We hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday, August 24th, 2026. Mr. City Manager, would you call the role, please? >> Council member Grath >> here, Council Member Bower >> here, Council Member Strong >> here, >> Council Member Schroeder >> here, >> Mayor Ro >> here. Uh, and with us at the DEAS, by way of introduction, we have our city attorney, Rachel Tierney, who's on my right at the very end of the DEAS. uh and our city manager Pat Trean who's on my left at the other end. Uh we also do have other staff uh who will be participating in and guests who will be participating in the meeting and we'll make those introductions uh as we proceed through the agenda. I want to make a note for folks in the audience uh here in the chambers that we do have uh some copies of meeting materials available for the public. Uh one of which is we have a number of uh individual copies of tonight's agenda which are on the back table under the big clock by the back door. uh and those are yours to use uh to help follow up with the meeting. We do also have one complete set of all the meeting materials that the council has to consider and that is in a large three- ring binder on the back table right by the agendas and that is for all of the folks here to share. Uh so hopefully we can we can work through that. Okay. Um did also want to remind folks if you have a cell phone to be sure and silence it or otherwise uh assure that it doesn't disrupt our meeting this evening. We'll have a number of other rules of the road. Uh but that sounds like enough for this time. We would just ask folks if you can to stand 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. Next on our agenda is approval of tonight's agenda. And as always, we'll begin by checking with staff to see if there are any uh staff uh initiated changes to tonight's agenda. Mr. Trean. >> Uh no changes by staff, Mr. Mayor. >> All right. Thank you. Uh then we'll check with council members to see if any council members would like to make changes to tonight's agenda or would like a item removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration. Does not appear to be the case. Uh the next check is with members of the public and this is in regard to what is known as our consent agenda. Uh this is section 10 of our agenda which is at the bottom of the first page. There's a handful of items there. Uh can approval of our check register payments, approval of purchases over $10,000. Uh a number of uh various contracts or other types of uh license renewals. Most of the time those are taken up as a single motion with limited opportunity for input and it's at the end of the meeting. And so we want to check at the beginning to see if anyone is here for one of those items. If ca if so, we can move it to the beginning. Is there anyone here for one of the items in section 10 of tonight's agenda? Either to comment or ask a question. It does not appear to be the case. Uh it then appears that we can proceed with the agenda as presented. Is there a motion? >> So moved. Second. >> It's been moved by council member Strong, second by council member Schroeder to approve the agenda as presented. Uh any discussion on that motion hearing? None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. We have our agenda for this evening. >> Um next is our first opportunity for public comment this evening. Uh and we do provide uh as part of our process the ability to make public comment during agenda items about those specific items at each meeting. Uh but we also do at the start of each meeting provide an opportunity for general public comment on items that are not on tonight's agenda or that night's agenda uh but may be either related to city business or of interest to people in the community. Uh the public uh comment rules whether it's at this initial uh general public comment time or anytime during the meeting are [snorts] that each individual should begin their comments with their name and either their street or their address for the record. uh comments or questions should be addressed to the city council. Um and there is a threeminut time limit per speaker by council rule. Uh you can say a lot in three minutes and so uh don't be too concerned about that and I do try to enforce it generously but also gently. Uh the other thing about it is that if you're not able to finish all your comments in the 3minut time frame, you certainly can follow up uh later in writing with the city manager or an email to the city council. or if you have something written and you weren't able to finish it, you could hand it to the city manager uh to make sure that the council gets it. Um we don't uh sort of have conversations as part of these public comment times at any point during the meeting. This is an opportunity for the council and staff to hear from members of the public. Uh if we do happen to have follow-up questions, we may ask those, but it's pretty rare. Uh so with that uh the other thing I'll say is if there are a number of people who do want to speak we have the two microphones at the table and certainly if somebody is speaking at one of the microphones the next person who wants to speak can be sitting at the chair in front of the other microphone and being prepared to begin their remarks uh right after the that previous speaker finishes. Uh, and if you want to queue up and be the the on deck person, we do have some empty seats in the front row that can be used for that purpose. Uh, depending on how many people we have planning to speak at any given time. Uh, the other thing I'll just note is that for the record, if your name is something where it's not something I could figure out how to spell, we do have the clipboard up there at the table and maybe once you're done with your remarks, you can step off to the side and just write out your name so that we can uh spell it correctly in the official record. Uh, assuming we can read your handwriting. I think with that I've I've gone through the rules generally speaking for public comment and certainly as I understand it there may be some people here this evening who wish to speak. So we'll open it up for uh the opportunity for the first member of the public to speak and you shouldn't have to adjust the microphone position or anything like that. You should be able to just dive right in. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm Mike Gregory 1945 Sherendale Avenue, Roseville, Minnesota. Apologize for coming so infrequently. I've been in a couple activities this afternoon and I just came directly from them. So, I've got my informal summer dress on here. There's a handout that I've given to Patrick that I've asked him to share that with you just as a matter of reference, but also to share with the public. I'm going to talk to you about Roseville Cares. What is Roseville Cares? Roseville Cares is a collaboration community initiative formed through a partnership between Dog Good Roseville and the Roseville Area Optimus Club character development initiative, an inclusive, caring community. Roseville's uh Optimus Club has had the character development initiative now for a couple of years and we're now decided we're going to work with activities with dog good Roseville and their mailing list of over 1300 and then we're reaching out to the 2,000 people who were involved with the surge in different activities and our entire community and we are designed with this initiative to encourage spotlight acts of caring kindness inclusion mutual respect and to celebrate the everyday ways people show compassion here in Roseville. Roseville Care sponsors a week-long celebration of caring in early February each year and encourages citizens and businesses to develop new opportunities for service and connection. We aim to initiate a community action every quarter. Roseville Care sponsors I'm sorry our long-term mission is to engage every corner of our community in building stronger more connected Roseville through high impact projects guided by the c the the uh character development initiative framework. We aspire to unite seven community pillars. Diversity, faith groups, business, education, local government, youth, and social organizations. We invite all to share their treasures and energies with Roseville Cares. Our impact in action recognition. During last February's Roseville Cares week, we hosted an appreciation lunchon to honor Roseville's first responders. We want to thank Kowanas Rotary uh the Rotary Club and other community service organizations and businesses for supporting youth and government funding Roosevelt Police Explorers and their DUTH uh competition social organizations partnering with Lions Kuanas Rotary and others supporting education. This quarter, Roseville Cares has an effort welcoming the principal of Harami Elementary School by funding two specialized sensory classrooms to support kindergarten students with special needs and also calming spaces for every classroom. The funding agent for all of these is the Roseville Area Optimist Foundation. And at that location, uh there's a a place you can click on and you'll receive something from uh a group called Zephy. and Zephy will direct the funds to this organization. 100% of what you donate goes to that organization. They then send out a statement for tax purposes and also a thank you note saying thank you for what you've done. We've initiated that and uh in the last uh 3 weeks we've uh accumulated about $6,000. >> We are go our goal is about 12,000 for these things at that school and we know from outside sources we will have full funding no matter what for that first initiative. So, Roseville Area Cares is a new combination of organizations and I wanted to make you aware of it so you'd know what it is when you see things coming about with Roseville Cares. >> Thank you. >> Right. Thank you for your comments this evening. >> Hello and welcome. >> Thank you. Um, good evening, council. My name is Mary Gruntman and I live at 1840 Chandler Avenue. I'm requesting a variance to the street lamp requirement for our curve in the neighborhood. And I want to start by saying I respect the intent of the policy lighting of curves and intersections is meant to improve safety. I am aligned with the safety goal of this city. But I'm here today because our situation is unique in our neighborhood and I would like to explain to council why I think applying the policy here brings more harm than benefit. So, I'll start with first um some specifics about the street of um our neighborhood. We have no through traffic. Chandler is a quiet low-speed residential loop which is used only by neighbors. It has no history of accidents or visibility issues on this curve. So, there's Glenwood then um becomes Chandler, which then becomes Hilltop. So, it's not an intersection, it's just a curve. There's no through traffic. We border Reservoir Woods, which is a treasured uh preserve in our city. And this is a sensitive area. This is not a typical residential block because a a street lamp here would shine directly into a protected habitat corridor. We believe that a lamp conflicts with Roseville's environmental policies, which I have read. Um, the Roseville envir environmental protection goals include one, protecting and preserving and enhancing wildlife resources to protect and enhance wildlife habitat included in wooded areas. It also includes preserving natural systems and pollinators. I have read the policies also say it's important to integrate environmental considerations into city decisions and preserve natural systems and pollinators. I have reviewed these various environmental plans and policies. I believe a bright polemounted lamp at the end of reservoir woods would disrupt fireflies, owls, bats, and other nocturnal species which require natural darkness. Fireflies use dark uh darkness for mating signals. Owls and bats depend on low light conditions for hunting and navigation. This directly undermines the habitat protection that I have read that Roseville prioritizes. I also want to mention that our neighborhood is united. We have multiple households here and we have others that weren't able to make it tonight due to other conflicts, but they have written into the city. We all care about the safety and the environmental stewardship of our neighborhood. We are not asking the city to ignore safety. We are asking for a contextbased decision when it comes to um installing additional artificial lighting. A variance is would be a balanced solution. It would maintain the intent of light of the lighting policy while honoring Roseville's uh environmental commitments and the unique character of our natural border street. So, I'd like to thank you for require uh considering this request. I appreciate the opportunity and your time. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Hello and welcome. >> Hi, I'm Mike Grundman. Uh, I also live at 1840 Chandler, but not only did I live there, I grew up there. I uh that the safety issue with that area, there has never been an accident in the winter or the summer in that area, nor a pedestrian problem. Um, I have lived in the neighborhood almost my entire life. At one time I was at we were at uh 490 Hilltop which was just three houses away but after mom and dad passed we bought the house and we've been there for what 16 years now. Um so I would like you to consider the variance as well to the policy. There has um it is a very unique situation. Um, we understand, but because of the the woods across the street and that type of situation, we would like you to take that into consideration. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you for your comments. >> Hello and welcome. [snorts] >> Good evening. I'm Barbara Grundman. >> And you can actually keep the mic about a foot away from you. That's >> I could do this. You could still It's just that they adjust it for you so you don't have to. Barbara Gruntman and I live at 519 Hilltop Avenue. I happen to live across the street from 1840 Chandler. Um much of what I have noted is also what has already been spoken, so I'll try to skip some of the repeat, but we I am interested in ex talking about the demonstrating the need for the street light at this location. I feel like we haven't actually done that as a city. Um and the problem that this light is intended to solve. I don't think those problems actually exist here. Additionally, it's a very low crime residential area. So, if safety is because of crime, I I don't think that's applicable here in in my opinion. Um and um a permanent street light being installed uh because of a safety need. It's not simply because of an area is dark that becomes unsafe. So just to specify that the people who live here do not want the light as you've heard already twice. Um residents who live there every night uh should have significant impact or input. Um our own street light policy refers to placing lights where they are needed and wanted. So in this case that it's neither wanted for sure and we do not believe it's needed. Um it's adjacent to the woods which we've already heard about. Um, it's also the light pollution, though modern street lights can be shielded and directed downward. Uh, that's better than the older fixtures, but it does not eliminate nighttime illumination. Once installed, this area will be artificially lit every night of the year. Additionally, as Mary Gronin spoke to the uniqueness of this neighborhood, just this last weekend, we had uh the city approved us to close the streets in that area for a six-hour block party. And even the fire department showed up. I mean, it's a very clear indication that we are all this neighborhood is a very thriving, very active neighborhood that works collectively. And with the amount of folks that commented this last weekend about the letter they received and their uh their feelings against it, I believe that's a good case for us to ask you again to uh to u make a variance for this particular uh community. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you for your comments. Hello and welcome. >> Hello. Um my name is April Pearson. I live at 506 Hilltop Avenue. Um, I live next door to Mike and Mary Gruntman and across the street from Dan and Barbara Grundman. And, um, I just want to talk about some of the specific wildlife, uh, things and some of the, uh, the uniqueness of our neighborhood. Um, today I counted up that we have at least a dozen uh, yards, front yards with native plants. Um, we also have a pair of great horned owls that um are frequently in the woods right across the street from my house. Um, we hear them almost every night. I've uh on occasion even managed to get a get pictures of the two of them in the the uh tree across from us. Um, I moved to Roseville 6 years ago. Um, I lived in St. Paul before that. And I will say I have appreciated uh the fact that the street lights that Roseville has put in with the LEDs are um definitely far less impactful to wildlife than most of the ones that that St. Paul was. And they're, you know, a warmer white. They tend to be a little bit less illuminating. But um with Reservoir Woods being right there, we do have a significant number of migratory birds that pass through those woods and use that as their their stopping place as they travel south. Um we have a significant uh uh firefly u population that's also in the woods. Um and I know this year was a good year for fireflies because of the wet spring, but um we see them every year. uh they're always there and the uh extra light would likely uh interrupt some of that behavior. Um and I mentioned that I've you know moved in six years ago. Um, my neighbors can attest to the fact that for the past 6 years I have been re re um removing invasive species from my yard and planting pretty much all native trees, bushes, grasses, and other, you know, flowers um to help support the uh the wildlife in our area. and um as well as installing uh lighting that is downward facing that is you know turned off during times when it is most impactful to wildlife and I will also admit that I was I felt a little defeated when I received the uh letter about the street light. So, um I know in the past I've talked with Wayne about things like um billing for the uh city of Roseville um water system and uh the difficulty in navigating that. And um surprisingly to me um within the next year there was actually a revamp of the the way that that was all rolled out. And so I know that Roseville does listen to their citizens. And so I appreciate this opportunity to bring this to you. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you for your comments. [clears throat] >> Hello and welcome. >> I'll be brief. >> I'm Daniel Grundman. Um I just want to reiterate that I uh obviously I kind of mentioned this years ago that we knew that this day would come where we'd get a letter saying there's going to install a street light. So here we are. Anyway, I just want to express my opposition to the street light. And I have photos of the area that show the woods, the housing, that type of If you'd like these, I can pass them up. If you don't need them, it's not a problem. >> Yes or no? >> Why don't you give them to Mr. Judge? >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak under general public comment? >> Hello and welcome. >> Good evening. My name is Rich James. I know most of you from my time as a commissioner here in Roseville. Um, I want to bring something to your attention that that just has just happened to me this past week. I stopped um waste management as my regular trash hauler. Um, they my wife died in March and so I have a whole lot less trash and curbside was willing has a small much smaller trash can that I don't even fill up even close to every week and also at a cheaper price. So, I discontinued my service with uh Waste Management. And before I go on, just think of what would be a reasonable charge for them to come and pick up my trash can. Just for a second, think of that. Okay. I got a bill on Friday for $88.56 cents to pick up the trash can, which I think is unreasonable. I think that you have you can by altering your contracts limit the amount of money that they charge simply to pick up a trash can. $25 I would have no problem. 