hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday, April 7th, 2025. Mr. Treasure, would you call the role, please? Council member Grath here. Council member Bower here. Council member Stron here. Council member Schroeder here. Mayor Ro here. And with us at the DES we have our city attorney Janice Sullivan who's sitting in for Rachel Tierney. Uh and on the other end of the DS we have our city manager Pat Trean uh and uh other uh staff and guests will be participating in the meeting as we uh go through the agenda items and we'll make those introductions at those times. Um would remind folks uh from the public that we do have materials on the pack table. Uh for anyone from the public, there is a complete set of all the meeting materials uh for sharing in the three- ring binder uh as well as individual copies of the agenda uh which are available to individuals for their use. Uh we would remind folks if you have a cell phone to uh silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt the meeting this evening. Uh and with that, we'll ask folks to stand if you're able for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Right. Next on our agenda is approval of tonight's agenda. And I'll just check as always with staff first to see if there are any changes to tonight's agenda. Mr. Trean. Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Item 7A, which was to consider a request to perform an abatement for unresolved violations of the city code at 786 Sandhurst Drive can be removed from the agenda. The property owner has come into compliance with our city code and we not need to take any further action. All right. Thank you, Mr. Treon. Uh, also I'll check with council members. Are there any changes council members would like to make to the agenda or items in the consent agenda that council members would like removed for separate consideration this evening? Does not appear to be the case. uh does not appear that we have anyone from the public that might be here on a consent item. Uh and so I would uh entertain a motion to approve the agenda with the change to a removal of 7A from a business items list. So moved. Second. It's been moved by Council Member Strong, second by Council Member Schroeder. Uh any discussion on the motion? Uh hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. We have our agenda. Uh next is uh general public comment. Uh this would be an opportunity for members of the public to speak on items that are not on tonight's agenda. Uh but either may be related to city business or of interest to people in the community. Uh we do this every meeting and provide that opportunity in addition to the opportunity to speak on agenda items as they come up. It does not appear we have uh anyone from the public to speak under general public comment this evening. Uh so I think we're ready to proceed with our business items. Uh that then brings us to our first business item uh which is item 7B which is to have a discussion about the impacts of uh Falcon Heights recently uh considered uh parking fees for the state fair and how that might impact Roseville. And we have Jennifer Lowry with us this evening, our assistant public works director and city engineer pinch hitting for our public works director I believe who is under the weather today. Uh and uh she'll kick off the discussion on this. Welcome Miss Lowry. Thank you. I should say and President Lowry also. Oh, yes. Yes. of your your professional organization. So, congratulations on that. Um, so I won't read everything that's in front of you, but I just wanted to give a short update that um Falcon Heights has adopted an ordinance that allows for them to charge for parking and has put um a contract or got approval to go under contract with Park Mobile for providing um uh metered parking during the state fair on some streets. they still have several more actions to take before anything would actually happen. Um such as it calls for their revised ordinance calls for a resolution to be passed on which streets on which days they would have to amend a fee schedule to establish the rates etc. Um so they have a lot of details to work through including providing um resident passes etc. So, it's not a completely done process, but um because it abuts our city boundaries um there might be impacts to Roseville Street. So, we just wanted to share that information and just have a discuss discussion with the council and see if there's any guidance um you wanted to provide staff to look into any more um questions or let us know what we can kind of find out for you guys. I don't promise to have all the answers today, but I can follow up and um and see what we can learn. Right. Uh Mr. Treasure, and if I could just add, so uh in the packet is a map where we have uh already restricting parking. That's mostly due to the park and ride. So uh especially on the north uh end of Falcon Heights, the southern end, uh it matches up fairly well. Uh we restrict parking in that way in that area. So I think um we should be in fairly good shape. is probably the area east of Hamlin uh that we'd want to look at. Um as you know, we've been doing uh no parking restrictions temporarily um for probably four or five years now throughout the city. It's been more of a staffled effort where we um took a look at the approximate distance from the park and ride and what the historical um use has been over the years and have judged that. We've also engaged with the neighborhoods uh regarding parking and um it's not always as easy as you think. In some cases uh people want to keep parking in front of their places. So you have this back and forth a little bit. But in any case, it's pretty intentional. It's pretty flexible. Over time we do make changes and so we don't come to the council every time there needs