we go. There we go. Um, so the the bottom line is that uh enforcement related to drones of any kind is uh under the FAA, which is a federal agency. Um, they do have a reporting line which if you want to get your uh pencil and paper or whatever you need handy, the FAA local office is at 61253 4400. There is also, I believe, an online reporting method through the FAA website and so you can check that out. But that would be the primary way to do it. Uh, our chief did indicate that the the city has deployed our drones about four times in the last month in relation to specific activities that the city was involved in. Usually, it's either helping to locate a suspect uh or having a better view of a particular crime scene for an investigation, those types of things. Uh and we've got as was noted our our policy on our use of the drones which talks about how we do use those. Certainly I believe Ramsey County probably deploys drones and uh the state of Minnesota various BCA state patrol uh may employ drones. We certainly I know I've heard helicopters recently which I always assume it's the state patrol or somebody helping out with the similar search for a suspect or something like that. Uh, but I imagine and I did a little bit of research online today and certainly federal agencies do deploy drones. They have they have policies. They say they have policies about their use. And so certainly that's something maybe we need to add to our our lobbying of our federal decision makers about making sure that either they live up to those policies or that we strengthen those policies. So wanted to follow up on that with specific information that we had heard uh just uh today and I appreciate the chief following up on that question from the public. um on the um let's see here. I don't believe that we had an opportunity to run the policy by the equity inclusion commission because of the timing of the meetings. >> Correct. >> Um and certainly we can still have them weigh in and and we can adjust the policy if we need to on that basis. I don't think that's necessarily a problem. Policies can evolve over time. We can update per what we what we see now and if we want to make additional changes, we can do that. Um, so that's that's that answer. Just on the data considerations with the with the license plate reader cameras, my understanding is that the data is the city of Roseville's data and that is not possessed by the entities that provide the cameras, but I'm not 100% sure of that. And so I think if we need to have some follow-up information about that, uh, Chief, if you've got that, come on up. I I I appreciate you catching my eye there. I know this this is a topic that uh that is of of concern to people and I understand that and I want to make sure that we're being responsive to those concerns. >> Chief. >> Yep. So, as there were questions, we reached out to um our license plate reader vendor had these conversations just to make sure that we weren't missing something. You are correct. It is our data and we determine who it gets shared with. We do have some share agreements with local agencies, but we have zero federal um agencies that we're sharing with and they do not have access. So, that's the information we have. >> Right. And uh so, and with those agencies locally that we're sharing with, it's typically because maybe somebody is is either maybe it's a warrant in their jurisdiction or somebody's moving from our area into their area or something like that. Is that primary purpose of those types of sharing situations? >> Correct. So even when we're sharing, they have to have a legitimate law enforcement purpose why they're looking in the database. It's not to just go in and look through a bunch of data and see see who is shopping at at one of our malls. So and that's why we have to do the audit to make sure that those um uh that all of our procedures are being followed. Every other agency is required in the state of Minnesota to also undergo those audits. Um, as was mentioned across the country, there isn't the same rules, but in in the state of Minnesota, there's a lot of statutes, um, mandated policies that really try to make sure privacy is a top concern. >> All right. Thank you for that update, Chief. Appreciate that. >> All right. Uh, and then just, uh, as to the, and I don't know, Chief, if this is something you want to answer about the language change in the last paragraph, I apologize. [laughter] >> Yeah. Yeah. So in a in a perfect world, we would always have a super supervisor respond. That is the expectation. Whenever one of these calls comes in, whether it's a 911 call, we want a supervisor to go. The reality is we have one supervisor often working the entire street and covering six or seven officers. If that supervisor is tied up on a call that he can't break away, we don't want to just have that call sitting and nobody responding. So that's why there's a little bit of of we'd send an officer and as soon as that supervisor could clear, we would certainly send them. Now, if this happened during the day, there's a lot of command staff around, we would certainly be responding to these calls as well. But at 9:00 at night, if a call pops out that there's some kind of request for assistance, a sergeant is tied up on another crime scene or tracking a suspect, they might not be able to break away to immediately get there. But the expectation is they would be involved as soon as they could. And I was going to say that seems to be the practice with other types of calls where if if the super supervisory staff is not available immediately, the responding officers still do respond and you know figure out what's going on and then certainly the supervisory staff is then engaged when they can be, especially depending on the situation. >> For sure. And if there was a call that could wait for a supervisor to respond, we would certainly wait. But there are calls that drop that we're not even we just need to get somebody to that scene. So if it was a request for something in in three days, >> that's going to go through the typical chain of command. If it's an immediate need, that's where it can be more challenging. >> Correct. >> If it's involving especially the safety of the public, that's the idea is not to delay >> providing that safety as I understand it. >> Yep. That's absolutely true. And and we did talk to all of our sergeants. We had a meeting on this and the expectation is if they're available, they would absolutely be the ones to respond and they are. There are just those unique circumstances where it might be delayed uh before we can get a supervisor to that scene. >> Right. And Mr. Trean, could you bring up the the old language which I think is just the previous slide >> just to do a check. Do we have a problem with the uh old language as it was written in with just less words? Does it say the same thing? Essentially, >> pretty much says the same thing. >> Okay. That's what I just wanted to clarify because we may end up with that. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, Chief. Council member Strong, >> on the new language, sorry, Pat [laughter] >> Nick, um would it be more appropriate to indicate um should be directed to a supervisor as soon as practicable? >> That would be fine >> because whenever sounds like, you know, if it if we get around to it, but as soon as practicable would indicate that it will go to a supervisor, just not maybe this exact moment. >> Yes. Yep. >> Great. Thank you. Now, I think where you you get to stand by, but uh >> don't go far. >> You can you can you can stand at ease, [laughter] >> right? Other uh questions or feedback from uh the council. Can we flip back again, Mr. Tragion? I'm sorry. No worries. [laughter] >> I can do it. >> Nope. Oh, wrong video. >> You thought you could do it. [snorts] >> Oh, you're going the wrong way. >> I won the wrong way. >> I was going to say, >> it's a review. [laughter] >> This will be on your performance review. >> Yes. So, so we could so we could add to this language if we wanted to revert to this language, we could add at the end of it as soon as as soon as possible or something to that effect. I think that was the language you were talking about, council member Strong. >> Yeah. I just instead of whenever practical, as soon as practical. >> So, we get that that immediacy built into it. >> So, like they're still expected to respond. It just might not be that exact moment if they're elsewhere. And I don't know if it makes sense to to put the qualification in there that it says something to the effect that it's in accordance with, you know, standard procedure anyway or something like that in terms of, you know, making sure of involving u supervisory staff in decision-m as appropriate. So I don't once again we could come back to that later if we need to. >> I believe that language would be in other parts of the policy. >> Yeah, correct. Yeah, I'm sure we've already got policies related to elevating things to supervisors. uh based on criteria. So it would just be maybe to say that this is consistent with that and then specifically they should do it as soon as possible. >> All right. Other thoughts from council members on the policy? Maybe we'll focus on the policy first. >> The policy as it's rewritten. >> The right the updated policy with the possible exception of the last paragraph reverting to simpler language with more complicating language added to that. I I really think that they you've done a really good job on capturing the concerns of the residents and my concerns. Personally, I think that it's a start. These policies are changeable. So, this isn't going to be now it hasn't been changed for many years, but they are changeable. So, with this situation we're in now, you have to understand things could change in a month or two and we might have to make changes again on it. So, um I think it's important for me tonight to get something in place and I'm I'm very comfortable with the language here with the addition of what uh council member Stron said as soon as possible instead of whenever. I think it it uh reflects local locally laws and local what we can do locally and that's why I'm I would be in support of this. >> Thank you, Council Member Grath. Council member Schroeder. >> Um yes, thank you. And actually I'm comfortable with this policy um language particularly that the MAC was involved with this. Um I I that group um has been instrumental with a lot of policy changes and um I think that they had the opportunity to look at it a number of times and so um with their with them putting the stamp of approval on it, I'm I'm comfortable with this policy. >> Right. And council member Bower. >> Yeah. going to second. Council member Sher, you know, applaud the work that the MAC group's done. They've helped out uh you know, obviously with this, but with many other things related to police and um some of the other work that policies that we have that have really been instrumental in uh establishing and building trust with our officers. Um so, I'd also be in favor of this policy. I think it does address the concerns previously. Um so, with the last paragraph, as is with council member Strong's uh change, >> great. And I think we're we're tweaking the the change. [laughter] The current thinking [clears throat] >> is basically striking the last sentence which seems a little redundant with the previous one. >> And that returns it very close to the original language and then changing whenever practicable to as soon as possible >> or as soon as practical or possible whichever >> practical tends to be the policy handbook. Does the attorney have a >> is the [laughter] >> She doesn't have an opinion. >> All right. She probably has an opinion, but it's not a legal opinion. >> Um >> probably parsing things because you're >> I mean, I think as soon as practicable or as soon as possible. If people don't know the meaning of practicable, it may seem um like it's jargon. So maybe possible is is better for people to understand, but this isn't necessarily written for public enjoyment. Uh it's it's a policy we want everyone to abide by. >> I'm not Yeah, I'm not sure there's too much of a distinction between those two words. So if if one word is easier for more people to understand, it may be the one we ought to use. >> I'll defer to the wordsmith. So, um, Council Member Strong, would you like to make a motion in relation to the, uh, adopting the policy changes, uh, with your amendment? >> Indeed. I'd like to propose, um, adoption of the, uh, amended language, but with the [clears throat] following corrections, striking the last sentence of the proposed language and adjusting, um, the second to last sentence to indicate should be directed to a supervisor as soon as possible. >> Second. >> Right. It's been seconded by council member Grath. Uh discussion of the motion. Any more discussion? All right. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. That policy change is uh made and will be put into effect immediately. >> Uh and with that, I think unless there's any other items on this subject, I think we've uh pretty well uh concluded our discussion this evening. Thank you once again for everybody who is uh paying attention to what's going on with this and what we're doing and up to and appreciate the input that we receive both formally at these meetings as well as uh through other through emails and phone calls that we get from members of the community as well. So keep that up. Uh with that uh that brings us then to our second business item uh which is item 7B and that is to consider a request to perform an abatement of unresolved code violations uh at uh 1585 county road C. And we have our codes official David England with us this evening uh to bring this item before the council. And I guess the the the the first item of news is is that they didn't come into compliance sometime during the day today. >> They did not. >> All right, Mr. England, welcome. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. Um, put a picture up of what the conditions are today. Um, so it's, uh, again, numerous tires are being placed on the grass area along Lincoln Avenue. Um, outside of the requirements of code. Uh, we got a complaint on this on January 6th. Uh, staff went out and verified the complaint. There were considerably more uh, tires at that time. Um, we did leave a letter with the business and we did send one to the property owner explaining the it's outside of code. We went back on January 21st to see if they'd made corrections or um come up with a different solution. At that point, we we saw no progress uh towards compliance. So, then we moved it another 10-day notice. We sent a letter to the property owner, sent left one with the business there. on January 30th, uh stopped out and talked to the manager there and dropped off our council notification that this would be heard tonight. Um at that point there were significantly less tires there. We we were hopeful that it was because of our actions that they had gotten the point and they were moving forward, but apparently they only removed tires when they reached a total of 50. Um so we just explained to them that that we can't work with that. um and that we would discuss it tonight and I encourage them to come to the meeting tonight to maybe provide a plan moving forward. Um in relation to a plan, we did receive a permit application at the building department for an enclosure um [clears throat and cough] that would provide cover for these. that would be something that would um be helpful if we had an enclosure that um that we could put these tires in or they could put these tires in. Um this is the plan we received in relation to the enclosure. Um and we had responded to the contractor about I believe four times, possibly five, asking for a little more detail. Um so we we did not receive any after our attempts. Um, in discussions with the city planner, they can put an enclosure there, but it has to meet the requirements of the city, uh, building type material. Um, those kind of items. Um, so we're we're kind of stuck. Um, but yeah, these they're not going anywhere apparently. They're uh this is their business model. Um, this is a property that we've done snow abatement on, I believe, four times already this winter with even the limited amount of snow we've had. Um, they're not very responsive to code actions. Um, so with that, staff would recommend or would ask council to direct staff to abate the tires that are uh currently there. And maybe that will provide some motivation to Um, >> we lost >> actually cons [clears throat] um uh come into code compliance and place an appropriate structure on the property. