You got that many hereby call to order the Roseville Economic Development Authority meeting for Monday, November 10th, 2025. Mr. uh executive director, would you call the role, please? >> Member Graf >> here. Member >> Strong >> here. Member Schroeder >> here. >> Member Power Bower >> here. President Ro >> here. Uh and with us at the deis by way of introduction we have our city attorney EDA attorney Rachel Tierney on my right at the end our city manager and executive director of the uh EDA uh Pat Trean on my left uh we'll introduce other participants in the meeting as they come up uh for their part in the meeting. Uh we would ask folks if you have a cell phone to be sure to silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt the meeting this evening. Uh we do have for the public uh extra copies of tonight's agendas for both the economic development authority meeting as well as the following council meeting. Uh those are available on the table in the back of the room under under the big clock. We do also have a excuse me a complete set of all the meeting materials in a three- ring binder in the same location uh which you'll have to share with your fellow attendees but it does have everything all the materials that are before the council this evening. Uh with that I would 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. >> All right. Next on our agenda is a consideration of approving tonight's uh EDA meeting agenda. I'll check. I'm imagining there aren't any changes uh from a staff perspective, Mr. Treasure. >> No changes, Mr. President. >> All right. Uh any changes requested by members of the EDA board this evening to the agenda? >> Does not appear to be the case. Uh is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented? >> So move. >> Second. >> It's been moved by member Schroeder, seconded by member Bowerer to approve the agenda as presented. Uh any discussion on that motion? Uh hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. >> That passes unanimously. We have our EDA agenda for this evening. Um, as is our normal practice when we have an EDA meeting and a council meeting on the same evening, uh, we'll forgo the public comment, the general public comment section of the meeting, uh, and take that up at the council meeting immediately following this economic development authority meeting. Uh, that allows us to get right into our business items for the economic development authority. And our first item is uh 5A which is to receive an uh report an update on our various tax increment financing districts in the city uh otherwise known as tiff districts. Uh and we have our uh community development director Janice Gunllock here along with our consultant from Ellers uh to uh bring this information before the council the board this evening. Welcome Miss Gunllock. >> Thank you President Ro members of the board. Uh, periodically staff does bring forward an update to the city's tax increment financing review and analysis plan. This plan is prepared by Ellers, who is our city's public finance consultant. Um, the last time the EDA received the full update was 2020. We've given you periodic update since then, but the actual full update of the plan um was last done in 2020. The purpose of this plan is to assess the health of these tax increment districts and to determine if any actions need to be taken. Um Stacy Kilvang with Ellers is here. I'll let her give the update. Um please note there are three recommendations within the report. We're looking for some direction on those recommendations. And with that I am going to turn it over to Stacy. I believe this is your report. Yes. >> Perfect. Thank you, President Commissioners. Nice to see you all. Um, again, Stacy Quing with Ellers, your public finance advisors, working mostly with uh tax increment, also with your utility rate studies, long range planning, and uh debt issuance as well. Do >> you want to run it or I >> I can run it from here or click it from here. That's fine. Um, so we've we've talked about this before. Uh, great quote, right? The best investment you can make is in yourself. And that's part of what you're doing with the tax increment districts that you end up um completing within your community. And the reason why we say that's so important at the end of the day, you got to think of yourself as a resident who lives here, right? Or a business. And if the city isn't doing things to, you know, redevelop areas that are looking a little tired, reinvesting in your streets or in your parks, all those kinds of things, then why should as a resident should I put money into my home, right? Or why as a business owner should I invest in my business here and in my employees here? So again, at the end of the day, when you're creating these TIFF districts, although they can have a long term, it seems like a long time, but it's really kind of a shorter term investment for a longer term gain that you're trying to get. And it's so helping to meet some strategic priorities that you may have that's not only about redeveloping blighted areas, but it can also be about job creation. Um, it can be about affordable housing. It can be about changing the perception of areas within your community as well. So right now you have five active tiff districts um in your city. Uh one of those is a housing tiff district and so those are for affordable housing. So those typically have to meet um income requirements that we'll talk about a little bit at the end. Uh the other four are redevelopment districts that you have and so that's really about cleaning up blight uh within contamination within your uh community and within the areas. And then because you're doing that, any type of use, any after uses you put in there, you can put in office, you can put in manufacturing, you can put in affordable housing, you can put in market rate housing because again, really creating that district is about cleaning up the conditions that caused it to be called a redevelopment tiff district in the first place. And then you do have one subdist. It's a hazardous substance subdist. And what that really means is those are traditionally attached to a tiff district, a redevelopment one. And in this case, that's tiff district 17, which is the Twin Lakes area. and we'll show you some maps of that. And that's because the contamination levels were so significant in that area that you needed additional tax increments. So, it allows you really to decrease the base value even further down to zero to collect more tax increment to help correct those conditions um at the end of the day. So, we are going to go down memory lane a little bit. All right? Because it's always, you know, I always say to people, it's like it people who are newer to your community, right, that may have not lived there, they drive by stuff and they're like, "Oh, that's been here forever." Right? they don't remember what it used to look like um uh back in the day as we say. So tiff district 17 was created back in 2005 20 years ago right and we wish you know as we dug try hard to find pictures of the before that's out there and so essentially if I can orient folks a little bit right let's see if I can get my mouse to work from over here basically um the the red line over on the left side of the screen that's uh Cleveland and on the bottom is county road C and so you can see that whole area was really predominantly industrial and if you remember there were a lot of quanet huts that were out there, right, that used to be there. A lot of out store outside storage for truck trailers and other things within the area. And so, um, the two red blobs that we have in there, those areas were originally part of TIF District 17, but we descertified them out and we put them into new TIFF districts. So, we'll talk about those individually after the fact. So, if you look at where we're at today, There we go. Get it to work somehow here. Um, is you can see what actually happened um, in this area. So, you had a couple hotels that were actually constructed. You had the Walmart. You had Kaix and Aldi, uh, Denny's, right? You had a Panda Express. You had a Caribou that was out there as well. So, you can see at the end of the day where things are, right? So, here's your Walmart here. You have your hotels here and here. you have Aldi, you have Kaix back in here. So, it's changed pretty significantly from from what it was. And so, when we look at these kind of side by side, it gives you a little context, right? When you can see the aerials before, so you can see all the outdoor storage, all the truck trailers and everything that were there to what it is is the more filledin development at the end of the day. So, when this district was created back in 2005, the taxable value was about 15.1 million and then today it's about 78.6 million. Okay, so that's the investment over time for those newer developments that went in there. The next one is TIFF District 20, which we call the McGuff one. So, this was an existing uh warehouse space uh that had contamination issues related to it and some additional um blight issues that had to be remedied and taken care of. And so, you can see the pictures of the old outside of the building that was there. And in the inside, it's hard to really see, but you can see these trusses right in here, this arched roof, which really goes over this part. So, who knew that this was architecturally significant, right? And so, when McGuff was looking at this to put in their corporate headquarters for their office, they knew that they had to save that structure uh because again, the relevance of it because of those arched trusses, you just don't see that often. So, they did in fact do that. And so you can see that that was preserved with new roofing on it. You can see the inside the trusses when they redid everything. It looks much more attractive than just cinder block and and old rusty trusses in there. But again, this is their new corporate uh headquarters that they have uh for their office and for their business. So this one was really not only about cleaning up the contamination, but making this a better use, but it was about um retaining a a business owner, right, and jobs within the community. And so when you look at that of the before and after, you can see obviously the new addition that they put on. Um and then uh the parking and everything that they have. So again, it was about $2 million in valuation uh when this district was created. And uh it's 10 million in taxable uh valuation today. The next one is Colder Products or CPC. Not sure which way you guys always know that it's it's referred to at the end of the day. So, for those of you that have been on council for a long time, uh will remember this because this was uh quite the eyesore on uh Cleveland Avenue with all the trucks were there. I think there was some litigation with regards to this site um as well. And our offices were just kitty corner from this. So, we knew this area well. You know, we went in one of your original redevelopment districts back in 1984 when we constructed our our office building over there. But, so we would drive by this every day as well and see what was happening in the area. So, as you can see, it was very tired and the big thing was just all of those trucks that were stored up against um uh the the street way there. So, what's there today is Colder Products, which again, this is a uh office and manufacturing uh R&D and warehouse for them as well on the site. Uh which is pretty significant and looks much better than what it did before. And then as you look at the aerial view over and above, right, you see now it's all ancillary parking with a large uh facility that they utilize and also gives them a little bit room for uh potential future expansion on this site if they actually need it. The next one we will refer to as tiff 22 or twin lakes 2. So we'd say like tiff 17 was Twin Lakes one, this is Twin Lakes 2. um as we start to rename things and if you look in that area again it was a lot of the similar things right does everyone remember Boers's outlet that was up there um and some of the other buildings um and all the outdoor storage so equally there was issues with contamination clean up in older obsolete buildings uh within this area so this one underwent a pretty significant transformation so when you look at it now today uh there's a lot of housing units there there's some new um businesses there including entertainment payment uh businesses on the site. It was one of your first market rate projects that was constructed in your community in a very very long time and then also some affordable units. So when we look at this side by side again the red square is you know what was once before just um uh buildings with outdoor storage and parking that turned into the Isaac apartments and to the terrain dermatology office building. And then in the blue square, that's what turned into the oasis in the uh harbor uh senior affordable that you have there. You also have um uh oh geez why is it smash park? What's it? Yes. Yes. Um that's there which is a great entertainment venue. We've had our office parties there as well which is awesome. But you know things Taco Bell Bank some of the ancillary you get but it's a it's a huge transformation when you drive by there right of what it looks like today from what it looked like you know 5 years ago essentially. So this had an original value of around 28.8 8 million and today it's a taxable value of 201 million. So pretty significant change that you see there. So at the end of the day when you bring that all together um since you created tiff district 17 and we didn't talk about tiff district 18 and 19 18 was Sienna Green that was an addition of another affordable housing complex uh within your community but that one's descertified. And then tiff district 19 was a senior co-op the Applewood um point that was constructed that's also descertified. those aren't as uh significant photos that we can show or find. We thought we would just focus on what you currently have out there today. But when you look at this for your your active districts um that you have out there, you've created about 755 residential units of which about almost 70%'s affordable. U most of those are in the senior, the um oasis and the harbor uh which the Dominion project did. 235,000 square feet of commercial, 94,000 square feet of office, 275,000 square feet, and that's office R&D and warehouse manufacturing that they have. And then 205 hotel units uh that you got within that area. So, a pretty significant um uh outcome that you have within that area. >> And Stacy, I just wanted to on that on the affordable factor, there's uh about half or thereabouts was senior and then about half thereabouts was family affordable, too. Correct. So, just wanted to note that. >> Yep. So, you know, one of the things that we talk about when you do this about your investment in your future, one of your returns is obviously an increase in tax base, right? Because you wouldn't do it if you're not getting that as one of your um outcomes that you actually have. You got some of the other things with affordable housing, some new market rate that you never had before, but also these jobs and cleanup of these contaminated areas. So, when you look at it, you've had an increase in taxable market value of about $280 million. So, it's pretty significant. And that's over a 500% increase uh that you've seen in that valuation. So again, when these districts are off uh and that tax capacity is there and available for you to spread your levy against, uh it's a benefit for everybody within the community. Um you do have existing pay as you go obligations that are out there. Uh you have about 15 million. So to get that 280 million in investment or or increase in valuation, you invested about $15 million in pay as you go and in bonds. So pay as you go for those that may not know as well is that basically the developer goes and assumes the risk. So if you're giving them a note, if we look at say the um the colder CPC, they got a pay as you go note for $2.2 million. They go out and they finance their project. They pay for all the costs. You issue them a note after the fact after it's all completed and then you make payments on that note as they pay their taxes. So as they pay their taxes in August, right? And in octo or sorry in May and October like we all do, right? Then they get the tax increment in August and February the following year. So as they pay their taxes, they'll get a rebate a few months after that tax payment through the term of the note essentially. So it's a low-risisk proposition for the city. The only one in which you issued bonds was in TIFF district 17. That was about $3 million in bonds that you issued and that was really to take care of the roadway that went through. Right. So, you went to make that whole new driveway to basically break up the site and make what was going to work from a redevelopment perspective for those future uses that you have out there. So, one of the questions we always get asked or one of your um business points that you may look at is how much of our tax capacity is captured in TIFF? Are we using TIFF too much? Are we not using it enough? You know, what does that all mean? So, we have up here your historical and your projected use of tax increment. And you guys traditionally have been pretty low users of it. So, right now you have about 2 and a half% of your tax capacity captured in tip. So, are you the lowest in the metro or the state? No, because there's some that have zero, right? Or less. Are you the highest? No. You're nowhere means by that. So, there's a lot of cities that have much more than 2 and a half% that's captured. And what we say at the end of the day, it's it's one benchmark. And we always say, don't look necessarily to what your neighbors have captured in TIFF because everybody's got different things that they're trying to accomplish or different strategic priorities. So, you're making investments in something that you want certain outcomes for. And again, it can be the cleanup, it could be about jobs, it can be about affordable housing, and in the case, as we said before, about getting some market rate rental housing in your community as well. So, really, that's your bell weather. Are you meeting your strategic priorities in a way that seems reasonable? And again, at 2 and a half% of your tax capacity captured in TIFF, I would say that you are definitely meeting that. So, let's talk a little bit about the the recommendations. And I'd say the first two are really kind of nonrecommendations. You they're just matterof fact things. And then we'll really concentrate on the third one uh that we have. So, the first one for TIFF district 17 and 17A is that essentially um at the end of 2024, you had about $4.4 million uh in that district. And those dollars have just been accumulating and sitting there because we always knew you'd have to deal with the pick site eventually, right? That's your last large cleanup site. That's pretty significant for a super fun site for cleanup. So, right now, those dollars are going to be dedicated to that site for the cleanup. Now, in the future, there will be some additional dollars that will come in that you'll be able to still keep and retain and those can be made available for redevelopment or for cleanup of other hazardous substance sites within your community as well. So, again, saying let's set those aside for the pick property and and hopefully, knock on wood, in the next few years, we'll get that actually taken care of. Right. The second one is Sienna Green, which is your uh one housing tiff district that you have. You currently have a balance in there of only 33,800. Why is that balance so low, you ask? Well, it's a single property, right? That's an affordable property with a a lower tax rate. So, there's not as much increment generated, and you are providing 90% of that increment to the developer on a pay as you go basis. So, it's never going to have a huge cash balance uh that starts to accumulate. Um, we do have one a tax petition from 24 that is going through the process of settling out. So typically these dollars would be available for you to do other things with affordable housing if you want to, but we're saying nope, let's not touch them. Let's wait for the tax petitions to wash through and see what happens. And eventually you're going to have some more accumulated balance that will come towards the end of the district that then you can have the discussion about what you want to do with that as far as affordable housing. So really the meat of the discussion tonight uh president commissioners is really going to be around doing some budget modifications and this is going to be for your uh three newer districts which is tiff 20 mcguff tiff 21 um colder products and then tiff 22 which is twin lakes 2. So what you are allowed to do in these redevelopment districts is that you can select an additional 10% of the increment to go towards affordable housing. So, as you recall, in any TIFF district that you have, you can pull up to 25% of the increment for redevelopment purposes and for administrative costs. So, if let's say we left it at 25%, you could use up to 10% for admin. That would mean you have 15% for pooling. What this allows you to do if you make this election is that one, you can keep the district open longer because traditionally when the pay as you go notes or obligations are paid off, you must descertify that district unless you have made this election. And if you made this election, it buys you more time uh to get additional pooling dollars, not only for affordable housing, but for redevelopment as well. And so we have some term times that we think it would extend uh one or two of these districts if you made that election to do so. and then we'll talk about what are the um uses that you can do if you make that election or choose not to. So, basically the estimates that I'm about to go over now are at the end of the district. It's not money today because right now it's it's thin. We're going to be looking for some dollars to look to have available for some of your existing home um housing projects or programs that you have and more importantly probably into your land trust fund. So, if we look at the McGuff Tiff 20, um they would probably be just under $800,000 that would be available at the end of the term. The district obligations right now are estimated to be paid off in 2033. So, in order for us to collect that full 35%, we would have to keep that district open till 2036. So, 3 years longer than what it would legally be required to descertify. Okay. The second one is uh the colder the tiff 21 uh approximately 1.5 million that will be available. That obligation is going to be paid off in 2031. Again to collect our full amount it would extend the district by about 3 years. And then the last one is Twin Lakes 2. There be approximately 4.7. This one's much more complicated because I don't know at the end of the day that you're going to get that much because we have some other rules that we have to go through and do some calculations. But that district's term uh it should be done in 2039 and I think it wouldn't be extended. If anything, it might even be shortened up more because we have some other technicalities that we have to look at at the end of the day. So the discussion before you guys tonight will be well should we look to do this 10% administrative um adjustment which is just a resolution that you as the EDA has to approve. and why we would recommend that you do so. It preserves your right. It preserves your right to collect your maximum pooling, but more importantly, collect dollars for affordable housing if you choose to utilize that. What I can say is that if in fact you make this election, future councils can choose to do things differently, right? So, we could mcuff we could get to 2033 and the obligation could be paid off. So, even though as you're sitting up at council today, you made that decision that you want to collect the additional 10%. If you're not sitting here in 2033, a new council, right, or EDA can make a different decision. They may say, "Oh, we just want to descertify it." You know, so again, those are decisions that come up, right, over time, but right now, you're