30, [clears throat] yeah, probably not either, but $88 seems to be really excessive for a company as large as Waste Management. and I saw the truck come by and they had maybe 10 15 um uh carts on the truck that they were either delivering or picking up. So, it was not an unusual situation. They didn't have to go out of their way in any big any major way in order to pick this up. And I would urge you and also I looked online today and I believe from what I read that you have the authority to change the contract to say that that your waste tallers cannot charge any more than $25 to pick up a trash can. Anybody who leaves the city is going to get a bill for it when they cancel that. Anybody who chooses to change the the trash hauler will also get a bill similar to mine if not exactly the same. And within this bill, they're charging things like um the uh e ecology, the ecological waste, the administration charges, all kinds of things to that make it even more money than it would have been. They're allowed to charge $75, which is what they did. And then they added all these other charges on to make it $88 and and some cents. So, I'm talking to the people behind me and to you and to whatever whoever listens to this in the future. I I I'm begging you to do something about it. I'm going to have to pay this bill. I can pay this bill, but I know that there are people in the city that $88 would be a significant amount of money for them to pay simply to have a trash can picked up. So, I urge you to do that. I urge I urge you to take that up at some point. Rachel, I'd ask you to research this to see whether it's legal for them to do that. And uh it's something you can do for the community that isn't going to cost you anything and it can just be inserted into the next contract that you have as it's renewed with these various trash companies. Thank you. I already signed it. Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak under general public comment this evening? All right, seeing no one, uh then we'll go ahead and close the opportunity for general public comment. uh and we'll move on with our agenda here. Uh this uh next item then is under recognitions and donations. Uh and that is uh to uh consider a proclamation related to national recovery month, suicide and overdose awareness month. Uh and so I will read the proclamation and then a motion from the council would be in order. I [clears throat] knew that would happen. The proclamation reads as follows. Whereas the health and well-being of all Roseville residents are vital to the strength of our community. And far too many lives are impacted each year by substance use disorders, suicide, and overdose. And whereas September is recognized as National Recovery Month, a time to honor the resilience of individuals in recovery, raise awareness about mental health and substance use, uh, and celebrate the strength of recovery support systems. And whereas International Overdose Awareness Day on August 31st and Suicide Prevention Awareness Day on September 10th are important times to honor the lives lost, support those who are grieving, and strengthen our community's commitment to prevention, healing, and recovery. And whereas Roseville is committed to being a part of the solution. Our police and fire departments work together with trained social workers to provide compassionate responses and long-term support by connecting individuals and families to the care and services they need. And whereas this approach reflects Roseville's core values of community, equity, safety, integrity, and accountability and demonstrates our belief that every person in our city deserves dignity, hope, and access to resources that support their well-being. And whereas we honor the courage of those in recovery, the dedicated the dedication of loved ones and professionals who support them, the tireless efforts of first responders, healthc care providers, and community organizations working every day to save lives and strengthen families. Now therefore, be it resolved, the city of Roseville hereby proclaims September as national recovery month and suicide and over O overdose Awareness Month and encourages all residents to learn more about mental health and substance use, support those who are struggling in recovery and help foster a community where everyone feels connected, valued, and supported. >> So move second. >> It's been moved by council member Strong, second by council member Grath. Uh discussion on that motion. >> Thank us. I thank all of us for being willing to put this on our agenda of annual rotation since it regularly impacts so many members of our community. Um, I brought this forward a few years ago because of a mom I know who lives in Roseville who who really has been long will have a lifelong um connection to her son who died by suicide and and um overdose and so I thank our city for the continued efforts and not just in words but by actions through our CAT team. So, thank you. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion. >> Yeah, I would like to thank the police department and the fire department for all the work they do on this one. they have calls. It's a thing that happens and um having the resources and the equipment to help with that is very important and it's appreciated. >> Other discussion on the motion. I would just add that um while I think it's important for us to provide the resources that we do provide and um the support that we do provide I think it's also worth recognizing that uh generally in this area the resources available to families and individuals are inadequate and our system often times does not prioritize this type of health. Uh and so it's important also, I think, in all that we do to make sure that we're continuously uh advocating for more resources to help people that are in these situations, whether it's uh dealing with drug or alcohol abuse uh or uh mental health challenges uh that um are we could do a whole lot better as a society. And um it's important that we do everything that we do, but we can always do more and should always think about ways to do more. With that, we have the motion before us to adopt this uh resolution or excuse me to uh approve this uh proclamation. Uh if there's no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously and that proclamation is approved. >> Uh next on our agenda then is uh we'll proceed into our business items. Our first business item this evening is item 67A, which is to conduct a public hearing uh to consider certifying unpaid utility charges to the property tax role. We have our finance director Sam Margaranu with us this evening uh to bring this hearing before the council. Hello and welcome. >> Good evening Mr. Mayor, member of the council. Thank you. Um I'll keep this brief. Um this is something that is driven by our city um city code annually. The the city um certifies any unpaid utilities or other type of fees to the county's auditor uh for collections. Um, typically we look at any past due accounts over 90 days. Um, so we have attached to the report a list of those delinquencies that we would like to certify. So we're really seeking for your approval this evening and support of um a resolution to support this certifying this um collections to the county for collections for next year's. >> All right. And the list is from the previous quarters over over 609 days. >> Over 90 days. Yep. >> Correct. Okay. And so we do this four times a year. >> We do this four times a year quarterly basis. >> All right. Uh thank you Mr. Magaranu. Are there other questions for staff? >> Do we see the numbers going down at all in this list or is this staying about the same of the delinquent? >> It's a great question. I think um most of the people who are delinquent seem to be recurring. >> Yeah. >> Um I think some of the accounts that we've seen uh they just um function in that way. uh they prefer to let the utilities go in the property bills. Uh there's a handful of accounts who just do that. I think it's pretty consistent. We've seen we've seen this not changing or going up quite a bit. There is a summary list that I provided in the packet as well that kind of has kind of some of the larger um um part of this uh certification and this time um there's a lot of commercial properties, apartments. Um we have a few residentials that are a little higher than usual that we noted in the packet. Uh but typically uh this is pretty common and they kind of consistent. >> Can I ask one more question? >> Sure. Y >> um [cough] so uh is there an additional cost to the city or are we billing them so they're actually having to pay a little bit more to cover this cost? >> Right. There's a there's a fee that we add on top of the certification. So if you're there thinking that uh it's the same cost the same to allow it to go on the prop tax it's actually more expensive >> uh we do a so if you do this on a quarterly basis you you're going to be paying more. >> Thank you. >> Great council member Strong. >> Thank you. Um thank you for providing the summary. Um I tend to do that on my own and so it was nice to have it there to review. I know that at some point and this might be a question for u Mr. Fryhammer, but especially on the residents, there's indication that there were a couple major leaks. >> Um, I know that we were supposed to have some leak software to kind of detect some of that. Do you know if any of that would have um precluded some of these really large bills or does it have to get to that point before we notice? >> Yeah, I think I think uh we monitor some of this um leaks. I'm not sure if it's on a daily basis. Um maybe some of these leaks happen uh in one day. uh if somebody has a pipe that bursts that could cause I don't know the context on this. I've asked our utility billing specialist to provide me more context some of the larger ones. Um, I didn't dive too deep, but I can provide that information a bit later on if you like. >> That would be helpful. I think just to make sure since we had talked about taking a third party um out of the equation and potentially saving money by having our own system, want to make sure that and obviously that's a new system, but make sure that that's working so we can detect these large leaks because really it's just wasted water at that point. It's a large bill for them, but it >> when we should be protecting our natural resources. >> Absolutely. I think we do communicate some of this. I'm aware of the fact that we do being proactive in reaching out to some residents. I'm not sure in this case these two major leaks, what was the cause behind it and for how long if it was just like a one time? >> Okay. And my other question was about the um one of the properties indicated the one of the apartments indicated on the summary list has never paid. Um, we have no recourse for that. It indicates the last payment was never, >> right? It looks like this, uh, I have some additional notes, okay, that you don't see, um, just in case that will come up. So, this uh, apartment building is being sold on August 31st. >> Okay. Um and I think it's important I communicated so building specialists to today that if the title company reaches out to really make aware the new buyers that there are delinquent unpaid utilities of at this a lot of them right high amount >> so they we want to make sure we collect a closing and that's typically what we try to do. we um real estate agents should reach out to us to check on unpaid utility bills with any real estate purchase. So in this case um I made aware our utility billing specialist to make sure we do that. Um if not paid and the new owners um purchase this uh property it becomes the responsibility of the new owners. So all the unpaid utilities do stay with the property not the owners. >> Okay. >> So it's going to be staying with the property. So the owners could potentially not pay and then the new owners if they purchase they would purchase this liability on top of the purchasing price. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Just one last question then on the commercial properties that haven't paid since 2022. Do we have any type of recourse for um turning off the water for um >> it's not they haven't paid since 2022. They've been delinquent consistently since 2022. So every time we certify, we do collect while we certify. So we certified last quarter, we certified the quarter before. So we we've been certifying on their behalf since 2022. That's what that means. But once we certify it, if they don't pay it, the county will go after other processes where they will collect, you know, they become deluent on their taxes. So thereby result in losing their properties and other other issues. So we typically collect on these. So that does doesn't mean they haven't paid. They haven't been good payers since 2022. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. And I think Mr. Judge, you had information. >> I think Mr. Margarand answered the question about we do send out leak detection letters when we notice some some spike especially for residential. Uh sometimes it's the slow leak that uh people may not know. So it gives them the heads up. I don't know about these two particular ones what happened there. But we do have a some uh flags in the system so we can catch that and send out communication at least proactively to folks that have higher bills so they can check to make sure that they don't [clears throat] have a leak or something else going on. >> Y thank you. [cough] Right. Uh and I I should note too that uh that um so if we certify over the course of a year that is all for the next year's payable taxes. Is that correct? So we wouldn't necessarily collect on something we certify in the first quarter until the tax payment in 2027. >> So technically be the June would be the earliest we'll be collecting of the following year. Yep. Okay. >> And the tax settlements are paid in two installments with the final um installment paid in the beginning of the following year. So we'll be collecting June, November typically and then you collect January um the final. >> All right. Y thank you for clarifying that. Are there any other questions from council? >> All right. Uh this is a public hearing. Uh so certainly anybody impacted directly by certifying these charges is welcome to speak or anybody from the public who wishes to speak to this matter. Uh this would be the opportunity to do so. Uh we do have the microphone at the table so we'll open it up for uh public hearing comment at this time. It does not appear that we have anybody to speak to this item this evening. Uh so we'll close the public hearing and we'll move to council consideration. We do have a resolution uh as an attachment in the packet that is the official means by which we would certify these unpaid utility charges from the last quarter to Ramsey County for collection with the property taxes. >> So move second. It's been moved by Council Member Schroeder, seconded by Council Member Grath to uh adopt the resolution uh authorizing the uh submill of these uh char unpaid charges to Ramsey County for collection. I would just also note I believe that anything that's certified now, the property owner has the opportunity to pay before the collection of the property. >> Absolutely. Yeah, we will be taking payments. Uh I believe that the due due date is towards the end of November. So anything that comes we'll be we'll be checking and removing from the list. Yep. >> All right. So in other words, if we do certify it early in the year and it gets paid before the end of the year, we do have an opportunity to contact Ramsey County and that would come off their property taxes for the following year. Right. With that, we've got the motion discussion of the motion as the maker. Council member Sh. >> Yes. Thank you for bringing this forward and I'm glad to see we're doing it quarterly to stay on top of this. So again, thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> All right. And as the second or council member Grath, >> no, nothing further. >> All right. Other discussion on the motion right hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. That resolution is adopted and those charges are certified. Uh that then brings us to our second item under business items, item 7B, uh which is to uh also hold a public hearing and consider a resolution regarding a variance to our noise ordinance to allow temporary extension of construction activity hours at Rosedale Center. and I'll turn it over to our building official uh codes compliance official uh of a fashion David England to bring this item this hearing before the council this evening. Mr. England. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. Um, as described, this is a request by SYCON to um have a variance to work outside the normal construction hours, [snorts] normal weekday construction hours, which are 7 am to 9:00 p.m. Uh, they have a project at Rosedale Center at the AMC Plaza, uh, which will require them to use some diesel walkbehind saws to cut the concrete to allow them to remove it in manageable pieces. Um they will then use a skid loader to remove those concrete pieces and place them into a construction dumpster. Um further phases of the project will um will require them to remove the waterproof membrane underneath the concrete, replace it, and then finally replace the concrete itself. Um it's a little small type here, so I'm trying to [laughter] um read a lot of this. Um yeah, so they are requesting the the variance to have the option to work overnight as they would need it. Um in discussions with the uh with SYCON, they are ahead of their schedule already. They are quite a ways through phase one. They are not sure if they will actually need the variance or utilize the variance, but they want to have it or they are requesting it should they need it as winter comes or cold weather conditions come and they need more time in a day to work on this project to get Rosedale back into operation at this position here which is in nearby the new Pottery Barn store. Um they are anticipating working in three two week three two week blocks for approximately 26 days of overnight work should they need it. Um they are again not anticipating they will need all 26 days but that is what their request is. Um, and for reference, city code prohibits construction activity between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Um, city code also has an allowance for a variance to those construction hours should council approve it after a public hearing. Um, staff has provided notice of this public hearing to all properties within 500 ft of the parcel at AMC Rosedale Center. Um, we have not heard any comments for or against this. We have had no response to our notices. Uh we've also published it in the official city newspaper. Um again we staff feel that the 26 days of potential overnight activity is excessive. Um but we understand the request being that they want some time to be flexible should weather turn to turn uh quicker to winter than anticipated. Um but staff would suggest the approval of the noise variance be conditioned on maximum of 15 days of construction work outside of u normal hours. This would give the contractor some flexibility but also does limit potential uh negative impacts within each phase of their operation. Um staff would also suggest that the contractor be required to notify me, the building official, um with their intent to work overnight at each time they do it, just so we can keep track of the number of days that they're doing it within that time frame. Um, and lastly, with the loading of the concrete into the dumpsters, we are requesting that the contractor do it through a side loading operation rather than a dump over the top just to eliminate the excessive jarring noise that comes with that type of activity. Um and with that a resolution has been prepared and uh provided to you as attachment seven that does include the conditions of only 15 days of of overnight work. Um overnight work should not be conducted on weekends or holidays. Uh and the contractor should notify my office of the intent to work at each overnight occurrence. And that concrete should be sideloaded into the dumpsters for removal uh instead of loading over the top to reduce the noise. The contractor is in attendance tonight and is available to address any concerns or answer any questions regarding the project should you wish. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. England. Uh and I would ask first, does the contractor wish to make any kind of statement in regard to the application either reflecting the recommendations from the staff or otherwise? Uh if so, feel free to introduce yourself and let us know what those comments are. >> My name is Steve Kosak. I'm a SYON, Inc. contractor working on the project. Um as David had said, you know, we've already kind of gotten through phase one of this. Not really anticipating that we're going to utilize the noise variance. Um specifically, as he said, um it's kind of a very weather dependent project. Something that when we remove the concrete, we have a waterproofing membrane. Something with forecasted rain. And it's going to be where something would like to some longer hours to make sure that we can get that membrane down. And then also with this the time frame in the year just to make sure that if it does encroach um in any of these phases run into a change order. Say we've we unbear something in the structural slab that would cause for some additional repair work to be completed that we don't cut ourselves short of the time frame of the season and can get things put back together before winter conditions would hit. >> All right. Do you have any objections to the recommended 15-day time frame as opposed to the requested time frame? >> I think this is going to be just fine with the 15 days. That'll give us ample time, I believe, for the overnight work if it if it was needed. >> Right. And then also the side loading for the concrete that's removed. >> Yep. We're loading out of the back of the dumpsters. So, there's actually a swing gate on those trash comp um containers. And so, we're just rear loading everything from the backside. >> All right. [clears throat] Sounds like that is agreement with the the terms or the requirements that have been outlined, right? Anything else you wanted to add? I should check also if council members have any questions. Council member Strong, >> I just was wondering if you had taken into consideration that the fair starts in two days. It may not seem like much, but it impacts everything here. >> Yep. You know, we have everything in fencing enclosures in the area that we're working. So, we are kind of keeping everybody in the public safe and away from our work zone. I know Metro Transit has that project going on kind of they've using that back ring road now for all the buses now at this time which actually kind of puts the pedestrian traffic even a little bit further away from our work zone. >> Okay, >> sounds good. Thank you. >> Great. Other questions from the council? >> Council member GR. >> This is more for Dave. Um when you notify 500 ft, does that go to the apartments Sienna Green and across the 36 because they are >> they're further out. I think >> I think they're further out. I believe this went to the Rosewood condos though that is across there. So that was there was quite a few notified in that area >> because that noise does travel. >> Right. Right. Thank you again for being here and for uh answering those questions we had. Uh you can probably uh make yourself comfortable in the audience at this time if you like. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh and we'll open it up uh for uh this is a public hearing uh as regards this requested variance to the city's noise ordinance for overnight activities. uh would ask if anybody from the public wishes to speak to this uh item this evening. All right, does not appear to be the case. Uh we'll go ahead then and close the public hearing uh and move to council consideration. Uh as was noted, we do have the attachment uh excuse me, the resolution which is attachment seven in the materials. Uh I would note also there was a map of the notification. Uh, and I may have something to say about that uh, from a procedural point of view uh, as a follow-up to this, but uh, um, is there a motion from the council on this item? >> So moved. Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Stron, seconded by council member Schroeder to adopt the resolution approving the noise variance with the conditions as outlined in the resolution uh, which are different from the original request. Uh, discussion on the mo motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Strong. >> Thank you. Um I agree that um it is a fairly wide open space and so that notification while we stayed within our 500 ft um does impact um only one um apartment or condo unit and many of the people who are just across uh snailing who might hear this um are just outside of that ring. So maybe for consideration in the future or further discussion, especially those right behind the Crossroads Mall at Rosedale who would also not be in who are also not included. There's not a lot of residential real close, but um because of the open spaces, I expect that they'll be more um people here a little bit farther away than we might anticipate. Um but I do respect and appreciate the willingness to go to the 15 days. I think that's reasonable within what the um city has pro uh proposed and what the uh builder has or what the developer has agreed to. >> Right. As the secondary, council member Sher. >> Uh yes. Um I appreciate working with uh staff to come um on the compromise on this because I do feel that the staff has the uh city and the residents uh best interest at heart. So I feel comfortable supporting this considering both sides have agreed to the um the changes. So, >> yep. >> Right. Other discussion, Council Member Grath. >> It's always a balance and you want these projects done as quickly as possible. So, uh I think you know hopefully it's not too stressful for the people in the apartments and the condos. The the cutting those saws make a lot of noise and the loading of the concrete and stuff really travels. And the people along 36, which I'm one of, not in that exact location, do get a lot of noise. So, they're used to noise, but more noise is not uh desirable, but I appreciate the timeline of 15 days. That'll help to limit it. >> Other discussion on the motion? Um, and my point in regard to the notice was that it may make sense as a practice in the city's enforcement of our notice policy andor ordinances that when there's significant wide rights of way between the property line uh, and adjacent properties that perhaps the notice go 500 ft beyond the other side of the wide right ofway. Uh, something to consider. Um, if we need to have that as a more formal action by the council to force that to be the case, we can certainly have that conversation. But I I think that in some of these cases that may make sense. I from my point of view as certainly very amateur in terms of analysis of noise, uh, I have a feeling that the the properties that are on the other side of the Rosedale building itself from these properties probably won't notice the the noise nearly as much as the reflected sound to the south. Uh, and so that was my concern about the notification, not necessarily getting to as many people that may be impacted on the south side. So, um, just a note in that regard and certainly I'm open to thoughts from staff as to what the practicalities of looking at that enforcement are. Uh, but I also understand the concern that we're not reaching people who may be impacted. >> Council member, >> can I comment on that too because you have a really good point. I mean, actually, the 500 ft goes into the lot, but it doesn't go into the building. So I mean in a way if it goes into the lot I think it should actually be considered part of the property >> and it very well may if I think if any part of a property is within the 500 ft then the entire property may get noticed and I just don't know how those you buildings all are handled in terms of lots and parcels and things like that. So but but something to think about. So um anyway the green would be part of it. >> So all right we've got the motion before us. Is there any other discussion? Once again, this is to adopt the resolution uh authorizing the variance to the noise ordinance as outlined. Uh with no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. That uh ordinance var variance is uh approved. That then brings us to our next business item, item 7C, uh which is to receive a update from Tubman uh regarding the crisis inter crisis intervention services that they provided for the city of Roseville in the last year. uh Tubman uh received some funding for from the city in our last 2026 budget to uh help with the funding of their operations and certainly they have a a significant impact in uh their areas of expertise in the city of Roseville and so uh it's appropriate that we have them here for an update. Uh and I don't know Mr. Tre you want to make the introduction here? >> I think you just did Mr. mayor, but we do have >> other than the individual inter. >> We have a Jennifer Dickinson of Tubman uh who has been here before and uh we'll talk a little bit about the services that Tubman provides it provides uh generally but also uh it services here in Roseville. I would note that since 2025 we've uh been um providing them $20,000 annually as part of our budget process. I would also mention uh that uh as you'll see later tonight um I'm suggesting we cut that by $10,000 due to the general constraints of budgeting but that's different discussion at different times. So right now we're here to talk about the services that they do and we'll get you all set up here Jennifer and turn it over to you. >> Hello and welcome. >> Good evening. Thank you for having me uh Mayor Row members of the council. Um, as uh Pat said, uh I'm Jennifer Dickinson, director of legal services at Tubman, and I just wanted to share a little information about um what our services has looked like for the city of Roseville um and its residents in the last year. Um if you have any questions as we as I go through my presentation, um please feel free to uh let me know. Um but I just wanted to kind of share some highlights and um not only of our services but also some agency highlights and some challenges uh as well. So uh let's see here. So just to reiterate um how we work with um folks uh victim survivors of relationship violence um in the areas that we serve. Uh, one of the big pieces is really having that um partnership with both law enforcement and prosecution. So, with the city um of Roseville, their police department as well as uh the city prosecutors with EBBQ law, we work very closely with them in terms of getting information when a domestic violence incident happens and making that initial contact with the victim. Um what's unique about Tubman is that we have 247 services available. So we have our shelter um located in the city of Maplewood. Um the crisis line is responded to um 24/7. So we um receive those calls from law enforcement and we're able to make that initial contact with the victim which is really critical in terms of not only introducing that person to our services but doing that immediate safety planning. um being able to offer shelter if that's something that they need in that moment or um finding alternative uh safe places for them to go especially after uh a domestic violence incident. Um we also work with that person. So this isn't like a oneanddone type service. Usually our services last over the course of several months. Um we're seeing criminal cases as well as orders for protection in civil court taking much longer. um than they have in the past, especially regarding OFPS. Um what used to be a fairly quick process has now turned into several hearings typically. Um oftent times the abusive party hires their own attorney through that process and a lot of uh very important pieces can be brought up in an order for protection such as child support, temporary custody, the firearms provision. We're seeing more and more of firearms transfers being ordered through the civil court, which is very important obviously for safety. Um, addressing restitution, addressing programming, things like that. Um, so really working with that victim survivor throughout those processes. Um, and not only regarding the legal piece, so making sure that they understand their crime victim's rights, making sure that they know that they can come and speak with the prosecutor, making sure that they understand like how this process is going to work and what their role is in it, but also offering a lot of other additional resources. So, really addressing what's going on with the family. um really seeing a lot of complex issues um going on especially around financial struggles around mental health, chemical health um struggles um and so we try to also connect those victim survivors to the resources that they need. Um and within Tubman, as you may remember um in my previous times uh speaking with the council, um we have a lot of other services internally as well. So we have clinical services where we try to connect um our clients with support groups with therapy services um shelter as I mentioned sometimes safety planning changes over time where you may be feeling safe at home right now but that might change um if there's another incident for example um and in terms of safety planning just doing ongoing safety planning as well because that is also a fluid process. Um, we also see a lot of folks really needing a lot of help with financial assistance. So, let's say, for example, that the abusive party is out of the home because there's a domestic abuse no contact order or an order for protection in place and they're not able to pay their rent or they might be looking to move because where they're living is not a safe place and so they need assistance with a security deposit or if they're going to stay where they are, they might need a locks change, things like that. So we really try to meet the survivor where they are and identify what's most important to them so that we are aiming to meet their needs. Um along with that really working with um other pieces around safe at home applications um being able to uh get a safe address a PO box through the secretary of state's office and helping them if they need to break their lease due to domestic violence. So beyond even the the legal case, the criminal case or the civil case, there's a lot of other pieces that we're really working to address with that victim survivor. In the city of Roseville for 2025, um in terms of of people served, um we followed 77 criminal cases. Um nine cases we didn't follow because they were non-intimate partner cases. So we focus on the intimate partner situations. Um we worked on five protective orders. Um and folks receive 22 attorney services. So that's additional services through Tubman that's paid through another source. Um we offer uh eiling for protective orders where one of our attorneys will review the order and then efile it on their behalf so that the victim survivor doesn't have to go downtown and file the order. We do that drafting typically remotely with an advocate. So that's one of our advocacy services. And then we also try to connect that person with an attorney if at all possible to have representation through that order process because as I mentioned earlier that has become a lot more um lengthy and a lot more complicated. Um we also had 40 calls from law enforcement to our intervention line and over the course of the year we developed 205 safety plans. um with an advocate. Um total numbers um we served on 116 unique advocacy clients um providing 472 services for an average of around four services per client. Um this is a highlight. I usually try to highlight um a victim survivor from um your city. Um, and this is a good example just kind of how we work with somebody individually. Um, so this is a story about Jasmine. Um, Jasmine was referred by law enforcement when she was assaulted by her boyfriend. Um, in this situation, the parties are really young and they have a small child together and we're really struggling with a lot of things that young people struggle with. um finding stable jobs, having stable housing, and it was really tough because they weren't they were unhoused at the time that the domestic assault occurred. Um so Jasmine was able to work with her Tubman advocate to understand how the court process worked. Um the judge ended up issuing a domestic abuse no contact order. that was something that Jasmine didn't want to see happen, but understanding that she didn't have control over that piece, but knowing that they needed help at that time. Um, and so throughout this process, um, she was able to have conversations with her advocate about what to expect, what was going to happen next. She was also able to connect with the prosecutor and have conversations around what she would like to see happen out of this case and for the prosecutor to understand kind of what the issues were and how best to resolve the case. Um, ultimately the defendant ended up picking up a violation of the domestic abuse no contact order. So there ended up being two cases pending at the same time. Um, and what was nice about this situation is because they had so many conversations and really looked into what was best for the family, the resolution ended up being something that didn't impact the defendant's criminal history. So, there was a plea, but it was something that didn't go on his record because, again, he's a young person just starting out that would have impacted, you know, his ability to find employment, things like that. Um the domestic abuse no contact order ended up being lifted at the time of sentencing, but Jasmine was able to give input around programming. Um was able to give input on the pre-sentence investigation that was given to the judge and ultimately that um was a big piece of the resolution was programming to really identify some issues and work on um getting help for the family. Um in addition um working with her advocate um she also was able to tap into other resources around housing around counseling and things like that. And in her words what she had to say about her experience is that my advocate helped me understand the criminal legal court process provided resources and support to ensure that I was able to provide input. She was able to make the situation a source of comfort and feel safe. It is a testament to the skill and dedication of the advocates and the services that are available through Tubman. My advocate stands beside my options, my situation, and the needs of my family and what works best for us. I feel grateful to work with my advocate at Tubman, and I feel I was treated with dignity and respect from both the advocate and the prosecutor, which was really very cool, very nice to see. Um so some of our challenges that we've seen in the last um year especially um I think we've um I've explained in the past just kind of how our uh funding works in terms of uh we receive an a a big chunk of our funding especially for Ramsey County Legal Advocacy Services comes from the Office of Justice Programs through the state. And that funding has remained um stagnant since 2018. And in the fiscal year of 20125 um the legislature passed some one-time funding for crime victim services which really helped um fill some gaps that year. That funding um did not pass in 2026. And in this last legislative session um they were anticipating a $12 million gap. based on reduced funding from VOCA coming from the federal government through the state. Um that was pretty