shortly thereafter. With that, uh, the next item of business under the Economic Development Authority is the Pledge of Allegiance. So, we'd ask folks to stand if you're able. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Next on our EDA agenda this evening is approval of tonight's agenda. I'll check with staff. Are there any changes that need to be made to the agenda this evening? >> No changes, Mr. President. >> All right. Are there any changes that members of the EDA would like made to the tonight's EDA agenda this evening? Hearing none. Uh is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> Second. >> Been moved by member Grath. Uh seconded by member Sharter. Discussion on that motion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. We have our agenda for this evening. Uh as is our usual practice with the economic development authority meeting where we have a council meeting immediately following. Uh we'll go ahead and forego the general public comment at this time and move right into our business items. Uh so that brings us to our first business item, item 5A, uh which is to consider acquisition funding agreement and a resolution of support uh to apply for livable communities grant funding uh from the Met Council for the Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity uh regarding acquisition of vacant land from Covenant Church for con construction of three land trust homes. And I'll turn it over to our housing and economic development program director, Jeannie Kelce, to bring this before the board. >> Thank you, President B. This is really loud tonight. Um, thank you and board members. I just wanted to um in your packet for your consideration and at the last meeting you did approve the use of a of our LAA dollars to acquire this land between Covenant um behind Covenant Church. Um in this packet you also have for your consideration basically a resolution supporting an application to the Met Council for additional finance gap funds in order to help affordable home ownership. This agreement in your packet is a little different than normal agreements that we've done in the past, but based upon our relationship that we have with um Habitat, we felt comfortable to have it as an acquisition funding agreement along with the declaration. The declaration will limit any home to ever be built on the site at 80% or less area median income until the homes do sell and then they enter into a long-term lease of 99 years for affordability. Um, so I also have Jessica Cole here if you have any questions for Habitat. But the two things and you can just do it all as one motion would be to enter into um allowing us to enter into this agreement for the president and also the executive director as well as a resolution of support for their application to Met Council for uh local um LCA funding. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Kelsey. Uh, questions from the board for staff on this request this evening. Member Grath. >> So, on the 99-year lease, uh, what happens to that lease when it's sold then? Is it just renewed at the same period of time or is it a renewed at 99 years for the new own? >> Um, after the 99 years, then it's done. >> It's one time 99. Okay. Thank you. >> But during during the course of that, if the property changes hands, it continues, right? Correct. That makes for the 99 years. So throughout that whole 99 years, it's always affordable to 80% or less AMI. >> Got it. >> But some of them when they're 99, they reset to another 99 years old. So >> what I was going to say or even when they res when they change hands during it, that might start another 99 years, but not not in this case. Okay, >> other questions. Right, we'll double check if there is anyone from the audience who wishes to speak to this item this evening. Uh does not appear to be the case. Uh so we'll move then to uh board consideration of the request and just to be clear uh we've got the um the agreement. Do we need to take action with respect to the declaration as well? Is it or just the part of one piece? Okay. And then the resolution of support would be a separate part of it. >> Yep. >> Okay. So uh looking to the board for a motion potentially. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. That's moved by member Grath, seconded by member Stron to uh approve the agreement and the declaration as well as to off to approve the resolution of support uh as presented. Discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Member Grath, >> I think this uh adds to our housing stock and it adds to one of our our aspirations of a range of housing for people and so I support this. >> Right. And as the secondary member strong, >> um I agree with those sentiments and I appreciate this um continued partnership and um although 99 years isn't forever, it is a very long time and will outlive us for sure. So thank you. >> All right, other discussion on the motion. Uh hearing none, I would just also note that this is uh sort of one of the last steps towards this project uh being brought forward and into development. And so we look forward to uh that next phase of the project as well. So uh with that, we've got the motion before us uh to approve the agreement and declaration as well as the resolution. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those items are approved. Thank you, Miss Kelsey. That then brings us to our next business item under the economic development authority which is uh to take a look at our uh economic development authority fund 722 which is used to sort of front front fund uh uh property abatements that are used as part of our nuisance code enforcement. We've got our community development director Janice Gunllock with us this evening to uh bring this for our consideration and discussion. Miss Gunlock. >> Thank you President Ro members of the board. Um, at the February 23rd EDA meeting, we are having a housing programs conversation where this fund came up briefly and the EDA did request a follow-up discussion. Um, as the mayor noted, fund 722 is the property abatement con the property abatement fund and the concern noted at that time was the cash balance of this fund and whether it was at an appropriate level. Uh, since that time, staff has reviewed the abatement activity over the last three years. We included a print out of all of those within your packet materials. And we do think that the cash balance is more than is required in order to respond to abatements. Um I just want to remind you that there are three different types of abatements that we engage engage in. One is council authorized. So those are ones that come before you and we don't do them unless you've authorized them. We also have a couple in our code that are called accelerated abatements. are typically tall grass and snowy icy sidewalks. And then we do have an occasional uh property owner consented abatement where basically we do the work but the property owner pays for it and consents for us to do it. So the sole source of expenditures is the cost to perform these abatements. So you'll see a lot of the costs are from the same contractors because um our building official has established relationships with these contractors to perform these abatements for us. Um the sole s source of revenues is investment income and then when people pay for their abatement. So a couple of different ways to do that. Obviously the property consented ones we get the money up front and they pay us. Um sometimes once we perform the abatement we invoice them and they do actually pay the invoice and then of course the um standard one that we're used to we do have to assess it against the property tax. And so sometimes those come back in a year that's different from when they were actually conducted. So if you look at that, the numbers don't always completely coincide. But that's the main source of revenue. I want to just emphasize that this fund does not receive any EDA levy support and hasn't in I don't know at least 10 years. Um as of last week when I ran it, the cash balance was about 128,000. We think a more reasonable balance is 50,000. We could even maybe get by with a little less, but we thought 50,000 was a good number. And at this time, staff is looking for direction on whether the EDA wishes to allocate any of this access cash um to another fund or another program. Um I just want to remind you that these funds did originate through the HR, so the money can only be spent in uses that are authorized HRA uses. Um, staff has suggested a scenario within your written materials that could fund an existing program that's already being funded by the levy. So, you could accomplish some levy reductions if you choose to reprogram it in that way. Essentially, we're suggesting that you could pay for a program that we operate with CE where we uh subsidize or pay for energy audits and energy squad visits for our residents who are homeowners in the city. Um, we budget about $10,000 annually for that. The actual cost of that varies from year to year. It just kind of depends on how many are done, but that's a way to secure some levy savings um for multiple years if you wish to go that route with the excess cash balance. Um, there may be other options too. We haven't explored those and so if you have direction for us, we can certainly do that as well. Um, given the preliminary 2027 budget discussions and preparations are ongoing, if you do have any direction that could affect that budget, it would be helpful to know that. Now, we do bring the EDA's preliminary budget and levy to you in July for 2027 for your first opportunity to look at it. And then, of course, we come back in September. Um, with that, I will attempt to address any questions you may have. I do have Dave England, our building official here, who manages the property abatements, so I may not be able to answer all of the questions, but I'm certain he will be able to help me if I cannot. I have >> uh are there questions from the board on uh the information that's been uh provided uh or any guidance that uh members might want to provide at this time? Uh, member Grath. >> So, one of the um notes you put in is is the um staff noted that under an owner consent to debatement in 2023, 32,500 was needed to remove a hazardous home and there is a potential of another one in the city. So, you said the seller pays for that or how does that money get paid out? >> So, this is a really good question, board member Grath. the instance that I mentioned in the report, the actual property owner consented to that one. So, we did not hire the contractor to remove the home until we had the cash in hand from the property owner to remove it. The other one that's referenced, and I only brought that up because it kind of plays into why we think 50,000 is a good number, that property owner is unwilling to address the home or remove it. Um, and so we are not in a position where we would recommend removing it with abatement money just because we may not get that back if the property falls into foreclosure. And I do want to also note the term hazardous is used kind of loosely. The one that was actually removed, the house was actually falling in on itself. This other one that we're referencing, it's boarded up. It's it's there isn't anybody inside it. There aren't animals inside it. It's not falling down. Yes, it's maybe a little bit of a blight to the neighborhood, and I'm sure the immediate neighbors would like it removed, but we don't think it poses an immediate risk like the other one we mentioned that was actually collapsing upon itself. >> Thank you. All right, member Schroeder. >> Yes. Um, thank you for bringing this forward. Um when you have suggested that we use 10,000 a year for the energy audits, uh were you thinking moving 50,000 in there or 10,000 per year or how did you see that money being moved? Would it be a one lump sum to start with or would you think just do it each year as we come along? >> I am open to whatever the finance director thinks is the best way to do it. Um, I don't know that we need to move the money out of 722. We can just start coding those costs to that fund. It might be easier to track how much we're spending and then do it as a transfer in to the um regular general fund levy. I mean, there are multiple ways we could do it. Um, we budget $10,000. There are some years we don't spend all of that. So, I would hate to move the money into 725 if we don't spend at all >> because then it can go longer. >> That makes sense. