city council meeting for Monday May 6th 2024 Mr City Manor would you call the role please council member Aton here council member shorter here council member grth here council member strong here mayor row here uh and with us at the Das we have our city manager Pat Tron who is on my left at the end of the de and then on the right at the other end of the day we've got Siobhan Toler here this evening who's our City attorney City in for Rachel tyranny and uh we will be sure to test her as much as possible this evening uh with all of our legal questions uh we'll have other folks participating in the meeting uh including the staff and guests and we'll make introductions as various agenda items come up do want to let folks know that there are meeting materials in the back of the chamber uh for anyone who needs to reference uh extra copies of the agenda we've got that available uh as well as a full set of meeting materials in the uh binder on the back table that's available to the public as well uh would remind folks if you've got a cell phone to silence it or otherwise sure that it doesn't disrupt the meeting uh and we'll go over some more uh rules of the road for public comment and things like that as those opportunities arise with that we'll ask folks to stand if you're able for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all and I forgot to mention I know we've updated our capabilities in the chambers here for folks who have hearing difficulties uh we've got some new technology that's available if you are in that need we can uh set you up with that you can maybe check with the city manager and we can get that straightened out so I'll try to remember that in future opening announcements with that we'll proceed with our agenda this evening the first item is to consider tonight's agenda and as always we'll check with Staff first to see if there are any changes that staff needs to make uh to the agenda this evening uh Mr may there's no changes to the agenda all right are there any changes council members would like to make or any items council members would like removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration no council member strong I'd like to remove 10 C just for clarification on ownership given there are many different establishments at the same Suite in the same building okay any other uh requested changes to the agenda from Council Members this evening all right uh and then we'll just do a quick check with folks here uh from the public this evening uh we just were talking about section 10 of our agenda which is what we call our consent agenda it starts in the bottom of the first page and continues on to the second page it's about uh seven items uh normally those items are all taken up as a single motion with a limited opportunity for comment or discussion and they're also at the very end of the meeting uh so we want to as a courtesy to anybody who might be here from the public for one of those items uh check now to see if you are and we can move that item earlier in the meeting is there anyone here for an item that wishes to either speak or ask a question about an item in section 10 of tonight's agenda does not appear to be the case uh so with that we've got our proposed agenda with the one item uh 10 C removed from consent for separate consideration by council member St is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended second all right it's been moved by council member Aton seconded by council member St to approve the agenda as amended thusly uh discussion on that motion seeing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously we have our agenda this evening uh next on the agenda is our first opportunity for public comment this is a chance for members of the public to speak on General matters uh related either to City business or of concern or interest to people in the community uh we will have opportunities for public comment on agenda items as we go forward but this is specific to items that are not on this evening's agenda uh so uh once again this would be a chance for members of the public to speak uh uh on items as I said either of interest to people in the community or related to City business but not under consideration this evening um I see we've got a speaker who's been with us before so I won't go through the whole rules of the road but I'll turn it over to our speaker welcome Roger has your placed in the past this room would be filled with residents contributing to the meetings be nice you started doing a little Outreach and inviting people to come to the meetings and say you're doing a great job or say they want to change something or whatever or at least get involved in some of the other things you do after the public comment part so it' be nice if you one of your newsletters you know tell people they invited to come in and do things and get involved and um I hope you're going to update your fence ordinance so we don't get any more large fences on the street s side of the lake shore property um sounds like you guys might have taken care of it but it would be nice if you made that very clear in the ordinance that you can't do that and then finally last year wouldn't let me ask the Auditors a question so I'm going to ask now um I'm just curious if they audit the fee schedule to make sure none of the fees are too high or too low and that's everything thanks a lot all right and we'll make sure to get that question asked or perhaps even answered in the presentation uh now that it's been asked at this point Thank you Mr H is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak under general public comment at the start of the meeting here thank you for the opportunity I think you all do a great job and I appreciate all your work all right and you have to say your name and Street for the record Cynthia white Roseville resident thank you thanks with that uh if there's no one else to speak under general public comment we'll proceed with the rest of the agenda this evening uh and that brings us then to our business items or excuse me our recognitions and donations I almost skipped the reason that we've got all these police officers looking good in the back of the room there um we have one Proclamation this evening and that is uh related to Peace Officers Memorial day as well as National Police Week uh I'll read the proclamation and then a motion from the council would be in order the proclamation reads uh whereas the Congress and the president of the United States have designated the week in which May 15th occurs as National Police Week and May 15th as National Peace Officers Memorial Day and whereas the Roseville Police Department plays an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of all members of the community and whereas it is important that all citizens know and understand the duties responsibilities hazards and sacrifices of their law enforcement agency and that members of our law enforcement agency recognize their duty to Serve the People by safeguarding life and property by protecting them against violence and disorder and by protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression and whereas the men and women of the Roseville Police Department are unceasingly uh unceasingly provide this vital public service now therefore be resolved the City of Roseville hereby declare the week of May 12th to May 18th to be National Police Week in the City of Roseville and May 15th as National peace officer's Memorial Day and be it further resolved that the r city of Rosell calls on all citizens to join in commemorating law enforcement officers past and present who by their faithful and loyal Devotion to their responsibilities have rendered and dedicated service to their communities and have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens and be it further resolved to observe May 15th as National Peace Officers Memorial Day in honor of law enforcement officers who through their courageous Deeds have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to their Community to include officer Howard Johnson and officer Bruce Russell or who have become disabled in the performance of their Duty and let us recognize also and pay respect to the survivors of our fallen heroes second it's been moved by council member Aton seconded by council member gra any discussion on that motion thank you all with that uh all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously and that Proclamation is approved and thank you again to all of our Public Safety officers that then brings us to we get a photo of these F people who came to see us I don't know that they want a photo actually maybe a they they sit in the back of the room um anyway with that we'll move on with our business items this evening uh the first item is to hold a public hearing to consider certifying unpaid utility charges to the property tax role we item remove from consent agenda oh I apologize olog I forgot all we haven't had one for so long I forgot all about that Ah that's right so item 10 C has been removed for separate consideration from the consent agenda and I'll turn it over to city manager trudon to introduce that item yes second here so item 10c uh approves two massage uh therapist establishment licenses one for clarity Massage and Wellness at 2353 Rice Street number 130 and another uh license for Zen healing at 1789 Lex all right and Council M St you would ask this item to be removed for separate consideration yes thank you I just noted that there was multiple um establishments at that exact same address at the exact same suite and I want a clarification apparently it is independent contractors utilizing the same space don't know that's something that we've addressed before I don't know that it warrants addressing but I wanted clarification which we resolved while we were chatting about it so okay um just so for the information there are three um different lenses in that exact same uh Suite which is 130 so just want to clarify ownership um and this be came about because of the uh um mention of a spouse or partner with the exact same address with a different name of a establishment so just wed to understand as we uh expand our massage therapy licenses that we understand how folks are put together and uh I hopefully we don't see any issues with that establishment moving forward thank you so it's similar to uh places where sort of independent um hairsty hair stylists or whatever operate out of the same location is that our understanding yes Mr Mayor that's my understanding so uh those three different uh establishments are actually sole proprietorships so it's just one person um there but they have a business so they get in the establishment license while some of our as you know some of our massage therapists are businesses have multiple therapists these are just s propri person I imagine they work on appointment and maybe not work every day um but work out of the same space okay and just for clarity too do when we have those cases do those individuals need both an establishment license and a therapist license okay so what we're granting tonight for uh and specifically the clarity Massage and Wellness is a sole proprietorship this is the establishment license got it off hand I don't know about the um um massage therapist license this person may already have it I just don't know and those are handled administratively so they don't come to the city council all right thank you any other questions from the council otherwise a motion to approve the licenses would be in order I moved second good all right it's been moved by council member St second by council member gra a discussion on the motion nothing further hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously those licenses are approved and uh thank you council member St for uh reminding me of this item because I was cruising right into the agenda all right uh with that then we go to our business items and our first business item this evening is to uh hold a public hearing uh to consider certifying unpaid utility charges to the property tax role and I believe is this uh Mr TR yeah I can this so as you know on a quarterly basis we do uh certify uh delinquent um utility bills and other charges by the city to the property tax rooll uh recently we um understood that we should actually be holding a public hearing in the process here so this is officially a public hearing notification went out to all those folks that are on the list that um of their charges and this is a public hearing if they wish to come forward and contest it so uh all we need to do is hold the public hearing and then after that uh certify the uh delinquent accounts to the property tax RS all right thank you Mr TR and I'm presuming that we do have the records of the mailing that went out with the notifications per uh the requirements and if people are interested to see that the records are available at the city manager office or the city Administration office y all right this is a public hearing is there anyone here that wishes to speak this evening about uh the certification of uh various utility uh pass due charges to the uh tax uh bills or assessments of the properties involved anyone here to speak in that public hearing seeing no one we will close the public hearing and we will move to council consideration we've got I believe resolution uh that we're being asked to adopt to certify those uh accounts to the uh County for collection with property taxes so moved second all right the resolution has been moved by Council mayor St seconded by council member gra uh discussion on the motion as the maker council member strong no thank you right as the second council member gra no we discussed this earlier and this is the second time around so this is just a formality in my opinion so all right any other discussion on the motion right hearing none uh we've got the motion before us to to adopt the resolution certifying the uh latest list of of pass due utility accounts to the uh Ramsey County Assessor for payment uh for assessment on their taxes all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously and that resolution is adopted and those accounts will be certified uh unless they're paid ahead of time with that then that brings us to our second business item this is to receive our annual comprehensive financial report our auditor communication letter and reports on compliance for the fiscal year ending December 31st 2023 and we have Josh Kent our assistant Finance director with us this evening to introduce the audit and the auditors can we jump into presentation mode there perfect welcome may members of the council great to be with you once again I can't believe it's already been a year since we've been here doing this um but it's always uh I guess a great time uh not only for me to learn but also for the rest of the to learn about their their internal controls and stuff like that and how we're doing as a city financially as well um and with that um we have Rebecca Peterson from Red path with us um red path did our financial audit again this year um and they went over the internal controls and our financial statements as well to make sure that we were reporing within uh the guidelines that we need to be as well so with that turn it over to rip back thank you thank you Mr Mayor and council members for having me here tonight uh my plan for this evening is to run through a summary of the reports we issue in conjunction with the audit and then just some high level overview information of financial results for the year but as you've heard me say before we work closely with Finance but we really do work for the council so as I'm speaking if there's questions you want me to stop and explain something further please feel free to interop me as I go there are five reports that we issue in conjunction with the audit the first report is really the primary purpose of our audit it's an opinion on the financial statements as to their fair and reasonable presentation uh it would be cost and time prohibitive for us to look at every single transaction that the city enters into and every single item in the financial statements but we conduct some sampling and some analytics and do various procedures in accordance with generally accepted audit standards in order to Able us to provide an opinion on the fair presentation of the financial statements um and our work and our opinion is limited to the financial statement document so other external schedules or matters not included within the financial statements are not subject to our audit procedures and we provide varying levels of assurance on the items actually within the financial statements if you look in the back you would see some items that are indicated that they're un audited but our longw written report the auditor's reporter the opinion on the financial statements um will detail for you what level of assurance we provide on the various components of the statements the result this year is that the city received an unmodified or a clean opinion on your financial statements and that's the highest level of assurance we're able to provide so insured is the result you want the city prepares their own financial statements I would say of all of the entities that I work with the vast majority engage us or another entity to prepare their financial statements for them in conjunction with the audit but the city prepares their own um and so that's a nod to the the competency of the staff that you have here on an annual basis they submit those financial statements to the government Finance Officers Association for a certificate of achievement last year's financial statement was awarded the award I have a little snip of it up here and we anticipate that the 2023 financial statements will receive the award as well the second report that we issue in conjunction with the audit is a report on internal controls we do not audit the city's internal controls as part of the audit but we gain an understanding of the processes and the procedures that are in place and if anything came to our attention that we didn't think you were already aware of we would report it to you if if we felt it was significant enough there's also other matters that were required by auditing standards to communicate to you within our internal control report and one of those is if there's any material audit adjustments in conjunction with the audit so if during the course of the audit we identify some numbers that are recorded in the correct year or maybe for the incorrect amount and we adjust that for the financial statements that's an audit adjustment and it's required that we report it to as a finding so there's just one internal control finding this year and that relates to audit adjustments there was really only one significant audit adjustment this year and it related to Grant reporting um I think there was some activity that related to a prior year that Finance wasn't aware of um and so that's a good reminder that you know even though Finance has to deal with us during the audit process it's really the city's audit and not just finance's audit and um I think finan is working with the other departments impacted to make sure that they um communicate that information going forward but as far as internal control findings go just one audit adjustment this year is relatively good results and and just to clarify that so that was something that was in incorrectly put in the wrong year basically and so needed to be accounted for differently exactly um the financial statements that are issued and that you would have had your packet include that correction already okay thank you sorry uh mayor to build upon that right so it was really a net zero transaction so it's Grant funds that come in that we send right out the door right away so on the bottom line it was a net zero okay so expenses a little bit overstated but revenues are a little bit overstated as well or Net Zero got it thank you the next report that we issue in conjunction with the audit is report on Minnesota legal compliance um the office of the state auditor has a series of checklists that they require public accountants to review in conjunction with our financial statement Audits and we're not attorneys so we look at these uh