significant. Um ultimately at the end of the legislative session um there was bipartisan support to fill that $12 million gap which was certainly a win which was fantastic news. However, that got us back to that stagnant funding that we've been experiencing since 2020 or since 2018. So that continues to be a struggle obviously as um cost to deliver services continues to increase. Um so that that is going to be an ongoing struggle. Um the OJ funding cycle, they're changing up how they're doing their funding um moving forward. So typically their funding cycle would run from October 1st to September 30th. starting next year, um they're now going to be having a funding cycle from January 1st to December 31st. So, um this year was a competitive uh grant and um we're waiting to hear kind of what that looks like in terms of of uh where we're at with funding. Um because of the later start, we expect that that's not going to happen yet for a few months in terms of what we're going to be working with um because of these challenges. Um, in the last fiscal year, um, we did have to make a number of cuts to services, um, including red reducing our shelter beds from 90 to 65. Um, we did end up eliminating a full-time Washington County legal advocate um, and had to recalibrate those services. Um, reduce services uh, in a number of ways. Um in addition, our clinical staff was reduced significantly and our inspiring youth program um is serving 15% fewer youth. So um that was a pretty difficult budget year for sure. Um this year we are um you know in the midst of our budget planning still unknown as I said about OJ um but anticipating that there will be some tough choices that we need to make again. Um, so in terms of highlights, um, some good news, uh, Harriet's Haven for Pets, which I had mentioned last year, um, which is a new program that started at Tubman, um, our pet shelter is now open for business, um, where we're able to, uh, house, uh, and provide care for up to eight dogs and six cats at our shelter for residents that are living there. Um, so we're really excited about that because that does reduce a big barrier for folks that are fleeing domestic violence in terms of what what to do with their pet. Um, we did receive um an attorney services project grant. Um so in Minnesota in the last few years they had a pilot program um called a legal paraprofessional program in which parallegals could uh become certified to provide some attorney ser basically attorney services do some representation for um folks uh acting as their attorney as long as they're supervised by a licensed attorney. And so we um were able to bring on a practicing what we call a practicing parallegal to provide some of those services to survivors in terms of representation on orders for protection or on family law cases like divorce and custody. And we had a really good experience um with this parallegal. She's actually now in law school and hopefully will come back and volunteer with us when she's done. Um but we were able to follow up and apply um for a project grant available through one of our other funders to develop a broader practicing parallegal program within Tubman. Um we were able to bring on a contract um project attorney who is has been developing policies and procedures and a training manual and we have about six um parillegals in the pipeline that are in the process of getting certified. there's additional certification that needs to happen um on if you're going to be working with um domestic abuse cases. And so we're really excited about this project because it will really open up a lot more opportunities to be able to provide more representation which is a very scarce resource for folks in terms of legal aid options in the metro area. Um and then in addition um we have been um continue to work on how folks gain access to services. Really trying to streamline those processes for folks. Um really looking at our intakes um forms and how we um coordinate services between programs. have made um a lot of progress around those pieces so that um victim survivors aren't having to retell their story over and over again in order to get connected to the right person to provide services. And um we also are wrapping up um some shelter capital improvements, some updated muchneeded updates. Um it's a pretty old building. It was built in the 1960s. It used to be a monastery. um and the you know Benedicting sisters that used to live there were looking for um a purpose for this building that they no longer needed. Um but now that we've been there for quite a while you know there's a lot of updates that needed to happen um in terms of windows and electrical and things like that. So, um, we are finally, um, moving forward because of a a capital grant and some other fundraising to be able to make those updates, especially when we have families living there, um, that we want to make sure that it's safe and and, uh, they have what they need. Uh, and then finally, um, just talking about why we continue to do this work, um, and the impacts of domestic violence within the state of Minnesota. Um, in 2025, 31 people lost their lives due to domestic violence. Um, and two additional deaths were suspected of domestic violence as well. Um, 27 of those that were killed uh were killed by a current or former intimate partner. Three uh people were bystanders or interveners in the violence and lost their lives. And due to those homicides, 55 minor and adult children are now left without a parent due to relationship violence. Um, for folks that are interested, I did bring um paper uh program guides that kind of share uh about our resources that are available that they're also available on our website. Um, and that's all questions that anybody has. Great. Before I open it up to the council for questions, I just wanted to um ask you a little bit about sort of the impact that the the budgeted funding from the city of Roseville over the last two years has has uh helped with in terms of the services you've been able to provide in the community. >> Yes. Um it's helped us remain um consistent and prioritize the city of Roseville. Um it's really every bit of funding that comes from uh the city goes to serve clients in Roseville. So we have a dedicated advocate that handles all of the cases in Roseville. And part of that is really building that relationship. You know, part of a big part of advocacy is building the relationship with the victim and victim survivor. So really being able to have work with somebody closely throughout that process is really important. And so, um, that has allowed us to continue to really prioritize that piece, um, to be able to, uh, whenever someone calls for an order for protection, for example, um, it is a priority to make sure that we are able to get that person scheduled in and get that order drafted. Um, it's it's difficult because lots of folks are, you know, lots of other service providers are also struggling and oftentimes don't have the resources needed. So, every bit of funding helps to continue to have the resources available when people need them. For sure. >> Right. Thank you for that. >> Yeah. >> Um, other questions from council members. >> Right. Uh, well, thank you for the presentation this evening. We really do appreciate the work that you're doing in our community. uh and we want to make sure that that certainly can continue for the folks that are impacted both by the unfortunate cases uh but also by the services in a positive way by the services that are provided by Tubman and others. So, thank you for that information and I think it makes sense to you know as long as the city is providing assistance that we can we can have you back for for ongoing updates. It it does help. >> Absolutely. And I will say that Roseville is one of our higher usage cities being a bigger suburb. it typically is um unfortunately one of those cities that that sees a lot of domestic incidents each year. So, >> thank you and we appreciate everything that you do and the support is greatly appreciated. >> Right. >> Very good. That brings us then to uh sort of the the the main attraction this evening. Uh Mr. Trean has been working diligently over the last uh several months to uh develop a recommended uh budget and tax levy for 2027. Uh and this is the opportunity to uh present that to the council and to the public. And so uh without any further ado, I will turn it over to city manager Trean abley assisted by finance director Magaranu to uh bring the presentation of the recommended budget and tax levy to the council and the public for 2027. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. I'm real [clears throat] pleased to be here tonight to introduce you and the public to my proposed 2027 budget and tax levy. Uh, as you know, there's no action that you will be taking here tonight. Uh, this is more to receive information and to u ask any questions that you may have. We'll later uh in the year be taking some actions in September 28th. uh be looking to uh pass a not to exceed uh tax levy for the city and the EDA as well as a budget. Uh we'll use the remainder of the fall to continue to have discussions including about utility rates and the fee schedule and then wrap it up on December 7th with a final adoption. So there's a lot of time uh for consideration and some conversation, but I would want to note by September uh 28th meeting, we'll have to have at least a preliminary um approval of a levy and a budget. So uh before I start the presentation, I want to give a big thank you to finance director Magaranu and all the department heads uh that are here in the room here. We spent dozens and dozens of hours in meetings talking through the budget collectively trying to make decisions and prioritizing and Mr. Margaran who spent dozens and dozens of more hours of getting the spreadsheets and um responding to my requests uh for information. So I appreciate it was really a team effort uh certainly this year as it is every year. [clears throat] So tonight we'll cover uh four uh things um uh for you as part of this presentation. We'll talk about the 2027 budget challenges. We'll talk about some specifics of the city manager recommended budget. Uh then we'll also uh talk a little bit about how we compare uh to other uh communities and uh how we've compared in the past. And then we'll just talk briefly at the end about the next steps and the future important meetings that I just alluded to. So uh as the city uh council will recall, we have had two previous budget work sessions together as staff and uh city council. one on April 20th and one on July 13th. July 13th. At both sessions, we discussed the rising costs that we are uh seeing just to fund our existing services that without adding anything new. At the April 20th meeting, we identified just to keep uh going with what we are currently doing with no other staffing increases or program expansion, we were looking at a 9.36% levy. That had a lot to do with just the rising cost, but also the rising cost of personnel uh based on our growth of our staff and uh union contracts and the need to make sure that we're competitive. So, as I mentioned, the biggest cost continues to remain personnel costs and you can see that in some of the information that you have. on July 13th uh work session, we did bring forward uh some more information, a little bit more further refined budget requests from the departments um uh regarding what they needed for this year as well as some uh potential new personnel. Uh we also wanted to start looking at implementing the strategic plan and so we did prioritize several items from that uh which some in some cases did include uh new personnel. And I would note that that um that request was paired down from a lot of a lot larger list of strategic plan priorities we're trying to prioritize uh within the strategic uh plan priorities. So as you recall the uh the levy increase that we talked about July 13th was 11.95%. So I think it was very clear from the conversation uh and everyone in the room that we that levy increase was just too high and we needed to work to uh lower that somewhat. So to compound uh the challenges that we're facing just with the rising costs that are out there, we also have to address uh our need to build general fund reserves as well. Uh as you know we have uh a general fund policy and the general fund actually uh supports most of the levy funded operations for the city but we have a policy that we require to have 35 to 50% of the next year's budgeted uh annual operating expenditures held as reserve. Uh that's for a couple reasons. one, we want to make sure we have a proper cash flow because received two tax payments uh in the year and also for any extraordinary circumstances or emergencies as well and that is a good uh financial practice and keeps us in good standing with the bond raiders and just uh I think for the general public to know that we have sufficient funds to weather out uh some difficult times. So, as you know, we are at the minimum of 35%. and we made some adjustments at the close of last year and so we're right at the 35% threshold. So any new dollars that go into next year's budget, we're going to do be below that threshold uh unless we take some action. There's some actions that we can take and uh we don't need to sort it out exactly tonight, but we do want to identify them. Uh, one is if we come in under budget uh, for 26, we have more funds left in the reserves. If we increase our revenue um, above what's budgeted, more goes into general fund. That's helpful. Uh, we could look at uh, utilizing other funds uh, such as the park uh, fund or the license center fund. If they have funds available to help supplement the general fund, we can also consider uh, having a loan uh, from one of our utility funds on a short-term basis to make that happen. The real permanent solution is to build back that uh general fund uh through uh a series of reductions and or um tax levy increases to go right towards the general fund. We'll talk more about that a little bit later, but I just wanted to bring that out. That's another dynamic uh that we have to face and sort out as part of this 20 2027 budget cycle. And Pat, [clears throat] just to to re-emphasize the the purpose of that cash reserve balance policy is not just to have money sitting around, but as you said that we only collect property taxes two times a year, correct? But our expenses go throughout the year on a month- by-month basis. Uh, and so that provides for some some cushion for cash flow primarily is the the point of that. So I wanted to make sure if that point was lost on the public that that was we made sure we that that wasn't it wasn't just a policy for the sake of having a policy but there is some reason behind having it. >> Yes. Correct. Thank you Mr. Mayor. [clears throat] >> So as I mentioned in April we were looking at 9.36% levy increase in July 11.95%. Um, so, uh, given the need that we really needed to lower the levy impact, I did ask the department heads to identify levy reductions in their budget requests so we could have some room for a conversation about adding new levy dollars uh, that could go towards the general fund balance as part of the 2027 budget cycle. I will give the department heads a lot of credit. They worked really [clears throat] hard and came up with a $1.5 million in reductions. None of these reductions were easy, nor will they be without impact. I think if you uh ask any one of them, they would rather not um have those uh up for consideration for reductions, but they understand the bigger picture in play here and um have been very uh cooperative in trying to work through this collectively. So, I do give them a lot of credit for identifying some really hard things to reduce or cut whether it's temporarily uh or permanently. So, uh, keeping in mind, uh, my role is to present you a budget that's reasonable and responsible, I did include those reductions in my 2027 budget. So, as a result, the 11.95% levy that we identified in July uh, is now lowered to 7.8% about four percentage points. Want to mention uh, some of the uh, significant reductions that occurred since the July 13th proposed budget. There's a fuller list of everything that is included as attachment to the memo, but I want to highlight several things here. Uh, one is that we would be freezing our cafeteria benefit contributions to the employees at the 2026 rate and also reduce the benefit for the opt out for folks that don't take our health insurance by $100. That gives us some significant savings. We want to defer the uh employee market study program or study until 2028. We would still like to have that conducted in 28. We do need to do that and maybe with possible implementation in in 2028. Uh we just talked about Tubman. I'm suggesting lowering that support by $10,000. There are several positions uh that were asked as part of the July 13th meeting. One of them was a halftime volunteer coordinator. That is not included. Also not included is the police detective position that was asked for and the nature center um uh uh staff person that was requested by the parks and recck department. We are looking also to uh no longer do six newsletters a year. Look to shrink that down to four. We'd have a savings of about $24,000. We did do some shifting of our public works employees uh from straight in the levy to the utility fund since they do primarily utility work. I would note that this is a levy reduction but it does shift it towards um uh the utility funds which would have um uh an impact maybe minimal but an impact on the fees that we would need to charge. Uh we are also uh removed uh some levy funding for the 2050 transportation plan that we need to use as part or do as part of the comprehensive plan that will be from community development reserves. We uh also um will be taking $100,000 of levy that's currently going to the public works vehicle and equipment fund and replace that with franchise fees. We seem to be collecting more franchise fees slightly more than what we projected uh last year. So, I'm not looking to raise franchise fees from the current rate. It's just the amount that we are collecting is higher than from before. So, I can swap out $100,000 of franchise fees and put that hundred thousands $100,000 levy back into um uh the conversation here. Uh no fire cadet position. Uh we look to probably reduce fire department engagement events and overtime as much as possible. Uh the front desk receptionist, this is the person that sits up front, answers the phone. We're looking to reduce those hours from 40 hours to 20 hours per week. We would do uh we remove the park and recreation system master plan from levy support. You'll see that we're still proposing to do that in 2027, but that will come from park reserve funds. We'd also look to reduce the staff uh seasonal staffing at the outdoor ice rinks. That just means um a person would not be at every rank at all the times that it's open. It will be kind of a rotating employee going around and checking on um uh the operations at each skating rink. Also, we look to not have a park and wreck intern. I mentioned about the nature center uh recreation coordinator looked to uh reduce the number of summer concerts in Central Park. I think that would still be sorted out exactly how that would work. Uh but looking to cut $10,000 from that budget. Uh, I'm proposing to utilize 50,000 of the EDA fund balance to help reduce that levy. If you remember last year, we used $100,000. So, this would um still use 50,000 and trying to get us back into uh not using reserves on a regular basis. We did some shifting of administrative uh costs for the CE loan program to uh EDA fund 723, which is not the uh levy fund. I mentioned about the police detective position. We look to um reduce the hours of the administrative uh community service officer from 1 FTE to 75. Uh pause the police explorers program for one year. Uh not filling one of the police intern positions and also looking to reduce police