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Right. Other questions? Member Strong. >> Thank you. I just wanted to say I appreciate the suggestion that the CE or the energy audits could be a possible use and that that abides by our commitments for this particular funds. We have um as just a reminder to anyone who doesn't recall, we had won an award for our utilization of that program and I'm sure if um we were able to do anything more to kind of push it up again. Um I know a lot of people had gotten it done, but you know there's always new folks in town. So I really appreciate the opportunity to continue that and see it as something we continue to do and um maybe not be an additional levy fund. So, I appreciate that suggestion and I would be open to hearing what um the finance director's suggestion would be on uh timing and maybe um over what span of length of time if not all the funds, maybe some of them, >> right? Other questions? I did want to note uh just to be clear that uh this would only uh theoretically handle about five years of that program and so then there would either have to be levy funding or some other source of funding. >> Um the other thing I just wanted to double check on is I know we had some discussions earlier this year about EDA finances and I I I seem to recall that there were still some potentially open questions about some things. Um, and maybe I'm incorrectly recalling that, but I just wanted to make sure that uh that the that it presuming we provide guidance this evening on this matter that that the staff is is in a position to be able to bring forward the the suggested or recommended budget for 2027. Are there any other outstanding matters related to the EDA finances that we need to be thinking about or discussing at a subsequent meeting? >> Um, I don't think so. I'm looking at Genie just to make sure as a cross reference I'm not missing something. Um, you know, we had that work session related to the budget and you probably all focused on the EDA levy increase of like 40% because the EDA levy is so small to begin with. So when you add just a little bit of money, that number looks really high. the the two items that jump out at me is for 2027 2026 the EDA did move $100,000 of general levy reserve money to fund the budget. So that was putting that back was one source of the levy being raised for 27. Um and then the other one is we do anticipate spending more money for legal services beginning in 2027 but I don't believe either of those things is something that could be recouped from access cash in this fund because this is HR originated money and that's more operations money. So no, I I don't think there are anything else. There were there was a lot of conversation at February 23rd regarding our housing programs and we got some really good feedback on a lot of the other funds to sort of fund those programs for at least two more years. So, I think we might be having some more deeper conversations about funding those programs, you know, looking towards 2028, 2029, but for 2027, I think we're okay. >> All right. Thank you for the bringing me back up to speed on that. I appreciate that. >> All right. Uh, are there thoughts from the council or do we want to pursue the recommended uh path here in some fashion? Um, council or board member Sharter? Yeah, I I think this is a very good suggestion and I would support that we go ahead to do this and you you working with the finance director to try to figure out what is the best mechanism to do that. But I think this is a good way to use those funds. >> Right. Would you call that a motion? >> I would second. >> All right. >> I'll second. >> All right. It's been moved by coun by member Schroeder, seconded by member Grath to uh uh proceed with the direction or suggestion that was provided by staff in the materials as it relates to the uh the excess fund above uh 50,000 I believe was the the amount to remain uh discussion on the motion as the maker member sher. All right, as the second member graph >> I just thanks for reviewing this. I think it was a it's a good thing for us to do every now and then to look at these funds and this one makes sense to me to rightsize it. So appreciate the work. >> Right. Other discussion and I should just correct something I said earlier. Actually I was thinking of the 50,000 but it's the other part that would fund the uh the uh the energy audits and things like that which would be more than five years of course. So >> uh correct my math there. With that we've got the motion before us. Uh if there's no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously and that uh action is approved. That then brings us to our uh final business item under the economic development authority this evening, which is to consider a request for qualifications regarding economic development authority legal services. And once again, Miss Gunlock will bring this before us uh for board consideration. >> Thank you, President Row, members of the board. Um so in the fourth quarter of 2025 the EDA provided direction to staff on the extension of several professional service agreements with various consultants who provide services to the EDA. The legal services um professional service agreement had expired and at that time staff suggested that we extend that agreement one more year through the end of 2026 with Kennedy and Graven. Um but during that discussion it was determined that we should seek proposals before we enter into another agreement for 2027 and beyond. Um staff did prepare a proposal to seek legal services for the EDA. Um I want to note that the EDA last sought proposals in 2018. um an a request for qualifications was actually used and I took that and updated it to reflect the current sort of business of the EDA because the EDA is actually engaged in a lot more things since 2020 since 2018 and so um that proposal has been updated. I also included a more formal selection process so that's outlined in section three. Um, it would include an EDA member helping to score those proposals once they come in. And then I've also suggested a weighted approach to scoring to sort of um assist the committee with selecting a member more a a proposal more clearly. Staff would like to get the RFQ out in time to have some preliminary cost estimates back for incorporation into the 2027 budget. Um, as we've mentioned previously, the attorneys that practice in this area is pretty small and so we intend to directly submit this to the ones that we are aware of. And so we've offered a July 1st deadline and we think that that's a reasonable time frame uh based on what we're asking for in the RFQ. So at this time, all we're really asking for is your authorization to release it. Of course, if you have any questions or concerns or additions with it, please let me know. And then we also probably need to know which member of the EDA would like to participate in the scoring since we would be getting those proposals back before the EDA's next official meeting in mid July. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Gunlock. Are there questions uh from the board on this uh request to do the request for qualifications for legal services? All right. >> I'd like to nominate uh member Grath to be on the search committee though. >> All right. We probably should know whether there's going to be a search committee first. So, we should probably take up that action. But duly noted. Um and I should probably also check just to be sure uh that if there's any comments from people in the from the public, uh which it does not appear to be the case at this time. Uh and then uh so uh as to the uh request for qualifications uh does council have any suggested changes or improvements or a motion to proceed as presented? >> Motion to proceed as presented. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by uh member Straw, seconded by member Bower to uh proceed with the request for qualifications as outlined in the staff report. Uh discussion on that motion. Uh member Stron is the maker. It sounds well thought out and um makes a lot of sense based on the information presented. >> Right. As the secondary member Ber and >> I'll just add that I appreciate your weighted scoring. >> All right. Other discussion on the motion. >> Um and I would just note that uh that um you know I think our our expectation is probably that the the costs are higher than what we were have been used to. Although as we noted, it's also not a like a retainer type service. It's sort of an as needed service. So we have some control over our legal costs. Uh so I think it does make sense to see what is out there in the marketplace as per our own policy as a city regarding um um contracted services. So I'm supportive with that. We've got the motion before us. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. That uh request to to request qualifications is approved. Um, are there other board members interested in serving on the committee uh or uh refusal to serve from council member GR? I >> mean, if there's someone else interested, please speak up. I'm not married to this, but I I did do it once before >> on the on the legal services right for the city. Other interested parties. All right. I think by default, you are the you are the one. >> It's a good test. >> Member Gra. All right. I believe that concludes our business for the EDA this evening. I don't see anything else on the agenda. The only other item before us then would be a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by member Schroeder, seconded by member Bower. Uh to adjourn. No discussion on a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed. That passes unanimously and we are adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Uh stay tuned. We'll be transitioning to the council meeting. It'll take a few moments. Right. I hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday, May 11th, 2026. It is approximately 6:27 p.m. And the roll call will stand as it was for the EDA meeting prior to this with all members present. Uh once again we've got our city attorney uh Greta Bjknes uh with us this evening on my right and uh as usual our city manager Pat Trejudan on my left at the end of the day and we will be introducing staff and other participants as uh agenda items come up on the meeting. Um we did the pledge of allegiance with the EDA meeting so we can forego that a second time this evening. Uh we then need to look at approving tonight's agenda. Uh it's a very brief agenda, but we'll double check if there are any changes that need to be made either from a staff or council perspective. >> No changes. >> All right. Does not appear to be the case. Um with that, is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> So move. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Council Member Sher, seconded by Council Member Strong uh to approve tonight's agenda. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. We have our agenda for this evening. Uh next on the agenda then would be general public comment. Uh this is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on items that are not on this evening's agenda uh but may be uh related to city business or of interest to people in the community. Uh it does not appear to be the case that we have members of the public with us this evening to speak. Uh and so on that presumption not seeing anybody leaping forward to speak. So we'll move then uh to the rest of our agenda. Uh and that then brings us to our business items. Our first business item, and some might say the main event this evening, uh others may disagree, is the receipt of our annual comprehensive financial report as well as our auditor communications uh and reports and information on compliance for our fiscal year ending December 31st, 2025. We have our finance director, Sam Morano, with us this evening, uh who will also introduce our auditor for the presentation of the audit this evening. Hello and welcome. >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, member of the council. Indeed, we have uh this evening with us Rebecca Peterson from Red Pathing & Company. They are the city's financial auditors and she'll be walking us through a quick presentation of the financial results for 2025. After the presentation, city staff will be available for questions as well as the city auditors. So, with that, I'm going to let Rebecca uh take take over on the presentation. Um do we have the presentation by any chance? >> Uh yeah. Did you load it up? See, we have something here. >> Perhaps while uh Mr. Mariano is loading it up. Um Miss Peterson, if you could just swing the microphone a little bit more directly facing you the There we go. That's It's a directional thing. So, right. It doesn't always pick up as well if it's not pointing right at you. So, appreciate that. >> Yeah, not a problem. Um >> I'm just trying to vamp a little bit while he's doing that. >> Start with the introduction. >> Well, mayor and council members, thank you for having me here. Well, they work on getting it pulled up. I just want to remind you, I know you've heard me say it before, but we work closely with city staff, but we really do work for you. So, um, as I'm speaking, if you have questions, please feel free to stop me, interrupt me. Um, and even after the meeting is over tonight, if you want to reach out afterwards, I'm always available. >> Sorry for that. I thought uh we would have it uh ready here, but quickly pulled up. >> There we go. >> That's the best you're