checklists from an accounting perspective but if we became aware of any instances of significant non-compliance in relation to those checklists we would be communicating that to you and the state auditor as well this year there's no items of non-compliance reported I think we identified a couple small things that really didn't work reporting that uh the city is working on correcting but nothing that rises to level of requiring um inclusion in the report so again result you want the next report that we issued in conjunction with the audit this year is a report on federal program compliance this is one that's not required every year um anytime the city expends more than $750,000 of federal funds you're required to have a federal compliance audit also known as a single audit um the federal government has some guidelines that we need to go through to determine what and how we test the expenditures that the city incurred um this year you had approximately 1.9 million of federal expenditures we tested the required elements in conjunction with the SLE audit and no instances of non-compliance were identified and no in instances of question costs one of the um items that the federal government wants us to look at is to make sure that you're spending the money in the way you're supposed to based on the grant terms and if we found anything questionable we would reporting it but no items identified this year which again is the results you want the final report that we issue in conjunction with the audit is a letter from us as the Auditors to you as governance um it's a technical very templated language letter and so I've summarized some of the key points here uh for your reference the first item I have bulleted here is accounting standards changed um over the past few years there's been a number of accounting standards changes there was a new one that needed to be imp implemented this year it's called gasby 9996 spitas which stands for subscription-based it arrangements and really what that's looking at is recognition that the city sometimes enters into long-term agreements for subscription based it um you know you might be subscribing to software in the cloud or whatnot and recognizing that there's a future liability associated with that what the statement says is you need to look at the materiality of those future commitments if they're long-term commitments and consider if it's material enough to be recorded in your financial statements um there was not anything significant that needed to be recorded this year but unfortunately in order to determine that there is nothing significant City staff has to go through the exercise of reviewing all the contracts so it was a pretty time intensive standard to implement um which is why I have it listed here even though there really was no financial statement impact the other key component that um we want to remind you of is that there are accounting estimates within the financial statements um there is a pension liability reported in your financial statements for um almost $18.5 million and that relates to City employee participation in the par pension plan this fluctuates significantly year-over-year the liability was much greater last year it's dropped a little bit um to be a smaller liability this year but in reality the city is paying on this liability through your um payroll contributions on a payroll basis it's not $18 million that you're going to have to pay over to perah next week or anything like that the other significant estimate in that we have listed here is the opab liability other post-employment benefits it's really an actuarially determined number for the cost of providing employee benefits to retirees maybe they're staying on the City's health insurance um or other such benefits that's acred um and calculated by the actuary there's other estimates within the financial statements but those are the two largest during the audit we did not um encounter any disagreements with manag from our perspective no significant difficulties encountered in performing the audit and no significant other matters that you we think you should be aware of um so by and large those are the required communication points and nothing too significant this year and you know in the world of audit no news is usually good news so next up I just have some highlevel Financial summary information here I have the city's governmental funds and what governmental funds are are those funds that are supported by property tax dollars or Grant Revenue um that are not intended to be self-supporting so you can see the city's general fund had a increase in fund balance this year of about 2.4 million that is primarily the public safety Aid that the city received right at December the city received a significant amount of Public Safety aid from the state that you were able to recognize as Revenue in 2023 but you haven't spent any of it yet so that's what that big increas is there um so just know that that large fund balance number it's restricted for certain things it's uh not all extra money this year your special Revenue funds those are your funds that have a specific purpose for examp example the recreation fund the license center fund that have specific revenues going into their operations and then Debt Service is the service of your debt and capital project funds that is the capital projects that the city enters into during the year and it is quite normal for expenditures and revenues to mismatch in those funds so some years you might see big increases and some years you might see big decreases um next up I have a general fund budget performance if you look maybe three rows down revenues over expenditures comparing budget to actual you can really see that the public safety Aid was the primary component of um being off from budget general fund balance this um as you know the city needs to retain reserves in order to meet cash flow and future spending and the city has a fund balance policy targeting keeping 35 to 50% of annual expenditures for cash flow purposes this year um your working capital amount came in at about 8.8 million which is right within your policy the presentation that we have here includes both your general fund and your cash Reserve fund so the numbers might look a little different um than your presented internally but for financial statement purposes this is a presentation that's required um next up I have governmental funds Revenue so these are your governmental funds your Revenue year-over-year you can see it's pretty consistent with prior years last year there was a flip in intergovernmental Revenue which is your green bar due some due to some of the federal funding but pretty consistent with historical averages then we have our water utility the bar is your operating expenses and the line is your operating Revenue I know the city's worked hard to line up you utility charges to cover expenses um and that Gap that you see between the operating revenue and the operating expenses is really important to help you cover future Capital needs um so historically you've been pretty close to that operating expenses bar and it's nice to see that jump there to help cover those future Capital requirements water fund cash flows um the water fund has had a deficit for a while even if you look back to 2020 and it looks like there's a positive cash balance at the end of the year which is that bottom line number there was really some Bond proceeds in there creating that positive amount um looking from 22 to 23 the cash balance has improved significantly which relates to that increase in operating revenues good news in that regard next up we have the sewer fund uh the bar on here again is operating expenses and your line is your operating Revenue um and there's that healthy gap between expenses and revenue to support your future Capital then we have the golf course um Recreation facilities traditionally are hard to support themselves it is not unusual if you see here the operating expenses exceed your operating Revenue um that's pretty normal for recreation facilities next up Storm drainage we have um operating Revenue well above operating expenses and finally solid waste recycling um we've got two lines here the green line for operating revenue is your really charges for services and that purple line operating Revenue plus grants accounts for a county grant that the city gets on an annual basis which really contributes to operations you can see there's a healthy gap between those operating expenses and operating revenue and my understanding is the city's saving for cards is that correct um so that gap's needed to help fund those future purchases that is all I have today as far as audit results and summary financial information but I'm happy to answer any questions if there are any questions uh for the auditor for the financial staff Council Sher um thank you for that um and I know there's a lot more detail behind all of this you know I do want to make sure we um touch on um what our um resident had asked about the fee schedule because you are showing the funds um and the difference between the expense and the revenue say with the um you know storm and the water and the sewer do you make any recommendations or look at if that Gap is too big or too small you know if we noticed that actual results were not in line with policy um or not in line with expectations it's something that we would talk to City staff about but making recommendations on the actual fees themselves is not within the scope of the audit thank you for that you have a follow or another question different question different go okay um actually I have a lot of detailed questions which I think maybe what I'll do is submit them to finance and then but if there are some questions that um need to be answered by the auditor I assume um anyone on this council could contact you directly oh absolutely please do um like I said Council andway communication with you is an important part of the auto process so please feel free you know after the meeting tonight or at any point to reach reach out to us directly good because I have a lot of technical questions and I'm G to spare everyone that that for tonight thank you other other questions for the auditor or staff I I did just want to follow up on the fee schedule specifically and this is definitely a question for the staff not for the for the auditor but so hopefully hope I'm not putting you too much on the spot can you talk a little bit about uh the process that the city goes through when we're looking at our various fees and the involvement maybe that the finance department has and any of the analysis that's done internally to try to try to figure out what is appropriate for those fees I might and that's not user fees for utilities but definitely fees for other purp I might be able to answer that because um uh for the most part U we uh organize that uh through Administration as far as um fees so each year all departments look at their fees to make sure uh that the fees being charged uh cover our costs and you'll see some incremental cost in some fees by very few dollars just to you know capture that if we have fees that we don't need to have anymore or uh we find it too expensive we'll drop them oftentimes there's new things that we create because of some regulations that we need to create fees on so this is an annual review that Al department heads go through go through and look at it and then bring it forward through the administration um Bring It Forward for your Council conversation and approval great miss petrick anything else to add with regard to the utility funds those are analyzed separate of the fee schedule they are not contained in the direct annual fee schedule we have a outside firm come in and assist us with establishing our rates and charges um we've had the updates done every two years we're in the process of examining what the rates should be um we look at operating cost we look at Capital costs we look at the current CIP we utilize inflation factors and we will be presenting recommendations this fall with regards to the water sewer and storm water funds and we also do factor in the reserve policies that we currently have um specifically for operations but then industry standards with regard to Capital reserves the proprietary funds are One Fund so they have to cover both got it thank you and I appreciate that and definitely it's good to know that there sort of there is a process for utility fees which we've talked a number of times about and then there's also a process for uh other types of fees which is like your building permit fees and and license fees and obviously some of that comes from the state uh but then other internal like our hotel license fees and things like that okay thank you again for that hopefully that's helpful for the public and with that if there aren't other questions for staff or the auditor we are being asked to to uh do a motion to accept the 2023 audit and financial reports so moved second all right it's been moved by uh council member m gra seconded by council member Scher uh discussion on that motion council member gra is the maker the motion no just thank you for the report and I thought it was very thorough and I I like the notes would explained it in a simple way without having to read through that large book in total detail which council member showed her did but she'll have questions for you later and as the secondary council member showed her discussion actually believe it or not I enjoy going through that detail I know so no I you know the main thing is to have that clean opinion and that that's the key thing with an audit any other discussion on the motion right and I realized I didn't provide for an opportunity for public comment is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak to the uh audit yes welcome can you you you have to come up to the uh sorry about that but we've got the audio system here yeah which isn't working real well I have to say Okay um is it is it too loud for the people in the audience not loud enough okay so you're not hearing what we're saying or what they're saying I had to pay a whole lot of attention especially to the gentleman here voice I all I would like to Cynthia white Roseville resident I'd like to know if council member Schroeder's questions to the auditor will be public I think as as Communications of the city they're certainly requestable uh by members of the public as data requests I I think it's up to the asker and answer of the questions if they want to proactively make them public so I we'll leave that to those individuals to decide I'd like to see what you ask the a yeah I'd be happy to um um just some background um Cynthia's been at when I was on the finance commission she was pretty much at every meeting so she's kind of the same level I'm at when it comes to this this nerdy Financial stuff so I'd be happy to um share my questions I am a nerd um but it really comes from a as a resident when I submit question questions to you guys they're they're public and so it seems fair to me that questions you know that involve City business particularly with contractors is also public that's mostly where they sure and and just to be clear when you submit questions they're only public if somebody makes them public they're they're fair enough yeah so we're not necessarily just releasing all your questions out as a news release to the Press every time or anything like that but but certainly that's the process is that that is publicly available data thank you this would be a why don't you um send me your email don't have it well I I want to make sure it's the same one yeah we can do that offline so please do yeah all right thank you nobody else from the public who wishes to speak all right uh we've got the motion before us uh all those in favor once again of accepting the 2023 annual financial report signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously thank you everyone that then brings us to another uh Financial matter this evening which is to receive our first quarter budget amendment and financial report and for that we've got our finance director Michelle Petri back up with us evening welcome Miss Petri so normally the quarterly Financial treatment goes on consent however we are doing a budget amendment which um the city hasn't done for several years um so we thought we would discuss it discuss it during business items um and if I can open this all right there so when we did the 24 budgets we had a line item for contingency which was in the general fund because at that point in time we did not have the full implementation of the compensation classification study and so this the first budget amendment is allocating the contingency to because it was designed for the tax supported funds and so we've run the numbers through the Personnel but budget for 24 and Parks and Recreation Personnel expenses increase is 78,3 40 Communications increase is 17,330 so the expenses increase but the property taxes also increase and they're moving from the general fund in the general fund you can see the administration elections Finance police fire Public Works Administration streets and um garage all of those divisions the Personnel costs are increased and um the contingency slash property taxes was already in the general fund um this also included settled um Union contracts in the police department in the case of the non- tax supported funds we are increasing the expenses for personnel costs there is no tax impl implication um the revenues that were budgeted Within These funds should be sufficient to cover these increased expenses and if they aren't sufficient at year end there are sufficient reserves within those funds but based on the current analysis it appears revenues will be sufficient to cover these increased costs by more than the increases in some cases uh so that's the first budget amendment um that we propos the second one is for the BCA Grant funded police investigator the council approved um accepting the uh funding back in January um and what should have occurred was a budget amendment when that came before the council because we will be receiving revenue and we will be expending dollars for the specific investigator which weren't part of the 24 budget which is why if we don't amend the budget we could theoretically look like we're overspending the budget and also re receiving more Revenue than anticipated so this is kind of the best practices that most cities do um occasionally go through um for these types of um situations so with that if you have any questions uh questions for staff Council Sher everybody's looking at you I asked my questions earlier okay can you you send them to Cynthia actually she answered it all right there very good well with that uh we'll certainly open it up for public comment as well if there's anyone from public who wishes to speak to uh this uh budget amendment proposal right seeing no one uh then we've got the request before us to I I'm just double checking to see if it was single resolution or was it multiple action single resolution for all of the required actions all right so we've got that resolution attachment one in the packet that's the requested action so I moved second good all right I'm G make sure I put this in the right spot right it's been moved by Council M gra seconded by Council M schroer to approve that uh resolution attachment one under this item in the uh agenda which will adopt and approve those changes and amendments to the budget discussion on the mo council member gra as the maker not so much that but I did appreciate the the U Notes you put in because some of this is very helpful to know that you know uh State AIDS are received in May September and October so that funds going in and out are at different times and that explains a lot of the variance in our over the calendar year for us right uh Council Scher is the Secor right other discussion and I think that's exactly the the thing that you have to note is that a lot of times uh we have to we we can't just wait till we get the money from other sources to pay our people they get paid on a weekly or bi-weekly basis regardless and we have to pay our bills within 30 days by state law so uh those charges keep