e e e e e e e e e especially the 21st I do remember right I hereby call to order the Roseville city council meeting for Monday September 23rd 2024 Mr C manre would you call the role please council member etton here council member schroer here council member gra here council member St here mayor Ro here uh and with us at the de by way of introductions we have our City attorney Rachel Tierney on my right at the far end and city manager Pat trudon on my left at the other end uh we have a number of uh staff department heads and guests who will participate in the meeting as uh agenda items come forward we'll make those introductions at that time uh if you need any meeting materials to help you follow the meeting along there is there are extra copies of the agenda on the table underneath the clock in the back of the room uh we also do have one complete uh three- ring binder set of all the meeting materials uh available for the public uh if you need to look up any of the particulars of uh uh the background information for agenda items this evening uh if you have a cell phone we ask that you silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt the meeting this evening uh and with that we'll ask folks to stand if you're able for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all petition Mo the next turn our agenda is approval of tonight's agenda and as always we'll check with Staff first to see Mr Tren are there any changes from a staff perspective Mr Mayor there's no changes by staff all right we'll check with Council members are there any items council members would like to change on the agenda this evening or items on the consent agenda that council members would like to have removed for separate consideration this evening no does not appear to be the case uh speaking of the consent agenda that's section 10 of the agenda if there is anyone from the public who's here on an item in section 10 uh that's at the bottom of the agenda there 10 a through F approval of payments massage therapy license uh purchases over 10,000 uh etc those items are normally taken up as a single motion at the end of the meeting uh with limited opportunity for public comment they're fairly administrative in nature but if you are here this evening for one of those items this would be the time to let us know uh and we'll take that item off the consent and move it earlier in the meeting so that we can hear from you you've got a question or a comment about that item is there anyone here this evening for an item in section 10 of tonight's agenda and just to let you know we will have public common opportunities as other agend agenda items prior to that uh do come up so uh once again just checking if there is anyone here for an item in section 10 does not appear to be the case uh do we have a motion then from the council to approve the agenda as presented second right it's been moved by council member gra seconded by council member St uh any discussion on that motion hearing none all those in favor of approving the agenda as presented signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously we have our agenda for this evening uh next is our first opportunity for public comment this evening this is as opposed to comment on agenda items which will happen as those items are taken up we do also at the start of each meeting provide an opportunity for uh general public comment on items that aren't on the meeting's agenda tonight uh but may be either related to City business or items of interest to people in the community uh about which folks from the public might have comments uh so we'll check is there anyone here this evening to make a general public comment on an item not on tonight's agenda all right feel free then uh to come up and have a seat at one of the two microphones and as you're doing that we'll just do a quick uh recap of the uh rules of the road for public comment uh we would ask folks to um make comments uh direct those to the council if you have questions we may or may not be able to answer those but certainly if it's something we can follow up on we'll ask staff to follow up uh there is a three minute time limit per speaker and we would just ask that you start with your name and either your street or your address uh for the record hello and welcome hi I'm Matthew draw I live at 2736 grig Street North I would like to discuss um further the um the plans for the the City Works getting moved across the street there has there been anything else considered for the residents particularly myself and my neighbors where it's bordering our backyards in terms of like the property values of our house all right we can certainly uh get you in touch with more information on that there has been a fair amount of work that's been done through the development of the plans uh to to help mitigate impacts whether there are visual impacts or sound impacts uh and certainly the design is Not By Any Means finalized at this point uh we're you know at the stage of trying to see if we can get funding for it um uh depending on how that goes then we would get into design stages and we would uh as a part of that most uh assuredly have more input from Neighbors as to specific issues and concerns well I mean the the biggest concern is that we're removing a park from behind our houses and putting in a industrial complex right M and typically for home values having the park there with the green space and everything would be a added benefit that would typically increase a property value whereas something industrial back there would detract from the property value no certainly that's something that that uh is is part of the consideration in the decision-making and as I said I think there'll be some more opportunities to have conversations about that as plans are being developed and going forward so so I would stay tuned for that and and certainly we can get you in touch with information on that uh Mr Tron did you have something you wanted no I I'll give you my card and reach out to me i' be happy to chat with you some more uh as the mayor mentioned there was some pre-design work that just kind of shows squares and where there are there's a lot more work that needs to be done obviously the first step would be to see if that referendum passes if that project's moving forward but certainly we understand your concerns and we take them very seriously we do want to work with the neighborhood as much as possible I'll give you my card you can reach out to me i' be happy to sit down with you and talk more detail with you and your neighbors sounds good appreciate that thank you and then we are concerned about the referendum too because um as came out in that the News latest newsletter um so either thank you so either it does go through and then we have that half a cent sales tax which would increase our cost living here because we do spend a lot of money in this community to support it and if it looks like if it doesn't go through then property taxes would increase so potentially we're paying for it either way and our home values might go down as a result of it it just seems a bit unfair to us that are really directly impacted by that to not get something sort of compensation for that thank you appreciate your comments and feedback um we don't necessarily have all the answers uh for you as as part of public comment but we appreciate hearing from you and certainly encourage you to remain part of the the process because there'll be a number of decision points as things go forward depending on once again how things go in uh in November thank you all right thank you thank you we'll check if there's anyone else here for general public comment this evening right seeing no one then I will proceed with the uh rest of the agenda uh first this evening we do have under recognitions and donations a proclamation related to indigenous people's day in Roseville I'll read the proclamation and then a motion from the council would be in order uh the uh excuse me the proclamation reads as follows uh whereas for longer than any other people indigenous Nations have lived upon the land where our nation and city now stand and whereas indigenous people's day is an important time to celebrate the rich culture tradition and history that acknowledge and acknowledge the important contributions of America's original people and whereas it is also an an opportune time to educate the general public about the severe challenges American Indians have faced both historically and at the present time in the ways in which American Indians have worked to conquer these challenges and whereas the land in present day is located on whereas the land in present day is located on the ancestral and contemporary lands of American Indian people and home of the origin original people of the Turtle Island uh since time immemorial and without whom the building of this city would not have been possible and holds great historical spiritual and personal significance for its important for its original stewards and whereas American Indians over the many years uh protected and preserved the landscape of Minnesota and the City of Roseville including their intrinsic traditional knowledge labor technology science philosophy and arts as well as their cultural belief system that stipulates that they are the protectors and Ste WS of the natural environment uh for the benefit of all and whereas American Indian people today face significant disparities that impact their safety Health well-being education vitality and cultural preservation and the City of Roseville understands that in order to help combat these disparities government entities organizations and other public institutions should change their policies and practices to better reflect the experiences of American Indian people and uplift our country's indigenous Roots history and contributions to ensure greater access to opportunity and whereas in 1990 representatives from 120 indigenous Nations at the first Continental conference in 500 on 500 years of Indian resistance unanimously passed a resolution uh to transform Columbus Day into an occasion to strengthen the process of Continental unity and struggle towards Liberation and thereby use the occasion to reveal a more accurate historical record and whereas the Twin Cities Community has a strong history of over four Decades of American Indian activism which the city celebrates and honors uh now therefore be resolved that the City of Roseville hereby declares uh that we observe indigenous people's day on October 14th 2024 in order to promote appreciation healing reconciliation understanding friendship and continued Partnerships with the American Indian Community so move second it's been moved by council member St seconded by council member Edon to approve that Proclamation uh is there any discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor signify by h i I posted that passes unanimously that Proclamation is approved that then brings us to our business items this evening uh we have a handful of business items beginning with item 7A which is to consider resolutions and an ordinance allowing the subdivision of a parcel from the West End of the Roseville Covenant Church property and ruide and rezone it for low to medium density residential development we have our senior planner thank you I tell you those titles just Escape me sometimes uh Brian Lloyd with us this evening and we appreciate him being here to help introduce this item for our consideration welcome Brian thank you um as you mentioned this is an application uh that is uh sort of located at 2865 Hamlet Avenue this is Rosevelt Covenant Church um outlined in red there uh at the intersection of Hamlin in County Road C2 and it's a sort of three-part application um before I get into those three parts generally speaking the church is looking to subdivide um this Western 120 ft from the property and make it available to somebody to to build something on and in consultation with them uh in preceding months um you know it was clear that even though they the church themselves don't have plans for the Redevelopment um that uh some sort of low to medium density residential would be the only sort of viable the only reasonable Choice uh in that location for the comprehensive plan change that's required for the the application and the zoning change um so the application in front of us tonight is to change the comprehensive plan uh future land use map guidance of the property from the institutional land use category that applies to it today uh which enables the church to be there um change that to uh low density residential which is the same comprehensive plan guidance as for the the duplexes along County Road C2 behind it um part of the application then is the rezoning uh and the rezoning that's recommended is to the low to medium