to be a change. So, one of the suggestions uh that we would probably want to look east of Hamlin and see where maybe there might be some some opportunity to engage the residents and talk to them about uh the possibility of restrict restrictions. You know, the further north you go and perhaps even further east away from Snelling, I'm not sure how many people are going to be parking over there. It's hard hard to say. Of course, uh Falcon Heights is probably basing that on their um experience. So, there must be some parking that happens up in that area. you get to a point where there's so much distance away that you wonder how far folks will walk. However, if people are parking all the way up to Hamlin on the west side, uh it's going to be very easy and where they have to pay $25, it's going to be very easy to walk across Hamlin and park in a neighborhood that would may have never experienced it. So, so we want to kind of look at that some more, but also maybe explore with the neighborhood a little bit uh about um some possibilities and get their opinions. So, we are able to um you know react fairly quickly uh on that. What we don't want to do is just on a random day say, "Oh, there's a lot of parking here. Let's throw up signs here." without communicating to anybody. So, uh, at least having that pre-con conversation is helpful even if uh we may still play it by ear. So, so really here to report as Miss Lowry said uh about what we know uh is being proposed. It does seem like Falcon Heights is headed in that direction is have a few more steps and I know council member Strong brought this forward just for impact. So, thank you for that. So, we're going to continue to look at, but we'd love any input the council would have in regards to this and what we should be looking at or any thoughts that you have. All right. Thank you. Uh, questions or feedback for staff? Uh, council member Stron, since you had brought this up. Yes, I brought this up because I had um conversation with council member Milky in Falcon Heights who who is actually the pioneer of this idea and um they see this as an opportunity to raise funds um for their city. And I'm not sure um I obviously that would be one potential thing is if they're going to charge $25, we could charge 10 or something. You know, that would be an option. I'm not sure that's the best option. I think we it'd be maybe better to uh wait and see. But thinking about um the potential traffic on some of the adjacent streets, uh Draper, Garden, ones that are very close to where there would be um parking that would be at a charge. Um I know that the use of the pettic cabs has increased the walkability so to speak of the area. So the last few years um they have been allowing pettic cabs to come out from the fair and so that is allowing folks to go a greater distance from that space. And so maybe talking about whether that's something we're also permitting. My niece happened to get on a scooter last year. Didn't realize that it stopped at the border. um had to go all the way back because she couldn't leave it where she wanted to. So I think understanding the um parameters of other types of rental units that maybe people would use. So I think rather than just have it happen to us, I wanted us to have a conversation about what we thought was reasonable and make sure especially for the safety of like Draper and other seat um streets that are so close u make sure that we have that parking um one-sided as it largely has been for the last few years which has been very helpful living in this neighborhood um and making sure that we can at least maybe get our trash picked up and we can get our mail during those weeks and um make sure that those are passable for emergency vehicles as they would be needed throughout the area. So um I really wanted us to maybe just have a conversation about the possibilities and what if anything we wanted to do right now. If there was a waiting period, we wait and see how it works out for them or but it we I think being more proactive was the goal. Right. Other thoughts or questions from council members? So, how is it working around like the park and ride because we have do we have seven of those in Roseville now? I think there's nine nine. Okay. Yeah. So, can we get parking overflow off of those into the street? Yes. Yeah. So, item uh is this the map of Roseville, which is exhibit or attachment three. Uh those dashed lines represent where we have temporary no parking uh during the state fair time. The solid yellow is parking restrictions year round. But so we do extend it into the neighborhoods and this has been a trial and error over the years. We we made our best guess the first year and then got feedback from residents and have adjusted as we see things. Um and it depends a lot on the weather and uh what's happening at the fair. Uh if you have a really beautiful day, it's really crazy. If you have inclement weather, then it doesn't have an impact. But we have found that this parking scheme here seems to uh work fairly well uh the years and really minimizes the complaints that we have. We also uh have a police officer on duty as paid by the state fair as overtime to uh deal with any potential complaints that happen from u illegal parking uh on that. So that's really helped mitigate some of those situations as well. There's always going to be some impact in neighborhoods as people come and go, of course, but um uh we found this to be pretty effective. So, as you can see, a lot of lot of the area close to Falcon Heights has already restricted parking because of the parking rides. So, there may not be much we need to do there. But, if you look at east of Hamlin, we have great council member Strong mentioned, as well as Garden and some of those other places off of Rose