going to get. I can present from there. That that will work fine. We'll just scroll through. >> We got that. >> Okay, perfect. >> All right. I can do this. As we get started tonight, um um before we start talking about current year information, I just want to call out that last year, as in years past, the city submitted its 2024 financial statements to the GFOA um award for excellence in financial financial reporting. And once again, the city's financial statements were awarded the award. Um, it recognizes excellence in financial reporting, um, comprehensiveness in your financial reporting, and it's something that the bond rating agencies look for. So, um, it's a positive thing that the city received the award. There were four reports that we issued in conjunction with the audit this year. I'll go through a summary of each of the reports. Um, and then I just want to mention that in past years, you've likely seen me present five reports. There is a report on federal compliance or the single audit report. That is a audit that's required anytime the city expends over a certain threshold um of federal funds in a given year. This year the threshold is a million dollars and the city didn't hit that limit. So there was no single audit required this year which is why there's one less report than in the past. The first report that we issue in conjunction with the audit is an opinion on the financial statements. This is really the primary purpose of the audit. Um, and what it is is us opining on your financial statement saying yes, they are fairly stated. Maybe not exactly correct to the dollar. Um, you know, as we've talked about in the past, it would be cost and time prohibitive for me to look at every single transaction that you enter into, but we look at a sample of transactions and we follow audit standards and perform a risk assessment so that we look at the riskier areas and spend more of our time on what we consider the riskier areas of the audit. Um, the result this year is that we're able to issue a clean, unmodified opinion on the 2025 financial statements, which is the result you would want. The next report that we issue in conjunction with the audit is a report on internal control. Now, as part of our audit, we don't audit the city's internal control, but we gain an understanding of the processes and the procedures that are in place in order for us to plan our audit. And if anything comes to our attention during that planning that um one we've identified a deficiency in internal control or somewhere where we think that there's opportunity for improvement in internal control, we would identify it in this report. Um and when we look at these things, we're looking at preventative controls, things that prevent errors from entering the finance system and then also detective controls, processes that are in place to detect errors if they do occur. Um and then we maintain an awareness of ongoing oversight by management. uh what our engagement over internal controls is is not a fraud review. Um that's a question I've received a lot this year from various governing bodies just because of the nature of what's going on in the environment around us. And during the course of our testing, if we saw evidence of fraud, we would certainly pursue that and we would alert you to it. But looking for fraud is not the primary purpose of our audit. And so I want to make sure you as a governing body understand that. The results this year is that we've reported two internal control findings. Um, and I think I'm going to start with the bottom one first. Um, internal controls over dispersements. During the course of our testing, we identified a number of small errors. Um, some items that where an individual had um maybe a credit card transaction that was not approved by their supervisor, maybe some insufficient supporting documentation, those types of things. small dollar amounts, but the number when layered on top of each other, we felt was worth reporting. And so, um, city staff has already taken steps to correct and address those processes so that they can be improved moving forward. Um, that type of finding is a pretty common finding for all units of local government, cities included. Um, the first finding on the list is financial statement corrections. During our audit, anytime that there is a correction to the financial statements that is material in nature, we need to consider if it needs to be reported as a finding. This year, there was an error correction to last year's financial statements. More, you know, historically we've called that a prior period adjustment for governmental financial reporting. That terminology has gone away. But, um, if you're familiar with the term prior period adjustment, it was a prior period adjustment. And the source of that was a very large invoice that the city received in 2024. Um, and it was not paid until 2026. Um, it the invoice or combination of invoices themselves were over a million dollars. And when we look at the funds that needed to pay those invoices, about 977,000 I think was allocated to the water fund, which was material to that fund. And so it was a payment that should have occurred in 2020 or 2024 at least allocated to 2024 that wasn't identified to 2026. So we needed to restate beginning numbers and make sure that that expense was reflected there. Um it is unusual because normally if a organization has an invoice go unpaid for a million dollars um the person you're supposed to pay it to will reach out and ask why haven't you paid me and my understanding is that did not occur in this instance which is why it went undetected for so long. Um but the invoice was identified in early 2026 and subsequently paid. Um, as we move on to the next report, you'll see that it also impacted a legal compliance finding. The next report that we issue in conjunction with the audit is our report on legal compliance. And I always like to remind you that we're accountants, not audit or not um attorneys. So, we're looking at this from an accounting perspective. But the office of the state auditor has a series of requirements that they ask us to look at in conjunction with their audit in these various areas. And so we select a sample of transactions and look for adherence to state statutes. One of the items that we're looking at is prompt payment of local government bills. The office of the state auditor wants to make sure that local governments are paying their bills timely um not refusing to pay their vendors and whatnot. And in this instance, there was clearly a lack of prompt payment um as far as the timing of payment of this large um contractor construction invoice. So that resulted in a legal compliance finding as well but all related to the same issue. And finally the final report that we issue in conjunction with the audit is a communication to those charged with governance. This is that standard templated letter from us as the auditors to you as governance. Um and there's certain areas that are customized to the city and so I've just called those out for your attention. Um the first one is if there's any accounting policies used or changed um in this year compared to the prior year. We're required to notify you of that. There was a slight increase in the capitalization threshold. And when we talk about capitalization threshold, we're looking at when the city purchases assets, what's the dollar amount of those assets that go on the city's balance sheet to be depreciated over time versus expensed immediately. As time goes on, inherently organizations need to increase that threshold. um you know what used to be $500 might now be $50,000 for some organizations just depending on the nature of things. So pretty um routine that I'm seeing those thresholds increase over time. The next item that we have here is accounting estimates. Just a reminder that some of the numbers in the financial statements really are estimates and I have a couple significant ones identified here. The first one is OPEB. OPE stands for other postemployment benefits. It's really the cost of the city having employees that are able to retire from the city. State statute requires you to allow your retirees to stay on your health insurance until um they're Medicare eligible. And that inherently increases health insurance premiums for the city as a whole. If you picture a health insurance policy full of 25 year olds versus a health insurance policy full of 65 year olds, there's going to be a difference. Um the Gazsby the government accounting standards board says that there is a inherent um difference in that cost and they ask local governments to have an actuary calculate what that is. Um and so for the city the actuarily determined liability at the end of 2025 was about $ 1.5 million. That's something you're not actually going to have to pay on. Um it's just something that's absorbed into your health insurance premiums over time. The second liability I have on here is also actuarily determined. It's the par net pension liability and this is um the cost of city employees participating in the state parah pension plan. PAR hires an actuary to calculate the net pension liability of their pension as a whole and then allocates that liability out to all participating employers. The city's share for 2025 was just over $12 million. Um, and I identified a history of what that liability was over time because you can see it swings dramatically based on actuarial assumptions and market conditions. Um, but again, this is not something that PAR is going to come asking for $12 million. The city pays on it with your regular payroll contributions. Um, other items of significance that we communicate in this letter is no difficulties encountered in performing the audit. Staff were great to work with. Um, corrected and uncorrected misstatements. There's a section that addresses any corrected or uncorrected misstatements. Obviously, that um million-doll invoice is part of that. No disagreements with management. And then other matters. If there's anything else that came to our attention during the course of the audit that um we felt was important to communicate that didn't fit in any other bucket, we would communicate it here. And this year, we do have one item identified. One of the things that we look at during the course of our audit is the city's cash deposits. There's a state statute that says that your cash deposits need to be insured by FDIC and if you exceed those insurance levels, you need to have collateral pledged from your financial institution to cover them in event of failure to protect the city's assets. The city changed banks after year end. And so when we were trying to test the um amount of collateral you had at the year end 2025, we were unable to do so. Um the bank was unwilling to provide some of that documentation. And so there's no I don't have any concerns. You know, we are now well into 2026. The city has not lost cash. Um but just know it's something we weren't able to test at the end of the year. And so that is the only other matter we have identified in the report. Um and that as far as results of our reports is what I have prepared for you. I'll I have some other slides on financial um you know summary information, but I want to pause and see if there's any questions you have before I move on. >> Right. Questions from the council. Council member Schroeder, >> I guess under the uh Minnesota legal compliance report, >> who else gets that besides us? >> Uh it is it's shared with the city and then um I believe it goes the OSA can have a copy of it to the office of the state auditor. It's um at the conclusion of the audit, the city has to upload your financial reports into a system called safes and I believe it's part of that upload. And is there any um consequence of us having a um an item on here? Is there any kind of um consequence as in someone coming in and looking at it or anything we need to do or how how how does that work? >> So I can't speak for the office of the state auditor. In my experience, something like this um if the state auditor ever even looked at it, they would say, "Okay, now you know better, do better, and move on." um where it really comes to light is if it was extremely pervasive. If you had 10 findings, there was evidence of fraud, that's when you're going to hear from the state auditor. Um a legal compliance findings extremely common and something you correct and move on. >> Great. Thank you. And I did have a question on the um water fund, but maybe that could go into, you know, the correction we did. I think that might a question maybe to um put in the parking lot for our finance director to ask is in case I forget is um how why does this not affect the rates for the residents that this correction why why doesn't that make the rates go up or down? I you know I've had a couple of conversations with our finance director but I think it's important enough for for him to be able to um let the residents also know u his answer to that. >> So maybe that can be incorporated into the presentation on the financials. >> Great. Maybe I'll go through my financial summary and then you can come up and join. >> That's great. >> Any other questions on compliance? Uh >> I don't know if it is a question on that or not, but were there any uh penalties or late fees on that amount of money that was held for a year? >> Um so the vendor is able to ask for interest. The state statute does allow for that. Um I'd look to the finance director to see if not. So >> wow, >> it's interesting. >> Yeah, >> it's it's Ramsey County. So they invoice us for that. Thank you. >> So, just so that members of the public watching at home know that that that was an invoice from Ramsey County and so Ramsey County is not imposing penalties on us, >> which is nice of them. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Um, next up, I just have a highlevel financial summary of overall financial results for the year. Um, I have it broken out here by governmental funds. Just as a refresher, the city has two main fund types. Business type funds are generally intended to be self- sustaining. Governmental funds are those funds that might be funded by property taxes or grants that um really need external funding sources. Um we've got our general fund, special revenue funds, debt service funds, and capital project funds. If you look at the second column from the right, the increase and decrease in fund balance, that that really tells you what changed over the course of the year. Um, looking at the bottom, your capital project funds, you will see that there is a significant increase in fund balance for your capital project funds of about $4 million. Um, there was some debt issuances, some um, funds issued to do construction projects that haven't completed yet. And so that's really what that represents. Looking at the general fund, you'll see that there was an increase of just under half a million dollars. And that I'm going to jump to the next slide here where I have a summary of budget to actual that is really coming in right here. We've got a transfer in um of $936,000 into the fund where only $200,000 would was budgeted. And that is primarily money coming from the license center um coming into the fund to help subsidize it and keep your fund balance at a level that it needs to be. And then I'll just call out because there's some large budget variances here. If you look at the budget variance for both revenues and expenditures, you'll see over a million dollars. This really relates to how the city is handling charging among other things, but this is the most significant charging for public safety time. Um the city, you know, if we have police officers that are doing some contract work, the city has started charging the external parties for that and also absorbing the OT costs internally. And so we've got offsetting revenues and expenditures that are above budget. So these really net out from one activity just changing how it's been done in the past. But this increase in fund balance and the funding from the license center leads us into looking at the fund balance of the general fund itself. Um there's certain segments of general fund fund balance that are reserved for certain things. Um about 35,000 of it we consider non-spendable. Um it relates to prepaid assets, maybe invoices that were paid ahead of time. you can't use that money for anything else because you already spent it on something. So, you got $35,000 tied up in non-spendable amounts. There's certain items that are restricted um funds that you've received from external parties that you can only spend on certain items. So, there's some law enforcement restrictions and some public safety aid restrictions that we have. Um and then there's the remaining fund balance. We've got about 640,000 that's assigned for professional services. Um, and then just under 10 million that's unassigned but segmented for working capital. What is not on here this year that you've seen in the past is a general reserve outside of these amounts. Um, my understanding is that was completely drained this year in 2025. So, at the end of the year, there's no extra reserves. Um the city does have a fund balance policy to maintain um an unassigned fund balance between 35 and 50% of next year's general fund expenditures and you are meeting that you're at about 35.4% 4% but at the very bottom so there's no reserves and as you head into the next budget cycle that's something really important to pay attention to because expenses aren't getting less right the cost of things continue to increase and so if you keep this fund balance at this level but your expenditures increase at some point you won't have that coverage of 35% and this is important for a number of reasons to make sure that you have sufficient cash flow in between um property tax payments being able to handle unexpected expenditures those types of things. So, something to watch as you head into your budget cycle. Here, I just have a quick trend of governmental funds revenue. What's funding your governmental funds? And this large blue bar at the bottom is your property taxes and assessments. Um, and then the next red one up is your charges for services. So, you can see um the mix of revenue that is funding your governmental fund operations. Moving on to business type funds. Um the graphs that I have here show your operating expenses as the blue bar and your operating revenues as the line. Um and in your business type funds, you want your operating revenues to more than cover your operating expenses. Um capital, especially for your utility infrastructure, is extremely expensive. And so you need to have a gap between the money you're bringing in and the money that's going out the door to save for impairs, repro improvements, and replacements. Um, with the rate study that was done a number of years ago, you can see back in 21 and 22, you you weren't covering your operating expenses. Moving forward, you are covering operating expenses. Um, but the gap is not quite as large as maybe I would like it to be, and that's something that we've talked about and I think will be addressed going forward, but something to be aware of. Looking at the sewer fund, that gap between your operating revenue and your operating expenses continues to be um healthy and sufficient to um cover your capital needs. Storm drainage. This fund um inherently across all cities tends to fluctuate based on what's happening within the city. Um, but again, you have a nice gap between your operating expenses and your operating revenues and probably the opportunity to plan for use of some of those funds as time goes on. And finally, we have the golf course. Here for the operating expenses, I've segmented out depreciation. Um, recreational facilities inherently struggle to cover their costs. Um, and so you can see that your operating revenue covered all of your operating expenses for 2025 except for depreciation. Um, and that's really the best you can hope for in a recreational facility. You know, the infrastructure needs aren't as great as maybe a water and sewer system. So, the gap doesn't need to be as big. Um, and often times when you do have capital needs, most cities will end up having to transfer in funds from other sources. But um overall I would say that it's a healthy recreational facility looking at the results of revenue and expenses this year and finally solid waste. Um you can see that I have two lines here. One is rep um representing the blue line. It includes some grants that the city receives to help fund operations. And the significant change in 2025 comes in um with the change in how those um waste and recycling bins are handled. Um this was a planned change here and I believe that should be my last one. Yep. So that's all I have pre-planned for you, but happy to answer any other questions that may have come up. >> All right. And maybe this is a good opportunity for the qu the answer to council member Sher's question about the water fund and and water rate payers >> and how that will look. >> Yeah, absolutely. Um great question. I've received that question throughout the week as well uh from some of you. But um why is that not as important to the water rates that were proposed? First of all, uh when water rates are determined, we really looking at a long-term plan. We're not really looking for the rates only for the next year. The cash is a significant um is of a significant importance with the utility funds or the um um uh business funds if you would because that kind of shows the cash flow um for this instance not paying this invoice timely in 2024. We had more cash at that point. However, that cash was um was hit our accounts in 2026. Um so big picture here when we determine our rates we're really looking at all the capital needs for the next probably 101 15 years we actually doing a 20 year CIP for utility funds as well. So when when you determine rates uh we're also considering that which is a huge part of expenses in those funds uh but also the cash flow right. So when we uh when we uh look at the 2024 the issue wasn't that we didn't have the cash there that invoice the best case scenario would have decreased cash in 2025 if it was collected timely not in 2024. So the the issue with this transaction was not a cash impact was a understatement of liabilities at year end. So that's not a cash impact. So it's a debit uh to your expenses which is an expense and a credit to your liabilities. That would have been the journal entry that we would have had to post u and the cash ideally would have hit 2025. So for 2025 rates to be set, you would have had to determine that in 2024 where cash would have been the same either way. So there would have been no impact to your uh recommend recommended uh rate increases for 2025. That make sense my following? And also again long-term we're not going to look year after year. So cash was good in 2024. Uh 2025 and was uh overstated because then it would have hit in 2025 but it resolved itself in 2026. Uh and we're really looking at a 10 15 20 year projections when we look at the rates at least I do. I'm working with others this year to see how that works for them. So, so maybe for members of the public, we'll see if this this analogy is is is workable for this situation. So, we essentially we saved up the money for that expenditure prior to 2024 or most of it anyway. And so, really it was there in our in our checking account, if that's what we want to call it, um to be spent and had planned to be spent and just wasn't spent. Um, and in in the world of accounting, we should have accounted for the fact that we had that liability >> to pay that amount. >> Absolutely. >> During the year that it was incurred and we had not done that. And so, it's not that we didn't have the money, it's that we didn't account for the the liability that the city had to pay that amount. >> Yeah. And when we account for the project, again, this was a project in conjunction with the uh county, um, we assume in those long range planning that those expenses will be paid. So when we make an assumption for utility rate increases, we look at operating cost also capital cost and we put those in rel relation to the cash. So those expenses would have been completely accounted for in that evaluation to begin with. So we weren't really looking at the timing when it hits our cash. We're actually looking at the timing of the loan plan when those expenses are going to hit either 2024, 25, 26. doesn't really matter when we cut the check, but when we do a long range planning, we're accounting for those expenses as happening 100%. So for those for that purpose of determining rates, the timing when we cut the check shouldn't have mattered at all. >> Got it. >> Yep. All right. >> Other questions from the council. >> Check if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak. It doesn't appear to be the case. Um, and I do believe we have a requested action, uh, which I believe is to receive the financial report for 2025, unless I'm mistaken on that. >> All right. So, that would be >> motion to accept the financial report as >> second presented. >> Been moved by uh, council member Stron, seconded by council member Sharter to accept the 2025 financial report as presented. Uh, any discussion on that motion as the maker, council member Stron? I appreciate the presentation and I appreciate the longevity. So, we've seen this and understand the process and um looking forward to seeing um how we can incorporate this into our next year's planning and looking forward to having Mr. Monoranu on board for that. >> Right. As the secondary, Council Member Schroer. >> Yes. I want to say I I thought um this this audit um had a few more um pieces in it that I appreciated. um some of the findings and I know with some of the corrections that our our finance director and and our you know city manager are working to make sure our policies and procedures are in place you know there will be mistakes made and it's how we um correct that is is the important part so that that was the good part about that um I also um appreciated all the um interaction between the city manager and the finance director and all the questions questions I had once I got this. I appreciate getting it out a little bit early so I could actually um study it a bit. So on that side and every year I'm looking forward to improving on it. So So this year we did have some improvements. So thank you. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion. Uh Council Member Grath, >> I would really echo with that. Um I thought the report was thorough. I saw some changes from the last few years and I I thought that was clear. I thought the report was done in a way that was digestible for people who don't live with numbers every day. Um, if they made the effort, they could read through this and get a lot of good information about how the city works and I think the changes that you're planning to make are really important for the future and I appreciate those. >> Thank you. >> All right. And uh council member Bower um you know as noted in the audit report some you know issues with internal controls and I know that there's efforts already being taking place to um improve those um even before I believe the audit was coming out. So I look forward to um watching the finance commission as you discuss those with the finance commission. >> Great and I'm certainly supportive of accepting the uh comprehensive financial report. Um, and and I think that not not only will mistakes be made, but I think that part of putting the controls in place is to try to catch them earlier and try to hopefully develop procedures that minimize mistakes in the first place because certainly that's that's part of the objective as well as stewards of the of the the people's money. Uh, the fortunate thing is that by catching things early uh that we can make the corrections and do the things we need to do um to keep the the finances of the city in good shape. So that's why we put those those types of procedures in place and why we test them and why we adjust them as need be. So uh once again uh we've got the motion before us to accept our 2025 comprehensive financial report. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. And that's accepted. And thank you again, Miss Peterson, for your uh report this year. And we look forward to the process next time around. >> Thank you for having me. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next on our agenda, uh we have our second business item this evening is item 7B, uh which is to uh consider the uh issuance of a 2026 community survey and some discussion as it relates to that. And so I'll turn it over to our assistant city manager, Rebecca Olsen, to uh bring this before the council for our discussion and consideration. >> Thank you, mayor, council members. Um, as part of our commitment to uh data informed decision-making and aligning our work with our strategic plan, uh, tonight uh, staff is bringing before you uh, for consideration some proposed updates to the community survey um, with the intent to really strengthen how we're measuring progress on our strategic plan um, and aligning with our vision of being a vibrant, safe, and inclusive community. So, a little bit of background. So, our community survey has historically served as one of our important tools to measure resident satisfaction. Um, we identify different community priorities and concerns through the community survey. We have a core set of questions that we maintain throughout this survey that helps us track trends over time. And um also we plan to continue to use this to help inform our strategic planning moving forward. Helps inform some of our uh budget decisions and then can also help us um as I mentioned previously measure that progress towards those goals that we've outlined. Uh so we have conducted community surveys uh basically since 2014 possibly even before that. This is back on the records that I have. Typically it is roughly every two years. Um we did have a short break during those COVID years. We did one in 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 and then the most recent one was in 2024. Um we as I mentioned we use this as our consistent benchmarking over time. So we've used the same survey company throughout these years and we can track those progress for each of those questions over time. a little bit on our survey methodology just because I know this does come up frequently. There are variety of ways to do it. We do do a statistically valid um sample. Um we use 400 residents um that are done with a margin of error roughly 5% um plus or minus 5%. Our residents is um representative of our demographics. So for example, if we have 50% or 52% um women, we try to get uh 52% of the random sample to be reflective of that demographic as well as other demographics. Um and then in addition, it is a phone survey. Uh we often get questions on whether it is just landlines. It does include cell phone surveys or cell phones um in the survey. And the current survey is 130 questions. It does include those demographic questions. The average time it takes um the last survey in 2024 was about 22 minutes to complete. And then as I've I've uh stated, we do keep those core questions um to help with our trend analysis. So this year, one of the primary opportunities we have with the 2026 survey is to really strengthen that alignment with our our strategic plan to um measure a lot of the qualitative success indicators that we have in our goals. Um and it can provide some some actionable data that we can use moving forward. And um I think I get into this the next slide here. So with our strategic plan, we have a variety of success indicators that are both quantitative and qualitative. And we uh have these are some examples. Um you'll see this slide and the next slide of what some of those qualitative um success indicators look like and it is around the sentiment. So th this community survey is only one of the tools that we have that we can measure this but it is a really large tool that we use. Um, and so, um, hoping to, um, really be able to use some of the feedback that we get from the community survey to give us a baseline moving forward of our strategic plan. Um, you'll see in here, for example, um, when we talk about some of the recommended um, changes for your consideration, not every priority area in our community survey has any recommendations for changes. And a lot of that is because we're already tracking some of those. So, for example, our parks and natural environment priority area in our strategic plan. Um, a couple of the qualitative success indicators are uh around our parks programs and how they positively contribute to residents quality of life. We already asked that question. So, there are some questions that we're already using that we can use um moving forward with our strategic plan. So this slide and the next slide are really just um showing you what some of those success indicators look like. Starting on on this slide, I'm going to come back to this slide, but I want to just um give you kind of the highle overview and then we'll dive into a lot of the very specific questions um recommendations kind of walk you through so that you can provide your feedback. Um there are three areas that staff is is looking at. One is to take a look at the survey. Are there any questions that we could potentially remove that might not be timely any longer? And there were um excuse me, a couple of them were related to the new Cedar Home building. Given that that is almost 10 years old now, um feedback from our park and rec director is that we could probably eliminate some of those questions. We have other ways to gather that data that's in the survey. And then there were several questions in the 2024 survey that were related specifically to our sales tax referendum. And so we are recommending potentially um eliminating those. Then there's a group of questions that um are currently in our survey that we thought we could potentially tweak to get more at the those uh success indicators tied to our strategic plan. One thing I'll highlight, you'll probably hear me say this multiple times, is that there's nobody on staff that is um a statistically valid survey question writer. And so what we're planning to do is bring back council's feedback on the areas specifically that you are looking to um get feedback on through the survey and help ask our survey provider to give us those questions so that it's written in an appropriate manner so that it can be statistically valid. there is no bias and it's something that would be appropriately done. Um and in the past what we've done is we've brought those questions to you, sent it out to you and if there's any feedback that um you need to provide, we can bring it back to a council meeting. So that's where you'll hear me say these might be sample questions, but they aren't necessarily specifically worded exactly as as what the end result might be. Um and then there's some new questions that we're looking to um potentially ask. As I mentioned, we are eliminating hopefully a couple of the ones related to the sales tax referendum, and that gives us a little bit more capacity if there are specific questions related to the strategic plan, but also there might be things that council is interested in getting feedback on from the community that isn't here or isn't specifically tied to the strategic plan. So, there is a little bit of flexibility moving forward with um questions that you may want to consider as well. Um, I'm going to skip the next couple slides and we're going to come back to those, but I wanted to just give you a brief overview of what the cost is. So, the 2026 budget did allocate dollars for a community survey. Um, we have enough in there for the base survey for 130 questions, which is $28,000 based on the the quote from the survey company. Um, if we plan to add any questions above and beyond that 130, it is $250 per question. We did add in with the intent that there might be some flexibility needed to tie things to our strategic plan. So, we have some dollars in there to potentially add a few extra questions that is appropriate in the 2026 budget. And then lastly, wanted to really just kind of give you a timeline of what this might look like. So, uh, our our hope was that we could, um, use some of the results that come out of this survey to help inform any decisions that the city manager's recommended budget might take into account. And so we backtracked into that thinking that um if if he presents his budget in August um looking to have results presented to you as a council in July, meaning the survey would be conducted in June and we would get feedback to our survey company sometime by the end of this month um for the finalization. Then moving forward, it says September, but it's it's kind of a moving forward look ahead is we would use the data that we've gathered through this survey to really set that baseline for our strategic plan. And as we look to develop work plans tied specifically to the strategic plan um and budget uh moving forward in 2027, we would have at least a data point that we could reference and where we want to go from there. So, um, here is where, um, I can walk through the specific questions that we're looking at, um, that the leadership team kind of came up with and and looked through. And then again, I, um, looking for council feedback on those questions, but also other thoughts on on the, um, community survey. So, with that, um, as I mentioned, these are the three categories. Um, I can I can do one of two things. I can walk through them one by one or I can go through them all at once and then you guys can provide feedback. You just let me know what you'd prefer. So, um, I'm going to pull up the actual survey so you can see the questions if that works. >> Right. And maybe it does make sense to take each in turn, the remove, the edit, and the new >> the sections. >> Right. >> Okay. I'm going to get my notes here quick so I have them handy. Okay. So, as I mentioned, the first group was um removing questions um 26 through 28. All right. Hang on. I hear that. I'm not sure. The screen changed. Let's see. >> Yeah. I'm not sure how you switch between them. >> I'm not sure either. We're going to Why would you take out 27? Um, let me just pull it up real quick and see if I can There we go. So, this was um based on the recommendation of our parks director. Um, he felt that there were already ways that these are measured um in addition to the fact that Cedar Home um is no longer new. So, they have other ways that they measure some of this sentiment. Um and so his recommendation was to remove um 26 27 and 28 is kind of a followup to the previous question. I just thought maybe it would be helpful to have something that was like do you know how to rent do you know how you would go about getting you know renting