happening and and despite the fact that we don't have the revenue coming in and which is one of the reasons that we have our policy to have a nice healthy Reserve to cover the cash flow so appreciate that with that we've got the motion once again to adopt the resolution uh approving the amendments to the 2024 budget all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously that those that resolution is approved those amendments are approved uh that then brings us to um item d uh which is to uh consider approval of a commercial police officer agreement with the Rosedale Center and the City of Roseville for 2024 to 2027 and uh this is so substantial that we' we've got the chief and the deputy chief here with us this evening uh and we appreciate you being here uh to br this item before the council this evening welcome good evening uh thanks for allowing us to come and uh present on this really important um contract that we're excited to be bringing forward we didn't put together any kind of formal presentation I'm just going to do a quick kind of overview of how we got to this point and then we just wanted an opportunity to open it up for any questions you might have quick history is when I started over 25 years ago we had a commercial Patrol unit just over time and and needs and allocation of resources that kind of went by the the Wayside but the last 10 years we've really been looking at how we can get commercial Patrol back especially as we've seen some of the challenges that our retail centers are facing uh when rosale built the additional AMC or the theater and started adding on the Plaza we definitely saw an increase in just the types of calls that we were seeing at the mall fast forward to when they put on the new edition of the Von and some of the other businesses we are also started to see uh more calls for service and just a drain out our overall resources and this by no means is rosedale's unsafe Place we've just found that over the last especially probably over the about the last five six years retail centers have just become a place where you do have to worry about things like active shooters or people with weapons and car jackings so again this is not something just impacting our community uh Rosen stale is a very safe place but just across the country we're seeing some new challenges um with our retail centers really starting back in 2019 we said down um with Lisa Crane and the management to talk about what can we do to address some of these spikes that we were seeing had some great conversations going and then the pandemic hit and everything kind of went on the back burner there was obviously a lot more going on with the uh pandemic and also civil unrest so kind of push those uh conversations to the side and then you fast forward to 2022 and that's when we are really starting to see kind of concerning and violent um things happening at our malls we had a couple car jackings we're seeing shootings across the country and so really engaged with uh rosale Center again like what can we do differently I'll give a lot of credit to Lisa crane the vice president there she's like we need to get officers in here they were concerned they didn't want to wait until there was a big story in Roseville and so they've been hiring Off Duty Officers um in the short term to really address and partner with the retailers and it's not just about having more police officers there it's partnering with the businesses it's part partnering with the management and just being a resource uh to the security department that um has remained so as we moved forward with the off duty they really saw some positive results the crime started to go down they heard from their retail uh managers that people felt safer just a lot of positive things and so that's how these conversations started of how do we make this long-term sustainable and so uh about a year ago they came back to us that they were willing to fund two police officers uh to be dedicated to the mall at that time our staffing levels were a little bit challenging and so we said hey let's continue on with the off duty until we're in a better place that I feel that we can actually make that commitment and so that's why we're bringing this forward um here today and kind of how we got to this point just a few things that have been highlight in the contract obviously there's a lot of detail in the RCA but just a few things to highlight for the council rosale Center would fund two the majority of the expenses with the two dedicated officers they would be covering the salary benefits and the vehicle there are some minimal costs that the police department will have to incur and we believe that we can um with our existing budget some forfeiture funds and possible some possibly some donations fund some of the other things to make this happen things like the vest and the gear that these two additional officers would need um our plan would be to assign two experienced officers so we wouldn't be hiring for these positions a brand new officer you really need some experience to jump into this so we would post it and then we would backfill two new officers uh to come in it's also important to note that there's no City obligation to continue these after the end of the agreement our hope is it's so successful that rosale wants to continue or that we might be able to find grants but there is no obligation that if rosale decided they didn't want to continue um that the city would need to uh continue these uh positions right now we would project that September of 2024 is when we would start this agreement um Council has made some great investments in our CSO our interns and we've kind of got we've done a really great job at recruiting and looking ahead we believe that in September of 2024 so in a couple months now um we will be at our authorized strength which I will tell you across the Metro is really rare um we still have a lot of departments that are really struggling we're pretty comfortable where we're at and that's why we're bringing this for forward and then just one other thing to note is um to clarify these officers aren't going to replace security guards that's not their role um we would be responding to Crime we're seeing a lot more just violent um behaviors with with shoplifters so it's those kind of things that hopefully we can deter also focusing on the retail groups that are hitting across the country that literally come in and just clean out stores in a matter of minutes so it would not take on a security role where we're enforcing Mall rules rules but really focusing on violent crime a deterrence and being a partner to our businesses and obviously there's a lot of benefits to our community probably the biggest one is the officers that work that District now can focus on the the other businesses and the residential areas instead of always being kind of brought back to handle things at Rosedale this gives them dedicated resources and frees up our other officers to uh respond and also just that familiarity to be able to have officers that know that mall they know the staff really is a lot of benefits uh for that unfortunately Lisa crane could not be here tonight uh she was sick so I know she was planning to be here but I just want to say she has been a tremendous um partner and really has been instrumental in getting this going um when we first started talking back in 2019 um in my 25 years I think this is probably the best relationship that we've had with rosale and realizing we all have to partner together you know police can't just arrest our way out of this situation we need everybody coming together so just a shout out to her um I was going to say that she wouldd be here to answer questions but I dragged Joe Adams up here as well he's been working closely with her on kind of uh going through this contract but either Joe are I happy to answer any questions that you might have well thank you uh for bringing this forward and for all the work that it took to get to this point um and for uh being thoughtful about how how it works with our staffing levels and and things like that I know that has been definitely a challenge uh as you noted across the the industry so to speak and certainly in the metro area here so very much appreciative of that are there questions from Council Members for uh staff Council M St thank you I've noted that um there are often cars U police car squads especially on the U movie side out on the perimeter um is that someone who normally patrols that area and would they maintain that presence even with the two officers inside rosale are affiliated specifically yeah so it it there are some days where it might be the officer assigned to that District that you're seeing we also have um we allow for the exterior person that's working the exterior perimeter that rosale pays for okay they do have use of a squad because we need that equipment the defibrillators everything that the computers and so there is typically a squad that's present at the mall that's paid for by rosale Center this would replace those off-duty officers that are there now we do Envision that there's still going to be some off-duty work for instance Apple hires off-duty officers um inside their store so they're actually paying for a dedicated officer uh not a squad car but just an officer to be present those will continue but the off duty that Rosell has been paying that funding is going to go to dedicating two officers thank you and can you just speak to your um rebound and Staffing and um what you attribute that to um obviously it's a big change compared to other agencies in the area I'm going to let Joe take that one because he I think the majority of his day is spent recruiting and working on a retention effort so he might have some insights and that I can chime in yeah thanks Chief thank you council member Sean for that question and we've been extremely fortunate and I think a lot of it the chief had already mentioned has been direct support of you all were trying some Innovative things within our Police Department that a lot of people are catching on to do now uh but we were an early I don't know if you want to call it recognizer of the fact that our candidate pool just in the general realm was dwindling and so we knew we needed to try something different and get on the front end of it and it was at that time um that we worked with you all on increasing our budget and Staffing in our csos starting to pay our interns I thought that was really big piece and we were actually really Innovative in that just recognizing that previous internships when You' work for free not everybody can do that and we were attracting a certain type of candidate which was fine but as we wanted try to diversify our Police Department uh that was a huge piece of it now when we get students in as interns they then want to become our csos and when our csos work for us they now want to become police officers and so we almost call like a a farm club like a baseball team where we're growing our own and it's finally coming to fruition now where in the next uh four months we have four different people that were interns then csos then Cadets and now become police officers and so the candidate pool has not really gotten much better in fact I think it's gotten worse but we found a way to develop our own employees um and again that that took some financial support some outside the box thinking um from Chief from you all from from Pat and we're we're extremely thankful for it and it is paying off huge huge thank you uh council member grth um just a couple of things I want to be clear on the rosale center is committed to instructing the police substation there and that'll be used by our officers that are stationed there and also a vehicle is that correct from my reading of the report so those will be covered by them um I think that everything else in here pretty self-explanatory I didn't have any other questions I wanted to make sure that was correct thanks and kudos for that being ahead of the game on finding off finding people into put into the pipeline that was brilliant council member SCH um yes thank you for the presentation and actually I have talked to the management at um roale and I have actually been impressed what Partners they are U working with the city of course with your department and so I'm really pleased that they're willing to do this and I too had been looking at that car originally and it was nice to see that they're willing to pay for that as well I mean to have another vehicle is is is going to be really nice I I really support this idea I think this is a wonderful thing I think um Rosedale is a big big draw for Roseville and we want to make sure and and keep that safe U my question is would you be giving us some updates as it goes along to how it's going um you know so we understand if it's working well or or if the crime's going down or or I mean so I we have regular updates is my question yes we absolutely can and I know was planning to be here tonight to even talk to some of the success we've seen in the last couple years but absolutely we can make sure that you that we're coming back to council with updates perfect thank you other questions Council Bron um I have a question about the two officers would they be rotating their shifts they're not on at the same time is that correct or are they on the same time at just higher interest times that's a great question and we've been speaking with not only rosale but our police officers because we want to make sure that's an attractive Place uh for the officers to be too and that's been some of our discussion is obviously if we say you're going to have to work every single weekend there's going to be no officer that's going to want to do that and so it will be a variable shift where uh they will work together sometimes but but not other days too because obviously rosit wants us to expand our coverage with those two officers uh but there is some foot patrols and things that you're able to do uh with two officers that you simply cannot do with with one uh but that specific schedule has not been laid out yet just with the general understanding of the officers aren't going to want to work every single week and aren't going to want to work by themselves every single time but we'll find some middle ground in there to be most effective for for both entities right thank you and reassurance that rosale is maintaining their security at the same level though that team isn't changing correct yes I'll just add they really have the last couple years really invested in their security over there good um since we started these conversations in 2019 it really has been a really strong partnership and they really have um I think they're really committed to making sure that rosale stays a safe place for people to visit and to shop so and I think that really is Lisa Crane's uh leadership over there so just want to call that out they they've really stepped things up I really appreciate because the last time I was on a I guess it's been a few years since I was on a ride along we spent a lot of time there and I don't think that partnership was where you're talking about right now so that's great to hear I want to point out a few things that I really appreciate in the contract um the probably the most important one is as we've talked about concerns about Staffing and excellent work on on your part to bring forward programs um and to find uh find new officers for us or grow your own program but the Clause allowing us to pull back officers if we drop below minimums for what we need to do to serve the broader community so I really appreciate that and I appreciate that this person is going to be in that partnership role trying to work to improve safety and secur within the mall with individual stores and things that that we can have some proactive element to this and so we're not easy targets and things that so I appreciate that that is part of this agreement right um I just and I was thinking about how or whether to ask this question but I'm going to anyway because maybe we need to put some folks on the spot um are there other shopping centers within Roseville that have either currently or are looking at similar types of Arrangements either to what we've been doing with uh rosale prior to this or something like this uh can you speak to that at all without obviously giving away negotiation Secrets or anything like that no I I will say we have seen more off duty requests coming in more than we can even sta I think you know a lot of stores are really struggling they're seeing an increase in violence I just talked to another retailer who had an assault of their um loss prevention officers in the last week and we're really concerned so so we're trying to partner with them um I know there's a lot of stores a lot of uh retail centers that would just love to hire a police officer but we don't have the Staffing right um to be able to do that and so we're trying to work with them what steps can they take to improve their business so that they don't need to hire an officer and qu it gets really expensive for a lot of these retailers they can't afford sustainable uh coverage the way that rosale did for and like uh large retailers like Walmart and so we're really trying to be a resource to these businesses and give them the tools certainly stepping up our patrols and working with them um so those are ongoing and that's open to any of our businesses that are experiencing you know significant losses or they're having trouble with with theft we've got our community action team that will go out and actually meet with them on things that they can do um and also our community relations Tom pittle there's a lot you can do besides putting a security guard or a police officer at the door and so we're happy to work with any retailers that want to try to improve um the safety of their store well perhaps as you were saying because of this arrangement with rosale that also frees up resources to do those types of things elsewhere in the community and certainly the need is there I think that you know as as you know we had heard from a CEO of one of the uh um stores in Roseville and and he had he had reached out to a number of the leadership in the in various communities in Twin Cities that he had recently visited and and he was hearing from his employees how unsafe they felt as it employees in that retail environment and and so I think it's important that we're we're you know being that resource but also being effective in how we can most effectively help help these these businesses and and their customers so appreciate that and and hopefully this this just helps um with that I would check if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening this proposed arrangement with rosale anyone from the public right seeing no one once again we've got the request before for us to prove entering into this agreement with rosale for the two officers as outlined uh is there a motion from the council move second right it's been moved by council member Scher second by council member Bratton to enter into that agreement or authorized entering into that agreement discussion on the motion as the maker council member schroer I just think it's a great thing I'm really happy we're doing this and as a seconder I agree all right other discussion on the motion all right I know we've covered a lot already in our discussion this evening so thank you everyone thank you uh and with that all those in favor of approving entering into that agreement signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously look forward to getting that underway thank you again uh that brings us to our our next business item item 7e which is to uh return to discussing uh the kids in need Foundation State bonding request uh and this is an item that was before the city council uh at our last meeting I believe it was and we had asked for some additional information uh in order to uh consider this item and so I'll turn it over to city manager Pat trean to bring that to us and uh introd reintroduce this to us for consideration uh Mr Mayor um just brought to my attention that the SEC there's a second motion as far as that last case to do the budget amendment uh for