density residential zoning District uh which allows uh between five and 12 dwellings per acre this is a little bit less than half an acre um uh I should clarify under the comprehensive plan guidance of low density the limit for density in this low to medium density district is 8 units an acre the zoning District can be used in other places which could allow up to 12 um so the uh the slightly less than half an acre parcel that's being proposed in this low to medium density District could have somewhere between two and four units practically speaking um and uh the third part of the application this evening then is the subdivision itself the Planning Commission uh held the uh required public hearing for this earlier this month I believe it was September 4th uh and recommended approval of the low density guidance for the comprehensive plan change the low to medium density zoning district and recommended approval of the uh the preliminary plat creating this 120t wide lot at the Western end of the property um the uh the only public comment that we've received uh since the public hearing I believe went directly to the city council uh communication from Tam McGee I presume um sort of uh interacting is uh on her own rather than a representative of the Planning Commission uh with this communication to the city council uh and sort of expressing her um her views on on ways that a denial of these particular applications might be found um uh to be um Justified or amendable to the council members uh aside from that uh the Planning Commission did recommend uh with a vote of 5 to one uh the approval of these three applications that I mentioned the comprehensive plan change the rezoning uh and the preliminary plat uh with uh a few conditions on the preliminary plat approval related to storm water management and the park Dedication that would apply to it uh and with that sort of brief uh summary of the uh item before the council tonight I can end my presentation and see if there are any questions that I can answer all right thank you Mr Lloyd are there questions from the Council on the the three items that we have before us related to this property Council mad um I think one of the questions that was brought up there and it was discussed a little bit at the Planning Commission also is why do the comp plan and the zoning now uh because we have an application to consider it um otherwise there's the city isn't looking to um sort of proactively change the way regulations apply to given pieces of property to to prompt some development okay and then I have a question say maybe better for Mr Fry Hammer around storm water management and trees maybe you want to answer but he's coming up with a smile so it's probably better that he does it's always better that the Public Works director is smiling yes we like it um can you um talk about it this tree preservation thing says all the trees on lot a would be cut down uh I went by there today really they're kind of centered in the lot you really couldn't build anything they stayed um as part of the storm water management for the Lots though is there a what's the plan for the storm water Pond just to the East and the trees that are around that I'm not aware if the trees on that lot would be removed but any newly created lot will trigger storm water requirements so potentially they could either modify the existing Pond or build another one but I'm not aware that we've been presented how they treat their storm water because I think they're just looking to split the lot currently but they would since it is a newly created lot they would have to reme storm water requirements okay I I think somewhere in here I read that certainly there was a set of neighbors who were concerned about how the pond was working and I think I I read that staff was talking about how that would be updated as kind we have a program of updating now so I didn't know if there was anything in conjunction that was going to happen at the same time yeah not that I'm aware of but yeah that pond probably hasn't had any work done since that was originally built so I'm sure it's overdue for work so the timing could work out to to do both do a two for one okay um and the proposed tree reservation ended up with 339 Cal per inches is I'm guessing that that won't all fit right I mean look I to am guessing that won all fit the the church lot as well as this lot just don't seem like they're going to be able to do that so we'd end up with some maybe mix of some plantings and then cash into our tree preservation that's right um and um it's it's difficult to say just how that might work out in in most applications where um uh there's a subdivision being proposed and there's a larger lot being reduced in size or split into some several Lots um the the party that's requesting the approval of the subdivision is often one who will be involved in its development and its building and uh you know in those instances um the the trees that are you know on the the church property uh today you know influence the calculation of what is required for replacement given what is being removed on the proposed lot uh and that is true uh for this but um assuming that the application is approved uh and this lot is created um it's at that point that the lot would be sold to somebody else who would now be working with a lot that is only this and really has nothing to do with this anymore it's conceivable that some of the replacement trees could still be planted around the church property if the church were open to that um but uh you know the the site itself is sort of becoming more isolated in terms of of um you know the ability to plant trees on on a broader property that's still part of the development okay so that'll change somewhat in the future if this is approved so with this tree preservation as part of this proposed series of changes would that become the responsibility of the church uh it would become the responsibility of the party who buys and proposes to build something on the lot uh but it would be calculated based on this split this time not the time they purchased the land um actually we would recalculate it at the time that the land is purchased just because you know this the church itself is no longer part of it and in fact I um I don't remember exactly what is uh written in the uh the Planning Commission report about this uh but um you know the practically speaking the replacement total is even larger uh with you know the sort of future scenario where it's just this lot being redeveloped because you know it doesn't have the balance of trees in the church property to sort of uh factor into that calculation so it's a bit academic though because it's still you know the existing replacement total even with all the trees in the church property lowering the replacement calculation uh you know that total is already sort of impossibly high for planting on the site the fact that it's going to be a larger replanting obligation most likely if something is built on on the site when it's sort of considered on its own uh like I said is a bit academic it's it's still impossibly high and possibly higher at that point okay so result in some trees being replanted probably and then also a fee being paid so really the stuff in our in the request for Cal action around tree preservation is more of an exercise and understanding rather than what's being required of the church or at this point whoever would own the land until they came in with a development proposal that's right corre and that's essentially the same for the stormw Water Management plan as well there is a storm water management plan that was submitted with the subdivision application because that's one of the requirements presumably what is built uh it will be different from what is kind of in The Proposal today so the storm water management plan will be you know re-engineered at that point very good thank you all right are there other questions uh for staff Council M ston um I may have missed misremembered but my understanding was initially when they brought this to those um for comment were there not more lots that they were looking to suction off at that time the proposal has always been a single lot on the end of the property just like this okay I must have I looked at the public hearing and obviously didn't pay close enough attention I'm curious about the um the western side I see that the house behind that AB buts um or that fronts C2 um the lot line is um substantially west of the lot line of this proposed lot um it was a little bit easier to see this line no it was easier to see on the um other piece that you had there my I guess I interpreted that line above to be the lot line of the um house behind um almost to the north right there yes so this thing yes um so there are there are lots here that go out to C2 and this is part of one of those lots I think if we look at this drawing yeah so that lot line that I was pointing to there coincides with this one and then this one on the corner wraps around just a little bit it looks like um you know leading to that line there okay the reason I ask is it there's a pretty visible demarcation you know foot path from the street out to C2 um along that line so um I think is there some type of easement or something that would be addressed along there that would make that unbuildable or how would that um you know it's kind of hard to see when you're out there where of course the line would be because it is quite a bit off from the house on C2 but just wondering um you know does that looks like it even goes beyond the street um the turn there um there isn't any easement or formal Trail through there that I'm aware of uh any sort of foot path um is probably just an informal cutting through that happens um yeah so there there wouldn't be anything encumbering the property that would kind of get in the an easement for instance that would get in the way of doing some development there okay just it hasn't been requested of any by any of the neighbors to have a pathway or something between those two not that I've been made aware of certainly nobody has asked me about it and I don't remember seeing it in the the summary of the open house conversations that would have uh happened um I don't remember when that was now earlier this year when the the church was first sort of introducing the idea to the the surrounding renters and homeowners and Property Owners okay and then um finally if there was to be some future if the church were to want to um further sub divide this land in the future what would the possibility be given that holding Pond I practically I think there wouldn't be a possibility I suppose someone could engineer a situation where all the storm water is managed in some underground improvements below a new development here but I I don't think that's a practical outcome I think you know there is this 120ish feet of land um that isn't used for something on the site today and would be the limit of of kind of what's a available to to be used in some other way okay thank you just as a followup to that I imagine that the only way given the storm water ponding that's there would if they if the site was decided to be used for something completely different and completely rearranged and you know starting from scratch almost that would be about the only way that something could be done if things are left the way they are it doesn't as you said doesn't appear to be the case that that there would be an opportunity to do further uh sub vision of that that property customer has there been a previous use of this site that would potentially have um other pollution or anything on the site that hasn't been discussed prior to now um I think certainly not on this Western end uh there there you know in historical aerial photos there is some uh visible buildings I think a farmhouse over here and most of this was just field um and at some point uh ending in the early '90s when the church was built here there had been a couple of other buildings I think probably in about this location um they looked sort of residential in scale uh in the aerial photos I don't know what they were for sure though um but this has always been vacant um and not the home of you know some industrial use or you know no apparent um land filling sort of activity great other questions uh Council M Scher um just curious um you made a comment about work needing to be done on this Pond eventually what would that entail so typically any BMP or best manager practice like a pond typically involves at least minimum of dredging so most likely I'm sure sediment has accumulated so cleaning out the inverts uh inlets and Outlets um that's typically what it is um sometimes vegetation can be problematic too if that's causing some of the problems so either vegetation removal and