overtime. As I mentioned, this is not a complete list, but uh this is some of the highlights. You can see the complete list uh as an attachment to the budget memo. [clears throat] So that's what was not included in the budget. Um, but I did want to spend just a few minutes to talk about what is in the budget. And while most of these um are levy dollars that we have listed there, some of them aren't. So, I did try to note them when they weren't. So, we did uh have two two other positions that were asked as part of the 2027 budget process on July 13th. One was a park maintenance position uh and one was an investigative aid for police department. Those are both in. Um I feel very strongly that for the infrastructure keeping up with the infrastructure we need to have the park maintenance worker given the expansion of our parks and as you know in the police department uh we are swamped with evidence and digital evidence especially. So having some assistance in that can really help not only the workflow workflow can help the detectives in solving crimes as well as help u prosecution of the crimes. And so this is something that was identified as part of the study last year and this is being included uh in the 2027 budget for me. We'd also do some minor adjustments in the finance department uh for job uh reclassifications. Uh I would note that we do have funding for the leaf recycling center and as I mentioned is a follow-up email by mistake is not levy funds that is storm water utility funds but it is a cost that we are programming into the budget. We have wage adjustments for our union employees as well as our uh non-UN employees. Uh we also have increased funding for um two capital funds, the police vehicle and equipment fund as well as the facilities fund when we identify those as part of the July 13th meeting as well. Some more items. Um even though we are not funding the comprehensive plan or the transportation plan or the park master plan by levy funds, we are still proposing to do that. >> [cough and laughter] >> As you know, the comp plan is required by metropolitan council every 10 years. So, this is somewhat of a mandate that we need to do. We think we can uh use uh community development funds for that obviously and at a fairly reduced level than we would typically do as this is probably more of a technical update. The uh transportation plan is also technical in nature that we would have to hire a third party to help us give the numbers that Met Council wants us to do. Uh we are also looking to increase the funding for legal services. Right now we have um an RFP out but we do expect those numbers to come in higher. This is something we've talked previously uh when you uh have have met as an EDA. I talked about the recreation uh park and recreation system master plan. We uh earlier this year we entered into a contract with Axon uh for a records management system uh that while expensive is pretty um inclusive everything our police department does. Uh so that is a significant increase obviously from past but we are consolidating some technologies and it'll be under one system and that's something that was talked about and decided at the beginning of 2026. So this is uh just continuing that uh previous decision. Um we are increasing uh funding for uh police and fire department overtime and we continue to see a stress in overtime. I think both chiefs work really hard to limit overtime. uh sometimes it is out of um our hands especially with the paid family leave but also for emergency incidences or large scale incidences that we need to respond. We are also uh holding a placeholder for union contracts that are still unsettled. I have the firefighters and a couple smaller police unions still to finish up negotiating. We have some web content accessibility guidelines that we need to update that is a mandate by the federal government. And then we also I just want to mention because this did come up as part of the strategic plan. We are having a facility assessment uh the city campus building that will come out of CIP funds and not directly levy funds. So that's the kind of the narrative of uh kind of what's in and what's out. And I'll just pause to see if there's any questions with that. We can always come back later but otherwise I would turn it over to Sam to go over the numbers of the budget. >> Questions from the council on what's been presented to this point. All right. >> All right. >> Thank you, Mr. Turjan. Um, I'm going to continue to walk you through a quick um summary of some of the impact. [clears throat] As Mr. Turjan mentioned, um, this uh, proposed levy, it's a 7.8 increase over the 2026 levy. Uh, the governmental funds budget is approximately $77 million. Now enterprise funds that are in draft at the moment since we haven't settled our utility rates. So our revenue are not quite projected. We did include the 3% uh overall increasing revenue just to have something into the mix. Uh but those are in draft. We'll [clears throat] be reviewing revenues as well as some of the final operating expenditures and capital prior to November 9th meeting where we are. >> Could you move the microphone a little closer? Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> Is it Is it better now? >> Yeah. Okay. Um should I start over? >> No, no, go ahead. >> Um and the to total tax levy um that is is supporting primarily the governmental funds budget that's 77 million. It's a 35,625,964. Again, a 7.8 increase over 26 um levy. U also we provided a visual of the last five years of the levy increases. We can see a high higher point in 2024, but overall we've done between five and 8% increases, 8.6 being the highest. Next slide, please. Um, in this slide, we are presenting a similar type of information. However, uh, we broken down by the type of levy. We can see we have our general fund levy, which is a 8.73% increase from prior year. We have a debt service fund levies who support our debt service payments. That leveies a decreased primarily because interest rates um not interest rate interest payments go down as we principally is getting paid. Um two of these levies I would like to mention are going to be completed in 2028. So this year is the final year that we certify for them. That brings that bring the levy for the service a lot lower. we be having just one of the de service payments for the firet truck left. Um approximately $2.2 million will be available for repurposing. The plan for that currently is to be using that for the uh license center construction building. We also have our capital funds an increase of 5.3%. We have two capital infrastructure funds that were proposed an increase in levy approximately $147,000. And lastly, we have our EDA fund levy, which an increase of 17.93% or approximately $47,000. Again, all combined is a 7.8% increase. Uh again, um we also include a levy forecast for the next three years. This is a rough estimate. Um some of the variables in this estimates assumes that all of the 2027 budget cuts that were presented within this budget stay. um none of them will be introduced back in. So the 1.5 or $1.6 million are the starting point of 2028. Um there are however about $700,000 that are recommended to be a one year only. Just pointing that out. If that's the case um that one the first year so 2027 to 2028 instead of being 9.82 will jump to 11.84 84 because $719,000 which will be represent the one year are about 2% of our levy if you recall about $330,000. It's about 1% in levy. So just that one year uh can can change if we decide to bring back some of these cuts that were proposed in 2027 budget. If not, those are the projected changes. So 2027 to 2028, we're still pro um um projecting a 9.82% increase. and then 28 to 29 at 8.82 and 29 to 2030 at point 5.63. Okay. Um this graph here kind of summarizes the need for that cash reserve that was discussed already. As we can see the general fund highlighted in yellow uh is projected to have a deficit still of $1.394 million. Uh this is based on the 7.8 levy proposed increase currently in front of you. Um and it's projected based on projected 2026 fund balance which is part of the budget and then compared to the 2027 general fund budget. Uh we are currently looking at 30.81% in reserves and our low lowest target should be 35%. So again 1.394 short of that. So, and just to clarify, that's not a a deficit in the fund. In other words, the fund doesn't have a negative balance. It's a deficit from the 35% target. >> So, the fund balance is in column one. It's 10.249168. That will be the anticipated uh fund balance at the end of 2026. So, it's a positive number about $10 million, $10.2 million. However, when we looking at the 2027 proposed budget of 7.8 levy increase, which is 33.267, 267 that brings us to under 35% reserves target not deficit >> right no I just said deficit and so I apologize >> yeah it is is a reserve uh target >> we're also presenting in this graph the parks and recreation fund which is looking at a surplus of $533,000 approximately over the low target of 20% uh and 174 for under the high target. Uh again, this budget is conservative at the moment. Uh historically, the parks and recreation fund have come over budget. So, I'm anticipating that hopefully they'll be more in line with that 30%. Um the communication fund stays within its 10% low target and the license center it's um it's projected to be a little bit under. However, um historically the license center also overperformed its revenue projections. So, I'm anticipating that'll be the the same in for 2027 budget. So, I don't have any concerns with that fund quite yet. And I would just mention before we go there that that projected fund balance that we have is anticipating uh that we are on budget for 2026. So, if we come in under our 2026 budget as far as expenditures, there's more dollars in the general fund that are still remaining there. I I you can't guarantee it's always going to happen, but every year we do seem to come on just a little bit under our expenditures anyway. But this is kind of the worst case scenario. We just wanted to make sure this is all we can really know at this point. So we just have to plug those numbers and as a year goes on, we get the third quarter financials and certainly near the end of the year in December, we'll have a better sense of kind of where we are sitting on that. >> Absolutely. Thank you for uh clarifying that. So indeed the $10.24 to $4 million in the general fund. If we're coming under budget, that will increase that beginning fund balance. So, anything that we we're saving in 2026 will help that $1.3 million um go down. All right. Um next, I'm going to jump in a section that is more of a an exercise if you would. Um we'll be looking at the city tax rate and why this is important. Uh we're going to be looking at the tax levy in the budget um and the cities tax levy in the budget compared with comparable cities. We'll be looking about 12 cities in the mix. And then we're going to do an analysis of property tax, actually the property tax paid by our residents. Uh and we're going to be using a $400,000 home as an example. All right. So with that, um why the tax rate is important? Well, the 2026 tax rates in the city's 2027 projected rate on a 7.8 levy, we're looking at a 5.02% increase in tax rate. And why that is important? Um, if we look below, um, the tax rate is a simple calculation. It's taking the levy or the budget and is divided by capacity to give us a tax rate. And then the tax rate is multiplied with the home taxable market value, in this case $400,000 to give the city property tax. So if a 5.02% increase in tax rate, that would signify a minimum of 5.02% increase in any home in the city of Roseville for the city property tax. As the tax rate goes up, that same percentage will be impacting um the home u the amount a home will pay. Doesn't matter what the valuation a home or a business uh for the business they have a little different formula but also tax rate comes in the calculation. All right. So hopefully that makes sense. Now um I took that tax rate um and we're looking at the 2026 final tax rates. I think it's a good starting point for us in the budget process to see where all the cities again 12 cities that are comparable to us um have ended in 2026. As we can see in this graph, Roseville um placed fourth lowest um and the yellow bar signifies the proposed 2027 in that mix of 2026 tax rates. So even with the 2027 proposed tax rate of 45.7471, we're still kind of following the middle uh range, assuming all the other cities will keep their tax rate as is in 2026, which is very unlikely. >> Wasn't the number on the previous slide 44 point something for the rate or did I miss that? 44.582. >> You're correct. Um hopefully this maybe this graph was on 9.8. I apologize for that. Um it's it's a very similar uh point. If you look at 44 I believe it's 44582 >> change the position. >> We went through we went through a lot of graphs in scenario. So I apologize good catch on that but I will update that. But I think the the position will still follow within the middle range assuming all the other cities will continue to maintain their 2026 rates. Again, very unlikely that these tax rates uh as their budgets go up unless they have significant capacity growth. The tax rates are expected to increase. So my expectation in this mix that we're probably going to be maintaining our fourth lowest or maybe move to the fifth lowest. I don't anticipate to jumping right in the middle of the pack unless everybody else keeps their tax levy where it is tax rate. >> And I would mention that these cities that we're comparing to are comparable cities that we've used for our market studies that have very similar operations and populations uh like us. So uh that's that's why we're using these as reference um uh cities. And just once again for members of the public, the tax rate is our total tax levy that we've been talking about the 35 million whatever number divided by essentially the tax capacity of the city all the taxable properties. >> Absolutely >> right within certain categories. There's a calculation there, but that's the essence of it is that >> yes, I used to have a slide that I chose not to show it in a previous uh with my previous employer where I put together and um they were they were using it at their meeting and I was told about it. But typically, think about someone going out to eat and it's just me and Pat going out to eat and we get a $100 bill. Then we have to split that both ways, right? It's $50 me, $50 him. Assuming uh there's four of us going and spending $100 that that burden becomes $25. So tax capacity is very important. We want to grow our tax capacity because it brings down our levy. It brings out our tax rate and the tax rate as the capacity goes up. So ideal scenario would be for capacity to go up and the budget to go the tax rate to go down. Uh >> the tax levy to go down >> tax levy to go down >> that would bring down the rate. Yep. >> So the rate is what gets multiplied by value to give you your tax. So if you go back a few slides, there was the formula there how to come with that slide. So tax levy over tax capacity. It's a tax rate. Tax rate times home market value. Yep. Absolutely. Um all right. And then um the next slide, we'll be looking at the levy at the dollar amount again. Um 2026 we were the fifth lowest in this mix at 32.783915. And we're looking to be at 35. Again, if all the cities maintain the levies, very unlikely. They're all going to see increases. I still anticipate that we'll be actually keeping our fifth lowest or maybe even lower it. Next slide, please. Um, again, we went to that exercise and we took that tax rate and we multiplied it with a $400,000 value. I went through all the cities and we got I got their tax rates from the previous slide that you we noticed. And that will should be the same picture at the first slide where with the tax rate because it's tax rate tax on market value. So fourth lowest and at the end of 2026 uh more in the middle of the pack if assuming all the other tax rates stay the same. Uh but still in the f favorable spot. I anticipate we're going to continue to maintain our fourth lowest in this mix or maybe the fifth. With that, I'll pass it on to Pat because um we do have something more important to bring forth to you to address that cash cash reserve. Um so chairman F. Yes. >> Thank you, Sam. So um the impact of the 7.8% levy increase um means a monthly tax payment of about $148.67 for the median valued home, which is $400,183. That's why we use the $400,000 as a reference. So that'd be an increase of $162.40 over the year uh for the taxpayer of that valued home uh or $1353 per month. You can see the other values there. So you can slot in uh different properties that you're aware and these are just the residential properties. And Pat, this is presuming as you note the the highlighted the $400,000 value that is the median value as the values projected for 2027 taxes. Correct. >> And the prior number under the 26 column is what that taxable value for that median property in Roseville >> was in 26 for tax purposes in 26. So >> not only does that difference take into account the change in the levy and the change in the tax rate, but also the change in the value of the property itself. And that's an important factor. >> If I made that that change is 4.76 as presented at the top of that line. >> Yeah. Yep. Yeah. So the median value of the you know that's what the benchmark we typically look at. uh just for um presentation purposes at least was 382,000 last year that median value went up to $41,000. So person in the same house and that and went up that market rate of 4.76% um would obviously pay more because of leverage increases but also because of the value increase as well. So that's representative [clears throat] >> any not to belabor this point but it's probably important for people to understand that depending on what your individual property does in terms of value from what you had as a value for payable in 26 taxes versus payable in 27 taxes. Your mileage may vary because the median is the number we know and understand. But that that is all basically an elomeration of all the impacts to all the properties in the city um and sort of averaging it out. And so some some properties may not have much of a change in value and so that that helps them in terms of the change in tax but and others may have much larger increases for whatever reason. >> Especially if you've if you had some improvements or additions to your home, you might see more than 4.76% from the county assessors. Um, a lot of people don't realize if they do a new roof or new sighting, maybe a a sun room or a deck, that will increase the property value in addition to what the home market value changes over a year and they will see a larger increase in that case. >> Yeah. And it's probably worth noting because we'll mention it later in the year too that there are safety valve programs built that the state has where you can if your if your um value andor your tax goes up by more than so many% you can apply for relief uh through the the county. I believe. >> And another thing to mention is the city does not uh value the homes. It is a county assessor that does that at a certain time of year. So, it's a little bit out of sync sometimes when people get notices. It's often too late to um talk about their uh assessed value, but there is notice given earlier in the year or that is possible, but it does come up every single year as well. So, this uh 7.8% 8% then the impact that you can see here uh does fund what I uh showed in the budget what was included and also factored in the reductions but what it doesn't do is uh start addressing the general fund and the need to uh uh have some additional le additional levy dedicated towards that. So, with that in mind, I do recommend adding another 2% to that levy increase or $660,000 uh to uh uh help build that general fund back up. What that means for the median