hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday, October 27th, 2025. Uh, Mr. Treger, would you call the role, please? >> Council member Grath >> here, council member Bower >> here, council member Stron >> here, >> council member Schroeder, >> Mayor Ro >> here. Uh, and council member Schroeder had indicated prior to this meeting uh to the city that she wouldn't be able to attend this evening. Um so we are running with just four council members this evening but we'll manage. Uh we have with us at the deis by way of introduction our city attorney Rachel Tierney who's a little bit closer to me this evening as a result on my right uh and our city manager Pat Trean who's on my left at the other end of the day. Uh and we'll make introductions of other staff and participants in the meeting as uh those agenda items come forward. I do want to note for members of the public who are here this evening, if you need to follow along with the meeting agenda, there are extra copies of the agenda available on the back table underneath the clock by the back door. Uh and there is also one copy of all the meeting materials that uh has to be shared by everybody, but it is available to the public uh if you need to reference any of the materials that the council is considering this evening. Uh so I wanted to make those two announcements and also let folks know if you do have a cell phone uh to be sure and silence it or otherwise uh make sure it doesn't disrupt our meeting this evening. And with that we'll ask folks to stand if you're able for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. All right. First on our agenda this evening, uh, after those formalities is the approval of tonight's agenda. And as always, I'll check with Mr. Trean from a staff perspective. Are there any changes that need to be made to the agenda this evening? >> Mr. Mayor, staff has no changes to the agenda. >> All right. Uh then I'll check as I always do with the council to see if the council has any requested changes to the agenda this evening or any items that the council would like to remove from the consent agenda for separate consideration. All right, it does not appear to be the case. Uh we'll do one uh check on the agenda with members of the public. Um we do have at the end of our agenda this evening section 10 which is known as the consent agenda. These items, these four items involve approval of payments, receipt of a report uh as well as some contract uh um um approvals. Uh normally those are taken up as a single motion at the end of the meeting with a limited opportunity for input from the public because they're rather administrative, but we always do want to check with folks if you are here for one of those items. This would be the time to let us know uh and we'll take that item up earlier in the meeting so that you could make your comments or ask your questions if you're here for that item. So, I'll check. Is anyone here for an item in section 10 of tonight's agenda, otherwise known as the consent agenda? >> Right. Does not appear to be the case. Uh with that, then we will uh proceed to consider a motion to approve the agenda. Is so is there a motion? >> So move. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Council Member Grath, seconded by Council Member Stron to approve tonight's agenda as presented. Any discussion on that motion? >> No. >> Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously four to zero and we have our agenda this evening. Next on our agenda is our first opportunity for public comment. This is uh for general public comment uh not related to items on our agenda. Uh we will have an opportunity for public comment as agenda items come up. Uh but at the start of each meeting we do provide an opportunity for general public comment uh that may be on matters of interest to people in the community uh or uh related to city business but once again not being considered this evening. So, I'll check. Is there anyone here this evening to speak under general public comment as opposed to on agenda items that may come up this evening? Does not appear to be the case then. Uh so then we'll move on with our agenda. Our next item on the agenda then is to um uh look at recognitions and donations. We have one recognition this evening which is a proclamation related to Native American Heritage Month. I'll read the proclamation and then a motion from the council to approve it would be in order. The proclamation reads as follows. The city of Roseville is located on land obtained through a broken treaty that was first home of to the Dakota and Ojiway people and where many continue to reside. And whereas the city of Roseville recognizes that this treaty entitled non-native people to live and work on traditional native lands. And whereas despite centuries long and ongoing erasure of indigenous people from American history and unjust federal policies of assimilation and termination that ripped children from their families, Native American people have persevered in this country. And whereas indigenous people of this land upon which our country and city now stand provided values and ideals that have become ingrained in American culture, including respect for the natural environment and a rich cultural history. And whereas the city of Roseville is committed to promoting racial equity, equality, and justice as fundamental aspects of a safe and welcoming community, and to undo the long-standing trauma and harm of unjust government policies of assimilation and termination that have caused countless lives and displaced and broken up uh even more countless families. And whereas the city of Roseville invites all members of the community to join the federal government in celebrating and acknowledging the 2025 National Native American Heritage Month. And whereas this observance offers increased opportunity to better understand Native American heritage, past and present contributions to our communities and to honor the many indigenous people who have sacrificed their lives and customs for the growth of our nation, including service in our military. Now therefore be resolved that the city of Roseville hereby proclaims the month of November 2025 as Native American Heritage Month in the city. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by Council Member Straw, seconded by Council Member Grath to approve that proclamation. Uh any discussion on the motion? Uh Council Member Strong. >> I'd just like to thank our city staff who continue to um hold up and make uh the Wild Rice Festival an excellent celebration within our city to honor. Um, so this these aren't just words that we speak once a year, but are um part of what we do. Um, there are dance events and our summer um programs in the at the um park and such. And I just want to make sure people realize that it is a ongoing community. It's not a past thing, but there are people who represent natives um in our community who really appreciate our ongoing dedication to their perseverance. >> All right. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Uh hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero. And that proclamation is approved. >> Uh that then brings us to our business items for this evening. Our first business item is item 7A, which is to consider adopting a revised debt policy for the city. Uh and we have our finance director uh Michelle Petri with us this evening uh to bring this proposed revision before us for our consideration. Welcome, Miss Petri. >> Good evening. best practices require that we periodically review our policies and we've been reviewing over the last five years. We've reviewed the various policies that the city has and this year um because we did issue debt um for the fire engine, I took a look at the debt policy and brought this to the finance commission um because the statutory debt limit was raised in 2008 from two 2% to 3% and our policy hadn't been updated to reflect that change. So, we've made that change and we are referencing the statutory um the statute. There are a few other minor cosmetic changes. Um we did remove [clears throat and cough] under the purpose statement the maintain the best possible Moody's and standard and pores credit rating because that really doesn't belong in the purpose statement. We have it down in the policy where we will maintain the best possible credit rating. At one point in time, the city did both bond rating agencies. We now only do standard and pores. Um there really is no need to incur the extra cost to get the bonds rated by both agencies. So those were the main changes that we made to the debt policy. Um, and with that, I guess if you have any questions or want to make any changes. Um, all right. Well, hopefully we don't have too many changes this evening. Uh, are there questions from the council for our finance director on the policy proposal? Um, I just wanted to note that it is it is our policy not to uh have terms of financing that are longer than the expected life of the the thing being financed, which is a very reasonable policy. That's not changing. Uh, some of the wording is is tweaked around that. But then the other is that the city uh endeavors to issue uh debt uh for the shortest possible period while maintaining the payments at a level that is affordable uh to the funding source which is the taxpayers of the city. So uh that's a good part of our policy that we did once again adjust some of the wording on. >> Yes. >> Um uh so uh for folks in the public who may be concerned about uh cities issuing debt uh those are important parts of our policy. Uh and then I would also note that while the state law changed the debt limit for cities from 2% to 3% of their >> taxable property. >> Yes. >> Um the city is well below that in terms of the amount of debt that we've issued. I don't know what the number is, but I'm having a feeling it's under 1%. >> Oh, it's well below 1%. >> Okay. Is there a zero in after the decimal? Okay. >> Yes. >> Yes. All right. [laughter] Which is typical for cities? I don't know. Well, maybe there are cities out there that approach their debt limit, but gosh, that would be [laughter] >> that would be challenging. Maybe they have less taxable value to to charge against, I suppose. Yeah. >> All right. Uh, with that, I'll check if there are any other uh questions or comments from the council. Otherwise, we would open it up for public comment. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to comment on these amendments to the city's de uh debt policy? Does not appear to be the case. Uh, council member Stron, >> very minimal. I asked um Mr. Treon there is the very first um line item in policy has a period after it and none of the subsequent ones do. So whatever the correction is that they all are the same. >> Yeah. >> All right. This council wish to make a motion on this policy adoption. Actually I believe there's a resolution >> which would uh by its action adopt the policy. So the resolution is the second attachment. All right. >> Second. It's been moved by Council Member Straw, seconded by Council Member Grath to adopt the resolution which amends the debt policy as outlined uh including the punctuation uh change as necessary for consistency. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion, council member Strong. >> Nothing further. >> Right. Council member Gra has the seconder of the motion. >> I think pointing out the the low amount that we have borrowed is really important for the public to understand because we don't want to be maxed out in our borrowing. for doing that, >> right? Other discussion on the motion hearing. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero. Uh and that policy change is adopted. Uh next is item 7B under business items, which is to consider action based on the parks and recck commission's recommendation regarding the Aldine Street Rightway. Uh and I'll turn it over to city manager Trean to introduce this item for the council's consideration. >> Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll be real brief. There's lots of information in your packet on and this is not the first time you've chatted about this um item. The issue in front of the council tonight is actually to formally take up the park and recreation commission recommendation of September 2nd from their meeting. They did appear in front of the city council on September 15th as part of a joint meeting and made uh the following recommendation. Uh they had two motions in consideration of uh the Aldine rightaway. Motion number one was the parks and recreation commission acknowledges that the Aldine Street Ride rightway has value for the parks and recreation system and that motion passed. The second motion was the parks and recreation commission recommends that the city council direct staff to engage a consultant to conduct a feasibility study for a non-traditional pathway through the rightway evaluating one pathway alignment options and specific tree impacts and that a final decision be made immediately following the receipt of that study. So the question in front of the council really is tonight as to what to do with that recommendation and any action you want to direct staff for any followup uh based on that recommendation. We do uh in the staff report have some estimates of what that uh cost would be. Top of my head I think it was between 3,000 and 10,000. Uh hard to uh exactly know until uh we get some bids out there, but that's just a piece of information for you to consider. So with that, we do have staff available for questions, but uh this is really uh at the council level now to have discussion and provide us direction. >> Right. Thank you, Mr. Trojan. Uh and it is correct in the report, it does say 3,000 to 10,000 as the estimate. Uh and the funding source would be either potentially planning dollars in the capital improvement uh program funds uh or potentially park improvement program funds within also within the capital improvement program. Uh so they would be basically capital funds that are available to the city for capital purposes such as as this might be. Um with that are there questions from the council for staff at this time? Council member Strong. >> Um I wanted to double check. So Mr. Trean, if something were to move forward after this next step with actually um moving forward with of park process in this area, uh would the funds be coming from levy dollars or from the park improvement funds or um the money set aside from new developments for park development? >> I think what's being proposed is the capital fund which is levy supported. So levy dollars. >> Okay. >> And maybe just to clarify, it would be existing collected levy dollars. not adding additional dollars to the levy for that purpose. >> Yes, that's correct. We have fund balances for a variety of capital funds including park funds. So that's not where it would come from. >> Existing balances, tax levels. >> Great. Other questions? Uh council member Ber >> on the uh September 2nd uh staff report. It notes under cost considerations the let's just state here the public works department preliminary analysis estimated a hardscape pathway would cost somewhere between 84,000 and 177,000. Is that just the estimate for the actual pathway and not taking I'm curious to know what that's taking into account. I know there's some discussion here also about the grades and whatnot as wondering if those if that's taking into account any retaining walls or other work needs to be done. >> Um >> that's not known. to follow up another time. >> Yeah. So, uh I'm not sure if I can fully answer that. I think certainly that was with a heartscape path. So, that was with an asphalt and clearing uh 8 ft six to 8 ft wide and the tree impact. Do not know about um specific grading, but I'm sure that would be factored in because there that um area is a little bit uneven. Um but I think that is just an estimate um doing a traditional path which we traditionally do um elsewhere in the city given the site conditions and that's just an estimate and so certainly we would want to uh look at that number closer but I think that as far as I understood it what that estimate was and Mr. Fryhammer isn't here tonight and I don't know if Mr. Johnson can add any more to that from from his perspective but I think that's what it was. Thank you. I do