Lawn. So, we may need to pay a little bit of attention to that as well. That's where we're talking about being proactive and talking talking to the neighbors and seeing kind of what they feel like and uh get a better sense of what Falcon Heights is doing. Um and certainly as we get closer to it, we have maybe a better sense of what they think the utilization is going to be as well. Well, I would agree with that approach. I mean, obviously this is a good thing to keep an eye on until we get down the road further. maybe just keep this on our radar, but I don't know if we need to take an action right away on it. I think it it probably does make sense to to communicate with a few of those neighborhoods. Yes. Um that could be impacted just to start letting them know there may be an impact and have them think a little bit about, you know, especially if our our kind of go-to option is restricting parking to one side temporarily during the fair. Let them know that that's often what we'll do. And you know that starts to get them thinking about you know if they prefer that or not because there are neighborhoods that initially agreed to it and then after their experience they decided they didn't need it and things like that. So we we do adapt it from year to year. Uh but I think it does make sense to start some conversations with those neighborhoods we've kind of identified. I even I was trying to remember what the parking is on Rose Lawn between Snelling and uh Hamlin and I I couldn't remember for sure. It doesn't show it as being permanently restricted in Roseville but obviously the other side is in Falcon Heights anyway. So, um I don't know because that's just directly north of that neighborhood that might be considered by Falcon Heights. That might be an area they don't allow parking on Roseland there. I don't think uh east of uh east of um Snowing. I think west of Snowelling there may be some restrictions where that like the agricultural fields and stuff are. Actually, there is parking. Parking is allowed on the north side of uh Roseland between Snelling and Fair View. Um, but it's Yeah, I don't think it's I don't think it's allowed on the south side. Yeah. And then on the north side, we do temporarily restrict it by the mid Oaks Lane area. I see. And I know we had some residents west of there in some fair years on very nice days that were having trouble with their mail and things like that, too. So, uh, but we didn't clearly we didn't put a restriction on the whole length of Roseline, but once again, it just may be worth looking at what existing restrictions there are, especially even east of Snowing and what makes sense and whether that's an area we also want to talk to the neighbors. Yeah, I think it would be helpful for the neighbors to know um the parking has again depends if it's a record-breaking day um having being on the last street that is one side before it becomes not um uh possible. That's that little um section between Fernwood and Lexington where there is none for a couple blocks there. And so that can get very busy. Um I think just I mean I think that one-sided would still be appropriate in that area and I think that would be adequate for this year but I think it would be good to maybe engage the neighborhood and knowing about this as a possibility. And then I'm not sure if reactionary wise if Lauderdale is planning on having some kind of um some type of parking restrictions as well. Obviously, a lot of Lauderdale is a fairly healthy hike, but um but again, park park and ride there. I don't think they do. One church. Uh peace would be the only one I would think. Um and I don't see that they do on this map. Well, we only map our Roseville Park and Rides. We don't map the other ones. Yeah, as we got to the edge there, so I'm not sure. But I think also in that neighborhood um west of Fair View, it can get very busy with um as it not quite as far as Wayne's house, but um but very busy along Fair View and there as there are sometimes cars parked along Fair View. So, I think just maintaining the single side and maybe just looking at branching that out a little bit and filling in some of the streets that aren't filled um would probably be adequate for this year. I also would want to maybe consider having one way on the north and south Rididgewood Lane because ready access there is so challenging. One-sided, you mean one side? Yep. Yep. to have one-sided along that area just because access is already so uh so challenging to get in and out of. Um but anyway, it'd be interesting in conversations with neighborhoods as to whether they've seen problems in the past because that's also speaking of access, it's a difficult neighborhood to find sometimes. So when you're out looking for a parking spot, you might go right by it without even knowing. Not that we're advertising to people tonight. That's for um but just in response to the other uh notion, I don't know that I would be interested in looking at providing uh you know some sort of priced parking in Roseville either at this point. I think that might be not a place to go yet or hopefully maybe ever if we don't have to. I I don't know that it would be especially if we were less than Falcon Heights, we might actually attract more parking. Well, and there is a base fee um a part situated, you know, kind of associated with um doing that. And so I don't know if it would um be enough to over to offset the costs that would be involved. Um, and also they have built a fair amount of ill will in all of this because of reporting. Some of the information got out to the community as done deal before it was a done deal. So I I don't see that as part of our need. Um, interesting concept, but I think we should wait a year or two to make a decision before we would come to a pricing. At least