valued home, uh they will be paying $198 or $16.50 more per per year as compared to $1353 per month, I meant um versus 1650 per month. So about $3 or so. This additional 2% of the levy will not fully restore the general fund. Uh but uh will help uh put a dent into that to the tune of $660,000. We would still need another $733,000 uh to um sort out on how we get that funding to get to 35%. And those are the strategies we talked about whether we come in under budget over revenues, look at taking from some other funds or borrowing uh from other funds as well. So that's an going to be an ongoing conversation to the fall. But I think this is um the best we can do at this point at least start structurally starting to deal with some of these issues here and this is part of the solution. And I think we need to have a lot more conversation. But I think with that uh we um are um presenting a budget that is responsible and levy is responsible trying to address the ongoing needs of their community and the changing needs of our community, but also address some some structural things with our with our um uh general fund. Um none of us like to see these numbers as high as they are, but we're also dealing with the realities of higher cost out there and the need to deal with the general fund. So that's the uh recommendation from me. Total of a 9.8% levy uh increase. Uh lastly, I'll just wrap up here and talk about some next steps. Uh we're here tonight uh chatting with you. On Wednesday night, both uh myself and Sam will be at the finance commission and reviewing this exact same budget and presentation with them. Uh they'll work on a recommendation at their subsequent meetings. Um and they will then come back on the 21st uh of September to the city council with their recommendation about the budget and levy and CIP. On September 28th, we will need to have the council adopt the not to exceed budget tax levy and EDA at the city council meeting. As you know, this is the maximum amount that we can um consider for the levy. This is the amount that goes out on the tax notices that people see. Uh but there is an ability to lower that amount at a future meetings and we have done that in the past but you just can't go higher than that. Uh we would have a public hearing on uh November 30th with anticipation of adopting the budget and levy on December 7th. So that is the end of our presentation. I know there's a lot of information in the packet. I know a lot of you have been uh contacting us offline for some clarifications and understanding of those and so we're happy to answer any questions you have. I would also uh encourage you to the extent you're able and willing to to share any thoughts about this budget. Um uh something that as we come back in uh less than a month, we I want to be prepared to respond to any consensus on the councils regarding certain things that are in the budget that aren't in the budget. Uh this levy amount and all those things. So the more you can share with us, the great I know there's a lot of information you just digested in over a few days. So you may not be fully ready, but to the extent that you are, we would appreciate it. >> All right. Uh let's first start with uh any clarifying questions from the council. I think that would be appropriate. Uh and then we'll provide an opportunity for public comment uh before we go to any council feedback at that point. So first, uh questions uh of clarification from the council on what's been presented. Council member Bower with >> moving public works to the utility funds. Do you see that as a long-term uh you know something that we're going to can do long term or move them back and if so if it is long term what are your expectations of change the utility rates for that and when do you foresee uh changes to those rates are necessary >> I can answer that if um so that that didn't come as a strategy initially to lower the levy uh that was an observation that I've made to our public works director and our city manager when I was preparing the uh personal past uh projection for 2027 not a significant amount of city staff that were 100% allocated towards the general fund that were in the public works department and typically uh some of those staff should be allocated to utility funds. So that was a recommendation that I made uh and it resulted in about 230 some thousand of savings in the levy. Uh but as you noted when we shift money from the levy to the utility funds that's going to increase those operating cost and some of um the the funds that have seen that is probably the sore fund that have absorbed more more of that. Uh there is just a handful of those staff there's not a lot of them not every single public works employee have been reallocated. Some of them were already allocated. There are some employees that were zero allocated utility funds and those have been the ones that we addressed. Uh and this will be a permanent allocation that's not going to be changed year after year, modified every year just to um to fit our needs, right? Um so this is a permanent change that I was recommended and our public works director has gone through the list and he reviewed and made the recommendation of the percentages that should be allocated to utility funds between the water, sewer and storm water as applicable. So that's a permanent change that we expect to have continuing moving forward. How is that going to impact the utility rates? Um just recently we completed a study that we received as a preliminary from from Ellers City staff is planning probably next week to meet and go through it as a team which will involve um our public works director, me, our city manager and uh possibly my assistant uh that will be going and looking through those assumptions that they've made. Currently, they are proposing a 6.5 increase in water rates, a 3% increase in sewer rates, and a non no increase in our storm water rates. My analysis prior to this study were a little bit less between 3% for water and none for sewer and storm water. Uh but they've used different assumptions, higher inflationary rates. Uh so those are the discussions internally that we have to make to uh have some feedback for elders and then they'll be coming back to you guys on November 9 presenting that study result with our recommendations and their recommendations. So that's going to impact the utility rates but we're projecting not to be over 6.5 in water. So between three or 6.5 is going to be the uh the rates increase proposed and probably between zero zero and three for sewer and none for storm water. both of us were in the same boat with us. >> And I think uh to your question, council member Bower, um typically what impacts rates more are the capital needs. I don't want to say the operational needs aren't going to uh impact it. Um but it's it's the really the capital needs that really impact the long-term interest uh um rates. Uh so we can try to isolate what that cost would be as we move forward here. But from what I understand and talking to Sam, uh that might not be a tremendous amount. It's certainly going to increase the operations cost, but um not something that's going to lead to a significant increase by itself. There's other factors that may lead to an increase such as the capital needs >> and the capital uh utility funds cash flow is really projected over a 10-year period minimum. So, we're really looking at not just a one year one because those capital infrastructure in year let's say 2027 can be significantly higher than 2028 but maybe 2030 significantly lower than 2029. So we're really looking to maintain a a healthy cash flow balance. Uh with the utility funds, we can afford to keep a lower cash flow balance. Um it's typically because we are collecting and billing on a monthly basis. And um yes, we do have some uh people who don't pay their utility bills on times, but typically we do have a high percentage of collections and we do have good cash flow. opinion. >> Great. [clears throat] And just a follow up on that too, I think the other contributor to significant portion of the operating costs in those funds is the wholesale purchase of water from St. Paul and the purchase of sewage treatment services from um correct council. So those are probably in addition to the capital needs the other big driver of those. >> Yep. So if you look into the budget worksheets that were presented for the utility funds, the contracted services line item if you notice it has gone up significantly. those primarily relate to the for the water sewer to those that you mentioned. Yeah. >> Right. Thank you. Other uh feedback or excuse me, other clarifying questions from council. Council member Bower, >> I believe this was the first year that we included an inflation [clears throat] number in the capital uh budgets. Can you speak to how that affected uh either capital outlays in this budget or um reserves or fund balances in those now that we've taken that into account? >> Yeah, I can definitely speak to that. um historically we haven't included. So all our capital infrastructure costs that were um used in the 20 20 year uh CIP that we're we're presenting um has have been on actual cost on today's costs. Uh the approach has been to allow for some inflationary cost. Um again this is what I mentioned earlier between what Ellers is proposing and what we were proposing initially internally or was in this budget is significantly less. Uh we are proposing an increase of 1% each year beginning with year two which 2028 will have 1% increase over 2027 cost right in 2029 2%. So that was just a simple approach to really provide some cushion for inflation not to address a perfect scenario. uh we can definitely be more aggressive than that to go with a compound maybe two or 3% year after year. LS presented a 4% increase year after year which means by year 10 you would have about 60% increase in capital infrastructure cost over year 1. Um so this is where we have differences of opinions that maybe have to come to a settlement. Uh but yes we did include for the first time uh that is projecting the to decrease fund balances as expenses go up. Um that's why we are addressing two of the funds that we believe it's an immediate need of an increasing levy to be able to address some of that inflationary cost and future projects. U but those are the two fund the only two funds that were we identified as an immediate need. Um when we were going to be discussing the 10 the CIP it is in the in in the packet as well. You can see the projected fund balance for all those funds and our goal was to maintain them all within a positive fund balance. Um not a lot of surplus right in those funds that is needed but maintain to uh sufficient fund balance. So I believe next year we're going to be proposing a lot more changes to the capital infrastructure funds as um we can and we can we comfortably can to keep the levy in a minimal increase because majority of those funds are supported to some degree with some tax levy dollars. And and just as a followup, and correct me if I'm wrong, in year 1, 2027, we did not add any inflation except for the two infusions for the police vehicle equipment fund and uh the facilities fund. If you look at 2028, you'll see that 1% inflator, 2% it goes up there. So in future years, um starting 28 and uh that's going to lead to higher levy amounts. It's just a little bit each one, but they add up pretty quickly. Uh um so that's how we have it factored in right now. So for 2027, we didn't automatically add inflators to every single fund. We just added additional levy funds for two targeted funds that really were in need of some help. >> And my plan is to evaluate this every year. So looking how we end 2026, it's going to be a significant uh starting point to re-evaluate the future years, right? So if our um if we came within budget, if everything plays out the way we were hoping for and the inflation wasn't significantly larger, that will give us an idea how much more we need to kind of play with those inflationary numbers, right? So it's something that we're going to monitor. We're going to have to monitor year after year, but it's something that we cannot lose sight of. I'll make that clear because a few of these funds are in immediate need of assistance, right? So we're going to have to address those. >> Right. I want to clarify two things. Number one is, and then I need to recognize council member Sher has been very patient. Um the uh when you say that you're taking into account inflation and the projections out 20 years and the capital funds, are you doing it both on the cost side and on the revenue side or are you only doing it on the cost side because that seems to be not a complete picture. >> It's it's it's a combination of both. We're I'm addressing both. So as the inflation is an expense added on the total expenditures. So as you add more expenditures your fund balance goes down. So then we are addressing that uh deficit with an proposed increase in levy. Right? So that revenue increase. So it could be a 1% 2% whatever we need to plug in to make the fund balance work in. >> So as you track it out the years so it's not like you're adding 1% of the expense and that year you're adding 1% on the levy. They're just trying to make sure that >> if we have enough reserves, we're going to have less of an increase in revenue is proposed or if we have not enough, >> we might have to add more than the the inflation, right? So, some of the funds, so when we talk capital funds, I I will be happy to walk you through that exercise. Uh but yes, we're addressing both revenues with an increase in tax levy. We don't especially after we identify all the other sources of revenues. If there's donations or inter fund um intergovernmental uh access or grants, those we plug in as the actuals as best we can and then we have our expenses then we have our added inflation on top of the expenses and if the fund has a deficit then we address that with our levy and sometimes we try to project a deficit that maybe in the future years with small increases in revenues so we don't absorb it all at once. >> Right? And that's what I wanted to clarify too is that that that we're not ignoring inflation or the need for covering the cost on the on the revenue side. The other piece of it is I you know I know you said that you didn't automatically add inflation for 2027, but I have to feel that because 2027 is our budget year. You looked as close as you could at actual cost including inflation for the things we're going to have to buy in 27. So I just want to make that clear that we're not saying we're not accounting for inflation in 27. we actually have a better idea of what it is than any other year projected out beyond that. >> Yeah, that's correct, mayor. We we we put in actual costs as we understand them today that are going to be higher than what we projected obviously 10 years ago. So, uh and and we try to do that as much as possible as we look forward to put in actual costs that we know of today and every year we look at it and see how close we are to them and and and adjust that. So, to that point, yeah, we put actual cost. >> No, I just want to clarify in case anybody had a misperception of that that that we didn't account for inflation. inflation was added beginning with year two, >> right? >> So, >> no, so the factor in the analysis was added in year two, but the actual numbers for 27 that you're projecting are inflation >> Yeah. >> related. Okay. Council member Sher, thanks again for your patience. >> Uh, yes. And I wanted to thank you both for um answering [snorts] all my questions or a lot of the questions I had particularly um putting the numbers next to the ads and then those things that were going to be subtracted to have both of those side by side with actual numbers and it was extremely helpful. [snorts] Uh what I did want to have you clarify uh for our residents is [clears throat] how the um maintenance center because of uh the sales tax revenue that we've [snorts] been collecting and obviously we've had some expenses too. How that >> does or does not affect the levy. And then separately the uh license uh center dance studio piece since that isn't sales tax. How is that being affected in the levy? And I know some of that will come in later on, but I think it was just more clarified more how the mechanics of how those two pieces would work. >> Yeah, I can address that. U so the first uh building, right, the the public works and the parks kind of maintenance center. That one was to the local sales tax. So those revenues are being collected and tracked in a separate fund. That fund is not a budgeted fund, so it's not going to show up in the reports that were in the packet. It's a capital infrastructure fund that we have that is fully funded through the local sales tax. And all the local sales tax revenues currently to date, we have approximately 5.5 million collected in local sales tax are going to be utilized to help pay for a debt service. So what's going to happen? because the construction cost might need a higher inflow of cash. We're going to bond for the total amount for of the project which is undetermined yet completely. Um and then we're going to have a debt service payment that we're going to cash flow from the local sales tax revenues. So we're going to set up a debt service fund separate from the construction fund. That makes sense. where we're going to track paying back and that's going to be a levy on the on the taxpayers and that >> no maintenance center is no levy >> sales tax >> sales tax >> it's sales tax but we're going to have to bond to cash flow that so we're going to have to pay it back so that debt service payment uh is not going to be a living correct I apologize we're going to use the local sales revenue [laughter] >> worried there for a minute >> yes my bad uh to pay down that debt service payment so that one has no impact on the taxes >> the Second portion um does in a sense have an impact but not because I mentioned two of our current de service payments are completed. This is the last year we're going to levy for them which is approximately $2.2 million. We're going to repurpose that the service payment towards the uh license center dance studio. So, we're not going to add more levy de service payment levy on our um current tax role, but we're going to repurpose an existing levy that's not going to be utilized to pay a current debt service payment that's coming to an end in 2028. >> So, that levy um is it could be that isn't uh um restricted to bond that that could be used for any purpose. >> It can be repurposed. We can if we didn't have this building for example and I I hate to say that we could lower the tax rate right by removing that completely or could repurpose it for any other reason. We can replenish our fund balance right or cash reserves. Um but the plan is to repurpose that for this building right and we know so we don't have to increase our levy. >> So that's the purpose >> and I would say with the $2.2 $2 million. Uh we expect uh the um debt payment um to be less than that annual basis. Don't know exactly. I don't want to put but it'll be less than 2.2. So even after paying for that license center, there still be some additional levy capacity to do something with um which we'll find out as we move forward here what that amount is. But but um it's really a shift of levy dollars. So it's not new levy dollars, but it's existing levy dollars that would be repurposed moving forward. >> And thank you again. I've had a number of questions about both of those, so I thought it would make sense for you to clarify for everyone. >> Absolutely. >> Any other questions? Uh, Council Bower, >> following up on that point, uh, [snorts] I believe we've already incurred costs for the MOC and the licensed passport center. So, I'm assuming from the Am I correct in assuming that the costs for the MOC are coming out of that capital infrastructure fund? >> Yes. Okay. [clears throat] >> Sales tax. >> Yes. >> Yes. And