hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday, September 22nd, 2025. Uh, Mr. City Man, would you call the role, please? >> Council member Graph >> here. >> Council member Bower >> here. Council member Stron >> here. Council member Shartter >> here. >> Mayor Ro >> here. Uh and with us at the deis by way of introduction we have our city attorney Rachel Tierney who's on my left at the my right at the end your left um and city manager Pat Trean on my left at the other end and we'll introduce other participants in the meeting as agenda items come forward. Do want to note for members of the public that there is a a set of all the meeting materials in a binder in the back of the room that's available for public access to know uh the materials that the city uh council will be considering this evening. We also do have individual copies of the agenda available uh for members of the public in the same location. With that, we'll ask folks if you have a cell phone to silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt tonight's meeting. Um and we'll ask folks then 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 approval of tonight's agenda. Uh, Mr. Trejud, are there any changes from a staff perspective to tonight's agenda? >> Mr. Mayor, staff has no changes to the agenda. >> All right. Uh do we have any changes uh from a council perspective or items that council members would like to remove from the consent agenda for separate consideration? Does not appear to be the case. Uh I don't believe we have anyone from the public here this at this point in the meeting that may be uh interested in uh speaking for a consent agenda item. So I'm going to make the presumption that that is the case. Uh and we'll then move to consideration of the agenda as presented. Is there a motion? >> So moved. >> Second. It's been moved by council member Bower, seconded by council member Schroeder to approve the agenda as presented. Uh is there any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. That passes unanimously. We have our agenda this evening. Uh next on our agenda is our first opportunity for public comment uh throughout the meeting. As agenda items come up, there'll be opportunities for members of the public to speak uh to those items. generally speaking. Uh but we always do at the start of each meeting want to provide an opportunity for general public comment uh where members of the public can speak on items that either relate to city business that is not under consideration this evening or are of interest to people in the community. Uh once again it does not appear that we have anyone from the public who is interested in speaking at uh public comment at this time. And so we will go ahead and move on with our agenda then uh and move right into uh recognitions and donations. And our first recognition this evening uh and only recognition is Indigenous People's Day Proclamation. I'll read the proclamation and then a motion from the council to adopt it would be in order. The proclamation reads as follows. Whereas for longer than any other people, indigenous nations have lived upon the land where our nation and city now stand. And whereas Indigenous People's Day is an important time to celebrate the rich culture, tradition, and history, and acknowledge the important contributions of America's original people. And whereas it is an also an opportune time to raise awareness of the severe challenges American Indians have faced, both past and present, and the ways in which American Indians have worked together to conquer these challenges. And whereas Roseville stands on the ancestral and contemporary homelands of indigenous people of the Turtle Island land, excuse me, Turtle Island, land that holds great historical, spiritual, and personal significance for its original steward and without whom the building of this city could not have been possible. And whereas American Indians over the many years protected and preserved the landscape of Minnesota and the city of Roseville, contributing their intrinsic traditional knowledge, labor, technology, science, philosophy, arts, as well as their cultural belief system that stipulates that they are protectors and stewards of the natural environment for the benefit of all. And whereas American Indian people today continue to face significant disparities that impact their safety, health, well-being, education, vitality, and cultural preservation. And the city of Roseville understands that addressing these disparities requires government entities, organizations, and other public institutions to align their policies and practices to better reflect the experiences of American Indian people and uplift our country's indigenous roots, history, and contributions uh to greater to ensure greater access to opportunity. And whereas in 1990, representatives from 120 indigenous nations at the first continental conference on 500 years of Indian resistance unanimously passed a resolution to transform Columbus Day into an occasion uh to strengthen continental unity, advance the struggle towards liberation and thereby used the occasion to reveal a more accurate historical record. And whereas the Twin Cities community has a strong history spanning more than four decades of American Indian activism and the and that the city celebrates and honors. Now therefore be resolved the city of Roseville hereby declares uh Indigenous People's Day on October 13th, 2025 in order to promote appreciation, healing, reconciliation, understanding, friendship, and continued partnerships with the American Indian community. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Right. All right. It's been moved by Council Member Stron, second by Council Member Grath uh to adopt that proclamation. Uh any discussion on the motion? >> No. >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. That proclamation is approved. Uh we do have uh a little bit of economic development authority business to attend to this evening. Uh and so we will uh adjourn the or excuse me recess the council meeting uh briefly here and convene ourselves as the Roseville Economic Development Authority uh for a special meeting on Monday, September 22nd, 2025. The roll call for the special meeting will stand as called for the council meeting with all members present. Um we will not have to do a pledge of allegiance. We have one item on the agenda. So I'm going to assume the agenda stands uh without uh need for further action. Uh public comment will is already taken care of at the beginning of the council meeting. So we are right into the business items. We have as I said the one item on our special meeting for the EDA this evening and that is to consider a resolution authorizing the president of the EDA and its executive director uh to execute a subordination of the development agreement and the collateral assignment of the TIFF note for 2720 Fairview Group LLC. and we have our community development director, Janice Gunllock, with us this evening uh to bring this before the EDA. Welcome. >> Thank you, board president, members of the EDA. Um the developer of the Isaac Market Rate apartment development at 2740 Fairview Avenue is working on refinancing debt that they have on the property. Um, the EDA did enter into a development agreement with the developer in 2019 and provided $2.9 million of tax increment assistance to assist in the construction of the minimum improvements including environmental remediation. I want to note that property now has an assessed market value of just under $27 million. Um, the new lender is requesting that the EDA subordinate the development agreement as a condition of the new financing. They are also asking that the assignment of the tiff note be given to them. These actions are customary, anticipated and permissible under the development contract and all those documents have been provided to you. So we are just asking that the board adopt the resolution in your packet. It does authorize the president and executive director of the EBA to execute the subordination agreement and the collateral assignment of the tiff note. That's all we have. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Gunlock. Are there any questions from members of the board uh for staff on this item? Does not appear to be the case. Uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this proposed EDA action this evening? Does not appear to be the case. Uh with that then we have the requested motion which is to adopt the resolution attachment three in the packet uh authorizing uh the execution of the necessary agreements to carry this forward as outlined. >> So moved. Second. All >> right. It's been moved by Council Member Schroeder, seconded by Council Member, excuse me, by Member Grath to uh app adopt the resolution authorizing those uh agreements be executed. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Member Schroer, >> it's pretty straightforward, >> right? As the second, >> no, it makes sense for them to refinance and to clean this up. >> Right. Any other discussion on the motion? Member Strong? Just wanted to make sure in the revised U peace bench handout three that was included the address appears to be incorrect. >> Um so it says whereas Java Capital Partners 2070 >> huh >> that's for the minor subdivision on the council agenda not the EDA item. >> Thank you. >> All right. There's no discussion then or no further discussion. All those in favor signify by saying I. I I opposed. That passes unanimously and that those agreements are authorized to be entered into per the resolution which was adopted by that motion. Uh that brings us then to the end of uh economic de development act, excuse me, economic development authority business this evening. And so we will adjourn uh the economic development authority uh and return to the city council uh to continue the council agenda this evening. That's easy for some people to say. That brings us then to our business items for the city council. And our first item under business items is to hold a public hearing uh to consider approving a liquor license for Breitberger Roseville Rosedale LLC. And I'll turn it over to Mr. Trejan for this item. >> Thank you, uh, Mr. Mayor. Uh, as mentioned, uh, this is a public hearing to consider approving a liquor license for Bright Burger Rosedale, also known as Burger Dive, located at the mall. They're looking to get a on sale liquor license as well as Sunday sales. Burger Dive, as you may know, already has a spot in um potluck in the mall. They're going to have a separate um store or restaurant uh interior to the mall and have an exterior storefront. So, they will need a separate liquor license. So, we have um reviewed all the information that they have supplied and um find that we have everything that we need. They were also aware of the city's alcohol compliance training requirements having gone through it a couple times. But with any new liquor license applicant, we always remind them that as well. So, uh, we recommend approval of this, but this is a public hearing for any testimony, and we would ask for your action tonight after that. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Treasur. Uh, is there a representative of the applicant for the liquor license here this evening who wishes to speak to the council? It does not appear to be the case. Uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to the council uh in this public hearing for this particular liquor license? Right. Also does not appear to be the case. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing uh and move to council action. Uh we've got the requested license before us as outlined in the information in the meeting materials. Uh and the requested action is once again a motion to approve that license. >> I move approval. >> Second. Right. It's been moved by Council Member Grath, seconded by Council Member Schroeder to approve that license as applied for. A discussion on the motion. As the maker of the motion, uh, Council Member Grath, >> I'm glad we remind them of our testing and um make sure they manage their licensing correctly for their for their for their serving liquor, alcohol, >> and look forward to their business opening. >> All right. And other discussion is a second. Any discussion? Right. Other discussion. Um, Council Member Strong, >> I just thank them for giving another opportunity for uh dining um in the area that is maybe a little bit unique from some of the others that we have. >> Right. With that, we've got the motion before us to approve that liquor license. Uh, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. That license is approved. That then brings us to another public hearing. Uh this is a request to hold a public hearing and consider a minor plat uh in the city of Roseville. And once again, our community development director, Janice Gunlock, is here uh to bring this request before the council. Welcome back, Miss Gunlock. >> Uh thank you, Mayor Ro, members of the council. If I could have the overhead camera, please. Okay. >> You'd also have it for the monitors as well. >> Uh the property owner is Java Capital Partners LLC. I want to note in the resolution, Council Member Strong, there is a typo. It's not 20700 Cleveland Avenue. It's 2700 Cleveland Avenue. That's the actual entity owner name, not the address. Um they are requesting a minor subdivision of the property located at 2035 Twin Lakes Parkway. Um it's in front of the Aldi I believe. Um the request would subdivide the parcel in half and it would be known as the Cleveland Club third edition. This property has been subdivided a few times. Uh the subdivision proposal results in three or fewer lots. So, it is considered a minor subdivision whereby the city council holds the public hearing as opposed to the planning commission who typically holds public hearings for land use items. The property is zoned MU2B which is one of our mixeduse zoning districts. Um, there are no minimum dimensional standards though for the creation of a new lot in that district. The applicant has provided some plans illustrating two commercial buildings that would be constructed along the Cleveland Avenue frontages. The proposed subdivision would allow separate ownership of these buildings. Um the subdivision is not required, however, to put two buildings on a single lot. Shared parking was constructed in 2016 and was planned to accommodate commercial square footage on this property. And while a full zoning and engineering review is not the prerequisite for a subdivision approval, our staff did do a cursory review and have determine that the proposal either meets our applicable standards or they are able to meet our applicable standards. Um, however, a more detailed analysis would be conducted at time building permits are submitted for the construction of these buildings. Engineering staff has provided comments in a memo as a part of the packet. There is a condition of approval related to an operation and maintenance plan and agreement regarding private storm water BMPs and also there are no trees on the property so a tree preservation plan is not