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. England. Um, just quickly, is the fence structure of sorts that the tires are in, is that a code compliant uh structure on the property? >> It is not. Um, >> would that have to be removed as part of this enforcement? >> That would be also removed with as part of the outside storage of items, >> right? >> No. >> All right. Thank you. Questions from the council. >> All right. Council member Strong. >> So, we abate, we remove these items, then there's not even an enclosure for which these random tires stay contained. Um, what happens next? If I were to make an assumption, I would say that I'll probably be here in about a month with the same or similar request. >> And so until um an appropriate uh plan and execution of that plan were to be um put into place, would they be able to be considered if they had a plan and were moving forward with it to have some type of conditional use or some temporary storage of this in the interim? >> No, there would not. So until there is a fixed approved uh site, they will continue to be out of compliance. >> Correct. And I've suggested that they move these inside. Um they do have a a dumpster enclosure currently on the site that I don't know if they could fit them in there. Um but I've suggested that they move them inside storage. They do have um it's a little difficult to see, but they do have racks of new tires here that are on wheels that they roll back into the facility every night. Um I suggest they do the same with the used ones. Um that has not been met with any positive information. >> Right. Other questions? C >> sort of a followup on that. Um, so do they pay the abatement fees when they're required or does that get added to the taxes or how are we collecting that? >> Of the five we've sent this year, they've paid one. It was a middle one. It wasn't a beginning one. It wasn't the end. It So, it's um but it is a company out of Texas that uh we get no response from. Um we were pretty happy that we got one of the abatement fees paid. It was a little shocking, but um we were happy with that. And we we have we are in contact with this um the managers out there. They're not um they kind of say their hands are tied. This is what their regional managers and district managers tell them to do. So that's what they do. Um so we're hopeful potentially if there's an approved abatement action, maybe this will spur them on. We did get a um increased estimate from my estimate that I put into the council packet. The last estimate we got was just for the removal and disposal of these tires would be approximately $1,500. And then there is an additional um abatement fee that comes from a council approved abatement. Right. >> Council member Sher, >> do you know if they own this property or if they're renting? the business rents the property from the corporate entity of the same name if that makes sense. >> Yeah. >> Other questions? Is there a representative of Jiffy Lube here this evening? >> Doesn't appear to be the case. Uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this request from staff to have authorization to obey these tires? does not appear to be the case. We'll close the opportunity for public comment. We have the request before us to perform the abatement uh as outlined of the tires uh that are remaining on the site. Uh council, is there a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Stron, second by council member Grath to authorize staff to do that abatement as outlined uh with the costs allocated to the property owner. Um I did want to just before the discussion I did want to note that uh we should be clear that nothing in this action has anything to do with the prior payment or non-payment or of snow abatements or the fact that we performed snow abatements. Uh this is strictly being decided on the merits of the request for the abatement for this particular code violation. With that discussion on the motion, council member Strong, >> uh two items. Do we attempt to um have the abatement fee be in in relation to the amount you're indicating it would actually cost to remove these items? Cuz what's presented in the RFP is not the same. >> Correct. >> RCA. >> Yeah. It would be the actual >> whatever invoice we get from our contractor will be the one that'll be sent um along with uh our processing fee and our uh council approved abatement fee. >> Okay. And then I think it's just important to um stress to the business owner that the moment another tire goes onto that abated area, they are out of compliance. Again, >> we will do that. >> Thank you. >> Discussion as the secondary. Council member Goff, >> I'm just kind of totally I I know I shouldn't be surprised after almost eight years here, but it amazes me. I went I drove over there last night thinking, you know, maybe it'll be done and we'll take it off the agenda. There were only eight tires left in there. So, I thought, well, this is going to disappear tomorrow. I'm sure they're working on this. And now it has not happened. So, um I I I only see they're only going to to comply if we pass this and that's why I support it. We have to get their attention, unfortunately. I hope between the management here and whoever owns this property in Texas, they can figure this out. Uh this is for a future discussion, but I would like some other way of we've done this with other things of being able to collect this these fees, but we can talk about that at another time. >> Sure. Well, and the other piece of it is that I think if there's repeated non-compliance, we do have the administrative citation process that we can pursue as well. >> Okay. >> So, we do have that yet to potentially do, but Mr. uh England, >> we have issued administrative citations and repeat nuisance fees to this property within this action and the previous snow. Okay. So, we're already doing those things, too. So, the abatement is in addition to all those prior enforcement efforts. >> Correct. >> Got it. All right. Well, maybe maybe the court citation is the next way to go. Anyway, with that, we've got the motion before us. Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. That abatement is approved. Thank you, Mr. England. >> Thank you. Uh next on our agenda, we have uh item 7 C uh which is to consider recommendations as to Pascal Street and uh Brooks Avenue intersection as it relates to uh KA Park. And I'll turn it over to our public works director uh Jesse Fryhammer to bring this item before the council for consideration. >> Uh thank you, mayor and councel. Um so tonight we are discussing the intersection kind of Pascal and Brooks as well as going north into Ka Park. So, I'm just going to give a quick presentation about how we've got to where we're at and uh we'll go from there. So, um this intersection was originally planned for I should say Pascal Street was originally planned to be part of the 2025 pavement management project. Um, we did push back just the part uh from Brooks North um last year to do a little bit of a test project uh uh which I'll explain here shortly, but that was because we've had a lot of complaints in the past about the intersection of Pascal Brooks as well as the hill that goes up in towards uh Ka Park. So over the years we've had lots of numerous complaints from residents from both speeding uh visibility over the hill, close calls, and then a lot of requests for an allway stop at Pasco Brooks. So, the kind of intent of that pilot project was to do some sort of demonstration to see if we could get um some support to to make some sort of changes to hopefully improve those and and get less complaints [clears throat] over the years. So, um current conditions, Pascal Street, just like all the other neighborhoods in that street are 32 foot 30 is 32 feet wide 32 foot wide road. Uh it's a two-way stop control at the intersection of Brooks and Pascal. So, it stops Brooks. You you're you're free to go on on Pascal. Um the big issue with this street which is very unique to this to all of Roseville really is there's kind of like a 25 mile per hour vertical curve. So it is it does create a visibility issue. Um actually found in the file today back in 1994 the plan was to remove that hill but that was when they the city staff then found out that they can't lower the hill because there's basically a Mellan pipeline underneath. So I'm guessing it would cost a lot of money to have them lower. I think there's three three pipelines there. So that's why the hill exists. So the simple answer would be to remove the hill, but we can't do that. Um overall traffic, there's only about 300 cars a day. Um numerous speed studies we've done in this area because we have lots have had lots of complaints. The speed limit or the 85th percentile speed limit is about 22.6 to 24.9 miles per hour. We really don't have a lot of documented crash history here. We just have lots of complaints. Um we did do the pilot project. We installed that for six weeks in the fall. Um the goal was kind of to demonstrate if we narrowed the road and provided a separated spot for pedestrians, if we could get some speed reduction as well, if that would provide a safer spot for pedestrians going to the park. Um we did do speed data before and after. Uh the speed data was inconclusive for reduction. Um we did receive lots of feedback in the comments, so those are included in the packet as an appendix. And then like I said, we kind of had both support and opposition to the changes with with as well as some confusion about the the pylons we used because it also looked similar to the pylons that we had in Hamlin uh but serving different different purposes. So just a real sum quick summary of the time frame or timeline. Um we did do this in the fall with the pilot project. Uh we did a neighborhood meeting on the January 13th and then we brought this to the parks and recck commission and the um public works environment and transportation commission in the last few weeks and their recommendations we'll go through there shortly. So um option one was basically similar to what we we mirrored with the pilot project showing a narrowed street. We went from 32 to 26 ft wide um with basically swapping out 6 ft of pavement basically for a 6ft sidewalk. Um we did on this one have a a bumpout included on the southeast corner. Um had a lot of negative feedback on this particular with the bumpout. So staff is not proposing option one. Uh option two is very similar. The only difference being we basically eliminated the bumpout as well as we added a little more boulevard for the um for snow storage. And then option three is basically keeping the road as is. No changes to the geometric layout of of or the curb line. So the road width remains the same and basically just adding a sixoot sidewalk behind the back of curb. Um this will the only real big impact the reason we didn't do this originally is there is a a large hedge that is in the way that will have to get removed as part of this. That was one of the reasons originally we looked at narrowing the road um as well as trying to reduce speed. But um that would be the one impact that this option has that the others don't. But certainly the hedge is 100% within city right away. Certainly the city has the right to do that. Um and then all these scenarios we are proposing to change the uh no parking. Um currently there is no parking on a good chunk of the east side of the road. We're proposing to allow the parking on the east side of the road other than at the hill. Um basically the park that way if you go to the park you'd be able to allow to you'd be parking on the park side instead of on the opposite side which it is currently. So um a lot we've heard generally heard support for that uh to to to to modify the parking as described. So recommendations uh we did provide this to the public works environment transportation commission. Um they did not provide a recommendation on any of the three layouts proposed. Um they did recommend an all-way stop be added to the Pascal Brooks intersection. Um we did present the same uh report to the parks and recreation commission last week. Same thing. They did not provide a recommendation on the layout. Um they did provide a recommendation on adding an all hallway stop to the Brooks Pascal intersection. And then they um also recommended to change the parking to the east side other than going up the hill similar to as as staff had proposed. Um otherwise staff's recommendation is just to go forward with option three which is just adding the sidewalk basically from Brooks up into the park um and with no major changes to the Pascal um right width of the roadway. And then I did just want to comment um kind of on an allway stop warrant. So typically staff reviews these. We've had we've reviewed this intersection numerous times probably over the last 20 years. Um, so numerous staff has city engineers have denied the request because the main reason is to to meet a always stop warrant. There's um five warrants that need to be met. Um, one is a crash warrant. There needs to be at least five crashes in a 12-month period. We really don't have a any crash history here to even come close to that. Um, the second one is a minor approach controlled by a stop. Does not have adequate crossing visibility. This would typically be if you had a stop around like a curve where you couldn't see around the curve. That obviously we have a vertical curve that's causing it, but we've never heard that issue where people say, "I can't see someone going over the hill. It's 30 m hour." Um, so if you're trying to just cross, that hasn't been a problem. Uh, C, transition to a signal or or a circular intersection. We're not planning to do that. That's kind of a temporary thing. you if you knew you were going to put a signal there, you put a stop, a four-way stop as a kind of a temporary thing until you build the signal. Um, an 8 hour warrant major street has 300 units per hour and a minor street has 200 units per hour. We're not even close to that. We have about 300 cars a day on each street, so we're well under that threshold. And then other factors would be um such as issues with left turns, um operational characteristics, the intersection doesn't function well, stuff like that. none of those are really met. So there is an option um any intersection can always be uh added and always stop at the discretion of you know if there's an engineering judgment to do it. I said staff has generally been discouraged to do that because it it does uh doesn't meet any of these warrants and then the hazard of adding a stop sign can actually sometimes be worse than just adding a four-way stop. So did want to provide a little bit of that context. So with that, um, just looking for council direction on to approve a layout or a different layout or keep it the same or just general direction on how to proceed with, uh, this Pascal street. So with that, I will open up to questions for the council. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Fryhammer. Questions from the council. >> Council member Schroeder. So, um it would seem that, you know, and I watched part of the PEWAT um meeting and then, you know, listening to people speak and it seems like putting the four-way stop and since both the PWAT and the parks and rec unanimously recommended the four-way stop, it it seems like it it would be a simple thing to put in and I know it might not be hitting this criteria, but um I Yes. Um I I would be in favor of going ahead with it particularly since we had a number of residents in support of it and both comm um commissions have both you know recommended it. So I guess um I would think that that would be part of what we'd want to um approve tonight would be that four-way stuff as well as a and I don't and I think you're right. One and two are not good options, you know. Um I'm I'm okay with with that third one. Is there a reason why neither commission uh commented on the um third option? >> Um I think there was some discussion on that, but I think there since there wasn't like unanimous support one way or the other. I don't think any they were willing to come up with a recommendation or or make that motion, but there was three was the only one that they were leaning on in towards anyway. But they didn't want to make a I don't there wasn't unanimous support for that either. Otherwise, >> they agreed on the four-way. That's the one thing we did agree on. Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions for staff? >> Council member Strong. >> So, um as far as the pathway, which there isn't there aren't any pathways in this neighborhood otherwise, is the intent of it to um have added safety then getting into the park from that intersection? Um, obviously it's not going to be if we're not worrying about trying to slow down speed. Um, >> yeah. So, really the intent is to provide separation from vehicles basically where we have that poor visibility of the hill because we have that little bump that goes in there. If you do look at the neighborhood, if you're coming from the south, that is kind of the pinch point for the neighborhood to get to the park. So, you theoretically have the highest volume of of pedestrian on that little stretch there. So it does provide a simple connection into the park if you're walking. So it's kind of eliminating providing the providing a separation at kind of the hazard where we've heard complaints about the the the site visibility around the hill. >> Would it be feasible or possible to have like a crosswalk at that Brooks and Pascal if we were to go ahead with a four-way stop? Something >> kind of direct people over to that pathway on that side. >> So we certainly could look at it. We typically we have a crosswalk policy. Typically, we only put crosswalks in if we have receiving um pedestrian facilities on both sides of the road. It's not to say we don't have there. There are there are a few exceptions we have. They are usually almost always by parks where we maybe have a neighborhood one. I'm I'm thinking of one down the street where I think we just have a crosswalk maybe. Um but we we try not to we try to be consistent with our crosswalk blocks because we want to emphasize where they're at. We could do um if we do do an an all hallway stop, especially if it was a change, we probably would add stop blocks um which not that they're crosswalk blocks, but any we would we would certainly want to and show that there's a change from what's there because it is it would be new to to the neighborhood and residents around. >> Other questions? Council Bower, >> does option three at does option three at all provide any kind of additional safety for those crossing over Pascal specifically on the north side of Brooks? >> No, there's really no crossing improvements that it would be. It would just basically be if you're walking along or north or south on Brooks, you'd have a spot to go that at least you're not hidden behind the hill as you're walking up the hill. >> North or south of Pas. >> North or south of Pascal. Yes. >> Yeah. So, that would be a, you know, maybe a reason why you'd want a four-way stop there for a little bit additional safety since cars would have to stop. It could provide that crossing. Um, that that that could be an option. I know we did do we did add when we did the county road B project, we did add a four-way stop to enhance the thing, but to enhance the crosswalk that we added at um being in Fulham. No, it's not. >> Yeah. >> Oh, is it Be F? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, it's your neighborhood. You should know. [laughter] Um, but we did have pedestrian facilities on both sides there. So, that was one advantage of that was we it was built into a overall project with a larger sidewalk network. But the only caution is like said adding four-way stops where they're unwarranted can cause um, you know, issues with stop sign compliance. So, it's always a little bit of a hesitation just throwing it up expecting that you're going to get that compliance. >> Could could you elaborate what you mean by that? So if four-way just because you put signs up doesn't mean people follow them. If you always pull up to it, so the intent of a stop sign is to a sign right away, not to control speed. So if you um if you show up to a stop sign and no one is ever there, people tend to start rolling stop signs. So we have a couple intersections that are notorious for that. >> Um Rose Lawn and Fernwood has been a four-way stop forever and it has much more higher traffic, but we had complaints. We actually did a se we did a um a stop sign compliance study on it and it was found that 10% of people barely slow down. >> But it's because it's it's one of those intersections. There's people going through it all the time, but it's never that busy probably unless it's like 5:00 at night. >> And so we've added additional things to get people's attention because there's thoughts that >> it's visibility. Well, >> the visibility is actually pretty good there. We already have 36 inch signs. They're huge signs there. So that's always our concern. You add a four-way stop. Are people going to roll it? The fact this would be at the bottom of a hill. Just another little thing to to worry about. A little more icing concerns in the winter, stuff like that. All these can be addressed. We can add advanced signage. We can add flags. We can add flashers. We can do all that. But it after a while, people, like I said, if you always show up, people get lazy and and are just a concern that we have. If you you add a stop sign where it's unwarranted. Can I just uh ask a followup on that? I know I've heard at prior council meetings because I've been doing this for a while that um adding a stop sign where people don't typically have one if there's a speed concern sometimes that actually raises the speed between the stop signs because people are angry that they had to slow down for the stop sign. Yeah, it it can have the effect of slowing you down at the intersection or very near it because you're slowing down for it, but >> or stopping >> or stopping, but they can try to make up that time further south. So, if we maybe looked south of here or most likely, I would guess south of the intersection, you might have an increase if people try to make up that time that they perceived they lost, >> right? Because I had heard that before. Okay. Council member Grath. Well, I was just going to piggyback on that because this is exactly what has happened with Fulham and County Road B in my neighborhood. And one of the neighbors who's quite vocal was really upset because she did a rolling stop through that stop sign and did get a warning. And of course, at her age, that was pretty she's in her mid 80s. She said that was very upsetting to her. And she was wondering why we did the four-way stops. And I said, 'Well, you know, I gave her all the reasons, but but this is an example of what you're talking about, Mr. Frame, is that we do want people to be complying with them, and also it is more dangerous, especially if they came up over that hill and it weren't expecting that stop sign. We can do things, but if they go through the stop sign and the other people are expecting it to be a four-way stop, it can actually create an accident, I think. Isn't that what we've seen in some of the studies? >> Correct. Correct. you could you could have an accident because you have less compliance. >> Other questions? I just uh along those lines, we have a number of intersections in the same neighborhood where there is no control whatsoever at the intersection and so which is not uncommon in in lightly traveled residential neighborhoods and people figure it out um for lack of a better I mean you're you're I believe in the driver's training you're taught to yield to >> traffic. Right. >> Right. So um yeah but um and we have other neighborhoods in Roseville that have completely uncontrolled intersections. So there's always that balance, I think, that we're trying to trying to seek there of of trying to accomplish what people are asking for without creating other issues. And I can say actually south of the Roseland and Fernwood, there's also a four-way stop at Garden and Fernwood. And that one is probably obeyed less than the one at Roselon and Fernwood. And there are there are definitely visibility issues at that intersection. So I I understand the concerns about sort of adding stop signs, you know, where it can create issues. The one thing I noticed about this neighborhood is that from Rose Place down to B2, basically Pascal has no stops. >> No. >> And I don't know if that is the street that's seen with more potential speed. I mean, obviously you said the speed is the >> correct 22 to 24 range, but I'm guessing that Pascal tends to be the one with a little more speed on it. >> Yeah, we we definitely get more complaints on Pascal. We do want Brooks to a degree. Um, and then just generally people going through the Brooks Pascal intersection, but that would be a function of of Brooks or of Pascal not having but yes, it is a very long stretch. >> It is the way out of the neighborhood. >> There's really only two ways out which is really Brooks and Pascal. Um, so it is make that unique. Um, and then you know obviously there there's the neighborhood park back there which is pretty neighborhoody but there there's still residents that will you know outside neighborhood that will come in there and they're probably using Pascal. >> Right. I think if we've got uh council questions answered uh we do want to provide an opportunity for public comment. Uh and so we'll just reiterate for anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item the three minute time limit per speaker. uh the uh start with your name and street or address uh and then also uh address comments or questions to the council. We will try to follow up on any uh technical questions with answers after everybody has uh made their comment or asked their question. Uh and we'll open it up then for public comment. Hello, I'm John Hines, 2496 Pascal Street, and I've lived there for 25 years and have never seen or been informed of an accident of any kind on that intersection. That fact alone by any standard is perfect. So the least expensive, most effective, therefore efficient solution would be to do nothing and maintain the safety record proven by history. Not good enough. We got to go do something here. Option one, I was I under the impression option one has been removed. >> I think options one and two are pretty much not being recommended. Well, option one is full of inaccuracies, emissions, safety hazards, two of which are unique and one of them is unheard of until now. Forces drivers to encroach into the oncoming traffic lane. Difficulty of navigation. Try swerving around dead man's curve into baloney bulge there. uh provided you get by. Oh, let's call it uh injury intersection as you enter the misshapen ugly push out, which is short for push the pedestrians out into the lane of traffic. Extremely safe. Option two features most of the uh cleverly designed hazards of option one and moves them very close to the entrance of the park which I thought was going to be one of the concerns to get things safer. So you restrict the uh width of the street right in front of the park. You ever possibly I know you can't really answer um seen turkeys just pop up off the side of the road. Okay. One of those comes walking around and oh there I got a swerve. There's a kid. Uh there's the curb. We've just provided you with the absolute ultimate test of your reaction time and evaluation of ways out of a problem. Option three, nothing really obvious as far as safety hazards go. Simply a needless expenditure of money. Once again, zero accidents. Let's not break it or let's not fix it if it isn't broken. It's kind of an obvious uh efficiency influence here. And um yeah, they're all three. Well, like I say, option three, the least offensive. Um they're all inaccurate. If you notice, the width of the of Pascal Street currently is noted as 36 ft to the outside of the curve, not the width of the actual driving or walking area. Another thing, there's no uh there's I know I'm out of time, right? Okay. Okay. This is general enforcement time. >> And [laughter] I know I know uh try the portable stop sign. We got one sitting up in the uh the works shed there. Um final thought >> other than that. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thanks for your hopefully your attention and time and I'm out of here. >> All right. Thank you. I think that's a mic drop if I've ever heard. [laughter] Is there anyone else from the public that Oh, uh, it's an expression, a mic drop. When you finish your [laughter] comments and and you're done, you just drop the microphone. >> All the kids are saying it these days [laughter] >> or they were 20 years ago. >> Thank you for being my straight man, Mr. [laughter] Uh, anyone else from the public wish to speak to this item this evening? All right. Oh, >> okay. Come on up. >> Hi, I'm Tracy Baker. I also live on Pascal and Brooks. And um I'm quoted in one of one of the previous meetings as saying I was really, you know, pro stop sign. And I was basically if you have to do something to to slow people down or stop, that would be it. But frankly, I would love to have it not be there. So, I would just say I'm very happy that we're at option three. I was very upset with option one and and also option two. I think it it's been very negative when the street was narrowed and Excel had to hire flag people to to move traffic around. So, I'm glad that we're not doing that and I would say um you know, you make your decision about the stop sign, but I can see the b I mean it it works because the traffic is basically the neighborhood or people visiting the neighborhood. It's not like people trying to get through somewhere because you you can't. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you for your comments. >> And is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item? >> All right. We'll go ahead and close the public comment then and we'll go to council consideration. Uh and I did have a follow-up question for Mr. Mr. Fryhammer just to understand uh if I misunderstood the uh proposal or the current state is parking on one side only. Is that correct? >> Correct. Ba in front of basically in front of the uh park tradition most parks we in Roseville we've only done one side because if you do have a lot of residents um you only want one side just to provide that maneuverability. So yes, so in front of the park it would be park on the east side of the roadway. We do have one set of no parking signs that's basically in front of there's a fire hydrant and the entrance. We don't want if you want to walk through the pathway, we want to make sure there's a gap there, but parking would be allowed on the east side generally. >> Okay. Is it allowed on the east side right now? >> Currently, it is on the west side for the majority of >> That's what the piece I was trying to figure out. Okay. So, this at this width, parking can only be on one side or the other. Is that correct? >> It could be on both, but we've generally because if you have tennis programming going on at the park, it gets really more congested. Got it. >> And can if you have people parked on both sides, then we get complaints. So we've generally most other parks like this we've always parked one side no parking. >> Got it. So part of the proposal is to restrict the parking to the east side and not have any parking on the hill. >> Correct. >> Uh part of it. Okay. >> That would be the only spot we'd restricted it is through the hill. >> Thank you for clarifying that. Other questions, council member strong. >> So um thank you. Um where would the parking be restricted? Like on this >> pretty much where the 1455 or all the way up to the park entry? I would say all the way up to 1455. It would probably stop before [clears throat] roughly across the driveway from 20 535 roughly is where we'd stop the the no parking on both sides. And then you'd have parking along the park other than in front of the fire hydrant and the park entrance. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> And is that adequately suit the needs of the parking for this park? >> Yeah, there's it's not a huge demand for park. I mean there I think the only park programming is um it's obviously a local park but then I think there's some tennis lessons and stuff that are going on. So we haven't had an issue with parking with the current demand. So we're just kind of flipping the parking. >> Um and then once you get further once you get past the park we kind of pretty much pull the parking restrictions off. >> So it's open at that point both traditional Yeah. >> neighborhood most of our streets. >> Yep. >> Got it. Okay. >> Other questions or council member GR? >> Just a clarification. So, there was uh someone who wrote in and they were concerned about deliveries and and people doing work on the property. They would be able to park across the street. >> Yes. There should, like I said, the amount of parking should pretty much remain the same. >> Okay. >> Other than on the hill, but no one traditionally has parked on the hill, but we're trying to discourage that if someone wanted to. >> Right. >> Council member Bower, >> could you comment or share your thoughts on doing nothing, maintaining it as the way it is? As I understand, the impetus for doing this or for uh public works to look at this is based on complaints over the years of being >> Yeah, I mean certainly doing nothing could be an option, but we're just going to get the complaints and we'll just end up saying, well, we've looked at it and we've decided not to do nothing. But I mean that that's certainly an option. Um, like we've had, this has been one of the most complained about areas we've had and I don't want to say it's like this huge huge problem, but we certainly get a fair amount of complaints speeding. I mean, we've done more speed studies in this neighborhood. Um, so it just it's kind of, you know, and that's why we brought it up with the PMP. It's like, hey, can we try to do something that would maybe address it without doing a bigger, you know, huge improvement? This is a relatively small minor thing. Um like I said if I think if there was really really simple solutions they hopefully would have been done years ago because there's been a lot of different engineers have had their take you know had a chance to review this. >> Have we done any uh encouragement for reducing the speed i.e. you know uh traffic law enforcement or >> I I'm sure PD has. I know we've rotated the the driver feedback flashback fever >> driver feedback signs that we've we have. Um, I know that's been very frequent at least on Brooks as well as on Pascal. Certainly that's something we can do, but it's it's cyclical. You get people to react to it for a week or two and then they get used to it or move on and go back to old habits. So, um, that's why we'd look to do, like I said, the pilot. We're hoping to see some if you change the geometric of the road, you usually get some um, reaction. We didn't really get that. And then certainly we've just tried a lot of complaints with maybe a short a very small version of that versus maybe what we did on counter would be B where it was a lot larger improvement since we didn't see that that's kind of where we ste steered away from options one and two there. It didn't seem to have any true benefit. So um get less away from that and just more focus on the separation from peds and and vehicles. One, if I can clarify too, I mean, the speed studies you've done indicate that the speed thatth percentile speed anyway is 22 to 25 miles an hour. >> Correct. There really is not a true speeding issue. Um, that's not to say there's no cars ever speeding, but perception of safety issue. >> I think it's perception because a lot of it is because of that visibility because most of the time you can see cars coming and with a little bit of the hill there, it does create that little bit of it's it's different in most parts of Roseville. You can see the car coming before you you hear it. And in this case, that catches you off guard. Oh, where'd that car come from? It feels like it's speeding, but it just came out of nowhere because the visibility is worse than the vast majority of the city. So, >> and we still may have obviously it's 85 85th percentile. There's still people above that. So, there's >> But yeah, it's there's a lot of other streets that are our 85th percentile is 35 miles an hour. So, yes, lot less. >> Seems like mine is, but >> um I did want to just clarify one thing too on the hedge and then I know we've got other questions. So, is it I don't even It's probably a very mature hedge. I'm not sure. >> Hedge can move, but [clears throat] if there was an option to include the cost of slightly relocating the hedge in the project, >> we have not heard from the property owner. Um, we could look to do that. I think there's a little bit of a hill down below, so I think it's kind of built at top of the hill. Um, >> so we could certainly look at that, but it is a very mature hedge. I I look back the plans in 1994, the hedge was actually shown on the plans in 1994. So, it's it's been there a long time. >> All right. Council member Sher. >> Um um well, just in regards to that, first is um someone did speak at the PWAT meeting saying that this property with the hedge is a now that person had passed and it's now rental property. And so that she had said that attachment to the hedge is probably not as um likely because the person who had it is no longer here. Not that that matters. Just some that's just some background on it. >> And then two, option three, how does this address the complaints? >> So it it addresses the complaints about, you know, if you're walking up the hill and and not having good vis some visibility. at least you're if you're using the sidewalk walking up the hill, you have you're separated from the traffic that maybe you didn't see that car coming over the hill. So, it does address that, but yes, it does not address any of the speeding issues other than at least maybe you feel safer because if you feel there's a car speeding, you're at least not in the road, you're behind the sidewalk, at least going up the hill. So, it's not a full solution. It it kind of really only addresses one specific thing. Um, and like I said though, it is it is at the kind of the the the pinch point or the highest traffic going into the park. So, >> Council Member Strat. >> Well, I very vividly recall this