this um we just talked about that previously take now it's in the RCA yeah see our finance director is like where is my budget amendment so time time out on uh on this item and we'll return back to that the second requested item the uh approval of the budget amendment related to the agreement with rosale is there a motion on that item so moved second it's been moved by Council mayor gra uh second by councilor St discussion on that motion no hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously and the budget amendment is approved Finance director can relax at least on that topic yes all right that's then brings us to the uh to Mr Tron telling us about the information that we've got uh to supplement what we had at our last discussion related to the kinsen need Foundation State bonding request and uh the city's role in that regard Mr J thank you uh Mr Mayor for the introduction here and as you mentioned we did talk about it at the April 22nd meeting and uh there were some questions and some additional information that the council wanted to uh learn about and uh our City attorney Rachel TI along with her colleagues I believe miss toer and miss erini uh helped put together this quite lengthy uh memo but very important memo uh talking about the obligations for the city um and um what would be involved and what would be possible ways to um U mitigate maybe some of the risk or the concerns that were raised and talk about a pathway uh moving forward I know I have uh Miss Fiorini joining us by uh Zoom if you have any qu particular questions um I don't have an exact presentation about all the particular details of what it is but suff as to say that there are obligations for the city uh to take on with this there are Pathways uh that are outlined that would um allow us to do that and which mean going into a lot of side agreements with whether it's Kids in Need foundations or other Consultants to help us uh with that I think uh even with that though there's still um a large amount of time City staff would have to spend over the years um monitoring the situation doing reports and making sure everything uh is done prop properly so with that I will pause to see if our collection of City attorneys have any any followup um to say anything uh and or um just go into questions and I know representatives of kid and need Foundation are here as well okay we will start with questions from the council for uh staff or or our legal representation on uh the information that's been presented and I did want to note as well that I think one of the things that was asked about uh at our last discussion was other cities experiences um in similar arrangements and I know uh Mr TR you you had indicated that you had attempted to to do some Outreach at the recent recent City Managers Association meetings and and didn't have a lot of new information to provide in that regard that's correct nothing that um they could uh explain to me um during our our meetings here to really get into into any depth um I do know um our city attorneys Law Firm Kennedy and Graven represents a lot of these cities so they could probably speak to it a little bit better but it did try to outreach in uh thinking any new information okay no I just wanted to acknowledge that because I know that was a specific uh request that the council had had um so to that extent certainly if uh if our attorneys can can address some of that that would be helpful as well and I see Miss Tyne is uh probably the person who's been working with some of those communities and can provide some of the Insight in that regard it's a different chair um feels weird here um I did check with several colleagues you know I will say one of the differences in in the um the attorneys that I spoke with the city attorneys that I spoke with was that a lot of times it had been a Cooperative effort to to solve a problem between a nonprofit and the city so that it's just a unique situation where you've been proposed with a with an idea as opposed to being evolved at the front end of the idea um but with that said most of the cities were were willing participants and and not not um not didn't have as many of the concerns um that this Council has but um and I'm sure Gina can weigh in as well um the other thing that I'll say is is um well I'll leave it at that the other cities didn't didn't examine as much as you have about the full implications um didn't look at the front end about what are the requirements of the state law and do that full examination until later in the process and um they ultimately many of them ultimately did Agree to Agree to continue with the process right and and and specifically I think one of the things that that comes to mind is is as Mr Tron sort of alluded to is some of the um staff work that needs to be done to you know regardless of whether we use attorneys to help with agreements or Consultants to help with construction management or some of those things some of the compliance does require our own staff time to make sure things are submitted properly and and we have an annual uh requirement I think to approve a budget uh by the city and so that's that'll be Council time uh in in a meeting whether that's a consent item or whatever it might be so there's some of that and I don't know to what extent those communities have expressed anything about their experience in terms of the the burden on staff uh either Miss Fury or miss tyy or um anyone um Mr Mayor I can speak a little bit to that you know I would agree with what Rachel said I think many of the projects I've been involved in or or our firm has been involved in it's been a real partnership so you know the staff time or the budget time it might have been more of a a Cooperative type of project to begin with where you know the city and and the nonprofit are sort of doing something together so um you know I don't think I have any specific feedback about you know how much spec staff time it took specifically um okay I appreciate that thank you other questions from Council Members I didn't mean to ask all questions uh council member Aton and then thank you to our entire legal team for being here we might be missing somebody okay well three wonderful people um thinking about the the long-term implications uh maybe more than the the yearly implications um part of the RCA the request for ccial Action here um and your letter Miss tyy talks about um the ability to sell the property if the if kids in need foundation in this specific case uh ceased to exist or couldn't meet the obligations um set out by the state um that the property can be sold and that the first part of the money goes back to the state for that but the next paragraph says to make sure that potential future buyers or lenders of the facility are the where the limitations imposed and seems suggest that let's say we're 20 years in we're supposed to go to 30 to 40 we sell it at 20 years does the property whoever buys it next still have to use it for that even though the state has been paid back I'm reg Gina on this question Mr Mayor members of the council I I think you know if if the nonprofit ever goes out of business there's you know there's still a long-term lease and a long-term declaration recorded against the property that it has to be used for these purposes for 125% of the useful life you know so we're talking probably somewhere between 40 and 50 years here and I think at that point I mean it's important to remember that the city's interest is a ground lease so what we're talking about selling is really your ground lease interest long term and um I think if the nonprofit goes away you know there'd be a number of things the city would need to do I think that you know the first thing is you know trying to find someone else to sort of operate that governmental program what you got the money for and I don't know if that you know is going to be possible and then at that point you know it's probably going to take some conversations with the state of you know we can't find anybody else that's sort of doing something similar and then at that point you know I think the city would need to make a finding that maybe the property would no longer be able to be used for the governmental program again with the state support and then at that point you would be um you know going through the process with the state of potentially selling the property and they at that point would potentially be willing to Mo remove that declaration um as well I will say that I think if we're in a workout situation here if the nonprofit goes out of business I think there's you know the nonprofit might also have a lender on this property that's going to have an interest in how this all works out so I do think there might be some uncertainty in multiple parties that probably um would need to be satisfied at at that point and and again you know I think MMB will be very heavily involved they have their own requirements and their own process that you know they want to go through when when a project is sold so I think it I think there would be you know some complexity but I do think the option would be there that it would be able to be sold to you know for a different use um if there's really sort of nowhere no way way no way forward okay again sorry just one more one more Point too a reminder that you know if it is sold you know the city's likely not going to be getting any money from that sale it's going to be going back to m&b um you know potentially some of the money is going to be going to the the Lend um if there is one so um you know I think there's a a I think there' be a little bit of question of what money would go where but um you know I don't think the city would get anything from that yeah as long as the city wasn't pain that's I think that's that's the greater the greater concern would be are or do we end up with a a building people continue to work from home you end up with a building that you can't sell um or could we be on the hook for say $2 million to give it back to the state I think that it's probably um pretty unlikely that the state would ask the city itself to repay that full $2 million even though you're sort of in the middle here I think the the state understands that this is a a subgrant type of situation where you're really the middle person so I think that they would be you know if if there's nothing that can be done with you know when you look at sort of the language of the the grant agreement I think they're they're want it to be sold for fair market value and if we're really in a situation where Office Buildings or you know buildings aren't selling and you know maybe the fair market value of that ground leas interest is$ five dollar and that's sort of what you'd be obligated to pay the to pay the state back could they technically perhaps ask you to um repay the grant funds um potentially but I I just I I I don't think they would ask this may maybe they would but they from a politics I think from a politics perspective that they're not going to ask you know City taxpayers to to repay that grant that was meant to flow through the nonprofit okay I'll be quiet for now and just to that point that is for sure I I imagine that the standard agreement for the the grant agreement with the state we probably can't slip a term in there that says oh by the way you know under no circumstances is the city obligated to pay back the grant funds or something like that as much as we might like to okay Mr I'm getting nodding Mr Mayor you're correct um the grant agreement is a it's a state form you know we can try to mark it up with as many things as we want but the answer is usually no this is you know they're they're giving money so they're sort of like take it or leave it thank you for letting me do that followup other questions uh Council mayor St um in followup to that as well um so right now now we're looking at the fair market value of the building and the land is that correct and that's what we're financing is the purchase of the building and the land or just the land no I think I think the bonding dollars the five million from the state an additional five million raised by Kids in Need would cover the purchase of the property and the remodeling uh that they need to do and the improve improvements that you need to do in the property so we have the whole project from the land into the building uh improvements as well to carry out theion so I think this speaks to my concern about the what the physical life of that particular physical building is I don't know about the adjacent building but the one that has been the Department of Education seemed to have a propensity to have its Windows pop out in the last few years if you drive by they just seem to be gone and so I just wonder I don't want want to be having an expectation that the life of this project is 40 years when the life remaining life of that particular building might not be without substantial um Remodeling and upkeep um and so I I think I Echo uh council member edon's concern of this possibility of loss in that in that sale and if we're purchasing a building on a piece of land obviously it has more it generally has more value than if we're just pie purchasing a piece of land so if the building is no longer operable um of course time who knows that might become a more valuable spot I don't know that's our realtor that's that's commercial real EST commercial real estate and I do one other question um what do you see and I think this is for one of the attorneys and either um what do you see is the expectations of our Council to other nonprofits that um that office or headquarter themselves out of Roseville in the situation so if we were to take on one entity who's asked us in this situation when we have many others I mean more than two or three who headquarter themselves out of Roseville does this set a precedent that we would might feel like we're obligated to maintain for other um nonprofits moving forward I might jump in for the benefit of the attorneys and say that that's probably a policy question for the people sitting here to decide as opposed to the attorney I'm sure the attorney's advice is there's legally no obligation if you make a commitment to one entity that you have to make any commitment to any other entity in this regard May council member yes I I don't think that there's any legal obligation to extend this same offer to any other entity for any other project um you may have may feel an obligation you may have pressure but legally I there's no op okay thank you uh council member gra just speaking to that it seems like each situation that would come in would be a different situation asking for different amounts of bond money a different building a different so I think that we can analyze each one of those separately but I was wondering uh if you have any experience or are there any throughout the state where they have gone under where the city has had to repay the bond to the or the amount of money is there any are there any examples where this went down a bad Road members of the of the council i h am not aware of any I am aware of one project where the nonprofit went on a business but it happened to happen before the project actually got built so the grant funds were never expended um one thing um you know just to note about the way these grants work and the way the legislation is drafted here is it does require um the nonprofit to you know to fund raise their own amounts first so theoretically you know the the the goal I think of that the way the state drafts these is so that they know the project is sort of ready to go and at least they the nonprofit has enough funds to complete the project before they'll start dispersing their own State funds and and that's what hap is ha you know happened in the situation I was aware of so there was you know no loss to the city other than the time everyone spent sort of negotiating the documents because um they didn't end up getting everything they needed to get done to get the state money at all so Rachel knows of anything else but that's been my experience I don't know what projects that went upside down but I I certainly do know of of challenges that I've happened during the construction process um making sure the state requirements are met and things of that nature I think that most of the risk to the city actually takes place during that construction process and and resolving those issues generally and I I want to say always those end up being resolved but but that can be a demand on staff time um it can be politically complicated and all of those things that happen um but I think most of the things that go wrong tend to go wrong during the construction process rather than after yep just addressing the construction issue and probably a little bit of what council member St was asking about I from what my understanding is this is going to be a total renovation of the building so I would expect like Windows and installation and all those sorts of things but when will we know those details what's being done and what isn't where does that fall in the process Council council members um I I don't know the answer to that okay I I think generally again this is just the the order of operations here is just a little different than is typical um I would expect that if you were to pose those questions to Kids in Need Foundation they would answer them as best they could they may have all the answers right now okay thanks and there will be that opportunity too yeah um and Council shter okay I have a few questions uh first you talked about some of these cities that have done it what size cities were they were they our size were they bigger cities that took on something like this so I'm aware of um you know I think Minneapolis and St Paul regularly do projects like this um you know I've been involved in sort of mixed um more you know more sort of public private partnership type projects and you know large Suburban communities as well and um you know a couple projects in outstate Minnesota too um but I I think it's sort of it it can vary okay and then um could this be amended and I don't even know if this is an option see if the county ramsy counties took the place of the City of Roseville is that an option could this be amended where they could step in well first of all can they step in or is that allowed and two what would it take to have someone other than Roseville step in Council Members council member Schroeder it it you know I know I can think of a project that both Javan and I are aware of in St Paul where it was originally going to be a St Paul project and then Ramsey County count took it over for a variety of reasons so again Ramsey County gets to choose whether they want to do that just like Roseville gets to choose whether it wants to do that so um yeah Ramsey County would would potentially be an option okay well that's good to know and this is as a little bit of a technical question in your letter you're talking about that the city has to report to MMB annually in a statement swarm between a not to Republic the real prop the real property require to annually review project projected budgets to verify the project revenues and basically it says we have an obligation to reject or inaccurate or unbalanced budgets and then we have to certify it so okay one it seems like do we have to have our own auditor go in and verify that and two what is the consequence if we certify and there turns out to be a uh statement in there that's incorrect or this ends up not being a correct um audit yeah is a practical matter the say the way that the city would manage that is you would require Kids in Need Foundation to hire an outside auditor that would go through all of that paperwork and certify that for you so you would you would look at it but you would be more of a rubber stamp of of their work um I don't know what MMB would do if they found an error in what have been approved I don't know what level of scrutiny they apply to What city's certifi okay and the last one is just a comment um I think this is what um um council member graph talked about is others haven't had the opportunity to um come forward and so you know just these guys are the first one to ask and in in place but we didn't have a process to figure