or just sediment removal okay thank you all right other questions from council members uh council member gra just going to the tree uh preservation uh when when we do the final when this is sold and we comes do they analyze the health of the trees and all that sort in more detail that's what my understanding is anyway that's right that's part of the you know the input in a a the inventory of the trees and you know if there I don't recall there being ash trees in location but you know where there are ash trees even if they seem fine still in spite of emerald Dash War um you know we've been Guided by our uh our Consulting Forester to just go ahead and remove those um because they they will be you know ailing from the the pest sooner than later you know so there are considerations like that that are made the current health of the tree or the sort of future outlook from um diseases or pests and that sort of thing just on a quick walk through it was a lot of cotton wood trees which have weak whs sure nice great uh if there aren't any other questions from council members uh I don't know if a representative of the applicant wishes to make any kind of statement in support of the application that's totally optional I don't even know for sure if there is a representative here this evening but uh uh checking on that that doesn't appear to be the case all right uh we and I'll check if there's anyone from the public that wishes to speak to this request for the three actions the uh comprehensive uh plan guidance change the zoning change and the plat approval doesn't appear to be anybody from the public uh for this item this evening uh we have the request before us we've got three separate actions uh a resolution uh approving the change of guidance in the comprehensive plan uh an ordinance changing the zoning and then a resolution uh approving the FL um and I would note that on the uh resolution related to the comprehensive plan change because it is a comprehensive plan change that does require a super majority vote uh which in the case of the city council it's two-thirds it would have to be four of the five council members uh with that we probably do want to take the actions in a in a an organized order in the sense of you don't want to rezone something before you've guided it so the first thing to consider would be the resolution attachment three uh reiding the property uh council member graph I would move to adopt a resolution approving the proposed amendment to 2040 comp plan future land use plan I'll second it all right it's been moved by Council M gra seconded by council member Scher uh to approve the resolution re guiding this property uh as low density residential uh as the maker of the motion council member gra I think the proposal makes sense uh with the land use that is around the property I did stop by on the way here tonight and talked to a few residents who were outside and they were not opposed to it so I think there's a variety of opinions on this but I think from the information we have I see no reason not to approve it right and as the secondary council member show well and and since the um um Planning Commission had approved it and then the staff is recommending it that also and I've also been to the property I feel comfortable going ahead with it other discussion on the motion no just uh in uh response to the communication we got from the uh Planning Commission member uh in regard to this I think that one of the concerns you know raised was was sort of loss of small bits of open space um and I think the challenge we have is is as a city is you know we can't I don't know that it's reasonable to expect us to be able to to sort of Goble up every single one of those spaces in the community um and I also noted in in reviewing that after the receiving that communication that that actually Apple would Overlook is very close uh to this site and pro provides a nice amenity to the residents in that area and uh actually Cotton Tail Park isn't that far away either um so that help you know helped mitigate that that concern I I certainly do understand that concern um but as a practical matter uh as non-publicly held property I think it's it it it seems like it would be unreasonable for the city to uh step in and and try to interfere with the plans of the property owner at this point so I just wanted to make that note in response to that communication but with that we do have the motion before us to approve the resolution uh reiding the property uh from institutional to low density residential uh once again does require a super majority vote or four fifths of the council all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously meeting that requirement uh the second is an ordinance resoning the property uh that would be an ordinance uh also an attachment three uh this would reone the property uh to uh it would be also from essentially institutional to low to medium density residential right second move by council member shter seconded by council member uh Edon to approve that ordinance uh this just simply requires a simple majority vote uh as does the next ACT ction uh discussion on this motion it's essentially uh codifying what we just uh passed in the previous resolution there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that ordinance passes unanimously and then finally we have the resolution the third attachment in attachment three which is a resolution uh approving the proposed plat uh of the uh site with the separating off of this lot I move that second all right then that resolution has been moved by council member Aton second by council member St to approve that resolution approving the plat uh discussion on that motion no thank you uh hearing none uh all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously that plat is approved all right uh thank you to everyone who's been involved in this process and thank you Mr Lloyd for presenting this evening uh in your work behind the scenes to get us to this point uh with that uh then our next item Switching gears from land use to City finances uh we have a deadline at the end of this month to uh certify to Ramsey County our preliminary tax levy budget as well as our uh Eda tax levy um and I don't know Pat are you introducing this item all right city manager trudon uh if you could introduce the proposed preliminary 2025 tax levy and budget thank you Mr Mayor members of the council I'm glad to be here to talk about um passing the preliminary tax Lev U consider the bu budget as well as the preliminary Eda Levy as noted State statutes do require us by the end of the month to pass a preliminary Levy both on the city side and the Eda side uh that Levy once established cannot be raised it can be lowered so typically what we do we uh approve a preliminary Levy then use the remaining months in the year to continue to look at the budgets and different components of that uh culminating on this year December 2nd to adopt the final uh tax levy for the city and the Eda as well as the final budget utility rates and the fee schedule all those things that go into the overall budget here so um as um referenced in the staff report uh I did present this budget uh to the council and the Lev on August 19th uh attachment for and the packet does contain the manager's budget message and PowerPoint and then we have additional information in attachment five with all the um uh line items and the reconciliations overall all uh I am proposing a tax levy of $3,273 63 which is a1488 million increase translates into a 5.17% levy uh increase uh we do typically take a look uh and how that affects the median valued home and if I could have the computer up um the just to note that the median valued home uh Rose uh from 349,000 to 3 60,500 and I El there so the impact to the single family home is as follows okay so um as noted uh on here the um the property tax levy uh would go up $99 $939 uh per month uh for the median valued home uh and for the Eda Levy uh 8 cents per month so for a total of $947 per month uh which is an annual change if you had both those together $113 64 um this um increase is certainly impacted by the amount that I am I'm raising and uh is there a different number yeah the the numbers in our packet doesn't match what's on the screen here the annual change the annual change here the annual change in the packet is the city Only which is $12.68 um in the RCA R the printed RCA is City only and the thing we're looking at is City and Eda well Eda [Music] is yeah that's true it says Eda in the pack well it's easy enough to do the math check it so I I'm not sure what I'm not seeing what the difference is here oh I see so the the total dollar change annual is the in the packet says 11268 which is only 12 times the city number yep okay in on your presentation it says 11364 which is 12 times the sum the 947 yeah that's the combined number so that line item in that chart the way it's listed here they're they're different numbers but it's kind of confusing this like they add up yeah and and we have monthly and yearly numbers and and it does get confusing so okay our apologies but okay I just want to make sure we have the right number we can um as reference from the finance director We There is a memo talking about some of the legislative changes that um do impact um um our Levy U certainly our increase in Levy certainly is the biggest impact but there have been some changes in the law that also um does uh impact that so that overall increase and this is referenced um in the uh packet here and the uh the both the property value increases and the legislative changes is about $39 of that uh increase and the city budgeted tax levy is about $74 so certainly the majority is still related to the tax levy increase but there's some other factors that in play and why that median value uh changed there we talked a lot about the Eda at the last meeting and uh that is uh actually uh keeping the uh um um Levy flat but there is a slight impact uh on homes as mentioned in in the packet last meeting um we heard from the finance commission and they did recommend uh the budget as presented uh by the city manager finally I would mention that at the meeting um on the 19th uh the city council did talk about three items about possibly uh considering more one would be to add the HR manager position which is estimated to be a cost of $146,000 and there's information in the budget memo uh also about adding funding uh for Tubman uh the number that was used is $20,000 and I have some information in the packet about both Tubman Services as well as additional information about NFS program they have something similar and that's an attachment nine and the third item uh is um uh possibility of increased Council pay never really a conversation about exactly what that would be but maybe a 3% col up so there is some information in the packet and attachment T that just indicates where other cities are are paying try to get a cross-section of Ramsey County and some other cities um so uh I would note that if the city council was considering at least uh adding the um HR manager and the Tubman the levy increase would go from a 5.17% to 5.75 uh% um Levy increase just for just for your information um so once again the Eda uh board did approve uh that as you as serving as the Eda board a preliminary Levy of 3648 56 in the end here tonight after some questions we certainly want to adopt three resolutions one is to adopt the preliminary tax levy one is to adopt the preliminary budget and then finally one to adopt the preliminary Eda tax levy there's a lot of information in the packet I know you're fairly familiar with it uh but i' would be happy to answer any specific questions you have our finance director Michelle petrich is here as well if we do um talk about adding some things to the budget we're prepared to kind of calculate the correct numbers uh but if we don't do that uh then the resolutions as they stand uh would work so with that I'll pause and see if there's any questions great uh thank you uh Mr Tron are there questions from the council uh for staff on the proposed preliminary budget and tax levy Council M St not necessarily question comment um yeah I mean you know certainly we've got the Pres presented numbers we've got some things that have been brought up for discussion we can have discussion on those or we can go whichever direction the council wants to so why don't you kick it off and see you have to be very clear between the differ between a question and a kind well it applies sometimes to council um I just wanted to I know we did speak on this and this was somewhat at myb has the HR manager position um I wanted to just give a bit more um voice to that um request um and um give some support for why it would be beneficial um I think when you look at there are