intersection from door knocking um and recalling feeling kind of out of kind of unsafe just because of probably because of that hedge kind of throws you into the street. So, um, and you can see even on this, uh, aerial photo that we have in our packet, um, it is the definitely is into there's some trees that are in the street as you look at it. So, I mean, I think I pulled up the map of the whole Pascal street and it's really only three long blocks. Um, so to well, one couple of them are short. It's not a very big neighborhood, but just thinking, you know, there are a lot of uncontrolled intersection, but even moving that a four-way stop to transit really doesn't solve anything. And like you said, having that four-way stop, I just think of when my daughter was learning to drive or stick shift in Roseville and having to go up, that would have been really good learning experience. but um from a full stop. But like you said, I but I think I would support having this sidewalk just as a um I think it could at least in improve the perception of feeling safer. I'm always pro- sidewalk wherever that's going to be. The next sidewalks are going to be over um I mean I'm sad to see that, you know, they're probably not anywhere near um a sidewalk pathway master plan agenda item at any other time. anyone else in that neighborhood. Is that correct? >> Correct. There's there's no other long-term plans for sidewalks in this neighborhood. >> So, um but I do I just do recall that being kind of a little bit of a treacherous corner because it isn't at a full 90. Um they kind of come in at a little bit of a different angle and and then like 24 97 both the front and the back. I actually remember Simpson being a little bit more speedy as people come whipping around the corner and there's not a stop sign there either. So, I don't know. I feel like if that was a way to make it feel safer walking into the park as a parent with little kids and such, it is just kind of you're kind of out there and if they're feeling like it people are kind of whizzing by mostly because it's infrequent and there's not as monitored the sidewalk um to me seems like reasonable compromise to that with the um rather than putting in the stop signs if the stop signs create potentially more uh harm. Is that a motion for option three? >> Sure. I'll make a motion for option three. Moving parking to the east side up by the park and no stop sign. >> Second. >> It's been moved by council member Stron, second by council member Grath to approve option three uh as presented by staff which does not include the four-way stop as I understand it. >> Uh discussion of the motion as the maker council. Second, council member Grath. >> Well, I did drive over there last night because I couldn't remember that hill and it is a pretty big block. You know, it's pretty it's pretty obvious that e especially I was driving in at sunset. So, if someone's coming over that hill, unless you saw lights or something, you wouldn't see it very quickly if you were walking up towards the park. So, I think the sidewalk is a safety feature and I think that not having the four-way stop, unless we need it, as Mr. Hines said, I think is the the way to go. I don't I don't see that as a thing at this point in the neighborhood that they're they're wanting. Um the speed issue I hope they slow down but all right other discussion on the motion. Councilman Bower in [clears throat] I mean in favor of adding the sidewalks I'm just not sure this actually addresses the the complaint problem that the problem at hand we've had a record of no issues or incidents here. Uh it's not to say that it won't be something in the future but it's a long track record. It's typically local traffic that's going there. the hill is known as well as people walking there know what side it still requires if people are walking on the other side or crossing from Brooks uh crossing Pascal you still have that huge risk of a car coming going south and having an issue I'm not sure that you know the cost uh being presented here and the work necessary along with losing the hedge uh is worth it to solve when it doesn't actually fully solve the files. So I guess I'm not in favor of option three. All right. Other discussion on the motion. Council member Schroeder. >> You know, I'm I'm still wondering about that four-way stop because again, we had two full uh commissions unanimously um recommend that we put that four-way stop in there. And I guess um there's a reason, you know, we don't have all of the um behind the scenes why both of them did that independently. And so I'm a um I guess I don't I feel like there's something missing there that um um that they had would come up with that concept that um so so I'm I'm still questioning if that's something that we it seems like that would be a very lowcost thing to try um and and and to say that it would not um I mean you know this could a would a might do something. Um, you know, like when it comes to people rolling through it, you know, if you did put a a um police officer every once in a while and you get like your person in your neighborhood gets tagged, they might think twice about rolling through it. So, I guess again I'm I'm still um I don't have enough information from because but all I know is that those two did recommend it and so I'm I'm um concerned about disregarding two commissions recommendations. >> All right. Um I'm supportive of the motion uh as it's been made um and primarily because I'm not interested in disregarding the recommendations of the commissions. Uh but I also know that there are very there's a certain amount of expertise expertise and specialtity that goes into studying traffic control and intersections. And I'm not sure that those those commissions were fully um uh benefiting from that themselves necessarily. I think it it is sometimes a common perception in among people that putting a stop sign in can can help slow things down and improve safety. Um, and it's it's something that that we do see fairly frequently requested to the city and we do go through the process of doing that analysis. And I I don't believe that is justified based on the the analysis that's been presented. And so, not that stop signs couldn't be added at any point in the future because it's relatively easy to do. But I think as part of this recommendation, I'm not prepared to support the four-way stop at this time. >> Is there any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Opposed. >> That motion passes three to two with council member Sher and Bower in opposition. All right. That I believe concludes this item. Then uh the next item uh as we hit the 8:00 hour, do the council want to take about a 5minute break? >> Sure. >> Yes. >> All right, let's do a 5-minute break then. >> Thank you for saying yes. motion to adjourn. [laughter] >> No discussion. >> We're back from a short break. ready to take up our next business item, item 7D, uh, which is to consider offering a 2026 public tree sale using tree preservation planting funds. We have our parks and rec director, Matt Johnson, with us this evening to bring this item before us. Mr. Johnson, welcome. >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor and Council. Uh, I will be brief, but this is, uh, sort of a change in how we've offered this program, so wanted to at least touch base with the council and ensure that we're comfortable moving forward. Um and what we're proposing is an extension of uh offering public tree sale. Um we have done this the last three years as part of the accelerated emerald ashbor program. And I'll just give just a little bit of context to ground us here. Um the uh accelerated emerald ashbor program was implemented in 2022 to mitigate the impacts of the emerald ashbor focused largely on public trees. Um, in the process we removed about 900 diseased ash trees. We're continuing to treat roughly 200 ash trees and have planted up more than 1,200 new trees all within public parks and right ofway. Um, we have essentially completed um all of our inventoried ash trees in public spaces and are now moving on to phase two which is for all intents and purposes um an effort to remove hazard ash trees that are in non-manicured areas. So, the easiest way to explain this is this would be in like a wooded park where a trail comes through. So, they're not in our inventory, but if that tree falls, it's still going to hurt somebody or hurt property. Um, we were lucky enough to receive Met Council grant funding to remove about a 100 a excuse me, about 200 ash trees associated with that, as well as plant um another couple hundred species diverse trees to replace those ash trees. Um so when you look at that we're going to have 14-500 new trees planted over um you know from 2022 to about 2026. Um regards to private property the city's approach when it comes to forestry and private property is that um we typically have not gone into private tree domain but we knew that the impacts of EAB would be significant. So, as sort of a a opportunity to replenish our tree canopy on private property, um we did offer four community tree sales as part of the accelerated emerald ashbor program. Um and what those were is we subsidize the cost of the tree. So, it was $40 per tree per resident. Um and those proved to be extremely successful, not just in terms of the number of trees that were sold, but people really came to like them. We had a number of volunteers come out to help us hand out the trees and it became just really sort of a nice feel-good story as well as again a great way to sort of reggreen our tree canopy. Uh the other piece of context I wanted to provide is the tree preservation fund. Um this goes back to 2015 when the council adopted an ordinance um its tree preservation ordinance and that essentially and I'm probably doing a bad job of paraphrasing. I see Dan looking at Mr. mayor looking at me. Um the uh but what it was done was the uh opportunity uh what was done was uh encouraging developers to ensure that they were taking tree preservation into their developments. So um prominent trees um would have to be protected and if they could not be protected um funds in lie of tree protection were paid to the city. Um the thought process with that was these funds could be used to essentially replant trees to continue to replace those heritage trees that were lost. But I think in practice that proved to be quite a challenge to do um because the city is not set up to plant trees one to one and every time you want to plant a tree you have to find a place for it on public land. It proved to just be fairly difficult to do. However, with um emerald ashbor coming into play, we had what we thought was the the good idea to use these funds to replace some of the ash that we were removing. And in 2022, the council changed the approach and said that's that's the way we should move forward with it. Um we did use a significant amount of the fund balance at that time to replace ash that were removed, but we were also successful in achieving grant funding to take care of some of that lift. So because of that and additional development, we do have about $135,000 that remain in that account. Um these are funds that are um these are tied to the reason they are they are uh acred. So essentially there has to be a nexus between the reason we capture them and the way we expend them. So we can't use them for operations or buildings or anything like that. So again, we're looking for sort of a greenway, a treebased way to expend these funds. Um, so what I'm proposing is that we would continue to offer the tree sale um that we've done. Uh, this would be the fifth iteration of it. Uh, we plan to offer it this spring and it would be administered by our partners at Tree Trust who have just done a fantastic job with this. They've got a great infrastructure including a website. Um, they help us acquire the trees. They help lead the distribution logistics. The picture on your screen is a couple years ago and and it's kind of how it looks. We pull them through our public works garage. We have some volunteers. We have some tree trust staff. We've even loaded a few trees in Priuses um which is really like a great game of Tetris and it works quite well. Um but it again really really fantastic day and um from what we're hearing in the community there's still demand to move forward with this. Um the trees would cost $40 per resident and then the city essentially pays the additional cost which would be a grand total of $22,800 for the entirety of it. And again what I'm proposing is use of the tree preservation fund. My last slide is just to close the loop on why we see there's a benefit in in the private trees. Um the simple answer to that is the environmental benefits. Don't know whether a tree is planted on public property or private property. Storm water mitigation, um air cleaning, all of those things that we talk about from trees. They're good regardless of whether they're public and private. Um, with the exception of course of when you use a when you have a private tree, you have that property owner that's investing $40 in that tree is probably going to be pretty invested in continuing to water that tree, continuing to prune that tree, and hopefully grow that tree up in a way that frankly once we get beyond our 1400 trees is really a challenge for the city. Um, we know that one of our biggest challenges is going to be keeping all those trees we've planted alive. We also just don't have a lot of planting spots identified currently. So, this seems like a great way again to regg green our tree canopy, utilize dollars that have to go into this sort of a program, um, and continue to do a popular program without adversely impacting our levy or other other funding sources. So, um, with that, I will open it up to any questions that you may have and, uh, would seek a motion just to move forward as I've outlined it. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Questions from the council. Council member Shore. >> Uh, yes. So, it's my understanding that when you opened up the tree sales, they went pretty fast, too, didn't they? >> They have. Yes. Yep. Yep. We've as we've gone further along, they've gone a little slower, but still the the species everybody wants are gone within a couple of days typically. Yes. >> So, so for the most part, they've all we've sold out. We've sold out. >> So, so and I've gotten a lot of positive feedback about this program, too. So, I I think it's a great idea. So, I'm I'm very much in support of it. >> All right. Council member Strong. >> Yeah. My question was that is 150 enough trees. >> I think it is for now. Um I think that you probably get more bang for your buck to do 150 a year until they stop selling out than you are to sort of burst your bubble all at once. Um with that idea being that this becomes again sort of a traditional thing that can grow. Um people can go back, they can add to what they're planting. Um there's also a lot more logistics to manage with 300 trees or 250. So, >> but what have we been offering each year the last couple years? >> 150. >> Oh, perfect. Thanks. >> Other questions, >> right? Uh, is is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this request this evening to uh continue the tree program using the funding source identified? Seems to be a lot of thumbs up. So, [laughter] we'll take that as a positive testimony. Uh we have the request before us to by motion approve uh doing the tree sale in 2026 using the funds as outlined. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Sher, seconded by council member Grath. Uh discussion on the motion. Council member Sher is the maker. >> Great program. >> Right. Council member Grath, can you top that? >> I not really. I I would reiterate [laughter] everything you have all said. I from my neighbors loved this program. They came and said I can't believe we got this great and they were much bigger than they had expected. Their official dimension was bigger than Prius. So that's that's how we measure >> just in the picture. You could >> Fortunately, they had a pickup truck, so they were okay. But but they look >> I had a Prius. >> Beautiful. So you probably >> Yeah. >> So I support the program. >> All right. Other discussion of the motion >> hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those uh that tree sale is approved and I'm glad it's continuing. That brings us to uh one of the highlights uh probably for this evening uh which we had to put off for a little while which was to receive an update on the Roseville city of Roseville strategic plan and I need to get caught up here while Antonio's coming up. So, we have Antonio Montes, our organizational development manager, with us this evening to bring this item back to the council after we had all those meetings and meetings and meetings years ago. Uh, now we got the the product coming back uh with all the staff work that's been done uh since that time. Welcome, Antonio. >> Appreciate that. Thank you, mayor and city council for having me up here today to give you a quick update on the strategic plan. Tough act to follow, Matt, back there. So, um I'll do my best though to keep your >> It was a setup. Yeah, it was. I'm gonna have to talk with Pat about that. Right. So, um, so I'm here to talk about the strate strategic plan update. Um, you all were a part of the beginning of this work and the the city staff and and leaders have been continuing to work on it to bring it back for your review as we got together today. So, uh, what I got on the agenda today is to talk about some key takeaways from our conversation tonight, recap the process, uh, where we're at today, and then talk about some next steps on where we'll go in the future. So, um, as we talk about kind of how we got here, I think there's a lot of stuff in this plan and as we finalize the objectives with you all tonight, um, I'm going to work on some summary documents so that we can normalize it for you all and you'll be able to talk about it when you go into the community. But before we get too far into kind of what got us to this point, I wanted to just kind of ground us in some key takeaways that I'd like to talk about tonight um, with you all. So, my goal tonight is to plain language the strategic plan. There's just lots of layers and lots of components. And what I want to do is be able to uh have community members and you all and our staff members to understand the