required. Uh park dedication was paid during the Cleveland Club first edition plat I think prior even to 2016. Um, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the property and we have not received any comments from the public. Um, while it may be difficult to see on this overhead, the uh solid black line is the existing property boundary and the red line is the proposed subdivision boundary. And you'll see a building along the Cleveland Avenue frontage on both of those lots. Uh staff is recommending that you hold the public hearing and then if appropriate adopt the resolution that has been provided as a bench handout. I apologize it was missed in the packet. Um this does approve the Cleveland Club third edition plat subject to the two conditions that are noted. With that I'll try and address any questions. >> All right. Thank you Miss Gunlock uh for the information and presentation. Uh questions from the council on this proposed minor plat. >> All right. >> I have a question. >> Uh council member GR. >> Um under the site plan, it says safe and direct pedestrian connections from Cleveland Avenue and Twin Lakes Parkway should be provided. When does that plan happen or what would what's involved in that? >> Uh our engineering staff will do a review of that when the building permit comes in. I think a lot of those connections are already there. It's just making sure the connections into the actual development make sense based on where they're provided in the right of way. >> That makes sense. Thanks. >> Other questions for staff? >> All right. Uh, is there a representative of the applicant here this evening that would like to make any kind of case or just be available for questions? >> I'm available. >> All right. Representative is available for questions. Uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak in this uh public hearing uh regarding this minor plat uh consideration this evening? Does not appear we have anyone from the public to speak uh at this public hearing. So we'll go ahead and close the public hearing uh and move to consideration. We've got the request to adopt the uh uh bench handout resolution uh as uh relates to this item with the two conditions as outlined uh and those are repeated from the materials that we received in our packets. Um, did we need to do the correction on the the U address number related to the LLC name? I >> sure mayor. We will uh make sure we correct that. But bas 0. >> It's 2700, not 2070. >> Got it. All right. So, we'll just note that as part of our consideration. Thank you, Miss Gunlock. All right. Is there a motion from the council? >> So moved. Second. >> All right. Okay. It's been moved by Council Member Grath, second by Council Member Bower to approve adopt the resolution. Uh approving the minor plat as outlined with the conditions as uh noted. Uh discussion on the motion, maker of the motion. Uh Council Member Grath. >> Oh, I think it makes sense for uh that area of the city and um forward to that being in place. >> Right. Seconder of the motion. Council member Bower. Discussion on the motion? >> Nothing to add to that. Looking forward to it. >> Right. Any other discussion on the motion hearing? None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. That resolution is adopted and uh that minor plat is approved. >> All right. Uh that then brings us to our third business item this evening, item 9C, uh which is to consider a request to perform an abatement of unresolved code violations at 1765 Chat, excuse me, Chadzsworth Street in Roseville. Uh and we have our codes official uh with us this evening, David England, to uh bring this item before the council. Mr. England. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. As described, this is a request to perform an abatement of uh inoperable vehicles, uh inoperable equipment, household appliances, other related items that are provided, photos in your packet. Um this this case started from a resident concern complaint on July 24th. staff did go out on that day and uh verify that the complaints were valid. Um we did observe a vehicle that's inoperable, flat tire in the driveway. Uh tabs have not been renewed since 22. Uh we also observed the same with a boat with that is unregistered and tabs on the trailer have not been renewed since 2020. Um at that point there was some miscellaneous household furniture in the driveway. We also noted that at our at our first uh inspection and left the door hanger requesting compliance to that. Um we did follow up on August 4th. Uh we did not observe any correction or movement towards compliance. We also at that point did observe a household appliance in the driveway that uh being a refrigerator staff did secure it. So um just to protect the public at that point. Uh we did provide a letter mailed to the property owner at that point. Um we had not received any contact from them on August 18th. Uh we did a final inspection on that and we did not find any progress again. At that point it was decided to bring it before you and we posted that on September 12th for this meeting tonight. Um I did speak with the resident after we posted the council notification. Um, she had stated she would be here to discuss this with the council. Um, I'm not sure if she is here tonight, but um, I'd be happy to pause if that's necessary if she is here. Um, but other than that, staff is requesting approval of the abatement, which would include the removal of the vehicle, the boat, and the household items that are in the driveway by hiring a contractor to do so. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. England. Uh I'm observing the the audience. It does not appear that a representative of the property owner or the property owner themselves is here this evening. Uh however, we've got a little bit of time as compared to what was originally scheduled on the agenda. Uh so we'll try to drag out our conversation a little bit here if we can just to be sure. Um I did want to check with staff. So on I know on on certain trailers now they sort of have a permanent um placard that goes in a different part of the trailer as opposed to tabs. Was that kind of checked as to what is required on this particular trailer? >> It is, but due to the length of the trailer, it requires an actual plate with a registration. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Are there other questions for staff? Council member Strong. >> Yes. On the letter dated August 11th to Lois and Donald. Um the pre the their address is given in the return address, but in the first line, it indicates the city previously noted your door hanger with your property at 2821. Is this a separate property or just a typo? >> That would have been a typo. That would have probably been uh >> someone else being cited on that same day. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, it wasn't two separate properties that were being addressed at this time. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions for staff. Council member G. >> So, if I remember correctly, there have been citations on this property before. We did uh we did provide a door hanger back in 23 during the NEP program, neighborhood enhancement program, noting that the vehicle was out of tabs at that point as well as the boat being um out of tabs. And it was decided at that point since it was not um a resident complaint that it was more of a city concern that we were just providing education to the property owner. So, they had knowledge that they should get this um these vehicles registered. And were there any other safety concerns other than the refrigerator, which thank you for securing it because if kids get in there, they can suffocate. So, it's there. There were no other items on the in the driveway that were of concern. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And just to clarify, is the was the refrigerator still there on the follow-up inspection after that was secured? >> The refrigerator was observed still there today. >> Okay. Today. Thank you. Right. Still secured. >> Correct. Okay, Council Member Sharter. Yeah. >> So, the refrigerator showed up after you had warned them about other things. Correct. >> That is correct. >> So, and I I want to echo that that that's a dangerous thing. You know, not only did they disregard your warning, but then they added an unsecured refrigerator in there. That that really actually is is troublesome to think about. So, and so you when you fixed it so it's safe, they can't I mean that it's permanently fixed like that, correct? >> Yeah. >> At least semi-permanmanent. >> Semi semi. It's >> it's pretty permanent. It's uh it it can be removed, but it's not uh not the easiest uh >> thing to accomplish, but >> Okay. No, thank you. Because that that that was the, you know, especially since it showed up after your warning. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions? And I did want to check uh in terms of communication with the the homeowners, did they talk about um anything that they were experiencing in terms of hardships in their ability to deal with this or anything that we can connect them with resources or that sort of thing? >> Uh that wasn't the tone of the conversation. Um I offered if resources or if uh the resident would prefer to go enter into what's a consent to abate where they would we would forego the council portion they would agree to us removing the items. Um that was not uh something that they were interested in in doing and again they were pretty specific that they would be here tonight to um make their comments known to this council. >> All right. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from the council? I don't know if we can drag this out to the to the scheduled time a few minutes from now, but uh um I did want to certainly provide as much of an opportunity as we could. Um I don't know if the council is interested. Let's see what's next on our agenda. Um we could uh temporarily table action on this item and just move to the next item if that's all right. >> That's fine. >> All right. Why don't we go ahead and do that and we'll return to this item uh after the next item is complete just to be sure we give the resident an opportunity. >> Absolutely. >> Right. Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. With that, then we'll, as I said, we'll uh temporarily table action on the uh item 7 or excuse me, 9C. Uh and we'll uh we'll do a quick audible here and uh change to item uh 9D, which is to consider approving an agreement with Stantech Environmental Consulting uh to complete natural resources work in our park system. Uh and with us this evening we have uh Matt Johnson, our park and rec director uh who will uh bring this item before us and um I'm sure ablely assisted as well. >> Yes, absolutely. Thank you, Mayor. I'm just going to load up my slides. It sounds like uh they we have had a little computer crash earlier today, but I I got them, so I think we should be Well, >> uh oh. >> Yeah, for some reason it's it's logged us out completely. Um we can use Do you have your laptop here, Matt? I >> I do. We can really audible. Yeah, give me just one second. All right, you pause for a second. >> I swear it worked two hours ago. >> It did. It did. Not sure what happened. >> Computer updates >> and multiple things. >> They always They always get you. >> This is not >> any chief would not like that if I plugged his in. >> All right. Of course, I have an embarrassing number of tabs open. So, just give me two seconds to get it all buttoned up here and then we'll >> move forward. I apologize for the delay. >> No, that's all right. Gives me an opportunity to count my tabs and see if embarrassing I'm going to be by comparison. >> Question is, how many tabs in how many windows do you have open? Mhm. >> And how many is in there? >> All right, we will attempt to pivot here if we can do so without causing issues. >> Wait. >> All right. Oh, see this is the embarrassment I was talking about with >> H. Let's see here. >> It's not too bad. >> I've seen worse. >> I've seen worse. It's a lovely picture though, the part that we can see. Yes. Thank you. >> Appropriate. >> Let's see here. >> Load up. All right. We are in business. Well, thank you, Mayor and Council. Appreciate you bearing with our uh our technological issue there. Um really excited to talk about this tonight and I have Park Superintendent Jim Taylor. Um certainly one of the initiatives that I'm most proud proud that we have accomplished here at the city and continue to accomplish and this is our ongoing work related to natural resource stewardship. Um in an effort to just frame it briefly. I'm going to just have like a minute and some history but at least four of you have seen versions of this presentation multiple times so I'll try not to beat you over the head with it. Um but mostly we're here tonight to talk about the exciting work we have moving forward. um as well as to seek authorization of our agreement with Stantech Environmental Consulting to really execute uh the bulk of this work. So um one thing that I think we've been very proud of as a community and something that um really is special here in Roseville is we're sort of an original adopter and early adopter of natural resources management work. Our first natural resources management plan way predates GMRI. Um that was 2002 here in the community. Um and uh that sort of got the ball rolling early on for the importance of natural resources in our parks and recreation system. In 2013 when the parks renewal program really took into action, um natural resources work was prioritized as part of that and the city allocated $1.5 million in funds um to go towards natural resources work as part of that program. Um those $1.5 million were able to be leveraged to uh actually over $600,000 almost $700,000 in grant funds making a total workload of um $2.2 million of natural resources work that was completed in about 10 years from 2013 to 2023. Um that work eventually touched every park in our parks and recreation system. It's one of those things where um it's a little bit like watching your child grow older every day. You don't necessarily notice it if you live in the house, but when grandma shows up, she goes, "Oh my gosh, it's so different." Um, that's a little bit how our parks look now. It's um, if you see pictures of what they look like pre-natural resources program, um, they had a lot of buckthornne. There was a lot of, um, unnatural looking shade and now we have a lot of natural habitat there. Um, we also engaged more than 6,000 volunteer hours and really perhaps more excitedly than our natural resources work, um, the volunteer engagement that has come with this. We have a small army of volunteer stewards um that come out um rain, sleet, snow or any condition to do natural resources work and they're very passionate about the work. Um in 2023 we reached sort of the end of that list of projects and we were really initially urged by our volunteers then by the parks and recreation commission and eventually the council to say what's next? Let's do this in a thoughtful way. Let's not just fill people's