one of the facilities or if that was a barrier in how people get to that. So, I appreciate 27 is very similar to 29, but maybe something that's kind of a middle ground. I'm a little concerned on that one, especially given that um the numbers are so low. You don't know is 64%. They've not used those houses. I was hoping that in the next survey it would have come up a little, but maybe we can find that number out some other way. He said that he has some other ways of tracking that those statistics. >> But if they don't know about it, what's going to help them know about it? >> Right. >> Well, certainly answering a survey question may or may not help people know about it. >> That's true, too. >> Given that it's only 400 >> 400 people households >> and the rest of them don't see these unless they look at the packet. I think the uh the other thing about it is that the questions are actually not just about the Cedar Home uh community building, but also the other park buildings which are less new than the the Cedar Home building at this point. And so >> um >> yeah, I don't I don't know that it's >> super important to have those those in there, but I appreciate the the feedback. Are there other thoughts from council members? I don't know. I think I like having them and I mean just changing the you know dropping from this the newer cedar home and updating you know removing that part but >> just calling that park buildings. >> Yeah, just park buildings. I mean I do like to see the trend as council member Gra pointed out to see how that's progressing and how our communications about these opportunities and I would think that that would be helpful for the parks department as well to see how effective their communications are. I'd be in favor of just keeping them. >> Well, I think you could remove 26 and 28 because you could do a satisfaction survey of the people who actually used them, but you could say, "Have you used visited or used one of the buildings?" And then 29, would you consider using again? And then um you know, and do you know how to rent one if you were interested? You know, I think we don't need to talk to the people who have already rented them about whether or not they would they're going to provide a satisfaction survey in another way, but I still think it would be helpful for them us to ask if they know they exist or how they could use them or that they're available for anyone who wanted to use them. >> Yeah. I mean, I guess I would be fine with leaving it to staff to figure out what to do there as long as we can, >> you know, the new result, the new survey results, we can use that data and match it against the previous one to show what the trend is. If that requires you to keep the same questions and just update them, fine. If you can, you know, update them new, come, you know, as mentioned here, that's fine, too. But just as long as we can infer a trend or at least compared to previous years, you know, a trend. So I it sounds like there's >> without having heard from all the council members necessarily that there is there's at least sufficient consensus to keep >> I think you could um like some of them I think you could condense it down not so many questions and I think again figuring out um how to word it um you know like yeah there's a number of them >> I don't know if you need like 30 in there some of them so yeah I would say it's more trying to get that trend feel and and just yeah I leave it to the staff that you understand we're trying to see the trend and figure out which questions and then how to reward it obviously take out new >> whatever it is but yeah >> yeah they might think we've replaced it again >> it's wonderful >> um yes there we go um so just to clarify from the council's perspective so 26 is the are you aware question how did we feel about the 26 are you aware question. >> Couldn't it just be 27? Have you >> Well, no, that's what I'm saying. Do we keep 26 or or >> I think we're going to get rid of 26 and have 27 because >> I just want to make sure I understand the input from the >> 27 will give me the information I was looking for for >> and I think 28 be eliminated because it should be asked. >> We should we can figure that out a different way as opposed to the survey because actually that's going to be a lot less than 400 households at that point. >> And obviously we've gotten pretty good remarks or reviews from the ones who did respond. Um, and then was 29 felt that that's similar to 28 in terms of we can get that information else-wise or >> Yeah, I would think you could get take 20, 29 and um >> Yeah. >> and 30 out >> 26 28 29 and 30. >> Yeah. So just keep >> keep 27. Yeah. >> Right. >> So we're what we're measuring is awareness. >> Right. Yeah. >> And then maybe, you know, do you know how you would, you know, are you aware of how you would go about renting them if you were interested or I don't know, just >> Well, we haven't asked that before, >> but it may be part of why people haven't used them, too. So, we're Wouldn't it be helpful to know why? >> What was the response previously? It was uh >> why won't you use it? We don't need to 100%. >> Oh. So, which is I mean if you don't need to use a building, you're not going to need to use the building, I guess. >> All right. >> I don't know. >> Okay. >> That was that was kind of my thought on it. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, 27 >> 27 >> days. >> Yeah, I think so. >> Y >> All right. >> So, then the next set of questions that um are under consideration is questions 56 through 63. So, um it starts with this um intro uh related to the sales tax referendum. Um and it is questions directly related to that ballot question that was on the ballot. >> Yeah. >> So, 56 57 58 um 59 >> Oh, yeah. >> 60 61 62 and 63. Yeah, I think those can be removed. >> I don't know that we're planning to have another referendum anytime soon. >> I don't think we are. No. >> All right. >> And if we are, we have to do another survey by then. >> There's a lot of steps to go through anyway before we get to that point. >> Okay. >> Okay. So then, um the next section is questions um for potential um edits. And we're going to go back to question nine. Um question nine. Um, so this one, uh, the current question is, "Please tell me which of the following do you feel the closest connection to, the city of Roseville as a whole, your neighborhood, your school district, or something else?" So, the the conversation um, at the leadership level was that maybe this is a good question that we could tie to our city vision um, and in engaging our community to say um, how I have to I'm sorry, I have to look up my my notes here. Um, oops. So, this one would be um, again, this is just a sample of the the question, but to what extent do you believe Roseville is a vibrant, safe, and inclusive community with a followup of what would most improve Roseville's ability to be a vibrant, safe, and inclusive community? Um, I have no idea if that is the appropriate way to word it, but the intent was to maybe tie it towards the city's vision to see what the community feels if this is if we're achieving this vision. So, that that's the intent of this question's edit. Um so looking for um council feedback on whether keeping the current language of that question um is still valuable which we we can um or if an additional question or an edit of that question is appropriate. >> Does it make sense to have it all as one question? I can see someone maybe saying like uh it's vibrant and inclusive. I don't feel safe. I mean do you >> do you feel like you need to break that up into multiple questions and and maybe not. I think there's other places in the survey where we cover safe. Um I don't know about vibrant or inclusive off the top of my head, but that might be something that you want to look at. >> That's a great suggestion. That's something that has come up also um of do we break it out individually between exactly as you said. Um there are some proposed questions that are under the new section related to safe. So maybe towards the end we can kind of um get the sentiment of which questions we want to ask and do they does it make sense to split them out or >> well just as an example question 10 is a question about how welcome you feel in the community and that that's sort of related to inclusiveness in some senses. Mhm. >> Um so there may be some ways to to look even at other existing questions to to you know like like was said we definitely have questions about feeling safe and maybe there's you know ways to look at uh the the vibrancy and inclusiveness as well with either either modifications to existing questions or new questions. I kind of curious on four um it mentions um neighborhoods and housing and it's kind of funny in our commission interviews. It was always location, location, location. Um, but lately it's been neighborhood and and neighbors more than um, and I see that this is probably what people say, but I think that it maybe would be interesting to have somehow differentiate that we have no control over the church workplace or really school district. So maybe it's more what we're asking for in Please tell me which of the following you feel the closest connection to the city of Roseville as a whole. How is that different than four? And are we, you know, I don't know. I I just feel like nine feels a little clunky. I agree with that. And so I'm thinking maybe somewhat we're asking that question in four about what's most important to you. >> Yeah, I think nine could go away and be revised. I I I will trust some other wording coming back that's appropriate and not >> Well, it sounds like it's about the city anyway. So if we're looking how to align it with vision, that seems like a good good anyone to do. >> So how do people feel about uh removing nine then? I it sounds like or replacing nine. >> Replacing >> keeping four. >> Yeah. >> Or tweaking four. And how does that I think we'd still want to check with the survey folks about how they >> how they respond to that too because I'm a little concerned that we lose something if we >> if we do the change and then they say, "Oh, but >> such and such." Not that we that couldn't be part of the follow-up communication. >> But I think council member Bower's point was good to break that down too. So >> may I noticed there were other questions that had followup things. Where would you rate vibrancy? Whatever they are, it could be done that way. Well, we definitely got rid of seven questions, so we've got opportunity to add some more in. >> Well, it wouldn't have to be a whole question. It could be a subset on that one. >> Right. >> Well, and I think still um maybe um including 10 in there as well. Is it because that one is >> how do you feel welcome? >> I think maybe that could be part of the revamp, >> you know, group is that we're breaking it out between. Well, and I and I don't want to assume that that how people feel as far as welcome and how that relates to inclusiveness, you know, are are are the same or not. So, >> and that's where we have >> So, we may have to look at at sort of the the the city strategy question or the city objective question as somehow either incorporating into existing questions especially about safety and or adding a couple of new questions to break it down like was suggested. But but I think the strategy makes sense. >> Yes. >> Or you know on 11A or revamp of 11 could be you know how how could that be improved or you know maybe somebody has a really specific idea. I mean there's always the I think if I'm not mistaken 11 is a free form answer. >> So it's just what we hear >> but certainly you could ask a different question to get >> the answers you want. But I but I think you know once again I it >> I think we've got a sense of where the council would like to go on this and I I don't know that the indicate in intent is to to reward questions here in this discussion this season. Right. Yeah. >> Um so then the next question um is question 13. So question 13 is um a little bit of background here. Question 13 is really forward thinking. Um it's an important question. Um but the the conversation around this question was really could we improve it to make it um a little bit more specific to the strategic plan. So what it's currently asking is really about um of like you know what are the things that in the future should be fixed? Is there a way we could potentially reward it to are there what areas should the city prioritize in the next five years to improve quality of life or something to that effect? Um it's trying to get at the same thing but maybe tie it more specifically to our strategic plan. don't know how to word it specifically, but um and again looking for council feedback, but also would um maybe hope the survey company would let us know if maybe you can just use this question or >> well definitely 13 is a what's wrong question. >> Yeah. and 14 is a what do we what is missing question and maybe between the you can combine that