that's my thought on it. Buy a new police officer. Well, and of course, we do get funding from the state fair to help with our enforcement of the parking now. So, I think that, you know, if we see that that's not adequate, that's another avenue because we'll we'll have a renewal, I think, in a year or two on the two years 2026, right? So, we'll have an opportunity to re revisit that at that time. Now, you know, seeing where things may go with the Falcon Heights situation, whether that's a long-term plan or uh or what happens. So, but I also want to keep it kind of reasonable for staff, too, that we don't we're not investigating neighborhoods that maybe don't need to be investigated, but perhaps we can leave that to the discretion of staff to a certain degree as well. Yeah, we'll take a look and we'll keep everybody updated on kind of what we find and is what our plan is as we head into the summer. Yeah. and maybe putting it into our quarterly um bulletin and putting something out with the Roseville reader or something and asking for comments regarding that or or you know kind of knowing what the impact was. I don't think we'll know the impact until this year. Um, but I think some of the things especially along Garden and Hamlin, um, I think it would be wise to be proactive and know that those are going to get parked um, garden on both sides and that would take a kind of narrow road and and really make it probably not safe, right? Anything else? Right. I think we've got some some good guidance there and hopefully we can u, you know, be ahead of the curve on that, so to speak. Well, and hopefully we'll continue to learn more from Falcon Heights and I've asked for them to kind of apprise us of things as they come up just knowing that what they do has a ripple effect to us. All right then. And thank you, Miss Lowry. Uh that brings us then to item 7 C, which is to consider adopting a revised capital investment policy. Uh and for that item we have our finance director Michelle Petrich uh with us to uh provide introduction to this item and uh recommend it for our consideration. Welcome Miss Petri. Good evening. Best Practices recommends that we periodically review our financial policies and the capital investment policy was the first policy that we chose to review this year and we are recommending two changes um in the definition area. Um the first change is a recommendation based on a reinterpretation of an existing government accounting standard um for how we classify our capital assets. uh specifically that when assets are purchased in an aggregate amount, we should have a policy with regard to when we capitalize them and depreciate them. and Gazbian, the general uh the government finance officers association recommends that you know if you purchase a group of assets you should be capitalizing it. Well, there's a fine line between tracking, capitalizing, and so we pulled a number of cities and came up with the language that is shown here, which is an aggregate amount of $100,000 would be recognized as a capital asset even if the per unit value is under $25,000, but must be more than $5,000 each individual item. This is a direct result of a purchase that we made at the Oval for new chairs and those individual chairs cost $250, but in aggregate it was $50,000. We're never going to likely purchase the chairs together again. we will replace them individually as needed or in smaller groups. So, um between the reinterpretation, that's why we added that language. And in surveying other cities, we previously had a unit value of $10,000. The cities that we pulled all had 25,000 or more per unit value, which is why we increased it to $25,000. The other area that we modified was the asset life. We added the chart which shows the useful life by asset type. that's been on our audit report for probably 25 years and it's the guiding chart that we use for depreciating assets by the various types and again it's consistent with how other cities capitalize for the most part. Um we actually break our vehicles down to a further refined level than other cities do. Um these changes were presented to the finance commission and they did approve um these changes. So um the policy is open for discussion and I'm here to answer any questions you might have. All right. Thank you, Miss Petri. Are there questions uh from the council for uh staff on this proposed amendment um to our policy? Uh Council Member Sher. Um not so much a question. It's these are fairly um straightforward changes and and um a good point that it's within um accounting standards to do these things and actually I'm glad to see that the asset well I'd call it a depreciation or the life of the asset um chart is actually in the policy like this and broken down. I think that that is very useful. And and then the capital assets, it makes sense to do it this way because you're right. I mean, if you know, why would we want to deal with chairs and some of these other things? So, it makes sense to me. So, I would I would support it. Any other questions or feedback? Council member Grath, just feedback. Um, thanks for choosing this as the first one to do because I think this is one of the very important ones that a lot of people don't understand. So, it's good to put it out with the for the public for information. All right. Other questions, comments? Um, just a a a question. I was thinking about the chairs. I don't think we put the chairs in the capital improvement plan, did we? As a as a something we were setting aside $50,000 over the last 10 years to get towards that purchase. I It probably wasn't planned out that way. Actually, we did. We did. Yes, we did. Are we going to continue to do that? Um, our capital improvement plan um has grown outside of our capitalization thresholds. Mhm. So