time but let's be intentional about this. And so with that, we did uh continue our engagement with Stantech um and really developed a natural resources management plan. And the first step of that was we needed that kind of baseline data. So they did a complete assessment of our natural spaces. Um they ended up inventory um well over 200 acres of parkland and really did an assessment of how much native cover existed. Um really what was the progress since they'd last been there in 20 2014. Um ultimately the results were fairly successful. Um they saw about 50% of what was inventoried had substantial native cover which they identified as 75% or more of native habitat which is fantastic. Um 36 species that um had been brought in with the natural resources renewal program existed now naturally in the park system. So that was a huge sign of progress. There was also some wildlife species that um had come back that had not been around during the previous inventory in the 2012 2013 2014 time period. However, as with all natural resources work, um they were also they also identified some problems. Um and and this is really how it works. It's not something where you can go in and do the work and then you're done. You wash your hands with it. It's an ongoing effort. Um, specifically 11% of the surveyed area was considered dominated by invasives, which means 75% invasives. Um, and if you can do that math, that leaves you with about 39%. That's somewhere in the middle. Not totally natural, not totally invasive, just somewhere in that middle. Um, almost every area that was uh that was inventoried showed some regrowth of the woody invasives or herbaceous things coming back. And that's not to be unexpected. Um we it's not like your backyard where you can sort of block it off. You have animals tracking seeds in. You have residents users. Um those invasives want to come back. So it's an ongoing effort to keep those things up. U really the big punchline was that um fantastic progress had been made but ongoing work was going to be needed to capitalize on those gains. Most of you will recall that in 2023 we engaged in the actual plan making or excuse me 2024 we engaged in the actual plan making. Um we involved about 20 residents in our technical advisory committee. Um they met multiple times to sort of develop the plan to take the inventory and say okay we've got this data. What do we do with it? Um as well as did some surveying out in the parks on their own to sort of get us to that next phase and have a more planful effort. Um, the plan included a vision, goals and policies, um, stewardship program recommendations, long-term visioning and recommendation, but perhaps most significantly and excitedly included a project list. >> That project listed out more than 200 super tangible projects. These can range from go into this one land unit, remove buckthorn, drag it out to controlled burns to garlic mustard pulling. all very very tangible items on that project list. Um and and but it did not initially prioritize them. It just said this is the stuff you need to do to improve your natural resources. Um it set us up um a system called stack benefits to prioritize the various projects and it really allowed that flexibility of as funding became available as impacts were greatest as volunteers were most passionate we could prioritize certain projects not necessarily be beholden to a giant list as they had uh outlined it. So with that we had our project list we had our plan we were we were excited to move forward but really that first thing was to try to procure funding at that point. We had a lot of projects but a lot of concerns about how are we going to pay for this. Um we worked with Stantech as well as some of our volunteers and staff um and really pulled together what we thought were those most appealing projects for the DNR's conservation partners legacy grant. It's their really their biggest natural resources grant program and we're able to put a a successful application together and we were recently informed and and we had it approved a few meetings ago uh that we received $500,000 in funding from the Department of Natural Resources to complete this work. Um so with that, I'm going to turn it over to uh Park Superintendent Jim Taylor here and he's going to talk a little bit about what the scope of this work that we intend to do is um before I close it out here. So, yeah, as Matt mentioned, uh $500,000. Excited about that. It's our big our single biggest uh DNR grant we've gotten um through all of them to this point. So, um scope of work-wise, we're talking about uh this project will go through 23 parks um and touch 170 plus acres over the next three years. Um there'll be 16 acres of prairie and oak savannah, 145 acres of woodland and forest, um 12 acres of wetland and shoreline work. Um all 170 acres will receive invasive species control during this time. Um most importantly for us uh this project would complete 67% of the projects in that list. So we originally intended that list to be about a 10-year list and we're going to complete 67% of that in the first three years as we continue to try to apply for additional funding and and move that timeline up to keep going. Um so what are some of those deliverables? There'll be some controlled burns in there, tree removals, native seeding and plugs, invasive removals, seasonal plantings, some ongoing monitoring andess and assessment. Um, one of the big things for us was to continue to enhance and grow our our stewardship program. Um, with this project, there'll be more 60 plus volunteer events um over the next three years. Um, we're also going to develop some additional education and community tools, some monitoring tools that we can uh so people can monitor our progress and see some things real time and then improve communication and online resources during this time as well as part of our contract. Um, so with that I I did want to I have just have a couple more slides to button up but um number one I want to talk about the funding piece and the budget related to this. Um the grant would run through uh middle of 2028. So as Jim said, this is going to be a pretty accelerated project here to to rapidly get this work done. Um one of the important things when you apply for these grants is they want cities to have skin in the game. Uh they want to make sure that they're committed to this project as well. So we had proposed initially talked about um we have $225,000 programmed in the capital improvement program over the next four years. We had talked about utilizing that. We've actually partly due to the proposal Stantech made been able to reduce that down to $185,000. So we'd be able to reduce what we currently have programmed in the CIP. Um and with that we were able to procure the full $500,000 in grant funding. So um one of the easiest pie charts I've ever had to make is the one on the right side. Um which highlights that um this would be 27% funded through city dollars and 73% through grant funding. Um throughout this, much like we did over the parks renewal program, we would continue to pursue additional grant funding opportunities um to stretch this out. Um we see 67% and we know that that means that we have 33% that still needs to get done. Um we were very very successful um a decade ago at saying see this great work we're doing, please continue to give us grant funding and what was initially going to be a 5year window got stretched out to 10 years of projects. We have high hopes that if we do a good job of executing this, if we continue to um engage our community, that we can continue to raise additional funds and really at maybe not quite that decent of a ratio, but at a strong ratio continue to have that remaining 33% successfully funded down the line. Um in terms of how the work will be done, um our work with SAT is typically done on a time and materials basis. um we meet with them on a monthly basis and they would outline for us these are the projects and the costs that we have planned for this month coming up. This allows us to sort of control how the money is expended to make sure that we're comfortable that the work's being done and also to make sure that we're able to track that the work is actually being done. On the surface, $685,000 it is a lot of money and it seems like this giant package, but really it's taken in small bite-sized pieces throughout the four years, three and a half years of the program as we move forward. Um, I think most of you are familiar with our very long-standing relationship with Stantech, but I did want to make sure that I didn't just gloss that over. Um, Stantech has been a partner with the city for about 20 years and its natural resources work and our relationship with their lead ecologist, Paul Bachinstead, actually goes back before that. He was the lead author of our first natural resources management plan way back in 2002. Um, Paul is a leader in the industry. He has um published many scholarly um articles that have mentioned Roseville as one of his study sources um and is one of the reasons this work is thought of so highly. Um additionally, Stantech did go out and did our field assessment. They helped us compile our project list, helped us compile the grant application, and they're really ready to hit the ground running um in a very unique way. Again, we essentially view them as an extension of our staff in many ways. Um they are experts in the field. Um, it isn't just Paul. They have additional staff who really are fantastic and uh, again, really know Roseville quite well. Um, and as I said, rather than saying, "Hey, make us a proposal and go do this work for X number of dollars," this is really worked on collaboratively throughout the life of the agreement so that we can ensure that we're getting value for the dollars we're spending. I went backwards, not forward. Um the of course this does very closely align with our strategic plan and I won't go I I think it is fairly self-explanatory but our second goal related to parks and natural spaces talks about completion of our parks and recreation natural resources management plan. Um there are also many places where it talks about stretching city dollars as far as they can and leveraging city dollars to gain third party support. I believe that this plan does both of those things. And so, of course, we'd be happy to answer any questions and talk about the project, but ultimately we are here seeking approval of the agreement um with Stantech to um go forth with this project. So, with that, uh we'd be happy to entertain any questions. >> All right. Thank you to both of you. Um and we'll open it up for questions from the council on this agreement with Stantech and the program. >> Council member Sharter. Uh yes, thank you for the um presentation and you're right about you know watching the child grow on that. Um one thing I just wanted to ask about is you know I I just remember when say in Villa they did that control burn and got rid of and people were upset because they didn't understand what was going on. And so part of this I assume would be putting up the signs or or making sure the communication's out there so that the um the our community doesn't get upset and don't understand what's going on. Absolutely. That's part of this as well. >> I I can answer it in two ways. First, yes. Um the in terms of that level of engagement and ensuring that we're proactive. It's another thing that Stantech knows that is sort of unique about how we do things in Roseville. We go get out in front of these things. We use signage. We make sure people are aware. Um, I didn't include it in a sign, but one of the things that was outlined in our master plan and Stantech has committed to is actual educational opportunities. So, not just learn to go out and cut down buckthornne, but why is this important? Why does it matter? Why are control burns valuable to the ecosystem? So, they really do want to holistically engage with our community, but the first step of that is make sure that they don't think we're just out ruining their parks. So, we want to make sure that we're proactive and certainly that is part of this. That's a wonderful question. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. And just to tie in with that, I it probably makes sense to to maybe plan some articles in the in the uh um city news, of course, that there is a time frame to do that, but if you know projects are coming up and they're fairly significant in parts of the city and and people are going to have those types of questions, you know, that's another part of the educational aspect of it, you know, is to is to look at that for the broader community as well. >> It is and it also is something that the DNR looks to. They want the state to understand that their funds are being well utilized. And so again, as we look towards procuring future funding, it benefits everybody to tell the story. Um, and that's certainly something that we aim to do with this project. >> Great. Right. Other questions for staff. >> All right. Uh, we'll check if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item. This is once again request to enter into the agreement with Stantech uh for their work related to this uh natural resources program uh that we previously received the grant for. Anyone from the public wish to speak to this item this evening? It does not appear to be the case. Uh then we'll move to council consideration. Uh once again, we've got the request before us to authorize the mayor and city manager, as it says right on the screen, to enter into the agreement with Stantech. Uh pending the final legal review. Uh is there a motion from the council? So >> moved. Second. Right. >> It's been moved by council member Stron, seconded by council member Schroeder. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker. Council member Strod. >> No, I just I'm super excited about all of this stuff going forward at this rapid pace we had not anticipated. So, just keep doing the great work. Thank you. >> As the second council member Schroeder, >> um yes, and and natural resources, it it's the marathon. It's not the sprint. So, we have to keep this work up to make sure that we can keep our strides going forward. So, you have to support it. >> Right. Other discussion. Council member Grath. One other thing I like about this presentation and that it's happening faster is that if you can do this sort of control faster, you actually save money and time in the long run because if it was spread out over 10 years or this before 67% of it, we would have more invasive species. They don't just stop just because so I I think that was a real plus of this presentation. Thank you. >> Other discussion, Council Member Bower. >> Yeah. And I'll add to that with all this activity going on, I do hope that we'll see more volunteers as well. We already have a large number, but seeing all this activity might spur even more projects to complete. We can knock off that remaining percentage. >> Absolutely. >> Right. And the only thing I'll just note is that um as with most of the parks in Roseville, there's neighbors of the parks and users of the parks that are very interested in what's going on and also very interested in what uh what you know has been the case since we finished our previous round of work in some of those parks. Uh and so we'll be eager to know that we're going back and and doing some of the the follow-up work that uh that I think a number of people are observing is necessary on some of those park uh facilities. So this is all good stuff and and I think this you know once again leveraging uh the grant money is is really important. Uh I did want to just check and you may not know the answer to this so don't feel too much pressure but uh the source of this particular grant program from the DNR is that um uh legacy funds or >> Okay. Yep. >> Got it. So that's where the source is from the state. >> Appreciate that. Thank you. Uh with that we've got the motion before us. If there's no further discussion once again this is to authorize the entering into the agreement with Stantech for that purpose. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. That item is approved and we look forward to the project. Yes. >> And mayor, before we leave, I just want to note that in the back of the room we have Zoe Olsen. Zoe, can you wave? She is our our relatively new natural resources supervisor and will be out in the field leading a lot of this work. So Zoe's very excited about it as well and just wanted to introduce her to you all as well. >> So if she isn't already, she'll become very familiar with Buckthornne and garlic musk and all things. Yes. >> And Mr. Mr. Johnson. Her last name is Olsen. >> Yes. >> All right. >> Everyone here is either an Olsson. >> I was just going to say >> Mr. Johnson has an >> sitting next to Miss Olsson. >> Yes. As as is appropriate, they have to have one seat space. Any two Olsson in Minnesota. >> It's a quorum. >> All right. >> Far from it, Mr. Grath. Um, with that, thank you again. Appreciate that and good luck to everybody on all the work and and look forward to hearing all the stories from the volunteers. All right. With that then uh we had taken a pause in the previous item which was to consider the abatement of nuisance code violations at 1765 Chadzsworth to pro provide an opportunity uh for the residents uh to uh be able to be here for that discussion and it appears that they did arrive. I don't know uh Mr. England did you want to just come back up for just a brief uh kind of synopsis of of what we've uh discussed up to this point? Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of council. As we discussed before, this is a request to perform an abatement of um, city code violations at 1765 Chadzsworth. Um, there are multiple vehicle in a boat that's unlicensed. Then there's some items in the driveway that u that are not allowed to be there by city code. >> All right, that that summarizes it fairly well. And I just wanted to kind of go through as far as what the abatement process by the city would be um relates to the vehicles as well as the other items. So what's the the procedure there um that the city would go through if the city abates this particular violation or set of violations? >> If this is approved, we would hire a towing contractor to remove the inoperable and unlicensed vehicle as well as the boat and the trailer from the driveway. We would hire a second contractor to remove the household items and the appliances in the driveway. All >> right. And those items are disposed of or held in storage or what happens to those items. >> All items that are outside stored that are not supposed to be are considered junk and they are destroyed. >> All right. Wanted to make sure there was an understanding of that. All right. Thank you, Mr. England. I appreciate that. And I believe we do have the property owners or residents uh here with us this evening. So, we just ask uh if you want to come up and uh let us know your your thoughts about this or your plans or your case uh to the council, this is your opportunity. And we just ask if you'd introduce yourself at the beginning of your >> Yes. My name is Lois Glasco and I live at 1765 Chadzsworth. Um the vehicle is not inoperable. Um and the boat I didn't know it was against the law to have a boat in the driveway. The other item is a grill and the other item is a lawnmower and that's it. >> So I believe we did uh make a note of a refrigerator. Has that refrigerator been moved from the site? >> Okay. Because I think earlier today we had observed that our staff had observed that it was still there. So that hasn't >> it's not there. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Whoever said that lied. It's It was gone. It's been gone. >> Right. >> So, the only thing is the grill, which I didn't think that was against any code. Grills belong outside. Lawnmower. Lawnmowers below. The van is not inoperable. I mean, it works. And the boat. Where else is people supposed to put boats? We should be able to provide information for you on that as to the the specifics of the violations to make that more clear for you. >> Uh any other uh information you wanted to provide for us uh to help us? >> That's it. That's all that's there. >> All right. >> Um yeah, >> something the what >> is the van have current tabs on it? >> Oh, no, cuz I don't drive it. But I can get the tabs for the van, >> right? But it's not inoperable. It works. >> Yeah. I think that's that's part of our definition of you know the technical definition of inoperable is not having current tabs. Yeah. So that's that's a part of that. But that is something that can be resolved. >> As you know, >> I can get the tabs. >> All right. I appreciate you being here this evening and uh we wanted to make sure since you had indicated you would be here and we were a little ahead of schedule, we had paused this item to go to the next one to give you a chance to be here. So um why don't you >> It said 6:35. I was waiting out there. Oh, we Sorry about that. Yeah, we we sometimes get ahead of ourselves. >> Uh so I'm glad you were able to to figure, you know, have somebody maybe help you know that you needed to come on in. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um well, I think we'll uh unless you've got anything else right now, you may be able to answer questions if we have other questions as we get into our discussion here. So, you may want to just stand by in the audience then and uh be ready for that. >> Okay. >> All right. And I think we had a request uh from the council to once again if you can u put up the the pictures that were put up earlier, Mr. England. >> So >> So there are a number of items. There's a grill. There's um >> some chairs and some other items. And apparently the refrigerator is not there. I mean, I know we had seen it earlier today, but apparently that's >> I had somebody helping me clean my garage and so >> why don't you come on back up. Sorry about that. We we want to make sure that people can hear you. >> No, I I I didn't realize we would get right into >> into talking some more. So, sorry about that. >> I had someone help me clean my garage, so we had just set the items. Oh, and it was a wheelchair. A wheelchair out there. And so we just placed the items right there in front of the garage, which I didn't think it was a problem. It's not a safety hazard at all. So I didn't see where it was a problem. >> Sure. And so there Yeah, there's just some some things in our code that involve outdoor storage of certain items. Um, and you know, I I think the the grill >> but the grill I mean, you know, I think there can be there can be discussion about the about where a grill needs to be. you know, as far as the the boat and the trailer, I believe that the boats and trailers can either be stored on the the anywhere on the property in the backyard or perhaps even on the sideyard. Um, but if it's in the front, it does have to be on a paved surface, which I think if >> it is on a pave, my drive, my driveway is >> the the thing there is then once again the the the registration on the trailer and and the boat, you know, need to be up to date. Um, and once again on the vehicle, if you're not driving the vehicle and you don't want to get it registered, it certainly could be stored inside. Um, if you can put it in the garage, um, that would be one option for you as well. That's generally, I think, you know, the thing that we're looking to see is as much as possible things that, uh, that can be stored. >> I can get the tabs for it. >> So, so that's that's I think your option. So, um, you know, we >> private, >> we we want to make sure that we're helping people do do what they can do themselves rather than just having the city do everything. Uh, so >> well I was a little bit confused because there's a house about a half a block up from ours and the house for the past at least 10 15 years has about 15 cars in the back. So I'm like what is my one and it's a handicap vehicle >> that I have had for my family. So I couldn't figure out what is the problem with that. It's not it's not a junk vehicle otherwise I wouldn't have it there. if it wasn't worth anything. And if it didn't drive, it definitely drives. I just didn't get the tabs because when you get older, you have a fixed income. So, >> you don't just spend money for stuff that you did. And I didn't think it was a problem because it's on my property. >> Sure. >> I wasn't aware that it was any kind of HOA. >> Yeah. Yeah, it's it's not such a need as it is just our our the city code >> requirement. >> Well, there's many people with boats in their yard, >> um campers and everything else. So, I didn't see and actually it's been there. It's been sitting there for a while and so >> it's >> it's never been a case. This was a complaint based uh case and somebody called the city about it and and it very well may have been that uh that it was sort of the accumulation of of things and the the that it it that led to the call. >> Yeah. But I just cleaned the garage out. It ain't been that long. Sure. So, whoever made a complaint on that, I mean, that's to me that's doesn't make any sense. To me, it's a false complaint. All this crime stuff, people getting broken to, I was even robbed one time up at the store. I mean, all this stuff and that just them items sitting out there is hurting somebody. I mean, it makes no sense to me. It's on my property. It's not a safety hazard. It's not chemicals or anything like that. It's just I cleaned out my garage and I sat the three items there and that's it. >> Do you expect to to get things kind of put away and and dealt with in terms of the tabs and things like that in in the near term? >> Yes. Yes. >> All right. Council. Uh >> I mean I'm not trying to be unreasonable. >> Right. No. And I don't think hopefully it >> I thought it's a little bit farfetched to Yeah. But >> Right. Questions from the council. My my questions are for Mr. uh Mr. England. >> Oh, okay. Uh questions for the property owner, >> I guess. How soon could you get the tabs replaced on there? Is it take three days or a week? >> Yeah. Well, no, I can I can um Oh, for me to go get them? Yeah. Yeah, cuz you need to >> Yeah, I have to wait until I get get my um Yeah, cuz it costs money to get tabs. So, >> probably in the next couple weeks I can get the tabs. >> The other option always is to is to store the vehicle somewhere else, but you have to have the somewhere else to store it. So, that's not always an option. Yeah. >> Yeah. I didn't think people couldn't store stuff in there. That's where cars belong in the driveway. So, I never had a I see many people with multiple cars in it. Not to mention the house up front for me. It has about 15 vehicles and it has had that for like 15 years. >> So, I can't figure out what is my one handicap vehicle sitting there bothering anybody. It's not a hazard. >> Got it. Right. If there aren't other questions from the council, then I think this time you probably can sit down again and >> Okay. and not have to be at the table subjecting yourself to the scrutiny. >> Yeah. And and the boat, by the way, if any I mean the boat really I don't want it there myself. It's just a matter of if you're not able to do something. I mean I wish I could sell it. They say the first two two times that you're happy getting the boat. The day you get it and the day you get rid of it. So I don't really want the boat. But yeah, at this point, >> maybe somebody watching might uh find that voting. >> Yeah, they can have it for very cheap. >> For the cost of some tabs, right? >> Right. >> I don't want to negotiate for you. >> Right. >> Not part of your job, >> right? >> All right. >> So, you want me to sit back here? >> Yeah. If you you know, just have a seat. I I don't want to keep you under the hot light here. >> Oh, that's okay. >> And council member Strong, you said you had a question for staff. >> I did. Um, so Mr. England, can you clarify you um that part of what we considered a disabled vehicle is also that it doesn't it is a flat tire. Is that correct? >> That is also correct. >> Being operable means that you can drive it off of the property. So in addition to tabs, it would require having a a tire that could be filled >> to sit there. Okay. Um, did you you mentioned that in 2023 you put a door hanger up regarding the expired tabs and boat on the car and the boat and it doesn't look like um did we see any change or anything? It doesn't look like they've been updated since 2023. >> Uh 2022 is the last tabs that are on the vehicle. >> Okay. So in 2023 we put that on. We did not get any response or um >> that is correct. >> And so it was um not pursued at that point. there was no uh violation or fine for the folks, but they were out of compliance at that time. It doesn't look like anything's changed since then. And then I know you were showing when um Miss Glasco was was talking, but um there are quite a few other items indicated in the photos that you took. Um the complaint was issued on July 24th, if I see my timeline correctly, and we are two months later. And I realize cleaning garages can take some time, but we're talking about at least two months since that time with items still outside. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Um, and as we mentioned before our residents arrived that it is a safety hazard to have a refrigerator that's unsecured on your property. I know this because I have a family member who was locked in one unfortunately and and did make it out okay, but um it was exceptionally traumatizing and it is illegal to have a unsecured refrigerator without or at least remove the door right anywhere in the state of Minnesota. Isn't that correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. So, that could be uh considered for sure a safety hazard if nothing else um is considered a safety hazard. And then just to confirm, the presence of um items that are debris or garbage or other things on other people's property doesn't excuse you from having things out of compliance on your own. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Thank you. >> All right. We've got the request before us. Uh certainly in uh cases like this we have the option to um uh stay the abatement if compliance is is done within a certain period of time. That's an option we have before us. I will defer to the council in terms of a motion in relation to this item. Well, I would like to give the resident a chance to clean this up and I and actually it does cost money to put tabs on and and if you're on a fixed income, that's something I think we as a council need to consider. So, I would uh stay it for two weeks and at that time have Mr. England recheck it and if it isn't done I think at that point we do we revisit it there may or do we >> well I think usually the the um the abatement action is stayed uh for the time period and then an inspection is done and any remaining violations >> would be abated under that order of the council. >> That's what I would move. >> I would second that. >> All right. So two weeks. >> All right. So in other words, what this action would do is this would authorize the staff to do the abatement of any remaining violations after two weeks if there are any at that time. If everything's taken care of, uh then there's no action uh required of the city at that point. Um so we have the motion before us as the maker of the motion and council member Grath. Oh, did you have a question? >> I had a question. I was wondering if we should ask the resident if two weeks is an adequate amount of time for them given, you know, as council member Grath stated, you know, to find funds. It may turn out that three weeks may be more ideal or something like that. I'd be curious to know. >> Well, I'm an amendment if you want. >> Well, if we could get it does does Would you say the two weeks is adequate? >> Okay. We're getting an okay from the >> October six. >> Oh, of course. Three weeks would be better. I uh do you want to change the move amend the motion either by looking at perhaps the original maker making an amendment or >> I'd amend it to three weeks. I think you know we're not trying to be unreasonable here. We want you we want to work this out with you. But do do keep in mind that if it's not done in three weeks, then we do go ahead with it and whatever is left would be taken and it would be added to your correct me if I'm wrong, mayor, but I think it's added to the >> some of some of the cost do. So >> most likely I can get the week, but >> thank you. So anyway, that's my amendment. >> All right. So it's three weeks now. >> I will second that. >> I was just going to double check with the second. >> I'll second that. I I'd like to put a date on that is October 13th, which is three weeks from today. And I'd just like to reiterate that that includes uh fixing the flat tire. So, and that's just for that one vehicle in order for that vehicle to be operable or any items. So, this is everything on the item on the list that was mentioned. It's not just one item. It's all items would be abated and resolved by the time 3 weeks have been resolved. So, that shows a flat tire in this particular picture. No, the tire is not flat. >> Well, that's what I was just going to say that this that's what was observed. And so if it's not flat, it's not flat. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> That's that's the beauty of these things is they can be fixed. All right. Uh we've got the motion before us. And just to be sure, the date on the 13th is agreeable to the maker of the motion. All right. So, we've got the motion as amended then uh to stay the abatement to October 13th uh and at that point to authorize uh abatement of any remaining violations. Uh with that uh any other discussion on the motion? Right. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Opposed. That passes unanimously and that abatement is authorized with the stay as outlined to the 13th. Thank you again to staff and thank you for being here this evening as the property north. >> All right. I think we are through all but one of our business items this evening. We just have a minor item left which is the 2026 uh city tax levy and budget. Uh and so we'll turn it over to Mr. Trean uh who will be >> uh rolling the dice on the laptop. >> There we go. >> All right. >> No problems. >> Okay. Uh good evening. uh mayor and council. Uh so tonight uh staff is asking uh for the council to consider approval of the preliminary preliminarily preliminary 2026 tax levy, EDA tax levy and uh city budget. As the city council knows, this is something that is required by state statutes uh to be done by September 30th, at least with the city uh preliminary levy. So tonight uh here is where we are on the budget calendar. We're on the 22nd here. Our next uh formal actions uh regarding the budget after tonight will be later in the year with a public hearing on December 1st and final consideration of the budget on December 8th. None of that preludes having additional discussions in between if the council so wishes to. We'll be talking about utility rates and fee schedules which are part of the budget and overall uh charges to residents in the community. So, um, just want to recap a little bit of what we've talked about so far. And I think the council, uh, it may be very familiar. And I would note that this PowerPoint is really based off of my memo here. I just wanted to have some some graphics to show you here tonight. So, on the 25th, I outlined five scenarios regarding the budget and the levy. The base budget represents increased costs for current staffing programs and services and does not add any new personnel, including public safety personnel. Scenario one adds 22 public safety positions. That's 15 new firefighters and seven uh positions in the police department uh into the budget and levy and res and assumes receiving grant dollars. We have a safer grant outstanding and a cops grant outstanding to help fund partial um cost of those positions. Scenario two uh adds the 22 public safety positions but assumes that we are not getting grant funding for that. Scenario three adds 22 public safety positions, assumes we get the grants, but also imposes franchise fees to assist in the staffing cost. And we can get into how we're doing that a little bit later. And then scenario four, like scenario two, uh adds 22 public safety positions uh and assumes we're not getting grants, then once again, we would still implement franchise fees to help offset the cost on that. So based on those scenarios, we have the following impacts. And I would note that the numbers here represent the combined city and EDA levies. So if you look at that bottom line, the levy amount, that's both the EDA levy and the city levy combined. You notice our resolutions have slightly slightly different numbers to represent just the city portion. So um >> and Mr. Ch just to pause there, this the EDA levy uh is uh reflective of the action that the EDA took at our last meeting to reduce the levy by 100,000. >> Yeah. Yes. To note that for people. Thank you for that clarification. So, uh, as you can see, uh, the base budget, uh, by itself is a 7.55% increase in the overall tax levy. Under scenarios one and two, adding the public safety positions increase the levy anywhere from 10.84% to 13.12%. Uh, and that depends uh, between the different scenarios whether or not we receive the grants. under scenarios three and four, adding public safety positions uh and franchise fees um that are uh created that will allow for an additional amount of capital spending. The levy increases range from 7.64% to 9.91% once again depending uh the difference between those scenarios on whether or not we receive grant dollars. So, for the monthly impact of the of the levy on the median valued home, which is $378,600, you can see at the base budget uh is $10.55 more per month. And once again, this is combined city and EDA. Under scenario one, that's $14.81. Under scenario two, $17.75. Scenarios three, $10.67. Oops, sorry. And under scenario four, $1360. You will note that under scenarios three and four, the actual levy dollars are less than scenarios one and two. Uh that is because we are using franchise fees to create up some levy. So um in an effort to make sure we're comparing uh apples to apples, so to speak, uh we need to adjust those numbers. So, as I mentioned, scenarios three and four use franchise fees to help lower the tax levy. Uh, but the uh property uh taxpayers or the residential homeowners themselves will be paying franchise fees. Right now, we have a scenario where it' be $3 per month for electric, $3 a month for gas, or a total of $6. So, we really need to add that into the total cost of what a taxpayer would be paying the property tax levy and the franchise fees. Since uh scenarios three and four are providing more capital funding uh actually in the amount of $1.12 million based on the use of the franchise fees uh we also need to adjust scenarios one and two to account for that additional capital spending if we truly want to compare the same to same. So the table on the next slide will show the monthly increase for each scenario. Uh includes the $6 per month for the franchise fees for scenario three and four and the additional levy needed to fund $1.12 million for the city's capital funds in scenarios one and two. So you can see here the direct comparisons of the monthly median valued homeowner dollar impact. Uh so the base uh but with no franchise fees but having $1.12 million. The two was cut off there of uh capital leads to $15.26 more. Scenario one with the additional capital spending $19.52. Scenario two with the additional capital spending $2246. Scenario three uh with the uh inclusion of the franchise fees that's $6 per month is $16.67 and uh scenario four with the franchise fees is $1960. So as you can see comparing scenarios one and three find that uh the cost for um those in direct comparison both are assuming public safety positions 22 and we're receiving grants that the uh scenario three with the franchise fees is slightly less uh per month than scenario one. Comparing scenarios two and four which are the same with uh outre the cost is $19.60 60s for scenario 4 versus scenario two. So that is about I think it's about 280 I'm sorry $2.85 less per month uh about or $32 I'm sorry $34.20 annually u when you compare those two um scenarios and they're adjusted to make sure they're appletoapple comparisons. So, as you know, the finance commission did come to the city council uh last week and uh made some recommendations. They had three main recommendations that one, the finance commission did not recommend uh that franchise fees be implemented uh as part of uh any budget or a source of revenue for the city. The finance commission also acknowledged the need for the growing public safety uh demands. Then finally, the finance commission recommend recommended a levy increase not to exceed uh 10%. And if I this so the dollar impact for that is $13.72. >> I would just like to mention though um in this context that the finance commission's only reason for recommending a le not uh recommending a levy to exceed 10% because they didn't think it was a good idea. So I just want to make sure that their recommendation for reasons was noted. They just didn't think more than that was a good idea and they didn't have it based on any one thing. So I think it's important to me. Sorry. >> Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to mention what they came back with. So So that's $13.72. So when we compare that with the scenarios I just went over, as you can see the per month uh basis, you can see that the direct comparisons, all of the different scenarios are are greater monthly impact than what the finance commission would recommend at 10%. Uh our best uh scenarios uh under these are beyond the base budget are scenarios three uh which is $16.67 which is over uh the finance commission recommendation as well as scenario 4. So based on that finance commission and some uh city council conversation last Monday, uh staff looked at additional scenarios that would look at keeping the cost impact of the monthly tax levy and imposing the franchise fees combined uh the same as a 10% levy increase or about $13.72 per month. So we came up with two more scenarios just to add to the numbers and um complexity of everything. So scenario five uh would add 22 public safety positions just like uh scenarios 1 through 4 and assumes uh funding assistance through grants. So similar to um um scenario three uh but also have the implementation of franchise fees to assist. The difference between uh scenarios three and four and five and six is that while we would still use 2.1 $2.1 million of franchise fees towards the rightway infrastructure, we would use all of that freed up levy that's currently going there, the $1.6 million towards the operational side of the budget. If you'll recall, and I'll have a slide after this, u um talking about where that um additional levy was going under scenarios three and four, that does free up additional money um that can be used for the operation side to help lower that levy. So, scenario five uh adds the public safety positions, assumes grants and franchise fees. Scenario six is the same. The only difference is it assumes that we do not receive the grants. So under those scenario, scenario five, the actual levy increase would be 5.54% or $7.96 per month. Under scenario six, uh the increase would be 7.81% or $10.89 more a month. Now, this is just the levy impact and so we have to be very careful. I want to make sure we're comparing apples to apples. Before I do that, I just want to mention here a little bit about uh what we're doing with scenarios five and six. Currently, we have 1.6 6 million of levy going to these four rightaway infrastructure funds. What the proposal under five and six would be to replace that $1.6 million of levy with $2.1 million of franchise fees. And that's that $3 for each uh utility or $6 a month. That would lead to about $475,000 additional spending uh in capital. Under scenarios three and four, you may recall we had uh addition some of this freed up levy from here going to these four other funds, the vehicle and equipment funds, but 500 and uh what's $545,000 there and we also had another h 100,000 in the public works equipment funds. So basically of that $1.6 million, we use $645,000 to put in other funds and put them in really goodstead. uh under scenarios five and six, we are not doing that. We're putting all that money uh into the operational budget. Previously, under scenarios three and four, we had 986,000 of that freed up levy going. So, that really explains the difference in the levy and why it's going. Now, that's a good thing for the levy. Uh however, uh we are not addressing some funds that need some help um now and into the future on the vehicle and equipment funds. Uh but that is the the difference between the two alternatives. So in order to adjust these equally, we want to make sure that we're looking like for like. So similar to what we did before, since five and six uh use franchise fees, we need to add that cost into a comparison. And then since five and six have more funding uh through the use of the franchise fees for capital, we need to add uh