out should we allow others to if we were going to do this how would we do it and how would we determine who would be the ones we'd want to Finance on this so I'm a little you know I'm not so sure how many would want to do this but um that it gets down back to if other if we do this then what about the other people coming on saying well what about us we didn't get the opportunity to even compete for that so so that it's it's more of a comment but I'm yeah that is a concern I have so well just to be clear on one thing they wouldn't it's not this isn't a competition situation where somebody else is you know not getting that this because kids in need in this case they are the ones that made the request to the state and the state is considering their requests so the question would be is the policy question about City you know do we want to do these how many do we want to do do we have criteria if we're making a choice do we need to have a criteria and all those things which I think we'll have to have that conversation about uh but it's at least we're we're thinking about that uh before I recognize council member at I did want to ask a couple of Fairly technical questions just to help me understand the process because as we know we have to do first of all the agreement with MMB the grant agreement between us and them then we have the lease agreement with kids need Foundation uh to establish that ownership interest it's I think it was called the ground lease um we can't charge rent on that that's just it's sort of a it's a paper transaction essentially then there's the lease back in the management agreement and I wasn't 100% sure in that if there is a financial transaction part of that where uh kids need Foundation would be paying something to the city as part of that uh lease and management agreement other than perhaps the management cost the costs of the Management Consultant or whatever that might be can can can that be clarified a little bit to make make sure I understand what that Financial aspect of that agreement would be Mr Mayor and members of the council uh the Lee and management agreement or or what the state often will call a use agreement um the the city really can't charge any sort of fees for its services under that agreement um I think that you could the the way the state's written requirements are are if you look at sort of their use checklists for what can be in these contracts say that it can only be sort of operate uh operations and maintenance expenses can be charged I think what the city could do is charge some sort of separate administrative fee at the beginning um to try to cover some of your staff time um you know we need to make sure that MMB is comfortable with that um I'm I know I'm aware of one other city that does that but you know lots don't so we know we want to make sure m&b is okay with that but I I think what you would do is you know just sort of charge a fee at the beginning rather than an ongoing fee all right but specific to the construction management part of it is that something that would be part of this agreement or is that yet another agreement where those costs would be correct I think you would have um required them to hire a construction management um consultant and I think you know what Rachel was mentioning as well we put Provisions in the agreement where it says that you know they'd have to have an um auditor review sort of their budget information so the city can make sure that any financial information it's receive it's you know it's comfortable relying on it and any sort of other you know technical requirements that we'd want them to comply with okay so it's it's the things that we can charge back to Kids in Need for for those types of costs where that would be incorporated into this lease and management agreement or use agreement and maybe potentially depending on what it is yet another agreement or is that is it all pretty much encompassed into this that uh use and management or lease and management agreement Mr Mayor I think we could include it all in one certainly it'd be simpler to have fewer documents sure sure no and I definitely agree with that um and then do we know there was some comment in the memo about whether this is an end Grant or if it's a construction Grant and they kind of there's a different level of what the city has to do in terms of making requestment for requests for dispersements as opposed to sort of it just kind of is more like one payment at the end it sounded like um do we know what this one is I couldn't find in the legislation any language that told me that and we may have to get that clarified by others who may know Mr Mayor I am not sure about that kids in need Foundation might be able to answer some of that for us I I do know that the state's general preference is that these are done as end grants because it's simpler from them to only disperse once too sure but certainly I've seen them done as you know multiple draws as well all right thank you for clarifying that too that was the question I had council member Aton yeah I one more question about here we have this thing that I've never heard of but that doesn't mean anything right um how long has this Legal Financial option been available in the state of Minnesota are we're talking five years 10 years 50 years what what are we looking at what's the history on this when we talk about things not having failed before if it's been around for 10 years then we have to count on for 40 it's a you know Mr Mayor members of the council so this has been around for a long time I I don't know how at least at least for as long as I've been practicing uh this Public Finance law so you know 13 years um and I think it's been around before then so where this all comes from is um is in the memo is the Minnesota Constitution has a requirement that um buildings or any sort of anything that's financed with state general obligation bonds has to be publicly owned so this system to allow nonprofits to get um to get access to these State bond funds has been around for a while Rachel might have more of a a historical knowledge than me but um it's been around before I started practicing it's not something new I can't put a DAT and St Paul have been doing this for many many years Children's Museum Science Museum I think the River Center um we all started this way thank you we have other questions from the council at this time all right uh I do want want to provide an opportunity for Representatives um from kids need who are here this evening uh once again with us uh to perhaps help fill in any information that came up in the questions or or clarify any points that still need clarification we appreciate that uh and if you can just introduce yourselves again and uh and feel free to uh provide insight for us and help us through the process um good evening council members my name is Melissa Reed I'm the government relations professional I'm representing kids of need found um this evening so thank you so much for having us here today mayor council thank you again Cory Gordon CEO of kids and need Foundation right and I don't know if you if you heard anything in our questions and answers and discussion that you wanted to help clarify or any any other information you wanted to add here's your chance otherwise if you want to stand for questions we'll see if we've got some for you no I think um you know I think with the F prior meeting there were a lot of questions and the questions of at least the way they came across to us was really based on the fact that this is new right and so I do appreciate the council looking at it from that perspective sometimes new for some people it's kind of a almost an automatic no and I was concerned that the council will not take it that way but I do appreciate the fact that you all wanted to get expert opinion I did take hearten the fact that the City attorney is the law firm that your City attorney is from represents probably more cities that are involved in the Geo bond process than any other firm so we were uh you know I think took confidence of the fact that you were going to get good expert Council right just and the fact that they have done that and many of the recent bonds as well not just Minneapolis which I think council member you mentioned last week is a different animal or last time was a different animal and you weren't particularly interested in just that case study but you know when you look at St Paul or when you look at Brooklyn Park Rosemont most recently and others you know there are varying sizes to to the question that you asked councilman shorter so I think it's from that perspective the fact that hasn't been done in Roseville before um I guess I can't comment on that in terms of why no other organization would have stepped forward to be part of that and but I think that when that c question came up last time mentioned a lot of it is just how many nonprofits in Roseville are working with the state legislator working with uh to uh to enact a geobond process uh over overall uh city manager mentioned this is a $10 million Allin figure if you will and so we were well understand that five of that would need to come from us if there's an opportunity to go through the Geo bond process and bring State funding we're not asking for City to pay for that we're looking for State funding for that um you know we that is something we're obviously going to look at there aren't a lot of available properties for what we're looking for in the City of Roseville and so this when we first met with the city Last Summer this was actually the property we're talking about was actually surfaced by the city staff uh we received if I remember right I think we received a listing of five different properties for us to look into and research we met with on all five of them and uh I've had I've gosh I've lost track of how many conversations I've had with Steve Wellington both the owner of Wellington but also the current owner of the property on this property and this was again in all fairness was uh surfaced by and the introduction was made by the city of Roseville and so I think that was a good faith effort in the city to say we would like to keep Kids in Need Foundation here this wasn't a matter of us trying to play hard but I was really is practically speaking we need a facility is there one that's suitable the building itself is not the Minnesota Department of Education building just to clarify it's the National American University Building Poetic Justice means that we get to go in where this for-profit University was right so that's the building in question uh there is an extensible monetary model it's not a tear down anything like that situation obviously but for example it's really not designed to do any type of Warehouse or any type of storage type it was it was really cubical farm right and so because you have low drop ceilings well that would not accommodate the type of work we're doing so we'd be taking out the drop ceiling and take it back to kind of the original has some beautiful Windows not the POA Windows the and we'd love to be able to have that for for the teachers you know bring in that uh that natural light it has a lot of classroom space which we would like because part of what we want to be able to do is not just continue supporting the teachers and students in the way we're currently doing we're also looking to incorporate uh some of the Workforce Development aspects that we've been talking to the city I'm sorry you're the city the the uh superintendent from Roseville School District some of the things they're working on what can we do together especially for juniors and seniors in terms of Workforce Development to make sure that they can stay in school graduate but once they graduate have a diploma they can also have a certificate that gives them a a job that's Beyond just you know minimum wage it's living W it's actual living income a livable income it's full-time benefits those types of things and so that additional classroom space that's available there already we would be able to tap into that but 60,000 of it roughly that we estimate would need to be renovated so that way um so the overall bill that we're looking at 10 million that would be funds that we have been setting aside to do some of that construction work are are there any questions from the council for the representatives of kidss and uh council member Aton I think you partially answered I was going to ask as I thought before You' said the National American University piece but a lot of our materials talk about the department of Ed building but they are considered separate buildings so the purchase is only for the property that was National American University and you anticipate using all of that property um correct yes so the well yeah yes or no I mean 60,000 of is for kind of uh uh existing program and expansion of existing the other part of it is for the new program expansion correct some things are future planned use yeah yeah thank you councilman Sher since Ramsey County has done these projects before have you had conversations with them about possibly doing this project we have but really that to be frank that goes back to the question that mayor Ro asked last time was are we looking what are our kind of our contingency plans so we are talking to the city about this particular property if you will uh the only other our kind of backup and backup plans are still within Ramsey County but not within the City of Roseville so so instead of having them be heaviness be contingency they okay yeah okay that doesn't your question earlier that doesn't preclude them being potentially a consideration it's you know we first met with as said last summer with the City staff regarding our plans or our desires and then if I recall I think it was in December that uh the city mayor was city manag was at our location and we talked through the the process and the options for what at that time seemed pretty dwindling quickly in terms of the cash route cash Grant route and so therefore more likely the geobond route um but that was you know with given the the cons conversations if you will had kind of started with the intent of staying within the City of Roseville we've kind of kept that within Roseville if you will council members if I could add just a little more detail and answer a couple of question I also represent the city of BR Park uh the city of St Louis Park um and the city of Cologne at the state capital and I served for 11 years as a government relations uh lead for the City of Minneapolis when we did service a lot of these types of projects and I I certainly understand that Minneapolis and St Paul are not necessarily on the same scale and it's not necessarily an equal comparison but operationally and struct that that process um is the same those those contracts the relationship with the state the annual reporting um I can tell you that Minneapolis does charge a fee of $120,000 um on The Upfront to for that recognition because there is that staff time I'm not sure what other cities charge it could be across the board and where they bake that into a contract I couldn't tell you but I know that that that does exist um and I think also um I think Council Edon mentioned you know who what why hasn't anything failed and how long has this been around and I I think the reason that the use of this partnership U between cities and um large nonprofits has not failed because of the due diligence that's done um on the front end that we're talking about major nonprofit organizations we're not talking about um Fly by nights um ones that are very small um the state really only wants to use General obligation bonds for projects like kids in need Foundation that are considered Statewide assets um and that really do have a Statewide and in our case even even a national impact um so these types of dollars are really reserved for um you know we mentioned the children's uh Museum um the Guthrie is another example um the orid way um uh in Brooklyn Park we have um Second Harvest Heartland um I think St Paul service the Dorothy Day Center so you see cities really stepping up in this space where there is a significant Economic Development benefit a significant communal impact um to really recognize that this is a $10 million investment in the community um and if it can be if we can support you in that and also help you in thinking about you know recognizing that that policy question that that you're talking about you know if you're setting a predent those are policy questions um and they are not ones that that you would be the first to be tackling you know are there budget standards you want is there a certain history is there a certain economic impact that you would want to see um in stepping into this role um for for anyone else who may come to and certainly would be um here to answer those questions as best I can from that kind of previous um support of other council's um experience in this thank you uh council member graph just a couple details so um during during the construction period we're going to be testing when was the building built do you know you don't know uh just because there are things that come up like as vestus abatement uh lead based paint things like that that you know can add quite a bit to the cost so those are a couple little concerns I had the other one I did want to ask you and I know you told us last time but remind us how long your kids in need Foundation has been in Roseville and its history um in Roseville approx well we uh we have a 10year lease so we've been in City of Roseville 10 years prior to that it was you on Cota Avenue okay and um but overall the organization's been around for 30 years 30 years yeah thank you other questions Council mayor St um I do have want additional question we've talked so much about this 35 to 40 years what happens at the end of that term who what changes if anything about the ownership of the building and the relationship between the city and the nonprofit that might be a attorney Attorney question yeah but maybe you have that as well m f council members um once the uh 125% of the economic life uh goes away essentially the ground lease that the city would have would automatically expire and then at that point the sort of Declaration that's recorded against the property would go away as well that's an MMB requirement just to make sure that anyone who tries to buy that properties on notice of of the fact that this is State Bond Finance property so at that time the restrictions of the property would would all go away and um the nonprofit would be free to do what it wants with with the property and just to clarify at that point the city has no further obligations Mr Mayor that's correct okay thank you other questions from the council council member I think this is my last one you gave the example of Second Harvest um what is an example from Rosemount or other places what are some of these Suburban examples please maybe perhaps while that's being researched I I can follow up too just in terms of uh the conversations that may or may not have occurred with Ramsey County regarding sort of the plan B uh has that have any conversations along those lines happened in terms of specifically this Geo bond process in Ramsey County or just more generally in terms of potential sites in Ramsey County yeah I think mayor thank you for that question I think that's a two- part answer I think um from a legislative um process and where we are kind of in session and with kids in need foundations lease you know the county is caring caring a lot of um geob bonding requests on their list for the state um including know truck highways and kind of things of that nature and in terms of when you come to comes to a pecking order those are going to come first um and so even if the if the county did agree to be our Fiscal Agent our chances of getting funded would be pretty small um I think because they have a a very large long dance card um of County of larger kind of County infrastructure things that that there risk responsible for and just the way that the legislature looks at the a scorecard for a bonding bill is is very black and white you know the piie is only so big um and if the county is getting X Y and Z for a