preserving that option or opportunity. And hopefully setting that um pathway, right, for future councils or EDAs to look at and go, we understand where they were coming from. This is still the trajectory we want to be on. Should we still consider to do that? Now, the other thing is even if you keep them open, right? And so everyone's here and at 2034 you're like, "Yep, we're keeping that district open." And then you get to 2035, you're like, "Ah, shoot." You know, for whatever reason, we may want to close it down. You always have the ability to return your increment on an annual basis and get those dollars redistributed to you, which would be your portion um of the taxes. So, you don't necessarily have to descertify. So, there's lots of future decisions and discussions that you get to have, but we say, "Let's plan now, right, and preserve your ability." And I'd say the other big thing about doing that is that when you do this election, you have the ability to capture dollars and I would say predominantly from the county, right, to put use at your discretion, right, that you wouldn't normally have. So you can make sure that those dollars are invested in your community for redevelopment or for affordable housing. And likewise with the school district dollars as well. So, if you make that election and you choose to use all of that money for affordable housing, granted you'll have some you could use for redevelopment, what can you do with it, right? So, uh traditionally what we see is that there are uh rental and owner occupied projects that you can actually do. And so, for rental projects, um for homeowners, um people of two or less, families of two or less have to be at 100% of the area median. And I'll show you those incomes in the next slide. or for three or more, it's at 115% of the area mean income. They're pretty healthy incomes. For rental, you'll always hear the 20 at 50, 40 at 60. That means 20% of the units have to be affordable to families at 50% of the area median income or less or 40% have to be affordable at 60% of the area median income or less. And it can be more than that, right? You can have uh 30% affordable at 50. You just can't be less than those minimum thresholds of either that 20 or that 40%. Now, when you look at what you can actually do with those dollars for owner occupied housing, um I can say probably the majority of cities use it for their single family rehab programs. There always never seems to be enough dollars that are out there and available for homeowners to make rent needed renovations to their homes. It can be used for uh second mortgages for down payment assistance for first-time home buyers. um it can be used in land trust um or matching dollars that you may have with regards to that. So typically it's always for a capital use and outlay and then when you look at for rental projects it's typically new construction would be the most or for some rehabs but traditionally we see it in new construction. So cities may use those dollars to either buy down deeper affordability. So maybe get some units at 30% AMI or they may want more units at 50% AMI than what they have or they may use it to get larger units um as well as some of the things that they've actually done out there. So when we look at the incomes um what you'll see is over on the left side is the rental housing um are the income limits by household size and you can see by 50% and 60% and then you can see the corresponding rents um for studios up to three bedrooms. And over on the right hand side, you can see the area median family income. So again, um the metro area is 1324. So 100%. So if you're a family of two or less, you can qualify for rehab loans uh uh for that. And if you're a family of three or more, that income goes up to 152 uh 260. So pretty significant uh that you have. So with that, um Mr. President, I am happy to answer any questions that you guys may have. >> Great. Thank you, Stacy. Are there questions from members of the board? member Grath, >> the question I get from residents because you're you're you're very knowledgeable and thank you for the presentation is does tax increment financing mean that they don't pay taxes and I I know the answer but I would like you to explain it because I need a refresher and I need a new way to present to residents. >> Yeah, President Commissioner, the answer is yes, they pay their taxes because everything you do is on a riskfree basis. So again, they pay their property taxes just like every homeowner does in May and October. They just get a rebate of a portion of their taxes back based upon what you've agreed to provide them. And to give a little context for uh rental projects, so for like the Oasis and the Harbor, traditionally they get about 70 to 80 cents on the dollar of taxes that they pay because you're giving them 90 90% of the tax increment. And for any commercial project that may have it, they're probably getting 32 to 42 cents on the dollar. And the reason why they get less in assistance is because a big portion of their taxes goes to the state and to fiscal disparities, which housing does not pay. >> And the tax increment is the difference between what it was assessed at before and what it's assessed at after the improvements are made. >> Yep. In loose in loose terms. Yep. >> Thank you. And so they're paying their full current value tax bill each time they're paying their taxes. >> Right. Other questions from members of the board. >> I did have a question about on the uh 10% election, the last topic and recommendation. Um clearly that's something you don't have to do apparently at the beginning of establishing the district. You can do it at this late stage in the life of the district. And there's no is there any restriction as to how close to the end of the district you can do it. >> Uh president, commissioners, you can make the election at the beginning or you can make it later. It doesn't matter. You just have to do it before your obligations in the district end. Once those obligations end, you have to descertify the district. You can't make the election. >> Got it. All right. Um and then is is it sort of all or nothing? Do you have to do the whole amount or could you could you ultimately only use a portion of what's sort of you know amassed in that that time frame? >> Yeah. President Commissioner. So when you look at that amount that you end up accumulating the 35% a portion of 100% could be used right for affordable housing or only a portion could be because you might use some for admin or you might use it for some of your traditional redevelopment projects that you have. So it can be split also in the future. a council could decide, uh, we're done. We don't want to collect anymore. We want to descertify the district because we think that's in the best interest and they could do that as well. >> Right. Thank you. Yeah, because that's one of the challenges I think we always have to look at is that we did sort of make a promise to our taxpayers at the start of the district that once the project is done and the expenses are paid, uh, the project goes, you know, fully on the tax roles at that point. And that, you know, helps all the residential and businesses who've been waiting patiently all that time for hopefully uh, you know, a a larger pool to apply our levy to. Theoretically, everybody, you know, gets a little benefit from that. And so that's something we have to keep in mind as part of this discussion. >> Yeah. And president commissioners, what I would say to that is two things. One, um, your districts are paying off sooner than you anticipated, right? So you like many of them you signed up for 26 years and they're going to be done in 10 years, you know, or 15 years. So, it's coming on much quicker. >> And then your strategic priorities may change a little. So, if you want to fund certain things, if you don't have these dollars, which you're able to take advantage of utilizing county dollars as well for some of these, then you also have to look within your budget, right? So, do we need to raise taxes to do that or do we have to cut other services to be able to fund this as well? So, it's all those things that you have to talk about at budget time, >> right? Well, and certainly as you note um on the tax increment, the city is collecting all of the t property tax on the in the incremental increase in value, including the the county portion and the school district portion. And they do have a chance at the beginning of the district to weigh in on whether they have a problem with that. And usually uh those entities don't do that, but uh because they're also expecting once it's descertified to to get their their portions of it. Uh but that is another factor to think about especially as uh counties are dealing with financial challenges and things like that. They they might appreciate having having their portion sooner too. So um it doesn't mean we don't do these things but it just means we have to think about it uh as as part of the context. Any other questions for uh our consultant this evening? All right. Well, thank you for the presentation. And I do want to also just provide an opportunity for members of the public if anybody had uh any comments uh or questions about the presentation on our tax increment financing districts this evening, this would be a chance to do that. Doesn't appear to be the case. Uh thank you again uh Stacy and we'll look forward to uh these items coming back before the board for some consideration uh of those recommendations. All right. That then brings us to our next uh agenda item for the economic development authority this evening and that is >> provide direction to the staff on the recommendation. >> Uh well I don't know that we had to provide other than maybe if we decide we're not going to do any of those things but otherwise I'm presuming that would it would come back to the the board for decision- making at some point. The recommendation appears to be to do those things. So, Miss Kelsey, our uh housing economic development program manager is now >> our plan is to bring it back in January for your consideration. Um, and it's really at this point, as Stacy presented to you, it's preserving. Um, we're not going to, um, most of those districts don't have that cash balance at all to utilize at this point, but it would be for you to preserve that in future opportunity to have that conversation if there is a cash balance. >> All right. Thank you. Thanks for clarifying that. All right. That then does bring us to our second item uh, under business items this evening. um a lot of economic development uh project financing discussions uh this evening. Uh the first of those in addition to the tax increment report uh is to consider a resolution authorizing uh the execution of a second amendment to the contract for private redevelopment uh for the uh Roseville East Housing Associates 2 uh also known as the Harbor at Twin Lakes. And I'll turn it over to Miss Kelsey to bring this before the board. >> Thank you, President Row and board members. um before you um in 2021, you did provide financial support for the harbor in order to develop 277 units of affordable senior housing. And in uh May 13th of 2024, this pro um this project was before this board for you to provide um uh an amendment to the TIFF note. At that point, the TIFF note was amended because of the fact that in 2023, the state legislature changed how 4D properties are valuated for taxes and they reduced down to a total of only paying 25% of the overall taxable value of the property. Um, the harbor um unfortunately missed their opportunity to file for their 4D um classification. So they in 2024 paid a full year of their full market value of their property in taxes. They're requesting for the count uh for the EDA to consider amending the tiff um the development agreement and providing a new tiff note to allow them to collect that extra payment that they made which they did make the full payment and to have that come back to them. And so that is before your consideration tonight. you are not obligated to do this, but they are requesting that you consider doing this for them. Um, in your packet, you will find the pro um the documents that have been provided for your consideration along with a resolution adopting this. Um, and our our council is here if you have any questions regarding any of the administration of having to do this. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Kelsey. I think the first question is is just to be sure that this is an eligible uh cost for reimbursement in in the TIFF system that we're not sort of doing something outside of that that these types of tax payments can be can be reimbursed essentially through this process. >> Correct. it. If they would have filed their 4D, this would have not been before you, but they missed that deadline and so they paid a full year of the increment and they're just asking for that full increment to be reimbursed to them. And so that's why we will have to reissue a new tiff note to allow them to take that extra payment. >> And I'm presuming uh that that is probably the >> the most available mechanism to do that. There's no other expert on there's there's no other mechanism. >> Be nice if they could just call up the county. We missed our deadline. >> Unfortunately, we have the money. Whatever the amount ends up being paid back to us for any of that increment captured, it's with us in order for us to then >> we're we're the people that have the money. So, they have to come to us, right? Okay. So the county collected it in tax payments and because it's a tiff district, they >> gave it to the city as appropriate for the city then to use for those reimbursement of the development costs. And so this is a situation where um we are the source of this if if that's what we choose to do. >> Uh and we don't have any other use for those collected increments. Um >> um the only other thing would be is that you could um reduce the length of their TIFF district um and have it then paid off their note sooner versus it what it was scheduled for which was 18 years. >> Right. Other questions from members of the board. Is the uh property owner here at all? >> Yeah, the the developer here if you have any questions for them. >> I'd be curious to know why the deadline was missed. So, the question is why why was the deadline missed? And I guess maybe a follow-up would be uh you prefer to to have the the dollars paid now as opposed to shortening the district. >> Yeah. Um that was >> if you could introduce yourself. >> Oh, sorry. Hi, I'm Rory Hogan. I work for Dominium as a development associate. Um you're representing tonight. Um, frankly, it was a it was just a miss on our administrative uh tax team's part. Um, we realized it months and months um after we were supposed to uh after we were supposed to file for the 4D. Um so that was just a admin administrative mistake on our part and um we're coming before you today to um try and reconcile it. >> All right. and the the followup about the the option to descertify the district early uh using these dollars for that purpose essentially. >> Uh could you restate the full question please? >> So as I understand it uh if if we don't uh you know pay out these dollars now as essentially reimbursement for the tax that was paid in 24. Those dollars could apply towards essentially paying off the note earlier um instead of the district going for the full 18 years. it could be a shorter term. Um, I don't know if if your organization has had any opportunity to analyze that and make a determination on what is most appropriate, but given that the application before us is to get the reimbursement in the absence of other information, I guess I would presume that that analysis may have been made, but >> yeah, I I think we would like it to be the the term of the TIF, >> right? Same term. >> Same term. >> Reimburse the tax amount. Correct. >> Sooner. Okay. Other questions from members of the board? >> All right. Thank you for being here this evening and answering the questions. >> Yeah. Thank you guys for your consideration. >> Right. >> While we're uh at this stage of the conversation too, I'll just note that if anybody from the public wishes to make a comment or ask a question about this particular uh item before the board this evening, this would be an opportunity to do so. Uh and we can free up one of the mics at the table if that's the case. Is there anyone here this evening who would like to speak to this item requesting the reimbursement for the property taxes uh for this project or I have a question does not appear to be the case. Uh we'll then uh proceed to consideration. We do have the request before us. Uh this would be a request to adopt the resolution uh authorizing the amendment uh as outlined in the various documentation. I move to adopt the resolution. >> I'll second it. >> It's been moved by member Gra, seconded by member Schroeder to adopt the resolution authorizing the amendment to the agreement as outlined. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Member Grath, >> I don't think this really changes what our intent was when we started with this. It's it's a matter of a a mistake that was made and it corrects it. So, I'm I'm supportive of this. Right. As the secondary, member Schroer, >> I would agree what um member Gra said. Right. Other discussion on the motion. And I will just note uh that knowing that it is an eligible expense certainly helps. We don't want to be uh treading new ground in in terms of the legal status of tiff financing and things like that. So we appreciate that clarification. Uh and I'm certainly supportive as well. Um and so with that, we do have the motion before us once again to adopt the resolution uh authorizing the execution of the agreement or the amendment to the agreement uh as outlined. Uh if there's no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. And that uh resolution is adopted. Uh next uh on our agenda this evening is uh also uh to consider a resolution this time uh authorizing the execution of a subgrant agreement uh related to an award of a grant that was uh that the EDA had supported the application for earlier this year. And I'll turn it over to Miss Kelsey for this item. Thank you, President Row and Commissioners. Um, basically before you, um, this, uh, development came before you on July 14th of this year, and they requested your support in order for the EDA to apply for LCDA funds to the Met Council. Um we were awarded uh $297,000 for the use of them to look into um the site building design, sustainability design in the project management and development and navigation of just of seeing what more needs to be done to the property in order to make it uh into the Ata center. And um as you know that there's three um organizations that will u make this their um new home. One is the American um Indian family center the interfaith action of greater St. Paul department of Indian work and the monastery American Indian child care center which is currently in that location with their child care center. Um what you have before you is actually just that we are the pass through for this um grant. And so we have a subgrant agreement for your consideration with a resolution authorizing for the president and the executive director to enter into that subgrant agreement. If you have any questions, the representatives of the organization is here before you if you have any questions further for them on uh the development of this new center. All right. Uh, thank you, Miss Kelsey. And just to clarify, so the subdevelopment agreement is actually between the EDA and the developer related to the dispersement of the grant that the EDA received. >> Correct. >> Got it. Okay. Questions? Uh, member Strong? >> This is for you, Miss Kelsey. um when it comes to this arrangement as a subgrant, how does that um how is it similar or dissimilar to that kids in need request that we had a couple years ago when they were looking for grant funding that we would um that we would reach out to and try to obtain. Maybe that would be Miss Gunlock issue. I just I know we had so much conversation about how that would work with um receiving funding on someone else's behalf and I was just curious to know how this differed or it might be a totally different thing. I just don't know the difference. >> Members, if I could just jump in. So, the U kids need was a state bonding proposal completely different. This is metropolitan council grant and we've processed these many times over the years and so I think it's is it based on reimbursement? >> Correct. It's reimbursement eligible expenses that they submit to us that they've spent it and then we turn around and we submit it to the Met Council. The Met Council sees if it is an eligible expense for the grant, turns around, sends us that money, we turn around, cut a check back to them for the reimbursement. >> Okay. >> Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Trean. Other questions? Excuse me, Member Bower. Uh, is the EDA going to be overseeing the the grant and the terms in this agreement or is that something that will be overseen uh by the Met Council? >> Since we are the awardee of the grant, it is our job to administer the grant. Um, and the Met Council's role is to make sure any of the expenses that will be reimbursed are eligible expenses to be reimbursed. >> Thank you. >> Other questions? All right. Uh once again, I'll provide an opportunity if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak uh in support of or opposition to uh entering into this subgrant agreement with the developer on this project. Uh as outlined, this would be the opportunity to to let the board know. Uh we can make a microphone available at the table uh for your comments or questions. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? All right. Does not appear to be the case. Then uh we'll go to EDA consideration. Once again, we've got the resolution uh requested to be adopted which authorizes entering into the subgrant agreement. >> Motion to approve execution of the subgrant agreement. >> Second. >> Right. It's been moved by member Straw, second by member Grath to adopt the resolution authorizing the execution of that subgrant agreement. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Member Strong. I'm thankful for all the work that's happening and excited to see um what comes of this and how we can build this wonderful community um within our larger community. >> Right. And as a second member Grath, >> no, nothing further. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion. Uh and just for the benefit of the public, this is the uh New Life Presbyterian Church site on uh Roseline and Larpenter and Rose, not Roselan and Lario, Victoria. >> Victoria. >> Um 65 >> right and um this particular grant is for as was noted for certain investigations and and analysis and studies uh and I'm sure there will be applications if a development goes forward when a development goes forward for various costs that may be related to the development itself and whether it be MET council grants or other sources of funding we may be asked to support those or apply on those. I I might as well just let you know. Yes, they are going to be looking at a resolution of support for Ramsey County environmental um re uh investigation. Uh it's a preliminary. It's for pre-development where it would help reimburse them for doing their phase one and phase two if it's required. >> All right. Thank you for that update. I'm glad I tossed that softball here. >> All right. Well, we have the motion before us to adopt that resolution authorizing entering into that subrant agreement. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. Oppos. That passes unanimously. That uh resolution's passed and that agreement is authorized. Uh and then uh I think finally for Miss Kelsey this evening, the item D is to authorize entering into a professional service agree several professional services agreements with various service providers to the economic development authority. And I'll turn it back over to Miss Kelsey for this item. >> Thank you, President Row. board members. Um at our last meeting, we brought before you contracts for um with professional services that the the EDA does receive and um we're on a three-year usually. Um we brought um forward before you at the last meeting, Center for Energy is up for a home loan origination and their advisory along uh services along with their loan servicing um program. And then Ellers for their financial and their economic development consulting services. Golden Shovel for um providing us the economic development marketing services. Kennedy and Graven for legal services and MCCD which is the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers for our business loan program. All of them um in your packet you'll see have had slight cost increase. I want to note to you that based upon our um wonderful relationship that we have with Golden Shovel, they have requ um agreed to sustain the current level of services for a flat rate for the next three years um with the EDA which as I um from the last time I brought forward that they normally increase their cost 3% a year um in order to provide their services but they do appreciate the fact that they do work with us. We have been one of their long lasting customers and they value that relationship. Before you you have um those contracts for consideration. I also want to note that the MCCD one does not have a cost at all. It is just a relationship for them to manage our business loan program. Um any of the costs that um we do have for that program really is um related to your um your funds that you provide are at a lower interest rate for the lend the person who's borrowing the money and you are getting that back with that interest rate um on a monthly basis. We do have existing two loans outstanding right now. So if you want to consider um all of those are for three-year renewals except for Ellers. It will I'm excuse me except for Kennedy and Graven that will take you until us till the end of 2026. >> All right. Uh questions from the board for uh Miss Kelsey on these various contract renewal proposals. >> All right. Uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to comment on the uh renewal of these various uh contracts for service with the EDA uh for three years or in the case of the one uh for one year essentially one year it does not appear to be the case. Uh then we have this request before us. Uh I believe we could handle these all in one motion uh unless for uh any reason the board wishes to break it down. But uh I will open it up to the board for potential motion or motions. >> Motion to approve all as presented. >> Second. >> It's been moved by member Strong, second by member Schroeder to approve all of these contract extensions as presented. Uh renewals uh discussion of the motion as the maker of the motion. Uh member Stron, >> I'd just like to thank um Jannine Kelsey and Janice Gunlock for their work with um Golden Trouble. My guess is they don't extend this courtesy to people who they don't enjoy working with. So I would assume that they appreciate the relationship and want to keep it going. So thank you for that and for um providing all of these to us. We know we get a lot of value from these resources. >> Right. As the second member Schroer. >> No. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion? >> No. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Opposed. That passes unanimously and those uh contracts are renewed or extended. Uh that then brings us to a consideration of the proposed meeting calendar for the economic development authority for 2026. I'll turn it over to Mr. Trean for that item. >> Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry we don't have it queued up to show on the screen here, but we are looking to have the uh EDA approve their meeting schedule for 2026. We'll be taking this up and more fully as part of the council meeting where we set the council calendar. So, it does follow the pace and cadence of uh city council meetings. We meet six times a year, every other month. um using in the middle meeting of the month. So for 2026, we are proposing to meet on January 12th, March 16th, May 11th, July 13th, September 21st, and November 9th. Those are the same nights as we have city council meeting. That's what we're doing here tonight. So not a special extra meeting. It's just when we're already meeting. So what we're asking for uh by motion is just to approve the EDA calendar for 2026 on those dates. As I said, later in the council meeting, we'll approve the full council and EDA uh calendar as part of action down the road here. So, with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Touch. Are there questions from the board on the proposed meeting schedule for the EDA for 2026? >> All right. Is >> just check. Is there anyone from the public to comment on the proposed meeting schedule for the EDA for 2026? >> That would be interesting. Seeing none. Uh, all right. Member Sher. >> Yes. I moved to adopt the calendar. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by member Shartter, second by member Grath to adopt the 2026 EDA meeting calendar as presented. Discussion on that motion. >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. >> That passes unanimously. That schedule is approved. Uh that then brings us to our final business item for the EDA this evening. Uh which is to authorize the president and the executive director to execute a Metropolitan Livable Communities Act agreement uh permitting redeployment and repayment or of repayment proceeds for grant funds as loan proceeds. Uh which is much more exciting than it sounded. I'm sure no pressure miss Gunlock. Uh and we have our community development director, Miss Gunlock, once again before us to bring this item before the board. Miss Gunlock. >> Thank you. President Ro, members of the board, this is so exciting. We're doing an amendment to a grant agreement to address a situation that's probably never going to happen, at least not in the next decade or two. Certainly maybe not when none of us are in the room. Um, it's actually at the Met Council's request to ensure it aligns with their current policies. They updated them, I think last year. It affects affordable housing projects where grants were deployed as forgivable loans. And you'll see there are four noted in this particular amendment. And I want to also note I think there were two other ones that were done before the EDA formed. And so the city council has already taken this action for those two projects. Um basically it says if any of that money that was given out as a forgivable loan comes back to the city. Um, right now those agreements say that we could give it back to the project, but the updated policies allow us to spend it on any affordable housing endeavor within the community. So, the amendment actually broadens our potential use of these funds that we may not ever get back. Um, it also eases up some of the reporting requirements. Um, so we don't have any concerns bringing this forward. Our attorney has reviewed the amendment. Um, every city that has these in place with the Met Council is taking the same action. So, we're just asking for you to authorize the amendment on these four projects. >> Right. Thank you, Miss Gunlock. Uh, questions from the board on this request. >> Right. Check if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening on this request to amend the agreement on these particular uh forgivable loans. does not appear to be the case. Uh, with that, we've got the request before us and I just want to double check. Is there also a resolution with regard to this one or just a motion? >> Just a motion. >> Just a motion. All right. >> So, move. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by member Strong, second by member Grath to approve that amendment uh as outlined for that grant uh agreement. Uh, discussion on the motion is the maker of the motion. Member Strong. No. >> Is a second. Member Grath. No other discussion. All right. Hearing none. All those in favor of that motion uh signify by saying I. I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. That is approved. Thank you, Miss Gunlock. Uh that brings us to the end of our EDA agenda this evening. Uh there being no further business before the EDA, the only other motion on our agenda would be a motion to adjourn the EDA meeting. >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by member Sharter, second by member Bower to uh adjourn the EDA meeting. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. The EDA is adjourned at uh 6:56 p.m. Uh and we'll pause for a moment just to reconvene the video for the council meeting which will follow shortly. All right. Hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday uh November 10th, 2025. Uh we'll note that the roll call stands as called for the economic development authority meeting which had just preceded this meeting uh which is all members present. Uh once again we have our city attorney Rachel Tierney who's on my right at the very end of the day. our city manager Pat Trean who's on my left at the other end. Uh and we'll make introductions of staff as various agenda items uh come forward um for our consideration. I do want to remind members of the public that um uh we do um want you to make sure you silence your phone or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt the meeting. Uh if you need a copy of the agenda, we do have extra copies of the agenda on the back table uh by the back door under the big clock which are available for you to uh keep and use as you see uh the need to. Uh we do also have a set of all the meeting materials in a big binder on that same table uh which you have to share with other members of the public who might be interested in that information and are here this evening. Uh with that, uh we did uh do the pledge of allegiance at the start of the of the EDA meeting, so we won't repeat that this evening. Uh that brings us then to consideration of the council agenda for this evening, and I'll check again with staff to see if there are any changes uh from a staff perspective that need to be made to our council agenda this evening. >> There are no changes suggested by staff, Mr. Mayor. >> All right. Uh are there any changes that the council wishes to make to the agenda this evening or items to remove from consent for separate consideration? does not appear to be the case. Uh, one last check on the agenda before we uh, take it up. I just want to check with members of the public. Uh, there are a few items at the end of our agenda in section 10, which begins at the bottom of the first page and carries over to the top of the second page. Uh, these items are normally very administrative and routine in nature, uh, and are generally taken up at the very end of the meeting, which could be fairly late this evening. Um, but if somebody was here to either ask a question or make a comment about one of those items in section 10, which is labeled our consent agenda, uh, we would certainly take uh, that under advisement at this time and we would move that item earlier in the meeting so that you could ask your question or make your comment on that item uh, at this time rather than waiting to the end of the meeting. Is there anyone here to make a comment or ask a question about an item in section 10 of tonight's agenda? Right. Does not appear to be the case. Uh then uh a motion to approve the agenda as presented would be in order. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Right. It's been moved by Council Member Grath, seconded by Council Member Bower to approve tonight's agenda. Uh discussion on that motion. >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. We have our agenda for this evening. That then brings us to our very first opportunity for public comment in the council meeting this evening. We do provide opportunities for public comment uh as agenda items come up on those agenda items and that can be either comments or questions to the council. Uh but at each meeting we do also provide an opportunity for general public comment at the start of the meeting. Uh and this can be comment on items either related to city business that is not on our agenda this evening. Uh or items that may be of interest to people in the community. Um uh and I can go through the rules and regulations for public comment if uh someone is here this evening for general public comment. So we'll check now. Is there anyone here uh who wishes to comment under the general public comment opportunity in our council meeting this evening. It does not appear to be the case. Uh so we'll hold off on the instructions until we get to a point where we have public comment. Uh and with that then we can proceed with our meeting agenda. Uh we don't have any anything under recognitions and donations or items removed from consent for separate consideration. Uh so that brings us then to our business items. Uh and our first business item this evening is our first public hearing. Uh and this relates to uh certifying unpaid utility charges uh to the property tax roles at the county. Uh and we have our finance director Michelle Petri with us this evening to bring this item before council for the hearing and our consideration. Miss Petri. Good evening. Um, according to city code, we can annually certify to the county auditor any unpaid utilities. Since 2010, the city has been doing these certifications of delinquent utility charges on a quarterly basis. And um, a list was sent out. Um you will see that there's been a modification to that as we did receive a payment on Friday. So, we have removed that property from the list and so we are asking to certify 104 thou,73163 to the county auditor for inclusion on property tax statements which will then be paid with the 26 property taxes. some questions that have been raised. Um, what we're certifying is currently 90 days past due when we send out the letters which were sent out at the beginning of October. So, technically these amounts are 120 days delinquent as of now. Right. And uh just to clarify, people have an opportunity to to still pay before their 2026 taxes, do they? >> And not to the city. Once we adopt this tonight, we send it to the county tomorrow. Well, Wednesday morning because tomorrow is a holiday and then they can pay it at the county. >> Got it. All right. Other questions for staff? Council Gra, >> what are the additional fees that acrue when they have when we levy this send it to the county? >> Um, we certify it to the county with an 8% interest >> charge for the year or until the taxes are paid and a $25 service charge to cover the costs of the certification process. both the city cost and the county does also charge us for all these assessments. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for staff? >> All right. Uh once again, this is a public hearing on the certification of these amounts and certainly it would be appropriate if anyone is here this evening because they received notification of this hearing because they're on the list of delinquent payments and they want to indicate either uh contesting of their amount or a desire to pay. Uh we may be able to handle that. Uh but certainly we would want to hear from folks on that this evening as part of the hearing. Uh because we may take those properties off the role for separate action if that's the case. Uh or if anybody has comment related to the policy or process in general, that would be appropriate as part of this hearing as well. Uh so we'll open up the public hearing for anybody who wishes to speak uh on this item this evening before the council. Either a property owner that's impacted or a general comment on the process. Is there anyone to speak on this item this evening? All right, seeing no one, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing then uh and move to council consideration. We do have the request before us uh to certify these uh this amended list that was the bench handout uh to the county for collection on the 2026 taxes as assessments. Uh that resolution is in the packet. Uh and then the list is the bench handout list. Uh, is there a motion from the council? >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by council member Sharter, seconded by Council Member Bower. >> Uh, discussion on that motion. Council member Sharter is the maker of the motion. >> No. >> Council member Bower is the seconder. >> No. >> Any other discussion on the motion? >> No. >> Right. Hearing none. Uh, we've got the motion before us to adopt that resolution certifying these amounts to the county uh for payment. Uh, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. uh those items are then certified or those account delinquencies are certified. All right, that brings us then to uh a number of uh alcohol compliance check failures uh that we have had uh in our most recent round of checks. Uh and we will be uh hearing a presentation on each of those cases from our deputy police chief Joe Adams. Uh and then we'll be asked to authorize administrating the uh or administering the uh presumptive penalties for each of these cases. Uh but uh I don't want to give away any more than that. So I'll turn it over to Chief Adams for the presentations on these four cases this evening. >> Good evening, Mayor, members of the council. Uh each year the Roseo Police Department conducts two alcohol compliance checks of all the alcohol license holders. This year the first round of the checks were completed in March with a total of four failures. We did the second round in September uh also with four failures in September. For 2025, all businesses with the city liquor license were provided a letter advising them, the city would be conducting the all call compliance checks. Um, due to the total number of failures, which is the four, I'll provide a brief summary of each uh followed by staff recommendations. The first uh on the list is going to be Choo Chow. I do believe uh our compliance checker went to Chuch Chow to conduct a compliance check. While there, the checker selected alcohol and proceeded to the counter. An employee then sold the alcohol to our checker without requesting identification. The employee was issued an administrative citation which has since been paid. Management came to the police department where I learned that they were not up to date on the required training. Uh the training has since been completed and the documentation was provided to staff. This is Chuch Chow's second violation in 36 months with the first occurring in October of 2024. It's staff's recommendation for the council to issue and administer the presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for offsale license holders for a second violation, which is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 and a 3-day liquor license suspension. >> All right. Thank you, Chief. Is there a representative of Chuchchow Liquors here this evening uh to speak to this uh violation? It does not appear to be the case. Uh we'll just check if there is anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this case. Uh once again, the request is to authorize the issuance of the presumptive penalty as it was outlined with the uh fine and license suspension. Does not appear to be anyone from the public to speak to this item. Uh do we have any questions from the council on this particular violation? Otherwise, oh, Council Member Strong, >> this is a hypothetical question. um given that they had a violation um less than a year prior and they were not up to date on their um training um I would assume they had to be up to date at the end of that violation last fall. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Yeah. >> And then we don't know they would have had a they have had another um they would have been assessed at a time earlier this year. So they passed that time. So, we wouldn't have checked their liquor license training if that was up to date if they had passed. >> Thank you for the the question, Council Member Strong. So, we do the the um training or they should be doing the training annually for that year or when they onboard a new employee. Okay. >> And so, in the 2024 one, we were able to look at 2024 training at that time, which they did have. So, this is being the 2025 um which they were absent in their in their training when they came up to the police department. >> Okay. It wasn't it wasn't the same. We hadn't didn't encounter the same problem last year when they had this violation. >> I don't have it in front of me. I do not believe so. I believe they they were able to provide the documentation to me on the last one. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Right. Other questions for staff. >> Right. If there aren't any other questions, uh we are requested to authorize the administration of the presumptive penalty once again, the $2,000 fine and the three-day suspension. Um is there a motion from the council? So moved. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Grath, seconded by Council Member Strawn to authorize administrating the uh presumptive penalty in this violation for True Child Licker for their second violation in 36 months. Discussion on that motion as the maker of the motion. >> Member, >> please, please get your training done and check IDs before you sell. >> All right. Uh additional discussion as a secondary council member Straw. >> No. >> Other discussion from council members? Right. Hearing none. All those in favor of authorizing uh the administration of the presumptive penalty as outlined signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. That penalty is authorized. Uh and the second case >> uh it's going to be for Red Lobster. Our compliance checker went to Red Lobster to conduct a compliance check. While there, the checker ordered an alcoholic beverage. An employee then checked identification. However, they proceeded to serve the alcohol to our checker. The server was issued an administrative citation which has not been paid and will be referred uh for charging. Management later provide the necessary training documentation to PD staff. This is Red Lobster's third violation in 36 months with previous failures in March of 2024 and December of 2022. It's staff's recommendation for council to issue and administer the presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for on sale license holders for a third violation, which is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 in a 15-day liquor license suspension. Uh it's worth noting that if approved by council, this will be Red Lobster's second 15-day suspension. Uh one that had fallen off failure was in July of 2022. So, they just missed that mark by a couple months, which had they hit that mark, that would have been a revocation, which I believe is the first time I would have ever seen that um sitting in this chair. So, they still missed it. It's their third in 36 months, but really close to the fourth. >> All right. Thank you, Chief. Is there Representative Red Lobster here this evening on this item? It does not appear to be the case. Uh questions from the council for uh staff on this uh particular violation. Council member Strong >> um just maybe a more of an opinion, but their failure to uh correct the ticket and pay for that, should that impact our um assessment of a mandatory minimum or going above that? And I guess that's your opinion. Sorry. >> That's fine. Uh thank you for that question, Council Member Strong. And having worked with a lot of different establishments that that are restaurants or may be liquor stores, uh the fine uh for in this case that that's delivered to the employee is on the employee. A lot of these establishments, Red Lobster being one of them, do terminate the employee immediately upon uh this occurring. And so the employee then being in the wind or wherever they may be. I I I do believe again my opinion, but it's a little bit difficult to hold the business accountable for that. Um but in this case, yeah, the employee is yet to pay. >> Thank you. >> Other questions? Council member Strong, excuse me, Council Member Schroeder. >> Um yes, it looks like the um they had a violation in December of 2022. So, so basically at the end of December, this one falls off. So then they would So if we had another one, it would be a third again. Correct. >> Thank you for that question, council member. That that is correct. It's on a rolling basis. So they as as the time does come, they do they do fall off. >> And then your next check will be in like March. >> Yeah, it's not scheduled as of yet, but we do the two compliance checks a year traditionally with the first one being in approximately March. That's been typical. >> Thank you. >> Y >> Other questions? And I did want to just double check with our attorney. I think in past cases where we've had multiple violations within that three-year look back, there was question as to whether we can deviate upward from the presumptive penalty. I seem to recall in state statute that there's a limit on the fine, a max limit on the fine, but potentially we could deviate upward on the suspension with findings and justification. Uh the other option we do have is to consider this case as it relates to the renewal of their license as that comes up later this year. Am I off base in that recollection? Mr. >> Mayor Row, you you have quite a bit of that, right? >> That was a little kind of a compact question. Um your first question was whether um whether you could consider an upward departure from the penalty that's on the schedule. You memory is right that the maximum fine under state law is $2,000. So you cannot de deviate upwards from a fine perspective. Um there is well I think there might be a maximum suspension of 60 days but regardless uh 15 days is not a statemandated maximum. >> Right. Thank you. Uh and then this certainly is something that the council could consider at renewal request presuming that they do request a renewal of their license and there would have to be a due process associated with that if I recall correctly. >> Thank you for finishing my sentence. All right. Uh, so I just want to make the council aware of that as well. So that I I believe what we would want to do is if that's the case, we'd probably want to let staff know, uh, and make sure that that due process, those steps are undertaken as the renewal application comes in, presuming that it does. All right. Uh, with that, um, I can't remember. I think I did, oh, I know I didn't ask if there was anyone from the public who wishes to speak as it relates to this, uh, third violation for Red Lobster within the 36-month period. Anyone from the public to speak to this case? Right. Seeing no one, then we've got the request before us to authorize administrating the presumptive penalty of, as was noted, the $2,000 fine and the 15-day suspension. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by Council Member Schroer, seconded by Council Member Grath. Discussion on this motion. Uh Council Member Schroer is the maker. I know it's very difficult to um when you have a turnover in staff, but that's not an excuse not to have the training in place. So, I think it's appropriate. >> And as the second, Council Member Grath, >> I I appreciate getting the information that we could extend the number of days, but I I think we should stick with this for now and have a further discussion on that later if we're going to go that route. >> Great. Other discussion on the motion, Council Member Strong? I would just like to have it out there as a possibility should they um not pass the next inspection and they would I maybe even put something in our code if it was possible that someone who um is repeatedly at that 15-day suspension um if there's any way that we can extend that or or document what that would be. I think it's important for the managers to know what they're looking at and I just hope that they take it seriously. Um it's really unfortunate that we're here, but I want to be fair to the other organizations that do take the time. And um you know, I wouldn't want someone to just barely miss getting a suspension when someone else just happened to have it timed right and get it get the suspension. I I really think we should try to be it is taking a lot of staff time. It is a lot taking a lot of um effort and on our uh safety folks to keep going in there and and saying the same thing over I'm sure over and over. I'm sure it's a bit frustrating to keep getting the same result. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion. Right. Hearing none. All those in favor of authorizing the administration of the presumptive penalty in this case signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Uh does the council wish to um initiate a consideration of their uh renewal should that be applied for uh on the basis of the past history of this particular entity that that might shortcut the process a little bit and begin to do the proper due process um sort of ahead of time rather than later. >> Could we understand what that due process would be in this situation? So, it's it's a notification to the license holder and an opportunity for them to make their case and plea before the council not to not renew their license. >> I think that would be a good idea. >> I would tier I want to probably come back to you and talk to you about the process there. Actually, under state law, you have to follow the administrative procedures act in this situation, which is a little more robust of a hearing than you're used to holding. Um, so it will be more of more of a more of a trial like ability to cross-examine witnesses, present evidence. Those kinds of things are required for that kind of an action. >> Oh, right. >> You can also have that held by a separate hearing officer instead of again we want to talk about that later. >> Okay. uh perhaps the the path forward then is to have a a subsequent discussion at a council meeting uh to talk about that process and then make a decision at that point if we want to undertake the process. Um but I I want to make sure that we have that at least the initial conversation this evening as a council if there is desire to consider um you know the situation in the case of an application for renewal on this particular license holder. So I appreciate that conversation this evening. All right, we had our vote on this particular one. So, that brings us then to our third case. Uh, and I'll turn it over to Chief Adams again for this one. >> Thanks, Mayor. Uh, this will be in reference to Axel's bonfire. Our compliance checker went to Axels to conduct a compliance check. While there, the checker ordered an alcoholic beverage. An employee then checked identification. However, they proceeded to serve the alcohol to our checker. The server was issued an administrative citation, which has since been paid. Management later provided the necessary training documentation to PD staff. This is Axel's second violation in 36 months with the first in November of 2023. The presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for on sale license holders for a second violation is a mandatory minimum penalty of $2,000 and a 5-day liquor license suspension. >> All right. Thank you, Chief. And uh questions from the council for uh staff on this particular item. All right. Is there representative Axels here this evening who wishes to speak to this? Feel free to come up and have a seat at the other microphone. And if you could introduce yourself uh and then uh make your comments or if you have questions. >> Um my name is Josh Cobb. I'm the general manager of the Double Tree in Roseville. Also part of the axles holes there. Um I just want to apologize to the team here. Uh we we try to run a tight ship there. uh things happen and we do not take this lightly at all. Uh the person was terminated right away uh to let them go. We we all have family, we all have kids, we know how serious this is and and we just want to express our um our acknowledgement of of that issue. Um and just kind of apologize to the city of Roseville Police Department for for kind of failing in that uh in that part. We did the training. She's a former bartender, so we're as surprised as anybody else that uh that she failed at that that quickly. So, I don't know what the next steps are. I don't know if this is five days in a row. Is it is it five days outside big picture? Obviously, we know um $2,000 in the five days will be will be will hurt our business for sure. And we understand that's part of the part of it. Uh we also have a banquet hall there that holds events for for weddings and whatnot. So, we are a little concerned about that if we're being frank about it. So, there's some challenges about ruining people's weddings and and birthday parties. We understand that's part of failing a compliance check and get that, but just want to have that out there for you also. >> Right. We may be able to answer that, too. I I I seem to recall that it is five consecutive days. It's not like we pick five Saturdays in a row or something like that, but if I'm wrong about that, please correct me on that, but I believe that's case, but it usually does involve a weekend. >> Okay. >> So, just uh but hope hopefully that helps. >> Yeah, I know. Yeah, it does. Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Thank you for being here this evening and for your contrition. Um and uh you know since you're here and uh you know the general message I think we have to all of our uh license holders is that if training doesn't seem to be enough there may have to be something else that's undertaken and whether that's looking at I know there's potentially technology out there to be able to you know electronically check IDs and sort of take the the human judgment out of there. I'm sure there's a cost associated with it. So, uh, I suppose at some point, uh, $2,000 fines and license suspensions, uh, add up to enough to make one think seriously about some of those costs. So, uh, because certainly it's a risk avoidance that these businesses are are needing to to think about, uh, certainly for their their, uh, their bottom line. So, and certainly the risk avoidance just to the general public as well. Uh, with that then, and I'll double check, is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this particular violation this evening? Right. Seeing no one, then uh we do have the request once again before us uh to uh authorize administrating the presumptive penalty for axles uh for their uh second violation within 36 months. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Right. It's been moved by Council Gra, seconded by Council Member Straw. Uh discussion on the motion. Council member Gra as the maker. >> Thank you for being here tonight. I appreciate your uh comments and um I know Axels runs a very good business and I I hope in the future we don't see you here. as the secondary. Council member Strong, >> do we know um historically has this affected the entire business or is it just the bar that's involved? >> Thank you for that question. And my wheels are spinning as well because it it's going to affect the liquor license. Um and I don't know right now if Axels and the banquet hall have separate liquor licenses. Something we'll definitely look into as staff. >> Um but it does encapsulate the liquor license for that specific business. So the answer will definitely come but I don't have it right now. >> Thank you. >> All right. Other discussion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. That presumptive penalty is authorized. And then finally our fourth case this evening. Uh back to the chief uh for this one. >> Finally, uh Speedway located at Lexington and County Road B. Our compliance checker went to Speedway uh to conduct a compliance check. While there, the checker selected alcohol and proceeded to the counter. An employee then sold the alcohol to a checker without requesting ID. The employee was issued an administrative citation which has not been paid and will be referred for charging. Management later provide the necessary training documentation to PD staff uh where I learned that the parent company of Speedway is actually 7-Eleven uh globally, if you will, and uh the local management had not actually forward this information on to them. uh fortunately I was able to get in contact with them. They they believe they have reasons as to why maybe that didn't happen. Uh but they are now aware. Uh this is Speedway's first violation in 36 months. It's staff's recommendation for council to issue and administer the presumptive penalty pursuant to city code for offsale license holders for a first violation, which is a mandatory minimum penalty of a $2,000 fine and no liquor license suspension. >> All right. Thank you, Chief. Uh questions again for staff on this particular case. Right. Is there a representative of Speedway here this evening on this item? It does not appear to be the case. Uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item? Seeing no one come forward, then we'll move to council consideration. Uh is there a motion from the council? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Right. It's been moved by uh council member Schroer. Second by council member Bower to authorize the administration of the presumptive penalty as outlined for this first violation within 36 months. Discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Sharter. >> Council member Bower is the seconder. >> No. >> Any additional discussion? All right. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> That passes unanimously and that presumptive penalty is authorized. And I believe that brings us to the end of this round and hopefully we have uh we don't see you in this capacity uh deputy chief for years to come. >> Agreed. >> Well, that's useful. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you again and thanks to our compliance checker and and all the the folks that know the work that goes into this as well. >> All right. That then brings us to another public safety related item which is to receive an update uh from the Roseville Police Department with respect to the crime reduction unit. Um, and the Rosedale retail unit officers. Uh, and oh, hey, it's Deputy Chief, uh, Joe Adams in this one for us this evening. >> Uh, welcome again for this. >> Yes. >> Perfect. I'll invite my other officers up here if they they can. >> Sorry, that's going to make it go blank for just a second. Here we go. >> Sometimes it works that it asks >> start that way. I apologize. I thought this was preloaded, but it is. There we go. All right. Okay. So, mayor and members of the council, I I I appreciate you taking the time to for us to to speak with you today. Uh we're reaching the one-year mark in our Rosedale uh retail unit. As you may recall, we have a partnership with the Rosedale Mall. This is the first time in my career that we've had uh a unit there in this collaboration specifically with Rosedale who um fully funds the the position of both these officers here and that is their their full-time positions. They have uh as they'll talk about they do have a substation which in the Rosedale Mall and that's where they do a lot of their work. Um but I get to hear about their great work a lot as we um you know I get to see them every single day. But that's one of those things that we want to try to get better at is just sharing some of the stories and some of the faces of our officers. Um, and just so you guys can get to know some of the work that that they're doing out out in the field. And so with that, uh, we thought we'd bring them to council here just so you can meet a couple of our officers and hear about some of the things they're doing. And, uh, I I won't take up much more of the time, but I'll let uh, these two folks introduce themselves. >> Hello. Thanks for having us. Um, I'm Ryan Pavac. I've been with the department for just over 3 years. Um, I didn't grow up in Roseville. Grew up pretty close by in Madameai. Um, I'm a fourth generation police officer. My dad was with the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office. My grandfather was St. Paul. My great-grandfather was with the South St. Paul Police Department where he was killed in line of duty. So, I've always kind of had a uh word I'm looking for, but always wanted to be a police officer. uh found myself at Roseville, which I'm very happy about. Um yeah, and a year ago, myself and Officer Cook started at Roseville, which we'll get into, but uh good evening, council. Um I'm Dennis Cook. Uh I've been with Roseville since 2020. Um was a police officer for 5 years before that. Born and raised in Roseville. Um I was a police explorer here starting in 2007 when I was 14 and was a reserve here. Um, the start of my law enforcement career could be described as if you took a ping pong ball and threw it. I started at Rapids, went to Bloomington, and finally worked my way home. So, my family still works in Roseville. They manage a couple different apartment complexes in town. Uh, even though I slept in Blaine as a teenager, I lived here. So, uh, been around the department for quite a while and I'm happy to be back as a cop and it's been a good time in the last year over at Rossdale working with Ryan and happy to be here. >> Yeah. Right. Um, believe our initial start date was September 18th of 2024. Um, when we started at the mall, our substation was down to the studs. Uh, Denny and I when building the partnership with the mall, um, kind of put the substation together. We had a lot of creative freedom of kind of how to build the unit as it hadn't existed before, but premise was reduce retail crime inside Rosedale. Um it's been a phenomenal opportunity and I just want to quickly say I know we have one representative of the mall here but um we wouldn't be able to do what we did or have done at the mall without Rosedale management's partnership and especially Rosedale security. We work with those guys and gals all day every day and um a lot of times they're our only backup or couple minutes at least. Um, it's Denny and I. We are each there 40 hours a week. We've been offered the opportunity to have flexible schedules so we can kind of match the needs of the mall. Sometimes that's holidays, sometimes that's certain stores over staffing, things like that. Um, it's been really interesting to see how this unit has formed over one year and how busy we are. But, um, next slide. Our daily activities at the mall uh just like on the street vary quite a bit, but we are within the mall. Um kind of own the building. Uh it's a lot of like the slide says, proactive deterrence essentially just walking around and letting potential thieves know that we are there should they make poor decisions. Um great opportunity to be involved with the community. We're constantly constantly uh doing events with the mall and kids and all that and certainly have learned them all well enough to guide people to the stores that they >> solid 70% of the job goods. That's true. >> Um, yeah, I think one of my favorite parts of being at the mall has been building relationships with both the mall and security and um, kind of getting everybody on the same page between Rosedale security and loss preventions team, loss prevention teams, excuse me. Um, so that patrol can work handinand with them and there's not a disconnect. Now we have personal relationships with them and things have been a lot smoother working with those teams. Um yeah, I mean it's been a very good opportunity. >> Uh we included just kind of a quick rundown of some of our statistics. Um so one of the things that we tried to do when we started there was reach out to other retail units as well and see let's not reinvent the wheel. What are what is Bloomington doing? What is Minnetonka doing? What are these agencies that have had that and what's working so that we can hit the ground running and hopefully have some good success right out of the gate? And looking at the numbers, I think we definitely have. Um, overall shoplifting went up by like 120%. Um, and I don't think thieves were like, "Oh, the cops are let's go try and steal." I think it's just we have more accurate reporting on what's actually happening because we're there and we can grab onto them right away. Um, and in addition, some stores that historically would never call us because we weren't on site for their policies, now that we are in the building, that changes on the private side how they can report to us. So, we're getting more reports from stores that otherwise wouldn't have historically called us. So, um, working with those other units and things like that, we figured out kind of what those partnerships should look like and, um, we've been very happy with what we're seeing. Um, if you count misdemeanor theft tickets as an arrest, which at our tracking stats it is, uh, Ryan and I accounted for almost 30% of the arrests in the city last year, just because that's how busy and how many people think that they can steal, even with a marked police squad right outside and us standing at the door waiting for them. So, >> and just on those stats, you would expect with your presence there that those numbers in the shoplifting site would start to go down now that you've accurately accounted for what had been happening, right? >> I had a very good conversation with somebody in the back of my car last week and they said, you know, they told me that every time they go to Rosdale, they get arrested, but they just wanted to take the chance and they said, I think I'm probably going to quit coming here. And I >> Good idea. >> I recommended that that would probably be a good choice >> conversation. slow learners. >> Uh we've had a couple cases that have hit the news and that have been kind of bigger. Um and so we kind of wanted to include and touch on those. Uh Ryan was a part of a very large uh theft ring that was hitting Lululemons across the country. Um and actually resulted in the first organized retail crime charges with that new statute that came out a couple years ago actually successfully being charged in Ramsey County. Um, this particular group has hit Lululemon across the country for almost a million dollars. And just with us being there and Ryan's quick response and working with investigations and things like that, there were search warrants involved. And I don't remember what the exact dollar value, but almost close to 50 or 60 grand from Minnesota locations alone recovered from their hotel room in Bloomington. So, um, that one hit the news across the country. So, I thought that was pretty cool to see. Um, and then we had another ring that came up and they hit one of our stores doing fragrance grab and runs. Um, I never knew how much a fragrance tester costs until I started here. Uh, and I definitely understand why people are trying to steal them when it's $200 for cologne, but um, this group went in middle of the day uh, garbage bags just right off the wall in front of staff and tried to get away. um and would have been very successful in doing so had staff not had our personal numbers and been able to call us and get us over there. Um a couple quick foot chases later, uh we had two in custody for that one. Um and both had warrants from multiple different states because this is all that they do. They rent their cars, go across the country stealing fragrances and go back to Kansas where they sell them. So we got two in custody on that one, which was again a direct result of loss prevention knowing they can call us directly and us being close enough to grab onto them. And and mayor, I do believe there was a representative of Rosedale here today as well. If the timing is right. >> Oh, for sure. If uh assuming they want to tell us all about their terrible negative experience with this uh if you could just introduce yourself to begin your comments. >> So, I'm uh Mark Gerro with the operations team with Rosdale Center. So, I just wanted a quick opportunity to say uh thank you from the police department, city council. Uh it's been a a great relationship having uh Ryan and Denny both on site uh from conception to uh execution. Uh it certainly has been beyond my um hopes and expectations for what we would see. Uh like you said, it's it's very simple to say that they're uh taking care of theft issues, but it's much more than that. It's the um security team certainly, but it's our guests that come to shop there. It's our our mall walkers we see most days within the mall uh helping get directions to other stores. uh but even like some of the medicals and other things where having law enforcement on site and available makes uh much easier uh transitions uh for people to get help quicker. Um so just again really appreciative with the police department the collaboration uh between Rosedale