appropriate levy back into those earlier scenarios so that we can compare apples to apples. And that difference uh instead of that $1.1 million of additional levy, it's only $475,000 of levy uh for scenarios one and two. So when you look at the comparisons here, uh you can see uh the difference here. So the base, which has no franchise fees, but adds $475,000 more, is $1255 in capital. Uh the um the scenarios one and five, those will be the comparisons, is $16.81 uh versus $ 1396 for scenario five. And scenario two, when you add the capital back in is $19.75, and scenario six, the levy plus the uh franchise fees is $16.89. So on the far right there is the finance commission number of 1372. These numbers are still uh higher than that with uh the exception of scenario five that gets fairly close not exactly to where the finance commission was looking at. We just put those out for comparison sake so you can understand kind of what the various impacts would be. Here's a chart that uh has a lot of information. Um and um it takes a little while to to get your arms around it. All these numbers on the top there are all in the memo and in this presentation here. But uh basically what we want to be doing here is uh understanding a couple basic things. A are scenarios that uh do not include franchise agreements or franchise fees I should say. B are scenarios that include $1.2 million of increased capital funding either through levy uh or franchise fees. C. Our scenarios include 475,000 of increased capital funding either through levy or the imposition of levy fees. So that's A, B, and C. Then as you try to do comparison, and this is where it gets a little um hard to follow, but A should be compared to A, B and B1 should be compared together, B and B2 should be compared together, C and C1 should be compared together, and C and C2 should be compared together. The bottom line is what we're trying to show here is the different impacts over uh 2025 and what that gradual difference is here. Uh we can have all numbers in the chart but this is just a graphical representation. And I would note uh under scenarios three, four, five and six, you have that orange line which are levy dollars and then that bluish line or bluish bar um uh or not the bar the column uh is uh is the franchise fees. So, just another way to look at the data. >> And before you go off that, so I'm presuming that the horizontal black line is on top of the 2025 >> Yes. >> uh property tax cost to the >> That's correct, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for pointing that out. So, that's kind of the increase above that line if we held that study uh in 2026. Uh that's the amount above what we charge in 2025 for the median valued home. To be clear, some portion of that in all these cases comes from a change in value to the median value home. >> Yes. >> And I can't remember what the portion is, but it's it's some portion of that. >> Yes. Yeah. In all cases. >> Yeah. Even if we didn't raise the levy, um the cost would go up for the median valued home because of the market value. Right. >> That's correct. >> So, that is a lot of data and I apologize if that is confusing, but just wanted to make sure there's as much information out there tonight. you get to decide kind of what our preliminary tax levy uh will be both for the EDA and um the city uh city uh budget. So some things that I thought are important for you to consider and there might be other factors that you have as well is one um the desire to add public safety personnel in the 2026 budget to address the increasing demands for public safety services. uh that you need to weigh the desire to add funding for city capital funds, especially those funds that will have negative balances in the near future. Also weigh the results decisions made as part of this budget uh will impact future budget years and it cuts uh several ways. One is if we add public safety personnel with grant dollars, we have to make up those grant dollars in future years. On the flip side, if we don't invest in capital funding right now, uh we will need to be doing some of that uh in future years. uh the uncertainty of receiving grant funds and the public safety personnel positions at the time the preliminary tax levy is set which is now. Um we don't know what we're going to receive uh word uh from the feds uh on the safer grant and the state from the uh cops grant. We expect to hear at some point in Octoberish, but uh that's about all we know. That's not very helpful for your decision here tonight. Then also uh the likelihood of implementing franchise fees as another revenue source to assist this overall budget. Something that the council has had a a brief conversation on and um there's something that uh needs to continue to be discussed and vetted and needs to be decided. So um uh not knowing that at this point too also adds another complication on that. But that's another thing that uh you'll need to weigh as you consider what to do tonight. So, as mentioned, uh we are looking to officially adopt uh the not to exceed levy for city and EDA as well as a preliminary budget. I have a bunch of resolutions in the packet and I we can maybe go over those when we're ready to make take some action here. But, uh here are all the different um numbers uh related to what we need to consider for approval tonight. Uh once again, these are combined numbers. So those numbers aren't going to necessarily uh be the same in the resolutions. For the budget resolutions, there are two different ones. Either you're adding public safety personnel or not. Um it doesn't matter whether or not receive grants or not. Uh if we receive grants, that's a revenue source. If we put it all in levy, uh that is um another revenue source. So we have two different budget resolutions to consider. You'll have what is that? Seven different resolutions there. has a lot of words there so we can refer to when we need to. But this is a cheat sheet here of if you're looking for what resolution and what's labeled there uh for uh any of those scenarios. And of course, you can come up with a different scenario completely here tonight. The EDA is going to be the easy one. There's just one resolution in there as $264,000 uh of levy increases. So, I will pause there. I'll push back to here and see if there's any questions. I'd be happy to try to answer. >> All right. Uh questions from the council. Um, and certainly we'll we'll get into discussion once we've gone through questions. So, I just wanted to make that clear to the council. Uh, council member Schroeder. >> Uh, yes. I just wanted to clarify on your um graph with the orange bars with the blue caps on it >> right now. The um medium value home is paying $117.95 per month >> is what they're paying now for property taxes 2025. In 2025, the median house is paying that and the median house is 360,000. >> But that's per month, right? >> Per month. That's per month. Per month. These are city and EDA taxes. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure. I know sometimes we look at the little increments and it's nice to see where that where that piece is. Y >> and when would we be deciding on the franchise fees? >> So, uh that's a really good question, Council Member Sharter. I think uh the intention is to continue having conversations and bringing forward policy conversations for the city council. There's a couple steps we need to take. We need to adopt a franchise ordinance that just puts in place the franchise with Excel for both gas and electric. We're pretty far down that road of trading drafts back and forth with Excel. Um so we could probably bring that back certainly in October. then uh we would need to consider a separate ordinance for an actual franchise fee and set that exact amount. Um so once again I would think we would start looking at that late October uh November. We would certainly need to have that sorted out one way or another uh before December 8th and preferably before December 1st. Um if that's going to be part of the package. So so assuming there is uh interest to at least pursue that path, we'll continue to do that. So between that and the grants are the two unknowns that would really be helpful in this. >> Yes. Those are the biggest variables for you to factor in tonight. >> And then when you if you if you go back to the um you said the cheat sheet or um what we had to consider. Yeah. Right. Oh where the yellow is. >> So those are the percentage increases on the bottom. >> Yes. >> That um and this would just be for the levy increase. And this is not anything to do with the franchise fees. >> No. But I would point out scenarios three, four, five, and six, factor in fran franchise fees. So, >> right. >> So, I would say that if you're absolutely as a council dead set against any franchise fees, you should probably take those off the table completely. If that still needs to be discussed and sorted out and we just don't know maybe at this point, uh, then they're certainly on the table. But this this line is purely what >> regardless if you do franchisees or not these scenarios, this line is just what the property tax >> just it just represents a property tax increase. Yep. >> I know there's a lot of numbers out there and that sometimes it's good to clarify for people. So >> yeah. So and it's probably fair to say what Mr. Charge is saying is that if you set the levy at the amounts in scenarios 3, four, five, and six and then don't put in place franchise fees, we got some potential problems. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Certainly makes our life a little more difficult. >> Um, so that's something to think about and and honestly I don't know from how it's been framed up that we need to decide on the franchise fees question this evening. No, >> in fact, we don't necessarily have to decide it till the 8th if we want to really kind of push it to the last minute, but uh but ultimately what we have to do this evening is come to a place where as a council we're comfortable with setting a not to exceed levy because we can always go down, we just can't go up. >> Yep. >> Um so I think that's a key part of our conversation this evening and hopefully to some degree simplifies our decision-m. >> Uh council member Strong, >> thank you. Um I don't think we've seen this number, but can you give us an estimate of what we're looking uh when we add those 22 personnel, what kind of uh funding increases we would need for 2027 for them to be present for an entire year? >> For 2027, um I I we do have those numbers. I don't have them in front of me. Um the for the uh police department positions would be the same uh as it is um uh in 26 and 27. And so that'd be the same amount we would need because the grant would cover the same amount for the firefighters. If you recall, we're starting them in September. So only a partial of a year. So it have to be a full year. It's still 70. The grant would cover 75% of that, but for the full year. So that'd be several hundred,000 more. I don't know if we have that handy, but I know we have that number. We can get that uh here in a moment. >> Okay. Based on everything. Um, and we wouldn't win a ton of friends, but we certainly could put the notch to exceed tonight is 13.12% and have more information as we go and make decisions cutting as we learn what we have access to for grants for the coming year. Is that correct? >> Yes, you certainly could. Um, and I would point out, I think most of you know that whatever we set as a preliminary levy is what the county sends out as a preliminary tax statement to residents. So, that's what they'll see. they won't necessarily see the context of of all this. Um, so that's something that's for you all to weigh in what number is is the right number that you feel comfortable with, but uh yes, you can go uh as high and go back down. >> It'd be like a Christmas gift >> when they get it back. >> I don't think anybody looks at their property taxes as a Christmas gift. >> Nor do I. >> Other questions for staff? Uh, council member Bower >> in scenarios three, four, five, and six, are you assuming collect starting collection of franchise fees uh in January? I'm thinking if you know you get that decision late, do we have a gap and how are we taking that into account? >> Yes. Uh, thank you uh, Council Member Bower. The assumption of all these revenue runs are for a full year. Um it's going to where we sit here today given the time frame and the notice that has to be set up it's probably more and more unlikely we'll start collecting those franchise fees starting January 1st or Excel start collecting them uh would probably be somewhere in the first quarter since uh all the franchise fees are going towards capital funding um and if we have a shortage of we only collect for three quarters of the year that just means uh less dollars go into the capital funds in 2026 six, which if you remember is kind of like our savings account. So, it's not ideal, but at the same time, it it won't affect operations. It's not money we'd be using for operations because we're shifting the levy from there uh which we would have um for the full year, but uh we would just collect less in 2026 depending on what it is. And I think overall um that is not um a deal killer for making it happen. I think it's just less money in 2026 and we'll get that full amount in 2027. >> Thank you. Any other questions for staff? All right. Uh we will provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak to this item. Uh we once again the primary objective this evening is to set the not to exceed levy. Um and then everything else kind of uh gets worked out from there you might say. Uh so is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to uh our thoughts and discussion about not to exceed levy for 2026? does not appear to be the case. Uh so we'll go ahead and close the opportunity for public comment. Um and uh move to council discussion. Um thoughts from the council andor if we need to look at specific resolutions. I'm imagining we can get to those fairly quickly if we need to. >> Council member Gra. Well, my thoughts would be um we have a couple moving parts in my mind here and I would want to keep our options open. So, I would favor keeping the not to exceed a little high on the higher end because then we'll by the time we need to actually decide on this, we will have probably heard on the grant money and we'll be further down the road with the franchise fee u scenario. So, we would have harder data to work with. And that doesn't preclude this, we've said it over and over again, but I want to say from going down, which would be our intent as we get more information and go along. >> Uh, Council Member Sher. >> Yes. And it's um um the mayor made a good point that when you put that out on a property tax statement, people don't understand. >> Well, I think Mr. Trojan made that point actually. Well, you said that that people don't see all the background too and but anyways that u I have gotten a lot of calls and um emails from people really concerned about property taxes going up too much because they're on fixed