at a minimum of 42% turnover every year in Staffing um and there are two full-time uh HR people that is a crazy amount of people that are being hired and and let and sent away every day um I think that it's really important to realize that so we have two people who are full-time HR and Miss um Olson is ending up doing a lot of that and we have spoken about that being you know additional concern but I wanted to make sure that the recruiting the onboarding engagement and retention are huge pieces of an HR Manager and this is really important to me as we look at how do we achieve our Sr goals um it's really hard to find that time to be a dedicated recruiter in spaces where you're going to find someone who maybe doesn't look like everyone else in the building and it's a very intentional process of creating relationships going to um job fairs making um connections to colleges where people who maybe don't look like everyone else um are and that takes some time and build some relationships it might not be the person who you see this year but it might be the person you see next year the year after so I just wanted to make sure that as we look to how do we diversify the people who work for us not to underestimate the value of that HR manager and what they bring to that process not only that if you do bring on people of color who are in a largely nonp people of color staff we need to make sure they receive adequate support and followup engagement they find ways to feel like they belong in part of a team and and it's not a just a given you don't just bring someone on and hope they stay you really have it's a very active process and so in speaking with um Miss Olsen and Mr Tran just wanted to make sure you're aware that um in addition um to the turnover there are significant changes happening in Paid Family Leave emergency safe and sick Le or earn safe and sick Lifetime and the fair labor standards act in regard to how paying and compliance goes and some of those compliance um uh penalties have increased substantially they're they could be up in the millions of dollars um and I realize we have the attorney to help us but you have to know and have the bandwidth to ask the questions to know to make sure that you're complying so I just um also spoke with Mr Tran about the possibility of funding this as um a July 1st 2025 so for one half of a year um but it is an ask that we would expect in 2026 even if we choose not to fund now but my suggestion was that we consider it because I don't know how we'll make Headway toward our staffing um Equity goals unless we have someone who's really strongly dedic at to that as a process thank you uh other thoughts from Council Members or questions certainly councilman Braton on on that subject I think it reading the data uh in this and thinking about it that some level of support might be important certainly a lot of work has shifted to that HR component um but a huge part of that has been the part-time staff so when we look at that turnover rate a lot of that is part time folks so um a student getting hired in April or whatever gets on board it almost exclusively by the park and wreck department say if they're doing Park and wreck job or if they're lawn mowing whatever and then they leave it's not quite the same as hiring permanent employees um and so I also wondered about whether we could use temp service to do a push and do additional support in a Time window when there is a significant amount of hiring that happens s um as a different way to address this um at least for the short term as I look at our Levy um certainly it's you know not perfect and we compare it to other cities and we look pretty good but that's not our people don't care right um you look at the impact with the increase in housing values as the pi shifts um it's it's a it's a pretty big hit so I want to be cognizant of how much that needle is moving um and this this would be the biggest thing I also then look at the 2026 budget and the number of things that are here that are that would be baked into the 26 we're looking at $400,000 before we blink an eye pay an employee uh Cola or whatever right that was just baked in from what what we have this year and so I'm concerned about how all that adds up but I'm also thinking about what's a different way to spend less but have an impact on maybe the biggest increased workload for HR staff well and I I think you know there's there's couple of different things that are that are being talked about in this conversation uh certainly what council member Aton talked a lot about was sort of that the onboarding of of of part-time staff and seasonal staff and things like that what I saw in the memo was a recommendation for a manager to do a sort of a higher level of of activity which maybe then um you know all can can allow the people sort of below that level to do some more of that stuff because of the fact that some some of those those tasks have moved from other departments into the HR and administrative Department um and so I'm reading that a little differently like like I'm not sure that just hiring a couple more attempts for part of the Year actually gets to what is being being asked about as as something that needs to be addressed in the memo um from the point of view of a manager I mean if if if the request was you know we need to we need to have you know three more temporary people in the summertime or something like that then that would would align better with kind of what I'm I'm hearing from council member etton but that's not necessarily what I was reading in the information that was in the memo so I'm I'm try to trying to balance those I agree with you and I'm actually you know preliminary ly prepared to actually say yes to the position and have further discussion around this understanding of how it would impact the assistant city manager position as well as HR um but anytime someone takes the workload off of someone further up then that's going to free that person up to do some of those more strategic pieces right somewhere we're talking about shifting work burden or adding support for that work burden um so I I I agree with your reading of that I I agree with that I'm thinking about how do we address that maybe differently without as big of an expense but I'm I'm prepared to put it in the preliminary and then have further discussions and have greater understanding how that big picture works together just to be clear on that and I was going to say council member gra has some who hasn't weighed in on this well just just a thought I mean so I'm I hearing that perhaps it would start in July then so it wouldn't be a full year that's a proposal an option okay um I I see the need for it I just am not clear in my own mind where that would fall I would say I would like us to hire that person carefully obviously and I know we all have talked about that before so I would probably prefer hiring it in the last half of the year and going that route um um and also not impacting the budget quite as strongly and I think it's a valid point that that still the full amount is something that has to be looked at in 2026 yeah so that that that adds on top of basically the the 400,000 yeah yeah so it it's it's part of what has to be taken into account for sure council member St I just wanted to I I know it seems somewhat Elementary of course the depart parks department but the amount of things that have gone into to HR in the last few years there's a new higher notification that needs to be signed by everybody and copied and yes it's very administrative you could probably have the HR assistant to it but hopefully by having the HR assistant do in then the the generals can do more recruiting and then the you know there's just but yes there always some I think we're putting a lot of the management duties in this situation on Miss Olsen and then it ends up taking away we we're all human and we just there's a a Max on what we can do but I just want to make sure there's just a lot of administrative duties that go with this um safe and sick leave and upcoming with the paid family leave and other things and as like people like to say they're unfunded mandates they don't come with here help this will help you but we have to also make sure um yes those people are there for a short time but it doesn't change the burden of getting them in and out of the system it's still a process so good oh Council M Sher um yeah you know I don't think there's any um question that um the different items we're talking about are important I don't think that's the fact but from where I'm coming from I'm still um people are still reeling from the big budget from last year the 9% and the city manager did not have this position in his initial budget um he he know this is something we needed to look at going forward and so um I guess I have a tendency to go towards the not putting it in next year and just going with the original budget that was also approved by the finance commission so they approved it the way it is and the city manager had um presented it without these items in so I've and again I'm not debating that any of these items we're talking about aren't important it's just you know when and how cuz there you know people have to pay for it and that's what it comes down to and um you know trying to give people a little bit of a break from last year is what I've been hearing a lot and if you look at the the emails people sent they're all talking about trying to keep the property tax down and help us and that kind of thing so again it's to me it's more of a can we um push this expense a little further to give people a little bit of a breathing room for now so I have a tendency to go more towards the um what the city manager um proposed originally right I think we'll Circle back to that as we get to the point of looking at uh motions um we did also have the uh the the suggestion by Council M Braton in relation to Tubman uh funding and I know he's been doing a lot of research and and and uh contributed uh you know to getting some of the information that's in the packet as well also I did want to uh give you an opportunity Council and I would like to acknowledge that Mr trudon and our police chief uh shider had a meeting with the with the folks at NFS as a certainly a longtime partner of ours who have started a program that really is similar in some ways um and before they had had that meeting Chief shider had spoken um about the importance of Tubman and the services they provide for victims of domestic abuse and other other things like that um that as as the only ones were doing that and actually had not had the opportunity to work with myfs at all so at this point nyf's program started in April and uh was not something our Police Department was using they had a conversation last week and said well we certainly could be using some of this one of the critical differences is that Tubman provides 24-hour service and a lot of these crisises that the police end up at um for domestic abuse victims are not happening between 8 and 5 um and so the chief feels through uh information I've gotten from the city manager that that is still a very valuable resource um for the people in our community that are in crisis situations and and really the only way to get them the support that they need at that time so um I think I'd thrown out last time in here $20,000 the ask from tubin was 44 but acknowledging that there's going to be a transition here we'll see where myfs this program goes but it's still when when Chief shider says this is important um and important to these folks in this critical life stage I I want to find some way to ensure that that is still there and I think the city manager looked at some funding things he can talk about um maybe I don't want to speak for you the whole night so he may defer to you to speak for him no I don't know Mr uh mayor and Council um I think last uh meeting last time we talked about this it was you know considered maybe additional Levy funding um one thing we could look at is Public Safety Aid we have um I think about $69,000 under my budget of remaining dollars if everything was spent as proposed in the city management budget and just recall that we have the mental health coordinators funded through PSA and we have an outstanding Grant on that so hopefully it will be much more than that at the end of the day but um we still have sufficient funds if you wanted to use Public Safety Aid uh to fund the Tubman uh that'd be kind of a one-year uh thing it's not ongoing Mone and then the conversation would happen again uh next year obviously looking at continued funding it is eligible under uh the guidelines uh for um Public Safety aid from the state so it's certainly well within the uh parameters that we could spend that those dollars um uh for Tubman if