that's one of the reasons we chose this policy as we are starting the capital improvement plan process and we're going to hopefully refine um the capital improvement plan. But just because it's budgeted because there's nowhere else to budget shares other than in the facilities fund doesn't mean we have to record it as a capital asset. We record it as minor equipment. Got it. So Okay. Um but yes, we do have a few things that perhaps belong in an operating budget versus the capital budget. That was kind of the gist of my question. So thank you for that. Um, and then uh the only other thing I had was I was going to attempt to uh think of what Gatsby stands for and I came up with government accounting standards board. Very good. Wow. Unbelievable. Get a gold star for that one. That gets thrown around all the time. We hear that constantly and so just and I forget about acronyms. I had to know. All right. Uh well, we've got the request to approve the changes to the uh capital investment policy. So there's no further discussion. Is there a motion? So move. Second. All right. I kind of I think I heard a motion from Council Member Gra first. All right. I'll second it. Just to be fair. That's all right. All right. Council member Gra moves. Council member Schroer seconds to adopt the amended policy. Discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Grath. No, I thank you for doing the work. It's good work. All right. As the secondary, Council Member Schroer, not really. It's pretty straightforward. All right. Any other discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. opposed. That passes unanimously. Those changes are approved. Thank you again, Miss Petri. Thank you. That concludes our business items this evening. Uh we have a couple of sets of council meeting minutes. Um and I think we're probably going to have to take those up as separate motions due to uh varying attendance across those meetings. Uh so perhaps uh if first we can take up the minutes uh from the March 17th city council meeting. Are there any further changes or corrections to what was in the presented to the council this evening? If not, a motion to approve would be in order. Motion to approve. Second. All right. It's moved by uh council Bower, second by council member Schroeder to approve the minutes of March 17th as presented. Uh any discussion on that motion? No. Hearing none. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed and abstensions. One. Two. All right. So that passes three to zero with uh two abstensions. Council member Ro uh council member Schroeder, Council Strong and Mayor Row. All right. You'll get that eventually his own name. In my in my in my 26th year, I'll get that. Okay. Uh and then the minutes uh for March 24th uh council meeting uh as presented. Were there any changes or corrections to the uh amended version that was before the council this evening? Otherwise, a motion to approve those minutes would be moved. Second. All right. Move moved by council, seconded by council member Bower to approve the minutes of March 24th. Uh any discussion on that motion? Nope. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those minutes are approved. That brings us to our consent agenda. Mr. Trean, uh, it's over to you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Item 10A approves payments in the amount of $73,797.97. Agenda item 10B approves of one temporary gambling permit uh to Rosetown American Legion Auxiliary 542 for a raffle on July 4th and September 21st, 2025. Item 10 C approves the purchase of emergency management software included as part of the 2025 operational budget and street light installation and replacement as shown in the city's capital improvement budget. Item 10D approves entry into a joint powers agreement with Ramsey County regarding the emergency response team. Roseville has been part of this multi-EP departmental group since 2018. Agenda item 10E approves entering into professional services agreement with the Axel group to provide uh the police department uh with accreditation manager services. As the council will recall, the city did receive a grant of $250,000 from the Department of Justice to pay for a position within the police department to lead those accreditation efforts. Since receiving the grant, the police department has determined that having a third party professional versus a temporary city employee is the best to approach the work. With that in mind, it was determined that Axel Group had the necessary qualifications to do the work and given their familiarity with the Roseville Police Department, they would be best equipped to complete the work on behalf of the city. I would also mentioned the Department of Justice has approved the use of a contracted vendor to do the accreditation work. Item 10F adopts a resol resolution prohibiting parking on Fairview Avenue from County Road C to Twin Lakes Parkway. Item 10G approves the renewal of a short-term rental license for 419 419 Judith Avenue. Item 10H approves an amendment to the agreement for financial personnel services with Metro Inet. This amendment will allow the city to collect an additional $12,140 from Metro Inet uh for their use of city of Roseville's financial staff. The total amount of the contract will now be $56,000.40. Then finally, item 10 I receives and approves the final spending plan for the American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA. We just wanted to close the books on that. We did commit all those dollars. So that was uh really great work by everybody and appreciate the council support as we uh use those dollars over the past few years, but uh this is kind of the final report and we're just going to put a bow on it and and call it good. That's consent agenda. Thank you, Mr. Trojan. Is there a motion on