seem to recall that there was and I don't know if it entered into those numbers, but there was consideration of whether or not to do an improvement to the crossing of Roselon at the south end. And I that may have been part of what the range was as I sort of recall from that discussion, but I don't specifically recall if that was part of that or if that was in addition to that. But certainly I think one of the the factors that I recall uh the public works folks mentioning was um the width of the pathway uh and the material of construction and the extent to which there is the need to do such things as retaining walls and things like that. So I think that that all factored into the range the fairly wide range that was given at that time. Uh and once again that estimate was for a paved pathway meeting paved pathway standards uh which is not necessarily what the parks and rec commission have recommended to the council. Uh other questions for staff from council members. >> Uh council member Ber >> we noted that um you know there's different options for doing this path and making we do have a requirement to make it accessible and that can be accomplished a couple different ways. Do we have any responsibilities for maintaining this path as well? I'm thinking in snow because we're noting that if it's a smaller width I think it talking about 48 in. I don't believe we have any equipment that small um except for shovels. I think our parks and work dire parks and recck director is uh prepared to answer that question. >> Thank you councel and council member Bower. Um we we wouldn't have necessarily a responsibility. My understanding is that we would not necessarily have a responsibility to do maintenance on it as long as we are consistent. So if we do maintenance on it in the sense of we plow it, then we do need to plow it to an ADA standard. But if we don't make the connection, my under my understanding is that we would not have to um make that accessible. Now, part of this additional study would be to delve a little deeper into that, but um based on what the initial conversations I had with folks, it sounds like that's not necessarily something we could choose to leave it unmaintained, so to speak, during the winter months. And I did want to clarify too, what does the city do in regard to snow removal on the existing sort of non-traditional pathway that's in um >> Cottontail Park. >> Cottonail Park. Yeah, >> we we do plow that one. >> Okay. >> And we have equipment that plows at its width, whatever. >> Correct. Yep. >> Okay. >> All right. Other questions for staff? And you may want to just stay handy here just in case. [clears throat] >> Although appears maybe we don't have additional questions. All right. Thank you again, Mr. Johnson. With that then uh once again the uh question before the city council this evening and I should be clear about this too. We are not being asked as an alternate to following the recommendation of the parks and rec commission to actually vacate the right of way this evening as I understand it. We don't seem to have any materials in our packet that would be prepared for that. Um and so we wouldn't necessarily take that action this evening if that was ultimately the direction the council did want to go. That would also have to be a subsequent action of the council is my understanding. >> Yes. The only uh Mr. Mayor, the only item under consideration is what to do with the park and recck commission. Based on that decision, uh they'll be following action whether to pursue a contract, an RFP or or if the decision is not to do that, bring it back for a future meeting for consideration of the actual vacation based on the petition. >> All right. And I was going to say we do still have a petition before the city from the uh adjoining properties. >> I'd like to make a motion to accept parking. We actually need to do the public comment part of this >> before. >> Yeah. So, with that, we'll open it up uh for anyone from the public who wishes to comment. Uh we'll go through the rules of the road here uh for public comment just so everybody's familiar with them and and certainly if you've been here before, you'll uh remember this uh or something like it. Uh but uh essentially the uh the way it works is that everybody gets one chance to speak for this agenda item. Uh when you're uh speaking, you have a three-minute time limit, which is established by city council rule, which is fairly long-standing. Um I will keep time uh and let you know if you're uh pushing up against or slightly over the limit and and try to be uh generous, but at the same time gentle with my enforcement of that time limit. Uh if you have questions, we'll make a note of those questions and then attempt to answer those questions once everybody has had a chance to comment. Um, and uh, then if the questions are technical in nature, we can probably provide a reasonably good answer quickly. If they're more policy or procedural, it may be up to the council's discussion to get to an answer to that type of question. Um, once again, address all questions and comments to the council, uh, not necessarily to other speakers or to staff members. Uh, this is information for the council to take under consideration, uh, as this item is being considered this evening. Um, as I said, one opportunity to speak per per uh speaker for this agenda item. Uh, also, if you can begin your comments with your name, uh, so that we know who