hereby call to order the Roseville Economic Development Authority meeting for Monday, November 24th, 2025. Uh Mr. uh City Manager/executive director, could you call the role, please? Member Shartter >> here, >> member Grath >> here, >> member Bower here, >> member Stron >> here, >> President Ro >> here. Uh, and with us at the DEAS by way of introductions, we have our attorney Rachel Tierney, who's on my right at the very end of the day, our city manager/executive director of the EDA, Pat Trean, who's on my left at the end of the dash. I'll do a quick check of the room. Can folks in the room hear me? Okay. Is the PA coming over? The speakers. All right. Not in the back. >> Now is okay. Always want to check. Um when I can't hear myself echoing back, then I know something's up. Um wanted to make folks aware uh for that are here from the public that we do have uh extra copies of the meeting agendas on the back table by the by the door under the big clock. Feel free to grab one of those if you need to follow along with the agenda of the meeting. Uh we also do have a three- ring binder that has a complete set of all the materials that are here for the meeting uh that the council and the EDA will be considering this evening. uh that is available uh one copy to share amongst everybody uh who may need to access that over the course of the meeting. Uh we'll deal with other housekeeping issues as the uh they might need to be uh talked about. But the one thing I do want to remind folks if you do have a cell phone uh to be sure and silence that or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt the meeting this evening. And with that we'll ask folks to stand if you're able for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Next on tonight's Economic Development Authority agenda this evening is approval of tonight's agenda. And as always, we'll check with our executive director, Mr. Trean to see if there are any changes that need to be made to the agenda this evening. >> Uh yes, Mr. Mayor. We would like to remove for consideration tonight item 5C. Uh the representative of Habitat Humanity cannot make meeting tonight and we'd like that person to be part of the conversation. So we will defer any conversation on that until our January EDA meeting. So you can remove 5C from the agenda. >> All right. Uh and I'll check with members of the EDA. Are there any other changes that uh EDA members would like to make to the uh economic development authority agenda for this evening? Does not appear to be the case. Uh with that then uh we'll uh entertain a motion to approve tonight's agenda as uh amended to remove item 5C from the business items. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved by member Grath, second by member Sharter. Uh any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. We have our agenda for this evening. Uh next, I will note that uh we while it's listed on the agenda here as public comment, we generally uh move the the general public comment uh in each meeting uh when we have an EDA meeting, we move that to the start of the council meeting which starts right after this EDA meeting. Uh so we'll do that as has been our practice which means we'll move right into our business items this evening for the economic development authority. Our first item, item 5A, is to consider a resolution of support for the Oate Ot Center's grant applications to Ramsey County uh for grants there seeking in support of their reuse of the church at 965 Larpender Avenue. We have our housing and economic development program manager, Jeannie Kelly, with us this evening to bring this item before the EDA. Welcome, Genie. >> Thank you, President Row and board members. In your packet for your consideration is a resolution of support for Ramsey County application. um they are right now seeking to do a site assessment. If any environmental um uh from that site assessment, if they are awarded that grant, they'll do a site assessment. If there are any environmental determinations from that site assessment, they will then seek to apply for environmental re um funds through Ramsey County. And in addition to we're looking at once the county has their CDBG grant funds available for application, they're looking to apply for those grant funds to um to do the rehab of the building. So there's a resolution for all three of those items in your packet for your consideration. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Kelsey. I appreciate that information. Uh are there questions for staff for members of the board? Questions for members of the board? All right. Uh is there a representative of the uh applicant here this evening who wishes to speak in support of this resolution of support for the u uh for the grant applications? Does not appear to be the case. Uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening which is once again a request for a resolution of support uh for three different applications that this applicant is making for uh various grants to support their project. Is there anyone here from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? It does not appear to be the case. Then we'll move to board consideration. We've got the resolution attachment one uh included in our information this evening and the request is to uh adopt that resolution in support of those grant applications. >> I move approval. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by member Grath, seconded by member Straw. Uh discussion on that motion is the maker of the motion. Member Grath. No, this just allows in my opinion allows them to get the grants that would help to prepare the building and uh solve any comm uh environmental issues and also make it usable for the purposes that they are asking for. So pretty straightforward. >> All right, other discussion on the motion as the secondary member Strong. >> I'm thankful that they are able to continue to moving forward and I appreciate that forward progress. Hopefully they'll get all the things they need in in short time. All right, other discussion on the motion hearing none. We've got the motion before us to adopt the resolution attachment A in support of those various GR grant applications as outlined. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Uh that resolution is approved. Uh that then brings us to our second business item this evening, which is item 5B, and that is to consider a resolution authorizing a grant agreement with Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and revised documents related to the community land trust program in Roseville. And once again, Miss Kelsey is here for this item. >> Thank you, President Rombers, and you for your consideration tonight is the EDA has been awarded two grants. Um the first one was applied for through uh the um livable communities demonstration account through the MET council. We were awarded $375,000 for 50% of the total gap for a minimum of three homes. um in that grant application. And then in addition to we have received a grant funds from the county in the total amount of $620,000 for down payment assistance of up to $95,000 per home at each closing. The EDA is able on the mech council grant to reimburse themselves from that Met Council grant the 80,000 and anything above and beyond that. That's why we have amended the grant agreement with um master grant agreement with um Habitat is to allow them then to be reimbursed for some of the gap funds as to as well for up to 125,000 for each of the homes. Um the uh Ramsey County grant funds are not a match requirement nor are the LCDA but the Ramsey County funds would be just for down payment assistance and does not reimburse the EDA at all for their investment 80,000 per home. And you have in your packet then for consideration. And I wanted to make uh you aware of one bant handout is was an error from the last time you um amended this uh agreement was on November um of 2023. I want to say November 6th and then by accident the wrong uh guidelines got put into the packet. So we wanted to give that it's also been corrected on the uh documents live on the website as well just for you to be aware of that. And then so for your consideration tonight, you will be doing the resolution of support to Ramsey County authorizing the executive director and uh president to enter into that uh grant as well as amendments to the second amendment to a reinstated master long-term affordability grant agreement. And that is how the use of the funds for the grants are applied with Habitat. Um, in addition to there's just one other document and that document is not signed at this time. It's signed only upon each loan closing and that's the development agreement for each of the homes because the determination upon a home closing to the future owner is when it's determined how much subsidy do we need to put into the grants because it's based upon the eligible um eligible um income of the person who's buying the home. If you have any questions, I'm certainly here to answer them. Uh, in addition to our attorney here has drafted the documents and the amendments. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Kelsey. Are there questions for staff on this proposal? Uh, member Schroeder. >> I'm just curious, how do we determine who gets to buy these homes? So Habitat has an application process and it has to be an individual that comes through their process because Habitat also is the end and end ends up being the lender as well. So they all have to be income qualified to meet that requirement of our program plus Habitat's program. >> So they they verify the information and then they provide that to you. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Other questions for staff? >> Member Bower. I don't remember seeing the Ramsey County grant come before us. I was trying to look did we did the council give approval for application of this? >> No, the EDA did not give that authorization. We have received it before and received um authorization and so we were just underneath the assumption to continue to apply for that grant. >> I do know that I think other grants even smaller ones typically come before either the council or this body. Was this just overlooked or was just that staff decided that wasn't necessary? >> I think we we were underneath the assumption that the EDA would support wanting to have more assistance for the habitat program since it's an existing program. >> Yeah, I do know with some of these that there's matches and whatnot in this case, but it definitely be for uh even you know if it's done in the past coming before us to uh just get approval. I know it was done with for example the Met Council one. I mean there it was required but >> right >> it's always nice to know what we're committing to otherwise we end up with the funds after the fact >> and certainly we have the ability to not accept a grant if we choose not to but the other thing I would say too just to clarify so um this particular grant had been applied to and applied for and received for this program in the past >> correct >> okay so the the presumption was that because it was for the same program the same grant source that that that may not necessarily need to go back to the to the board. All right. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Trean. >> And if I could add, thank you, Council Member, member Bower, uh, and raising the issue here. Um, it is certainly our uh intent to always bring grant applications ahead of u us applying for um that did not happen. I think there were some assumptions made, but we shouldn't make those assumptions. We should make sure being very transparent and making sure we bring them forward. We do have a grant report where we do report them, but that's kind of after the fact and uh unless there's some severe timing issues, we do want to make sure we have the time to take it forward. So, we'll make sure not only with this program and other programs, we'll continue to strive to bring that on the council beforehand. >> Member Strong, >> I'd just like to remind member Bower, too, that any concerns you might have should be directed to the uh city manager and not um reflect upon the staff as we don't oversee them. Thank you. And >> I would note to there is a actually the the purpose or the reason that the applications need to come before the council or in this case the EDA is that the city actually has a policy that was adopted by the council that requires grant applications to come before the council or the EDA for that uh authorization to seek the grant. Um unless there is an exception for uh a situation where there's a time >> issue where we there's not a scheduled meeting and and the the grant deadline is such that we you know and the idea is not that of course that and this would never happen that that sort of you know the the timing works out that that it it couldn't get before a council meeting. I mean that's anyway I'll stop that. >> Right. And there's solutions to that. >> Yeah. >> Those things do happen. >> Right. And the still the the policy requires the reporting which is part of what Mr. Trean referred to. Member Bower, did you have further follow? >> Yeah, I had one other question with this. Um I do know uh for example before it's come before the uh EDA uh with our housing study, we have quite a bit of affordable housing currently in um in the apartment side uh in Roseville. I'm wondering if we accept these funds if it's taking away from other communities in Ramsey County. I'm wondering if it's if we're best served, if we're the best community for this or if it makes more sense for us to refuse these funds so it could be, you know, better served elsewhere in Ramsey County, >> then they would not be awarded to any other community and they'll go back into the future funding sources. So, it's a competitive grant application that all communities have the access to apply for for their projects and depending on what Ramsey County gets because they get $12 million a year in HR levy funds plus they have the $12 million a year that they are getting on law funds. They allocate those funds based upon the applications that they receive in their priorities for funding and also in communities. So Ramsey County also supposed to give 50% of their funds to suburban Ramsey County. So if they don't have enough applicants for suburban Ramsey County, then it goes all to St. Paul. So that is why it's a competitive round and they try to give it out and distribute it fairly to all the other communities. >> Right. Other uh questions for staff. All right. Oh, and I did have one question. So, um, is the down payment assistance grant specific to the the, uh, habitat properties or particular properties or habitat properties more broadly or is that assistance available for other down payment assistance in the city? >> Nope, just for the habitat projects that come through since it's a partnership that we have and that's how it was awarded from Ramsey County. >> Okay, thank you. I appreciate that clarification. Uh with that then we'll check if there is anyone in the audience who wishes to speak to this uh request this evening which is once again to make some amendments to the agreements related to the grants uh as outlined uh as described in the presentation. Is there anyone here uh to speak to this item this evening? It does not appear to be the case. Uh with that, once again, we've got the request before us uh to uh and just double check here to uh adopt the resolution authorizing the amendments to the agreements uh and the execution thereof as outlined. >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by member Grath, second by member Strong. Discussion on that motion as the maker. Member Grath. >> No, nothing further. >> Right. as the secondary member strong. >> I certainly wouldn't want to be in a situation where we would refuse these funds, especially after the work of our staff to do get us in line for them. And I certainly think that would send a bad message to the community about um our furthering home ownership um affordable home ownership since uh multif family is just one part of the home equation in uh providing affordability. Thank you. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion. Member Bowerer. I do look forward to uh I think it's in January we have a discussion where we talk about the strategic role of the EDA going forward. I think home ownership is very important. I don't think there's any question about that. How we use these funds, how we award them, you know, and also thinking about it in terms of not just a few individuals but as also as the whole of those that live in Roseville and in Ramsey County, what we do with their tax dollars I think is quite important. I think everyone's having a challenging time. They just received their property tax statements. So I look forward to a robust discussion in January where we talk about how we want to use um these funds other funds in the direction of this group. Right. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, we've got the motion before us to adopt the resolution authorizing the uh execution of the amendments and signing of the agreements as outlined. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Opposed. >> That passes unanimously. Uh that brings us then to the end of our business items for the economic uh development authority of Roseville this evening. Uh with there being no further business before the economic development authority. Is there a motion to adjurnn? So move. >> Second. It's >> been moved by member Grath. Seconded by member Scharter. Uh no discussion on a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. That passes unanimously and the Economic Development Authority is adjourned at 6:18 p.m. We'll just have a short uh break here to reconfigure for the council meeting which will be called to order shortly. Howdy. >> All right. I'll call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for uh Monday, November 24th, 2025 uh at 6:19 p.m. Uh the roll call will stand for the council meeting as it was called for the economic development authority immediately prior to this meeting uh with all members being present. Uh once again, by way of introductions, I'll note that we have our city attorney Rachel Tierney uh who's on my right at the end of the day and our city manager Pat Trean who's on my left at the other end of the day. Uh and we also have a number of staff uh and guests who will be participating in the meeting and will be introduced uh as the meeting proceeds. Uh this may be a repeat for some folks, but just want to let folks know that if you're uh need a copy of the agenda of the meeting, there is there are extra copies on the table in the back of the room under the big clock by the back door. Uh and those are available for individual uh members of the public who may want to follow along with the meeting. Uh we do also have a complete uh set of all meeting materials that are being considered this evening in a a big binder uh which is to be shared by all the attendees this evening. If you need to look up information uh please don't take that home with you. Uh as much as you might like it to be a souvenir. Um once again if uh you have a cell phone uh please be sure to silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt tonight's meeting. Uh we did the pledge of allegiance at the start of the economic development authority meeting. So, we will uh dispense with that at this time uh and move to consideration of tonight's agenda. And I'll check with city manager Trean. Uh from a staff perspective, are there any uh changes required to the agenda this evening? >> Mr. Mayor, there's no changes to the agenda from staff. >> All right. Thank you. Are there any changes that council members would like to make to tonight's agenda or items uh from the consent agenda that council members would like removed for separate consideration? Does not appear to be the case. Uh and at this time we always do check with members of the public who are here this evening. We do have a section of our agenda at the end of the agenda section 10 called the consent agenda. This is a number of items items in this case A through J uh which are fairly administrative in nature uh and are usually fairly non-controversial and are taken up at the very end of the meeting in a single motion uh to make sure that uh we can handle those as efficiently as possible and not make people sit through the those items before we get to the the good stuff in the meeting. Is there anyone here this evening who has either a comment or question about an item in section 10, otherwise known as the consent agenda this evening? Anyone for an item in section 10 of the agenda this evening? It does not appear to be the case. Uh in that case, I believe a motion to approve the agenda as presented would be in order. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Right. It's been moved by council member Shartter, second by council member Bowerer to approve tonight's agenda as presented. Uh any discussion on that motion? Uh hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. >> That passes unanimously. We have our agenda for this evening. Uh that brings us then to our first opportunity for public comment. Um at each meeting and as each agenda item comes up uh with uh the possible exception of the consent items uh at the end of the meeting, we do provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak to the council about those items. Uh but we also do want to at the start of each meeting provide a chance for people in the public uh to speak to the council either about items related to city business that are not being considered this evening uh or items that may be of interest to people in the community uh such as events or those sorts of things. Uh so we'll check at this time. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak under the general public comment at the start of the meeting uh once again about items that are not on tonight's agenda? does not appear to be the case. Uh that given that then we'll proceed with our agenda this evening and we don't have anything under recognitions and donations. So we can move right into our business items. Uh our first business item this evening is to receive a a presentation an update from our Metropolitan Council representative uh who is Peter Lindström. And we welcome you up to the table for your presentation at this time. >> And I know we're a little bit ahead of schedule so hopefully that hasn't thrown you off. >> Hey, fantastic. No, not so much. In fact, I do. Well, I was going to call it a donation, but I'm going to want it back. But, uh, it's, um, it's some lovely waste water. >> Treated waste >> water that, uh, I have as a as a handout. >> All right. >> We'll just look and not drink. >> Yeah. Yeah. It says do not drink. And I would advise you to follow those instructions. Thanks for having me back. Um I think it's been close to a couple of years since I had the pleasure of addressing you before. So figured it was a time um this is a really a critical time for uh the Met Council and city. And so I just wanted to swing by for a couple of minutes and uh just chat about um where primarily where there are a lot of uh city mech council interaction. and I have um uh some colleagues with me. You want to introduce yourself? >> Yeah, speak microphone. Hi everyone, I'm Michael Sun. I'm the community relations consultant. >> Hello, I'm Merritt Clap Smith. I'm with uh local planning assistance of ME council and I'll jump in after Peter invites me. Thank you. >> Indeed. Welcome. Um, so, uh, uh, so I am Peter Lindström. I have the pleasure of being your representative on the Met Council where I've served since 2019. Before that, spent 20 years as an elected official in um, nice little suburb of Roseville to your south. >> Some think the other way. >> What's that? >> Some think of it the other way. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. That's right. uh the great city of Felic Heights. Um this is not my full-time gig. This is very much a side hustle for me, although a very important side hustle. My day job is at the University of Minnesota. Um so the Met Council, we have I'd say five really big buckets of uh of our work. Environmental services, the wastewater, we have nine wastewater treatment plants. We have 635 miles of uh what are called interceptor sewers where your your city sewer links up to our sewer and that goes um to the wastewater treatment plants. Metro transit and transportation planning is another big bucket. Uh we are the compreh we are the uh regional planning agency and so we'll talk a little bit more in a few minutes about comprehensive planning and uh we are the largest HRA housing and redevelopment authority in the state. So we have about 7,000 plus uh housing vouchers that we administer for residents in our region. And then last but not least, we partner with our 10 implementing parks implementing agencies. So, Ramsey County Parks, uh we do uh we help with planning and funding for those 10 implementing agencies. Ramsey County Parks, Three River Parks, Minneapolis Parks and Rec, St. Paul Parks, etc. Most people think of us as transit and wastewater or buses and flushes. easy way to remember that. Uh, and on the wastewater side, it's amazing. And by the way, if you have ever have a chance to tour, have you toured the uh the wastewater treatment plant yet? >> I actually toured it in my day job. >> You have? Oh, with your engineer hat. Right. Yes. >> And it is fascinating. Um, so I encourage you whenever there's an opportunity to to take a tour of any one of our wastewater treatment plants to do so. All of the wastewater in Roseville, all the businesses, residents, goes to the Metro Plant that is our largest wastewater treatment plant just south of downtown St. Paul. Handles about a 100 million gallons of waste water every single day. It's the last line of defense before that that stuff that you have in your hands there uh hits the Mississippi River or the Minnesota River or the St. Croy River. So really we are we're in the wastewater treatment industry, but to tell you the truth, we are really in the public health industry. Um Roseville sends to the metro plant. Uh, I'll I'll quiz you. How many gallons of water do you think all the businesses, the residents in Roseville send to the metro plant on a yearly basis? >> A lot. >> A lot is the correct answer. And to be specific, it's a billion gallons almost on the nose. 1 billion gallons of uh of waste water travels through your pipes uh to our pipes and then uh down to uh just south of downtown St. Paul. Uh we charge you and by the way that's that's 1% 1.1% of the entire system uh flow. We charge you for that. We charge you what's called the wholesale rate and then on top of that you charge the uh the retail rate to your um your businesses, your residents. We charge you uh the wholesale rate. Um it's about $3.7 million annually or uh about 300,000 a month. that is uh about 35% below the national average. We look at all the comparable um wastewater treatment systems out there across the nation, see what they're charging, and ours is about 35% less, which is good. I want to u give you credit for uh taking care of your own inflow and infiltration. I know that's been a priority for the city and I believe you've received uh grants. I'm seeing head nods. Yeah. Um uh for uh for INI, inflow and infiltration. Um so kudos to you for for doing that. There's uh no reason we should be treating what is essentially already clean water, groundwater or lake water or rainwater. Um and uh so the more that all of us um can take care of that at the outset um the better we all are at. I also want to give you kudos for applying for and receiving uh another Met Council grant for water efficiency. Uh I know that you've been a participant of that uh grant program for a while where your residents can apply for uh things like lowflow toilets and get a rebate, a healthy rebate, maybe a couple hundred bucks or so, give or take. Um also kudos for uh putting an equity lens on it. I was reading about that uh today on your website, how you the rebate um uh is dependent on an individual or household's income and I thought that was really innovative. Um and and uh I know that's a popular grant program. Um I I saw you're out of funds, which is good. Like you want the money to be to be coming in the door and then you want to be going out the door. And so you're doing you're doing a great job getting the word out and uh and helping your residents um save on their water bill and helps the res the region save water which is a finite source even here in the land of 10,000 lakes. Um, you also are the recipient of a relatively new grant, $53,000 to help uh residents with their own private uh lateral line inflow ini uh with their uh lateral line. So, it's a three-legged stool that we have uh with wastewater. It's the It's the private uh lateral line and that's where I ini can happen. It's the city's sewer lines. That's where I and I can happen and then the mech council's sewer as well. And so, uh, you are assisting your residents in taking care of that INI problem. So, great job, Roseville. Um some significant challenges that we have in in the water area. Uh groundwater recharge um increasing demand for groundwater in our region. Um the influx of uh things like well large water users like data centers um is something that we need to pay close attention to. Um widespread there still continues to be issues with water impairment just in our Twin Cities region. I I read this today. We have over 400 lakes, waters, streams, including some here right in Roseville that are impaired in some way, shape, or form. Uh with phos phosphorus, nitrates, I think we're seeing a double doubling in chloride. Um and these are issues that uh we need to continue to pay attention to. um anticipated and and uh unknown impacts of climate change and then just renewing our um aging infrastructure. I know for our wastewater treatment, I think it's eight out of the nine uh are over 40 years old and just in in continual need of um of improvement. That's uh that's what I'd like to say about water and wastewater. Transit, it's been a big year for transit across the region and in Roseville as well. Um this spring we want we launch what's called network now. Network now looks at our transit system kind of u postcoid what are the transit trends. uh we received uh uh an influx of uh funds through a dedicated sales tax back in 2023 and that is really paying dividends for residents across the region including here in Roseville. We've been able to um increase some uh routes in the area, specifically routes that uh are uh from suburb to suburb. It historically we've been going from suburb into the downtowns, kind of the spoken wheel uh look to transit and uh and so network. Now we're looking at continuing that route, those routes, but um diversifying to more more suburb to suburb. So we've made increases to the uh route 2 223 to Maplewood Mall, for example, Rose Rosedale uh to Maplewood. Uh the 225, the 227, all are seeing increased service, either more rapid service, like going from coming once an hour to coming once every half hour or so, or longer during the day or um increases onto the weekend, things of that nature. And uh I I arrived here um by uh uh microtransit, which is amazing. is super cool. Uh Roseville is our second uh location for microtransit. I think you maybe have a map in your your packet of the Roseville zone. We call it the Roseville zone, but it's actually part of Ardan Hills as well. So cool. It's like Uber and Lift for for transit. Um you can get picked up at your door or at your place of business. be dropped off at another place within the zone. It's not all of Roseville. Um there's a specific zone. Um but it's certainly a big chunk. Uh you can go from door to door. So, you can go from um your home or place of business to any other place within the zone or you could go to Rosedale, pick up the the A-ine bus rapid transit uh and go to hook up with the green line and go to downtown St. Paul, downtown Minneapolis, go to the airport, all for the same cost. Um, so you're a senior in Roseville, you live in the zone. Um, for $1 a buck, you can go to the airport or downtown Minneapolis or some other place within the zone to uh to church to uh the grocery store to uh to Roseville City Hall. Um it's uh uh tremendous service and a popular service. We're uh we're I think um if we haven't exceeded 20,000 rides, we will be shortly since it launched in January of this year. And I know you you all have been helpful in getting the word out. So, thank you very much for that. It's um averaging 120 or so rides a day. Um as I mentioned, I took it here from uh took the A-line, took the 61, went from work uh at the university St. Paul campus. So took the 61 to Snowing and Larpender and took the A-line up to the transit center. um had the microtransit pick me up there and uh uh it dropped somebody else off and then took me here. Pretty darn slick. There's there if anybody uh is out there watching um there's an there's an app for that of course uh microransit app and uh it's it's pretty simple to just say where you are and where you want to go and hit you hit go and it's there in couple minutes and takes you where you need to go. It's even like Lyft where you can see the little uh little car or van um on the map and and it tells you that you'll be picked up in six minutes, 5 minutes, four minutes. So, that's pretty slick. Um let's see, what else would I like to say? Um, you know, it's a big year uh for community development uh with uh uh the passage of our own regional plan um called Imagine 2050. And as you are likely aware, um, your comprehensive plan, each city's comprehensive plan, 170 plus cities in the region and counties, uh, you set your own comprehensive plan that match up with our regional plan. And so this will be a big focus for Roseville and the 170 plus other cities uh in the in the year or two years ahead. I want to thank the mayor for uh serving on our LUAC land use advisory committee. How how many years you it's been several years that you've served uh on LUAC. Many years. Uh I won't quiz you. I shouldn't quiz you. let's say >> six, seven years that you've served uh as um as a member of the land use advisory committee which was very instrumental in um in the land use parts of Imagine 2050 and uh and your own and then the the city's um and county's own comprehensive plan. So, thank you for that. Um uh also I want to give kudos for uh for the city. You were talking about grants when I uh when I came in and uh you've been a very active um participant in our livable communities grants. Um I don't have the number off the top of my head, but it seems like Roseville is a a regular recipient. um AASO Gardens, the um the partnership with Habitat that that you mentioned uh was a livable communities grant um through the legislature to the ME council out to out to um out to eligible cities. So, we're glad to have that partnership as well. I think at this time I will uh we'll call on Merritt to come on down. Merit Merritt's the sector rep for for uh Roseville and and several other cities and we'll be working hand inand with your staff um as you're working on your comprehensive plan. >> Yes. Hello mayor. Good to see you members of the council. Um I am Merritt Clap Smith and I am your local planning assistance representative uh from our community development team. So that means I'm your kind of point person whenever you have questions about your current comprehensive plan, potential amendments to that plan um or as you look ahead to your 2050 comprehensive plan update. So those updates um under Minnesota statute are due at the end of December 2028. So about three years from now um that plan will be due. So that gives you a little bit of time to figure out uh what your approach will be for doing the update. Some cities do sort of full full force updates do a lot of community engagement kind of relook at things a new others feel like they've been doing a lot of planning looking at the future and and they do kind of a more basic update to their last 2040 plan. So not certain where Roseville is at at this point. Um despite being a pretty developed city, nevertheless, the forecasts that were identified in the system statements sent to Roseville identify nearly 1,500 new households that are forecasted to come into the city um through 2050. So that's that's quite a bit of additional growth whether that's in any um undeveloped areas you have or fill or through infill and redevelopment um under imagine 2050 um and through our local planning handbook page resource for Roseville. You can find the minimum requirements of topics that need to be addressed in your comprehensive plan. And the Met Council is developing a lot of tools and resources to support communities and understanding um how it is that they uh need to address those minimum requirements in their plan. I'll specifically note new requirements uh for natural systems planning and for um climate and greenhouse gas emissions and that requirement was added by the Minnesota legislature. uh we don't expect all the cities 181 actually in our region >> um to have the expertise to address those topics on their own. So, we've uh been developing very robust tools that can be used online that really anybody can sit down and work through our online tool to look at current inventory for your community for greenhouse gas emissions and gives kind of a menu of different ideas about if you want to try to bring down kind of your trajectory for growth on that down what different techniques you might want to uh consider as the city. So, same with natural systems, trying to make these new requirements as easy for as possible for communities, um whether you're doing it inhouse or you're hiring a consultant team. So, with that, I'll ask if you have any questions, but if not tonight, um please reach out to me any time as you start to update uh your 2050 plan and um things come up that you'd like to discuss. >> All right. Uh any questions from the council for uh anyone from that council who's here this evening? >> Mr. Bower. >> Uh thank you again for coming and presenting. Always appreciate it. Um as you've noted, we do work closely together. Uh just a couple questions. Uh one about the comprehensive plan that is coming up. I'm curious, you know, as someone new here. Um what areas of the comprehensive plan are not working for you that you would like to see changed? It's an awful amount of large amount of work for, you know, all the cities, all 181 as you said, and you can imagine the amount of money and time and people that that involves. I'm just curious from your perspective, are you getting the value that you need out of that? And and I'm curious to know like where what areas um you're not getting that information and what changes you've kind of put in place uh with this new upcoming comprehensive plan to address that. >> Yeah, I can't speak. Um, I haven't read your 2040 comprehensive plan in in detail, so I can't speak to that that one. What I would say is that our minimum requirements are really intended to identify kind of the basic things that your comprehensive plan needs to address across transportation, land use, housing, water, and wastewater. Um, and one thing we've tried to do based on feedback from last time is be really clear about what it would look like to address uh those requirements in the plan. So, um, if it's tables or maps, what do we expect to be identified on the tables or maps? Even providing templates so that communities aren't sort of guessing at how they need to structure information that responds to the minimum requirements. Um, as long as your plan addresses the items that are minimum requirements, then from the Met Council standpoint, um, we will find, uh, your plan is approved. However, a lot of communities, um, may decide to do more in their plan because the comprehensive plan isn't just for us. It's it's primarily for you as a community. And so you want a document that reflects your priorities and values looking ahead for the next uh 20 or 30 years and a document that as policy makers as elected officials you can take that plan and look at it and make some strategic decisions for your community. So it's you know we have we have some basics to meet but you really need to think about how will it be a good living document for you as a city. And then to follow up with that, you mentioned transit. Curious about the um uh you know, dollar rides. Um you I'm curious to know what what in your um I guess the budgeting's been done now, but I'm curious to know what the cost is that you have right now for each of those rides. I can't I imagine an airport from a ride from here to the airport is probably more than a dollar. >> Yeah, that's a dollar ride for for seniors. It's uh a little bit more than that for uh non seniors. Um, but yeah, we can get that information to you. Yep, you're you're right. It doesn't cost. >> My concern is if you're I mean, I can see why it's successful, right? For a dollar for a ride to the airport and you're talking about growing it, and I'm just curious how you plan to sustain that. >> Yeah. Uh, it is popular. We have, uh, tens of millions of people that utilize transit, um, each year for ridership. And that's uh that's um tens of millions of uh cars that are not not using our our roadways and we're not paying for that. Um we do look at it uh what the cost per ride um for everybody is and happy to provide that info. Are you are you wondering about just uh met uh Metro Micro or regular routes or like just Metro Micro? I mean the one you just brought up um since you know the other ones are each one's different right I know that rapid transit between here and um the uh suburbs like Woodbury and whatnot is a different situation but just looking at this it's always when you have successful programs and they're growing it's always something that raises a flag with my back of my head of like okay what are the economics of this look like and can we s sustain that so it's more so that question >> happy to get that info >> if I could just follow up on that. My understanding, and I could be wrong about this, so please correct me, is that the fair structure with the Metro Micro largely parallels and fits in with the fair structure for the rest of the transit system. >> Correct. >> Um, so a non senior user is paying generally what everybody else would pay to get from their home to wherever they're going, whether that connects with further into the system or just to the destination within the zone, it's going to be the same fair structure as the general system as I understand it. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Um, oh, did you have a follow? >> Okay. Uh, Council Member Sher. >> Um, yes. Thank you for being here tonight. Uh, I wanted to circle back about the um water and you'd mentioned about um like the chlorine issue and I've been hearing a lot about that in a number of the organizations I represent Roseville in. And I was wondering if you have any funding grants or programs to prevent chloride from getting in because I think we know once salt or chlorine gets into the water, it's very difficult to get it out. And so it seems like we'd want to spend some time on figuring out how to prevent that to start with or alternatives or because I know one program which is a small program where um residents can get a free bag of chicken grit to put down instead of sand. They can go to the hardware store starting I think Wednesday actually I think is where that program starts. and you know so the and there's everything from you know what programs can we push out to residents but then also what can cities do and even the larger organizations around this chloride issue because it seems I know when we look at waste water it's a lot about taking stuff out once it's there but it seems like trying to prevent might be a a better place to do some of that >> 100% um so just off the top of my head I'm not aware of any grants I suspect that there are I suspect that they are through Minnesota Pollution Control Agencies. Uh >> I was thinking more through the Met Council. >> Yeah, there isn't any Not that I'm aware of. Um related to that. Um I'm glad you're a Green Stuff city. I know and I'm glad and I'm very aware that this city takes sustainability very seriously. The two main sources of chlorine are uh uh um salting roads, right? So, making sure that your crew know about smart salting and go through the smart salting training and then um water softening. Um and are you're part of St. Paul water? Yep. Yep. Like Falcon Heights is too. >> Yep. So that's less of an issue for Roseville, but is a significant source of chlorine for uh >> people don't realize that either. >> I know. I know. And it's like so you're thinking we're talking about comprehensive planning and planning for the future. >> Like um we benefit by partnerships with with St. call water. And uh uh we benefit for those that came before us that planned um uh to for this type of partnership in this one specific way and I'm sure in a million other ways, right? Um but uh I use chicken grit myself and I can tell you uh again for the millions of folks that are watching out there, it works. We're going to change the marketplace for chicken grit. >> I also I also Yes, exactly. Didn't that was not on my bingo card for talking about chicken grit. >> Um talking I also have chickens too for so it's kind of a twofer for me. Uh my chickens use it and uh I use it for um uh make sure I don't slip. So there you go. Well, just please keep in mind going, you know, as you guys do your um planning that this preventative piece might be a good place to um invest in. So, >> well, certainly as I think about it, you know, with the assistance for people to do, you know, low low flush toilets and things like that from the water flow point of view into the sanitary system, >> you know, I could see where if there's assistance for people to make sure that their outdoor irrigation water is separated from their softened water that they use in their house for for those purposes, >> you know, to the extent that people need to to do that, that might be something to look at. >> Uh yeah, I was just going to jump in quickly to say uh one of you're exactly right in this uh is that um one of the key our environmental services group, one of their new strategies that they're working on is partnerships because it's not just those inputs, it's also agricultural inputs from the rest of the state. It's all sorts of different challenges they're running into. And so they're starting to work with other agencies to partner even more on addressing holistically the system of water as it's in our imagine 2050 as one water uh which is the concept of it's all one thing. It doesn't know where it's going or where it came from. >> Thank you. >> One role that we do play is water testing. So, you will find mech council employees out at uh many of our lakes, rivers, streams doing water testing. And we also have, last time I checked, it was over a thousand residents that participate in a citizen science um program. forgetting the name of it um off the top of my head, but we can get folks, you know, that live on McCarron's for example um or go to Beckett. >> I think we do have people. >> Do you? Yeah. Do I anybody around here? Yeah. um to uh to get out there from time to time with a like a a seki uh I'm not sure I'm pronouncing that right, but a a little uh uh disc that monitors uh water clarity and they they can take water samples and and uh send them into the mech council and it it's it's um a citizen science activity that we really rely on. I mean the the first step on cleaning him cleaning these water sources is to know that you have a problem in the first place, right? Um and so the and the more the city can help in promoting those citizen science activities like this one, uh the better we would all be off. >> Right. I do want to note that we're kind of approaching our original scheduled time even though we started early on this item. So, I I want to make sure we're respectful of the the time on the agenda, but another comment or question from Council Member Strong. >> Yeah, I just wanted to say um thank you for the um Metro Micro uh had a few different names. So, um going back to the original um location in North Minneapolis, uh continue to lobby for that to be expanded to Northeast. Uh just get people across the river. It'd be really great. um the people who have used it um in North Minneapolis have been very appreciative of it. And so I don't know very many people here who have used that. Um but I do know folks in other neighborhoods where um cars are not as um reliable. Maybe they don't have a brand new shiny car that they can trust. Um it helps people get to work and if they can't get to work, they can't pay for the car that maybe isn't that reliable. So, I think it's all part of um helping not just people getting a home, but getting a place to live that also make sure that they can get to work and everything else. And I think if you're not in that >> ecosphere of where things are also highly dependent upon each other, >> um you maybe forget and lose sight of the fact that um many people live really close to the edge and food and shelter and cars and stuff. And so this takes one um piece out of it. So I appreciate that. Thank you. >> I think uh one of the challenges, one of the greatest challenges with transit in general is that that last mile, right? Uh even to get to the regular route um can be a challenge for folks. um Metro Micro, these are handicapped accessible um vehicles and uh so you're right, we expanded um North Minneapolis uh was the first maybe a year and a half ago, two maybe close to two years ago now. Uh Roseville was the second along with Woodbury and we've expanded to Blaine uh with uh plans to expand in um Bloomington and four or five other uh routes across the um across the region. And um uh I would be remiss if I didn't mention I'm also very excited about the Gline. G-line. Yes. Coming uh coming to Roseville here. Uh bus rapid transit. Roseville the location of our first bus rapid transit the A-ine which has been super popular. the uh Rose Dale is our I think I'm right on this. Um second highest uh transit center um right behind the Mall of America and the A-ine is a big part of that. um and excited about the G-Line with rice on rice um starting construction I think the latter part of 2026 into 2027 and uh that'll go from Little Canada down Rice to downtown St. hall intersecting by the way with lots of routes um along the way and the green line um uh and then moving on uh down Robert Street um towards South St. Paul. So that'll be another uh great addition I'm sure will be well used in Roseville. >> Great. Well, thank you again uh for being here this evening and all the work you do on behalf of the uh district that you represent at the Met Council. >> My pleasure. And I think my business card is in the packet as is uh the um >> the new GLine uh route and some information about that. So >> great, >> check it out. And uh yeah, my my card's in there. So, anything big or small, you know, um uh was working um uh we get together every once in a while quarterly with Roseville schools. um they bring in uh >> uh some of the local elected officials and uh at one of the meetings there not too long ago, a staff member for the schools was like, "Hey, why can't we have the bus stop um be here closer to the school as opposed to where it is right now there." And I'm like, I don't know why it's there instead of here. Why don't we look into it? put in a phone call. Well, sure. We can move it move it a little bit closer to the school. And so if there's anything like that um that uh is on your mind related to the Met Council, all we can do is ask. >> All right. Well, thank you again. >> Sorry I didn't have as challenging a questions for meatas at our LUAC meetings, but >> you you can get me later. >> All right. All right. I'll make up for it. >> Nobody's drank from that, right? Good. >> It's still there. >> Don't drink. Looks pretty full. >> All right. >> Yeah, I was going to say >> that brings us then to our uh next business item, item 7B, uh which is to hold a public hearing to consider liquor license renewals for 2020 six. I almost said 2020 because I was didn't have my glasses on. 2026. Uh and we have our assistant city manager, Rebecca Olsson, with us to bring this item before us this evening. Miss >> Thank you, mayor, council members. Um, as the mayor indicated tonight, you're being asked to hold a public hearing uh to consider approving the renewals for the liquor license. These are applications that we've received. Uh, we will probably have one more set of liquor license that will be coming before you in December as well. Um, these are outlined in your packet as attachment one. They include our offsale and on sale intoxicating liquor licenses, non- intoxicating. I'm not going to go through all the list. It is it is there. Um but we have several of them. The other attachment in your packet also indicates which establishments have had any liquor compliance fail failures over the past five years. Council does have some discretion to factor in these compliance failures when considering to renew licenses. Um so before you are these liquor licenses uh seeking application staff is recommending approval of these um pending any outstanding application materials and payments. Um I will pause right now and see if you have any questions on this one. >> All right. And I did want to double check. So we had some discussion at our previous discussion about compliance failures about a particular establishment wanting we wanted to take a closer look at that. Is that on the list of being considered this evening? >> Um, so, mayor, thank you for asking that question. I was going to bring that up. Um, wanting to know if you wanted to pass these or consider these first, but yes, you are correct. Uh, Red Lobster was the liquor license that um was under consideration. That is not included in these renewals as of right now. Um, wanted to get feedback from council. Um, maybe let the city attorney outline um options, what your your options are to consider. Um, and then we could bring it back on when we bring the other ones back. um I believe December 8th. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Olson. And I think um perhaps that part of the discussion we'll take up after we potentially take action on the applications we have in the packet this evening. Just wanted to kind of clarify that procedural step. Um Council Member Strong, >> I had a quick question. On the um list of properties under 2023, one of the establishment has an asterisk by it and an undetectable thing after. Do you know what it refers to? Um, I'm not a 100% sure, but I believe it might just be um an errant note. I I don't think there was anything intentional about that. >> I should have asked in advance. Sorry. >> And that's on the list of establishments, >> correct? Under MGM >> 2023 >> attachment to, >> right? I was just looking to see. I didn't >> page 30. >> Oh, there is an Okay, I see what you're saying. Yeah. So I guess the conclusion is it is it was a violation in that year and then some other information is truncated off of there. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> So this is a public hearing and we want to make sure we provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak to the uh large number of licenses we've got before us this evening for renewal this year. Certainly anybody can speak to any particular one of those uh or to the idea in general. Uh but we do want to provide an opportunity for public comment. Is there anyone here to speak to uh these license renewals, liquor license renewals uh for the city of Roseville for 2026? It does not appear to be the case. Then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and move to council consideration of these license renewal applications. Uh and I'll turn it over to the council. Uh what is the desire of the council in the form of uh some sort of motion? I would move to approve all the uh establishments on this list. >> Second. >> It's been moved by council member Sharter to approve the uh applications for renewals on the list provided in the packet information. Second by council member Bower. Discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Sharter. It's just nice to see that we have so many businesses in Roseville and um I know that it can be a struggle to um you know get the right amount of employees and get them but it's important that they all get trained and um I know we we harp on that every time but it is important that we keep saying that. So >> all right and as the secondary council member Bower >> Yeah. I just follow up with that seeing this uh great list and so many of them and just thinking about the number of violations that we have. I think uh Rose we've been Roseville uh business community and restaurant community have been doing very well uh in their compliance and in uh their training. So it's nice to see that other discussion on the motion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. Those approval those renewals are approved. Um, and uh, I will turn over to our attorney to see if there's any information for us to take up this evening in relation or talk about this evening in relation to the uh, Red Lobster case. >> Thank you, mayor, council members. Um when we considered the um last compliance violation by the Red Lobster, you had mentioned that maybe you would consider taking additional action at the time of renewal. Um license renewal or denying an application for a license renewal is tantamount to a license revocation. And so we look to the liquor licensing statute which requires that the council follow the procedures of the administrative procedures act in Minnesota law when taking that kind of an action. Um without getting too into the weeds it's it's a standard notice and here notice and an opportunity to be heard but but with some more some stricter requirements. There has to be a reasonable opportunity to be heard notice of what you're being charged with and then there are some hearing requirements as well. So to walk you through it, you would if if the council wanted to consider non-renewal, then staff should send a letter to the Red Lobster and give them an opportunity to request a contested hearing on that issue. Um, we would provide them with all of the reports or any sort of information that we would put in front of the council to make that consideration. They would be able to present witnesses, present any evidence or testimony of their own. To the extent that the city would provide witnesses, they would have an opportunity to cross-examine those individuals and then of course make arguments to the council about what penalty, if any, is appropriate. Um, the council's decision is required to be in writing and have some findings. So, we wouldn't be able to get it done in one hearing. We would have the council advise us, then staff would take it back and staff and I would write up proposed findings for the council and that's how the decision would ultimately be made. So that's the rough outline of the procedures that would be required. There is another option which is to refer the matter to a hearing officer to do that work and not hold the hearing in front of the council. And then what you would do is you would we would do all the same stuff in front of a hearing officer who would then submit a report to the council for its consideration. >> Right. Thank you for that information. So really the question before us I guess as a council is um do we want to take into account the history of compliance check violations for this particular establishment in the consideration of their renewal for 2026 which has been applied for as I understand it. Um and if so then what sort of procedure would we like to uh to undertake? And so I think that's the question for the council to consider this evening. Council member Short. >> So, um, remind me what is what does our regulations say because what they had three at this point, >> right? So, their fourth within a three-year period would I believe, >> right? >> The mandatory minimum or the presumptive penalty would be a revocation, >> but they've had three. >> They've had three within and it's a rolling 36 month, but they sorry to interrupt. They had four and 38 months. >> So, slightly more than three. >> So, the one rolled off. Yep. So, so, so according to our regulations, if you have three, it's $2,000 and 15 days. >> 15 days suspension. >> Okay. And so then we would have to have findings on why we deviate from what we have. >> Exactly. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Right. Thoughts from the council or I don't know if we're prepared to come to a conclusion this evening, but I think um in the absence of direction from the council, we do have an application that we do have to act on. So we can't sort of uh dither on the process here. Sounds like perhaps we will go through the normal process then. >> I'd be comfortable with that. >> Yeah. >> All right. Very good. Then we don't direct staff to do anything further and that application would be brought uh before the council for normal consideration. All right. Thank you uh Miss Olsen and our attorney uh for that uh helpful discussion. Uh that then brings us to a number of abatements. Uh the first uh five of which are abatements of private uh hydrants that are in various ways not compliant uh with requirements. Uh these are fire hydrants on private properties. Um and we have our public works director Jesse Fryhammer with us this evening for these items. And the first of which is to consider an abatement of a private hydrant uh and its non-compliance at 1375 Commerce Street. and I'll turn it over to Mr. Fryhammer to uh bring this item before the council for consideration. >> Uh thank you, mayor and councel. I'm just going to give real quick background on kind of the whole process since we've never really done this uh since the ordinance was enacted and then we'll kind of get into each individual case, but they're all pretty much the same. So, real quick, back in 2016, we adopted a private hydrant ordinance basically requiring all hydrants to be inspected. Um that was it's a lot a lot of cities do this because it's part of fire code and if unless you have a way of doing it you there you you don't know if they're actually getting inspected or not. Um so we started doing that. Um we actually hire a vendor who does the inspections for us and we pass that cost on to the property owners. But there's about 425 of these hydrants. Um they're usually located on large apartment buildings or commercial properties. Uh basically where you're far enough away from the city system you need the the fire department requires you to have your own hydrant. So over the past 9 years, we've had about 112 that we've required some sort of at least minor repair on. Um most of these have been repaired or fully replaced depending upon the condition. Uh but we do have five that have not been re have been identified as being inoperable. So these are the five that we're bringing uh uh to the council tonight for abatement. So um the cost to abate these would be roughly about $5,000. Depends if you have to do a full replacement. could be less in some cases if you just have to replace some parts uh plus the abatement fee of $350. So, um if the abatement is approved, council or the city would hire a vendor to complete the repairs or replace the hydrant and then the property owners would be invoiced and um if they don't pay that, it would be assessed against the property. So, um the first property is 1375 Commerce. Um the the details of us notifying are in the packet, but we've they've been on the list for at least two years. So, the requested council action would be um direct uh public work staff to abate the above reference public nuisance violation at 1375 Commerce Street. And I can answer any questions council may have. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Fryhammer. I guess the first question uh just to kick it off is that you had mentioned it, but I didn't want it to uh be uh too lightly treated is that this is a fire safety issue. >> Correct. a nonfunctioning hydrant uh really puts a a damper on the so to speak on the ability to fight fires at that location or or the location served by that hydrant. >> Correct. Yeah. So the hydrant is 100% out of use. So they have fire department have to pull from some other nearby hydrant. Got it. So longer hose longer time. >> Right. Right. Right. Questions from the council on this particular case. Uh is there a representative of the property owner here this evening who wishes to speak to uh this requested uh this request to have the city perform the abatement of the hydrant at this location? Doesn't appear to be the case. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this particular case this evening? It's seeing no one then we'll close the opportunity for public comment. Uh and the council uh request for action is as noted in the uh materials in the meeting packet, which is to by motion direct the public works staff to abate the public nuisance violence violation at 1375 Commerce Street uh by hiring a contractor to replace the private hydrant at the property. >> So move. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by Council Schroer, second by Council Member Grath to authorize that abatement of that private hydrant uh that failed the inspection. discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Schroeder, >> um, Mayor, you said exactly right. It's a fire safety issue and so that that's something we definitely cannot wait any longer on. >> Right. Uh, as the second, Council Member Grath, >> this was a good refresher and I'm glad in 2016 we did make that change because that would be very unfortunate if the fire department went hooked up to a fire hydrant and had to move it. It can cost time and money and lives. So, appreciate that information. Other discussion on the motion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. That abatement is authorized. Uh that brings us then to item uh 7D which is the second case this evening. Uh Mr. Fryhammer. >> Uh so a pretty much similar case. Uh this property was uh had two failed inspections over the last two years. Uh they were notified as indicated in the packet. So staff would recommend the council direct public work staff to abate the above reference public nuisance violation at 1960 Twin Lakes Parkway. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Fryhammer. Are there questions from the council on this particular case? Is there a representative of the property owner here this evening who wishes to speak to this? And is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this case this evening? Right. Seeing no one, uh, we have the requested action before us, which is to authorize the abatement of this particular, uh, violating private hydrant. Uh, is there a motion? >> So move. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Stron. Second by council member Bower. Uh, discussion on that motion. >> No. >> Right. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. The abatement is authorized. That brings us then to the third case, item 7E, which is to consider abatement of a private hydrant at 2597 Cleveland Avenue. Once again, Mr. Frymer. Uh, thank you, Mayor Councel. Uh, similar to the first two, uh, at 2597, we did inspections for the last two years. Same thing that hydrant has been out of service. So, staff would recommend council direct public works to abate the above reference public nuisance at 2597 Cleveland Avenue. All right. >> Thank you, Mr. Fraimer. Questions for staff on this particular item? Hearing? None. Is there a representative of the property owner here this evening who wishes to speak to this case? Right. Seeing no one, is there a member of the public who wishes to speak to this case this evening? All right. We'll close the opportunity for public comment and move to council consideration. We've got the request to authorize the performance of the abatement of that uh fire hydrant at 2597 Cleveland private hydrant. So move. Second >> moved by council member Grath, second by council member Shartter. Discussion on that motion. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. That abatement is authorized. All right. Uh next case is private hydrant at 1641 County Road B2. Mr. Fraham. >> Uh thank you, mayor and council. Um real similar to the other ones. Uh city did inspections over the last few years. This was also found to be failure on one hydrant. Um, I will note on this one, the property owner, believe it was the property owner, did reach out on this. It's more of an internal discussion of who should be paying for it, the property manager or the owner, but we indicated we're still going to take this up because they've been uh fighting that for well over two months. So, I just wanted to make that note on this one. But same case, staff would recommend uh council direct public work staff to abate the above reference nuisance at 1641 County Road B2. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Fryhammer. Questions for staff on this one? Uh, council member Sher. >> Yes. I see that the cons construction years 1963. How long does a hydrant typically last? >> If they're maintained properly, they'll last 7500 years. I >> Okay. >> But I mean, it it really comes down to proper maintenance. If you're maintaining them annually and running it, they'll work. It's >> we when we started the program, um, a lot of those hydrants probably hadn't been used or tested since the day they were put in. And if you don't move operate the stuff, things break. So, it's out as a testament to how well the program worked. The our our numbers of inoperable have gone off dramatically and they're just less issues every year. So, but they'll let if you keep maintaining them, they'll work pretty pretty long time. >> I was just going to say we've probably got an inventory of fairly old fire hydrants that are owned by the city that have been exercised on an annual basis. >> Yeah. I I would Yeah. Just to that note, most of the city's hydrants were built in 1965 through 70. So, still in operatable use. Right. Uh, is there a representative of the property owner at uh, 1641 County Road B2? Doesn't appear to be the case. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this particular case this evening? Seeing anyone, we'll close the opportunity for public comment on this case and look for a motion from the council. >> So moved. Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Straw, second by council member Schroeder uh, to authorize the abment of this private hydrant. uh on County Road B2. Uh any discussion on that motion? Uh hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. And then our final hydrant case this evening uh is at 1885 County Road C. And I'll turn it over to Mr. Fryhammer again. >> Uh thank you, Mayor Councel. Yeah. Uh just like the the previous four, uh same thing. This hydrant has been inspected and been out of service since uh 24. Um, so staff would once again recommend council direct public works staff to abate the above reference public nuisance at 1885 County Road C. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Fryhammer. Are there questions for staff on this? Great. Is there a representative of the property owner here this evening on this case? And is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this particular uh abatement case? Right. Seeing no one, we'll close the opportunity for public comment and look for a motion from the council. So moved. >> Second. >> Been moved by council member Gra, seconded by council member Strawn uh to authorize that abatement uh at 1885 County Road C. Uh discussion on the motion. >> No. >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I I opposed. That passes unanimously. That abatement is authorized. Uh thank you, Mr. Fryhammer. Hopefully uh that gets us to the end of this process and it's maintenance from here on out. All right. With that, then we have another abatement action, but this is a uh nuisance code violation of a different sort. Uh and I'll turn it over to our codes official uh David England to bring this item before the council. >> Thank you, Mayor, members of council. Um as described, this is a request to form an abatement at 1719 Chadzsworth. >> Could you pull the mic a little closer? >> It says don't touch. I know. But >> they are directional though. That's the problem. It's pointing over here instead of at your mouth. >> Thank you. I'll try that one more time. Uh this is a request perform an abatement at 1719 Chadzsworth for public nuisance violations. Uh on September 22nd, staff was uh notified that there were violations in this entire neighborhood that staff should look at. We did go through the neighborhood. We found this property with an inoperable vehicle and uh and a freezer, a chest freezer in the driveway. uh staff did no have a conversation with the property owner, the resident on site um and described the violations and gave a time frame of 10 days to correct the violations. We also did secure the freezer that was there on site with tape just to make sure there was no entry. Um we did not see any compliance after 10 days, so we did send a letter to the property owner and to the resident. Um and the property owner is listed as Ramsey County is at a different address. Um, we did not see compliance after that. So, as is normal procedure, we sent a council notification letter for this hearing tonight on the 28th and I believe the 13th of November. So, we sent two notifications just to try and get as much contact with the property owner as possible. Um, today we did drop off the agenda uh at the property, tape that on the door to see if we could get some communication from the resident. We did note that the freezer was gone from the property at that time, but the vehicle was still inoperable, still with two flat tires and uh and improper licensing on it on the vehicle. Uh at 5:15 this afternoon, I did receive a call from the resident. Um she stated that she was in receipt of uh all of our letters and our notifications. Um she did state also that the freezer had been removed, which we confirmed. Um, and she then stated she was unable to get the vehicle fixed um, until probably after Christmas with the tires, but she said she did order tabs uh, for the vehicle. Um, I have not been able to confirm that in any way. So, at this point in time, um, her request, she said she would not be able to attend tonight. Um, I told her I would relay her conversation and her statements about being able to get it fixed after Christmas to council for your decision. Um, but we have not seen much progress with this one. So, I'm not uh not sure where this will go, but our request from staff would be to order approve the abatement to remove the vehicle, hiring a contractor to remove the vehicle and uh and send the invoice for the council fee to the property owner. Great. Thank you, Mr. England. Are there questions from the council? Council member Schroeder. Uh, >> yes. I see in in the document in front of me that you have in here removal and disposal of items stored outside $250. Is would that be removed or is this and we're just looking at the um I guess is that removing the vehicle or what what is that for? >> That 250 would be for the removal of the chest freezer. at the time we wrote this um this document that it was still on site. So that would be that would come off of your consideration would be the removal of the outside storage items. >> So it would be the um 600 minus the 250. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Council Member Strong. >> Thank you. Um in the RCA it indicates that in the request for action, sorry. Um it doesn't indicate that there was same or similar violations at this property in 23 and 24 and that this same vehicle in 23 um was not displaying current registration. Can you uh relay the outcome of that particular situation? >> At both of those times it was just the tabs that were the violation for this. Um I believe they were this was discovered during the neighborhood enhancement program. At that point, we looked at it as an educational opportunity to provide that to the resident to say, "Hey, this vehicle is technically considered inoperable and could result in abatement action." Um, we'd like to do that to kind of forstall any of these type of proceedings in the future. Um, >> so technically they were warned in 23, 24, and these multiple times in 25. >> That is correct. >> All right. Thank you. >> Other questions for staff? Right. Is there a representative? I guess you said that the the resident is not able to be here as a representative, the property owner here this evening. Does not appear to be the case. Uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this particular case this evening? All right, we'll close the opportunity for public comment. Uh I did want to check with staff and these types of vi uh code violations, especially if it's a uh you know a flat tire issue. Does the city have uh connections with resources that potentially could be availed of by the property owner or resident to try to resolve some of these mechanical relatively minor mechanical issues as opposed to significant inoperable issues? >> Um I am not aware of any. Okay. Um the resource that we provide generally is to offer what's called a consent to abate where we'll remove the vehicle in this case. Um removing the the fee that the council proceeding takes on. >> All right. And so that you're talking about removing the $350 fee. >> Um we that will stay if it's approved. Okay. Um the the fee for the removing of the outside storage and the freezer >> um would come off. >> Okay. So, the 350 would stay if it's approved, unless council wishes not to. >> And if the vehicle is evaded by by towing essentially, does the uh owner of the vehicle have to pay then to have it recovered from the impound lot or wherever it is? >> Yes, they would have to pay it >> plus the towing fee, I man. >> Correct. Y >> All right. Which could potentially cost more than a couple of tires. >> Yes. >> Yeah. That's my I think that's my concern here is that that you know this you know sometimes people have challenges with resources and things like that and and I I just want to pause during the the process of our enforcement to make sure that we're not sort of you know making situations worse for people. I know we for instance in our our police department we have the program the lights on program where people can receive you know um essentially vouchers or coupons for getting um you know um what am I trying to say like signal lights repaired or those types of things on their vehicles. Um so that's why I asked the question about resources here. I know if people have u for instance uh old tires on their property that are you know a mosquito hazard we there's a program with Met Council to be able to deal with those. And I know sometimes uh when we've had people the right people in the audience and there's been an issue with junk and debris in a yard, people have volunteered to help out with it. Um so I just want to make sure we're thinking about as we look at these enforcement cases that what we're doing isn't sort of making a situation worse for somebody while at the same time making sure that we do do our enforcement. And and so that's why I just wanted to bring that up. Uh Mr. England. >> Um and I agree with that. That would be wonderful if we could give those resources to people. It would also help staff if we would get contact >> potentially at the first notice of this if they would um wish resources that would give us time then in our process to do that. >> We're just here now because we've exhausted our >> uh efforts, >> right? And and that's the unfortunate thing about our process is oftentimes the threat of a of a council meeting is what sort of prompts the movement. And it's not the first time that that's that's been the case. Certainly, as we've been through this, uh, Council Member Strong, >> it looks like there's a matching garage in the distance. Is that a possibility that this vehicle could go into that garage? >> That would absolutely. Um, there it is a two-car garage that is on site. Um, I do know there is a swimming pool in between the vehicle and the garage, so I'm not that would have to be moved in some way to uh to facilitate the vehicle going in. um you know and in our not notices we have said that the vehicle just needs to be repaired or removed from the property or placed inside storage and we just haven't had any communication that they were willing to do that council action on this particular case point of clarification we have in these past given wrote down these abatements but given a deferred date I We have done that. We don't always do it, but we do sometimes do it. >> Didn't we do that on this one already? >> Uh this this property owner was here uh last month or within the last couple months on another case on another case. Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Council action motion. >> Just a further question about this pool. >> Does this pool have currently have water in it? >> It does. >> And is it does it meet rec uh does it meet >> it is under the height limit that requires any action by staff? >> Okay. It seemed like it was really close given that it's taller than the uh than the freezer. >> Can you tell us if the prior um abatement issue with the other property of the same owner has been resolved? >> It has. They did bring that vehicle into compliance. They did also remove the refrigerator that was in that property. Um that was removed. I believe that was removed actually before the council hearing. Um the vehicle is uh appears operable. Um and with this vehicle, I'm not sure that just the tires are the only issue with this vehicle. Um I was not given that information today, but yes, the other property has come into compliance. >> Council Gar. >> So the quest if this is information that was related to you is they needed until after the after the first of the year. That's over a month away. Correct. >> Thank you, >> Council Member Sher. >> Yeah, this one. Um, if once we approve this, when would you actually pick up the vehicle or have it done? Would be like tomorrow or something >> potentially. I mean, it it's not a um a lengthy process once we get approval from council to do that. we could we we would work as you approve it. >> So I I guess what I would do I would move to approve this but move the date out because since it's Thanksgiving week it might be a little difficult to um you know just to the spirit of the holiday I guess give them a little extra time. So maybe uh >> you know >> something two weeks or something. >> Yes, exactly from today. Two weeks from today. Yeah, I was thinking 10 days. >> Yeah. >> What's the date on that? So, we have >> Yeah, give us a date. >> Uh, today, two weeks from today with the first. >> No, a week from today is the first. >> The first or >> two weeks from today, right? >> Oh, magic tax day. >> Yeah, 10 days would be fine, too. Business days. >> 10. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. >> The fifth would be Are you looking at 10 business days? Would be later than that with holiday. >> All right. Just give two full two weeks for get the business card. >> December 8th. >> December 8th. always so they can move that vehicle wherever that it complies. Um, as long as it's not sitting there >> and not in compliance. >> And if by the 8th it is still there, we would abate. Yep. >> Yep. >> I could motion to approve that. >> All right. Is there a second to council member Schroeder's motion? >> Second. >> That's what we're looking for. All right. It's been moved by Council Member Schroeder, seconded by Council Member Strong to authorize the abatement if it's not abated by the property owner or resident uh by the ETH. Discussion of December. Yes. Thank you. 2025. Discussion on the motion is the maker of the motion. Council member Sher. Nothing. All right. As the second or council member Strong. >> Other discussion. >> All right. Uh hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. That passes unanimously. That abatement is authorized stayed until the 8th. And I I would like the 35th. It would be >> right. It's just for the vehicle. Correct. Yes. I would just like to suggest that the city take a look at at, you know, maybe there's faith communities or maybe there's, you know, the the shop class at the auto shop class at the school or somebody that might be willing to to look at helping out with that. I don't know that we need to go out and >> actively solicit, but you know, maybe we need to try to think about some things. So, just putting that out there for everybody, >> not specifically for Mr. England. >> Add that to his job description. >> All right. Thank you again. >> Thank you. >> That then brings us to another public hearing. We have a public hearing this evening. uh on a request to approve a minor platt and uh we've got our senior planner Brian Lloyd with us this evening uh to bring this item before the council. It's been a little while since we've had a a minor plat before the city council, so we haven't had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Lloyd. Welcome back and uh look forward to this presentation this evening. >> Um I see that our ceiling camera is not on, but we don't really need it this evening. Um the proposal is to uh to plat the the property there at 1900 to 1910 County Road D uh where Presbyterian Homes has their home care facility. Um and the the result of the plat would be dedicating some rightway along County Road D. uh making a relatively small lot uh for the existing facility there and reserving the rest in what's known as an outlot, which essentially just holds it as an undevelopable parcel until such time in the future as it is replatted or designated as a developable lot instead of an outlot. Um, you know, it's a a much simpler plat application than many that come to the city council because there isn't development uh being proposed. You know, we don't have storm water plans to review. We don't have a tree preservation plan. Uh, parks and recreation uh commission review for dedication of land or or cash in lie of land is something that would happen again at at platting the outlot for actual future development uh rather than at this time. Um uh so all we really had to do was look at that proposed lot one to make sure that it conforms uh to building setback requirements particularly along the south and lot coverage and that sort of thing. Um and it looks like that lot will be um just fine as it's proposed. Um I feel like I'm leaving something out aside from uh just recommending that oh I don't know what I was leaving out. Uh I have talked to uh a couple of members of the public who called to ask for some insight about what the public notice meant. Um you know it just said that there's a proposal to plat this property. Usually that goes along with some future development in this case. Not only does it not connect to immediate future development, but it constrains future development until some you know public action again in the future. So, um, they were just looking for information about what that meant and didn't have any particular concerns about the plat proposal after hearing about that. Uh, and so then I would mention that we do recommend approval of the plat as it's proposed and I can take any questions that you might have. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Lloyd. Uh, questions from the council for staff on this proposal. Uh, council member Grath, >> not so much a question, but so what you're saying is that in the future, if this were to be some proposal came forth, we would do the tree preservation, we do all the other things that we do certainly at that time because that would be appropriate time to do that. >> Correct. >> Other questions for staff? Uh, council member Strawman, >> I'm not as familiar with these type of um lots and this outlot concept, but it looks like so that Arthur Street used to go down and go into that circle. Is that correct? >> I think that was a private driveway. >> Uh, I don't know the the nature of of the kind of rightway that exists there between Arthur Street and Brener. >> Um, there was certainly a driveway. Yes. uh kind of that reached into the middle of the parcel. This property has been a a nursing care facility for quite some time and the the previous facility which doesn't show uh on this aerial photo was demolished oh I don't know five or 10 years ago um prior to the the construction of the the new facility actually just after the construction of the new facility >> uh on the north side of the site there. So, are we obviously we don't know if and when someone I would assume at some point someone would be interested in developing this property. Um that's not neither here nor there at this point because it's not there's no specific project being proposed or >> simply put that's true. I believe that uh Presbyterian Homes has plans for future phases of this care facility uh you know which they could certainly develop um you know in the land that that remains there once it's replatted as a developable lot as opposed to the outlot but they don't have to be the ones to develop that property. It doesn't have to be uh more you know the assisted living facility kind of care. could be any land use that is allowed that's permitted in the highdensity district that regulates the property. >> What advantage is there to them to have it separated so they could sell it or what I'm not quite sure I understand what the advantage would be at this point for that division. I presume it's it's a lower tax rate uh on land that is in and out lot which can't be developed by its nature um rather than holding it as you know a separate lot that could be developed or more of this you know one parcel that also could be further developed. So I think it's just a cost-saving measure uh for you know what might be years before they they build future phases. Right. Other questions? Uh, it does look like there is an easement on that on that eastern edge of the property, the Arthur Street sort of extension for the pathway that's there as well as utilities. And I'm presuming that the minor plat preserves that easement that extends south on the eastern edge of the property. >> That's right. We haven't uh reviewed any proposed vacations of easements or or eliminations like that. >> All right. Okay. because I think that's access if I'm not mistaken to the uh to the open space to the south there. All right. If there are no further questions from the council, is there a representative of the applicant this evening who wishes to say anything in support of their case or just stand for questions? >> Good evening. We just ask that you introduce yourself before you make your comments and please feel free to have a seat. >> Okay. Um, good evening, mayor, council members. My name is Pamela Bells. I work for Senior Housing Partners, which is the development and construction arm of Presbyterian Homes. Um, I built the LinkedIn Shores care center that is there currently. um and then participated in the um removal of the existing care center that was there previously to which has that circular driveway that you were referring to, council member Strand. Um, I'm just here for questions, but as a little bit of background, um, this parcel, we built the, uh, Len Shores Care Center and opened it in February of 2020, which is two weeks before the shutdown. Um, and we did have plans to roll right into a phase two that would attach to this building. Um, at the time the state was interested in leasing the old care center that we just moved out of in case they needed it for COVID overflow for any reason. So they leased that property for a couple of years, which then made any plan that we had not feasible to move forward with. Um, so that property has just kind of been um been shelved a little bit. When the state was was done with the building, we did um take it down just to remove um kind of the eyesore and the liability that goes with that. We left that parking um the driveway and kind of parking turnaround in place um because it provides a nice solid surface for whether it's us or someone else that develops it in the future. It's a nice solid surface for construction parking or um landing materials and that sort of thing. So there wasn't any reason to remove it. Um we did put in the storm water pond that was required would have been required with phase two but phase one needs it. So we put that in uh over the summer and have completed that and stabilized and added some new sidewalks for uh for the residents since that was going to be built with phase 2. We went ahead and put those in. Um our request to do this minor subdivision um is purely a flexibility kind of move. Uh we typically would have a skilled nursing facility on its own parcel. This was a combined parcel because we were going to add on to it. Um now that I don't know what will become of the property, it makes more sense for our portfolio to align and just have it on its own. So that's that's the reason behind the request. Right. Thank you for for that information. Are there questions for the applicant? Great. Thank you for being here this evening and that's helpful information. Great. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this proposal this evening? >> Uh if that's the case, feel free to have a seat at one of the microphones. And while you're coming up, I'll just note that uh for public testimony, we do have a a two-minute time limit uh three minute time limit, per Sorry about that. I almost short changed you. um which I try to enforce uh generously but gently. Um and we would ask that you uh start your uh comments with your name and street or address for the record. Address comments or questions to the council. If we need to get information to answer a question, we'll be happy to do that once uh anyone else who wishes to speak has has asked their question or made their comments. Uh and then we do allow one opportunity per agenda item for folks. So uh just to give you some of the rules of the road, feel free to uh introduce yourself and make your comments. Great. This is very exciting. My first time here. Um, my name is Emily Rugles Johnson. I know Matt. My name is uh spelled E M I L Y R U G G L E S space Johnson. J O H N S O N. Um, I live at 360 Arthur Street. It is the corner of Arthur and Brener. I am right across the street from this situation. Um, and it has been a situation as Pam mentioned. Uh, thank you for all the emails to our neighborhood, Pam. Um, with questions. It's been a situation for us since 2020. Um, February 2020 was when it was built. In February 2020, our house was broken into. Um, construction, lots of stuff. Wedding rings gone, all sorts of stuff. I'm going to keep it to two minutes, so I won't go further into that. Um, but it it's been uh, you know, it has been an eyesore. Um, it's been fenced. It's been there because everything was stalled. Um I celebrated when the fence came down and now it's a nice looking uh clean area which I really appreciate. Finally, um a couple of questions I have. Number one, uh who owns the the plat? Is it still Presbyterian Homes? That's my first question. Do I ask all my questions and then go ahead? >> Okay. Y >> um >> the second question I think I answered when this came up. agenda like information for my neighbors to bring back um is online. Is that >> correct? Yes. And it remains there after this meeting. >> Sounds good. Um I got the answer about what the purpose of replatting is I think from um people that have spoken already. What does it mean for who mows the property? Like is it going to be maintained? Because we have experienced we have experienced all sorts of pests through this process. We've I mean we've had to look at piles of trash for years. Um when the fence came down, most of the trash was removed, which was great. Coyotes, rabbit poop everywhere. Now, I mean, we love rabbits. We love um nature in our in our neighborhood. Um but it's been a little confusing. Are we growing beautiful? I I do prairie in my yard. You know, we're stewards of the environment in our neighborhood. Um are we doing prairie there with long grasses or are we mowing? It's It's confusing. It's been very like willy-nilly, it seems like, watching it and just wondering what's going to happen. So, I'm just curious who owns it, who maintains it in in this state. Um, I think that's it. Um, Leslie Nope is my hero and so I'm from Parks and Rex. I I'm excited to be here at city council and um my husband is not going to believe it if I've kept it to two or three minutes cuz he's at home watching me. And >> yay, I'm done. You're at 249. >> Well done. Well done. >> Win the prize. >> All right. Thank you so much. And feel free to now have a seat back in the audience and uh we'll provide an opportunity for anybody else who may wish to speak on this item. >> Is there anyone else from the public? Feel free to come up once again just introduce yourself and >> address your comments or questions to the council. >> Sure. Sure. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Welcome, council members. It's also my first time. >> Uh Mr. Lloyd, you replied to my email. Uh thank you very much uh for that. My name is Jeff Howison. I live uh that's H ISO N. I live on the other side of the property, the uh the west side there on on Evelyn Street. Um directly adjacent to the uh to to the property here. I was just here to get information. I figured I'd speak up. I'll keep it very brief, but I um also can echo what was just said about um this just kind of trash and it's not really exactly clear what was going on. So, I'm I would just like to uh thank you for articulating some of the concerns that that we've also had about uh um just the the general state and and what is to become of it. Uh I I do appreciate that it's their land. Um uh and that they're going to do sort of what what they want with it. Um but I was just wondering also about the potential what what may go what may go there uh eventually. Is it I I heard high density uh sort of parcel. I would imagine it would be a continuation of the of the nursing facility that's already there. But uh in any event, I I would also like to say uh thank you for the notification that we got in the mail. I appreciated that. We don't get the emails I think that you receive. Um so it's the first that I I have heard of the uh the process. Um so thanks for for the opportunity to to sort of comment and to ask questions but also just a concerned resident um echoing sort of what was already said and thank you also Mr. Lloyd for your time for keeping us informed. So thank you. >> Okay. Thank you for your comments this evening. Uh is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this item uh this evening? Right. We'll close the opportunity for public comment. Uh, we do have a couple of questions to answer there. And I I um may have heard it in the information um from the representative of the property owner, but I may have to have you come back up and clarify the ownership question if you don't mind. >> Thank you, Miss B. >> Sure. So the property would remain with um PHS with Presbyterian Homes. Uh ownership does not change. Um and we are the ones that would continue to be responsible for maintaining it. Um it has been seated. It was overseated again um because of the dry and we had a little bit of too much rain and a little bit of not enough. So it was overseated again and hopefully it'll take this spring. Um and it is um it's our responsibility to to maintain that. >> Uh just a suggestion, not a not a requirement, but uh it may make sense to at least maybe get some contact information to a couple of the neighbors about, you know, who they can reach out to at at presomes about maintenance concerns or questions. Um so just putting that out there for you. >> Absolutely. >> Right. Thank you. Are there other questions or feedback? I do have other answers to other questions that we need to provide, but uh council member Strong >> I just had a question um about when you mentioned the ownership um and I know that uh press homes is uh nonprofit but um the change in in the senior care sphere is different than non that skilled nursing doesn't tend to be um your most profitable anchor in your