plan and be able to talk about it in plan language when you're out in community so that you can talk about what are the things that we're investing in as an organization, right? Uh so that's kind of goal number one. Obviously share objectives with you all about the strategic plan. That's kind of the next layer. You've seen the goals and desired outcomes and the mission, the vision, the values of the strategic plan. Um and the objectives is the next layer. So I want to share those with you all and then talk about some next steps implementation and just kind of what you can expect as we move forward. So uh how did we get here? So I wanted to just ground us in the Envision Roseville uh projects. Uh you may be familiar with that, you may not be but just kind of high level uh in September of 2022 you initiated a community visioning project called Envision Roseville, right? And the purpose of the project was to make sure I get this right. facilitate a communitydriven process to review and update the existing community aspirations and to develop specific outcomes to help the city to better realize those aspirations. And and when I kind of saw this as someone that wasn't here when this took place, uh a couple things stuck out to me that I think is important to just lift up. During that process, there were about 3,500 or just over that number uh folks responded to inform the aspirations in that time, which I think is a monumental uplift of getting community to tell you what we're interested in and what we want to focus on, right? Uh, and the key finding that I just wanted to share with you all, which again I thought was really important, is that there was really a validation of the 2006 aspirations that the new community aspirations for that time uh were really a refresh take on the community vision and the sentiments for Roseville at that time, but did not single a substantial change in the direction of the city, but instead affirmed the overall direction and provided a kind of a modern look at what you all were doing at that time. So, I think that's really important because um what we know is is that I'm going to share these with you all. You know, the the aspirations, but what I look at the aspirations, what I think about really is that this kind of affirms where we've been going with our strategic plan as well, right? like we talk about safety and we talk about uh community and we talk about accountability and integrity and we talk about equity and and those things those values that we've identified what I'll talk about here in a second really kind of pull together the aspirations that we heard in 2006 which were affirmed in 2022 and kind of became the values of where we're at today. So I think it's just important to revisit the uh Envision Roseville project and I see the strategic plan as an evolution of the Envision Roseville work. So excited to share with you more about that. So you all came uh and we we we brought in a consultant inspiring insights, you'll remember, and the city council uh and the department head leadership team for the city of Roseville came together and started this process of let's develop a strategic plan. And [snorts] when we started that process, we uh first started with a an exercise that identified a vision and a mission and strategic directions and values. And so we collectively decided what were the things that we do and what are the things that we want to do really well to um serve our community. And what we saw was is is that Roseville our city vision was Roseville is a vibrant, safe and inclusive community. So if we do everything right, the end of the day what we'll see is that Roseville is a vibrant, safe and inclusive community. Uh we also decided that if we to do those things right to get to that point we needed to develop a city mission which was to create a high quality of life for our community. So that's our mission create a high quality of life for our community. Then we said, well, how are we going to do that? And it's through these strategic directions, which are these bullet points here you see on the screen, which is around economic vitality, parks and natural environment, responsive services and safety, reliable and sustainable infrastructure, community and civic engagement, and city operations, which is a lot, but there's more. Don't wait. Hang in there. So, those things are the things that we're going to focus on to to create a high quality of life for our community. When we started talking, we were like, well, how are we going to decide what's important to us? And you'll remember, we had lots of conversations and identified values as a as a a team together with the department head, leadership team, and the city council. And we decided that integrity, accountability, community, equity, and safety would be the values that our organization is about. We also then as through conversation decided that we should probably define these because they may mean something different to each one of us. And so as we're thinking about how do these help us make decisions or or or inform programming or whatever it is that we need to think about, we need to know that we all think they mean the same thing. And these are the definitions that we all collectively came up with to define those things. The last thing I want to share with you about kind of the journey that we got here. You may remember this image uh inspiring insights which was our consulting partner that helped us have this conversation to begin with used this strategy tree. And so I just wanted to revisit this with you all. You'll remember that the the roots of kind of everything that goes into the tree were the values. So that's the accountability, community integrity, safety, and equity. That kind of grows up into our mission, which is to create a high quality of life for our community. And then that then leads to the the branches or the strategic directions that we've identified as a leadership team to say these are the things that are core to the work that we do every single day across the city. And I'm here to talk with you about the the the leaves that are coming off the branches. That's the objective for the next step of our work together. So that's where we've been and how we got to where we are today. >> So [clears throat] uh I would just share with you to where we are today is is that the department head staff uh department head leadership team and staff came together and worked and collaborated to identify objectives so that we could bring those back to you all and you could review them with us and make sure that we're on the right track as we move forward. Uh this is a development of our strategic plan and I use that intentionally because I don't know that this will ever be completed. It'll be something that we'll continue to uh improve, we'll innovate, um we'll try things and when those things go well or they don't go well, we'll evaluate and we'll continue to move our work forward. Right? So this is development the next step in our strategic plan. A few things that I wanted to call your attention to though before we kind of get into this next section is remember I want to plain language the strategic plan. So, I'm going to share with you some plain language that I think uh represents what we want to do for each strategic direction. And then I'll also share with you the objectives, which is kind of the how of what we're going to do to to fulfill those those plain language um the what, if you will, right? And then the last thing I want to do is just lift up our core team members. There was a lot of work that went into this. Those folks may not be here tonight, but they were really um integral to the part of our development of this part of the plan. So, so plan languaging the plan. So, the strategic direction economic vitality or the what we're going to do for the economic vitality is really about supporting a strong local economy by helping businesses stay and grow. It's about expanding housing options at different income levels and making sure that people can get around safely and easily to the places they need to go and they want to go. So, that's kind of the plain language on the economic vitality. What are we doing and investing in? So, the how here uh there's lots of words on the screen and I won't read them to you all, but I what I would just kind of give you a little bit of an overview is just say that this is about providing tools, programs, and outreach to help businesses succeed and adapt. It's about focusing our housing efforts on stabilizing existing homes and supporting residents with the greatest needs. It's about uh encouraging housing types that serve middleincome households and then work with partners to plan and improve transportation options as systems are upgraded throughout our city. So that's the how on how we're going to get to the economic vitality strategic direction work. Parks and natural environment. Uh the how here or the what rather excuse me is that we want well-maintained and well-used parks, facilities, and natural spaces that are protected for the future. and that they're used by all community members. That's the what when we talk about parks and natural environment. The how the objectives are to take a comprehensive look at parks facilities and programs to ensure they match community needs, align funding with the level of service that residents expect, and to implement the natural resources master plan to protect and restore our natural areas within the city. When we talk about responsive services and safety, the what is safety and prevention programs, they're services that are adaptable to the community's needs. And it's about building trust through clear communication and authentic relationships. The objectives or the how we're going to get there are about investing in prevention and early intervention programs that improve safety and quality of life. Uh, it's about improving our licensing coordination and oversight to strengthen safety and compliance. It's about communicating more clearly and consistently so residents understand services and decisions. And it's about planning staffing and resources over multiple years so services can keep pace with the community's needs. The reliable and sustainable infrastructure strategic direction is really about investing in infrastructure so roads, buildings, and facilities are maintained responsibly and sustainably. The objectives are the how is we're going to plan and prioritize capital investments using long-term asset management. We're going to deliver major civic projects on time, within budget, and with community input, and use climate equity principles to guide infrastructure decisions. The community and civic engagement strategic direction, kind of the what is uh ensuring residents feel informed, heard, and valued. It's creating meaningful and accessible opportunities for community participation, and it's strengthening commissions as pathways for residents involvement. The objectives or the how is to coordinate and improve how the city engages residents. It's about strengthening commissions through better onboarding and support, removing barriers to participation and increase representation from all backgrounds and create clear, more accessible ways for residents to provide input. That's the how. And then the city operations, our last strategic direction is that this the uh it's about supporting our workforce with training, wellness, and good technology. And it's about long-term financial planning so the organization can stay flexible and effective. And the how there's a lot up here and I'll just kind of share with you all that this is about improving how we use technology and review processes to increase efficiencies. It's about creating a clear learning and development framework for employees. It's about identifying and addressing employee wellness needs. It's about using cross- departmental teams to advocate shared priorities, integrating the city's mission, vision, and values into our hiring and onboarding processes. And it's about developing a long-term financial plan to ensure resources support strategic priorities. I want to take a moment here y'all because uh a lot of folks put a lot of work and time and energy and effort into the strategic plan um objective developments. Uh we had core teams and I want to lift these folks up because again they spent lots of time talking with us, brainstorming, ideulating, giving recommendations um and participating in teams that um we invited them into. And it's really important because this crossf functional work came together and did the work of the development but also gave us a really good opportunity to hear from staff at all levels of the organization not just department heads not just key leaders not just city council uh but folks across the entire organization and we felt that was really important to have many voices to participate in the process. A few benefits that I want to lift up is that I think we saw increase in innovation. Folks from different experiences and backgrounds and perspectives, they shared those so that we could be better in our development of the objectives. Collaboration because folks from across the organization that may not have worked together in the past had an opportunity to do so to build some relationships. Uh they had ownership. I think people saw themselves and saw their work in the development of these objectives that I think will help us when it comes time to implement some of the stuff that we're going to do. I think that was really important. And then lastly, I would just share with you all to the relationship piece is is that many people have shared that even outside of their core team work, they are seeing more um collaboration and more innovation across the organization because they built relationships through the core teams that maybe weren't there before we did that exercise. And so there's parts of the organization that are reaching out and connecting that weren't doing so before. So I just want to shout out the core team members. You see the list of the names up there. uh these folks spent a lot of time developing objectives and spending time with us as we were talking about kind of what was important to us in our organization as we move forward in the strategic plan. So shout out to them for doing that really important work. So where will we go? Um I think that it's important to recognize that um the need to serve the community is a day-to-day thing and we have to continue to do that. We can't just stop and say we've got this strategic plan so let's stop doing everything that we've been doing for the last several years, right? We so we have this this balance of saying yes we need to do these things but we also want to be strategic and intentional in our work and we need to find that balance as we move forward. Right? So, so how do we look at the strategic plan and implement it? And we recognize that the 2026 budget is established and it's important that we don't come back with other further budget requests as we're thinking about how do we implement some meaningful changes in 2026 because we're here now and we need that roll out to be uh efficient and tangible in making changes to the way we do our work. Right? So, these are all things that we're thinking about as we're thinking about next steps for the strategic plan. So, as we talk about that, what we're going to do is is this kind of a phase one implementation or year one is to focus on sustainability. That's kind of first and foremost. There's a lot of things that you saw on those screens. You probably read them before you came here. Uh, a lot of folks are passionate about lots of different things and it's really difficult to do all those things all at once. They're going to cost a lot of money and take a lot of time, right? And so we're focused on sustainability, long-term implementation in ways that can allow us to continue to do the day-to-day stuff that our organization needs to do to serve the residents that we support. Right? So, how do we be future focused? How do we implement the strategic plan? I'll share some information with you in a few slides here about some objectives that we're we're planning to prioritize in 2026. But we want to focus on long-term implementation, sustainability, and opportunity to have some tangible um deliverables as we close out 2026. So, that's kind of what phase one is going to look like, sustainability um and and a couple of objectives for 2026. There's this phase two implementation that I'm really excited about because I think this is going to be the opportunity for you all as city council members to really help and collaborate and prioritize our strategic plan work moving into 2027. Um so what we're planning to do is is that in quarter 2 of this year when we start working on budgets, the department head folks will be working behind the scenes looking at budgets. We're planning to come back to you all with a work session and talk about what strategic directions and what objectives are you all interested in us prioritizing through our 2027 budget process. So there's a great opportunity to collaborate. [snorts] Uh I think we're all on the same team and we all want to move in the same direction. And so how do we create opportunities to do that through the strategic plan and this was a way that we identified to say let's collaborate, let's work together and let's identify objectives that you want us to prioritize throughout the budget process and then we can do that for 2027. So that'll happen in quarter 2 sometime. You'll see us come back for a conversation during a work session so that you can collaborate and tell us what you want us to focus on. We're excited about that opportunity. In quarter four, when we wrap up 2026, I'll be coming back to you and say, "Here's the four things we said we were going to do. What progress did we make? Where did we have some opportunity to complete some things? Where did we maybe have some opportunities to do things a little bit differently?" So, there'll be a kind of a year-end report that will come back and say, "Here's how we did according to the deliverables that we said we were going to give you in our um our uh objectives that we've identified for 2026. Phase three implementation is kind of now we're setting the cadence of what this looks like as we partner together. So in 2027, we I would lead a team to implement the strategic