the consent agenda? So moved. Second. It's been moved by Council Member Strong, second by Council Member Bower. Uh any discussion on the motion hearing? None. All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. That passes unanimously. Those items are approved or accepted. Uh that then brings us to our future agenda review, communications reports, and announcements. We'll start with city manager Trean on the future agenda. Thank you. I I discombobulated so early. I wasn't ready for it. Uh all right. So, uh we do have another meeting this week on April 9th is the ethics training uh here in this council chambers. That's for all council members, commission members, um, uh, department heads, and assistant department heads. So, we've all been there before on some level. So, we'll plan on that. There are some other activities going on right before that. Uh, chair and vice chair training as well as, uh, new member orientation for the commission. So, at 5:30. So, uh, we'll have food. So, please please come and enjoy food. The session starts um 6:30. I thought it was 6:30. Yeah, I think I said that wrong. Yeah, just as I was talking. Is this 6 o'clock? 6:30. Yeah. Okay. Sorry about that. Prior events start at 5:30. I think the meal part starts at 6 and then then the official program starts at 6:30. Thank you. Uh then we do have uh a meeting next Monday. Um really um there's two items on uh the agenda. One, we'll do the EDA meeting and we'll see the completed housing needs assessment market study. Uh this will be a presentation from staff and it's reporting back. Um it's more just receiving it. We're not looking for the council to take any direct action on any particular um uh program or or new effort. And then uh at the work session, we'll have all the department heads here to talk about the strategic planning and give an update on the goals we have come up with and the success indicators. There's still a lot of work uh to do, but we want to touch base with the council and then we will get to the objective level where you can actually wrap your hands around like what we're exactly doing there. So, we want to have that conversation. Then on the 21st, uh we do have County Con County Road B Street project assessment hearing. That's not something we do often here on the city of Roseville, but this is the County Conor Road B project west of Cleveland Avenue. Um and uh so notices have gone out. Uh we don't necessarily expect uh any um any big controversy with that, but uh as an assessment hearing, you may have some comments, so be prepared for that. We also will be doing another round of rightaway vacations as the mayor uh asked me today. I'm not sure if phase five is the final phase or if there's more. Um but I'll find out more on that as you know sometimes that can draw some folks here depending on what the issue is. So um we'll try to get some prep for all you so you know what the areas we're talking about. Then we want to discuss the massage therapy establishment cap. Currently we have I think we have 31 and looking at have some type of cap. Um this is more of a discussion. We don't have an ordinance ready to go. We want to just um talk about some of the issues and get your feedback on what we should come back with at a later date. And um so that's the upcoming meetings in April and the May and June meetings are listed there on the right. All right. Uh any questions on upcoming agendas or council member initiated items for future meetings? Any reports or announcements? All right. Well, with that then uh that concludes that item, but we do have a little bit more in our uh agenda this evening. Um so uh according to Minnesota state statutes 13bd.05 um there are certain uh exceptions to the open meeting law which uh city councils can uh avail themselves of uh for certain purposes. One of which is to review the performance of uh city employees uh who report to the council. In this case the only employee who reports to the city council in Roseville is the city manager uh and he is due for his performance review. Uh certainly under state statute uh the city manager can uh request that the performance review be held in an open session rather than a closed session um under the open meeting law. And so this would be the opportunity for Mr. Trean to let us know if he prefers us to remain in open session to conduct his performance review or if he's uh willing to uh have it done in the closed session or prefers the close session. All right, prefers the close session. All right, duly noted. Uh then just some housekeeping things uh especially for the folks uh from 9 north and the meeting. Uh once we once we adjourn to the close session uh we won't be coming back on camera. Um we will conduct the closed session in a different uh room than the council chambers. Uh we will conclude that close session and adjourn that and then reopen in open session in that same room. uh make it available to the public for the 10 seconds that it takes us to then finally adjourn. It doesn't make sense to keep people here on hand for a few seconds of of of you know camera time for those administrative type purposes. So for those watching at home as well as for the technical folks uh in the booth uh once we do adjourn to the closed session that will be the end of the uh video of tonight's meeting. Uh so with that noted I do uh request a motion from the council to adjourn to closed session for the purposes of reviewing the performance of city manager treasure. So move second. All right it's been moved by council member Sher seconded by council member Stron to adjourn to that closed session. Uh is there any discussion on the motion hearing? None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. We will adjourn to closed executive session approximately 6:36 p.m.