then for the licensed passport center, is that coming out of the license uh center fund or where we >> Not quite yet. Just to clarify that we actually are tracking that in a separate fund, a construction fund as well. So we can have the dollar amount button down. So when we bond, we can we can reimburse ourselves back. So right now that fund shows doesn't have any cash inflow. Uh but we're tracking those expenditures. So part of the bonding we're going to be able to reimburse us back for that portion that we u prepaid if you would so or paid ahead. So uh ultimately we're not going to decrease the the cash uh reserves from the license center for to pay for this building um pre-design cost or things like this. We're still going to be using the bond actually because we're going to bond this is going to be part of that entire bond. So we're going to say we spend let's say $600,000 prior to bonding. We're going to add that to the bond and then we're going to reimburse ourselves for for that expense. That makes sense. >> I think so it's just coming out of the general >> kind of recovery. I was going to say we're writing we're writing checks for expenses right now. >> We're writing checks for >> there has to be a fund balance against which those checks can be drawn. Right. >> When when we close the year we're going to we're going to make that hole with a probably with a general fund. Yep. >> Yep. That's I think what you're asking. Other questions? Clarifying questions. Council member Strong, >> I just wanted to bring this publicly because I've talked with Mr. Trejan about this. Um, and it has been a issue that a couple people, not too many, but a few people have mentioned multiple times is about the fence consortium that we are a part of. And I I know that it has been kind of a non-negotiable and it uh predated some of the folks on this council, but we're paying about I I think look at this time at about $8,200 a year for the opportunity to potentially have a fence to encircle our city hall should there be some civil unrest. There are about 30 different cities involved in it. We pay 2.9% um of the cost. So, it looks like to not own the fence, um, but to have the ability to rent it with no leeway, we're paying about 200 as a consortium about $280,000 a year. And then if we were to have to utilize it, um, and we were to be first, which I my bigger concern is that we are in this consortium with St. Paul, so if there was something in an adjacent part, we wouldn't be getting any fence. Um, and then we would um pay between 27,000 and $60,000 a month to actually use the fence. So, I just want to make sure that it's a small amount. It's an I know it's a good piece of mind to know if we are in that situation, but I also want to be cognizant that when we are cutting pennies and dimes that we are aware of the value to that and so and whether or not that's something that everyone is aware is out there that we are kind of holding on to this. It doesn't it's not owned by anybody. It's not like we have a partnership in this fence. we somebody's getting a lot of money for us to to hold on to it for the possibility that we might need it. So, I just wanted to make sure that was brought up as um a consideration um as we move forward and as we talk about um where and how things might be cut. >> All right. Other clarifying questions? All right. Uh maybe we'll have uh you gentlemen uh have a seat in the uh away from the table for a moment and just see if there is anyone from the public who does wish to uh make a comment on the uh very fresh uh city manager recommended 2027 budget and tax levy. Uh certainly this is the first of a number of opportunities that will be available to the public to provide input uh through the process. Uh and certainly many of uh the folks in the public and the council are still digesting all the information. Uh once again uh three minutes per speaker. Please introduce yourself with your name and address or street to begin your comments, direct comments or questions of the council. And welcome to our first speaker, >> Roger H. Junior Wagner Place. And thank you very much for bringing up the fence. I've said that for years, but anyway, uh a couple quick questions. If you cut down the receptionist to 20 hours a week, who's going to fill in this the desk during the other hours? And uh since you're cutting you're looking at stuff as low as as8 $850, are are you still paying someone to manage the strip mall when there's only like maybe two or three tenants still, which I would think the finance and public works could easily manage that. So I'm just wondering if you're still doing that and how much you'd save if you didn't have an outside manager. And the last thing is [snorts] that my brother and I were talking today. We live in southeast Roseville and we appreciate the efforts the cities have been trying to do there. And the the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce people seem to be talented, wonderful people, but for some reason they're not doing the job they hired to do, which was to implement the master plan there. The cities have plenty of people to put on festivals. You have people that put out trash cans. You have people that install art. So, you don't need someone for that. You need someone to implement the master plan there. And it's not happening. There have been lots of properties come up for sale and the alliance hasn't done anything to try to implement the master plan. So, I really think you should think about cutting that because it doesn't seem to be doing anything. >> So, thank you. >> Great. Thank you for your comments. uh other members of the public who wish to speak to this item this evening. Hello and welcome. Good evening, Mayor Row and council members. My name is Mindy Ericson and I live on Mid Oaks Lane. I'm here tonight to speak most directly to Mayor Row and Council Member Grath to make comments and to ask questions that I hope you'll answer tonight. I've interacted with you a bit over the past year and you've never come across as foolish or disengaged. So, your interpretation of the voters's split decision on the 2024 tax and spend referenda is confusing. Many voters are surprised to learn that the 14.5 million licensed passport center project is moving ahead anyway. I've heard so often, but we voted that down. voters thought they sent a clear message about city spending priorities. How did you misinterpret the voters's rejection of raising the sales tax for a licensed passport center as voter support for raising property taxes for a licensed passport center dance studio? Why isn't Roseville choosing rental space for a licensed passport center like other cities do? Edina relocated its licensed passport center to Southdale Mall. Why not rent in struggling Harmar Mall or some other commercial area? Rent an affordable space access accessible by public transportation and increase foot traffic to one of our city's important retail or commercial centers. The dance studio edition is really puzzling. Why not implement a lowerc cost choice like refurbishing an existing underused park and recreation building? Roseville has the highest per capita taxes among Rabsy County suburbs. The estimated tax increases in the coming years are double or more the inflation rate. The recent city survey revealed that residents consider high taxes Roseville's most serious issue. You've been in your roles a long time, and your choice to build this $14.5 million facility, despite the voters's rejection of the project, your choice conveys detachment, that you're out of touch. But you still have time to pivot and show that you're listening to constituent concerns to show that you care by pausing by reimagining space and costs for a dance studio and for a licensed passport center. Pursue ways that reduce residents tax burden increase. Or if you really believe this new building is crucial, convince us why. And then let us vote again on the sales tax question. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Uh, is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak at this time on the proposed uh, city manager 2027 uh, budget and tax levy? >> Hello and welcome. >> Thank you. Hello, city council and mayor. So, you're using a 400,000. >> Can you introduce yourself first? Oh, I'm Carl Crump. I live on Rosean Avenue. >> Thank you. >> You're using a $400,000 house, but in order for me to get that money, I have to sell my house. I'm not getting a 7.8% increase in my pay. So, you're taxing people out of their house. Last year was also a big year. I think that last year, I don't remember for sure, but it would be nice this year and I think I saw it last year if there was a historical um progression given and I'm I'm assuming that's going to come in one of the next meetings is my guess. >> I think there was there was a version of that in tonight's presentation if you want to take a look back at that information. I will >> just and that I'm not taking your time away for that. >> No, no, I I appreciate that. Um, and it my next note on that was in addition to the historical if there was some kind of an itemization of that for the larger items and there may have been that in there too. I'll I'll take a look back at my notes and that. Um, but um I just think I just think that taxes you're you're taxing people out of their house and um and then the other issue is that the license center I just don't get it. It doesn't make any sense to me why we are why we're building something when we can rent something and we can help um we can help the harm mall. And one thing that was talked about in here too is it was talked about the tax capacity. What are we doing to increase the tax capacity? Well, one thing that we could do is help harm our mall. And I'm not saying I'm not saying that just this is going to help the harm mall, but we're not even willing to help at all. Doesn't make sense to me. I don't get it. But thank you very much. I appreciate it. >> All right. Thank you for your comments this evening. Uh is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to the uh proposed budget and tax levy for 2027? Right. Does not appear to be the case. Uh we'll go ahead and uh close the opportunity for public comment this evening. Uh and thank everyone for participating and once again the um the council will not be taking any specific action this evening unless providing any feedback to uh staff. I did want to address we did have a couple of questions uh that came up. Um so uh first of all on the reception desk with the cutting back of the hours of that uh is that proposed to be only staffed for those 20 20 hours a week and not during the other times or what is the the plan there? >> So currently we have um um several people part-time folks that fill in shifts um throughout the week here. So we are looking to reduce that from 40 hours of a person actually in that seat uh just serving solely as a receptionist uh to 20 hours. Uh we have noticed uh a decrease in foot traffic over the years especially since co uh we do get still a lot of phone calls and so we are going to be working on a plan on how to best manage that uh look at the proper times for that person to be there or those persons to be there when we're the busiest. also work with the other departments to make sure that there are resources uh available so if somebody does call and they get that phone call they know where to turn to. There's so still some details that we want to work out uh on that, but uh the physical presence of a person uh isn't always necessary. Uh but certainly uh some phone calls working with uh the receptionists are under um the finance department. Uh they we have already been looking at providing additional duties uh for those people out there, but given the budget constraints, we're looking to reduce those hours. Uh there is a possibility that uh perhaps some finance staff might be out there if we feel the need to have that staffed with a person. So TBD, I think as we move forward in the next couple months, we'll have a better sense of how that looks. Right now, we're just looking at it as a purely financial thing, but we understand it has impacts to people walking in uh to city hall has impacts to the employees, especially uh and our parks department and our community development department, which have counters right there. Um but uh at the same time, we're confident we can work that out and have a plan that makes sense given the fiscal constraints that we have. >> Right. We did have a question also about uh the contracted management services for the uh current building that the license center is in. Um can I don't know if we know where we're at in like the term of a contract or anything like that or what our options are or what the plan is uh as as we wind down that facility and go into something different. >> So uh Miss Mayor, you're correct. We are winding down. There's two tenants left. Um, and those leases will be expiring by the end of, uh, uh, in early, uh, 27. Um, so, uh, there's only about a year or so left of of those, um, or a little bit less than a year of those contracts. We do use MGAF, uh, um, which is a Roseville business here to manage that. They do a lot of other management for facility management. I think we are planning going out for a contract generally speaking just on facility management on the services that they provide uh in in some point in the future here. So uh as we wind down um I think uh we will no longer use them for for those um for the for the uh strip mall um management but currently we are continuing to use them. They help manage um the buildings but more importantly they they help um uh deal with the lease issues and the accounting of that that they provide the city. So they do provide some services moving forward. >> So and that's what's the impact on that on the 27 budget is because we're winding down those leases. There really wouldn't be any >> Yeah, I I couldn't I couldn't tell you off the top of my head here. I we have a general contract with them uh for all the facilities. So that's part of that. So uh I suppose we could break that down, but I don't think it's very significant. >> Maybe if you can just follow up with the council on that, that would be helpful. >> All right. Um, I think we can look into the some of the questions about historical breakdown and that's one of the things that I've I've tried to track over time myself is just sort of what are the bigger contributors to u levy increases over time and each year it can be something different. I know some years it's due to say hiring additional firefighters or police officers. Some years it may be due to uh making overall adjustment to uh wages of employees to better match the marketplace which we did a couple of years ago. Those are a couple examples that come to mind and certainly some of those historical documents of the budget materials as we were considering the budget at the time would would have that information. But that may be something we want to look at a way to communicate uh more uh more directly with people just to help folks track those things. I think from a council point of view, that's something I've I've certainly been interested to. I mean, I kind of have it all up here somewhere from having been involved in all all those discussions, but sometimes documenting things as part of our process can help as well. So, um >> yeah, and I would just comment generally, very generally, it is personnel costs, whether it is um new positions. It's not always new positions, but it can be new positions. It can be just the rising costs uh for employees. A large large percentage of our budget um is people. we need people to do the things that we do. Um so anything from um union contracts to cost increases, step increases um all those things do do impact. And the second probably biggest factor is uh capital funding. If we increase the capital funding there's also inflationary whole bunch of other stuff but I think if you were to put the two large categories it would be personnel and capital. >> All right. Thank you for that response and certainly we can look at more specifically what we might communicate in the future. I think most of the other questions were sort of policy questions which folks may address as we continue our budget discussions and so and some of them uh may need to be addressed by council members as we have our council discussions. So I will certainly defer that to those discussions uh at this time uh unless council members wanted to to address any of that. But I'll leave that to council members. Uh the last thing that I think was asked for from staff was a little bit of feedback from council in terms of just general response or suggestions or questions. Uh so this would be the opportunity for that. I think council Bower, did I see your hand go up or you wanted to? >> I have no problems going first. >> All right. So again, thank you for the work on this budget. I would say that uh this year versus previous years, this the detail of this budget is I would say quite a bit better. um uh just because I was able to ask many other questions just because the detail was there. So, I appreciate all the uh emails back and forth and all your responses on that. Regarding the cuts, uh I'm a little concerned about a number of these cuts. A lot of these services that are things being cut, I would argue a lot of residents expect uh to have in their uh get for paying for taxes. I'm especially concerned about uh the cuts in police. Um that is the police explorer program, the not hiring an intern. Um the well there's a reduction of overtime but there's also an increase in overtime in the other page. Uh I'd really encourage you to rethink that uh just because the feeders are [clears throat] so important. It's so competitive for us to get officers um as well as public safety was mentioned uh when we recently did our study for the dollar amounts that we're talking about here. Um I think resident brought up the race larpender alliance. You can nearly get uh this you know cover all these police opt uh costs here with just removing the race larpender alliance. So definitely consider that. I would encourage you to go back to police and discuss that with them. I'm definitely concerned about kind that especially since the state's cutting they got rid of the IC poet program. Um so definitely would like to see that more. I also like to applaud uh community development and the EDA for once again uh supplying money for the uh levy. They've done that for multiple years and I think it's uh might be time for parks. You mentioned that in the general fund in one of the slides, but we may probably a good idea to take a look at parks for providing some money into those uh shortcomings. You noted that, you know, we're still $133,000 even with the 2% levy increase. That may be a good place to get it. I'm not sure if that was what you were implying by that slide, but if so, I'm definitely comfortable with that and looking at other other things as well. There, uh, you know, as we go through this process, we'll have to look more into it. You mentioned, uh, personnel being your largest cost. I would encourage you to look at personnel, uh, and really see if there's cuts there that you can make if you need all. We've talked about adding people. I mean, we're talking about adding someone for parks. I would encourage you probably to defer that uh because that's such a large ongoing cost especially since it'll increase over time and as we add more people it only increases the future cost that we have. So you know other businesses are looking at making cuts using technology things like that to reduce headcount. I would strongly strongly encourage you to do the same. You know given the cost of what we pay there's some good opportunities there to lower some of these um costs. businesses aren't really hiring up on people yet. We are. Um, going forward, I think it'll be important that, you know, this council has really good, robust conversations about this budget. A