you are, uh, and either your address or street uh, for the public record, uh, whatever you're more comfortable giving as part of that public record. And if you happen to have a name that may not be something that generally people know how to spell or guess, um, once you're done with your comments, there is a clipboard on the table, and maybe we'll move it off to the side a little bit. Uh but once you're done with your comments, you can just step over to the clipboard and just write down your name so that we've got the spelling uh for the record. Uh the other thing is if we do have a lot of speakers this evening, uh there's nothing wrong with while one person is at one of the microphones speaking, uh another person can be sitting at the other microphone and ready to go. Uh and if you want to be the next person after those two, you can certainly uh sit in one of the seats in the front row and kind of be ready uh to be on deck to speak. Um, the other thing I'll note is that um, uh, and I'm just losing my train of thought. I hate when I do this when I'm trying to provide all the instructions here. Um, but oh, I've lost it. So, whatever it was, uh, we'll just have to wing that part of it. But, uh, with that, um, oh, >> I had a question. Could you make sure that we understand what the comments are regarding this evening? Um, because I think there's a breath of what people have concerns about. So, what are we asking for comment on this evening? >> Thank you for clarifying that. No, that was uh the I think we tried to tried to establish that in some of the introductory information, but once again, we have before us this evening the recommendations on the screen from the parks and recck commission uh that the city council had asked for in regard to this matter. Um the action requested of the council this evening is to consider those recommendations uh and either to uh take up the recommendations in the affirmative or to take some other action uh as which would be not the same as what's being recommended by the commission. Uh so that's what's before us this evening as we noted any subsequent action whether that be we receive uh a report on the requested information and take some action in that regard uh or if we don't uh want to follow the recommendation as a council this evening we would still have to have a second meeting or well at this point a higher number of meetings a subsequent meeting to uh take that action as well. So the the action this evening that the council will be undertaking is whether to accept and follow the recommendation of the parks and rec commission uh or not. Uh and then as I said either way there would be a subsequent meeting to handle uh whichever direction we go as a result of this meeting this evening. So with that um and I still haven't thought of the other items. So we'll go ahead [laughter] uh and open it up for public comment and feel free to uh come on up uh and uh make your remarks to the council. [clears throat] Welcome. >> Good evening. Uh, Mayor Ro and Council >> remembered what it was. You don't have to move the microphone. You can >> I don't have to [laughter] talk. >> Keep it right where it was because they'll adjust the volume in the control room. >> I wish I had a cup for the water though. [clears throat and cough] >> Yes. >> I would appreciate if the speakers would use their microphones. >> Well, they will use the microphones. Um, all I'm saying is that you don't have to pull the microphone right up against your mouth because the control room will adjust the volume so it's uh audio so the audio is >> telling you. >> Yeah, >> I can't hear you. [clears throat and cough] >> Can you hear me >> don't always speak into their microphone? >> Well, so I was just going to point out these these are directional microphones and so when I'm speaking this way, it picks it up the best. When I turn this way, it doesn't pick it up as well. and some uh council members or others aren't always as close to the microphone as they need to be or pointing their speaking at it. Uh but we'll try to do our best to make sure that happens. I should also note that we do have uh hearing assist devices uh and technology available in the chambers if that's something that members of the public are interested in in terms of being able to hear even better. Uh and you can inquire with Mr. Tre about that if you'd like to. Uh but with that, I haven't charged any of this time against your time. So, uh feel free to introduce yourself and make your comments. Tim Brown, uh, 93 Mid Oaks Lane. I'm one of the adjacent property owners. I also [clears throat] happen to have a long career as a civil engineer. And so I've got some specifics on your, um, recommendation from the parks here. First is that no, there was no crossing u estimate included in what public works provided early on in all this. So that crossing might be a good item to add to your study. Um, as a civil engineer, to me it seems like a very important issue. Have that midbach crossing um, properly um, aligned so that it's it's safe for people of all ages and abilities. Um, so that was something I would suggest adding. Also, I've I've pointed out um, both to the council and staff that one of my biggest concerns uh, is the drainage out there. And anecdotally, a lot of the neighbors have said they had um drainage problems, that is water in their basement um before the current storm sewer went in. And I think what the city did was an