plan objectives that you all identified in your 2027 budget process. Uh we'll then come back in quarter 2 of 2027 as we prepare for budget year 2028. We'll collaborate on some objectives that you want us to prioritize. And in the end of 2027, I'll come back and tell you what we did well and where we had opportunity to continue to move forward on our strategic plan work. As we move into year three and beyond, obviously there's just a focus on continued implementation and collaboration between staff and council and prioritizing objectives that align with our values and priorities as an organization. So that's what kind of the long-term implementation looks like for our strategic plan uh in 2028. I also anticipate that we'll need to do an evaluation and adjustment uh plans in 3 to 5 years is what we're kind of identifying. Let's let's get that figured out. What do we want to focus on? But a lot can change in 3 to 5 years. So, we want to be nimble and flexible and know that we've got a plan time to come back and evaluate what have we been doing? How is it going? What adjustments do we need to make as we move forward into 2028 and then beyond, right? Because what's relevant today may change a little bit as we look into 27, 28, 29, 30. and we want to be flexible and nimble enough to be able to do that. So, I shared with you all that we've brought forward some uh objectives that we're recommending for 2026. Uh, and what I want to lift up here, I know my department of leadership team has had lots of conversations. So, I want to I want to focus on this. So, these are um lowbudget or no budget initiatives because we recognize that we just had our 2026 budget approved. But, I also want to lift up that there is some cost time that we'll be putting into this. So department head leadership team has been very focused on how do we make sure that we're not just adding more things to folks plates and saying go do more right we want to be aware of that so we've had lots of conversations around that uh how do we prioritize our work how do we ensure that folks have a good balance of the things that they have to do every single day and then our strategic plan work but then also are there things that we maybe need to reallocate to other folks as we move forward through standing up these kind of teams that will work on these objectives that you see in front of you here today. So, I just want to lift that up as we're talking about that. And the four objectives that we're going to focus on in 2026 is around programming our local affordable housing aid funding. Uh conduct a strategy and planning session with Roseville Central Park Foundation, Friends of Roseville Parks, and the Friends of the Oval Foundation to understand how the city can best support and strengthen friends groups. Uh we've launched a supervisor and leadership academy for leaders within the organization. And then we want to evaluate and improve licensing processes across the organization. So there's a couple that folks have lifted up and said we need to spend some time around this. So those are four objectives that the department head leadership team has um recommended for focus in 2026. So I know I've said a lot. I got questions in a second. But uh just some quick things I wanted to call out for you all. Roll out will be uh next and what you'll see coming out of this after we've settled on objectives and you've asked your questions and we've said we want to move forward. I'm working with community relations on some visuals, some templates, some updates to templates, and then there will be a summary report. It'll be a longterm and a short version, a long version and a short version so you all can talk about it with the folks that you see in the community that our staff folks can talk about it and that we can as leaders in the organization continue to normalize that this plan is a part of our everyday work. Right? So, that's what's coming immediately next on the roll out. And then the last thing I just wanted to leave you all with was just how I think this plan could be used as we move forward. So, um, you know, just for consideration, but I think I hope that staff will use the plan to inform planning, programming, and requests for investments as we move forward. I'm hopeful that the Oh, it went away. The organization will use it to plan and prioritize our short and long-term work. And then I hope that uh council will use the mission, vision, and values and goals and objectives and all the things that part of the strategic plan to inform the decisions that you make as you sit here and represent the community. Like I said, we're all on the same team and we all want to go on the same direction. So my hope is is that this is pulled into all parts of our organization as we think about how are we serving community and last I'll just leave with you that again I think that this is really an evolution of our community aspirations and we think that this aligns with what the community has asked us to be. So we're excited about moving it forward. And with that I said a lot I know but uh what questions do you have for me as we move into objectives? >> All right. Thank you Antonio. Questions from the council. Uh, Council Member uh Sharter, >> I was very impressed how quickly you went through that. >> Well, it's late and I know you all have been up here a long time, so I wanted to save your time. >> Thank you for that. Um, one thing, could you clarify for me under the um objectives under year one? It says launch a supervisor and leadership academy. Could you explain what that is? >> Yeah, great question. I'm I'm glad you asked that. So uh one thing that we heard throughout our core team work was is that uh staff folks wanted opportunities for learning and development. They wanted to grow their careers, their skill sets, their knowledge, their abilities. And one of the tools that we came up with was there's a leadership academy that we could we could implement. Right? So leaders within the organization, whether you're brand new to leadership or you're a seasoned leader within the organization, there's always opportunity to learn in that space and and be a better leader. And so we have partnered with um Dakota County Technical College to offer a total they're doing four sessions around leadership development and then I will lead two sessions internally. So we'll have six sessions total that leaders within the organization can participate in. We've done two sessions so far and we've gotten really good feedback from the folks that participated just in um what they learned and what they were exposed to and the conversations that we had. So, we're really excited about that opportunity to invest in the staff uh because that's something that we heard pretty clearly through our core team conversations. >> Mr. Mayor, if I if I could. So, we originally [clears throat] plan to present this at January 12th since we're about a month later. Some of the stuff work has moved ahead, but but we didn't want to get too far ahead of the situation here, but just given the time scheduling. So, just in case you're wondering why we're already doing that when we haven't had a conversation about >> Well, there's no budget implication. Right. >> Correct. >> There you go. Council member Strong, >> thank you. I had a question about the second item on that same focused objectives for 2026. >> You indicate um strategy and planning session with uh Central Park, you know, the these four parks and these um these advocacy or um support groups. Um I think one thing I'd really like to know in that process is um there are plenty of parks who don't have their own dedicated um group that is at advocating for them and is that a necessity in order for a a park to have any amenities or how does that impact? So, I think I would curious to know as the conversations happen um what sets them apart from just a loosely based group of neighbors who decide to collect trash or what is the how does the objective differ? Obviously, Central Park is kind of the heart of our park system, but um there are smaller little groups and little neighborhoods. And so, I'd be interested to see how some of that could be I just don't want one park in one neighborhood to Tamreck Park or something to be um omitted and not receive the same type of attention because their neighbors aren't as >> um you know, they don't have the same resources or or they don't have the same organizational capacity. Council member Strada, I might have director Johnson come up. Uh, couple of thoughts there is one is the friends of Roseville parks do include all the parks. >> Um, for sure. I think one of the strategies here in the conversations is to make sure these are sustainable. We have people that have dedicated a lot of time and effort over the years, but as um time goes on, we want to make sure it there's sustainabilities. We want to have some engagement with them to make sure that they feel supported and also uh what we could do to help them to maintain that because they're very valuable to uh our park system. Um so we certainly don't want to have smaller parks ignored at all. Um although certainly, you know, sometimes it can be lost in the shuffle. We have so many parks, right? So so I think it's just kind of a refocus with all those groups um to make sure that um >> we're still uh helpful to them and they um still see a need for it. And I'll let Director Johnson add anything else to that. >> I I think um city manager Trejudge I think you summarized it very well. Um one thing that we've noticed in across the board in service- based organizations is people's behaviors have changed a lot. And so whereas 25 years ago, 30 years ago, um these were often social functions and it was a thing where people came together and and they raised funds and they knew each other and they wanted to be a part of this. I think there's a lot of will in Roseville to continue this strong performance of these friends groups, but I think all three of them would say that their membership isn't getting younger and there as people's sort of lifestyle changes, we want to find a way to make sure that we can continue to foster these while respecting that they're 501c so we cannot drive them. Um, but we want to find a way to foster them because they are such a huge asset both financially and in their advocacy. And part of that is that intentionality around it, bringing them together and saying, "How can we make sure that these relationships are strong? How can we provide the resources that you need as you sort of transition into maybe a more nimble organization?" How? We don't know the answer to that. So, we just want to put intentionality around that to make sure that we aren't sort of resting on our laurels, for lack of a better term. >> Thank other questions questions over here. Council member Bower. >> Yeah. Uh, thanks for the presentation. I guess I' I've gone through it a few times. I don't see what's strategic in this document though. Like it reads like, you know, when I think of strategic and at least every company I've been when I've been tasked by it by a board, strategic is something that's kind of not necessarily moonshot, but a challenging thing. You know, an example in Roseville, we have an aging population that's aging in place. Those homes are getting older. We want to turn it over and probably get, you know, new young families in there. How can we make a Roseville attractive to that? That's like a strategy, right? That's not something that you can just figure out. But I'm going through these slides as you've, you know, gone through each of them. And it it just reads like, you know, a work plan more so. I'm really surprised to see that, you know, the how in these things, right? It's February and we know how we're going to do how we're going to accomplish these things. A lot of these things in all the hows are things that I would expect us to be doing no matter what guided in the principles of you know accountability, community equity, safety and integrity. But I don't see the strategic I don't see what's pushing us. I see a lot of hey we have to fill in these boxes. You know in the beginning if you go back to the slides you know that um where you said the development of vision, mission and values you know we listed we economic backality parks and natural you broke out each one of those as a separate one and then listed like the work plans but a strategic thing is done as like a whole like if it's a business it's the whole business and as our case city it's strategic for the whole city >> but we've broken this out into these individual things. The idea is like as a city as a whole with all of our individual departments, how do we go from where we are now to here because that's a you know advantageous for the city, its residents and its future residents, not all these individual things. So I guess I'm just really curious to get your thoughts about what you see as strategic here. >> I think it's a fair question. I think when I think about our work, I I think you're absolutely spot on that working cohesively and collectively together is really important. And I think that that's the culture that we want to build as we move forward and the collaboration and breaking down some of the silos so that it happens more naturally. Um, and I think that that takes time and it takes effort and it takes intentionality. And I appreciate your call out of be uh courageous and be bold and be thinking about how are we going to get to that next level of whatever that ends up being. And I think that that's something that we can continue to work >> because if I look at your year one objectives here I don't I mean these are good I mean I would question the leadership academy thing because I would expect all department heads to be developing their leaders underneath them. I mean I would have I would really like to see um besides peewit I mean your assistant department heads present here and there right you know get them here so they can do those things. I would expect all you know one of the most important things as a executive or a director is developing you know hiring and cultivating that talent and developing that. But if I look at these objectives I I don't see where we end up I'm having a hard time understanding knowing what where we're strategically better now because of these things. We're definitely a better city doing some of these things, but not, you know, I think we would be doing these some lots of these things without a strategic plan. >> Council member Bower, I would just um offer some thoughts. Some of the issues that we've had with this plan is the language. The term objective is oftentimes um used to define different things. I would say the strategy comes in the desired impact and some of the goals that council um and staff developed. So for example, under economic de uh vitality um we've listed what our desired impact is and our goal is to create a climate that supports the retention and expansion of Roseville. Those objectives and stuff fall under that how we're going to do that. Those are the hows of what we're going to do. And so there is a little bit of a work plan in it. But I would say the strategy is at those higher levels than in the objectives. >> I guess that's where I'm getting it's like going back to my question. Where's the strategy in this? Like what is that high level thing? If we want to talk about economic vitality, we could talk about that, right? Like we could talk about, you know, the change that currently we're seeing a shift of the tax base moving from business, you know, somewhat to residential as we saw in last year. That might change back. Um, we could talk about, you know, the fact that there's an increase in retail, there's opportunity. We could talk about the fact that we have tiff districts that are rolling off there. Maybe a new how do we attract new businesses? What kind of new businesses do we want? Opportunities. These are kind of the strategic things that we're we should think about. And then from that, how can we make that attractive? Like, okay, we want businesses like this, you know, that involves public services like this, fire like this, uh you know, uh parks or something like that because they have to track a workforce. What kind of housing do they need? That's where we're bringing all the resources of the city together trying to move into a direction. But right now, you have it broken out as all individual things items, but it's not going towards like one goal. Like everyone's kind of just running off into their own directions, and I appreciate that, but it's not. That's why I'm saying like I'm having a hard time finding what's strategic here. B, if I could, you know, we do have the strategic directions, the six items that we have that are, I believe, strategic. And then as you go underneath that, you have to get more and more specific on what you're going to do to support that. Now, if there's some thoughts of some of the objectives we're bringing forward aren't in alignment with that strategic goal, that strategic direction, we let's have those conversations for sure because we want to make sure that that's lifting that up. But, uh, you know, there's levels here and I think we did identify those as part of the process, those six strategic directions. Um, and that is that's a lot to do. Um and and so what we're here tonight to talk about here are some of the specifics to start carrying that out that we can talk all day long. We want to support the you know economic development of small businesses, but what does that mean? At the end of the day, you have to have some specific actions to do those things. >> I agree with that. I'm just wondering now we're looking at all these things. I'm looking at this does it make sense. I mean as well as I came into all this you know after this was already going. So maybe that's why my reason for asking these questions, but I'm concerned that all the time, effort, and resources put into this, if we actually end up with in a much better spot, you know, where I mean, we'll be in a better spot, but like it could be a lot better. I feel like we could be. Uh >> I feel like sometimes you forget though that this is a nonprofit and we are a service organization. And so I know that you work with businesses all day long, but I I think better is going to be a different perspective from where you're coming from than better as we talk about