lot of stuff that we're talking about doing here will get us through next year's budget, but we're setting us up for a lot of difficulty in 28, 29, and 30 as well. Uh, there is, you could make an argument that we're just moving some chairs around on the Titanic here. Not that we're going down, but like we need to have some real good structural things. That's why I was encouraged to hear about, you know, next year's budget when we're take a real look at, you know, the CIP and doing some changes there because that's the kind of stuff that we really need to do to set us up for success. So, I'm very optimistic that we're going to be able to do it. Um, I was hoping to see some of that in this budget. Maybe it was just too early for that to happen, but it's definitely something we'll have to do. And I'm optimistic that we'll be able to do that. And as we go through this process, we'll have, you know, more discussions and I encourage the rest of this council to have pretty open discussions about what we want to do, where we want to put our money, uh, and what things we want to cut because I think that's very important. >> Great. Other discussion or feedback, Council Member Strong, >> I just wanted to mention my concern for rec reducing the frequency of the city newsletter. that is regularly cited to be one of the main um items that people utilize for receiving city news, knowing what's happening. I know it's just twice a year that it's being reduced from every other month to quarterly, but um seems to be working. So, I I I struggle with our reduction of that, especially if we are seeing less foot traffic in city hall. Um, that's one way that is, but I know mail continues to get more expensive and I don't know, maybe maybe there's a way to to not lose content but change uh the frequency but maybe still obtain the same kind of coverage. Um, and I I know that um, you know, I don't I don't regularly ice skate, so I don't know, but I know when and that's a challenge with uh, climate change to know how long those are open, but it is a free resource for employee for people in the city. I thought I had seen that there was some financial support changing in the uh, parks. Was there some kind of changing in the scholarship programming? Uh yes, a reduction of uh that scholarship program uh will be um proposed to be backfilled through uh donations. >> Okay. Well, I really struggle with that too given that we have really worked hard between that and our excess uh partner to make sure that um park programs are accessible to our um folks. I just don't think we should be going backwards in our um accessibility for people to our parks and to our services as as we noted again from our Leatherman study that the parks are one of the key entry points into participation in our systems. And although I understand um the feeder points of the fire cadet and the police intern and the cso and such and the value they bring, you know, we have really staffed up on public safety and it remains our highest resource and you know people like to feel safe but people also really want to use our parks and I I don't want to utilize one to starve another and I we have since I've been on this council, we've already reduced the um the uh budget the balances of the park system from a quite a healthy balance to much smaller. And I I again I think we just have to be reminded that we we aren't in the business of making money. We are the city and we're providing services to people and parks are an entry point where everyone can be participating without um they don't have to pay to get in and if they're participating in a program we want to make sure that they still can do so. So I really hope that we don't um starve some of those programs so so much that especially with all the work that Mr. Johnson has done to um bring new and exciting options. And I hope that if we are reducing programming in the concerts in the park that possibly a outside or city um participant would be willing to uh help fund that so we don't lose that. We've already lost one day a week of our programming. We went from sun, you know, two three days a week down to two. And again, for people who don't have big social lives, this can be really there's a lot of the same people there um night after night who really look forward to that and it's just a really lovely way for them to utilize our our green spaces. >> Great. Uh Council Member Grath. So I as I remember this in July, we put this to the department heads and to the city manager to review the budget and and we said that the levy was too high. So we asked them to come back with some recommendations and I see these as very carefully thought out recommendations to get our budget down or our levy down. So, I uh I don't quite feel like my other council members of second-guing on all the items that you've listed here. I think uh it's been a thoughtful process from what I can read. I think the new budget that you're proposing is very detailed and I really appreciate that part of it. I appreciated the inflationary factors that were put in. Obviously, as you go on further, they become less relevant. I know that's true, but I think that the projections were helpful for me in understanding the budget and I uh I think right now we have more conversations to be done, but I don't feel like backtracking on the work that's been done that much right now. I think that the departments had have been careful and have done a good job of presenting it. >> Great. Thank you. Uh other feedback at this point, Council Member Sher. Um yeah, just one small thing, you know, talking about the parks and the programs. I think we do have a number of people who utilize our parks and programs that are not residents of Roseville. And I would want to um and I know some other cities, you know, charge for some of their parks and services too more so. So I I would want make sure that we're looking at, you know, you can cut or you can increase revenue, right? And so can we I just say let let's look at what we're charging non-residents in um different aspects of our park systems and we have and I don't even know about like the ballparks and some of those teams and stuff what's going on there. Is there a way that because I think we want to make it affordable for the residents of Roseville, but those who are coming in from outside Roseville, it's just great. they can utilize it, but I think then they need to also not just a little bit, but I think pay more than what a resident because the residents here are already supplementing it by their, you know, living here and paying property taxes and all these other things where someone coming in from the outside, they they aren't contributing financially to Roseville. So, I think that they could then um pay more on that aspect. So I guess again there's two ways to uh work on a budget is you cut costs and you increase revenue. Is that one area to you know and I'm not double um guessing but I just something to maybe look at and and see if there's a some room for for that. So that's just something I'm thinking about. >> All right. Um, so I did want to start my feedback by saying I do appreciate the significant work that went into the uh the list here. I also want to acknowledge a couple of things. You know, one is that um these are, you know, reductions in what we do now in in a number of areas and cases. And so that's not something to to to uh consider lightly because of the fact that you know that it's not simply like it's a reduction of the increase. It's in some cases reduction of the increase through not doing something we used to do or doing something differently than than we used to do it. For instance, the newsletter frequency, things like that. Um, and so those those are those to me are real sort of ongoing um changes uh structural changes that that uh that are being proposed and I think that we uh you know that I I appreciate that very much that that has been a thoughtful process and that it isn't it that these are some some notable changes. I think the other thing that that that enters into it, I think Council Member Grath may have alluded to it a little bit, is sort of and others, is that the, you know, we certainly want to make sure that we're maintaining what the the public expects us to do as an as a a city uh in terms of the things that contribute to the quality of life of people here. And so we we want to make sure that as we look at, you know, potentially changes to headcount or those sorts of things that we're not doing it necessarily at the expense of what people uh expect as a community. And obviously individuals may have different points of view on different things that the city does and some things are more important than others and our what we have to do is try to balance all of that and both as staff and council members as decision makers and try to figure it out uh the best we can. So that's kind of a preface to things I think there may be some things we can look at with respect to I'm a little bit concerned about the police explorer program. It's a relatively minor dollar item. Uh but I understand the sort of the sentiment behind it. I I did we did hear from a member of the public not this evening but uh through email about looking at um um the you know in relation to the discussion we had at our last meeting about the fact that through the laws about charitable gambling that cities can regulate in the community. A part of that is that a certain amount of the the charitable gambling dollars that are generated through pull tabs or whatever for charitable organizations and the city come to the city and the city uh can use those for charitable purposes. But the way the law is written is is that that you know the state law has written is that um you know the city can directly spend that for certain public safety type spending and there's categories and there's you know parameters around that that we'd have to look at um and then also spend sort of whatever's left if you will uh for the the the charitable purposes in the community. And I I know it's you know was pretty clear from that presentation at the last meeting that that that the Roseville Area Community Foundation is is doing fairly well has a pretty substantial balance and as they were noting they might have to you know hire somebody to actually help them be able to give out all the money that they've got which is you know could be an expenditure they can legitimately do. Um but that got me thinking about a couple of things. One of which is that for people like the Tubmans of the world and and some of the things they're doing, that may be an entity that could benefit from some increased funding from people like the Rosevel Area Community Foundation. But then some of these public safety costs, we may want to look at how much each year we contribute towards that community foundation. and if there are some public safety costs on an annual basis that we want to continue to fund if it's an explorer program or some of those things like that that help feed into it and if they qualify under the state law that might be something we want to look at. So I would certainly encourage that to be something that we look at on the revenue side going forward um and and have some thought about that. But generally speaking, I I think this is a you know a healthy uh start at this and and I'm I do get concerned about looking at uh reductions in headcount only from the point of view of two things. One is that this organization has been operating extremely lean in a lot of areas for many years. Uh and and I think that uh that it doesn't mean that we don't have the potential for efficiencies. I think that's always out there. Um, but I think it's very difficult for AI to maintain a park uh and uh cut the grass and things like that. We haven't quite figured that one out yet, but it doesn't mean that perhaps robotic machinery and things like that might not be a part of it. Um, so I think we we always should be continuing to look at those things. But I get concerned if we're if we're sort of looking at cutting headcount ahead of the curve, so to speak, uh because I I don't want this organization to be more lean than it is at the expense of being able to do what it needs to do. So that's just sort of a general commentary without a lot of specific recommendations for staff, but I had to had to put that out there just from my perspective on it. Um, but I think once again it's a it's a very good starting point and I think we just need to continue to have some conversations about uh moving forward and certainly I'll have more to say about things like uh the rice and harper alliance and other things during those appropriate times of those discussions. Anything else in terms of feedback from council members this evening into the process? All right. Well, once again, uh we thank uh all of the the staff, the city manager, and everybody who's been involved in this process up to this point. Um I I believe we've gotten some pretty positive feedback from the two work sessions uh from everybody who participated. So that's been helpful. Uh and uh we look forward now to uh much more engagement with members of the public as we go forward uh and can continue to make the decisions uh that we need to make uh in the community to make sure that the city does what it needs to do in the way the community expects it to be done uh and with the most value for the money that we ask for from our rateayers and taxpayers. If there's nothing else on this topic, I think that brings us to the end of our business items. Uh then uh our next item would be considering uh city council minutes. We've got one meeting which was our August 10th council meeting. We've got the um draft which we've had a chance to review and make comments and changes to uh and we've got those updated in the information we have uh to consider this evening. Are there any other changes or corrections or a motion to approve as presented? >> Move approval as presented. Second. >> All right. It's been moved by Council Member Gra, seconded by Council Member Bower to approve the minutes from the August 10th council meeting uh as presented. Discussion on the motion. Uh hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those minutes are approved. Uh that then brings us to our consent agenda. Uh Mr. Trean, if you could go through those items briefly for us for our consideration this evening. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, item 10 A approves payments in the amount of $3,369,239.11. Item 10B approves an expenditure for replacement lighting system that failed at the fire station. Item 10 C approves a resolution of support to have the Minnesota legislature establish a permanent statewide revenue sharing model to to uh support the deputy registar offices. Item 10 D uh enters into an agreement with Roseville area schools to provide for two school two school resource officers, one for the high school, the other serving middle and elementary schools in the district. Item 10E approves the renewal of a short-term rental license for 1277 Garden Avenue. Item 10F approves the renewal of a short-term rental license for 1901 Shady Beach Avenue. Item 10G approves staff applying for a conservation legacy grant from the Minnesota DNR for a $500,000 grant to help restore and manage natural resources in Roseville Parks. The city previously received uh the same grant of $500,000 in 2025 for work in the parks. Uh receiving this grant would allow the city to continue the natural resource management and restoration in additional city parks. And finally, item 10H approves applying for protect community forestes for community resiliency grant for the uh from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in the amount of $150,000. This grant would provide financial support for removal and replacement of about a 100 ash trees or other high-risisk trees on residential properties owned by lowincome residents. There is no local match for this grant. And that is the consent agenda. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Trean. Is there a motion on the consent items? >> So moved. >> All right. It's been moved by council. I'm going to say it was moved by council member Stron, seconded by council member Schwarter. Any disagreement? It seemed like council member Strong was first. Uh yeah. Is there any discussion on the motion? >> No. >> All right. Hearing. No, I definitely heard Straw first unfortunately on that one for you, Council Member Schroer. Uh with that, if there's no discussion on the motion, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Uh and that brings us to then to our future agenda review. Mr. Treasure. >> Yes. All right. Uh so our next city council meeting is September 14th. Uh at that meeting we'll receive an update on the MOC and licensed passport center to advance studio design and as well as a cost update. We're very busily working on completing those tasks with the um consulting teams. We would look to have the city council approve an agreement with the University of Northwestern St. call for police department training and wellness space in one of the strip malls that they own in the community and we would have a potential abatement at 887 Parker. On the 21st we uh will have an EDA meeting just once again touch the EDA budget. Uh you've seen it several times already, but I think uh we've already passed the resolution uh for the levy, but we'll just check in one last time, see if there's any changes before we get to the 28th. Uh we would like to bring forward a case about the EDA attorney proposals. uh maybe have that narrowed down and talk about what next steps would be and uh discuss a loan program for manufactured homes. From the last feedback, we've been working on some some ideas there that we want to bring forward just for consideration and conversation. On the 21st, we would consider land use items for the MOC and uh LPCDS. This is resoning and the subdivision, all those things that go with it. That will be at the planning commission on September 2nd, if I remember that date right. Uh so we'll be bringing forward those recommendations. We will be receiving uh the finance commission's recommendations on the 27th budget. Also have a joint meeting [clears throat] with the parks and recck commission on the 28th. Uh beyond the indigenous people's day proclamation, the big item is the approve the preliminary budget and not to exceed city tax levy. >> All right. Are there any uh questions or comments on the future agenda? Council member initiated items for future agendas or reports or announcements. >> Would we be able to revisit the street lighting policy and do that at some time in the future to discuss the possibility of a variance? >> So have another discussion about something we've had a couple of discussions about. >> I think that the public still wants that. >> Right. >> I'd be in favor of that. We can certainly uh look at uh putting that on through the future agenda process here. >> Uh you would you like us to bring that in September? >> Uh well, if it's a request for a future agenda item, I believe unless there is consensus this evening >> to do it that we would have it on for our next meeting to discuss how we would proceed on that. >> Okay. >> Whether or how. >> Yeah. Under >> right. Uh with that, if there's no nothing else before the council this evening, uh the only item left on our agenda is on the top of page two, which is to adjourn. [laughter] >> It's been moved by council member Straw. I second from >> And Sher said it. >> I'll second it. >> No, no, second. All right. All right. I don't want to be wrong about that. [laughter] >> It's not the seeing necessarily. >> He's got to put something up here with that. >> All right. Uh we have the motion from council member Stron, the second from council member Schroeder to adjurnn. There is no discussion on the motion to adjurnn. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. We are adjourned unanimously at 8:46 p.m. Thank you everyone. Thank you.