excellent job of scoping that and they put in the um the storm sewer line that goes through the right on the edge of this rightway at a at an elevation such that it acts as a drain on the surface water underground that is the the surficial groundwater so that it drains lower than our basement. And so, for example, there's a a a catch basin that's the closest to our house that's very low and so that it's almost kind of in a hole. And I [clears throat] think that was done deliberately to bring that friatic surface or that top of the groundwater down below the basement. I mentioned that to staff and and the response in the report was that they would just add another drainage pipe if it if need be, but it's not a it's not a quantity. It's not a discharge issue which another pipe would solve if the pipe was too small, but it's the elevation of the three structures that are along this rightway. If you grade it in such a way that you've got to raise these and and you can do that by just adding a ring and now all of a sudden this pipe with a grate on top has a higher elevation or you could lower it. Um that affects the level of the surficial groundwater in the area. So, to me, this is a very important issue, especially as an adjacent property owner. I I would hate to have to deal with water in my basement. My basement um had water problems at one point in time, and it was built in 1957, and I think that was before the pipe went in there in the late 60s or so. And so what [clears throat] I see in my basement is literally the floor heaved up and it has a crack, a big crack down the middle where water pressure pushes that concrete up. And maybe you've seen or heard of that before, but I think that is an important aspect of this report that you're going to do as well. [clears throat] I think um some study of that issue would be very important here, especially with regard to whatever grading comes out of such a report. >> Right. Thank you. Thank you. >> Right at three minutes, by the way. >> Setting a good president. >> Hello and welcome. >> Hi. Thank you. Rachel Brown. Um not related to Tim Brown, >> but uh 1705 Roselon Avenue West. Um right adjacent to the rightway. Uh there are times when something that starts as a simple issue can spin out of control. One thing leads to another and another and another and then even with the best of intentions and really good creative work, that small issue becomes unnecessarily complex. And in those situations, the best thing to do is for someone to say stop, for someone to say no. That is where we are with this issue. I ask you to say no. No to this. I ask you to say stop. No further study of a possible trail. No more money, no more staff time, no more precious volunteer time from you, the council members or the park and and recck commissioners. And there are many reasons why to stop. And you know them already. If you care about trees in and along that 30-foot stretch of land, you know, the question is not if trees will be killed and damaged, but how many. If you care about making trails accessible for people with mobility issues, you know, and you just heard, the park trail will not be accessible when there's snow and ice. Given the no plow plan that is needed to try and protect those trees. If you care about keeping the rightway character, you know that six and a half foot high fences that sadly my husband and I and our neighbors will put up to maintain any privacy will change the feel of that tiny urban woodland forever. If you care about and have studied park access for people in Mid Oaks, you know that the Falcon Heights Community Park is less than a mile away and is a wonderful resource used by all of us or many of us. If you care about equity and inclusion and you have studied the um and you know the data about Roseville households and park access, you know there are neighborhoods that are far more needy than ours. If you care about city staff, you know they're busy with important tasks for projects you have already prioritized and budgeted for carefully. And if you care about fiscal responsibility, you know this is not a project for which any more city time or money should be spent. So please say stop. Please say no and um go back to the original simple issue. There's a very very small patch of land that the city long ago claimed for a possible road that now should simply be passed back to the underlying property owners. So say yes to putting this issue to rest and at your next meeting say no to the vacation pro or say yes to the vacation. Excuse me. Oh, spun that around. >> Stunner. >> Yeah. No, but seriously that the next meeting please bring it to the bring the vacation back. It's been since April. It's we're in our third season um approaching our fourth dealing with. So, please put this to rest. Thank you. >> Thank you for your account. >> Other members of the public wish to speak to this item this evening? Hello and welcome. >> Hi. [clears throat] >> Good evening. >> Uh my name is Oscar Anderson and I live at 90 Mid Oaks Lane. >> Welcome. >> Uh so I'm in sixth grade and I go to Brimhole Elementary which is um which I think is like a bit north of my house. Uh so basically the path that is in this subject leads to a road which then leads to my school. And last year uh I used to use it or last year I used it all the time to uh to walk to my house and to the school and well yeah to my mom. [laughter] >> That was great. Take it away