the city. It's not something we shouldn't aspire to, but I think also we were all part of that process and you didn't come in much after we started it. And I just I feel like it comes off pretty hot against the employee of the staff of the city. And I feel like if you have a concern or question about that, I feel like at the level that and the fortitude that you're coming at it that maybe it's a question that you should have with the city manager who is oversees the staff. And because we don't oversee staff individually staffed, that's overseen by the city manager. I don't want to discourage the staff from doing their job, but I also want I also want to make sure that we hold them up in what they're doing. And I just think it comes off pretty hot, and maybe that's just my perception, but I I wouldn't want to just I want staff to not even want to come here if they feel like they're going to be um put on the on the hot seat just for for um presenting. So I think that the questioning and I guess you don't have to support the strategic plan if you're not comfortable with it, but you were part of the PL plan and you know how we got to this point. >> So I I [clears throat] just would note that and I think it's been said already that the strategic plan is what we all worked together to develop and it's already in place. This is the implementation process for that strategic plan. implementation is by its definition not as strategic sounding maybe it's it's you know kind of what are we what are we going to do more specifically in certain time frames to do that and I think the nature of what the city is in terms of as an organization there is sort of a division in a lot of ways [clears throat] of who does what based on you know you're not necessarily going to have uh you know police officers plowing streets and those types of things it doesn't mean that there isn't sort of a a a an effort to to unsilo things and try to collaborate more. And I think that I've heard a lot about that already going on, which is good. Um, but to me, this is really about saying, you know, what are some specific things that we can be doing to work towards those strategic objectives that were set forward in the strategic plan. Uh, so I think I'm reiterating what what others have said here um from staff, but you know, to me really what it comes down to as I'm looking at this is, you know, the biggest challenge we're going to have probably is identifying how we measure success that we've indicated through our success indicators. And I think we want to be very intentional as we go forward in making sure that we know how we measure those things and what the current status is of all those things so that we can see what changes over time. Um, and so that seems to me a big part of the implementation going forward because at the end of the year, we're going to be having a report on what we've accomplished. And we should know going into the year or going into the period of time that we're we're looking at, you know, what is our current state of things, what are we measuring, and how are we going to know we've made some progress. Um, and so that's a a huge part of it. It's getting a little off off topic, but I wanted to to do that a little bit just to to try to refocus a little bit here. Um, you know, to me, uh, I think a lot of what's been identified here is exactly what what I was expecting as part of this process is to say, okay, now we've got this this highle strategic plan. You know, what are the things we can be doing more specifically, they can still be strategic things. Uh, and a lot of times I think things are described in that way here. Um, but it starts to get down to the nuts and bolts of what you're going to do, you know, step one, step two, step three. and and um I think it's always with the strategic, you know, in mind and influencing and supporting all that that we're doing. >> Well, in that case, I look forward to grading these four objectives against the strategic plan at the end of the year. >> Mhm. And I think the acknowledgement was is that that we're in the middle of our we've already had a budget. We've you know, so it's not like we can we can say, well, we're going to spend, you know, whatever 100,000 more on this or that or this. I mean, so these are some things that hopefully undergur and and help future progress in areas, uh, but give us some some things we could be focusing on and accomplishing. And actually, I like the supervisor and leadership academy quite a bit. Um, because I think that's something that this organization has really struggled with is, you know, leadership development. Um, you know, I think we do we do obviously we organize ourselves to have assistant department heads. We organize ourselves to have sort of tracks for people to move into higher positions. Um, but I think even with the city manager, the highest position, the the the thing I've been looking for as we've, you know, had our conversations each year with a city with a city manager, we won't even name names, is, you know, what are we what are we seeing somebody do to help develop themselves professionally and those types of things. And so the leadership academy to me really feeds into that. And so that's something that I I'm glad to see is happening. And I can say, well, yeah, sure. I mean, it's good to do that anyway, but I mean, I think that's driven by the strategic plan that we put together here, especially the organizational part of it. Um, other thoughts from other council members? Uh, council member Sher? >> Yeah, I have a couple of things. Um, one, I think it's okay to challenge staff. I mean, it it's not a personal thing. It's it's this like especially if you don't understand it. I think it's okay to ask the questions even though sometimes they can be tough questions. So, I don't think it's it's anything personal. It's just seeking to understand more. And um and then also I I mayor I I like that you talked about how are we going to measure things too because you know you talk about like the um leadership academy. How do we know if that's I mean just actually launching it to me isn't an a measurement to me is okay how are you going to show that that's successful what is it that you're what are the you know I I look at as the key um performance indicator you know how do you know you've actually this is done you know when you're looking at licensing process what you know and then and I think you with uh commission or um council member Bower is talking about you always want to all of these things all have to be tied back to the strategy the strategic piece. So you know what I see is you have the strategy piece and then you know it and then everything being done has to be pointing back up there. We're doing this because it supports this strategy this way. And so I think it's more that understanding and sometimes it can be um not as clear how they tie together. So I think some that's going to be that communication piece about making sure it's communicated well the you know we're doing the license process because that ties into the strategic this part of our plan. And so that's where it's always that that um you know connection and that way if everybody's working towards that that helps with the silo piece too because now we all know we want to get here and different departments will have different roles in that but then everybody understands it but the um the measurement piece is going to be key. That's always been a big thing for me because um I've I've seen plenty of strategic plans and they were so vague and you know it's you know yeah we we accomplished that but you know without actual indicators of how you're if you've accomplished it it you know it it's really kind of a waste of time. So that is the key piece. So that's kind of the other side. you got the strategic side and then I'm and then you get all the way down to the measurement side and then how is it all connected in between and I think that's that's what I was getting from um uh council member Bower is he was wondering how where's the strategic piece tying how does this all tie >> so and I think just to tie into that I think that the thing that's missing from these four objectives here is which strategic direction are they under yes and which particular goal are they working towards Because for instance, I think in my interpretation the supervisor and leadership academy is under city operations strategic objective and that's under goal number two uh and and strategy number one I think to implement the learning framework that defines the core competencies etc etc and so that'll be measured then by the success indicator that ties to that and and but but I think identifying some of that and bringing it forward as part of the reporting process is going to be key. Uh I think council graph we don't want to leave you out of the conversation. >> Thank you very much for including me [laughter] in this scintillating conversation. Um I was part of this strategic plan from day one. So these aren't any big surprises to me. I I Mr. Bower came in a little later but not that much later. So we've had this document since January. I've had plenty of time to review it. And if I had questions I could have asked them you ahead of time. I think that's more the appropriate way I would like to handle those things. Uh, I like the core teams. I like the idea of breaking down the silos. We've talked about that for many years here. And the only other thing I will say is that Cory Young must have worked twice as hard because he's in there twice. >> Cory was on pretty much every team. I will say that Cory was on every team. So the two shout outs probably well deserved. >> That's it. Fair enough. >> Mr. Tre, >> if I could just say I do appreciate the conversation. It's really important that we're all on the same page and making sure the linkage from the strategic directions, goals, how, whatever you want to call that, is down to the nitty-gritty when we get there. And when we have some documentation in the plan, again, it will show that that alignment there, but uh I think we're all in agreement when we came up with these and all the objectives. We're very intentional what they were tied to. And maybe maybe we missed the mark and not showing exactly how all those were tonight, but I can guarantee you that they were. But it's good to have the conversation. So we're all accountable to making sure that what we're doing is not just to do something because it's fun to do it's it's tied to something and then the measurements which is always going to be a challenge but we're going to have to work really hard on that how do we measure some are be really easy to identify whether it was some are maybe longer term we have to continue continue to monitor but I think it's good and healthy to have a discussion to make sure we're all working together here because this is all of our plan here and so if there is clarification if there is needs to be some better understanding of what is happening and why we're doing some things. I think we need to have those conversations and you know when we come back I think maybe might be better served to be in a work session. We can have more of a conversation back and forth. Um we've had a lot of on on our agendas lately and it's been hard to spend a lot of time focusing on this. So this is the first time we've really talked about it in quite a while. So I think it was a good refresher for all of us to get kind of grounded in kind of where we are and kind of what the work we've done and we'll keep on having the conversation moving forward. >> Looking forward to the work session. I agree. I think that would be a good because it's it's diff and unfortunately we had to push this off, you know, like we did and so we did lose some time there, but I think you're right. I think that work session will be that's a good way to have that back and forth I think is will be a good thing. >> Yep. >> Well, and it may make sense to look at that structure it similar to the sessions we had with the department heads and sta and council sort of in a little more informal environment too. We could think about that as a as a as a arrangement for it where it's maybe not sitting in this stilted environment, but rather kind of back to where we were in some of those earlier sessions just to to loosen us up a little bit maybe as a thought. And plus that may help with scheduling agendas and not interfering with other agenda items and things like that and and always sort of competing for time. Um so I don't think there's an ask of action from the council this evening necessarily. uh continue the conversation and the feedback process. Um and I know just thinking back now to the last time this was before the council that disconnect sort of between the strategy or strategic directive and then the things underneath it was a little bit a part of that discussion as well. And so I think we're we're going to have to continue to work on putting that putting that together and connecting the dots so it it it's a little more seamless. But I but we've got you know Corey is really good at that, right? So we'll just put it all in >> multiple communities. [laughter] Yeah, >> not here either. >> All right, there we go. There we go. All right. Well, thank you again to everybody that's been involved in this. A huge thank you to the staff for for all the conversations that we weren't part of over the last year or so as this has been going through. uh because I think that uh that hopefully that's been a continuation of the spirit of of all the the initial sessions that we're all a part of and and the the desire to get to a product that uh that you know that gets this this community continuing to to move towards what we aspire to be that's that's ultimately what it's all about. So um if we're not doing that then then we're doing it wrong. >> All right. Thank you again everyone. >> Thanks. Uh that then brings us to >> [clears throat] >> uh item 7 F which is to receive an update on commission applications and Miss Olsson will be back for that. Assistant manager Rebecca Olsen uh bring us up to date on our uh commission appointment process that we have uh each year and we're in the midst of that right now. We just had the applications closed for uh commission applications and we'll get an update on that from Miss Olsson. Welcome. >> Thank you, Mayor Council. Um, as you know, our commission application period closed on Friday and we have a large number of applicants for our pools. We currently have um seven vacancies on four different commissions. We have one vacancy on our EIC, our equity and inclusion commission. We have three vacancies on our finance commission. We have two vacancies on our planning commission. And we have one vacancy on our public works, environment, and transportation commission. So, seven vacancies total. We [clears throat] have a total of 26 applicants um for those vacancies. And just an update, um I'm going to I don't know what to I'll put this on the overhead um so that you can see when applicants apply, we ask them to um include their first choice for commission and second choice for commission. So in that the middle column there you'll see that um for the EIC 12 applicants chose that as their first choice and two chose it as their second. So a total of 14 people for consideration. Um don't add up those 14 4 8 and 10 numbers because those take into consideration the first and second choices. We just have 26 applicants as part of the appointment and reappointment policy. There is a provision in that policy that states that uh you as council have the option to consider extending a deadline um for the application period if you don't receive two times the number of vacancies for applicants. At this point, all of those commissioners except the finance commission have met that criteria. The finance commission currently has three that have chosen it for its first choice and one as a second, but there are three vacancies. So to meet that criteria, you would need technically six applicants. This isn't a requirement. It is a consideration that council can make if you if you so desire. So we are before you tonight to ask uh for some direction on whether you would like to move forward with interviewing the applicants and considering the ones that have applied. if you'd like to extend the deadline, um potentially set new uh interview dates, how you would like to proceed, uh specifically in regard to the finance commission applicants. That is kind of my presentation. So, I'm open for any questions. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Olsson. Are there questions from the council uh for staff? Council member Schroeder. >> So, even if we opened it up and we still didn't get enough, we you know, we'd still be in the same spot. >> Okay. And then at that point we would go ahead and and um appoint even though we wouldn't have enough. Correct. >> That would be correct. >> Conceivably we could appoint fewer than the total number of vacancies depending on the council's >> you know determination about the applicants we we have interviewed if that's the desire of the council. >> Mr. Mayor, I would say that three is is a lot of vacancies to have. I think to stand time for all three of those would >> be a problem. Yeah. Yeah. I I mean I understand the the the policy it makes a lot of sense but you know if like to your point maybe if you're not comfortable with pointing three given that maybe >> two that is better than than have three big >> and two technically would satisfy the four applicants if we desire to do that. just to clarify what you were I think just saying those two we could go ahead with >> well yeah I guess the council can can say for the finance commission you know we've only got four applicants we'll interview them we'll see what we think of them >> right >> and then we can either make three appointments or two appointments or one or none depending on >> yeah because it is quite a few to have on the on the commission to be down that many and not be functioning >> it's a seven member motion so down to four >> folks roll off you know >> two roll off and there's one existing vacancy, >> right? >> Council member Bower, >> have we got have we gotten any uh new applications for any of the commission since uh February 6th? >> No. >> No. Okay. So, we didn't get any stragglers or anything. >> People follow the rules >> and as it's happened in the past, if we do have a couple that that come in um prior to that, we have included those that have come in. So, >> before the interview time. >> Before the interview time. That's correct. Have the others been asked if other than just in the initial application whether they would be interested in the finance? >> Uh, Council Member Grath, we haven't reached out and asked them specifically if they would be interested in considering finance. Um, I don't know. >> Be an interview question. >> Yeah, that could be >> right. I mean, there's no ask any questions. I seem to recall a number of years ago I asked if we when we had a shortage of applicants for a particular commission I asked if we asked that question and I I got kind of a a dirty look from whoever I asked at that time but [laughter] but we always have the option to do that. >> Would it be possible to enter to um email the candidates who didn't select a second choice to ask if they'd be interested? I mean that looks like >> two. >> I don't know if that I mean >> I don't know 12 up there. >> There's only >> 10 who selected a second choice of those options. So there's 16 people who didn't have a second choice listed of those options. >> I guess I I don't know. I I guess because if they're not if they didn't pick finance the first time, you don't want to try to strongarm into applying for it. Um >> we could just have Robin call all of them. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Former finance commission chair. [laughter] >> I was going to say maybe we should let people go extend their on the finance. They could be able to come back. [laughter] >> Extend the term for them. >> We do lean from the council could go there. We could have the former. >> I will say on the policy we do allow people after one year off to come back on. So that's always possible, but we'd still be short a little bit for >> we had some pretty good ones over the years. And so I mean that I I'd almost be more inclined to call the people that rolled off over a year ago and say, "Hey, want to come back?" But >> I think I I don't know. I think there's we should be able to go ahead with what we have. >> That's what I was trying to get at is where is the council at in that? It doesn't sound like we have a lot of people that want to reopen it necessarily. We I mean we do accept additional unofficially we do accept additional applications after the deadline >> but we don't encourage that behavior >> but not for other things only >> only for finance right [laughter] that's very that's very >> yeah yeah 14 and and 10 for one vacancy on the P2 so yeah so we've got a challen as always we have a challenge to to whittle it down to the necessary number of appointees but I think it sounds like we're not going to reopen the finance commission we'll go with the candidates we have and we'll make some decisions during the appointment process. All right. >> Thank you, Miss Olson. >> That then brings us to uh 7G, which was uh to uh consider and approve Roseville's 2026 legislative priorities. Mr. Trean, I believe you're bringing this back before the council. >> Yes. Uh real briefly, if I could have the computer screen show up laptop. Thank you. Um, so, uh, really, uh, we've talked about this several times, so we don't need to spend a lot of time on it. I just point out that we've had, um, uh, some additions and some wordings, um, that you may want to weigh in. So, under high priority, uh, well, two things. One is we did add the support the continuation of local decision-making around housing missing middle uh, as a high priority, and that language is what you saw before. did add a federal um um legislative priority that states enact federal law prohibiting federal law enforcement agents from using facial coverings to obscure their identity as part of their work requiring the display of identification of their name on the agents uniforms unless special conditions exist under as defined under law. So that's a very general ask for some law uh changes on the federal level. Then under the uh other priorities, and these are priorities that we don't necessarily take the lead, but we support because other [clears throat] agencies will do that. Uh these last two bullet points, one is the reestablishment of the local cannabis aid account. Then also allocation of state funding to help state and local law enforcement agencies with street racing and carjacking. Those were added at the last meeting. So uh if these all look good to you, uh all I would ask for you is approval of the legislative priorities for 2026. The session starts I think next Tuesday >> 17th. 17th. Um, so I will hustle to get those down to our legislative um, partners and I know there's an upcoming day at the Hill. I think council member Bower and Schroeder will be attending. Um, so we will certainly share those directly in oneonone meetings. We can arrange them. Uh, but we'll communicate um, also separately just through email and other meetings as well to them. So I'm happy to answer any questions and if there's no other questions I think this is ready to be adopted. Great. questions from the council for staff >> feedback. >> Not quite. I was going to say provide an opportunity for public comment. [laughter] >> Hi. >> Hi. >> We're going to go home. >> Um I was so late to the game and you're like voting to approve it now. So maybe it's more just like a question than anything and you could just let me know. But uh I was particularly interested >> and you're Andy again. >> Yeah. Sorry you got me down here. I'm Andy. Yes. Over by the Yep. Uh I was interested on the uh local government to deter designate uh no not that one the oh whatever the the zoning stuff I'm not going to read it to you you guys have all seen it there it's on the high priority ones >> continuation of local decision-m >> that's the one I was wondering about and so I went and did some reading and I guess if you all could give me more context there because like I see like this yes to homes in Minnesota from house.mn.gov. They've got this flyer supported by these organizations. And sort of big picture in my mind, I would like like more affordable housing for people, right? Which was on your strategic plan list. It feels like people want that. Uh and then like housing quality. I've been spending sort of maybe more time in places where people are maybe more in poverty for various mutual aid things. And uh seems like they could use some help. It seems kind of bleak um out there generally. And I I guess I I don't understand exactly is this somehow like yes getting it done more and you're worried that the sort of state action is going to hinder your abilities to make these necessary changes to make things better or are you somehow opposed to this? I guess you know what's the sort of guiding light motivation there is maybe my ask. It was a little unclear reading around and yeah sure that's an understandable question. I think and I'll certainly defer to other council members but uh so we you you have probably seen from our strategic planning that we do want to improve uh opportunities for affordable housing and and actually all different levels of housing in the community to match people's needs. Um the the thing that has been in the legislature and I think you read a little bit about that uh has been some sort of one-sizefits-all solutions where the state dictates to all the cities in the state here's what you have to do. uh and traditionally zoning has been something that has been very much a local decision process and I think there is an understanding and an acknowledgement that sometimes in certain situations um you know those decisions by local government can be influenced by vocal opponents for various reasons. Um, and I think that the challenge is is that when the state tries to solve those types of issues with broad solutions that apply to everybody, uh, it sort of hampers cities like Roseville that have really done a lot of outreach to the [clears throat] community about what should we be doing related to housing and what works in our neighborhoods and what doesn't work in our neighborhoods. And so that's really what it comes down to is saying, you know, it's okay for the state to set objectives. It's okay to state for the state to maybe say here's some best practices. Uh but for the state to say here's the only things you can do and you can't have any say in decision-m in these areas that really is something that sort of runs against what people like to have is localbased decision-m. So that's the quick description of it and certainly I'll defer to other council members. Uh, council member Bower. >> Yeah, just adding one thing to that. There's also a scenario too where at the state control the municipalities could be forced to, you know, put in a developer could come in, put in a giant multif family, but their sewage and water systems can't handle it. Uh, and they couldn't push back on something like that. There are a number of different scenarios where it would be problematic for the current residents of that community as well. So, that that's one example. there's others as well as the mayor point out, but um bringing it back closer to the residents and those that live um better serve the communities. And I would just add too, and this isn't related to passing or not passing this this legislative um priorities list, but we did have a group uh the so the mayors of several north suburban Ramsey County and city managers meet informally on a periodic basis, but we had a session last late fall, early winter, um where we had the local legislators come in and kind of talk to about what our concerns were with those past legislative efforts. And it's true that we have [snorts] and this is going to go on much longer than you wanted it to, but [laughter] hopefully it's somewhat informative for you and the and the public out there more broadly, but um so there was a unique combination of sort of, you know, affordable housing advocates and builders who were both advocating for this statewide um thing. And I think for different reasons. The builders always say affordability is can't be achieved because of regulation. And so we love these bills because it eliminates cities regulation and makes our lives simpler. Um and of course the affordable housing advocates supported the legislation because it promotes affordable housing um you know at least at the top level. And so that's been sort of the challenge of the past legislative efforts and this is why we have this as a as a legislative priority. Hopefully that helps fill in the picture uh in as few words as I can muster at uh 9:20 this evening. [laughter] All right. Uh any other public comment? All right. Seeing none, uh, we have the request before us to approve these legislative priorities as they've been drafted. >> Some moved. >> Second. >> All right. It's been council member Bower finally got a motion in edgewise here. [laughter] >> Uh, but I just I just put it uh and I second. Council member Strong. >> Yeah. >> All right. I put that by the wrong action, but I'll we'll figure it out. All right. Uh, discussion of the motion. Council member B. >> No, I think these are good. Um, I look forward to u pushing these and I think we have a really good chance at um a number of these actually. >> All right. Council [clears throat] member Stron is the seconder. >> I think a lot of these have been our high priorities for a while and I do hope that we will be able to see some action and move them off uh so that next year we can address some other high priority items >> here. Here other discussion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those priorities are approved. That uh concludes our business items this evening. We do have a couple of sets of meeting minutes uh that have been brought before the council for uh corrections and changes and those corrections and changes that were made have been implemented and brought back for our consideration. We have the January 22nd I think that was the special city council meeting and then the January 26th regular council meeting. >> I have a correction >> a correction council member Schroeder. Um, and it's a correction to the correction that was done here [laughter] on the uh January 26th meeting on line um 681. There's just an a typo. It says have their name and it says SOF the draft. I think it says have their name on the draft. >> I think you're right. I think I did catch that also. >> Okay. Small. You got that, Pat? >> Yep. >> Okay. That's the only small >> All right. That was on the 26th. >> Yeah. >> Otherwise, I'd move to um approve both of that small change. >> Second. All >> right. It's been moved by Council Member Sher getting her motion in. Uh second by Council Member Grath, who is the champion of seconds this meeting. [laughter] >> Special team. >> Sorry for these editorial comments. >> Um >> we have the motion before us to approve both sets of minutes with the amendment to the 26th as noted this evening. Uh, is there any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those minutes are approved as amended. That then brings us to the consent agenda. We have a relatively brief consent agenda this evening. Mr. Trejan, would you give us an outline of those items? >> Yes, indeed, Mr. Mayor. Item 10A approves payments in the amount of 2,882,73.13. Item 10B approves the purchase of a new vehicle for public works to replace a 2014 vehicle. Item 10 C approves an amendment to the union contract with the Roseville firefighters. The amendment incorporates the fire captain positions that were approved as part of the 2026 budget into the wage schedule. And the amendment also adds language to create a 40-hour work week for short-term special assign assignments. This framework is especially important in 2026 as 15 firefighters will be going through a multi-week fire academy training taught by a battalion chief's 40-hour work week is much more appropriate for this training than 24-hour shift. Then item 10D approves the purchase order of uh order two tree trust to complete the removal of 199 disease ash trees and the planting of 200 replacement trees. This work is fully funded through grant funds through Met Council that director Johnson mentioned earlier tonight and that is the consent agenda. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Trean. And just to clarify once again, I think in some of the materials for item D, it talked about removing ash and replacing them with ash, but I think that was supposed to mean trees. Trees replacing ash, right? Yes. Exactly. Okay. >> Thank you. All right. >> Second. >> It's been moved by council member Stron, second by council member Schroeder. Uh discussion on the motion. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> That passes unanimously and all those consent items are approved. That brings us to the future agenda review. Mr. Treasure, we are on time at 9:25. >> All right. Uh real quickly, um no meeting next Monday. It's President's Day. Uh but you do have two meetings to come back to. Uh February 17th and the 19th. Those are the uh commission and as you know we'll have both those evenings occupied for interviews. Our next regular meeting is on February 23rd. We'll start off in the EDA meeting. This is the agenda that was pushed from January 12th. I would note that that the last item uh housing programs and ongoing EDA funding. First of all, it's a very large conversation. We expect to have feedback and conversation and lots of followup from that at future meetings. But that's also where we'll talk about the funding for rent assistance with LAA as well. and there might be some action you could consider be taking at that at that at that meeting. At the regular council meeting, we'll receive a presentation from Liz Noak of Visit Roseville. Um I think that utility encroachment agreement for the state patrol is going to be delayed a little bit um to align with some other land uses they're asking for. We want to um have the city council officially uh accept a donation, a very large donation uh for um uh nature playground at Harriet Alexander Nature Center and um permission to issue an RFP for that design. Uh look to probably approve the 2026 fireworks contract as part of Rosefest and there is a minor subdivision to create one lot at 98797 Runner Avenue. Basically a lot split and that is the future agenda for February. >> Thank you Mr. Tre. Are there any questions on the future agenda? Any council member initiated items for future meetings or any council leazison reports or announcements? All right, hearing none. Uh before actually, no, I do have one thing I forgot about. Uh I didn't mention this earlier during a discussion about what's people are doing rel related to operation metro surge, but I we did get communication from Excel this morning. saying, I think Pat, you got that too, that Excel is suspending their disconnects for residential and commercial customers, uh, Minneapolis and St. Paul effective January 27th, and they expanded that to the whole metro area, uh, through the end of February. That's to help people that are, you know, experiencing issues right now with not being able to pay their bills. They won't get disconnected from their utilities. Not to mention that obviously the the Minnesota has the cold weather rule. Yeah. Um, they did encourage people and I know we've got tons of viewers right now that are going to get this number, but it will push it out. I think staff is already looking to push it out in our information, but Excel does encourage people, uh, you don't have to do anything to, uh, be protected from disconnection, which is good. Uh, but they do encourage people to call if they would like to help, you know, with uh, their payments and restructuring some of that or getting assistance um, as to how they repay because their bills do continue during the disconnect protection. uh to call Excel at 8008954999 uh or certainly there's a information on their website but I did want to make folks aware of that and I forgot to mention it earlier with that I think we're still ahead of our adjournment time is there a motion to adjurnn >> so move second >> been moved by council member Schroeder second by council member Grath solidifying his championship for [laughter] seconds this evening >> yes it is >> all those in favor signify by saying I opposed that passes unanimously we are journed at 9:28 Thank you everyone. >> This is how non sporty people are