bridge or a road then it's not getting x y and z um you know for for you know for anything else um and so I think that's a component of it too is that they're they're very overburn and politically and then also um just conf we're here and we want to stay here and we want to partner with the city and have that relationship with the city right and the second part being probably not having had those conversations specific to the geob bonding process with Ramsey County on any other sites plan that so we uh fortunately and thanks a lot to uh the Melissa and her firm uh we have some strong support at the State Legislative level and so if uh you know assuming the Geo bonding bonding conversations continue on after tomorrow's committee session um you know and where whatever the vagaries might the RADS might go from there I mean let's just play it through let's say that the state does approve and we do get a geob bond bill that's passed right but then the city at the end of the day comes back and says you know what the that's not something that we can approve then the recourse for us would be to ask the uh the legislator to amend the the the bond request to for the county to be named as the Fiscal Agent versus the city next year I was just going to say yes exactly that might might be past the end of the session depending on how the bonding process goes absolutely yes gotcha okay so then you're in a little bit of Limbo with your lease being up at the end of this year uh well yes no anticipating the fact that you know kind to your comment last time is you know we don't put all our CH eggs in one basket right is that we have an lease extension in fact uh the land the current nonprofit landlord now and not the New York City private Equity Firm uh is actually anxious is not wanting us to move out quickly because you know it's uh when you negotiate with a New York City pray of Equity Firm it's tough negotiation so our lease payments are very much welcomed today so we do have an extension it's an amicable relationship obviously so we're not in a situation where come December one we're out of space we have actually they've offered a two-year extension if we were to so choose because with the political process being what it is we can't be assured that everything is going to go as per schedule or as per expected so uh we've had to kind of B in some contingency plans okay appreciate that thank you any other questions or more information you oh they answer to the other question right yeah than you Council Mor I have a few of the Cities here but I can send you some more this is kind of a snapshot but just a recent background um I'm on two different pages here so forgive me um the city of Rosemount um Finance the uh Family Resource Center for 450,00 ,000 um North County Food Bank was $3 million that was P County um Scott County did the guild for 1.9 million Second Harvest Heartland we said was Brooklyn Park for 18 million um St Paul American Museum of American art for 2.5 million mcf Center for music was miniapolis so um I can send a a telone a list of that you and that's just the last couple of years of History sure right um any other questions followup right uh thank you again for being here this evening uh and for your help uh in getting through this process and understanding the information uh did you have a a question just had additional comment um there's a lot of um consternation on pastors by of Grace Church on Saturday about what was going on with all those grocery carts so I understand it was a kids in need event that was happening and um I Heard from some very grateful folks who were involved with that so I share that just thank you it a lot of people on Facebook wanted to know what was going on they thought maybe they could just go get a cart and drive ride around the grace church parking lot and whatever was was going to get in that cart they weren't sure but they were really curious so thank you for enjoy a Rel and be able to use the the two properties the parking lots and the space it's U it's our ual thanks a million event where we're supporting where it's just a it's a we call it outdoor Festival the teachers actually refer to it as the state fair for teachers and we call it thanks a million because it's a thousand local teachers each receiving over $1,000 dollar worth of gifts directly for them and so that's the the million but we had 79 companies participating with us both local and National um technically International because we had a company in Canada come down as well and 250 local volunteers Al Al it's and it's this upcoming week is national teacher appreciation week so this is kind of our part if you will of that week and fortunately we have nine of our centers across the country participating so 6,500 teachers supported so thank you we noticing that fact um police department is very supportive as well because we an event like that we have to stage in advance so the police department is also very benef helpful and making sure that everything is goes off so that we can we just we can thank and appreciate a thousand local teachers all right well thank you again um I do want to provide an opportunity for public comment as well so that we always want to make sure we do that if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this would be a chance to do that and maybe if uh you folks can have a seat and relax for a moment and we'll provide that opportunity and then move to council discussion although we may have more questions so don't go too far is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening all right seeing no one then we'll uh proceed to council consideration um so I did want to check one just one thing in terms of entities that can do this we talked a little bit about the county and I think it would be a surprise to them if they were asked to do it at this point because it hasn't been you know on the radar for them uh but that got me thinking also about school districts our school districts eligible to be the local piece of this on these bonding goo bonding funds is are attorneys know that and once again if anybody asked a school district it would be news to them because that hasn't been on the radar yet Mr Mayor uh the legislator have legislature has a lot of authority to sort of say who gets these grants and What entity it is um I don't think it's common for school districts to get these grants but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be okay and that was just a technical question because like I said I don't think anybody's talk to any school districts about it uh but wanted to understand that uh anything else from the council otherwise um I do believe that there is a request well maybe I need to understand that too from a technical aspect do we need to do anything uh to let the legislative process go forward unless we don't want to do this we should probably let the legislative folks know so that maybe that means that that doesn't proceed Mr Mayor if I could yeah I think Kids in Need would appreciate a response if we are supportive of it then they can communicate to their uh legislators that they have lined up uh for the bill and the support support um moving forward yeah certainly if there's not support I think it's important to share that as well um at this point great thank you uh Council how would you like to proceed on this um I think there's you know certainly some policy questions I think there's certainly also the fact that we've got this particular proposal here this evening and or this last couple weeks in this legislative session and how we want to deal with that um you know I think it's not advocating for any Approach at this point because I'm still thinking through but certainly one approach is to say we want to have the policy discussion first before we make any decisions in this particular case you know and I don't know what that might entail but uh but that certainly is something that we have done in past situations that aren't exactly this situation where we wanted to make sure we had some policies in place before we made a decision about a particular uh occurrence uh so that's one uh certainly we can be supportive of or in opposition to our role in this particular case this evening um as well um and we probably want to articulate a little bit why and in that regard as well so U thoughts from the council as to as to how we might move forward and I know this is a tough one because uh we've probably all been muling this through I'll go sure I'm not as concerned about the policy one as perhaps you are because I do think each each one of these is going to be individual when it comes to us so I think we're I don't think I'm setting a policy for like any other group that comes to us it's going to follow these three things that if it has that I'm going to go with it I think each one of them will have to be consider it separately um of course my main concern is of course that we don't increase risk for the city we don't incur a lot of costs taxes but on the other hand you have a long history in Roseville I'd like to see your organization stay in Roseville so I am leaning towards supporting it right now that's that's where I'm at uh with the information that I received tonight other council members kind of want to weigh in and just to be clear I'm I'm not necessarily saying we need to address the policy thing I just know that that's sometimes something that councils have thought about in the past and so I just wanted to put that out there as one of the options if that's where we're at I I could go too I could say you know I I think I think I'm kind of in the same or similar place as council member gra uh I think a lot of the questions about the risk to the city have been have been fairly well addressed uh I think you know certainly there is the cost to the city in terms of Staff time and in terms of some of the some of the for lack of better word nuisance accounting for everything that that has to go back to MMB because of their requirements and you know to a certain degree we can uh especially in this case of construction management we can recover those through uh the the kids need folks and and they can potentially use the grant funds to fund some of that I was interested in and I made a note about the $120,000 fee from the City of Minneapolis I think that's an interesting thing and I would be curious to understand how that works into all this and what it's covering and what it isn't um but that that can certainly help uh you know in terms of making sure that we're covering once again our talk earlier about fees that we have for other things are we covering our costs um and so there may be some ways to deal with that but I I you know so that's kind of where I'm tending right now some of my initial concerns about so the risk to the city and how things unwind if if kids in need wasn't able to continue the program and what you know what is the city on the hook for I think we've got some some understanding that maybe that's not not so much of a concern or that we've got ways to to you know to deal with that um you know I think that we still aren't assured I guess that the the state doesn't have the ability to come back and ultimately get get the bond funds back from the city and that's that's we have to decide I guess the level of risk associated with that and and we'll have to figure that out but that's just some thoughts I know counil BR you had your hand up earlier but maybe you're yeah I I have some things I really don't questions about how much is building you know where where we at with there are things that that concern me um about that I would tend to agree that I think actually be quite difficult to create a policy around this um because the there is so so many unique circumstances that I can imagine um from the building to who is actually going to the legislature to the type of nonprofit it is and the size of their operations and their impacts not only on local community but nationally in several of these cases including kids in KN Foundation um so I I'm not as worried about about that piece I do feel better about our potential liabilities now than I did an hour ago so I'm I'm leaning towards a gentle sure okay noted council member shorter I'll be The Descent here um I actually am leaning more towards not supporting it um you know we talk about strategic planning long-term planning what we try to you know our budgets and what we're doing and we weren't involved with this from the beginning and so we didn't have have this put into our um plan our you know what we're doing staff time um the legal part and all of this and so I just I didn't like the timing of this if we would have had more a longer onramp maybe I'd be more comfortable with this so I guess um having someone else's timeline be the one to make it our issue that you know that that that's a hard one for me too so I guess um I I think the organization does incredible work and that has nothing to do with it it's more just the this whole process and I and I think there's still some unknowns here that um I'm not comfortable with so I'm tending to go to um not supporting it right council member joh thoughts I've also been on a roller coaster I was was a yes and then a definite no and I'm definitely somewhere pendulum swinging back um I think something that's I agree with the policy while it's great to think that we could have a policy because I love policies whereas Robin likes numbers I love policies but I I think they would be each so unique each situation um that I don't know but I do know right now we're in a time crunch and so this is the time time where it needs to be so if we put a policy consideration in there I think we would essentially close the door for this project for this year so I think that would that would be making a decision even if we weren't making a decision um as a licens teacher for another 45 days or so um because I didn't renew my license um the future Workforce Development is extremely important um and I so I do think that does does peak an interest and the possibility having sat through a number of the Roseville Business Council events where the workforce folks come from the high schools uh both in Roseville and in the Moni School District to talk about the importance of that aspect of things and I think you know other cities have um have the Urban League and other places like that where they have those kind of baked into their system we don't really have that here and so that is a unique opportunity to allow them to um be able to expand that and provide something that is more than what our school district has been expected or has the capacity to bring on at that level so I think the considerations yes I still have a lot of concern um about liability um um and being on the hook but at the same time there's kind of got to be that Assumption of positive of intent where we we look at what the aspirations are and um yes the timing is never going to be up to what we want uh for sure um that just comes part and parcel with life but um I think that I'd be more inclined to support this at this point knowing that there are pieces to it that would bring a really unique aspects of um benefit to our city that um without them we would have a kind of a hole we didn't know that was needed to be filled but now that that possibility exists there's that um kind of that musing like okay there's something that really could we could certainly gain and I think knowing that if um an organization has been around has multiple sites across the country and has met so much demand where they are I feel like knowing that at the end of the 40 years if we got that far in the building Still Standing um our obligations significantly they cease to exist and you look at Wilder and other organizations like that who've been you know 40 years we're just getting going so I think we have to hope for positive intent and that their the goal is they will continue to good things for many many years well we've kind of each had a chance to say something I think the next step would be is if somebody wanted to make a Motion in regard to this request what exactly are we saying I don't know that there is a specific it would be essentially a motion to be supportive of the bonding General obligation bonding request of kids and need Foundation well I would make that motion and I'll second all right we've got the motion from council member gra seconded by council member St to uh support the request for General obligation bonding for this project uh from the state of Minnesota for kids and need Foundation uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion Council graph I don't know if there's anything you you wish to add but I don't think there really is I think as far as uh uh council member st's talking about our Strate strategic planning and things like that I think this fits very much into our strategic planning this this fills a gap in what we've talked about of being inclusive in Roseville and including uh more people and uh opportunities so I see this as completing some of our goals um there is some risk to it and that's what we've all talked about but I think tonight I've had enough of those discussed and I feel comfortable with it and as the secondary councel I don't have anything else to say nothing else okay other discussion on the motion no thank you all right um with that we've got the motion before us once again in support of the kids need Foundation uh General obligation binding request from the state of Minnesota uh with Roseville uh serving as a uh essentially I guess the Fiscal Agent outlined in the legislation uh with that uh all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed I all right that passes four to one with council member shorter in opposition uh that uh uh I think concludes this item for now until we see what the legislature does and obviously there will be a whole host of uh legal documents associated with it assuming that the uh the bonding is passed uh the only thing I wanted to note and this isn't necessarily U changing my point of view on this but I the the comment was made about Ramsey County having a lot of bonding requests and where if if the request for this project went through Ramsey County they'd be sort of competing with everything else at Ramsey County I I do remember we have a bonding request before the state legislature to so hopefully we're not uh we're not ruining our chances to get our $750,000 very difficult to get an answer on where that stands to be honest y trying well hopefully hopefully it all can happen all right with that thank you again to everybody from uh kids need for for all the work you do in the community and more broadly as has been noted Nationwide um um and for choosing Roseville initially as a place to be when you had the chance to to make a move at that point 10 years ago um and uh for all of your help in this process to get to this point this evening so we wish you luck in the bonding uh and I look forward to uh probably having to sign a lot of do documents going forward here all right bet right Council we're at 8:00 do we want to take our traditional 8 o00 break or we want to while in yeah we got a long way to break time all right we'll take about a 5 minute break bathroom e e e e e e e e e e e e e right calling back to the city council meeting here we are back from our short break uh and are ready to continue with our agenda uh we've got 1 2 3 four five more items on our business items this evening four of which I believe are all in the same category which is considering presumptive penalties for alcohol compliance check failures uh and we've got our Deputy uh police chief back with us for this item uh the chief uh decided to delegate this one I see um and with that uh welcome back Chief Adams uh and we'll begin with the first uh item under consideration here which is to consider the presumptive penalty for the violation uh for Red Lobster and I'll turn it over to deputy chief Adams our members of the council um apologize up here again I feel like we were getting comfortable with each other in uh in this space but as you know each year the Roso Police Department conducts two alcohol compliance checks for alcohol uh lienes this year the first run of checks