portfolio of homes. So, my guess is that you would be going to something more like other assisted or or independent living to um offset the costs associated with the um reimbursement rates and everything changing and minimum wages with the state of Minnesota and everything else. Um so, I'm curious to know why going with an how what an outlot would benefit. Um, is it it's just to make it more uh cost-effective to have keep this large piece of property or is the goal to sell it off to someone else for the profit to let them develop or I guess I just trying to figure out for the neighbors as well what the what the goals are or you know there's got to be some type of long-term plan on what's going to happen with this spot um based on it kind of having sporadic uh attention. Council member Strahan, I appreciate the question. Um, the LinkedIn Shores Care Center um is um it's a long-term care center and you're right, it's a loss leader. They always they always are. Um, but it's a service that is part of our mission. So, we we still provide that. um we do need the rest of our portfolio to grow to be be able to offset those losses. Um so you're correct on that assumption. Um the care centers are a little bit of a different tax animal. So um and their use is a little different. Um their regulations are different. Um this property um h also was um had a small sliver of ownership with a um hospital entity which is um not the case should we build housing on the rest of it. Um so just kind of for those reasons it's helpful to have the care center on its own tax ID number. Um, and then the other parcel since we don't have any plans for that and we don't know what's going to happen with it, just having it as an outlot with the flexibility to to do whatever development makes sense on it um in the future is helpful. We don't have any plans for it at this point. Um, >> I would love to be building something over there, but we don't have any plans to to um do anything right now. Just one additional question. Um what is um what could the neighbors expect either of the property in visibility or in use? Is it a place that they could use as a green space if it is overseated and actually usable or is it a privately held space that's not available to anyone near them or I guess it would be helpful for the neighborhood to kind of understand what they you know how they can see this space that's in their neighborhood. >> Sure. Um so now that it's all been seated and like they said the fencing is down and uh we we can do a better job of maintaining that. Uh part of it is in u grasses that would be mowed and maintained and a lot of it is in prairie seed that we overseed with additional wildflower. um that can be that can be mo that maintenance requirements for it or um what the landscaper has said is in the spring when it grows to 6 in you mow it because that will kill the weeds that grow faster than the wild flowers and if you mow it at 6 in it kills the weeds and then the wild flowers can start to come up. Um and same thing in the fall you kind of knock it down and then do the same thing in the spring and that should that should encourage the wild flowers and not the weeds. Um, so we'll we'll follow that protocol and then reach out to the landscape uh landscaper if there's any questions on what can we do to improve that. Uh, we did reinstall some of the trails, walking trails that had been there um, previously. Um, there's a little round used to be a round pool with a sculpture in the middle of it. um that's now been made into a planter bed and there's still a trail that goes around and I know um there are some residents there that um whose family or staff um push them in their wheelchairs around that and back and they really enjoy that and we'll continue to use that as as a green space for the eyes and um and for the trails. Typically, I have not discussed this up the food chain um in our office, but typically like at Johanna Shores, the public is welcome to walk on our on our sidewalks and our property and um walk like out to the peninsula at Johanna Shores. We're pretty open to that. Um as long as um you know, they don't leave behind litter or dog poop or that kind of thing. I would guess that's our same thing here. if if they want to walk over and, you know, go for a walk down by the pond or over by the park, I don't know why we would ever object to that. Um, I would probably call the site after this meeting and say, you know, we did say if if people want to walk over there, that's that's okay. and just make sure that that they're aware and u they don't think we have an issue only because we did have um a homeless encampment encampment issue there on the south part of the property um previously. So we're just kind of keeping an eye on who comes and who goes on the property. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. All right. Uh Anna, we had a couple other questions which I don't know that it's your perview to answer necessarily. Uh and I would just note also that sometimes uh having more public use of a site does sort of discourage the homeless encampments. Sometimes it obvious we we have them show up in our parks as well. So which are theoretically more used um and certainly um there's no condition of approval of this particular minor plat for that public availability. That is strictly just a private decision between property owner and what they want to do. So I just wanted to make that clear. We're not making that a requirement of our approval. Um as and so we talked a little bit about ownership maintenance. Um future use I believe the entire site uh Mr. Lloyd is uh zoned or guided for multif family. Uh so that would generally be the type of use that could be built there would be you know anything that is several units together in a fairly tight density for uh living purposes. The only way that could be changed is if somebody came forward with a proposal to reszone and reguide the property for another type of use. Uh, and that would have to go through a process before the city council and probably the planning commission. Uh, and would require mailed notice. Uh, and actually, if it's a reszoning process, I believe there would also be at the beginning of the process a uh, a public open house before an application to the city for that was considered complete. And so, it's kind of an early touch with neighbors and that that type of change. Um, if somebody came in um with just a plan to meet the zoning, they would still have to come before the council and or the planning commission depending on the lots and quantity and all that sort of thing for changing that outlot to a usable developable lot. And so that would be part of the process and I believe that would still have some some of the same types of notifications, possibly not open house, but I'm not sure. So I'm not going to commit myself to that right now. Um, the other thing is I wanted to mention is that as far as uh maintenance of properties, uh, you know, proper mowing and upkeep and things like that, uh, certainly we we encourage private property owners to to let neighbors know if they're willing to do so, who to contact in those sorts of cases. The city's enforcement is a complaint-based enforcement process. And so certainly, actually, Mr. England who was here earlier on the the other case. He and his staff are the folks that would be the appropriate people to contact in the community development department under the nuisance uh code inspection and and uh enforcement. And so those are the folks that the city that could help out with that. And we do have things like um if if there's a a need to expedite a particular abatement, if it's, you know, long grass or something like that, uh the city can actually get it mowed and then bill it back to the property owner if it's a a case that that requires that. We've we've got criteria which I won't go to any more of that but anyway just to give the neighbors a flavor of that is so I guess what we're saying is that a lot of times if we don't see something through our periodic neighborhood inspection program the best bet is to just call the city and and you know we can help determine if it is a violation and go take a look at it. All right. I believe that gets to the questions to the answers or the answers to the questions. Um, and I have to say I am today years old in all the time I've been doing this knowing that an outlot actually precludes future development. I never knew that. So, this is news to me and you learn something every day. With that, we've got the request before us. Uh, does the council uh have any more questions or is the council ready to uh entertain a motion in relation to this request? >> I would move that we would approve the proposed out um outlaw plat. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Schroer. seconded by council member McGrath to uh approve the uh minor plat as presented this evening. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion council shooter. >> Uh just thank you for being here everyone to with your comments. It always helps the council when we have people we can have questions and then answers. So thank you. >> Definitely. >> Yeah, those were all very good clarifications and um I appreciate you being here to represent Presbyterian Homes because that helps us a lot too. Um, and I think the communication is good between the neighbors and the and the entity because that kind of clarifies some things. Sometimes when there's not a conversation, it seems like something bad is happening and it's really not. It's just just communication needs to be done. >> All right. And and we should make a plug for signing up for the email notifications from the community community development department. They're really fun and entertaining. And if you like coming to these meetings, uh you can go to uh even more meetings on the planning commission if you'd like. Uh so, uh echo the appreciation of other council members have expressed. Uh other comments on the motion this evening. >> All right, we've got the motion before us once again to approve that minor plat as presented. Uh if there's no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. I opposed. >> That passes unanimously and that is approved. Again, thanks to everyone uh for being here this evening and sitting through the rest of all of our mundane business to get here. Uh that then brings us, speaking of exciting business, you may want to stick around for this one. We've got a discussion about considering to adopt ordinances relating the implementation of gas and electric franchises in the city. >> 8:00 >> as Oh, did we want to take a break? >> Council want to take their 8:00 break. All right, we'll go ahead and do that. We'll do about a fiveminute break. >> Thank you. >> Good state. >> Yep. Got it. Kate just like to Okay. It really hurts. All right, we're back from a short break here. Uh and we'll be taking up uh our last uh business item this evening, item 7J, uh which is to consider adopting ordinances. I was beginning to say uh before the break uh to implement gas and electric franchises in the city of Roseville and also to consider uh ordinances that would establish fees associated with those franchises. So there's sort of two actions to be discussed. And without further ado, I'll turn it over to our city manager, Pat Trean, to bring this item before the city council for consideration. Just noting that this is, I think, the at least the third time this has been before the council. >> Thank you, uh, Mr. Mayor and, uh, members of the council. As you mentioned, we've already talked about this a couple times. This is, I believe, the third time. We last spoke about this at our last meeting. Uh, and just as a way of some brief, uh, background, as you know, under state law, cities are allowed to enter into franchise agreements with utility companies. In our case, that would be Excel. We previously did have a franchise ordinance in place for 20 years, which expired in 2018. And both the city and Excel at this point would like to adopt another franchise ordinance for another term of 20 years. As far as the actual uh uh ordinances, there are two ordinances, electric and gas franchise ordinance. Both would grant uh a 20-year franchise to Excel to construct, operate, repair, and maintain his electric and gas facilities. It does very closely follow model ordinances that have been around for for many decades here and very very similar uh to the previous ordinance as well. One thing I do want to call out and I mentioned this last time is that if we were to imple implement franchise fees which we are allowed to do under the franchise ordinance, Excel will no longer be required to pay permit fees but would still be required to pull a permit. Uh that averages about $50,000 annually. It goes up and down depending amount of work that they need to do. And I would propose that we would reimburse the engineering services fund, which is where the permit fees go into uh by franchise fees if we were to adopt them to cover those loss costs. That only comes into effect that waving of fr of uh permit fees if we adopt franchise fees. If we never adopt them, they would still need to pay the permit fees. As part of our ordinance, uh the city can uh institute franchise fees as I just talked about for the use of the rightaway uh which are charged to customers. Now the fees uh are charged to all customers and that includes tax exempt properties from our estimation is about 84 properties that would pay these franchise fees that that don't pay taxes and generate about $175,000 to mostly larger users, non-residential users. Uh, as outlined in the staff report, 12 of the 15 Ramsey County cities have franchise fees and over a hundred, probably many more than that, uh, have franchise fees in place in the state. I mentioned that not to saying we should do it because everybody else is doing it. Instead, it just highlights that franchise fees are widely accepted as a tool that cities rely on to support their operational capital needs. Uh, as we look at double-digit levy increases, as you are well aware, franchise fees uh, represent a practical and commonly used option for us to consider. as we look at the tax levy increase. So, as far as the actual um proposed franchise fees, uh we are looking and this is information that you have seen before. Um for the residential users, a $3 per month fee for res for I'm sorry, for electric and $3 for gas and different rates for commercial and industrial depending on certain categories they fall into. All told, that would raise about $2.4 $4 million on an annual basis and an ongoing annual basis. And for residents, I would note that the cost is $72 for the whole year for that. That's kind of a fixed cost. It's not based on usage or anything else. It's just a flat fee that's charged to the residents every every month. The uh proposed fee structure as shown there uh would have residential customers which make about 88% of the total accounts for uh with Excel pay about 40% of the total fees while the non-residential customers which comprise 12% of the total will pay 60% of the fees. Um, so while residential customers comprise a vast majority of utility customers, they would contribute a smaller share of the total franchise fees uh compared to the share of city property taxes. I have some information in there about uh what people pay for taxes depending on their classification. So uh let me pause there and see if there's any question. We have Eric Simson from Excel Energy here that I've been working with uh in uh the language of this agreement and he can certainly answer any questions or anything he would like to say but I believe we're both in agreement on this language. We spent a lot of time on it so appreciate his help navigating that but if there's any questions you may have for Excel on the ordinance. If there isn't or after that I would like just to talk a little bit about the impact of the franchise fees um as you think about budget scenarios. Ultimately, we are looking for adoption of this. That'd be my request to you. That's up to you to decide whether you want to do that tonight. Uh there would be multiple ordinances as you can see in there. There's u two ordinances. First you would want to adopt the electric I'm sorry, the electric franchise ordinance and the gas franchise ordinance. And if you are disposed to do that, then we have summaries of those that we would ask you to pass pass. And then uh subsequently we would like you to consider franchise fee ordinances one for electric and one for gas representing these rates here. Uh then we also have a summary ordance for that there. There's a total of eight different actions you would have to take if you were going to take that up here tonight. But let me pause to see if you have any questions about the actual franchise ordinance and then we can go into some discussions after that about what some of those impacts and scenarios look like. >> Right. Thank you Mr. Trojan. Other questions on are you talking about the franchise ordinance separate from the fee side of it? >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> Got it. Okay. Questions related to the franchise ordinances on gas and electric. Right. Doesn't appear to be the case. Looks like we're able to proceed then on the fee side of it. >> Okay. So, um as you know, we um have talked a lot about the budget. Um you've seen some of this information before and this is included in a memo in your packet here. just want to walk through a little bit of what the impact on the franchise fees and the potential use uh would mean uh to our levy and to more importantly our capital funds. So previously I talked about three different scenarios. Scenario one has us not implementing franchise fees at all. So uh this chart looks pretty blank but you'll see in the other scenarios it gets more filled out with the franchise fees. So really not changing our funding levels at all for capital uh expenditures. And I've highlighted the rightaway funds which are the street fund, street light fund, pathway and parking lot fund, the public works equipment fund. Uh those are tied to the rightway. And in future scenarios, you'll see that's where we'll put the franchise fees primarily into. The other capital funds are ones that we've identified as being problem funds that we need to address. And the thought there was either a combination of maybe some franchise fees but more so um reallocated capital levy that is going to the rightway funds would be repurposed there. As you can see there's a bunch of zeros there. So under this scenario one we would not implement franchise fees and not increase capital spending at all and that would lead to 11.54% levy increase or $15.71. I should back up. This scenario also assumes that we are hiring the 15 firefighters and the uh seven police department employees. As you know, we receive grants to underwrite a large portion of that, but there are still some levy support that we need to do as part of the 2026 budget. So, this is more of a reference points if we don't do franchise fees and just continue a pretty status quo budget as we've talked to up right now and not add any capital. This is where it gets a little uh more busy here and hopefully if you had a chance to look at this a little bit, but um just just to point a couple things out here. So once again, we're talking about the rideaway funds. We currently have $1.63 million of tax levy going towards those funds. I would say that if we adopt the franchise fees, we would swap that out uh with the amount you see here uh for a total of $2.1 million of the franchise fees. That 2.4 for going towards those capital funds. Uh for uh for the sake of trying to make sure we stay above uh zero, we would retain $100,000 of levy of this 1.6 uh for the public works equipment fund. Under scenario two, we would then reallocate some of this $1.6 6 million to the tune of $320,000 that take it from there to there to help other funds, the fire department fund, the parks department fund, and the park improvement fund. This column on the left is the current levy. So, you would add these numbers together to get a larger amount of u levy we're going uh towards these funds. Uh my suggestion with uh the police department and vehicle and equipment fund under previous iterations, we talked about using some repurpose levy since we are generating uh a little bit more than we originally estimated back earlier this summer in U franchise fees would to put $264,000 which is actually more than the levy we were proposing was 225,000. So it bolsters that even stronger. So, you would use uh some repurposed levy for these other capital funds and some franchise fees. And if you remember, I mentioned about the waving of the permit fees for the engineering services fund. Look to add $50,000 of franchise fees to that. So, all told, you get you can see the totals there. We would um be using $2.4 million of franchise fees, $420,000 of repurposed levy. So, if you do that math, 1.6US 6 - 420 of levy funds. You have $1.2 million of existing levy that's already in the system that we can repurpose from capital to operations, which brings that 11.5% levy increase down to $7.59%. And you can see $10.61 for the median valued home. You add the franchise fees, the the resident would pay $1661 more than they pay today. So that's um scenario two. We really do a complete job of utilizing the franchise fees and really shoring up our um our other capital funds. And I have some graphs to show you here in a little bit. >> Is that so just to compare that 1661 to the scenario one with no franchise fees and no additional capital spending. >> That's a 1571. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. >> A dollar more. So scenario three is very very similar. We would re uh per I'm sorry, we would use franchise fees to go towards the rightway funds as I've designated them, but we're taking all of this $1.6 million levy and put it towards operations. So, we would not repurpose $100,000 here and uh these other uh uh funds. We would not would still uh look to have franchise fees goes towards the police department vehicle and equipment fund. And if you remember, that's one of our ones that's the most urgent as far as running out of money. And we would still use the engineering services fund or put franchise fees of 50,000 into that. So once again, still use $2.4 million, but really no additional capital spending uh beyond what we're doing here, the franchise fees. So once again, you take the $1.6 $6 million uh of repurposed levy currently going to the rightway capital funds. Put that all towards the operations and that gets down to 6.22% or $883 um or $14.83 um for the monthly impact. uh the impact to the capital funds can be um under talked about uh because I think they make some significant changes to that. Let me just pull this up here. All right. So, uh if you remember the pavement management funds, one of the rightway funds, it would we replace $1.1 million of levy support to $ 1.36 million and the fund goes from uh negative in 2037 to being fully funded in 2024. So this is scenario one, no franchise fees. Scenario two, you can see we are pretty much fully funded for the next uh 18 years. Scenario three would be the same thing because once again, and they're both scenarios, we're using franchise fees. So scenario two and three, that would not change. Just moving right along, we'd replace 21,000 of levy support the street light fund for with 96,000. We go from looking like this. Once again, scenario one's no franchise fees or additional capital spending to looking really good. That slight blip we have in 2930 is something we can certainly work around. I'm positive. So in the scenario three would be the same reallocating the franchise fees. Pathway and parking lot fund. could go from 255,000 of levy support to $365,000 of franchise fees and goes from being negative looking like that to being positive for the next 20 years. So that's that's really really great. And scenario three once again is is the same outcome. So the public works and vehicle equipment fund if you remember we had this mixture of primarily franchise fees but just a little bit of levy. So we replace 235,000 of levy support with 100,000 of levy support and 285,000 in franchise fees. We go from cursor there from being negative in 2028 to being fully funded in scenario two. Now remember we're using repurposed levy for this scenario three where we don't use that $100,000. Look what happens. Just that little amount really affects the longterm trajectory. So, go back here. Um, you can see here at scenario two, we're in pretty good shape, but just taking out that 100,000 of levy support um really changes it. So, police department vehicle and equipment fund, we would propose to use franchise fees to shore this one up. So, 225,000 of reallocated levy. I'm sorry, this is an old note. I change that. Um, ignore that. Um, but it goes from being really negative really quick in one year to being better, still being negative, but we have until about 2030 before uh it's really negative. I think what that helps us do is buy some time to continue to focus on that fund and really look at all the needs for it. And scenario three would be the same because we're using franchise fees. uh those two scenarios, fire department and equipment fund. You can see what it is without franchise fees and we're just barely above water uh 2035 which coincides with the reinment of electric fire engine uh which we certainly have borrowing opportunities to do at that point. But this just shows you the fund balance. We uh make that better. It's much more positive for a longer period of time. uh still will dip below in 2035 but it's much more healthier fund scenario two once again we're reallocating levy funds but remember in scenario three we are not using any reallocated funds so it's actually the same as scenario one so it's the exact same thing parks and recreation vehicle once again very negative pretty quickly here with use of franchise fees and the I'm sorry with the use of the reallocated levy in scenario two uh we're positive for the next 20 years, which is great, but scenario three, we're the same as scenario one. So, we don't use that reallocated levy. It really makes an impact on that fund. And that's something we would need to address at some point in the future, most likely with levy funds, future motorcycles. Then the park improvement fund, I think this is the last one. Uh you can see, uh without uh franchise fees, um or additional capital spending, we do become negative in 2032. Uh we move that dip uh up. So there's a few years of uh negative in the in the 2030s, but uh something that a little bit more manageable. Once again, if we uh take scenario three, we're not repurposing that capital levy. So we're same as scenario one. So hopefully that gives you a graphic understanding what that impact is of uh the franchise fees. that. So, um the last thing I just want to show is and you saw this at the last meeting here too is um kind of a chart showing the monthly impact the different scenarios. So, start on the left is uh the 2025 budget just as a reference point. The next bar is scenario one which shows a total of $15.71 uh increase. That's all levy increase on the property tax bill for 11.5%. The next bar is scenario two where we uh use franchise fees and reallocate some of that capital levy for that median valued homeowner. That's $10.61 per month more plus $6 of franchise fees. So that's $16.61. Scenario three, once again using franchise fees but not um reallocating any capital levy and using all that savings for the operations. We do lower that to $8.83 as a monthly impact, but adding the $6483. And the last bar is just uh a reference point to what the finance commission recommended. Uh no more than a 10% levy increase, which represents a $13.72 uh increase the median valued home. So, just want to show that for reference. >> So, that's a lot of information. Hopefully uh you had a chance to look at it. very similar to what I presented before, but I just wanted to show beyond um uh anything else what this impact of the franchise fees could do to our budget and levy. And part of the reason I'm asking for consideration of approval uh tonight is that it does help narrow some of the scenarios at least um I I I suspect unless I get e really firm direction that if we adopt the franchise fees then we're looking at two scenarios instead of three. We still need to have that discussion at the budget and levy time, but certainly at your discretion if you want to hold off on on improving franchise fees and franchise I would suggest you adopt the franchise ordinance, but wait to adopt the franchise fees until you have a fuller budget conversation. We can certainly do that. Uh I'm thinking from our uh standpoint it might be easier for us to bring back a staff more precise um uh things, but that is up to you. So with that, I'll stop and ask there's any questions and listen to the discussion. Right. Questions from the council and I just wanted to clarify a couple of points. I think I had heard from a resident who was looking into this and asking questions about it that that actually if we impose the franchise fees, we have to wave the permit fees. Is that correct or am I or is that resident not necessarily correct in that research? Uh without naming names? >> No, you don't you don't you don't need to uh wave it. It's um strong uh ask by Excel. >> Okay. It's it's still a negotiated thing at that point. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Um and then if the fee ordinances are adopted either tonight or some subsequent time uh at $3 for residences and the other rates for the other businesses, >> are those subject to changes every year or is it fixed for 20 years or some some hybrid of that or what's what's the experience other cities have or what's your understanding of that? So they're fixed until uh we change them. So if uh we don't change them for 20 years and leave them at $3, that's what they will remain. If the city council wanted to raise it by 50 cents, let's say for the residential aid, so it was $ 350. We'd have to go through this whole process again and adopt a new fee ordinance, notify Excel, uh make sure that they're aware and go through this whole public process. So we can't unilaterally just change it. We can't just wake up one day and want to change it. It has to go through a process. So it would be in effect until until it's not until it's changed by the council. Right. >> Right. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. Other questions from the council? >> Well, just to follow up on that. So, but part of this would have been done because we would have the franchise fee ordinance in place. We just have to change the part that would be the dollar amount. >> Correct. Yeah. You would amend you probably have a new ordinance, but you you would just change those rates. And the franchise ordinance, which is the bigger document, still be in place for 20 years. continue >> and yeah, >> I don't imagine that changing, but the franchise fee ordinance could change if the council wants to pursue a different future. >> All right, other questions from the council. I did have one other question um and that was um as to the choice to do the fixed amount versus something based on usage for each of the categories. Is that something that um the city considered both approaches and decided one was better than the other or was that sort of a mutual decision with Excel or can you talk a little bit and and then how the rates were set because I noticed that that that that ratio of commercial payment versus residential on these franchise fees is weighted much more towards the commercial than on the property tax side. So if you can just talk a little bit about those two questions. Yeah. So certainly under state law um city can adopt a flat rate or a variable rate. As we look at it early on um as a city staff we fell more on the flat rate because of more certainty. With the variable rate um you have less certainty each year what's going to be brought in. Uh that that variability also affects the rateayers or the customers. um if it's really hot or really cold and they have to use more energy that particular month or year that's they're going to be paying more. So we thought there would be more sense or better st better to have a stability um versus some variability that we can plan on year after year. So that's where we landed very quickly and I think Excel is very supportive of that and would prefer the flat rate just for the ease of calculation. Um your second part of your question was >> so as to the the the setting of the rates and and how those were determined. Yeah. Given that it's a little different proportionality than the uh than the property taxes in Roseville. Any >> So yeah, we looked through different scenarios working with Ellers and working with Excel and uh really trying to um minimize the impact as much as we could uh to the residential areas. kind of landed um conceptually at the 6040 split and kind of looked at numbers and how to get there. And so what you see here tonight represents that 6040 split. Um we looked anywhere from $2 to $5 um as a residential rate and $3 we felt was u something that was somewhat acceptable I guess and uh we could get there uh by adjusting the rates of the non-residentials to keep that 4060 but >> on the overall >> on the overall. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. additional insight. Um, other questions from council members? All right. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this matter this evening? All right. Doesn't appear to be the case. Um, so we we do have the two matters of the franchise ordinances themselves with four actions essentially associated with those and then the whole question of the of whether we want to impose the fees. And I guess I'll turn it to the council for consideration of maybe that broad topic about timing of of looking at I guess if we don't want to impose the the fees then that makes it a quicker discussion. But uh but uh what do we want to talk about in terms of timing of that decision on the franchise fee side of things? Um given we've got these now two nights of budget hearings coming up at our next two meetings at which members of the public may wish to weigh in on it. Council member Bower, >> someone has to start. Um, I think, you know, we've always been try to be, I feel like, transparent about what we're talking about doing with these franchise fees and not trying to I mean, it is a source of revenue. Residents have to pay it. I think we've been above board on that the whole time. I feel it would be inappropriate for us to make a decision on franchise fees now when um the expectation um is for us to have an overall budget discussion with the public on December 1st and December 8th at those times. Um if we make a decision about the fees now we've kind of moved in a certain direction maybe not having the public's voice u being heard. So for that reason I'd be you know more inclined to continue the franchise fees discussion later on. Um, you know, we're not talking, we're still down to just three scenarios here. I feel like after the de, you know, I don't feel like that's difficult to overcome to be able to make a decision on the 8th, just those three. I think it's been presented enough times. I think we should at this point all be very comfortable with it. I think at this point, we're just awaiting public uh feedback. Um, assuming people show up for that, right? >> Other feedback from council members. Council member Schroer. >> Yeah. you know, um I agree with um council member Bower that I think at this point um you know, we've we've looked at it and talked about it and I'm assuming as individuals we've come to some conclusions on our own yet want to have that input from the the public on where they're feeling about it because obviously we're representing them. So, um I think it's it's a good idea and I think um I especially it seems like we're down to like three scenarios here. Um I do obviously passing the ordinances tonight is is not is kind of a no-brainer. It's you know those have been they're very similar to what we already had and that doesn't obligate us to anything. That just gives us the mechanics to have the flexibility to do it if we go that for sure. So yeah, I guess um um um Council Member Bower made a a very good point about the um the public buy in on that. So I I I could wait and it'll be interesting to see because technically um on the date on the property statement it said the ETH, but we verbally it said the first. So I I would hate to have to add another element of confusion to say, "Oh yeah, never mind. We've already decided." So yeah, makes sense, >> right? Council member Strong. >> Well, I understand that um we have been elected to represent the people and people we don't have to go far to get their information. Um I do think we have to look with some fiscal um responsibility at these charts. And if you're still unclear based on these charts where we need to make choices, um I'm surprised. I I think when we look at what our current situation is, if we are going up to 11.54% without any um without any franchise and we're looking at what we can do to shore up some of our other funds with the utilization of franchise, I don't know, Mr. Trejan, were you taking in when you were looking at the fund balances, were you taking into effect or into account the um franchise fee infusion each of the years thereafter or just on a short-term basis? >> No, it was for each year afterwards. >> Okay. >> That's what those charts. So, I mean, I think if we see the money has to come from somewhere and so when we look at it, I'm very hesitant to look at scenario three where we would go with the um with the uh franchise and not fund our really important fund. I mean, the money we might all be gone, but someone's going to be stuck with the, you know, the basket going, where are we getting these funds? So, if we short ourselves, there's going to be someone has to pay it. So maybe it's a little it's um a$180 less per month now, but we put ourselves in a really dangerous situation fiscally as a as a city to fund our, you know, things that we have committed to. If we're committing to a three-year safer grant and um the police and fire and a long-term grant like that, we can't just say next year, never mind, we don't want to do it. So I think we have to we have to look beyond our noses and beyond what's happening in not just 26 but we have to look beyond just 27 and thereafter and some of us will be still around and don't want to have them coming with pitchforks. I realize nobody wants to have it go up beyond 1372 per month but our portion I think I saw some people responded oh our county taxes well unfortunately we don't have any input on that and those will probably go up as well but we have a there is a set of standards that we've provided in our city that people do expect especially as council member Schroeder has mentioned many times cutting public safety is not not a popular is not a popular thing to do. And so I don't know. I feel like saying that we're going to just steal from one hand, pay the other. I feel like scenario three doesn't buy us really enough um advantage. If people are still really unclear about whether or not they're going to go with franchise, then maybe just one and two. But I think the staff is owed at least the opportunity to know where we're headed and so they can plan. Um because if it's if it's any one of them, that's just I don't know. I don't think that really gives anybody a good idea and I think it just leads to confusion when we get to that last day. People is a lot of charts for people who maybe aren't real chart friendly. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. >> No offense. >> Could I clarification on that? So, are you suggesting that we look at like scenario one and two versus one, two, and three is what you're what you're thinking. I think if we're >> I hear let's take action on scenario two tonight. Oh, I maybe I mean I would I would I would be inclined to do that as well, but I think I think if we were going to have either one or two to me, if we're going to have the franchise fees, I feel like shorting all of those other funds in order to get to scenario three isn't advantageous for our organization. >> Okay, >> that's my opinion. I would say if we were going to cut one, I would recommend scenario three. >> Thank you, >> Council Gra. thoughts on timing of discussion and decision. >> Just a quick clarification. I want you to if we're going to cut one, you would recommend three being cut, >> correct? >> Okay. >> So, we're looking at one and two. >> These um >> what I would say is I'm obviously in favor of u voting on the franchise >> ordinance tonight. The other I I can see both sides of this, but I am totally leaning towards number two myself personally. Uh if people if other council members want to have input from the public further on this, we can certainly do that. I I don't know that that'll happen. Sometimes we have some people show up for these conversations. Sometimes we have usually the three or four that come every year. Um so that's those are my thoughts on it. I really would like the the franchise ordinance to be addressed tonight and I I would be I would feel comfortable voting tonight on the others if the rest of the council wants to. a fee. >> Okay. >> So, one more. Um, so, um, um, city manager, if we just said that we were going to pair it down to one or two, would that be helpful at all >> or not? >> Uh, council member Schroer, uh, yes, because we could have more concrete information, bring it back to you what those resolutions would look like on the ETH as far as levy and don't know if there's any other discussion around the budget. So, but um, we will take your lead. So, if if um we might might have to make sure we have um information at the ready uh depending on what the council wants to do. >> Okay. >> The last meeting, >> I'm going to uh speak in favor of keeping two and three as options out there. I think that especially if we do hear from the public at the first and the eighth before making the decision. And the only reason I say that is because that um it's still I think significantly better in terms of dealing with long-term capital funding issues than scenario one which doesn't do anything. >> Um and it might end up being sort of a compromised position and why not have that on the table as part of the conversation uh that the that the public can react to. Uh that would be my only argument for not necessarily eliminating one of the scenarios this evening. I think it's probably just as easy to have, you know, one more potential resolution available or have the dollars ready to read off a Q card into the into what we fill in on the resolution. So, I'm I'm fairly comfortable with that, but I guess I'd rather give the public the opportunity to look at at the scenarios that we're looking at is my point of view because I don't know that I've I've come to a conclusion myself as to how I want to go on on scenarios two or three. I I am generally I prefer as I think I've stated at prior meetings I'm I do prefer uh dealing with more issues with as little impact on the residential taxpayers as we can which does make the franchise fee approach more attractive. I think the question just is in exactly the doing of that. And so that's that's my two cents on the scenarios. I I would be leerary of pulling one out at this point mostly for the benefit of the public. Once again, as was noted, depends on how many show up and who shows up, but also there's a fair number of people in the public who follow these things even if they're not at the meeting. So true. So that's that's my two cents. Council member Straw, I think you had your hand up. >> Did I maybe did anything else to say? >> I think she was just coughing >> again. >> Yeah, it's a season. >> All right. Um, so it sounds like we it appears that there's a fairly good consensus on the council to take this the the fee side of it up on the on the ETH. Um, and it sounds like also consensus to take up the ordinances themselves tonight. >> Um, I can't remember if we provided the opportunity for public comment already or not. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for helping me with that. Um, so we are at the council uh decision point on certainly on the ordinances uh to put the franchises back in place. I do want to just check I I don't imagine that there's a reason we have to adopt each ordinance separately. We could do both as a single motion. >> We're looking at the attorney. >> Well, the attorney is the only one that's going to be able to help us. So >> I I think that's fine in this circumstance. I think that's fine. >> And same with the resolutions for the summaries. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Okay. So that'll help us with our number of actions we have to take if that's all right. >> So uh probably the first thing would then be a motion to adopt the franchise ordinances for gas and electric both as a motion. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. That's been moved by council member Grath. Second by council member Sharter for the ordinances for the franchises. All right. Discussion on that motion. Uh, Council Member Grath, as the maker, >> I think we've discussed this quite a bit and I want to appreciate the thoroughess of the uh, express appreciation for the staff and all the work they've done on this because this is not a a light lift. There was a lot of details here and there were, you know, many meetings for we as council to go through the numbers and and explore them. So, that was appreciated. I also want to thank council member Schroeder for bringing this forward from I think was the league of Minnesota cities. So, >> thank you. Um, I think it's a really good option to have out there for us as a city and I think it's a tool we need in our toolkit to help us with our budgeting. >> Right. as the secondary council Schroeder. >> You know, I I'm just I I'm appreciative all of the conversations we've all had around this and we looked at this and the work that's been put into the ordinance and appreciate that Excel is a partner in this and so um it's it's another good tool to have in in the toolbox as um council member Grap said. >> All right, other discussion on the motion. Once again, this is a motion to uh adopt the franchise ordinances not including the fee part, >> right? or the sum. >> Just to be clear, discussion on the motion, >> it includes the provision to have fees, >> but that you can have fees, >> right? But it doesn't actually provide fees, right? Yes. Exactly. >> Thank you for clarifying that. >> Other discussion on the motion. >> All right. Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. >> That motion passes and we have our franchise ordinances in place for gas and electric. We do need to uh consider uh publishing summaries of these ordinances. And I believe we could do a single motion to adopt the resolutions authorizing publication of summaries of those as a single motion. Council member Strawn moves that. >> Second. >> Second by council member Grath to authorize uh to pass the resolutions authorizing publication of the summaries. And once again, this does require a supermajority, which in the case of a five member council is a four-fifths vote. Uh keeping that in mind, all those in favor of uh adopting those resolutions authorizing those summaries signify by saying I. opposed. That passes unanimously. Me and the four-fifth supermajority requirement. Uh and as has been noted, we will defer the decision on imposing franchise fees uh up or down and what those might be if we go uh in favor of those uh to our December 8th discussion. And I just want to note by commentary that I think uh Mr. Trean, you've presented this a number of times over the last several meetings and I think we're zeroing in on something that's hopefully going to be pretty pretty clear to the public in the process of the first and the eighth. Uh, so just wanted to to give you that uh that uh review for for you could put it on Yelp and then uh you would >> All right. I should probably put a quantity of stars to that, right? >> Thank you. >> All right. Thanks once again to everybody for their work on this, including the finance commission for having weighed in uh fairly early in the process and being interested in the process going forward. Uh and once again, we encourage members of the public if you have input uh to either participate in the hearings on the 1st and the 8th of December or contact council members in between at your leisure. And with that, we will move then uh from our business items uh to a couple of uh council meeting minutes that we've got before us. Actually, council and EDA minutes. Uh these are the minutes of the November 10th uh council and EDA meetings. Uh and those have been reviewed by council members and uh corrections have been uh provided to staff and the revised drafts have been before the council for our consideration this evening. Uh are there any changes or corrections to those minutes from the 10th? Otherwise, a motion to approve as presented would be in order. >> Move approval. >> Second. >> Right. It's been moved by council, seconded by council member Sharter to approve those both minutes uh as presented from the November 10th council and EDA meetings. Uh any discussion on the motion? Uh hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those minutes are approved. Uh that then brings us to our consent agenda which we talked about way back at the beginning of the meeting. Uh Mr. Treasure, could you give us a few uh points of summary of the consent items before this evening? >> Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Agenda item 10A approves payments in the amount of $974,75066. Item 10B approves expenditures to hire an expenditure, I should say, to hire Pipe Services Corporation to televised sanitary and storm water sewer pipes in 2026 at for a cost of $35,000. Item 10 C approves licenses for one pawn shop, 10 recycling haulers, and 13 solid waste haulers. Item 10 D approves a renewal of a short-term rental license for 1820 Chadzsworth. Item 10E adopts a resolution approving a planned unit development concept and final plan to allow for a home design that is different from what was approved in 2005. Item 10F approves a sanitary sewer system interconnection agreement with city of Falcon Heights. Item 10G adopts resolution requesting funding from Met Council for uh the private property inflow and infiltration grant program. Uh item 10H uh approves entered into professional services agreement with Bron Companies for geotechnical work in the 2026 construction project. See my notes are cut off. What else do we have here? Um uh second uh no I don't have it. Um the uh last two are the Roseville Firefighters Relief Association benefit increase of 2.7%. I'm sorry I don't have in front of me based on a resolution adopted many years ago about cost of living increase on an annual basis tied to the social security cola increase. Uh the board uh is aware of this coming and uh we're asking for your approval tonight. And the last item item J is to prove a condition uh a position of cadet 2 for the fire department. This is going to help us uh in having flexibility in recruiting uh for the 15 firefighters we're looking to hire in 2026. And that is the consent agenda. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Charge. And I believe the uh increase on the firefighters relief association 2.8% say 2.7 for the social security cola. Just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. >> Is there a motion on the consent items? >> Second. >> All right. Moved by council member Stron, second by council member Grath to approve those items. Uh discussion on the motion. Council member. >> Yes. I did have some questions about um 10 10 C and I had brought this up to um Mr. Trean today during the day and some information was sent to me in followup to the conversation we had a few months ago as a council about um where yard waste where recycling where trash and where organics went. Um, I just wanted to follow up and I guess what I in reviewing the applications that were provided to us, there was um, there were some things that were not listed and one of them was the recycling for waste management who is our recycler. The location of the recycling drop was not listed and then um, there are three curbside uh, Walters and ACE that do not provide yard and then there's four that don't provide organics. And I just wanted to make sure it'd be nice that um someone who might select those from our list of potential haulers might be aware that those services are not something that's available through them. Um so maybe in publishing that information to their to our residents people know that you know if I go obviously if you called but if you didn't think about it at that time you got signed up and suddenly you found out but I wanted to make sure we knew um where waste management um took their recycling and then if they had um a yard or organics dropped somewhere that that page may have just been missing from the information and I didn't know were we able to find that page Well, I was wondering if the uh as our public works director comes up on this one as well as our assistant city manager, um I imagine that there is something contractually in the recycling contract that talks about where waste management takes their recycling city recycling any correct. Yeah, waste management takes it to their own they have their own uh MURF site. Can't recall what that stands for. Uh but yeah, they have >> their facility. >> Yeah, there you go. But they waste management has their own just like Eureka previously had their own facility. Okay. >> And mayor, council member Strong, um, in looking at the applications that I see, I think some of the pages are duplicative or I'm sorry, two-sided, and I think some of them did not get scanned in. So, that's why I think some of them do not show those locations, >> right? And I just I think there was it was kind of inconsistent which pages were in which item. So, I just wanted to make sure um I guess if they was shared um and like Anderson It looks to be a dumpster only, but they had all of the items checked as their services that they provided in the city. So, just some continuity. Um, it's hard to know, but there's a lot of uh chatter on uh some of the website um Facebook neighborhood groups and stuff sometime about what services are available. And so, I there seems to be a little bit of an possibility that if we list them as a vendor on our site that somehow there's an endorsement. At the very least, it'd be nice if people knew what services they provided in helping them make their choices. Um, and organics, hopefully, we won't need to know that forever. Um, but yard waste in relation to our yard uh facility and leaf facility in the future. I think it's really important that people know if a service pro if they provide that service and maybe if um some of these other places that don't currently offer it knew that there was a interest they maybe would be able to to um find that as well or you know look into that as a need in the future. So um not to withhold that but I just thought we should it'd be good if we knew where that information was going. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. Other discussion on the motion? Uh hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously and those items are approved. Uh that then brings us to the future agenda review. Mr. Trean, there aren't too many agendas left in this year. >> Only two uh Mr. Mayor. So uh and we've talked about them already tonight. So December 1st and December 8th uh last two meetings. So next Monday and the Monday the following. So on the 1, we'll hold a public hearing about the budget and Levy has been mentioned. We do want to spend some time and have finance commission come and talk about their work plan. They've had a couple items that have been brought forward by a resident for asking finance commission to look at um the cost of trails and bike plan. So before uh they spend any more time going uh down that path so to speak um like to have a check in with the council and see if that's something worth their time. Uh, we also would like to amend the ordinance regarding the dangerous animal hearing officer. As my understanding currently, I am the hearing officer. So, I have to hear um appeals on dangerous dog designations and we'd like to have a third party do that who's much more qualified than myself. Uh, and then also uh looking to appoint a city council member to the civic campus final design stakeholder group that's starting to come uh shape here. And as if you recall, we uh asked for one council member to serve on that uh stakeholder approving. On the 8th, we'll continue uh the hearing uh for the budget and levy uh not lay but levy. Um and then eventually approved the EDA and city budget levy, the fee schedule, utility rates. Um I had mentioned, I think maybe in the packet December 1st, looking to have a close session about the VFW and talking to them. Um uh they're not going to have their offer to me until next week sometime. Um or yeah, I guess you call it an offer. Um, so, uh, we would like to get that, uh, in close session to provide an update and get some direction from the city council at that meeting. And then, of course, we'll, uh, have the consideration of the franchise fees on the December 8th as well. And just a reminder, December, uh, 3rd, we have the Rosal business exchange over at Cedar Home from 4:30 to 6:30. All right. Thank you, Mr. Tre. Are there questions on the future agenda review for reports, announcements, communications, future agenda items for council members? All right. Uh that leaves us with one business item before a item of business before we uh end this meeting. Uh and that is uh to go into a closed executive session under Minnesota state statutes which allows cities uh which are required to have open meetings uh to go into closed session in certain specific exceptions. One of which is to discuss attorney client privileged information. Uh in this case uh there is litigation uh involving the city uh which uh uh we are uh prepared to receive an update from our uh legal council on this evening. Uh and that uh does uh uh as we understand it fall under that exception to the open meeting law. Uh so it would be appropriate uh to go into a closed session for that purpose. And before we do that, I did want to just for the members of the public as well as for our cable uh our streaming uh operator producer um what happens when we go into the close session is that we do have to reopen before we adjourn officially. Uh but usually the practice has been not to return to the council chambers or to return to camera for that reopening uh because it's essentially a formality uh and then we immediately adjourn the meeting. So, I just wanted to make the public aware that soon as we uh take action on whether to go into this closed session, that would be the end of the publicly available video of this meeting. Uh and that's why uh and also make that information available to our producer who will probably want to know that. With that, I don't know that there's any more discussion I need to provide or background as to the reason we're going into the close session unless the attorney wishes to add anything. >> Just mayor, if you could cite the statute for me, please. >> Gotcha. I can tell you it's 13D.05, but the subdivision is 3B uh as it relates to a cloning attorney client privilege exception to the open meeting law. All right, with that then it would be appropriate to have a motion from the council to uh adjourn to closed executive session for that purpose. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right, it's been moved by council member Grath, seconded by council member Schroeder uh to adjourn to close session for that purpose. Any discussion on the motion hearing? None. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. Uh and we are will adjourn to close executive session at 8:59 p.m. And once again, uh we'll be going off camera to end the meeting otherwise. Uh and we'll see you at the next meeting.