budgets and um so I I I guess I would have a tendency to more go towards that 10% level because when you get into double digits and um that really people get pretty upset about that and um and if we're going to because if you look at all these scenarios um most of them are covered um you know close to that 10%. So, um, I guess I I think about somewhere around there might make sense, but again, you know, I'd say the majority of the calls and emails I get are people really concerned about property taxes going up and and I think that's why it made sense when, you know, people have to realize if they're paying, you know, close to 120 a month and then you times that times 12. So, it's not just the addition, it's what they're already. So pe it it's people are are getting a little crunch and I know we're trying to balance between uh keeping our city healthy and getting all those things in there that we want and um council member Strong made a good point too because you can't just look at this year you have to look into the following year say what the additional costs will be you know with with um our um different safety personnel. So, you know, thinking about that too. Um, you know, I think it just anytime and of course, if you recall last year, we went went up a hefty amount as well. So, people people are are feeling the pain. So, I I I would just want to add their voice to this whole thing. Great. other uh thoughts from council members as to what we might look to do >> or council member Strong. >> I'm still inclined to try to go without the franchise fees because when I see that extra amount on the top, I don't see that anyone's really coming out ahead by that other than the city. it might not feel as painful, but really if they can if you're looking at um situation um A and you're looking over at some of the other scenarios, the ones which include the franchise fee are bringing you above that by quite a bit. So, it may seem harder to stomach a 10.8% increase, but >> percent increase. It might seem harder, but if you realize it's between that and a seven or eight percent increase, they have to remember this is a really small portion of their overall property taxes. And whereas three or six dollars might not seem like much for a homeowner, it you know, it like if someone has, I don't know, there's just a lot of ways that it it can probably unfairly tax the people who can afford it the least. And so the people who have lesser valued homes or who are renters are adding their uh contribution to this in a different way. But I just think it may be more adversely affects the because it's going to be come across as even a higher percentage really in the long run. At least that's my rudimentary understanding. Sorry Robin if I killed it. >> Well, sorry to me. I'm still trying to figure out what I'm going to do. I just to put a couple words out there. I think my point of view at this point setting the not to exceed is I want to be comfortable that we can fund the things we want to fund uh with property taxes. um regardless of what subsequent knowledge we get in terms of whether we do franchise fees or whether we get grants because I don't want us to be in a position where we need to start looking at some other things that we haven't already been looking at >> um because that that makes you know the whole process much more challenging especially if these come in at the very last moment and and everybody's got to try to react to to that sort of thing. Um, so I think I'd rather put us in a position um to be able to be uh comfortable proceeding with a levy not to exceed amount that gets that can theoretically pay for what we want to pay for um rather than um you know sort of anticipating other things happening that we don't have as much control over. Um I you know that I suppose might in some senses advocate for the for the 13.3% increase as opposed to the 10 8% increase. Um, but I'm not sure I'm I'm there yet in that regard because it, as has been noted, that's a notable notable increase. Uh, so I'm just trying to trying to process if uh, you know, where we get. Now, certainly the, you know, the scenarios five and six give us the ability if we do look at the franchise fees to to still keep the impact, you know, comparable to that 10%, especially scenario five, obviously. Um, so that that helps a fair amount. Um, I would note that just in general terms, when looking to raise the $2.1 million that the franchise fee would theoretically raise, um, if we were to do that with property tax, the average single family property in Roseville would probably see between a 12 and a $13 tax, property tax increase to raise 2.1 million. So that's compared to a $6 uh cost to raise 2.1 million. So that's one of the comparisons that's in the mix. Um, and that's why some of the numbers work out the way they do. Um, the the thing that makes it confusing and that's why there's the the columns, you know, B, B1, etc., is because those columns take into account sort of, okay, well, spending more on capital like we would with franchise fee. What if we did pay for that with property tax, which we wouldn't otherwise do? Um, and so that just that's the the big impact items is those. Um, I'm not sure that helps people in their understanding, but um that that's that was the idea to help people with the understanding. Um, so that's that's kind of where I'm at or kind of moving towards or moving from or whichever. >> So what's that translate to? Like roughly a number for you >> between 10 and 13 something. >> Mr. Mayor, I do have some information from council member's u question about the the firefighters. So, um, for a full year of, uh, firefighting, uh, the fight 15 firefighters is estimated to be $2.3 million in 2027. $1.7 million be covered by the grant. $590,000 would be covered by the city. Since we're already throwing some dollars in, there's about another $420,000 of additional levy or about 1.7% increase based on today's levy. Um, so but another $420,000 will have to fit into the budget and levy next year, assuming we get the grants. So, what we're saying is that our decision on the 2027 budget isn't going to be any any easier than 2026, I think, is a fair thing to say because we've also got potentially some more asks in the PD and we have our normal cost of living increases and steps uh and inflationary costs for materials. Uh and uh one thing that uh C manager Trejudan and I have been talking a little bit on the capital funding side that we neglected to build into the system back in 2010 and 2011 when we first applied a fix to the capital funding was you know we we when the question of inflation was asked we resisted saying well we'll add inflation into the costs going forward because we did we you know we we argued nobody knows what inflation is going to 5 10 one year from now. >> Um so and so we tried to keep it in current dollars that we could understand. But while in theory and hopefully more so in practice, the dollar amounts have been adjusted up each year as we project out given current knowledge of costs. What we didn't build into the system at that time was, you know, looking at the inflationary cost of of you know the the funding side of it. So when we when we put in an additional 200,000 or whatever it was of levy into a particular fund in 2011, we should have each year been looking at an increase to each of those amounts based on inflation just like we look at increase to costs of employees uh in terms of colas and steps just like we look at inflationary costs for our supplies and materials and things like that. And so I think that's going to be a factor. Hopefully the council may be on board with looking at that more closely and more appropriately as we go forward as well. But that's also going to put pressure on 27 and going forward because we um still need in 27 probably to deal with the $200,000 shortfall in our uh police vehicle and equipment funding which you know puts us negative basically then >> and doesn't get any better after that. So we've got some we've got some pressures still uh that we have to face in the coming uh years here. Um, so and ultimately, you know, we that's why we get paid the big bucks sitting in these chairs. So, >> uh, Council Member Bower, I don't know if you've had a chance to to weigh in yet on some thoughts you have in terms of, um, what we set as our not to exceed for 2026. >> I'm curious to get a little bit of history being the newest one here uh, in the one of these seats. uh in the past um have we done you know ever decreased from the volume that we stated? >> Yes, I >> think in my recent it hasn't although it's been pretty much close to the same match. >> I think this is a little bit more unique. >> I think during my tenure we've pretty much stayed where we're at because we were pretty locked in on a number. We didn't have all these scenarios and variables that we had to factor in. I think maybe we made some small adjustments. I know prior to my tenure, I think that was pretty routine. Um the councils at the time 10 12 years ago did have slightly higher maybe not to exceed and continue to work on it. Um we've been fortunate the last you know five six years to have some really precise understanding of what our needs were and we did not have to change it but we came in as low as we could and figured we could do it. We didn't have these outstanding variables like waiting for grant dollars or other revenue sources. So this year is a little bit unique, but I I know we have done it in the past, maybe in the distant past, but we have done it. >> I was I was going to say there's probably one or two instances when we had similar types of unknowns in the process, but it does go back a number of years. >> I only bring that up just because residents are, you know, expecting probably a certain same kind of playbook >> and see if we're changing that. Uh I cannot stress how important messaging is. Um, and we're obviously will be messaging too because we'll receive plenty of phone calls and emails. >> I mean, we'll do our best to message that out. >> Yeah. Yeah, it's a very good point. >> Great. We may have to uh we may have to get a motion here to uh to move us towards decision- making. Um, and once again, I think that I don't know if it makes sense to to look at the levy before the budget in this case or not, but certainly the the question has been put to us in terms of the budget. Um, I know I'm just making you switch back and forth here, Mr. Judge, and the people at home are getting dizzy. Um, the in the budget, it's it's it's yeah, it's the um do we want to put the public safety system positions in the cost of the budget? Because when we talk about budget, we're essentially talking about the expenditure side of it um or not. And then you know and once again the budget we can move up or down as long as much as we want as long as we've got funding that doesn't increase the preliminary levy, >> right? >> Um so that's the the quote unquote beauty of the budget part of it is that we we're not as >> um you know strictly restricted as far as going up or down. >> However, I would probably suggest that we don't you know set the preliminary budget based on lower costs and then set a levy based on higher costs. That doesn't necessarily make sense. So that would be the only point about consistency in that regard. >> It would make sense to look at the budget first. >> All right. Do we have a motion as it relates to the two options with respect to the 2026 proposed budget uh expenditure amounts? >> Just a question. So it's either an all ornone with with the 22 people we're trying to add in this budget. Um I think at this point it is I mean unless somebody has numbers to put to no I >> something in between right I think that's how it's been presented to the council at this point as the preliminary decision right >> so that's the only difference between the two is >> that's correct yeah >> motion to approve the safe um base budget plus public safety staffing >> second right it's been moved by council member Stron seconded by council member gra to approve the preliminary 2026 budget budget option uh with the public safety staffing and that would be uh the 81,528,546 thou $546. Uh discussion of that motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Strong, >> you know, I think we've seen it time and again with the people who reach out to us, one thing they're most willing to fund is public safety dollars. You know, they don't want to see other things. And if if they see their taxes going up and they don't see that thing that they see as so vital, I feel like that's the part they're seeing as most important, I think this is definitely room for us to go down, but I think I think we at least need to start with this part. >> Great. Second of the motion. Council member Grath, >> I'd agree with that. The uh people I talked to that one does not come up for cutting um to to balance our budget. people are universally in my experience supportive of the public safety staffing and they understand the uh the uh programs we've gone through and the studies that have been done to a degree. I mean sometimes we have to talk about them in a little more detail but they they we have support on that. >> Other discussion on the motion to set the preliminary budget uh based on the public safety staffing. Council member Bower, >> I agree with Council Member Gra's uh statement. It's exactly what I hear from residents as well. It's not surprising we heard the same things um in that regard. >> True. >> Um so while I am definitely in favor of of that uh I may have questions about what the was all in the base budget, but um I think that's >> secondary. I want to make it clear though I definitely support the public safety uh staffing increase. >> Great. Other discussion on the motion? Uh council member Sharter. >> Yeah. No, I I think we're all in agreement that um talking to people that this is the most important thing and you know and and if we get to a point of where people say enough and you have to cut something to try to um have the budget less, this isn't an area where they want to cut. So, so that would have to be a harder conversation about where where else could could that u reduction come from. So um but again this is one area people are very um very in in I mean for years and you go out talk to people they they've been supportive of fire and police rose very very supportive of both of those. Yep. Makes sense. >> And just to add to that, I think that the thing that I and I mentioned this at our last discussion that I always try to keep in mind is um in the strategic planning effort that we had uh over the last many months. Um you know, one of the key things that's right in our mission essentially is to maintain the quality of life in Roseville. And I think that we've worked really hard as a city uh to provide a tremendous quality of life uh in regard to all of the functions of the city uh across all of those areas in addition to public safety uh and and and do so uh in a very lean way in terms of staffing uh in terms of our costs for a lot of other things. And I think you know both elected officials and and uh staff have been very conscious of that uh for a long time in Roseville. Um, and I think we've gotten a lot of uh bang for our buck. And I think that that's that's something we don't want to lose sight of as we consider budgets going forward is that it's always a challenge to reduce um things that contribute to our quality of life because it's very difficult for those to ever come back. And so that's not saying that we just don't we just spend money to spend money or anything like that. I think we've been very responsible as a as a government entity uh for many years in that regard. Uh and so um I think that's that's an important part of the conversation. Uh and I'm supportive of the motion as it relates to public safety for all the reasons that have been stated. Uh but the important part for me is also that the base budget takes into account maintaining uh what we've been doing uh and m and you know towards the quality of life that people appreciate in Roseville. Um, and unless and until we have proposals to reduce other areas uh that have those impacts on quality of life, I think we've got to be careful uh how we look at uh what we're doing and how we fund it. So, I just wanted to add that to the conversation. But with that, we do have the motion before us to uh approve the preliminary 2026 budget uh which includes the uh the public safety staffing as discussed at 81 million and change. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. Do we have a preliminary budget for 2026? Uh do we have a motion as it relates to the uh city tax levy for 2026? >> Well, we could split the difference, you know, if you're trying to decide where to be. >> All right. Do you want me to >> So, I not to exceed not to exceed 11% of >> Oh, well, let me just double check that that is actually splitting the difference. It's not. >> Just going to check your math. >> Actually, probably. >> Yeah, I would have to be closer to 12 to split the difference >> because, >> but I'd be happy to think about that. >> 12 >> to split the difference. >> Did you? >> Okay. But I would say I I I could I could not to exceed 12 with the understanding we would work to go less than for once because like like city manager uh Pat said that we never seem to go down. So I would say um I could I could go with the 12 hoping then we would get closer to a lower number as we get there once we find out about the other items. I would second that and I I second your comments too. I mean we have to set a number here but as we said this is not to exceed and let's work I mean everyone I know the staff is working on this to to get this down further. >> All right we have a motion uh for a resolution at 12% and and our staff are going to be cracking the numbers here to uh that isn't one of the seven choices we have before us >> scenario 1.6. Yes. >> Sorry, Pat. >> So, so given that while we're discussing the motion, we can get the exact numbers. >> Yeah, we'll calculate. >> Yeah. So, uh first of all, the maker of the motion, Council Member Schroeder, who may not have realized she had made a motion. >> No, I did. I did. No, I I think we we've talked about and like I said, it's just important to us to get as much information as we can about um the franchise fee thing. And I think part of that, too, is making sure people understand how it really affects people. and then the grant thing and how that really affects. So I think there might not be enough information out there for people to uh understand all that piece of it too. So hopefully that could help reduce this then as we look forward. >> All right. And as the secondary council member Grath >> I'd agree with all that the comments there and also I think that you know this is not to exceed but we've all discussed that I think every one of these discussions give us more information both from staff and among ourselves. so we we get closer and closer to something that I feel is something we can all work with and I I think this is a first step. So, >> council member, >> I'd just like to add I think we I think it should be obvious that we all take this very seriously and you know this is our money too. We are also taxpayers in this city and so nobody wants to pay more but we want to make sure that we do maintain that quality of life that the mayor mentions and so I I mean I hope that those who might be watching this very painful observation um might see that you know it is hard for us to make a choice and we we really I think it seems like we're all pretty committed to find a way to make 12 be the maximum and and that hopefully we can find something that's um much less impactful for families, >> right? Any other discussion on the motion? Council Bower, >> um kind of agree with what uh others have stated. I think 12%. I think there's still a lot of work for us yet to do um and we'll definitely be doing that over the next few months >> or actually just not even a few months actually >> couple >> couple months uh now. And so there's a lot of work that will still needs to be done. Lots of conversation I know that this council will have, staff will have, and I know all of us will be digging in as well and definitely interested in soliciting more feedback from residents who this greatly affects. >> All right. And I echo everything that's been said. I I think that the the only thing I'll add is that it may have looked like we were a little bit uh uh lighthearted in our arriving at the 12%, but believe me, as I think Council Member Stron alluded to, there there's a lot behind that. Um and and just specifically to that number, I think that gives us the ability to target that 10% impact range and some options to do that. And I think that what this does now, this action this evening is it really makes our scenario list go down to things that fit within the 12% impact or lower. Um and so that I think that that helps focus the conversation going forward uh as we as we take those next steps. and certainly are communicating with the public. Council member Strong, >> I just think it's also always good for the public to go back to look at our very first thing on this uh agenda item, which is the budget calendar and the budget timeline. We start this back in March. And so by December, it seems like eh, but you know, it's because for the last nine months, we've talked about it in out looked at it upside down in every other way. So, it's not for lack of um information and um if it feels like something has not given what you think is at due, we've probably looked at it many ways already and we will continue to hold the staff to as high a level as we possibly can because we our goal is to, you know, work for you and work for ourselves, but really work for you and make sure that and I think we all take that job very seriously. It's apt that you mentioned the or appropriate that you mentioned the um the schedule too because there's several more opportunities in the schedule for uh input from the public on this process and certainly even not on the schedule is always members of the public can reach out to the city council um via email or telephone uh or through staff whatever uh you know makes sense for individuals. And specifically, we have uh some considerations in November of our um utility rates and discussions about those. Um as well as then at uh December 1st, our what used to be called the truth in taxation hearing, which is our uh budget hearing and and tax levy hearing. Uh and then finally on December 8th, uh we'll be making the final decision on all these matters if we haven't made some of those decisions already. Uh and with that, we have the motion before us once again to uh adopt a resolution setting the not to exceed levy for 2026 at 33,994,915.36. >> Can we round up to the nearest >> skip the 915? >> Uh >> well, we don't we never skip being sensible, but >> yeah. So, $33,994,915. All right. With that, then we've got that motion before us to adopt that resolution. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Opposed. >> That also passes unanimously. We've got our preliminary uh levy for uh 2026. Uh sometimes in these discussions, we have a separate resolution to adopt related to debt levy. Is that part of our preliminary action? That's only at the end of the year. Okay, >> we need to adopt the tax. >> We no longer need to do that because we don't adjust the levy for debt. >> Got it. Okay. So, just to clarify from our finance director, we no longer have that third motion and resolution related to our debt levy because we don't adjust our levy related debt. All right. With that then I believe we've uh one more resolution. >> Oh, the Oh, that's right. I almost left out the EDA. We are we were advised by ourselves as the EDA at our last meeting uh to set the 2026 EDA level levy at $264,856 which is $100,000 less than is required to cover the budget and the difference will be made up by taking funds out of our EDA reserve fund. Uh and so the act the requested action from the council is to adopt a resolution attachment 4 setting the EDA levy for 2026 at 264856. >> So move. >> Second. >> That was the quickest motion tonight. All right. Moved by council member Strong, seconded by council member Grath to adopt the EDA levy as presented and requested uh by ourselves as the EDA at 264856. Uh discussion on the motion? >> No. >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. That levy is set. I believe that brings us to the end of our actions related to budget and tax levy this evening. Stay tuned uh at home and uh on the uh on the interwebs for more. Uh and uh please be sure to reach out to the council with your feedback. All right, I believe that concludes our business items this evening. We have one set of meeting minutes uh and that is from our uh September 8th city council meeting. Uh, are there any changes or corrections to those minutes as presented or a motion to approve? >> A motion to approve. >> Second. >> It's been moved by council member Schroeder, second by Council Member Gra to approve the minutes of our September 8th meeting as presented. Uh, any discussion on that motion? >> I just want to thank the mayor for making sense of one of my garbled comments that I was trying to work out in my own head and you were like, I don't need to work on this. You got this right. So, thank you. Um, I I will I will gladly accept those thanks uh and just uh let you know that you should be grateful that I caught that one. >> I don't always. >> Yeah, it made sense. >> All right. No. All right. Well, very good. We've got the the motion uh to adopt those minutes before us. There's no further discussion. All those in favor signify by saying I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those minutes are approved. That then brings us to our consent agenda for this evening and I'll turn it over to city manager Trean to uh put forward the uh consent items for our consideration. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh item 10A approves payments in the amount of $755,24246. Item 10B approves the expenditure to paint and restain the exterior of the Cedar Cedar Home community building. Item 10 C approves entering into a professional services agreement with Bolton and Mink for design and construction management services for the Cohen sanitary sewer lift station in the amount of $58,000. Item 10D approves entering into a professional services agreement with Bolton and Mink for a sanitary storm sewer lift station assessment in the amount of $44,700. Item 10E approves a resolution of support for the Rice Creek wershed district state bonding request. Item 10F approves a resolution of support for Rosal State bounding request for renovations and capital improvements at the John Rose Minnesota Oval. Agenda item 10G approves entering into an agreement with the regions with regions MS EMS to allow for their paramedic students to do ride alongs with the Roseville Fire Department. Agenda item 10H appoints Mia Huntley to the parks and recreation commission as a youth commissioner and a non- voting member. And agenda item 10 I approves entering into an agreement that extends T-Mobile's lease on the city owned Lattice Tower at 251 Fairview Avenue through 2030 with possible extensions beyond that. And that is the consent agenda. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Trojan. Is there a motion on the consent items this evening? >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Council Strong, seconded by Council Member Bower to approve the consent items. Uh discussion on that motion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Uh that brings us to future agenda review. Mr. Trean. >> Yes. Uh we do have a little bit of a break in meetings here. Our next meeting is October 13th. We'll have a couple items on including select the construction manager at risk for the civic campus uh project. We'll also receive uh street light policy update and perhaps um consideration of adoption. Uh look to approve the professional service agreement for the architect and the civic campus project. We have scheduled an abatement for 949 Brooks Avenue and we are looking to approve the recottification ordinance. As you know, we're recottifying the entire ordinance and getting it online in a better format. But the recottified portion of what we're bringing forward tonight are very technical minor corrections, but it's the whole document. Anything that's substantive, we'll bring back for uh or policy discussion bring back for further discussions. We'll try to get some information out to you before that meeting so you can get a sense of what we're we're doing. Been working very closely with the city attorney to make sure these are tech and our consultant make sure these are technical corrections. Um and but it's going to be a big document. So, uh we'll we'll we'll talk about how we look to adopt that. But once we get that rolling, we'll be able to have that online and much more accessible and searchable than it currently is right now. So, I think it'll be a huge benefit for everybody. On the 20th, uh we'll kind of have more of a work session format. will u bring back information about the close proximity uh excavation regulations. We're tenatively planning on bringing a conversation about massage therapy regulations back for just additional discussion. Uh on the 27th we have scheduled uh consideration of the Aldine rightway. Um it's something that you are very familiar with and we just had a recommendation from the park and rec commission in our last meeting. We'll bring that forward and then you can see our November and December meetings. So we only have a few left in the year. >> So thank you Mr. Trojan. Are there any questions on future agendas? Any uh reports, announcements, communications, or council member initiated items for future meetings? There are none. Uh the only other item on our agenda this evening is adjournment. >> So move. >> Second. >> Moved by council member Stron, second by council member Grath. Uh no discussion on a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously and we are adjourned at 8:07 p.m. Thank you everyone.