were completed on March 23rd and we had a total of five failures for 2024 all businesses with city Liquor licenses were provided a letter advising them the city would be conducting alcohol compliance checks the letter also reminded them on the requirement that all employees must undergo annual approved server training due to the total number of failures I'll provide a brief summary of each incident followed by staff recommendations and I do believe we have some representatives from a few of the restaurants here today so mayor as you mentioned uh Red Lobster is the first we'll go over and on March 23rd a compliance Checker went to Red Lobster to conduct a compliance check while there the Checker ordered a beer the employee then served our Checker the uh the beer without asking for identification the server was issued an administrative citation however our police department has not yet received payment uh as with past practice the seller violation is being transferred to the city attorney's office for further management later provided the necessary training documentation to PD's staff and I will take a moment to say that the um information you received in the in your packet is going to differ a little bit from what I'm going to present today because I have received training uh since then uh so if you guys read it beforehand but uh I did receive training documentation from Red Lobster uh this is Red Lobster's thirdd violation in 36 months it staff's recommendation for Council to issue and administer the presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for on sale license holders for a third violation which is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 and a 15-day leer license suspension all right thank you Chief uh and just a a question on the third violation in 36 months uh can you uh address what the timing was of the previous violations in that period so they had two previous uh failures which were back to back but that was July and then December of 2022 okay so just sort of at the beginning of the three-year look back that we're at right now okay thank you questions for staff uh council member St um could you also remind us what happens if there is a fourth violation yes the for the fourth uh violation per city code the the staff's recommendation I want to make sure I get the the verbage correct but is the revocation of lior license thank you other questions for staff uh council member Aton go ahead there please council member shter oh and and what period of time would that be for um that you would that start over again so you see after four you have um revoking the license but then what period of time would have to go by for it to uh to have the old ones fall off I guess thank you council member schroer and in my time in 20 years we have not had this happen uh I believe that would could potentially be up to council but that probably a more policy question that's not specifically laid out okay is a three year it's a threeyear look back so it's a rolling three years three years if we did a if we did another compliance check later this year and they happen to fail again and the look back 2022 depending on exactly what the date is it may July before they be I believe so I I hesitate to do that in my head because I always make mistakes but potentially that could be a fourth at that point within the 36 months Council M BR um you said that you received training information can you talk about it almost like all the training had not been done before this violation that more people were trained after was I misunderstanding that I apologize if I if I didn't explain it well enough uh I did receive training documentation in a in a timely manner from Red Lobster via em that all employees had been trained before that incident yes y okay all the employees that I'm aware of been I understand that yeah fair enough thank you are there other questions otherwise is oh coun just a quick one how many uh businesses do you check each and when you go out each six months or whatever it is do you check every liquor license in Ros that's correct yep every liquor license in City Roseville on and off soon how many how many is that what's the number do you know I apologize it's probably in the 30s 30s to 40s I'm just wondering proportionately five is a lot out of 30 five is not so much out of 150 right yeah it's not 150 but I believe last time I looked at it which is years ago it was probably in the or 40 range yeah so there's about n or 10 off sale and then we've got a lot of on sale the restaurants right is there a representative of red labster this evening uh feel free to come on up and introduce yourself um and uh make whichever whatever comments you wish to make about this violation okay uh my name is hm I'm the general manager of the Roseville Red Lobster um so that day I was the manager on duty that was working uh um we had gotten a very large tog go order we do some for the University of Minnesota so it's over like a $1,000 order 110 passes we had started about 10: a.m. before we even opened just trying to get all of that ready for the day my bartender came in just a little later he was just getting everything set up before he was going to help me um we had open but I was still just working on that to go order and we do have other practices in place from the previous ones so there's like a daily sign and sheet for all of our servers and bartenders anyone who sells alcohol so all of my servers had signed it that day I took a picture of that right after this had happened just to show they were all ready but unfortunately I did not get to talk to my bartender in position that day about it so as I was still working on that order he was up front and he was the one that sold it um so right after this I already went ahead and put a few things in place before some other things that we're still working on as well so you know for starters I had all of my employees some of their trainings I just had everybody's reset some of them were it felt like a little outdated I think one of the oldest one was like since 2022 so I went ahead I emailed my training at everybody's training reset and we're in the process of redoing that for everybody so that they know what they're supposed to be doing we're still continuing that da daily sign in check for everybody as well little notes that everybody can put in their book as well so that once they open it they see right there in front of them every time they're you know asking a guest for an ID just to make sure that they're doing that and then we also are part of the bars program which is just it's like um a program where um someone of age is coming in just to make sure that we are checking for IDs um so they'll come up to the bar top or take a seat at a table I'm me just ask you know for an alcoholic beverage same thing so you get a red card if you don't ask for an ID or a green card if you do and I have documentation there's only been one before my time um of a red card violation and this started last February so once a month and I did just increase it to twice a month after this this incident as well um but there's only been one violation of that since then um a few of the other things that we are putting into place um is universal carding so we're just going to card everybody just to make sure that they are old enough of age regardless normally we do anyone that's under the age of 30 will ask for identification just to make sure we have signage posted up now um there was already some before but just put up some extra ones by all the POS stations whenever you're ringing something you know hey did you make sure you ID this you know guest before you ring this in or serve this um is another thing that we're doing zero tolerance so all servers know that if they don't ID somebody they will be terminated our previous employee that um did fail this sting he was terminated a couple days later and everybody knows that the same will follow for them if they do not and the bars program with that if anyone gets a red card they'll be given a final written warning and if they were the same employee to fail it twice then they would be terminated as well with that um and then like I said just a daily reminder so what's in their book whenever they're opening it and then a sign in sheet as well too um secondary carding so if anyone's never sure of what to do they're always got to get a manager's verification so just making sure so you know if someone's not too sure if they should I um give this guest a drink just come coming to the manager and asking you know hey is it okay you know will you take a second look at this ID I just want to make sure that this is okay um and then like I said signing signs all over and retrain what we have already taught them before right and are you requesting any change to the Penalty that is being proposed uh in in reflection of of what you're talking about I just want to understand if you're trying to make a case for no some some some entities do request that and so I just wanted to make sure I understood what you're besides telling us what you're doing was there anything else you were asking of us this I suppose I I would I've only been the GM there for about two months and my my director there has also just been um we just have like a whole region change so she's only been my director for about two months now as well um so we're both very new to this restaurant um I mean if that was something to consider I would request that but again I don't know how the whole process works for that so right no that's fair enough but like I said I just wanted to clarify because you have the opportunity to plead your case for mitigation or anything like that so um if if you know if you were I wanted to be clear that we OD that so all right well thank you for being here this evening uh are there any questions for the uh manager all right thank you again thank all right is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this particular violation right seeing no one come forward uh we have the requested action uh which once again is the um mandatory uh $2,000 fine and 15-day suspension of the liquor license Council move approval second it's been moved by Council ratton second and by councilman Reston to authorize the U mandatory penalty as outlined discussion on the motion counc Bron uh I appreciate you coming in and outlining about 12 different steps U that you're going to pursue understanding that you're new helps me um because I had as the deputy chief said I've never seen a third violation before it makes me pretty excited um so you you brought me down a few not just going through the that series of processes you're you're following I I appreciate that and I'm not ready to to change this presumptive penalty which is pretty severe um but at the same time I do feel a little better understanding that they're taking some significant management op uh changes so great any other discussion on the motion he oh Council m i just add I appreciate the long list of things you're working toward it does feel severe but I think it's there because we don't want to be here and we want to make sure we're not here and we don't want to know what it feels like to get to Fourth um we we just want to make sure that Red Lobster especially is a really family oriented place we want to make sure that it it upholds that aspect of things as well that um that we're you know these uh alcohol compliance checks are in place because we really believe that they need to be done so thank you for your efforts to continue and I I hope we don't see you here again all right there's no further discussion we've got the motion before us to authorize the presumptive penalty in this case all those in favor signify by saying I I I oppos that passes unanimously that penalty is authorized deputy chief is for Portillo's restaurant on March 23rd 2024 a compliance Checker went to Portillos to conduct a compliance check while there the Checker order to be the employee then reviewed our Checker's identification but proceeded to provide the to our Checker the server was issued in administrative citation which has since been paid management later provided the necessary training documentation to PD staff it's staff's recommendation for the council to issue and administer the presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for Ono license holders for a second violation in 36 months which is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 in a 5day liquor license suspension and I will note their last uh violation was on our previous check in all right thank you um is there a representative of Portillos here with us this evening do not appear to be the case uh questions uh from the council for staff council member I have a question that you may or may not be able to answer but uh I was wondering the person who was a server said they were originally from Taiwan was there any possibility of a language barrier that you know of in this case not that I'm aware of I I do feel like there would be a note in the report of an interpreter had one been needed however I I can't thanks right uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this particular uh violation and requested presumptive penalty see no one um Council action on this violation i' move to I think it was moved by council member gra and I second all right second by council member shter I'll speak up next time there you go well I'm in the way I'm in the way um with that any discussion on the motion C short the only thing this um there's only four months between the two violations and so that was a little disturbing that you would hope that the training would have still been been there but and council member haton I really appreciate um council member gra bringing up a language thing I think that's always something we should be aware of the same time also the training should address um you know which way is it you know that's part of the training right and what does it look like what are the orientation what is what is the allowed limit it's or age so um I think it's a really important question to be thinking about as we look at some of people who are working and doing great job in in a lot of our our city restaurants but also you're doing the training you should know that answer great any other discussion just a little more on that um because I did notice in some of the others and I'm just making assumptions here but I wonder if you know if that message is somehow not getting through because it is pretty obvious when the card is one way you should be able to just look at it so so it might not be answered tonight but I want us to be thinking about that and maybe get an answer for that in the future well I think there are there are probably leg legitimate challenges to be a server or a bartender with a language barrier in the first place because you're not going to understand necessarily what people's orders are so I think that that but I can also see that even if there isn't a language barrier there could potentially be a sort of a cultural thing where people their culture is to be nice to people so they they kind of maybe think it's appropriate to look the other way and don't understand how the process works things like that so so that could be a thing as well and so it's I think it is good to be thoughtful about that and and how how we can you know how the programs that are out there to educate people can be responsive to that ultimately we still have the letter of our law to enforce and we have to do that which is the challenge here but I think it's good to be mindful uh even as to the point of of how we write the letter of our law and if we need to make any changes there so uh good points U with that we have the motion before us on the uh Portillo's violation if there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I oppose that passes unanimously uh the next one is in relation to shape Shack uh once again deputy chief remember once again on March 23rd a compliance Checker went to Shake Shack to conduct a compliance check while there the Checker ordered a beer the employee then reviewed our Checker's identification but proceeded to serve the alcohol to our Checker the server was issued an administrative citation which has since been paid management later provided the necessary training and documentation to PD staff the staff's recommendation for Council to issue and administer the presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for onsale license holders for a second violation in 36 months which is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 and a 5-day liquor license suspension and I'll note that this is also back-to-back failures for Shake Shack as well thank you questions for staff from Council Members great is there a representative of Shake Shack with us this evening uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this particular presumptive penalty request seeing no one is there a motion from the council in regard to the Shake Shack violation so moved second right it's been moved by Council M St seconded by Council Ron discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously that presumptive penalty is approved uh then brings us to lot Tapatia and deputy chief on March 23rd compliance Checker went to laapa to conduct compliance check while there the compliance Checker ordered a beer the bartender checked the ID but proceeded to serve all call to the Checker server was issued an administrative citation however our police department has not yet received payment the seller violation is being transferred to the city attorney's office I spoke of L Tapatia this morning uh by telephone as I had not SE their R training records yet uh however the owner hand delivered them to me earlier today so we do now have them the presumptive penalty pursuing to city code for on sale license holders for a first violation is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 and a one-day liquor license suspension all right uh thank you again uh questions from the Council on this one and is there representative of L Tapatia with us this evening does not appear to be the case anyone from the public wish to speak to this particular requested presumptive penalty seeing no one uh is there a motion from the council second all right it's been moved by council member Scher seconded by council member gra to authorize the issuance of the presumptive penalty in the case of La Tapatia for their first violation within 36 months discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously that presumptive penalty is authorized uh and then finally the I believe the fifth uh violation this evening under consideration for bonan and I'll turn back over to the deputy chief 23rd a compliance Checker went to bonan to conduct a compliance check while there the compliance Checker ordered a beer the employee checked the ID but proceeded to serve vehicle to the Checker the server was issued an administrative citation which has since been paid I reconnected with bonchan management earlier this afternoon and learned that their training program was not within City guidelines uh specifically the verbal training from the manager to employees was not documented or signed off on uh with that said we did have a very good conversation um and the manager is here today and can speak to um the plan moving forward of taking training uh to the to the next step and actually Crossing some of the language barrier that we had spoke about in some of the other restaurants um to do some of the training on their own as is allowed per our our City Licensing um the presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for onsale license holders for a first violation is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 and a one day l suspension uh but as mentioned the police department was lacking the the training records appri still and still are right uh questions for staff on this particular case council member strong um just want to if it would be appropriate to assess the same fine if they also aren't um in compliance with the training records as expected question M stra I believe the $2,000 was set I think I don't want to speak to exact policy on this but I I do believe that maybe the