Mall. >> Well, I think this is an opportunity for us to express our appreciation to Rosedale as well for supporting the program and being willing to be a partner uh with the city in that regard. I think that that's uh something that's been, you know, hoped for, wished for or talked about for many years and to actually see it come to fruition and and have that full partnership with Rosedale really makes a difference as it's as has been outlined here uh and as you've experienced and and related as well this evening. So, uh thank you to Rosedale for that and please pass that along to all the appropriate people. But we uh hope for a long-term continuing actually we hope that we our team puts itself out of business. Yeah, we we hope that the relationship continues for a long time. >> Great. Great. >> Well, thank you again for being here this evening as well. >> Right. >> All right. So, that's the that's the Rosedale uh portion of our program this evening. >> It it is well. And so, just in conclusion, what what I will say is getting to watch this uh program from our from our seats grow and continue to foster relationships. You can't walk through the mall on any given day without seeing these two like kneeling down, giving out a sticker, talking to people in the mall. I think it's really I mean the mall I believe is somewhere around 14 million annual visitors, right? It's it's the most prevalent place for visitors to come within within our city and we just never had an assigned retail unit there. And to watch what they're doing there has been has been amazing. and what they've said about the their number of contacts they that that they've had. Um I believe it's in well into the hundreds almost a thousand arrests and not one complaint. Like I I don't know how to quantify that besides just saying that. But these are contentious sometimes interactions that they're having with individuals that um sometimes people utilize the audience to to make a to make a louder show. No complaints. And I that has to be an anomaly. So, it's a credit to these two and the and the work that they're doing. It's just it's been amazing. It's one of those things that I look back now in my position go like, how how do we not have this position before? It's it's just been it's been great. >> So, thanks. >> I think we need Officer Cook back up the table because I I want to make sure that the council has an opportunity for asking any questions or providing any feedback. Uh council members, >> questions, feedback, council member Grath. >> So, thank you so much for this. It's really exciting for me too to hear because we were, you know, discussed it with the uh the chief and the police department when it was in recommended or suggested to us and it's hard to picture how it will go, but I couldn't have pictured it going this good. I mean, I had high hopes, but I think this is really a hit out of the ballpark. And um I also serve as the liaison from the council to visit Roseville board and uh Miss Crane is on the board there and she she gives us updates on it. So I did have some idea how successful it was and how pleased at least she re she represents that they have been with it. So and it sounds like the Rosedale staff have been happy with it. um how important it is to the residents to feel safe and uh Rosedale is our major commercial area for for shopping and things and that's that's crucial and also to solve some of these cases nationally is really a a feather in your cap and I thank you all for that. >> Other comments questions uh council member Schroeder >> um thank you for everything. You know I was thinking it's one thing to come in and and um start working in a department but to actually create and develop it from the ground level that takes a lot. So I I you know I want to make sure we give you credit for doing that because the all the different components and people involved and trying to figure out what's the best way to do this and obviously you came with the right formula for it to work very well and I've got nothing but positive comments from people from this whole thing and it's it's really you know like council member Grath said you know um and in you know being in the newspaper for a positive reason is really also too because it's just, you know, you read about this Lululemon and it was Roseville that cracked it and you all the good job you did and and that is just, you know, really nice considering so many times you're hearing the negative. And so again, I just wanted to make sure you know how much we appreciate that what you're doing and and looking forward to seeing uh what you come up with next. Council member Strong, >> just wanted to say a little over a year ago, I was at one of the major anchors at Rosedale and um a thief ran by and out the door and uh a bunch of the people like, "Oh, it's just we don't have any control." And it was the week after we had passed that we were approving this and I was like, "Well, I think it'll get better." Um and so it's really wonderful to hear this as a success story. Um because I remember just how frustrated all the workers were, the employees, the loss prevention, you know, and how discombobulated everyone was and I am just excited to that you take your kind of coordination of things and especially as you come into the holiday season, I'm sure that the mall is really excited to see um kind of you can bring that growth you've had with all the other um organizations together to make it safer, you know, and um we want these businesses to have their brick and mortar stores here. We We want that and so I'm so glad that people feel safe there and and that you're contributing. So, thank you. >> Other comments, council member. >> Yeah, echo what my fellow council member said. I had one question though is uh how you typically get dispatched. I've heard, you know, you note that they call you directly, but I wonder if that's the case or is it still go through um >> dispatch as well? >> Yeah. Uh it's kind of Yeah. If there's a way for them to reach us, they do. Um, we've given all of the loss prevention teams and store managers our work cell phone numbers. So, if we're working, they know they can call us directly. Um, but then 911 is always still an option. Um, especially if we're either tied up, not working, whatever the case is. Um, and we also carry Rosedale Security's radio with us. So, we hear everything that security gets dispatched to. And obviously two different roles, two different jobs, but we'll usually supplement them if something is going sideways on their end. Um, we're right there with them. So, we kind of get it from any possible avenue that we can get dispatched, we do. >> Thanks. >> All right. Well, again, thank you for being here and thank you for doing the the great job you did to get this up and running. Uh, and we appreciate the update. That's helpful to us as decision makers to see the impact that that's happening. And so, we really do appreciate you being willing to be here this evening and and not at Rosedale. So hopefully nothing happened while you were gone, but >> thank you very much. >> And good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council, thanks for letting us appear before you tonight. >> Yeah. And so we we got to talking about the mall and and realized we had left officer Jorgensson out and he'd been at his position for a little over a year. Um, but another position that that just shows the great collaboration that we have with a lot of the different stakeholders across the the community. This position is funded directly through the state uh through the BCA and they receive uh grants and other funding that that they receive to fund the team that that John is on and that he was at uh with the inception. But with that, I'll let you introduce yourself and go from there. >> A lot of familiar faces faces. I've been around for a little bit. My 29th year now at the PD. Just hit my 28 year anniversary. Um, worked patrol almost my entire career. Was a K9 guy for about 15 years with two dogs. Um, patrol was where my heart was for a very, very long time. This opportunity with the BCAA came up. Great job by our command staff here recognizing the partnership that was sitting before them. Uh, and this is something that was right up my alley. So, I was very excited to put my name in the hat and join the detective or investigative side here for the last couple years of my career. uh I'll give you a little background on the unit and kind of what we've been doing since I uh went over in April of 2024 here. Here we go. So, our unit, the violent crime reduction unit, the mission statements on the left. I certainly won't read it to you, but uh we are now up to 33 persons with a couple supervisors. There's 12 uh special agents that are BCA agents. There's 14 task force officers. I am one of the 14. Those are from uh predominantly well actually they're from all metro area departments. We have two full-time CIAs, criminal uh intelligence analysts that are just embedded with our unit. BCA has dozens of other analysts for other units there. We have two full-time crime victim advocates that just started with us within the last two, three months. They've been very helpful even with recent events here in Roseville. We have one firearms detection K9 that we utilize uh all the time in our unit. Um our unit was kind of envisioned a little bit before 2022 but started in 2022 and it was a small uh number at that time. It was only about seven or eight folks at that time. It's certainly not to the size where it it is now. The reason for the unit was the huge uptick in the crime that we had in the state of Minnesota around the country, but obviously in the state of Minnesota here after 2020. Took a little while to lobby with the state legislator legislature to get to where they wanted to be to build this multi- agency group. Um form these partnerships and relationships. Crime doesn't really know boundaries. A lot of times a lot of it is interstate as you just heard from our Rosedale officers. Um and then three major contributing factors. We had uh a massive uptick in carjackings, shots fired. Um a large part of what we're dealing with is what we call m machine gun conversion devices or MCDs. They're called switches on the street. That's probably what most people know them as. And then the increase of fentanyl coming into our country and specifically into Minnesota. Uh the numbers down on the left, intentionally put those in there. Some of those numbers, if you want to take a peek at them, seem pretty staggering. That's just for the city of Minneapolis. So I know we're not Minneapolis but those numbers are indicative of like the rise that we saw across the metro area and statewide even down in Mano St. Cloud up in Duth uh Morehead all over the state. So because of that huge huge increase across the state, the BCA and other stakeholders realized the need to establish a unit like this that could collaborative collaboratively work together um across all the counties, share information, share resources, compile data and attack high level crime that has uh predominantly a gun nexus. So we operate statewide. uh mandate that came right from the state was to focus on mid to high level violent crime uh and violent offender apprehensions. So usually the nexus for us is firearms uh but it can be any violent crime. Uh generally we operate in plain clothes, unmarked vehicles. We're based out of a separate building than uh BCA headquarters down in St. Paul, but we're often times working out of other offices, other police departments as we work with those agencies on the problems that they have. Um, as you heard and as as I do this or have done this job for as long as I have, I realized the partnerships and relationship relationships are a big way that we get work done in law enforcement. And this has been a very very eye openening experience for me how fast uh that we're able to share information, focus on crime trends, and assist folks out there that don't have the resources or the manpower. So, as Deputy Chief Adams said, my position is fully reimbursed by the state of Minnesota. Uh, they cover a big chunk of the overtime. There's other sources of money that we're able to reach into grant money. So, when the work is not Monday through Friday or if it's after hours or on weekends or has to be extended, there's money available to us to go out and do that work. Um, extra staff is one of the huge benefits that Roseville gets the return on investment by having somebody assigned over there. Our detective bureau is very busy as you all know. Um the group that I work with allows us to reach out if if our detectives need help with surveillance or tracking somebody down or finding an offender that has a firearms nexus. Our group can bring in 20 25 people uh depending on the day or the time. So we're kind of a force multiplier in that way that we can have detectives here keep doing their work. We can supplement them and and work together to get people wrapped up. So some of the other things is we have direct uh tie-ins. We have federal agents that are tied into our unit as well from the ATF, FBI, postals coming over. So we have federal resources available to us that just allows us to work a little bit quicker uh and more effectively at times. So some of the technologically uh technological capabilities are really enhanced. We have access to some stuff that a lot of local police departments and even Roseville don't have access to. So, we're able to kind of bridge that gap a little bit quicker and and pursue these investigations a lot faster sometimes. >> These are the 2025 year-to- date statistics. These numbers are uh members of our unit are directly involved with some of these numbers. Not going to read down the list, but there's some pretty staggering numbers there. Uh we're up to 382. This is as of two weeks ago, firearms seized for the year. Um and you can see some of the narcotics. It's important to note that our unit is not narcotics focused. Just guns and narcotics obviously go hand in hand a lot of times. So, when we're searching for the guns, looking for guns, we're coming across a lot of these narcotics uh finds as well. Since I went over to the BCA violent crime unit in April of 2024, these the statistics associated to the unit. These are not my statistics, but the group's numbers. Um, so you can see that in that year and a half, a little bit over 18 months, 664 guns sees some scary amounts of narcotics, uh, the amount of fentanyl pills that has slowed down. Um, thankfully, uh, it's weird how the trends are kind of cyclic and we're seeing an uptick in different types of hard narcotics now that we weren't seeing years ago and other stuff's dissipating a little bit. So the trends and the organizations, the drug trafficking organizations that we're often times dealing with, they're they're adapting just like we're adapting. But you can see the impact that this unit is making. Uh we are a very good helper agency. Uh again, it's a statewide group, but we're very metrocentric. That is for sure. I'd say 90% of our work is getting done here. We also like to say most of the crime just finds its way to the Twin Cities metro area. Um going over some of our key cases. Um the VCRU group was some of the first responders to the Annunciation school shooting. We were there uh even as the final victims were being removed. Uh we were tasked with heading up some of the immediate investigative stuff following that shooting. Our unit authored the search warrants uh related to the suspect and we executed three search warrants within a couple of hours of that incident before the crime scene was even fully processed. Um our group moves fast. I say this with a smirk because I feel like I snuck my way in, but I honestly feel like I'm on an all-star team. There is an immense amount of talent and experience in that group and folks move very fast and they're very good at their job. Uh we were critical in the Vance Bolter manhunt after our government officials were targeted in the state of Minnesota. I know you're all a part of that. Obviously, everyone is. Um we were called out at 5 in the morning. Our entire unit spun up for that and we handled everything from investigative duties to uh surveillance. We were the first ones down in Green Isle. Uh we handled the entire organization of the tactical mission and search down there. um and subsequent follow-up stuff of multiple crime scenes and I don't even know how many search warrants authored through that by our group. Again, we move fast. We have great partnerships. Um TFOs know people from all different agencies and the agents do as well. So, um it definitely allows us to work quick and work well with other people. We arrested a federal fugitive that was wanted for the murder of a constable out of the state of Texas. uh officer um Erson was gunned down and one of the three suspects was on the run for over two years. He escaped the escaped from the US Marshalss. They they almost had him down in Atlanta. They almost had him in Indianapolis and then in Ohio and then he had a nexus to into Ramsey County. As we were investigating him, he moved down to Iowa. Uh but on the day that he was apprehended, we utilized resources from Iowa State Patrol. We followed him with a plane up into Minnesota. Then we followed him with a helicopter and took him into custody and um that was about a 26-hour investigation um that our whole unit was focused on and he got flown back to to Texas and is being held accountable there. Our group also helped with a cold case arrest uh out of the state of California, out of the San Diego area that involved a homicide involving an infant. Um, and we're just about to go to court on a case with some Roseville ties where we recovered 120 firearms that were taken in a burglary in St. Paul. We executed executed a couple search warrants here in Roseville and dozens in other cities to recover those firearms. So again, our focus is on on firearms related crimes. Um, don't like to use the word target, but again, our focus is it can be on people, it can be on organizations or gangs, or it can be on areas. and we utilize technology. Our analysts are phenomenal. We have great support from our supervisors down there and I have great support here from my immediate supervisors in the detective group all the way up to the command level. So, it's been a great experience for me. It's been a great partnership and we're seeing the the benefits of it. >> Appreciate that. From the from the administrative level, this is a unique partnership uh that that we have with the state. Obviously, it's non-traditional. Um, but but as we've shared in the past, you know, a lot of I think it's over 80% of our arrests, sometimes close to 90, are from individuals that are not from Roseville. So, as Officer Jorgensson and the other folks have shared here today, the boundaries are are blurred when it comes to a lot of that crime and things. And our state, especially when this was first started, was really lacking the resources to combat some of this violent crime. And so they really look to everybody for help and again fully funded it. Um as far as in-house here, it's it's um instrumental in a lot of the the high level investigations that we do to have direct access to the BCA through John, which we wouldn't have otherwise and has really uh helped with uh some of the fatigue and our detectives and just being able to collaborate on a broader level that we wouldn't be able to otherwise. Um, again that I think most metro agencies are involved in this unit uh that that Jorgensson is involved in. Um, but just a unique way to to look at public safety uh in the 21st century. And um, again, the some of the stuff that they're dealing with is in Roseville, then it goes to Maplewood, then it goes to Minneapolis, then it comes back to Roseville, and there's just no boundaries, and we sometimes just don't have the capacity to deal with that in-house. So, it's been amazing to be able to have this collaboration uh with with this unit. Um, and just thought we'd share an update with you today. >> We appreciate that update. Uh, questions or feedback from the council on this particular unit. Council member Sher, >> again, thank you so much for what you do and I'm really glad you came to do um a presentation tonight because I think a lot of our residents don't get the opportunity to hear um about something like this because this is almost like a bestkept secret, you know. It's and it's a and it's a good positive thing that we have in our community, you know, and the things you've listed here. I'm sure people didn't have any idea that, you know, this unit was involved in all these things. And so I really appreciate that and I'll have to say with all you in the room I I haven't felt safer. So anyways again thank you so much for all that you do. >> Thank you. >> Other com council member Grath >> I really appreciated your comment about um inter agency cooperation because I I really am supportive of that. I think we learn for other from other people in our professions and I I think that's a real opportunity for us. um working in silos as we've talked about even here in other aspects does not work. We we need to learn from each other and I think this is a a brilliant move. >> Great. Other questions, comments, council power, >> thank you for everything and your long dedicated service to Roseville as well. U curious to know if uh the BCA or your group has uh goals for this coming year or what your goals might be. you obviously continue what you're doing, but knowing if you're have any ideas of expansion or different directions or increasing scope. >> I know the state legislature is going to be reviewing uh numbers and the effectiveness of our unit. Uh my understanding is there's monthly meetings with the governor uh specifically highlighting some of our units work and what we're doing. This summer our mission changed a little bit. we were tasked with focusing on uh not specifically but we were uh focusing a lot of our efforts and resources towards East African gang violence uh that was plaguing the metro area and native mob gang violence. So with some of the homicides that we saw in the metro area again bleeding across lines some of that had Roseville ties and for sure metro ties uh we were kind of retasked. We assigned some people, not TFOs, but some of the special agents went over to Minneapolis to help them. Uh we're trying to help some of uh this unit is trying to help uh some of the agencies that are hurting for manpower and don't have the resources. So that again that inter agency collaboration is very important. The mission is going to stay the same for us. Again, try not to just focus on lower level stuff. It's mid to high level. We have some investigators that are working on multi-year investigations right now. uh literally in the hundreds of search warrants have been executed. So if there's a gun violence uh nexus and it's coming into the state of Minnesota, whether it's up in Krookton or down in Winona, this group's going to get tied into it if people need the resources. Again, very metrocentric, but the funding is from the state level. So if there are people that need help, they know to reach out. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um I did have one uh question in relation to the prosecution side of it. were resources uh put towards that as well as the investigation and the apprehension side of it that you're more involved with? >> I'm learning a lot more about that. The the prosecution side of it is a big part of that. A lot of the targets and people that we end up arresting are getting charged federally. They just meet that criteria based on prior crim uh charges that they're looking at. So, we work with our federal partners. Uh that being said, there's some amazing relationships with the local county prosecutors in the metro and then outstate. Uh those relationships are pretty open. Uh the conversations are very frank and I I like to say that there's no bad targets in in this group. There's some really bad people doing some really bad things in this state and other people are getting hurt and that allows us to focus on it and prosecutors are on board with it. >> Great. Great. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you again for that report and I think we've got a segue coming up here as I look at the screen. So, I'll turn it over back over to the chief. >> I I appreciate everybody's time today. You know, as as you'll see talking to all these officers and any officer really in Roseville, um there's a lot of dedicated cops here that that work for the city. And you'll see myself included, John, uh the chief. Uh there's a lot of people you talk how long you've been here. Ever since I've been 22 years old. That that is a common theme. And so there's a lot of care for this community beyond I think what you'll see maybe in some other communities where we're trying to do things differently and things uh smarter and you know leveraging technology, leveraging partnerships uh to make this the best possible place uh that that anybody can live because we all take it personally. I I mean we we've been here our entire adult lives um literally all all the cops that are here today our entire adult lives this is the only job we've ever had. And so as we try to do these things, we want to make sure that has good payback for our community. I mean, that's top of our list. We want to make sure that it fits the priorities of our community, that it makes our members feel safe, which means something different to a lot of different people. And when we're making these investments, that that they're the right ones. And so everybody from the chief on down are looking at these things through different lenses to make sure that we're making a safe community again under all those different definitions. And I truly think that these positions are doing that. Each one of these are are on a three-year contract, both the the BCA uh and and the Rosedale Mall. It's our understanding that they're both going to continue uh hopefully indefinitely. Uh but that that is going to continue to be the case at Rosedale. Uh Officer Pavlac would sign up for a one-year term. Uh he will be rotating out, but Officer Abdi Wasami, who's currently our school resource officer, is going to be replacing him. And so we'll have a a new school resource officer at some point um as well, but there's a lot of interest in that position within our police department, too. So, we're going to be seeing a lot of this stuff evolve and new faces in in these positions. And again, with this with this uh position at the BCA, definitely unique. It's not the first time we've been involved in a task force, but one of this level with this amount of access and care uh that's directly governed by the governor. I mean, the governor Walls talks about this program directly. uh that officer Jorgensson's in. Uh it's it's new territory for us, but the the benefits have been have been huge. And so anytime that we can find things for our community um that make it better and even better uh that are freeish, uh we're absolutely on board for that. And both of these units definitely fit that bill. And again, we're just fortunate to work in a city um and for a council that that really understands that there's more to it than just general patrol. uh the getting to the root cause. Everything from our CAT team to our social workers to John's position to the mall. It it all is part of a broader puzzle and uh we're we're we're trying our best and we're really I think we're getting someplace more unique than a lot of other communities are. So, thank you the council. >> Well, we really appreciate that and always look forward to the next innovation and the next uh the next new thing to try because certainly um you know the world uh is evolving too and we need to be able to be responsive to it. So, we appreciate that. >> All right. >> We're not allowed to clap. >> No. >> Thank you. >> You're right. We're not allowed to clap. >> All right. Well, that then brings us to a change of gears here a little bit. Uh looking at uh more to do with budget and finances for the city. We have our finance director coming back to talk about our first look at uh proposed utility rates for 2026. And so uh Michelle Petri, our finance director, is back to bring this uh before us for our consideration. >> Good evening. >> Welcome. >> So, ever since 2020, >> and I apologize. I I always do this around 8:00. Let me just check with the council. Does the council want to do about a 5minute break or are we good to keep going? >> No, we're going till 10. We probably should. >> All right. Well, I mean, it could go either way. We could take >> We could We could take the break because we're going to 10 or we could just plug ahead because we're going to 10. So, it sounds like we're plugging ahead. >> M. Thank you for obliging that interruption. >> I'll see if I can do this really quick. >> All right. Um, in 2020, we had hired Ellers to establish a utility rate study for our water and storm water funds. that was updated in 22 to also include the sanitary sewer fund and we've had that study updated every 2 years for 2026. Um we are utilizing that last updated study. Um we are proposing a 5 1.5% increase in the water fund rates um that covers both fixed and variable cost debt service and replenishment of fund reserves. One of the main drivers is the fact that we do purchase water from St. Paul Regional Water and they increase their rates by 9%. Another driver in the need for increases is that we had been deferring capital outlay the last few years to allow this fund to recover its fund balance and you can only delay capital for so long. For the storm drainage fund we are proposing a 0% increase. It currently has sufficient reserves to cover both operations and capital needs for the near term. For the sanitary sewer fund, we are proposing an increase of 2%. Part of that is the fact that Met Council is increasing their rate to us and they do process the product of the sanitary sewer. We also have public works has been deferring capital projects to accommodate the 0% increase that we've had for the last two years. And based on the cost increases that we're seeing to do sanitary sewer lining, public works is unable to maintain their current number of miles. So the capital improvement plan was has increased costs so they can maintain the amount of miles of lining that they do. The fourth enterprise fund is the recycling fund. And as you'll recall, we did switch carriers. We bid that out. Um the current contract for 2026 has um increases factored in at 3%. Um so we're recommending increasing the rates to cover that 3%. What does this mean to the single family resident? Um see if I can get it up. Okay. So, for the average single family home that h consumes 12,000 gallons of water in a quarter and 11,000 gallons of sewer in a quarter. The quarterly charge will increase by $7.21, 21, which equals $28.83 for the year. Or if you want it on a monthly basis, it's $2.40 for the year. And the overall percent change from 25 to 26 is 3.44%. >> That's all I have. >> All right. Oh, >> well, it's it's it's a good start. >> Other than this is your first look at it. Um, you do a final adoption of the utility rates on December 8th. So, if you have any direction other than what's been presented, staff would appreciate hearing that. >> All right. Thank you again for the presentation. Uh, we'll turn over to council for questions. Are there questions from the council? Council member Schroeder, >> I'm just curious when you say the average water consumption um is do you know what size um household that would be? How many people would be in that household? >> I do not. That's the industry average that we use across all residential properties. >> And that's just residential. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Single family residential. Other questions from the council? I did have a I gave uh Miss Petri a bit of a preview of it earlier today. I I noted that the graph of the uh capital funding in the sanitary sewer fund um even with the 2% increase this year, >> you know, it doesn't look great after about 27 28 time frame. Um, and so, you know, I asked the question as to whether rate increases could help that beyond the 2% this year. You know, either I didn't really ask about a larger percent this year, but or or an extended period of of increases, or do we need to look at at perhaps some some bonding in the near term to pay for some of those higher short-term capital costs? And uh, with that, I'll I'll defer to Miss Petri to her thoughts on those. >> Yes. So at when we had presented the capital improvement plan earlier this year um the council had asked about bonding um for some projects. So we had started analyzing this more for when we bring the 27 CIP back. Um but departments did start analyzing what are their big ticket equipment items that are long lived infrequent. So we've started compiling a list in the case of big equipments for public works splits the cost of some of their equipment between the sanitary sewer fund the water fund storm and public works equipment. Um, so that gives you kind of an idea. Their equipment is very very expensive and it's a it would be a good barometer for issuing equipment notes. Um, there also are some lift stations programmed in the next few years. um some of those projects can maybe be moved out a little bit or be considered for a debt issuance. And in addition, the storm drainage fund in the near term has sufficient reserves that it could potentially do an internal loan to the sanitary sewer fund. It doesn't have reserve sufficient reserves over the course of 20 years, but it could help in the near term. And in addition, 2026 would be the next year that we do the update, and Ellers takes our current CIP, factors that into our utility rates, takes any known increases from Met Council and St. all regional, plus increases in staffing and other inflationary costs when factoring in what our utility rates should look like out into the future. >> Great. Thank you. Appreciate that. Other questions for staff at this time. >> All right. Uh we'll check if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak to the proposed utility rates. Uh although I will note that certainly this will be part of our consideration at our budget and tax hearing on December 1st. So if you haven't got a question or comment this evening, you can certainly do so at that time. Uh and then the final decision on the utility rates will be made uh most likely at our December 8th meeting which is after that uh that public hearing on the budget and levy. Uh so uh stay tuned for that. But if there aren't any other questions, I appreciate the information this evening. Uh, and more opportunities for discussion as we go forward in this process. Does not appear that we have anyone from the public who wishes to speak on this at this time. All right. All right. Then we'll move to uh consideration or excuse me to receive uh the information on the proposed 2026 fees and administrative penalties. And for this item, we have our assistant city manager, Rebecca Olsen, with us. I'll turn over to Miss Olsen as I take a drink of water here. >> Thank you, mayor, council members. Um, tonight is your first opportunity to take a look at the um administrative penalties and fee schedule. And this is something that we do every year. Um it is an opportunity for us to make sure that all of our fees are reflective of costs that are accurate um and reflect accurate staff costs. Um and we try to keep everything in one consolidated document. Um last year we did a lot of work on updating the format to make it a little bit easier in preparation for our recotification. One thing you may notice is that um in your packet tonight, there is a note that some of the references to the state code because we had not received the recodified code with the updated sections, they will need to be updated prior to your final adoption in December. Um so that is coming forward as well. Um there are a few highlights that I just want to touch on and then I'm happy to answer any questions. Um you'll see that under the administrative penalty document uh penalties generally increased about 3% in u to reflect the staff costs that need to be recovered. Um we've also added a 10% late fee for unpaid false alarm assessments and increased the fire code violation penalty from $400 to $500. Um, I'm gonna I'm going to try and keep going here, but it might get a little complicated because they're all over the place here. Um, under our business general business licenses and fees, um, there is a new general background check fee for licenses that require a background check, but it isn't specifically called out anywhere else in this um, document. We've also increased the background check fees for massage and establishment licenses. This really is meant to increase the additional workload that is on staff um that they have to do for the background checks. And um in addition, what we've done is we've split out um the background check from the um actual license because oftent times there are applicants that apply for both an establishment license and an individual um therapist license and so we want to make sure that they aren't being charged twice for that background background fee. Um, in addition, our compost site delivery fees also were increased from $50 to $75 uh to help uh cover some of the the costs associated with that. And then um in addition um there is a um an update down here to reflect the recent state law change that replaces the low potency hemp license with a registration. And then because the state is doing the license, we would be removing that background check fee. Um there is also a new fee. Um I apologize. I'm not quite sure where it is, but it is a new sewer special discharge fee. Um that is something that um our uh public works department says is a very infrequent maybe once a year. Um, if you have questions on that, I will defer to him because I don't know exactly what that what that is. Uh, however, we've also updated removed the outdated meter reading fees and updated some other permit and project review fees to match current license fees. And you'll see that um further down under the um electrical um I'm looking for it here. I think it's the next one here under the electrical area. Those fees are set by the um elect uh the individual that we work with for the the electrical fees we contract with them. That is also on your consent agenda this evening for that contract. Um so this is kind of a big broad overview, but happy to answer any questions and if it's something that I can't answer, I will definitely get back to you and and check with the correct department. Um but you will have an opportunity in December um where all staff are here uh to ask any other further questions at your final adoption. All right. Thank you, Miss Olsson. Are there questions uh from the council? Council member Bower. >> Yeah. I assume the electoral increases are just due to pass through costs of what it cost us, but could you explain like the increased costs or the rational from the increased cost in like building permits, erosion control um and those other items? Well, not a large increase. I mean, some increase. uh those are meant to um reflect the increase in the staff costs um for the as wages go up we need to consider the recovery of those costs as well. So when it includes staff time um when you calculate out the staff time you have to take into consideration the wages that those individuals earn and so that's um what the minor changes are. It's about a 3% increase on on some of them, not all of them. >> That makes sense. I guess that would make sense. I would guess I would maybe expect that to be in some of these other categories, too. But that explains why, at least for the community development area. And it may be the case that other fees may have not needed to have been adjusted because for whatever reason, they were already reflective of increased labor costs. >> Correct. or there could have been um more efficiencies um that have happened in how they process things. >> Right. Other questions, feedback? >> Feedback. >> Council member Graph. >> Um I did check with contractors and they said that Roseville is within reasonable rates compared to other suburbs. So just information for us to have. >> All right. And that was that was uh that applies to all contractors, right? Well, >> I didn't call all of them, honestly. >> It seemed >> I had a few that I could call >> generally. Right. Okay. Got it. >> That would get back to me within within the day. >> Got it. Right. If there aren't other questions from the council, uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to the proposed 2026 administrative fines or uh fees uh as outlined this evening? Right. Does not appear to be the case. Once again, we're not taking this up for action this evening. Uh that will be another one of the items in our action-packed December 8th meeting when we make all these final financial decisions uh on the basis of our budget and tax levy and other uh sources of revenue for 2026. Thank you again, Miss Olsen. All right. That then brings us to um a consideration of gas and electric franchise ordinances and potential franchise fees for the city of Roseville. Uh and we have our city manager uh Pat Trean who has uh moved down to the uh table for the presentation this evening. And I'll turn it over to Mr. Trean to bring this item before the council for our consideration. >> Yes. Uh thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Um, as you are aware, uh, we have been, uh, discussing franchise fees as a possibility, uh, to institute in 2026. It's part of our overall budget discussions. We did have a conversation at some point, uh, I think it was an August uh, 25th meeting uh, initial conversation, and I want to continue the conversation here tonight. I'm not looking for any action uh, here tonight. Um, but just broadly speaking, we're what we're looking to do is have a conversation about franchise ordinances and a potential franchise fee and then ultimately what that would mean for the budget and levy as we get closer to the end of the year. So, under Minnesota law, statutory cities like Rosein have uh franchises or grant franchises to utility companies like Excel Energy for both electric and gas utilities for the public rightway. We did have a previous um franchise agreement with Excel that expired in 2018. They're typically run for 20 years and it's something that's best practice. We want to reinstitute again. As part of having the franchise ordinance, we then have the ability uh to uh impose franchise fees if we uh choose to do that. So, tonight we have in your packet uh uh several ordinances drafted. Uh but uh first we'll start with the proposed franchise agreement. Uh, I've been working with Eric Simson of Excel Energy who's in the audience here. Uh, I think we're about 98% of the way there on the language here. So, what you see in there is substantially what we will be bringing forward for future conversation. Uh, as of now, I'm tenatively uh uh suggesting that maybe we consider this on the um November 24th meeting, but that's certainly up to your direction. Uh, just keep in mind that we do need to publish that ordinance in full for at least 10 days before we take that up. So, that's something to keep in mind. So, very basically, uh the uh franchise ordinance really just creates another 20-year franchise agreement with Excel for uh electric and gas services. And this agreement will allow Excel to construct, operate, and repair and maintain utility infrastructure in the uh public rights away and talks about the roles and responsibilities of both Excel and the city. uh we still retain our permit authority. But one thing I do want to call out that if we do adopt franchise fees uh we would agree to wave the fees that Excel uh currently uh pulls when they do work in the city of Roseville. That can range it varies from year to year anywhere from 20 to up to 70,000 was a was the highest year there but about an average of $50,000 a year. I would propose, as you can see in the in the uh staff report and some further conversation that we would uh replace that loss revenue with some of the franchise fees that we would collect uh to backfill the engineering services fund. Uh on that we would also uh be able to uh if we do institute the franchise fees um and that would apply to all utility customers at a flat rate. on the schedule is in your packet there and uh we would be able to get tax exempt properties which by our estimation is about 84 properties and roughly generate about $175,000 uh dollars. So the retail I'm sorry the um rates that um we have been discussing here that's the wrong one is uh as shown here in the packet. So for residential be $3 per month for um electric and $3 per month for gas and the commercial and industrial depending on what category they fall in um would have different rates there. All told uh you can see that uh we would generate under this uh uh draft uh fee schedule uh about $2.4 million. If you recall in August when I was chatting with the council about the possibility, we had estimated about $2.1 million. This is about $300,000 more increase. I would note that we've kept the residential uh rates the same uh as was previously discussed and tweaked the um uh commercial and industrial and it represents a 60/40 split meaning 40% of the resident uh 40% of the revenue coming from these fees would come from residential and 60% come from commercial and industrial. A couple things I want to point out um that might be interesting um as we look at some breakdowns uh of whether to charge uh franchise fee um versus putting on the taxes. And let me be very clear and I try to be clear all along. This is a fee that's charged to residents. It's not something that uh it comes for free. So residents and all taxpayers will be paying uh on this uh at some level here but just from a different um uh going to a different source. So uh as you can see from this table here about 88% of the customers in uh Roseville are residential and 12% are non-residential. We are looking uh under the proposed fee schedule that the residentials would pay 40% and the non-residential pay 60%. As far as uh the taxpayer composition uh composition uh it is 57% residential and non-residential is 43% and uh residential pays about 54% of the total property taxes of the local property taxes and uh non-residential pays 46% and that that tracks similarly with the state of uh uh Minnesota. So, just wanted to mention that cuz I know it's been called out about the possibility of a more benefit to property taxpayers and I think it could be stated that uh the residential um uh accounts would be paying less than they would be uh and they would typically be charged as part of the taxes. So, uh in short, uh what we're looking tonight uh is just to have a conversation and answer any questions that you may have. Uh we have the ordinances uh that we would be looking to adopt. First we'd want to draft adopt the draft um franchise ordinance ordinances one for the electric franchise and one for the gas utility franchise. Then subsequently if the council so desires uh we would look then to adopt a franchise fee ordinance and there's two examples in there showing the rates as shown. So I will pause there see if there's any questions. I do maybe want to have a a conversation a little bit about what these impacts would be uh if we were to consider adopting franchise fees on the overall uh levy and budget. So with that, I'll pause and see if there's any questions. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Tre. Are there questions from the council on the proposed uh franchise ordinances and potentially the franchise fee imposition. Uh and I just wanted to clarify too, just to be sure, under the previous franchise ordinance that expired in 2018, there were no franchise fees associated with that. That was just strictly the franchise regulations ordinance. >> The the ordinance actually allowed for us to impose franchise fees, but they were never adopted. Um, and all those 20 years that was in existence. So, you're correct. There was no franchise fees in place. >> Got it. Okay. Just wanted to clarify that for the public questions from the council. Council member Strong. >> Thank you. So, will they always have a term like that of 20 years? >> It seems like that's the way. I'm not sure if it's state law that's written that way or that's just the normal term. I'm looking to our city attorney if if she were to know or representative from Excel, but that seems to be the norm. Um I'm not sure why. >> Okay. And if we were to adopt um a franchise uh ordinance, would that potentially apply to um future uh broadband franchise or other items? Or would that only specifically refer to the gas and electric franchises? This would only apply to the gas and electric franchise for Excel. If there was another company that came in here and did those services, we could have a separate agreement. And uh telecommunications is a whole separate different agreement if we were to go down that path. >> So what do we gain from the opportunity to participate in this um the ability to charge our residents? So, so I mean first and fundamentally I think you know we want to make sure there's clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities are for Excel when they do work in our community in our rights away uh what uh methods we have to make sure that work is done properly and if there's any issues along the way uh how we work through those issues and similarly for Excel they want to have the ability that they have uh known processes and how to work with the city when they work in the rightway and to resolve any particular issue. So that's first and foremost. There is uh language that's under state statutes that we can do, but also an agreement that allows us to collect a franchise fee to um uh to to capture the fact that Excel is providing uh services through our public rightway. And as a result, uh we are charging fees to help support that infrastructure in the rightway. Um even though that's not expressly um limited under the state statutes, that's typically what happens is cities charge a franchise fee to help pay for the infrastructure needs in the rightway, whether it's roads, trails, um other other utilities that may be in the in the rightway. So that's what we're doing. But fundamentally, this agreement just kind of lays out kind of the roles and responsibilities and the rights between the city and Excel. It also then allows us through a subsequent action to adopt franchise fees to help support the uh infrastructure needs in the rightway. >> Sure. >> Just one further question. Um to me it I I maybe misunderstand but it seems like it just gives the opportunity for Excel to do their work for less money. Tell me how that's different than that because they don't have to pay the the fees to do the um you know pull permits and things like that. So, it seems like a they're the biggest winner in the whole process. >> Well, I yeah, I suppose you could look at it that way. Certainly, they would still be required to pull permits and adhere to everything uh that we would uh need to have in place before we let them do work in there. What they would be doing would be transferring their costs that they have for individual permits that we would recover from franchise fees. I think if you do the analysis in the end, it's still coming from the rateayers whether uh they're paying that fees on a per permit basis. Uh because that's coming from the rateayers or from the franchise fees. Uh I think it certainly could be said that the uh permit fees come out of their bottom line more than the franchise fees which are a pass through. Uh but given the uh trade-off as I look at it from about $50,000 a year that we can uh make up uh compared to what we can bring to the table to help really support our capital funds in the long term and lessen the need for capital levy uh funds to be used. I think it's it's it's a trade-off that's well worth it u from my opinion. >> Great. Are there questions? Council member Graph. So the permit fees, if I understood correctly, vary because it depends on what kind of work is done per year and they pay permit fee. Whereas this would be a fee that would be charged and so it sort of even out the monies collected per year rather than one year we have 30,000, one year we have 70. So it would level out some of that. >> Yes. So once again, uh, council, thanks for the question. uh they would still per pull permits um and instead of paying a permit fee, we would track um the amount of time because there's staff time that goes into our review and inspection on that and then have that reimbured through the franchise fees. I'm estimating that's about 50,000 on an average year and certainly that could fluctuate given how busy every year it is, but that would uh that would be reimbursed through the franchise fees. So we'd still be whole. Uh goes into the engineering services fund uh which is mostly fee supported uh in any case if not wholly. So this is just replacing instead of the fee from Excel uh coming from franchise fees instead. So it doesn't really impact the levy at all uh per se, but uh it does replace that. So we're whole at the end of the day. >> Thank you. >> And other questions from the council. >> Great. I did have Oh, council member Sharter. I just had um a comment. Um thank you for um bringing out this information on what percentage the residential um would pay versus non-residential because I know that was something that came up in previous meetings and people had made comments on it and I think there was some misinformation that was put out there. So this did clarify that. So it it is very interesting to see that um you know that we do have 88% which I think we talked about were the people who paid you know the a percentage of the property um taxes but then ending up that you know when you when you do the franchise fee it it flips it and makes it go the other way. So I do appreciate getting this additional information. Thank you. >> Other questions? I was going to just uh note that the information we had previously had which I don't think was in our packet um just on the numbers of of accounts. So for instance there's you know close to 16,000 residential uh single family or residential uh electric accounts and just over 11,000 single family or residential gas accounts. And so that's what makes up that 80% of the the accounts that we're talking about or 88%. Uh our small commercial and industrial there's about 900 electric accounts. Uh and then they don't divide it the same way in terms of um gas. So there's about 1,400500 of those. Uh the large commercial industrial uh there not a lot of accounts uh in Roseville as you might expect. Um, so it's uh under the electric it's uh just under 200 accounts total um who who are about 1% of those accounts and they end up paying about 47% of the revenue. So that that's interesting to note. Um those are probably also some of our very largest property taxpayers in the city of Roseville as well. I'm guessing um so that was just additional information that had been out there and and wanted to to make a part of the conversation here as well. Um, if there aren't any other questions right now, uh, we'll open it up for public comment if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item. Uh, and we would just ask that, uh, the speakers follow the rules for public comment as outlined by city council rules, which is about a threeminut time limit per speaker. Uh, address council with questions or comments. Uh, and um, um, please introduce yourself with your name and street or address uh, to begin the comments. >> Hi, Roger H. Junior and Wagner place. And uh I know equity and transparency are probably most important things to me. And I myself I just think this kind of fails on both of those. But I mostly just have a couple questions right now. And uh one question is will schools and governments be paying these fees and like the state trooper new state trooper building and will the city be have paying these fees to themselves? And my second question is, if you do do this fee thing in future years when you're talking about the budget, will you include this in the budget materials to remind people they're paying this so we don't just see that property taxes are only being represented in your documents? because I worry about the transparency and if we shift a bunch of the city revenue to the fee but don't talk about it for the next 20 years, people don't get the full picture of what their the government is costing them each year. So, I hope I'm hoping that you're going to include that information every year along with the rest of your budget things. Thank you. >> And thank you for your comments and questions. Is there anyone uh else from the public who wishes to speak to this item at this time? That does not appear to be the case. Uh so we'll go ahead and close the public comment. And once again, uh no final decision this evening. So there will be other uh at least one other opportunity for uh comments. I did have a question about the language in the ordinance in the franchise ordinance and I just happen to have the electric one handy. The franchise ordinance talks about uh franchise fees as part of it, although it doesn't actually get into the imposition of the fees or the amounts of the fees. But under uh section 10.2 on line 318 of the electric franchise ordinance, this paragraph talks about uh requiring a separate ordinance for adopting the franchise fees. in the ordinance shall not be adopted until at least 90 days after written notice and closing such ordinance has been served upon the company Excel uh by certified mail. So I'm wondering uh if we can take action on an ordinance imposing franchise fees on November 24th uh if we had not sent the uh ordinance to Excel by certified mail 90 days prior to that. And I just want to make sure we are following the requirements which are in our ordinance and may may be uh dictated by state law as well. So I just wanted to check on that because I don't want us to get in a position where we we met the 10-day notification of general ordinances, but we've got something in our own ordinance that puts us out of whack on the uh on the timing of things. >> Mr. Mayor, my understanding is that this ordinance is not in effect. Uh so we are able to uh uh adopt the fee ordinance without this 90-day window. This is for any subsequent uh approval. Talking to Excel, they understand that and um talking to the city attorney as well. Um we understand that. So we be a what we would envision is adopt this and the same evening also adopt the the franchise fee to say two years from now we want to amend the franchise fees for whatever reason. Uh then that 90-day window take effect. >> Okay. I appreciate that clarification. That's a very good question. I didn't want us to be in a in a bad way that way. All right. Thank you. Um, and I know it wasn't brought up during the public comments this evening, but there has been uh talk about um the deductibility uh on the income tax of property taxes, local property taxes versus franchise fees. And I I had some beautiful graphs and and illustrations associated with that, which I will save the public from having to see unless it's just so confusing that we need a picture to to help my thousand words. Um but um essentially the way that tax deductions work is that your um your increase to the tax you pay by foregoing a deduction for instance is essentially your tax rate your marginal your top marginal tax rate multiplied by the amount that you would have deducted. So in this case we've got franchise fees of $72 a year for a typical residence. Um and uh typical average income for a household in Roseville, at least according to some statistics over the last couple years, was either the median was something around uh 96,000 or the average was around 130,000 depending on how you want to do the math uh for a household. And so those uh by the time you do deductions, which I kind of assumed were probably comparable to the standard deduction just because otherwise why would you do deductions? you could just take the standard deduction, which I'm sure many people do um in that situation. But anyway, given all that, it puts you in a tax bracket at the higher level of about 22%, which on a $72 deduction for franchise fees or for property taxes as opposed to franchise fees works out to about $16 for a year on your of that you'd have to pay more in income tax on about $11,500 of income tax, which works out to be.14% difference on your on your income tax was the whole point of this, which is if you had a thousand boxes, it would be 1.4 of those boxes. >> So hopefully that helps people put some perspective on this notion of of the tax deductibility. >> Check with your tax account, of course. >> And if your brain just exploded, >> well, actually, I'm sure nobody's brain exploded because their eyes glazed over about 10 minutes ago. >> So what you're saying is it has very little effect. >> It it's it's not a major deal for most >> we're summarizing. >> Exactly. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you for that. >> But but I but the only the only reason I had to make that point is because that's been a pretty major point that's been made in discussion of the the disadvantage >> of looking at franchise fees. And I will just say that that I continue to see >> the advantage of the franchise fees um especially how they're structured here >> is that you know we're raising about $2.4 $4 million of revenue with franchise fees. Um that's an average, you know, monthly impact of $6 between the two um utilities on this typical single family home. If we had to raise that same amount of revenue through the property tax system, the average single family home would probably pay 12 or $13 a month more. So, it's, you know, you're getting more money and more revenue to the city that we can do some of these things with our um, you know, um, right-of-way infrastructure funding that we know are in kind of bad shape. >> Um, you know, without having the same impact that we would have if we tried to raise that money with property taxes. So, and I think that's exemplified in some of the examples that Mr. Trean had provided of the different scenarios. um the scenario that that costs a similar amount to the taxpayer as compared to what we're talking about with the franchise fees uh and and maybe not doing all of the funding of infrastructure that we'd like to do um didn't do any of that additional funding of infrastructure at whatsoever uh by using property taxes. The only way we could do that additional infrastructure funding was to add in that extra $67 of of property tax impact if we did it all with property taxes. And so that's where to me it makes some sense to really look at this. And I don't want to say, well, we're doing it just because other cities are doing it. No, I think other cities are doing it because they've figured out that that that is a way um you know to do funding that that you know the impact can be you know mitigated to to a degree. Um the other thing I'll note just in terms of the transparency, I think that was an excellent point to make. My expectation would be is that if we proceed with franchise fees that that is definitely a line item on all of our revenue tables and all of our accounts that where that is a source of revenue uh and that it's clear as part of our our process and I will certainly commit to making sure that that is the case going forward if that's what we do. Are there other thoughts from council members or additional information needed or questions? Um and I know Mr. Trean wants to add something as well. So uh other council members first, >> right, Mr. Trean? No, just just two things. One uh is uh as uh as proposed the franchise fees would uh support be a revenue source for capital. So we'll definitely make sure that's always shown as as a revenue source and I think it's important probably to keep calling it out even more so in other areas. The other thing uh Mr. H asked a question about whether schools and government buildings are paid for. So uh under the franchise fees, yes, schools would be paying franchise fees. That's some of those uh tax exempt properties. City government buildings would not be paying anymore. doesn't make sense to charge us to get that back. Uh to the extent there's other uh government agencies that have um buildings such as W's Edge, MDOT, the future state patrol, yes, they would be paying franchise fees because they use utilities. >> And just to be clear on the city, um do we charge oursel for our water usage, sanitary sewer usage? >> Any of those things? >> Correct. Okay. So, this wouldn't be inconsistent with that. >> Do we pay property taxes? >> No. So, we're consistent with that as well. >> Yeah. >> So, if unless there's more questions about this, I said this will be coming back. I'm tentatively planning for the 24th for uh potential consideration. It's up to you folks if you want to pass it that night, but I'd like to spend just a few minutes. Uh I know we're running late uh just to talk about um what the impact of the franchise fees. And I gave you a lot of information here tonight. I'm not asking you to make any uh decision or any uh on that. I just want to run through stuff really briefly if I could. Um so um this uh is uh we'll put this in the bench handouts in the back room. You'll have copies. So as we look at our budget might be scenarios with the potential franchise fees. As you know we started with a whole bunch of different scenarios whether we got the grants and franchise fees and back ending by capital. I try to slim that down to three scenarios for you to be considering. one scenario one would be no franchise fees and um the levy support needed to fund the positions in the police department and the fire department making the assumption that we're starting April 15th and that we're going to create those positions under scenario one once again no franchise fees uh or no additional capital spending that uh levy increase is 11.54% or $15.71 per month uh for the median valued home. Scenario two, uh we would uh create franchise fees and once once again have the same assumptions that we would be funding the police officers uh and um firefighters starting April 15th. We would generate $2.4 million in franchise fees. We would uh split that use of the franchise fees several ways. One $2.1 million would go to the infrastructure uh funds. This is similar to a proposal that I did this past summer with $ 1.631 631 million of existing levy dollars going uh back into the kitty, so to speak, to be redistributed between operations and capital. We would also uh put $264,000 of the franchi franchise fees for the police department vehicle and equipment fund. This is kind of some of that difference from the increased uh uh franchise fees from the earlier estimate and the $50,000 that I talked about uh for the engineering services fund on that. That would allow us to uh of the 1.6 $6 million reallocate $420,000 to the five capital funds. Once again, this is part of the budget proposal. And so instead of $986,000 we put towards operating capital levy of 1.21 million because we're using that additional franchise fees to pay for the uh police vehicle and equipment fund. That gets us a levy uh increase of 7.59% or increase of $1061 for property tax increase. If you factor in the the franchise fees at $1661 more. Scenario three is very similar to scenario two. I would still use the $2.4 million of the franchise fees the same way for the infrastructure funds for the police vehicle uh um vehicle and equipment fund and $50,000 for the engineering services fund. But instead of reallocating some of that levy from the rightway infrastructure funds, we would use the $1.6 million to totally put back in the operations side of it. So, no additional capital spending beyond the police vehicle and equipment fund. And that would get us to a 6.22 uh% levy increase or $883. Uh, and that would lead to $1483 once you factor in franchise fees. I will not go over these, but well, I'm going to show you this real quickly. This is just a summary of that. So, it's just easy handy. There's a lot of words there. I won't go over these next things, but these are showing the allocations of where they go. uh scenario one we don't it's franchise fees so it's pretty flat but here you can see the kind of ins and outs and scenario two it's got all the same summary information uh here and then finally uh this is just uh maybe an easy to read graphic of showing uh these scenarios where uh the one on the far left is a 25 budget of the median value home under scenario one we would uh pay $15.71 more that's all a tax levy under scenario to >> and just so I may no additional capital spending. >> No additional capital scenario one. Yeah. Yeah. I did not fac fact fact uh factor in any capital spending. >> Uh and that that is just about the max we can go anyway. That's close to the 12% or that is about the 12%. >> Under scenario two uh you can see the total of 1661 when all things are considered there. Uh but it represents a 7.59% live increase. You see scenario three also through the finance committee recommendation which was uh commission recommendation which was a 10% levy increase that translates to $13.72 just for comparison sake and that blue line is kind of what we paid uh for last year. So that's a lot of information uh I'm just sharing with you. I want to at least introduce it to you. We have a lot more time for conversations around these but I just want to introduce these three scenarios versus the seven or eight that we had at one point and trying to narrow it down. Um, obviously the last piece of the puzzle for you as a council to make decisions and what that levy is going to be is what we're going to do with franchise fees. And that's why I want to make sure we at least have that conversation, make that decision yes or no on that. Then that's going to dictate where we go with the scenario. So with that, I will pause, see if there's any quick questions. I understand you just got this tonight. So happy to answer questions next couple weeks as well. >> Great. Any uh final questions from the council at this point? All right. Thank you again for all of this and all the work that's gone into it. Uh and we look forward to our next discussion. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. That then brings us to um a item related to uh some of the uh proposed building uh projects for the city here. And this is to uh consider approving a construction manager at risk. Uh actually a contract or agreement with the provider for those services for the civic campus project. Uh, and I'll turn it over to our public works director, uh, Jesse Fryhammer for this item. Welcome, Mr. Fryhammer. >> Uh, thank you, mayor and councel. I just have a few slides just kind of to summarize where we're at in the process. So, um, this has been, uh, brought to you guys a few times. So, in, uh, July, we approved concept C. Uh, in July 21st, we approved the RFQ, RFP. Uh, we went through a detailed process to select that. uh council did select at the October 13th uh selecting Krauss Anderson as a construction manager. So tonight we're bringing back the contract. Um just a little bit of a summary of the fee breakdown. Um it is broken out in as two projects in two contracts. Uh the first is for the maintenance operations center. Um and the fees listed for that is about $2.7 million. I just want to note some of the fees there are flat fees, but three of the items are based on a percent of what the actual construction cost. Um, so if the construction cost goes up, the fees would go up. Construction costs go down, they would go down. So this was based on the budget numbers that were presented um that that has been presented all along. So this should be a pretty conservative estimate. So hopefully the prices come in under otherwise we'd have to request additional funding. Um, same thing for the licensed passport center. That overall cost is about $889,000 uh dollars. So, a total total between the two contracts would be a little over $3.6 million. Um, and then kind of for the budget overall on where this is at, um, like I said, the the total funding available from the maintenance operations center is the 64.2 million from the sales tax. Um, the total budget based on the last estimate is the 60.8 million. um of that the construction cost is what the the the percentage is based on. So if the construction cost is 50 million, that's what you apply that percent to percent to. Um but there's the breakdown there. We do we did include in that kind of the breakdown of the soft cost because that's kind of where we're at with the budget. Um once we get Krauss Anderson on board and as they go through the process, they will keep these update. We'll have similar tables as we as we as we go through um the design process. But we do have LHB's costs included in that and Krauss Anderson which are the biggest two port parts of the soft costs. Um and then kind of where where the budget's at. So with that uh the request to action the requested council action tonight for council is to approve the agreements with Krauss Anderson for construction management at risk services related to the license passport center and then uh for the second action would be uh related to the maintenance operations center. So with that I can answer any questions. >> All right. Thank you Mr. Fryhammer. Are there questions uh from the council for staff at this time? >> All right. Council member Bower, >> looking at the uh estimates for the number of hours for the construction manager at risk. Um I don't have any in front of me, but taking a 40-hour week, it looked like it was about six and a half uh people uh for this project over the duration or yeah, dividing it over three years. Is that what you're hearing from them? Or how many people do you think that will comprise the construction manager? You know, I'd have I'd have to look back at the proposal, but I I do know their hours are very comparable. They're very good um on average for the group. Um I know their proposal did include a full-time superintendent and a full-time project manager that would be directly associated, but they're also they have some admin roles that are associated with it. So, there's a very large team that's associated with it, but um I know we'll have two people that'll be very much housed directly here on campus uh for pretty much three years on on the project, but I guess I didn't >> No, that's kind of what I was looking for. I just was looking to see what what they were thinking for commitment because I didn't see it. Uh >> yeah, proposal what the >> Yeah, they had a detailed of which staff would be involved. Um some of it's on the safety end, um admin end. They they did they do provide communication services to help us communicate out to the public because this will be a very phased and impactful project to the the but not only to the neighborhood but also just people coming to the licensed passport center. Uh after one year it's going to be a different location and there's be construction site next by next door. So >> and what incentives do they have to keep the construction cost down? >> So they're at risk. So once we we we develop that guaranteed maximum price which will be at a certain stage in the design process it's on them to to meet that goal. There would have to be some extenduating circumstance like finding something that no one would have known about but it's on them to to keep that price. So that takes a lot of the risk away from the city >> right that makes sense going beyond but like to keep it below that. Is there any incentives that they have to? >> So, that'll be working with uh the city and the design team to for for schedule. Certainly, obviously, it's a benefit to us. So, um but that'll be us staff working with the the consultant to figure out figure out what we want. Certainly, we know the license passport center, there's a budget on that based on what was in the estimate, but that final cost is is will certainly definitely be looked at as that funding source will most likely uh impact future levies. >> And do you plan to have that brought back for us then or is that once we agree to this construction manager, staff will be taking care of what those fee schedules will look like? >> No. So, we'll we'll end up bringing back updates throughout the process. Um so there's uh schematic design which would be the first probably big check-in point which that's where we'll kind of get a basically where we're at on concept C. Um when we did that that was kind of schematics design. So this is just kind of a refresh of that since we have new eyes on it. Um then there'll be design development phase and then final construction documents. So throughout that process, we'll have updates on the budget and then certainly council will have um you know buying or sign off on on where we're at on that before we get too far out there and release release the project for bids. And Mr. Mayor, if I could add just thank you for bringing that up. I think it's really important with a project this size there's transparency for the whole community, but especially the council. So, we want to provide regular updates and reports uh to the council so you know where we're standing, what the cost is, and what we can do to make sure we're come within budget or under a budget. There were instances when there maybe needs to be discussion that we need to make some change orders that maybe u would put us beyond our comfort level. We want to have that very conscious conversation with the council and making those decisions on there. We hope uh that it's going to be designed well and managed well that that's going to be few and far between. But we want to make sure we have accommodations when we can do that because I think it's really important that you all uh feel good about this project and know that we're all working to keep these costs down to the bare minimum what we need to do. >> Thank you. And just maybe if I can clarify too, it sounded like the question might have been a little bit along the lines of are there any like contractual perhaps financial incentives to the construction manager to keep costs under what's budgeted uh through the contract is perhaps a a shade of what might have been being asked there. >> I guess I don't know if there's really an incentive for in that end. Um certainly there's the base fees that are listed out and then the the portion that's related to the construction. That's obviously if you have a if you bid it and it's $40 million of work that's planned versus a $35 million project, they have less there's there's less hours. So that's why that they have that percentage fee in there. So there, you know, you can build a probably $35 million project in a little less time than you can. So that that's where that percentage kind of plays in. Now, if there's incentive on their end, >> there's no really bonus structure. >> Correct. Not that I'm aware of. Okay. Just wanted to check. I'm not even sure that's allowed under state bidding law, but I I think that might have been part of what was asked, so I just wanted to make sure it was it was clarified if needed. >> Other questions from the council, >> right? Uh, is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? >> Roger H. Junior Wagner, please. Just a quick question. I was wondering during your discussions with the uh different construction managers, did they say if there's any would have been much of a difference if you did traditional contract man construction manager versus the at risk one? >> So I don't know if anyone ever even mentioned that to them. >> I'm not sure that it was discussed with the the the provider because that was under that was what was asked them to bid on. Uh but I'll maybe ask staff if you know where that was in the conversation through the process. >> I certainly we made a decision earlier on before going out for bids as to whether we were going to do at risk or not >> and I'm not sure that once that decision is made by the council that there is >> the subject comes up again in the discussion. So I'll ask >> well I I'll just start uh Mr. mayor and members of the council as you recall when we talked about the different ways we can do that construction manager at risk uh is more expensive because they are taking on that risk but it also allows us to uh not be as deeply involved and put as many resources on a staff level beyond uh goes without saying that it's beyond our our probably our our ability to properly manage such a large project. So, so there is a a premium that you pay for uh construction manager at risk and we talked about that at the beginning when we when we decided to go along this path here. So, no, there wasn't any specific conversation with this uh particular vendor or any of the vendors uh for that matter because construction manager at risk is really driven by state law and what you need to do and uh versus just a pure construction manager which you might be paying a little bit less more but you're involving staff a lot more and have a lot more cost and resources needed to help manage that project. you're managing the different things you take on additional liability as well contracts. >> Great. Thank you. All right. Uh we are uh requested this evening to take uh two actions. One to consider the approving the agreement with Krauss Anderson for construction management at risk for the license and passport center and dance studio. And second uh to approve the same agreement with the same provider for construction management at risk services for the maintenance operations center. Do we want to do them separately or together? >> It seems that that is how we're going to have to do it. >> I'll move approval of the agreement with Krauss Anderson for construction management at risk services related to licensed passport center and dance studio. >> Second. >> Right. It's been moved by council gra. Second by council member Stron uh to approve the agreements with Krauss Anderson related to the licensed passport center and dance studio. Discussion on that motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Grath. >> No, I think we've gone through these. Thank you for the clarification on where we are right now and I'm sure we'll have many more updates along the way. >> Right. As the secondary, Council Member Strong, >> nothing. >> Nothing. All right. Other discussion on that motion. >> All right. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Opposed. >> Nay. >> Nay. >> That motion passes three to two with council member Sharter and Bowerer in opposition. >> And then secondly on the uh second motion, >> I'd move approval. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Grath, second by council member Stron to uh enter into the agreement for uh construction management at risk services with grass Anderson for the maintenance operations center portion of the project. >> Discussion on that motion. >> Again, we're just moving forward with the process. Thank you, >> Council Member Strong. >> Nope. >> Other council discussion on that motion? >> Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. That uh also is agreed to. >> All right. Uh that then brings us to uh the the item that everybody is uh tuning in for this evening, which is consideration of the city council calendar for 2026. Back to Mr. >> I don't know if I have much of a presentation. >> Uh so I don't know if I can make this smaller here or bigger so you can see it better, but um there we go. >> I don't know why sidebar on there. >> Yeah, I get this guy. >> Thank I knew I was looking for that. >> All right. So, uh here is the proposed uh calendar for 2026. I referenced this earlier as part of the EDA discussion. We've tried to follow the patterns that we typically uh do um which um is second, third, and fourth Mondays. Uh but there's exceptions almost every month, so doesn't quite fall that way. The middle meeting we designate as a work session and it's something that we try to do um not always successfully uh to have just more work session topics meaning discussions versus business. Uh the only couple things I would point out is that in April I did move up uh the meeting uh to the first Monday of the month. If we would have done the second, third, and fourth in April, May, we would have had six Mondays in a row of meetings. I think that a lot for staff and a lot for council. So, we wanted to separate that a little bit. Followed our traditional um summer schedule where we have the Rosefest parade. Um taking up one of our Monday nights in August. Uh for the last several years, we've had um two meetings, but we're looking to uh still have two business meetings, but still do the commission interviews on the 19th. Then I would note that uh there is a fifth Monday in November. As you recall, we had a scramble this year because of the state statutes and when we can hold the truth and taxation hearing uh on the 30th uh we'd be within that window which we can have that and people should have had uh their tax statements at that point for hopefully at least a week if not longer. So proposing to meet on that fifth Monday of the month which is not when we typically do and just have one meeting in December which would be December 7th a little bit later in December. So this is what's proposed. Um, we can certainly amend it as you see fit here, but uh, we're looking for official adoption of that tonight so we can start, uh, publicizing it and enter it into our systems. >> Great questions from council on the proposed schedule. >> All right. Council member Bower, >> this is more of a comment. I would be interested in having this council discuss what may opportunities or changes we'd want for a work session if we want to continue doing this or if we actually want to try to do something with those work sessions different than what we have done to actually make them having looked at some other councils and what they've doing um for work sessions um there may be you know an opportunity I'd be curious to know what others think not something to discuss now but would be interested as we go forward we have them labeled as work sessions um it may be good especially I thought this year with the budget um that may have been beneficial to have some work sessions just for a different kind of dialogue to take place may have assisted and c and certainly you know absolutely as part of our processes in general if if there is things we can undertake at work sessions that we're not doing or discussions we can have earlier in proc the budget process at a work session or something like that certainly something I think that we want to you know talk about doing and and you know I don't know that I I'm imagining you're not suggesting taking work sessions off camera or anything like that, but just maybe trying to utilize that opportunity differently. >> Yeah. And actually, I'm not even proposing or having something having an actual discussion. Okay. You know, and see if there's something on obviously it's worked what we've done so far. We've gotten to this point and I think we've had a very successful year so far. Um, and but it's just more of checking in since we have them labeled as work sessions. May there's something that we should do differently. >> Sure. No, I think that we could have that conversation. I don't think there's objection to that. >> No. Should we have a work session with the work? >> That would be that would be a perfect agenda. Is a great start. Yes. Yes. Absolutely. >> Couns. >> I appreciate when our work sessions whenever they are um do involve our meetings or check-ins with our um commissions. It is kind of nice to have the conversations. Although some of them are large and we're a little squished at the table, but it does feel more receptive of an interaction or like you know collegial in our interactions. Um this tends to get a little bit hierarchical like you know you kind of have to come plead before us and I appreciate we're all just different residents with different roles within the city. So I appreciate when we have that time um in that. So, I know though depending on what the content of the EDA is, sometimes those meetings can get pushed back pretty far, but I would really like to see us not have multiple um commission meetings on the same night um just so that we can give the each of the commissions the amount of time that feels like they deserve to have because some nights when we've had two or three, it gets really long and I feel like we're pretty we're flagging by the end. I I definitely think we should put them at the beginning of the agenda. >> Sure. And and definitely the norm is to do one joint commission meeting with the council at a time. I think we've had a couple of subject matter items that have brought commission more than one commission before us on an evening. But uh I think that is worth noting uh certainly as we do things. >> But I also agree if someone's coming I hate to make them wait for hour 45 minutes. Um it's nice to have that shared time together. And we are getting a little bit off the topic of our schedule of meetings going forward. So we can I think that would be part of that discussion that we'll bring back as to how to do work >> our work session. Work session. >> Yeah. >> Thanks. >> I'd move approval of the calendar as presented. >> Second. >> Thank you, Council Member Grath. Thank you, Council Member Schroeder. >> Getting us back on track. >> We've got the motion before us to adopt the meeting schedule for the council and EDA for 2026. uh taking into account the recommendation from the EDA from earlier this evening. Uh if there's uh any discussion on the motion, >> no >> hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. We have our meeting calendar for 2026. Uh that then brings us to um the uh meeting minutes. We've got meeting minutes from our October 20th and October 27th council meetings uh for our consideration this evening. Are there any additional changes or corrections noted or a motion to approve one or both of those minutes? >> We'll have to break them up. >> Okay. >> All right. Is there a motion on the October 20th minutes? Second. It's been moved by council member Schroer, second by Council Gra to approve the 20th minutes. 20th. Uh discussion on that motion. >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. Those minutes are approved. Then on the 27th. >> So moved. >> Approval. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Moved by councelor Gra. Second by council member Stron to approve the minutes of the uh >> October 27th meeting. Just trying to remember what month we were in. >> Uh uh discussion on that motion. >> No. >> All right. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Abstensions. >> All right. That motion passes four to zero with council member Schroer in oppos in opposition. Yes. >> I got I got a reputation. >> Yeah, I just used the wrong word. All right. That then brings us to our consent agenda. Mr. Trean, if you could give us a brief description of the items on our consent agenda this evening. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, item 10A approves payment payments in the amount of $86,533.87. Item 10B approves massage therapy establishment license for Faithfully Massage and Body Works located at 2353 Rice Street. Item 10 C approves a purchase of Road Salt and an expenditure to send police commander Jeff Lopez to training. Item 10D approves entering into an agreement with Steven Tolley inspections for electrical inspection services. Item 10E approves a entering into a three-year professional services agreement with Kennedy Graven for civil legal services and Ericen, Val, Beckman, and Quinn for prosecuting attorney legal services. Item 10 F approves entering into a cooperative agreement with Ramsey County for the Lexington Avenue sidewalk project from Conor Road B to Sharon Street. Item 10G approves entering into a grant agreement with the city of St. Paul uh for the toward zero deaths program for traffic safety in uh enforcement. Then finally, agenda item 10H approves entering into an agreement with the Roseville area schools for the placement of two school resource officers in Roseville area schools. Obviously, uh we already are there. Uh not quite sure why the contract took so long, but the school board did approve it uh last uh about a couple weeks ago here. So, we're officially approving it now. And that is the consent agenda. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Trojan. Is there a motion on the consent items this evening? >> Second. All right. All right. It's been moved by council Strong, second by council member Bower to approve the consent items. Discussion on that motion. Council Strong. >> I did want to mention or at least request um I know at some point we discussed the massage therapy establishment license cap. Um we haven't had that brought back for consideration. I think it would be helpful for us to have a um understanding from the police department side of things where that falls within enforcement and um you know that was always I think the plan is that we were going to hear again. So, if we could maybe get that brought back so that we could understand where we're at, that'd be great. >> Thank you, Council Member Strong. Yeah, we have been working on that behind the scenes. I'm not sure. I think we're getting close to bringing that forward here, but don't have an exact date for you, but we haven't lost track of that, but thank you for bringing that up. It's an important topic for us to discuss. >> Great. Other discussion on the consent motion. >> Um, I would just note on the electrical inspections contract, it was interesting to see that there aren't really a lot of options out there. >> Yeah, that was interesting. So we kind of have to take the take the costs that are are given to us and and actually you deferring it to the state is actually more expensive for the no >> pullers of permits and so I think we're we're in a position we're in pretty much >> for the foreseeable future in that regard. So anyway, I just wanted to note that we've got the motion before us to approve the consent items. All those in favor signify by saying I >> opposed. That passes unanimously. Those items are approved. That then brings us to our future agenda review. Uh Mr. Trean, uh what is coming up in the next few meetings? >> Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Real briefly here. We have three meetings uh remaining in the year. Our next meeting is November 24th. We'll have Met Council member Peter Lindstöm uh coming and just making a short presentation about um Met Council and some things that they've been working on including future comp plan. We do have uh the business license renewals. I I'm assuming liquor license renewals are part of that. So, we will have a conversation or a separate conversation about Red Lobster. So, if they're part I'm not sure if they've applied yet or not. We'll make sure they're pulled out of that mass renewal. Want to continue the conversation of franchise fees and the franchise ordinance. We have two abatements that might be on. Uh we have a minor subdivision, County Road D, Lton Shores. Uh there's a PUD amendment for um development on Elmer Street. I believe the planning commission just talked about that last week. December 1st, uh, we have the public hearing for the EDA and city, uh, budget and levy. Don't have much else on at this point, so we'll see. On the 8th, we'll look to approve all the year-end things, the budgets, and the schedule utility rates. The only thing I want to mention is on December 3rd is a Roseville business exchange at Cedar Home. Something we do each year. We invite businesses. It's a great opportunity to network and thank the businesses for being here. So, that's December 3rd, uh, from 4:30 to 6:30 at Cedar Home Golf Course. And where do you register? >> Good question. I don't know if you need to register. >> Never have. >> I'll get back. >> I was going to say I think it's through one or both of the chambers that sponsor the event. >> And usually those who have have attended before or on the mailing list from the chambers definitely get the email about it. >> So, but yeah, we should clarify that for the public. All right. With that, are there questions on the future agenda or any uh council member initiated future agenda items or reports or announcements from council members? All right. If not, the only other item uh on our agenda this evening is adjournment. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Right. It's been moved by council member Stron, seconded by council member Sher by nose. Uh no discussion on a motion to adjourn. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. That passes unanimously and we are adjourned at >> 9:17 p.m. Thank you everyone. >> Good job.