the city council would like right and just a note too that uh in the memo from Tubman they had talked about how Ramsey County had used some civil forfeiture funds for a one-time $440,000 contribution of funds uh and I did check with staff and under our regulations for our forer funds we really don't have the ability to use them for that that this purpose so we wouldn't have the ability to do that but I also was thinking about the public safety Aid and forgot about that when I asked about the forfeiture uh because that was front of brain but uh anyway that's good good information to know uh council member gra uh thanks for the extra information that's very helpful because as you know I have been working with NFS for several years and so I was aware of the new program and the um the the OJ uh grant that is for 5 years and so that's why I was really focusing on NFS uh and this uh issue because they are Ramsey County and Tubman is more hopan County however your point of not having 24 hours a day is very important and I did talk to the CEO and we won't be doing that really soon because that's a complicated process sure uh for NFS so I think given that I would like to see it funded some way don't have the answer to that but I'm open to discussion council member shorter just a question what would happen if we didn't fund it would the services stop then in Roseville I can't speak for tman uh I think they would continue to try to provide the services as much as possible they've had to lay off staff because of reduced funding so there might be less availability what that exactly means for Roseville it's kind of hard to say but certainly uh there are resources be shrunk so whether they contract staff more um or just try to make do with what they have and probably be overwhelmed in the amount of cases make the best they can but um it's not as if they would stop serving our community just maybe not and then on the side if we fund it is that funding for all these like you know more people in henon county or are we are they going to dedicate more services to Roseville then we would enter into a contract where we would you know stipulate what our expectations are um that $44,000 uh doll amount came from the amount of people that they served in city of rosville and specifically to Legal Aid legal aid yes and and crisis management and legal aid so versus some of the other programs that they offer either in other counties or for a region-wide services and I'm talking to other City administrators that do have uh this contractual agreement it's based on the amount of clients that are served and there's a whole contract as part of that so if there was um some approval for funding uh in part of the budget process we would eventually need to bring forward a a contract between us and Tubman outlining our expectations and what services they provide it'd be a one-year contract but it' be something and and and one more piece on that funding would then part of that actually then um could N NFS do part of that and as as council member Aton said only um fund 20 because instead of doing 44 because some of the other services can be put over to the other organization is that a possibility I expect that'll happen yeah so NFS isn't asking for any additional funding they have they have they have the grant so we're able to use it right now there's no cost to um the victim certainly and no cost to the city at this point to do that and that's how the Tubman model used to work there was external funding sources and it just happened and so I think it' be the same way with NFS at least for the next five years beyond that who knows right because I and I and I feel the same because we have a relationship with them right now and the more we can um utilize their services and be part of that organization I think I I would prefer that if if there's a way but I do know that we're lacking in that one area and so if there's a way just to um cover that one particular area and not anything else if that's a possibility I do think council member schroer as we approach this issue next year um we'll have a year of uh information uh working with both NY ifs's new program as well as Tubman at some level and we can kind of report back and here's what we've seen observed is it a 50-50 split is it 7030 what you know what is it to help us inform us of what our next steps are and it's too premature to guess what that is at this point but we'll have some more data that we can actually look at and try to figure out what's the best arrangement for the city of Rosell and just to clarify so that that it sounds like you know the primary daytime service provider would essentially be the NFS and then for those those 24-hour off hours kind of things it it may be Tubman is what I'm kind of hearing so um so yeah I think that it you know it probably makes sense to try to be supportive of of Tubman so that they can provide those services in Ramsey County especially in those off hours um it helps that it would not necessarily for one year be be U Levy funding um and then we can re visited over the course of next year and see what makes sense uh so potentially that could be something where all we would have to amend is our budget and not the levy request if this item is something the council wants to wants to look at funding for 20 25 and for that matter I'm not sure that there's any prohibition against increasing our preliminary budget at this point because it's a budget yeah and as long as the funding isn't through an increase to the levy the only thing we can't increase after this month is the levy so even if we didn't in our preliminary tonight conceivably it could it could be added as long as it's not dependent on Levy funding that hasn't been offset otherwise good point right uh council salary was the third item and I I guess that's Council memberes right back to me I got to bring this up because I'm not running again so um when it was it was curious to see uh city manager Trent again and did a fair amount of work um looking uh the initial list that I'd seen was the list on the bottom of our of our presentation um showing several uh cities of U generally our size and maybe bigger for some of them around the metro and their salaries were generally significantly above ours and then he went and got some Ramsey County salary um examples um my catch with those Ramsey County is several of those are smaller cities like Little Canada and Falcon Heights and things like that uh so we end up looking pretty good in Ramsey County um with um the city of Maplewood being significantly above us and others being kind of in our range or a little below but again often with a a smaller City and less complication to the work um but when we look at that bigger when we compare ourselves to Diana Hopkins Richfield uh we're significantly behind um so I I think for me uh it makes sense that this has not been changed since 2002 I believe that there some increase is reasonable um and I've heard arguments about whether there should be an ongoing thing or whether the council should be making a taking a vote anytime they want to increase salary and I I'm going to defer to you guys you might be around um you know do you do $50 a month and then do 3% a year after that you do $100 a month and say we're done um I think those kinds of numbers are reasonable at this point uh to to move move the needle sum um but again if you look at Ramsey County uh we're a little bit ahead U if you look at those other comparables um then we are a lot behind I appreciate I appreciate the information and one thing that I was thinking about was when we look at other positions and I'm going to pretend I know anything about HR at this point so I'm looking forward to being corrected here but I I imagine that that it's fairly typical to to do sort of a work done time use analysis uh and get an understanding of sort of what that looks like and then you know see what kind of hourly rate theoretically is appropriate for that we should double it well what I thought might be an appropriate exercise is to actually kind of figure out how much work we are doing you know through perhaps a little bit of a c time used survey of the council members and and exactly and uh so and and try to get some sense of that and then determine what might make sense from a policy perspective the challenge is is that I don't know that that can necessarily get done before November 5th which is the intervening election that has to happen by state law before a change in Council and mayor salary can go into effect and so but I just wanted to put that out there as something that might be helpful to me and perhaps even more so to justify to the public any changes if we did some of that kind of analysis instead of just saying well here's where we rank relative to other people and so we should be there I mean I don't know that that feels like it's as thoughtful as it probably should be especially given that it hasn't changed since 2002 um so that's where I'm kind of coming from on this I understand sort of the time pressure with the wanting to have an intervening election if you're going to put something into effect um but I also understand the notion of trying to do do it right and do a good job by way of the public dollars so I'm I'm of a couple of different Minds at least on this but I I wanted to put that out there and certainly open it up to the rest of the council for some some feedback and discussion uh the other thing I just wanted to note is sometimes times it is mentioned um that it's expensive to become a council member to run for office and all of that and I'm not sure that I look at the council's salary as some sort of reimbursement for those expenses uh as opposed to compensation to public servants for their time to do the job um and so that would be the perspective that I would come at it from and try to avoid sort of that reference to to trying to recoup uh campaign expenses because I think the mechanism for doing that is outside of the the council compensation world uh but rather in terms of seeking you know seeking support through campaign Finance laws and things like that which of the cities did we use as comps for the when we did the comp study for the other so on that list we had this isn't a complete list of all the comps but uh Edina Richfield Brooklyn Center Fridley and Oakdale we did that for we we looked at those cities pretty carefully because of population size uh Roseville is a little different than many of the cities in Ramsey County because of our increase of population during the day and the services we have to provide so I think I think just looking at Ramy County doesn't give us a full cure and I would mention in Ramsey County Maplewood was also a comparable City so that's the only one in ramse and that's the one that's high significantly higher yeah what are they doing in Maplewood I don't know anyway they're actually eating their gas in m um so you know I'm open to considering it I just don't know what how that's going to work and what where the rest of the council is on that so um where is the rest of the Council on that council member SCH well actually I I agree with council member gra that I was thinking the same thing that when we did the comp study Would we not be part of the employee group in a way and that we should be using the same cities it just seems it seems if we're picking being a different group it looks odd to me you know what oh we're going to pick this group instead of what everybody else got to use so to me it would seem like we'd want to use the same and and I know you you know comparing but that's what we do in the um uh comp studies too is you you look at um like jobs to where other cities are doing it and so that's why if you can get something close to row so that's that's typically one way to look at it um versus just um um you know how many hours you put in CU my guess would be you're going to find um different people take different lengths of time to do things and so it's a little tougher to come up with um how many hours does like and I imagine a mayor's time is you probably put in twice as much well that's why we make the big money are his billable hours more expensive too yeah so anyway so I I guess I I'd go along more with um um um council member GRS so that that sounded like a proposal to increase roseville's council salary to something over $10,000 next year no I'm just saying that's something if we're looking at it yeah yeah I think you need to do it gradually and I I I mean we haven't done this since 2002 so you don't do a huge in my opinion well and you know my suggestion related to the time study was just to get a feel for how how out of whack we might be I mean if we're making you know $451 an hour or you know yeah maybe there's a that's a signal that something