suspension is adjustable maybe the F was within a parameter um but I I don't know if there's any recollection of that from I can probably shed a little bit of light on that having been involved in drafting some of that language originally in the code As I understood it uh the $2,000 fine is actually in State Statute as as a limit I think that conceivably uh the training violation is a separate violation and so conceivably could be assessed a fine up to $2,000 for that specific instance as opposed to the compliance check violation which is a which is as I said a second a secondary thing or a separate matter so unless our attorney wants to advise otherwise yeah uh mayor ccil members actually um it would be an other under your fee schedule so um um for this particular violation it would only be a fee a fine of $100 not $2,000 so you wouldn't be able to assess the $2,000 for this particular um other violation because of its because of its um classification so it's not technically um another an an exact violation of the same thing does that make sense right so it would be an other violation or what you could do is you could make this an aggravating Factor in um deviating from the suspension time um for under this particular um violation but it kind of should be an either or proposition so either this is an other violation or this is an aggravating factor or nothing you guys can proceed um as you were planning to before all right okay thank you thank you for that clarification right uh further questions from the council Council M strong I do have another question my understanding was that the owner of bonon also owned another um property in that same strip mall um do we know if we've had I guess only if they failed the the check would we know if they didn't have training records at that facility thank you for that question Council memb TR and I do not recall or have an answer for that at the moment the the way that our licensing Works currently is at the Inception of an alcohol license annually or get new employees they have to go through an alcohol training that is all housed inhouse not here uh within the city so we only ask for it in in light of our failure so I would not be able to okay and certainly our um licenses are per liy and penalties would be per Li so we couldn't necessarily I don't believe sort of accumulate uh violations under single ownership simply because it was the same ownership of two different lenses per se yeah it's something that could be noted probably yeah I guess it's probably just general information like hey this will apply no matter where you do business if you have a liquor license which I know we've approved for that other uh facility not too long ago so you know this this standard applies across all of our um restaurants who have a liquor license so just I guess maybe helping them avoid future issues as well um rather than seeing them here next time for two different organizations if we can avoid it well and I think certainly if we know of license holders that are the same ownership for multiple licenses and and one or more of those sites seems to have a history of violations that is probably something that can be taken into account upon consideration of a application for renewal of a license um that is certainly one of the areas that the council can take into account in those regards so um but but certainly you can't penalize one license holder for another license holder's activities other than probably considering the same owner in multiple sites as to their renewals uh with that do we have representative of banchan who wishes to speak to the council this evening and certainly it's your option you don't have to but uh if you if you've been here patiently all evening you might as well make your Avail yourself of that yes we tried to be as interesting as we could guys are good if you could introduce yourself and feel free to make hi my name is Kevin uh greetings mayor council members uh my name is Kevin um I'm pretty much in place of acting as the GM of tonon Roseville location um there's no excuse for it honestly uh that is my fault on our end uh I have briefed my new weight staff on you know you must not serve alcohol to people under at the age of 21 you have to check their IDs um I don't care if they look old they have a beard honestly uh to be really honest with you even when the customers when they ask when they have a full-on beard uh when they ask about it oh why do you have to check I blame it on cityall you know we are happy to have fill that role for me I was just it's mainly about it's more like follow the rules um it doesn't matter if they look older or younger just check the ID just like a gas station first pack of cigarettes or beer you know uh unfortunately these two new servers that I have are great they're amazing but they're new um the language barrier that one of the council members have brought up still not an excuse at the end of the day you know there's a card there's an ID right there you you should know what year you can sell or you cannot sell that I will be more on top of things the day of I can explain it but it's still not an excuse you know um busy day I finally just took one step away one second to go to the bathroom and take a step outside and I get a call from my guy hey police are here I said cool give him a discount that was not the case not necessarily cool exactly so that's really it's really on my end I apologize about that I have signed up as I talked with u this gentleman right here um he gave me two websites to to go check out training courses and everything as I was sitting there you know I looked at both sides I have decided which one to um apply for for the training um that language barrier is completely fine because I will uh I will do the course tonight or tomorrow finish it up and trade my staff and also have the signning sheets as I was taking notes with that when he was uh doing all this you know but yeah no I really appreciate you guys weling us into your community yes the store right next door Korean barbecue if you guys haven't have it come through but um I will make sure to double check with the manager on that site you know if they have a sign in and if they don't I will get it done and signed yeah thank you I'll get a of course because uh yeah you shouldn't be serving to kids under 21 especially if you're doing business at the end of the day right we're here to make money absolutely and you can't if you're suspended or if you're paying fines right exactly exactly or as much certainly uh well we appreciate you being here this evening and taking good notes and certainly one of the things that probably makes sense to is to to develop those peer-to-peer relationships among among restaurant managers and in the community uh because I think what was outlined by Red Lobster earlier including the bars program I mean that's that's pretty substantial to be able to have sort of your own compliance checks on a bimonthly basis um hopefully get you in a position where you everybody's on the ball about it so appreciate that well of course I'm shaking right now I'm sorry all right well sorry sir we are okay well thank you again for being here and for that commitment and and uh we appreciate that I appreciate you guys thank you all right right now you can relax all right that with that um is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this this particular request for the uh comp for the compliance failure presumptive penalty seeing no one uh then is there a motion from the council mov second right it's been moved by council member graph second by council member Aton to issue the presumptive penalty which once again is the one-day suspension of the $2,000 fine uh discussion on the motion no I just want to thank you for coming in and explaining what you're doing that's helpful because when we're working on these things up here we have just the information that's there and we don't know exactly what you're doing to remedy these things so it makes us feel a little better but we don't want to see you back here only we want to only see you when we go into your restaurant for something to eat absolutely absolutely very good we've got the motion before us then uh if there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously and that presumptive penalty is authorized all right and thank you Deputy Chief and all of the folks the compliance Checker and all the officers involved uh for the hard work that's involved in this as well and all the tracking down of records and things like that so um and as always if there are suggestions we learn through our end of the process that we need to update our process and how we do things or what's in our code to keep us aware of those as well all right thank you again uh that brings us then to uh some really fun things for the people in the audience which is city council minutes from prior meetings uh and we have the minutes specifically from our April 8th uh April 15th and April 22nd Council meetings are there any additional changes or Corrections noted by council members or a motion related to approval of any of those minutes we split them mayor yeah I think we have to split have some well we've got some some exensions right okay got it we might as well take them as individual motions probably then huh we move approval of April 8th I'll second all right it's been moved by Council May gra seconded by Council schroer to approve the minutes from April 8th as presented a discussion on that motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed obain one exstension that's passes four to zero with council member St in opposition opposition in abstention wow sorry seemed less aggressive Ral habits all right that brings us then to the minutes of April 15th is there a motion related to those by council member St second by council member schroer is how I heard it okay yeah yeah that's and a discussion on that motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed extensions I all right we have that passed four to zero with council member etton in abstention on that motion then we finally have the minutes of our April 22nd council meeting is there a motion related to those minutes second move by council member schroer second by council member Ron uh discussion on those minutes hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed extensions 5 Z it passes all right that brings us then to our consent agenda the remaining items with the exception of item 10 c u Mr treer would you give us an introduction for those items yes thank you Mr Mayor item 10A approves payments in the amount of $446,500 771 item 10B approved several expenditures that include a replacement pickup truck for the Parks and Recreation Department along with associated associated equipment to outfit it for snow plowing and hauling trailers the completion of a pavement condition survey crack sealing of 15 to 20 miles of city streets and the rental of a spray patch machine for the summer item 10c as you said was already acted upon item 10d approves entering into Professional Services agreement with American engineering testing for construction projects material testing for the 2024 uh projects item 10e uh approves entering into revised agreement for a pathway agreement uh being constructed uh as part of the apartment development at 1415 County Road B the revised agreement corrects an error in the legal description contained in the pathway agreement approved on July 10th 2023 item 10f approves entry into a grant agreement with the state of Minnesota for the community crime intervention and prevention Grant to fund the housing Navigator position within the police department the city has been awarded $31,500 to fund the housing Navigator position the funding of an intern and a vehicle to assist the homeless Outreach efforts through the end of 2025 that's great news that's something we had hoped for as part of the budgeting process and finally got the paperwork done so is great good uh and then uh finally item 10g approves the acceptance of the Minnesota office of Justice programs 2024 firearm storage Grant this grant allows us to make the necessary improvements in the police department facility to ensure the safe storage of firearms terms collected under the recently changed law regarding extreme risk protection orders and that is the consent agenda thank you Mr Tron uh is there a motion from the Council on the consent moved second been moved by council member St second by council member etton uh discussion on the motion no right and double check is there anyone from the public who wish to speak to any of those items all right with that we've got the motion before us no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously those items are approved or accepted uh that brings us to Future agenda review Communications reports announcements and uh future agenda items from Council Members with that we'll start with the future agenda uh review Mr Tren yes uh thank you Mr Mayor real briefly our next meeting is next Monday we'll start off the evening with an Eda meeting we expect U all to us should probably take no more than a half hour U discuss updating the housing study something that's been in the Eda budget and then hopefully two quick business items to approve the contract with CE and approve Tiff note modifications for the Oasis and Harbor Apartments uh at the actual work session we'll spend um as much time as needed to talk about the HC purpose scope and role um staff met with the subcommittee this afternoon so I think we have it worked out as far as what's going to be presented and then have Fuller discussion we also want to discuss a partnership a possible partnership with rille school district regarding joint use of Parkview Center school grounds for recreational activities did send an email out earlier today just to provide some additional background uh Mr Johnson and the parkks direct department will provide um background and some other conversations around uh what we could possibly do to look at the replacement of Veterans Park uh for the new maintenance facility on the 20th uh we will have uh a quick update um from visit rosille um from Miss W we'll have um I'm sorry the all Department Equity update has been changed to June 3rd so I didn't change that apologize we'll talk about fire department staff and review uh and also an easement vacation for 5 71 Ros laon uh we anticipate having perhaps the Clos session for my city U manager performance review at that meeting um and then uh on June 3rd we have some RightWay vacations awarding the contract of um recycling carts and assuming we do the performance review look to accept the city manager goals the last thing I would mention is uh you're well aware of the fence some murin uh we did officially receive an appeal uh today uh to staff's determination so we're going to have to fit it in somewhere along that time frame have to hold it within 30 days I'm tentatively looking at May 20th uh to do that um so just a heads up on that we'll provide more information as we get more that's it all right thank you Mr Tre other questions on the future agendas uh council member strong I would assume that it would be a timely matter if we found out something about the government about the Geo bonds yes uh I think the session ends May 20th if I recall directly so we to know pretty quick whether that's that's in and I'll certainly communicate that out I think well we can talk about the next steps after that but um I think there will be a lot more conversation in this level as we work on some some of the agreements all right other questions on the future agendas or council member reports announcements requests for future agenda items Cil I mean u a uh Le long report from NFS we're having the lunch on Wednesday May at Badness comments bad s comments I guess if someone sends an RSV quickly we can get them in all right they'll just show up so if I was going to say if people start showing up or if they are SVP late it's council member saying what you do but other than rules being rules I'm sure that if uh if folks can't attend they could find other ways to support very very valid organization in the community here other leaz and reports announcements I think the only thing I'll add just along those lines is uh the rice and ler Alliance on Saturday from noon to 2 is having their uh Community In Bloom which is in Roseville each spring at McCaron Lake County Park down in that part of Roseville uh so encourage folks to attend there will be staff I think uh Noel often is there boothing uh for sustainability things there are representatives from various County agencies and others that will be there and fun activities for families people of all ages I do want to specifically note for those who are volunteer oriented that they are uh looking for still looking for some volunteers to fill some two-hour shifts either the first portion or the second portion to help with some setup and cleanup setup or cleanup as well as Staffing the event itself and so I encourage you to if you're interested to go to the rater Alliance website and uh sign up for that but I know they were still looking for volunteers and uh so it's a worthwhile event it's also fun so it looks like it's going to be a decent day so I would encourage folks if you can volunteer for that to help them out in that way um anything else from Council Members council members I'd just like to mention I've started having people reach out with questions regarding um the 4th of July and uh Rose our Roseville Festival so that um just clarification that those fireworks do happen the Saturday prior to the 4th of July not on Independence Day um it's not been cancelled it's just been changed in an attempt to keep um maybe give it a little bit more of a HomeTown feel and opportunity to keep it safe and place where people want to be involved so just um make sure if you read through those documents you read through the whole Parts but um it's not meant to take something away it's meant to really give back a little bit more of the community element of it well as folks may recall there was definitely a challenge with uh Staffing the event on the 4th of July uh because of the fact that that not only is it a time that people in the community want to take time off and celebrate but also people that work for the city as well and so there's some challenges with especially from the safety side being able to provide for an event that is safe for especially people coming into the community from outside of Roseville for this large Fourth of July celebration event the thought is putting it on a time when we can staff it better and also maybe the crowd won't be quite as substantial because it's not on the fourth of July uh we're giving it a try and we'll see how it goes and if we need to make an adjustment in future years we can do that but uh that's the the reasoning behind it and hopefully folks in the community can find it to be as enjoyable celebration either Minneapolis or St Paul has reinstituted their fireworks for this coming year so there will be somewhere on the 4th of July if you're if you're so inclined well I was going to note that a lot of communities actually have their Community Festival nowhere near the 4th of July so it just kind of happens that Roseville is is and that's why we probably had done it in the past but with that I think we've we've covered that one very Qui enough I promise uh Arts rosville is having one of their uh art talks on Saturday between 11: and noon it's close conert with the library and they use Legacy funds for this it'll be a print maker named B Paso she's very established in the Twin Cities and if you want to know more about print making the process and she'll have some of her work displayed there 11 until noon on Saturday at the library at the library and then you can head right to the community In Bloom over in it'll be perfect day wonderful weather with that if there's no further business before the council the only other item on our agenda is adjournment so moved so again it's been moved by Council m seconded by council member adding to adjourn uh all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously and we are adjourned at 8:55 p.m. thank you everyone