into a what what you know what is the vision for the next future of the city >> because I don't you know I mean maybe it's important to have a what's wrong question I don't want to >> don't want to presume and these are both also free form answers as I understand it that there we're not >> we're not suggesting a list >> and there is question number five is more of a shortterm um what is the the current challenge that we're facing. So we do have kind of an immediate um what what needs to be addressed and then this 13 is more of a in the future kind of forward looking >> right >> and I would say that's 13 and 14 once again are both sort of that looking forward longer term >> because we're not going to we're not going to put in what's missing on day one necessarily. I do have a concern if we put it ti ting trying to force or direct them towards just what we have in the strategic plan is we're kind of assuming that those are the only categories. What I do enjoy about these 13 and 14 is as the mayor pointed out that they are open and um you know because I don't presume that all those items on the strategic plan while they are broad cover everything that a resident may be have a concern with or enjoy. So as I mean you can word it different ways but as you do that just >> try not to just limit the choices >> and once again it may be a >> an additional question and not changing these questions. >> Yeah, additional would be fine. >> I think additional would be better because you you don't want to try to steer them into a funnel of only our strategic plan. I think that's a good point where that somebody might think of something we hadn't thought about that we wanted to have on the, you know, >> but I think the intent was for it to still be an open-ended question. Yes. We're not we're not trying to we're not trying to >> pre-seelelect answers. >> Well, that's why I said if it's going if we're trying to make it tailor it to reflect our strategic plan that >> Right. But the the question I think that was proposed was um identify community priorities tied to tied to the strategic plan. So is there >> Yeah. see the tied to the strategic >> plan. Maybe it's better to just say community priorities. >> Yeah. See, that's the part where I think you want to make it wide enough. So, if somebody has something else that they're concerned about >> or that that it's the things we're looking at in the future or the things that the the that are priorities to make the community more vibrant, safe, and inclusive. I mean, because that gets back to the objective. >> The suggestion was really tied to quality of life because our mission is that we want to provide a high quality of life. And so it was something along the lines of what areas should we prioritize to improve quality of life in the next five years. >> Yeah, I like it. Um that would be >> I don't know if that's the >> Yeah. Without saying the strategic plan, don't say that. >> I think that's more of the inside language, right? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> If we do want to include more of the strategic plan, I think a question you that' be worth adding is are you aware the city has the strategic plan? >> Yeah, that and have it as a separate item. Yeah. >> I mean I mean I don't know >> that might be too early to ask that question. Yeah, >> but I which is I and I agree with >> because I think we're we're tailoring questions to help us measure things that we're talking about in our strategic plan, but we're not using the strategic plan words as part of the survey as far as I understand it, >> right? >> Which is important as long as we don't do that. Yeah, >> I think we'll get a better. >> So I think actually once again this might be a new question thing in addition to 13 and 14 and four and five. I think that 15, 16, and 17 might be challenging for people to be able to hold a list of 10 different people different options in their mind on the phone without seeing it just because so many people are visual learners at this point. So, I don't know if there's a way to take similar information, obtain similar information in a more uh phone interview friendly way that maybe the surveyor could recommend. I think it's helpful information, but at the same time to ask the same question, >> right? But they do ask it three times and they take out the the ones that they identify. So again people, but that's okay. Yeah, >> it seems to have worked before. >> Yeah, I like it. I keep it. >> And the list they're referring to, I believe, is the answers to 14, right? >> Yeah. >> And so the second person that gets the survey has a list of one or whatever of a list of whatever the first person said. >> Yeah. No, the list of 17 is the list. >> No. >> No. >> Read a list of characteristics. Other please tell me which of those >> others have mentioned that indicate a city has a high quality of life. >> I do believe it is the list under 17 that is listed. >> Is it? >> I do believe so. >> From previous I didn't scroll down far enough. I I apologize. It's just a lot of words to hold in your mind while you consider how it relates to the next thing. >> That's okay. >> Yeah. >> I have a sociology degree and have done a lot of surveys. So, just kind of got that in my brain. So, >> sure. >> I just that's why I thought maybe someone who specializes in it could uh >> and that's who came up with this question originally was the survey experts. >> But best practice over time may have changed. I wanted to make sure in 25 that maybe we added something about bike trails or walking trails. Um because there's mention of trails for exercise or trails connecting neighborhoods, trails connecting shopping and business. I guess I didn't really see anywhere else where it would mention, you know, you could people could have an opinion about biking trails or walk or walking trails. Isn't that what the trails are are saying? Isn't that walking in by all the trails? Like >> maybe it needs to just be clear that it would be both. >> Question 54 does talk about bikeways. Um and that section that um you just mentioned uh city manager Trean is the next suggestion is to add um under that question where it says for each of the following long-term infrastructure projects. Please tell me if you strongly support the city continuing to invest in somewhat support, somewhat opposed or strongly oppose. Um, our public works director had suggested adding in um, sustainability >> and environmental projects. Um, I don't know if that is a one or a two item. Um, but those were those suggestions there. >> Yeah, that makes sense because that has been something I hear a lot from residents, >> right? And that is a public worksy kind of question. >> Yep. to coin a phrase >> to use a technical term public works. >> Uh so back to sort of the the items that the staff was bringing forward. I think that discussion about questions whatever it was 134 lo 14. Yeah. Mhm. >> I think the the general thought was that we probably want to most likely keep 1314 as they are and then add a question about that gets to the >> priorities >> to the priorities. >> Okay. And then uh what was the next >> 51 >> 51 51 through >> we just did that. Okay. So we're on track. Okay. Uh and then also uh the the next section um for your consideration are questions 77 through 83. Um get down to that for you. >> Oh, the housing. >> Yep. It's related to housing. And I have to pull up my notes real quick. Um, okay. So, this one, uh, the current question is that I'd like to read you a list of characteristics of a community. For each one, please tell me if you think Roseville currently has too many, too much, too few, too little, or about the right amount. Um the conversation around this was maybe shifting the focus from what's the perceived quantity of housing types to um are the housing types adequately serving residents uh needs. Um and so >> again this is I don't know if the wording of my question is is correct >> um but thinking about your current and future housing needs as well as the needs of residents across different life stages. This might be too wordy. um how well do you feel the variety of housing options are meeting needs in each of these following areas? So, it would be maybe just a different intro to that question and leave the list. Um but it was really about shifting the focus of um the perceived quantity versus are we meeting the needs to tie into some of those um the the the goals that could help inform some of the programs that we might have. um if there's certain areas where we aren't meeting needs. >> I like that. I actually had this one circled too as something that was of concern. I feel like a lot of people don't have a real recent filter and so they're like, "Oh yeah, we just keep building senior facilities and we really haven't had a ton of senior facilities going up in uh the last couple years." So, um, we have many, but, um, I think it's good to maybe frame it in a way that doesn't meet the needs of you and your family or, you know, kind of frame it in a way that it's like, okay, well, you don't get to decide if there are currently too many uh, affordable housing units cuz you're not going to get rid of them because you don't like them, but how can we find what suits your needs moving forward if you're downsizing or upgrading? I appreciated that uh thought too of 89 and 90 >> as opposed to um are there too many for other people? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Is it adequate for you and your needs? And I think that that does make more sense maybe to ask people >> or too many in general because what is you know been here? My my implication was too many for other people because really that's kind of what what you might be saying because certainly any any given household only needs one of whatever they might want. >> Would we want to include um uh short-term rental? I don't know if that that's a housing a housing type that we're looking I mean that you know that's sort of a lodging type >> we have enough hotels. >> It does pull away from housing though if house some of the housing stock is used for short-term rentals or for long-term rentals. It does pull away from permanent long-term housing for others. That would almost then be back to a too much too few question as opposed to a what are your needs question. >> True enough. >> It's a general feeling on on the council about the the change to the format of this series of questions. I like the proposed uh change of direction but still getting the information in a way that's more about what do I need or how will I utilize the stock that's available or needs to be available. But it does include here service and retail establishments which >> and I think we may be able to potentially split out some of the the ones that go away from the housing to have a different intro. You could keep the too much too few. If you want to you keep that for >> parks, open space, trails, service, retail establishment. If if you wanted to keep that same intro for certain pieces of it, we could potentially do that. Yeah, it is interesting that we combined a bunch of things together there. >> They are a little dispar >> like like you know a bunch of choices of different types of housing and then >> a broad category for parks and open spaces and a broad category for four other things. Yeah. >> Entertainment and dining. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There may be some ways we can >> tweak that a little. >> Do a housing needs question and then an other things question. >> Does that make sense from everybody's point of view? I think it'd be nice to move that out of the housing and talk just about housing in that area. >> All right. >> So, the next category are questions that we don't really have a very um specific question currently in the survey for. So, we called these new questions. Um so the first one would be um to potentially add a um a question related to um overall how safe and secure do you feel living in Roseville? Um that could be one that's tied to safety. We have several um qualitative qualitative success indicators under our um responsive and safety services priority. So, understanding kind of how safe do you feel, you could potentially do a follow-up of um why do you feel that way or what could make what could improve that? Um I just I'm not quite sure under the survey methodology which one would be best suited. And that um again ties a little bit to council members Bower con uh comment about splitting out the vibrant safe and inclusive community to have safe as a separate question as well. >> Yeah. So we really in the questions that are in the survey get quite a bit into specific questions about specific areas of safety and things like that, but we don't have that overall question. Is that kind of what the what the thinking from leadership was? >> Mhm. >> I think it's really I mean they've done this repeatedly in the questions is in Roseville when you're thinking of Roseville referring to Rose because sometimes when you ask a question people go like yeah it's really bad out there where I see all these things on TV and I watch these crime shows and I said but think about Roseville because >> Yeah. And then when usually you get to local, then it's like, well, you know, yeah, there might be an issue. >> We look at all the cities, not just Roseville. Yeah. >> I like the new questions and I think a lot of them address things that we've talked about already in other places. The fifth one, um, how well do you feel? I think it would come up with kind of well, not well, really well. I feel like you could maybe um how can city services respond to the evolving needs of Roseville residents where you are actually asking for a suggestion where you're actually asking for an action of people. You know, what thing do you think would be helpful? >> Well, and I think you may still want the the sort of the broad the the general question about kind of thumbs up, thumbs down, right? And then maybe the follow-up question is what where could we improve? >> Well, and don't we ask that in like plowing and >> yeah, I mean it could be worked into that one of those one or more of those sections >> as a leadoff question. >> The other questions that are up there um is asking about the transportation options. Um one of our um goals talks about multimmodal transportation. So trying to g gather feedback on um how the transportation options within the city are um meeting needs. Um we did cover kind of the housing options under that blue um question up there. So I think that one is is one that we can take off there. Um wondering if council feels that there's uh worthwhile to ask if there are housing challenges. Um, and again, not sure how to specifically word it, but um, if there are housing challenges, whether it's a follow-up question, what are those challenges? >> Um, or what isn't, I I'm not exactly sure, but we could potentially have a follow-up to some of those housing questions if need be. >> Sure. >> Um, and then we, um, discussed the responsive services question >> and the housing challenges. We keep it open. So, between just keeping it open-ended and also somehow limiting it to things that are within our control. Um, and I don't think you're going to be able to do that. So, I think you're going to just end up leaving it wide open. But, if for some reason that you figure it out or the survey writers figure that out, that'd be appreciated. But, probably don't. Well, and it hasn't been unusual in past surveys to get some responses that for instance relate to something that the school district is responsible for or something like that in the free form. And I think you know our obligation at that point is to pass that along to the leadership of whoever is responsible for that. >> Are we getting this survey longer? Because one of my concerns is we want to keep this short. I think 22 minutes I know when I answer a phone and they say 22 minutes I go like no I don't have time. Sorry. >> Yeah, that we don't want them at if we can stay within the 130 questions or less, I think that would Yeah, >> that's our goal. >> That's the goal. >> Yeah. >> Thankfully, we took out seven. So, >> Yep. That's exactly it. >> I would like to 130. It says gender do not ask. So, is it a making an assumption based on the voice? >> I don't have the answer to that question. I noticed that as well. And so, I'm not I'm not 100% sure what that is. Well, I I don't know the answer to that question. >> I mean, I think in this day and age, you know, it we really should ask somebody. If you're going to include it as a thing, we should ask what gender they identify as. And if they don't identify as the binary, then we need to make other or, you know, I don't know. I just think people have an expectation that you aren't making an assumption based on their voice or what their name is cuz often you're wrong. >> Yeah. I believe it's not an assumption based on something like that. I I would almost be positive then the company can confirm that it's from other demographic data that's tied to their account or their phone number or their name >> which may or may not be current. >> Yeah. That and and I don't know how they get their their data on how they figure out which phones to call. I'm not sure. Um but I'm sure that they have some sort of database that is in there and that is something that is probably tied to that. So because they have to also do a sample that is representative of the demographics that we have. So I don't I I don't know exactly how they do that but >> it very well just could be the demographic breakdown of Roseville >> and so they they know what that is and they match the sample to that then. >> But we can we can definitely ask that question so that they are prepared to answer that when they when they do this. >> That's good. And I think as it relates to all the demographics, if I remember right, if their if their sample doesn't completely match the actual demographics, they have ways to weight the answers as they statistically evaluate everything to account for that. >> So the the final question um for council is are there questions that are not in the survey that you would like to see? Are there other things that you don't think need to be in the survey? >> Council, I didn't see any. Yeah. Well, I I think it's important to have some continuity in there. We are making quite a few changes and if it's going to be statistically something that we can use to compare to the past, we don't want to get way off filter. >> I would agree. >> Right. All right. Very good. >> Thank you. Well, thank you, uh, Miss Olsson, as well as all the leadership team that's been involved in this process, uh, up to this point, and we look forward to the, uh, the thoughts that come out of the consultations with the with the survey company, and we council will have opportunities to weigh in at that point, and look forward to the final outcome. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. That brings us to uh, future agenda review. Uh, Mr. Treas, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, one more meeting in May. Next Monday, we have three uh proclamations to start off the meeting. We will hold the public hearing to consider certifying unpaid utility and other charges. The property tax role. Um, most likely we'll be dealing with considering a cancellation of the Center Point Medical Building Planned Unit development. There's looking to be some different development there. And so, under our ordinances, we need to officially cancel that portion of the PUB. and we'd be looking to award the nature playground consultant contract. So, fairly light meeting uh overall. Uh we do stack them up in June. We do have a couple um only two meetings in June and they're fairly busy. Uh on the 8th, we consider the Willow Pond environmental assessment uh workshop worksheet approval. This is the required environmental review for the dredging of Willow Pond. Uh that's been in the works for quite a while. So, this is a step that will complete that review process. Uh, I think I've communicated to the council before, but we anticipate uh potential um understanding of the VFW's acceptance of our offer um the end of May. So, we would look to consider bringing forward the purchase agreement with the BFW, the June 8th meeting. We also want to have the parks department here to talk about uh an update on the Autumn Grove playground planning process that's ongoing here. Uh right now we're looking to have a joint meeting with the finance commission and receive presentation from commissioner Mary Joe McGuire. I've been trying to balance these agendas and and so this is kind of where I'm at right now, but uh there's a lot there on that meeting. The 15th we have a minor plat 2816 Oxford Street. Uh we do want to spend the majority of the time if we can uh about the um civic campus concept plans um assuming we get the purchase agreement taken care of and also uh finance director Maharan who will be here um presentation the popular financial report something he's been working this brand new thing that we want to do and hopefully um in in light of trying to make things more transparent and understandable for people this is a better way to share the information we have here and then I have a bunch of June events as June is a very busy. >> All right. Are there questions on the future agenda review or items council members would like to suggest for future agendas uh or reports, announcements, communications from council members. >> Thanks everybody for coming to the NYFS lunchon. It was very successful. I don't have final numbers but was well attended and we had good speakers. Appreciate it. >> Great speakers, great stories, testimonials. >> Yeah. Um >> really good event. do want to remind folks of the community in bloom event uh in the Rice and Larber Alliance area at McCarron's Park on Saturday. We're we're hoping that it's going to be good weather for that at least early enough in the day for this event. I believe it's from like 11 to 2 or 3 or something along those lines. It may be noon. Yep. I I didn't I intended to look it up before the meeting started, but here we are. Um so, thank you. Uh but uh certainly if you showed up at the park early, you could probably find something. They might even need help setting up. So, perfect opportunity to contribute to the community. Right. Exactly. >> Exactly. All right. If there's uh Oh, council member. >> Uh, thank you to the Roseville Police Department and um in cooperation with the other police departments in the area who did the lights on presentation at um the Rose Mall on Saturday. It was very windy out there, but it was uh a really lovely display. a lot of families and um I want a bike and gave it to a very small child because I really didn't need a child's bike but um it was it was really lovely and so uh thanks to all of the folks involved but um really excited about the lights on program um and if you're not aware of it do take a look um and that the city of Roseville participates and and took the lead on having this um really large wellrun event. All right, with that, uh, we are not quite to the end of our agenda this evening, but I do want to note for people watching at home, as well as for the folks in the control booth, uh, that the next part of our meeting, uh, the close session, uh, or presumed close session, uh, for purposes of reviewing the performance of the city manager, um, will be happening off camera and not in the council chambers. uh and we will still by legal requirements have to reconvene in open session before we formally adjourn the meeting but that will also happen off camera but it will be accessible to the public in the room that we are in. So uh once we act on the potential motion to close uh this the meeting to go to that uh subject matter uh the we'll be going off camera at that point. So just want to make folks uh in the public as well as in the control room aware of that. Uh that brings us then to considering adjourning to a close session of the city council for the purposes of uh uh conducting a performance review of the city employee who is the city manager. That is the employee that uh that uh reports to the city council under our plan B form of government uh under Minnesota statutes 13D.05 5 subdivision 3 that talks about the exceptions to the open meeting law. Uh by law, city councils among other government bodies are supposed to conduct all their business in the open and in public and accessible to the public. Uh but there are some exceptions that are allowed under state law in that section. In paragraph A, it does talk about the ability to close uh meetings to have that to do that performance review uh purpose of an employee uh that reports to the council. Uh as I mentioned in this case it is city manager Pat Trojan. Uh part of that statute does uh require us to hold the review in open session if so requested by the uh subject of the review and so I will check with the subject of the review. Mr. Trejan, do you wish to require that we hold your review in open session? >> I do not. >> All right. Thank you Mr. Trean. With that then I believe I have covered the requirements and the announcements that I need to make in relation to this. I've said who it is. I've cited the statutory authority. I've asked if he wants it in the open. So I think we are ready to entertain a motion to uh for the moment adjourn the open session and go to a closed executive session for that purpose. Uh subsequent motions will happen after that. >> So move. >> All right. Moved by council member Grath. We'll take that as a second by council member Schroeder uh to expedite the process here. Uh is there any discussion on that motion? Hearing none. All those in favor of short-term adjournment of the uh open session to go to that closed session to do the performance review of the city manager signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Um and uh at 7:53 we are journ to close session.