might not be right there um the other thing is you know how where is it appropriate to compare the sort of the hourly rate for a council member as you know I mean just because other cities pay their council members a lot I don't know if that necessarily means because it's a political decision to a certain degree too sure um and what's palatable to their taxpayers whereas you know one could argue perhaps there is some basis to say you know and it's policy decision obviously it's a decision of the council you know perhaps the council salary should be equivalent to some level within the city Workforce you know just say as an example you might say what's the median step three what's the median step three uh across the whole city you know what is that and maybe that's what the council should be I don't even know what the number is so maybe that's not but I'm just throwing an example out as we get on the steps we're going to make a lot more money that would go over real poorly no I was just going to say I was thinking in the middle because I think there's five steps so step three was kind of in the middle of the range yeah and that's how I picked that but I mean certainly there may be a much more sensible basis for it but I was trying to come to something that was more than just they're doing it this way so we should do it that way or you know or you know should it be more analyzed or Analytical in terms of how we approach it once again that's sort of how we did it with the comp study for the other well certainly yeah I think the difference is that a lot of a lot of the pay of other types of employees is based on marketpl and competing in the mic Marketplace whereas Council salaries I I think are sort of a specialized thing that once again has a political factor in the decision making that I don't know that you could just say because they pay you know ridiculously high Council salaries in Maplewood that we should try to emulate that that that's why are we all not living in map running counil us good point we of course we hear the reasons for that every time we interview people for commissions this is uh all benefits of living in Roseville that we all enjoy so true um so I don't know where we want to go with this this particular topic and or whether we want to try to do something before November or if we need to spend more time thinking it through or where we're at so that's you know once again I don't know that we have to decide it this evening unless we want to include some number in our Levy uh unless we try to offset it at a later date so Council what do you want to do with Council salaries I'll ask someone who does this during the day unlike Robin she does her thing I do mine um I was like well if we did like a 3% for five years we would come up a lot closer to the others and of course they would continue to grow as well is that mic not working my mic is not on you just have to be closer to um if we did 3% for like 5 years we would get about 8 closer to 8,000 and then at some point I don't know that it should be automatic though I think that um an annual um you know to even just to go to the cola though this has hasn't been part of the cola and I'm not suggesting that it's always 3% because that it could get quite High because 3% does add up but for over time um at least during an adjustment period it didn't seem like it would be too unreasonable to say this year we're going to go with 3% if we went with the 7,000 um and you divided it by uh 52 you'd be at $135 per week um which would mean if we worked five hours a week on this which of course some weeks yes some weeks no that'd be about $27 an hour and so if you think of someone who has the professional responsibility that seems a little bit low for what we're asked to do and how we're asked to govern of course as you know when you first start out it's a lot more than 5 hours a week you have to catch up on everything you didn't know that's been happening for years could be 20 30 hours so and and then you're in that $4 a range so just wanting to be aware that you know it's pretty easy to do a quick judge and say okay $27 an hour I don't know that many people in a high professional position would say that's an acceptable dollar amount and I'm not making that judgment on that I'm just saying if we are looking you know what that would equip um but you know at 3% on each year for a few years to get us closer to the others seem to be a reasonable amount because it does accumulate over time so so what you're suggesting then is um after five years then revisit it I think well I don't even know it needs to be automatic any year just say 3% but just saying plan for 3% a plan and then maybe a cap say okay once we get to that you know then it's it's up to the next Council whoever's on it to make a decision um but I was thinking more just if you started at 3% especially because there's you know $7,000 it's probably in a pretty pretty small amount that you're not going to in that percentage guess that I bet that doesn't even move the need no it you know maybe goes us to0 5.18% I'm not sure it's 11 it's just about 1,200 bucks Melle is saying no it's yeah we we estimated about $1,300 and if you added that it would still be5 .7% so I'm not even sure why we're arguing about it I see7 because it's a hot potato it is a hot potato are setting our own salary it's a political thing so and I completely understand that um I mean there there were in past years you know long discussions about spending similar amounts of money to support the Miss Roseville or whatever it was many years ago so and that was huge controversy so um it's always interesting during the budget time how these discussions go um I would prefer some sort of decision made tonight if we can well we certainly need to add that 1300 bucks to the levy to make sure we don't exceed it although rounding is is a thing but uh um all right um so I think we may have an answer on that one maybe am I hearing 3% um for 25 budget age with certainly we'll ultimately have a motion to make but I'm just trying to see if I don't I don't care it's much smaller than I was going to get you all but well you can say that because we don't I know I know that's why I said it trust me but thank you for bring in all right what did you have in mindil like $100 a month which would be about 9% at this point um I hadn't done that math it's probably over that I think we're making around 550 something that a month so it's closer to what would that do 17% whatever what's that what would that do to the levy would it show up probably not so time 12 taking the cities that are in this list that are on our comp study they average out at 96 I don't if I erase that already um $9,600 $9,300 this would move us from 7 to 8,200 um still well below the average at least the people on this list that were from our comp study right pulling out those cities um so you're still at the bottom um except for friendly and and that would be about a $6,000 Levy in 6,000 and it' be 5.19% Levy increase 02 we could argue about it a long time but but it would be uh it would be portrayed accurately as a 9 whatever per salary increase for memb is the big money grab without a raise since 2002 though I would like that's true we could probably divide it by that many years and then it's less than 1% yeah you can you froze your salary I'm willing to have that conversation with residents and that was a total of what $3,000 you said 6 6,000 for all of us I mean I'd be comfortable doing something in the middle too saying 3,000 total between all of us and figuring that out I just I think it's good form for us to move towards something I don't know that we have to get arrive immediately I think it but I think it it speaks to also the value um you know we we keep we keep putting the um employees in making sure that they're being compensated correctly and fairly too and so we want to make sure that the people who follow us also feel like this is a valuable job that they're doing for the city well I think one of the topics that was brought up in in some point in this conversation or related to it was the notion of sometimes it can be difficult to uh be a council member because you have child care issues and things like that and certainly an additional $100 a month would help with child care expenses um during those hours evening hours and things like that so that might be something to saying it doesn't need to increase assumes that the people who are running for and making an office are independently secure financially right it assumes something who can run who can actually do the job at yeah in variety ways right but um so I I I don't I don't think I don't think being at the bottom of the list um is good I don't think being second from the bottom is bad but the other thing is a lot of us are on other committees like I know council member schroers on the Ramy count legal local governments and there's meetings with that I'm on the NFS board and I'm on the rosille board so responsibilities during the month other than the council meetings and the strategic planning which is coming up quite a bit now anyway that's my and all the social events and going to you know the parks and ribbon cuttings and all these yeah the build a park the building Park installation so if I were voting and I'm only 20% of the vote I would say to move the levy up $6,000 and we can have further discussion because you can always go the other way I really don't think $100 is an unreasonable increase over 22 years is that a motion all right you made a motion I'll say all right let me track this here so we got the motion on the council salary all right and that was made by councilman Bratton second by Council M grath for additional $100 a month is that how yes sir it was okay discussion on the motion uh as the maker of the motion any additional discuss make it more for the mayor but the mayor seems hesitant so I'm going leave that 100 time too um I think I've spoken to this enough thank you all right counc on it thanks any additional discussion I I think we have beaten this proverbial dead horse uh with that we've got the motion before us to increase council salary by and and increase let me change it increase the levy yes not to exceed by $6,000 to allow for the possibility of increasing council salary by $100 a month for the five council members all right and if there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously so we have our first uh adjustment to the uh proposed not to exceed Levy um do we want to uh talk about uh a budget increase or do we just on the Tubman subject if we don't have to fund it with a levy do we want to just kind of set aside the Tubman subject for further discussion and not specifically adjust the budget right now for that since it doesn't we're not precluded from doing that that's fine I don't I don't know what's going to change significantly but that's fine we can wait and see if something does change as long as there's funding for it we include it and then have it potential of having it removed later if something were to change well I was wondering if we are sure on a dollar amount at this point or if we want to have some more conversation about that yeah yeah we see a $2,000 um I'm not sure what that's based on i i i propos 20 understanding that we were trying to watch much we were spending um looking to ensure that service continues but not that would be the most of any we have the we were are provided the most Services um right now do some other factors in our city but that would be the the biggest contract they have with the Ramsey County city so trying to try to balance that out the amount of needs we have and costs that are being incurred with our budget and some other factors and NFS and so that's where I came up with that 20 it is not scientific do you want to move some something on the budget at this time sure I'll move that $220,000 addition to the budget to support Tubman is there a second and this is the discussion to potentially the continue discussion or are we adding this this would add the number to the proposed budget for 2025 it wouldn't affect the levy at this point so using non-levy funds using non ly funds use PSA doll y I'll second that all right it's been seconded by council member St uh discussion on that motion uh once again to add 20,000 to the budget for 2025 using non lby dollars to pay for it uh as a as a uh contract with Tubman Council m r as I think we've talked about extensively I don't know where I'm coming from on that one all right Council m ston is the second or not further any additional discussion council member shorter um again I I would want to get more information on this because again I do think I want to see how much NFS is going to play in this and this this number to me is just pulled it out of the air number and so that's why I this number is a little um you know when I when I asked the city manager how how much um this um 24hour service after hours happens we didn't have actual numbers on how often and how many cuz I was trying to get an idea on the how how much of the service are we utilizing to get an idea on the cost because obviously it's important so I think we're missing a lot of information so I guess I would I want to make it clear that we would um if we add this in that we would continue to have a conversation on it because I want to make sure um that we get some actual numbers and thoughts and I know we need some time to do that I think that makes sense uh council member yeah I would agree with council member schroer uh it's hard to make these decisions without data and um I really would like to that council member adn't spoke with the police chief but I would like to kind of get some more fir members however I don't want anyone to call at midnight in a terrible situation and not have absolutely legal advice so even one is even one is too yes I agree well and the I think the point of the motion was that that because it's a budget adjustment it can go up or down after further discussion and Analysis after today I think we're just trying to put the placeholder in there as I understood it so and I just want make sure it comes back to the council you know that it's just not stuff so it needs to come hopefully amongst the five of us we won't forget about it between now and December yeah well you never know true enough yeah right with with the with the usage and thinking about this as something that would be viewed Again by whoever's here in a in a year right now the NFS program has been in place for almost 6 months and they've expended 0 serving Roseville residence and if you look at six months of service from tub minut it's $22,000 right so that's right last service from tman right yes so looking at looking at that and thinking about transitioning and how our systems might need to change making sure that piece is there not just the 24-hour piece but all pieces cuz right now we don't use them m atfs um is for me that's that's a reason to do something um because we don't need to be a city that is um leaving folks in these crisis situations without the support they need and I think part of that was a ramping up time because that I understand I'm just saying that that that we aren't on that ramp yet for for the City of Roseville so all the cities that are involved with NFS bar getting there but not there yet so and I think it's worth noting too that uh this is for starting January 1st of 2025 uh so we will not have any funding between now and and the end of this year um for this from the City of Roseville but I know that the or I think from the memo the funding from Ramsey County Attorney's Office is for 2024 only and that's $440,000 that ends at the end of this year so maybe this is a way to help supplement that transition presuming that that Ramsey County um doesn't you know isn't able to do it again or whatever I think the other part of this that's important to keep in mind is that there'll be another legislative session uh there'll be continuing talks with the county as to how they do their business um and so we'll have a lot more information you know next time we're looking at this in 20125 besides the discussion we're going to have later this year yet on the same topic uh so between all of that hopefully we can adequately serve people in the community with as was noted these crisis situations uh with that we have motion before us to add the 20,000 to the budget uh for the Tubman uh Services as outlined uh if there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously that adjustment is made to the budget um I think we're uh up to of those three topics then we're up to the HR manager back to that does anyone want to make a motion this would be a motion to amend both the budget and the tax levy uh in some fashion in relation to this item if if that's the desire of folks on the council I'd make a motion to amend the tax levy and the budget for six months of an HR management I'll second it all right and six months would be about $73,000 if I do my 146 divided by two correctly up for the 20 25 26 and as the maker of the motion council member St nothing further okay uh council member gra I just think we need to start addressing this earlier rather than later so I'm that's why I'm supporting the six months in 2025 all right other discussion on the motion I support because I think we need to keep talking about it and maybe that's the best solution but yeah right no amendment to go to a full year right just checking um with that if there's no other discussion on the motion uh this is a motion once again to add uh $73,000 both to the tax levy and to the 2025 preliminary budget uh for the support of a half year of the HR manager position as outlined uh there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes uh four to one with council member shorter in opposition all right then we have some resolutions that we need to adopt unless there's any further amendments we want to make to budget or tax levy on other subjects that up to this evening have not been approached all right so uh the first resolution for the L where are my resolutions attachment one so the first one is the levy Levy yep don't we have to pass a a budget before we have a levy mm legally you only have to pass the levies I understand I mean just philosophically wouldn't you set your budget before you set your Levy but I I guess do either way it's all happening the same evening so the order of things may not really matter that much although we have done the budget first before but anyway I'll accept whatever motion a council member wishes to make do we have the updated numbers first so for the levy we added 73,000 for the HR manager and $6,000 for the um City Council salaries additional 79,000 of Levy that's a total of 30, 352,000 had notd from the finance director too so what was the number again so 30, 352 603 got it all I will move approval second all right so that is the levy resolution moov by council member Aton seconded by council member stra uh discussion on that motion council member Aton I think we've talked about a lot all right I'm ready to go council member strong nothing all right any other discussion on that motion all right with that we've got the motion before us to adopt the resolution setting the uh not to exceed uh Levy for City of Roseville for 2025 uh as noted uh there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed oppos all right that passes 4 to one uh with Council or shorter of in opposition next we have the uh resolution related to the 2025 budget and we did add uh 73,000 for the HR manager 20,000 uh for Tubman and 6,000 for the um city council mayor salaries for total increase of 999,000 that leaves us with a budget total of 73 million 9,845 73 M59 845 all right is there a motion on budget resolution I make that motion second been moved by council member gra seconded by council member Aton uh to adopt the resolution setting the preliminary not to exceed 2025 no not not to exceed just the preliminary 2025 budget uh at the numbers indicated by C manager trudon uh discussion on the motion as the maker council member gra no great second council member Aton no thank you any additional discussion on the motion all right hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed oppos all right that passes four to one with council member Scher and opposition uh that brings us then to the Eda Levy I don't believe we've made any changes this evening to the Eda Levy unless somebody wants to at this point uh that resolution is the third resolution is there a motion move second all right it's been moved by council member ston second by council member Scher to adopt the uh proposed Eda Levy and that once again is set at 364 856 no change to that uh discussion of the motion as the maker of the motion council member St uh as the second or council member schroer any other discussion once again this was before the Eda the council has the Eda at our last meeting and recommended to ourselves for approval I want to just thank again the staff for going back to the to the table on this one and bringing it back with the with the uh the sharpened pencil as it were with that we've got the motion before us to adopt that resolution setting the Eda not to exceed Levy for 2025 uh if there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously and that resolution that Levy are set these will be the numbers that go on the uh notices that go out to taxpayers for the truth and Taxation hearing at the uh uh November end of November time frame November the Noti go out early in November the meeting will be late November and we'll that'll be on the city's information as to that is as well as on the notice itself it's actually on the calendar the calendar and the council November 25th 25th right around Thanksgiving with that then uh that concludes our budget items this evening uh financially speaking we do have another uh item here which is uh a consideration of a way to uh pay for uh water meter deposit refunds uh as discussed previously by the council uh through a transfer from the sanitary sewer fund balance and I believe uh Finance director Petri you'll be introducing this item and you pretty much covered it that was that's what what's on my agenda item here I appreciate people talking because I have a cold and sound like a frog so um so the cash balances as of the end of um 23 the water fund had 837980 T fund had a little over 3 m 3 million 7 the outstanding water meter deposits as of last week were a446 as properties have been sold we have been refunding um the meter deposits obviously and not getting new deposits in on the new homeowners um when this was first discussed in March um the council didn't want to want us to consider just refunding when properties are sold because that could take 40 to 50 years and I don't disagree with that I looked at Alternatives I looked at what if we refunded a third each year that would make more work for staff in some cases the meter deposits are so small because people were in their house when we first started doing deposits so it just made sense to do it all at one time either the fourth quarter of this year to get it cleaned up in the same year um which made sense to me um the other thing is the water fund has been paying for all the costs related to the meters and the radios that read the water that flows through but the sanitary sewer fund derives its revenues from the flow of the water um just in a different direction um so it's it made a lot of sense to me that funds be transferred from the sanitary sewer fund to the water fund which is where we hold the deposits and get refunded on the quarterly utility bills that we bill for water sewer storm and recycling questions all right and this did go before the finance commission at their last meeting and they uh concurred with that recommendation yes right and I don't know can we put that chart with the with the balances up on the I don't know if somebody can put it on the overhead camera there just because when we talk about number sometimes it helps folks to to see the actual numbers there thank you all right and we will uh try not to have any questions from Miss Petri because she she would benefit from not having to answer you like water no good all right just don't make me talk to give a break to miss Petri we'll check with uh the members of the public to see if anybody from the public wishes to speak to this item does not appear to be case um what's the thought of the council sure council member Scher I think it makes perfect sense to do it all at once and um and how many how many households are we talking about here she's like like thousands right I mean so if you think about when she talks about trying to break it up and you have that Manny that's a lot of work it's a lot of so I mean I'm not yeah and so why that doesn't make and then if you really think about what would you save you wouldn't you'd be spending more money on the time so I it it makes a lot of sense that we would just go ahead and do this we have about 16,000 accounts both residential and Commercial and apartments yeah um commercial we could we looked at it but the dollars are so small right not it makes sense right and and the one of the reasons I put the fund balances up there is that the sewer fund is quite healthy uh even Beyond what's needed for its um operating Reserve level although obviously there are other things that go into that that that is used for um and the water fund is is not as healthy we'll say uh and so this does make some sense as a source of funding it would seem uh and certainly if the finance department is okay with it uh that that's a good endorsement for a plan um so we have the request before us is there a motion uh from the council would make that motion second all right move by council member graph seconded by council member etton to authorize the transfer of funds and the payment of the refunds yes uh as outlined I think there was a the question was raised is is this something that can just be a credit on the bill yes that's what it's we're not cutting 16,000 checks it'll be a credit on the fourth quarter perfect perfect all right very good so we've got the motion for us to authorize that plan uh any uh discussion on the motion as the maker council member gra well I just think we have to consider staff time here and and it just makes sense to clean this up in this calendar year and not take more of their time cutting Small Checks and doing bookkeeping that could go on for as she said 40 or 50 years that's an ongoing cost that would be exponentially greater than what we're doing right now and is the secondary council member Aton I agree all right other discussion on the the motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously that plan is approved all right Miss Petri get better next she's not done yet well we I think Mr trudon can handle this one how's that executive decision there is one modification to the delinquent utility accounts we're removing uh 2000 hersel um okay all right they aren't delinquent all right noted thank you Miss petrick now go home and get better all right with that we have item 7B before us which is to consider certifying unpaid utility charges property tax role Mr Tren uh to introduce this item yes uh Mr Mayor members of the council this is something we do routinely each quarter and to certify unpaid utility and other charges to the property tax rule this is our method to make sure we collect um money that we have expended uh through the purchase of um utility uh water and and Sewer uh capacity uh that we do need to recover so in front of you tonight is um a resolution to consider certifying those listed with the exception of 2000 hersel um to the county on to the property tax rle this actually is an opportunity for a public hearing so we did notify everybody that was on that list that this is an opportunity to come forward and contest anything that they they may want to um I think the 20 herel they did come before the meeting and it turned out that they did pay an auto pay so just it wasn't caught so um with that we would like you to consider the resolution certainly consider a public hearing I would note also there is one very large uh delinquent taxpayer out there uh that is a hotel rayer I should say um that is a hotel this is something that we do consider as part of our hotel licensing uh and we're just as a quick update we are in the process of sending out those applications and doing um inspections in October with the hope of bringing those forward in November for consideration and certainly uh failure to pay utility bills is a is a major issue with granting that license so we'll have to see how that sorts out but I just wanted to call that out in case you're curious which property that was so all we're asking tonight after the public hearing is to adopt the resolution without 2000 hersel right thank you um and uh that this being a public hearing we'll officially open it up for members of the public to speak to this item uh we have a throng of people in the council chambers this evening to complain about their uh utility bills and delinquency uh so with that we'll close the public hearing and move to council consideration of this item uh as was noted this is a fairly routine item normally it has in the past been on the consent agenda but because of the need for the public hearing aspect of it on the uh wise uh guidance of our attorney uh that's why it's handled as a public hearing uh these days with that we have the request to adopt the resolution certifying those uh delinquent accounts with the note that uh 2000 hersel is not on the list any longer some second all right it's been moved by council member Aton second by council member St to adopt the resolution certifying those properties uh the delinquent amounts to the uh County for their property collection with the property taxes uh all those in favor indicate by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously those that is approved those items are certified uh we don't have any Council minutes this evening to consider uh that would bring us to our consent agenda uh Mr treasure would you give us an outline of the items on our consent agenda this evening yes thank you Mr Mayor item 10A approves payments in the amount of 1, 8135896207 for a new boiler purchase and installation at the realville skating center item 10d approves corrected rates for the city cafeteria benefit contributions for city employees city council previously approved these rates on September 9th but it was discovered after the approval that the contribution rates were miscalculated so the rates in your packet tonight are the correct rates item 10e approves a resolution awarding the contract for the D waso sanitary sewer lift station project to PM companies for $535,500 has under the motion has the LA wrong lift station there so I just want to make it very clear this is for the Dale aaso sanitary sewer lift station and finally item 10f adopts a resolution authorized in The rosville Economic Development Authority to apply for Metropolitan Council livable communities affordable home ownership funds on behalf of the city and that is the consent agenda all right thank you Mr Tron uh is there a motion on the consent items second all right it's been moved by council member shorter second by Council M gra to approve the consent items as presented noting the correction on the uh lift station yes as outlined um is there any discussion uh Council M John um I just wanted to check in to see you know how many um Mr Tren how many massage therapy licenses this brings us to you know I was going to check council member strong I think we're 27 28 about that amount okay and have we had any additional uh concerns or any um additional developments on the property that was um changed ownership I really can't comment directly on that I think we are monitoring that situation okay but beyond that I can't really comment thank all right any other uh discussion on the motion to approve the consent items if not all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously and I would note actually the agenda doesn't mention it but we did have in our meeting materials uh minutes from our September 9th council meeting it's number nine I think we justed yeah but normally there would be a 9A that would say minutes from such and such and so that's why I skipped right over it because I hadn't seen that um but we do have them before us and presented uh so are there any changes or corrections to the September 9th minutes as presented if not a motion to approve those would be in order I move approval second all right been moved by council member graph second by council member schroer to approve the minutes of our September 9th council meeting yes as presented any discussion on that motion no hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously and those minutes are approved and that then brings us back to the future agenda review uh Mr trudon if you would go through the items uh upcoming on the future agenda yes uh so um not an official council meeting this Wednesday but uh strategic planning focus group for the city council this will just be the city council attending along with our Consultants that'll be from 4:00 to 6:30 that will be in the Willer room downstairs so go down the stairs and take a right P the historical society and um you'll find that room I'll be there at the start to make sure everything is all set up but otherwise um you'll be on your own for about two two and a half hours after that our next council meeting is October 7th we're going to have the recycling contract consider potentially awarding a contract for uh carts uh also I have uh some RightWay vacations uh as well as receiving a utility rate study update from Ellers on October 11th this will be our first joint um department head and city council strategic planning meeting that'll be on Friday October 11th from 1: to 5:00 pm and for that meeting will be at the fireside room at the oval I'll remind everybody as we get closer these days because we do switch around a little bit then after that October 14th at kind of the work session we have Ramsey County Commissioner mayy Joe Maguire uh there for present ation on a couple topics we also receive from uh staff at Ramsey County a presentation regarding their Eda H legislation they're looking to do something again this year and they're trying to do their due diligence prior to coming down to the legislature and talk to cities on answer any questions and uh I think I imagine uh gain our support and then also we would talk about the police department Staffing allocation study T kind of looking at Beyond just Staffing and also uh shifts and everything else and how we're allocating our resources is in a way this will just be an introductory conversation about um uh that work and then we'll go from there depending on the conversation and that's what I have for future agenda thank and just to be clear the ramsy county did not that legislation did not end up getting adopted last year and so it's not that they're going back again for the same thing uh in the sense that they already got it they're going back again because they didn't get it last get it among a lot of other things that other people didn't get as well all right with that uh any questions on the future agenda or items council members may wish to uh add to Future agendas or Council reports and announcements council member St Council report um wanted to thank all of the folks uh who helped put on the Wild Rice Festival it seemed a little bit smaller than usual but um there was some rain at the beginning that kind of threw things off um but as always it was a a really special event and it was nice to be part of I noted there was also a Minnesota Wild hockey festival at the um at the rosale center um they could have used some of the promotion of the Wild Rice Festival for their folks that look pretty sparsely attended um I did have the opportunity to go to the habitat home um open house on Friday and special thanks to all the folks who were involved in prepping that um if we wonder how our um work in the Eda is benefiting the community it is going to be a single mom with eight children occupying this four bedroom two B home um it was very very nice it had green space in the back and an outdoor space the other side has not yet been closed on so that exactly who would be living there was unknown but really lovely to see um that support and uh especially there was one individual from the community who had uh offered uh financial support as well as building support as well as he was there really um promoting this so um really great opportunity for us to see our work in action and then just an invitation on October 12th from 10: to 2 there's a community event at trise corner autoare he's giving away pumpkins last year he gave away 2,000 so we ordered 2500 this year and everything there is free and it's a really great opportunity for community members to kind of come and and um and receive something for free and feel like they're part of the community so thanks to him and make sure everyone knows they're invited all right thank you uh council member gra and uh thanks to all the people showed up for the park build on Saturday U muddy build it was a little rainy even Rainer I know we had to delay an hour but people hung around and then we at 10:00 we got started worked in the mud just wore our boots and slowed us down a little bit but we got got quite a bit done we got a fair time you got a swing up and I got a couple things done y only managed to drop one bolt down the hole but actually that's pretty good that's a good good record yeah yeah no the absolutely thanks to everybody who showed up see the neighborhood gets ill excited about it CU when things start to come together you know it's a exciting time yep and more to come on that Park as the rest of it is developed beyond the playground as well yep I know the site looks a little bare right now but uh there's more to come right other Council announcements or Communications all right the only item remaining before us this evening is a motion to adjourn so moved second it's been moved by council member St second by council member gra to adjourn uh no discussion on motion to adjourn all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously and we are adjourned at 7:52 p.m. everyone thanks