mom. >> Thanks. Hi, I'm Ann Lahi. Live at the same uh address as my very brave son here. Um I don't have anything prepared tonight. I just I guess I would um ask you to consider voting yes tonight um to look into the option of creating a non-traditional path so that um our kids can use it again. And not just my kids in a few years, they're going to be in middle school and off and away. And I'm really thinking of all the kids in the decades to come. This path has been in use for a long, long, long time. And we've missed it since it's closed down. And so um we appreciate people's love of the trees. We of course love them as well. And um think it's really important to make sure that they are as protected as possible. um we do have trees unfortunately falling down all over our neighborhood because of drought and climate change and disease and so um my hope is that this non-traditional path would be just a very minor stress on the trees and um anyway >> that's it. >> Uh I have I have um like one more thing to add. We have a few neighborhood kids uh in our neighborhood and about two more to come actually. [laughter] Um well yeah um so basically they are going to Brim Hall too and they haven't used that path yet. There's a kindergartener there who just started school this year at Brim Hall and he hasn't used the path yet since it's closed down. Last year I was like, "Oh my gosh, I'm so happy. I'm going to walk the path with my with my the neighborhood kids and you know um and it's an important part of getting to school and stuff like Yeah. In friends houses. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> And uh it's completely accessible. Um last year I've ridden my bike and my scooter down it before. >> There we go. Right. Thank you. >> Okay. There. >> Is there anyone else from the public who wish to speak? Hello. Welcome. >> I can't follow Oscar. Yeah, it's [laughter] amazing. Um, hi, I'm Donald G. Um, good to see you all again. I'm going to read this because I want to kind of keep track of what I wanted to say tonight. I request the mayor and city council to please accept the recommendations of the park and recreation commission acknowledging that the Aldine Street right ofway has value to the parks and recreation system and to engage a consultant to study the feasibility of a non-traditional pathway through the right ofway including pathway alignment options and specific tree impacts. That's right out of the report. I thank you for recognizing that the Aldine Street rightway is more complicated than the usual vacation requests brought for city action and therefore for directing the parks and recre department and commission to more deeply study the issue. I also thank and acknowledge the remarkable work of parks and recreation staff and commission members to fully explore and understand what the Aldine right of way means to all affected parties and then I believe to reflect all parties wishes and interests as best possible in their recommendations to the mayor and city council. At the end of the July 21st city council meeting, I spoke with city council member Schroeder who urged me and all of us to get together to seek solutions as neighbors. Based on her suggestion, I reached out and met with one of the families along the right ofway and have made a point to greet and chat with neighbors whose houses adjoin the path both at subsequent city council meetings and during walks on neighborhood streets. I believe there are a number of things that we are all in agreement on, including that we all wish to protect the trees and other elements of the Aldine right-of-way path and that the experience regarding this issue over these path past months has been challenging for all of us, including city leaders and staff, all of you. To be clear, I am strongly in favor of maintaining some form of a path along the right of way in which my experience has served as our local mini reservoir woods. I have heard and read comments that the right ofway is merely a shortcut and will say that I think there is some truth to that. However, being a shortcut does not to my mind reduce the value of the space and may in fact highlight its utility and value as part of our recreation system. As an older person one year short of 70 whose primary form of recre recreation and exercise is walking, I greatly value the option to take a shorter and to my experience rejuvenating stroll in the woods on my daily walks. I ask all of us to take a deep breath and await the findings of the recommended feasibility study of the Aldine Street right ofway. Should the findings show that it is not possible to both protect trees and create a simple and safe path for future walkers with minimal impact on surrounding properties, I believe we would all agree to take no further action. If however there's a path found that will protect trees and minimize encroachment on the properties along the right of way, I sincerely hope we will all choose to come together again as neighbors in support of the plan and welcome one another back to this path that has meant so much to so many. Thank you all very much and thank you for your work on this. I know this is hard. >> Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? >> [snorts] >> I'm Sarah Quinn and I live on Mid Oaks, one of the adjacent properties. Um, I really want to thank you guys who are paying attention here. I really appreciate that. Um, I know everybody's time is valuable. Um, the path that the city has been exploring is not a city-wide amenity. It is not a destination that people will drive to. It is not a park to play in. It is not a wandering trail to hike. It is a shortcut. A shortcut that all city taxpayers will pay for, but a very small number of Roseville residents will use. A majority of the tree canopies in the row expand the entire 30-foot width of it. If you do proper construction drip line protection, you can't put a path in. and spoke to us losing trees in our neighborhood. Since 2021, we've lost 13 trees just on that Mid Oaks Lane and Mid Oaks Road. That's a lot of trees to lose. So, I'm here asking you to stop spending valuable taxpayer money dollars on a niche shortcut that will serve less than 1% of Roseville. >> Thank you for your comments. >> All right. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak at on this item? Come on up. >> Welcome, >> uh, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Can you hear me? >> I can hear you. Can you hear? >> Can you hear me now? >> All right. >> Very good. I >> I came to listen tonight. My name is Karen Schaefer. I live at 2100 Fair View Avenue, right adjacent to Brim Hall School in Evergreen Park. So I I'm real familiar with this area because hello, I'm a senior citizen and I walk in the neighborhood. But my intention had been to come here just to listen to the debate because I know it's been ongoing and ongoing and I I have only one kind of different perspective. This is coming to you through the park and recreation department. All right, that's one silo of city government. My the way I approached this issue was through the public works. I had the distinct honor of serving on the original pathways commission that the city established in I don't know 1982, you know, back in the day before we had the awardwinning pathways system that we have today. And living on Fairview Avenue, I I see this every day. the dog walkers, the baby carriages, the cyclists, the boarders, the walkers. The the system that we have in place in Roseville today that we started working on in the 80s is a jewel uh for a for a city that is so impacted by county and state roads. We have great um accessibility for everyone, but they are all destination oriented. The whole purpose of the system is to enable people to get from here to there safely. This pathway that you're talking about um in in the our neighborhood has nothing to do with that. And our parkways, our park system is not the pathway system. So, it's kind of an odd uh mix of path and park in my adult view. You know, I'm not particularly in favor of spending more money on on a what's a shortcut. Um, it's not even a very handy shortcut. And there are many neighborhoods where there'd be great shortcuts. I just think uh there's excessive attention paid to a very tiny thing when we already have in our city an awardwinning robust um pathway system to serve all of our residents. And I I would lean toward not worrying about um an old rightway. And the city attorney, she knows well this sort of thing happens all the time. These little parcels like, "Oh my gosh, the city still owns this. Oh hello." and instead just um put it away and encourage people to use the excellent system that we have um and not of the leadership of the city council over the past decades. So, thanks so much and and next time I'll take advantage of if you've got the system I'll do better. I didn't know you had one. I know the Guthrie Theater has it, but thank you. >> Ours may not be up to Guthrie Theater standards, [laughter] but uh but hopefully it will be adequate if needed. >> Thanks. >> Thanks for your comments this evening. >> Hello and welcome. Hi, my name is Cindy Gallagher and I live at 20009 Herschel and I've I've shared before and I didn't write something I thought I would but um I thought I'd wait and see if I was even going to say anything but I feel like I just can't I just can't leave here with without just talking about future generations and how we're talking about a very short period of time right now. And the homeowners that live adjacent to the property or the the land because it's really land. It's not property right now that we're talking about will eventually move or we all end up dying at some point and somebody else lives there. But when a quarter is president present, it's present for many generations and we don't always know the history but it has a long impact. And I, one of my neighbors is an amazing map drawer and she drew this incredible map. She's here tonight of um the migration of the Dakota Indians from Bed Masa up to White Bear Lake and all of the paths that they used to travel that were taken away from them as land became property. And I feel like this is similar in a very very small way where there's this point in time where we want to make a difference that will affect future generations. And um when I started out I was thinking about myself and it's like my own usage of this for the last 35 years. But really it's not about me. It's about the future. and we have the opportunity to keep a door open or close it forever. So, I really vote I really hope you consider um approving motion two, motion one, motion two, and consider a way to put it in as a non-traditional path. Nobody wants an asphalt path with retaining walls and things like that. just a simple path that is kind of similar to what's at Gibbs Farm. Um, one of the neighbors is a wheelchair person who um said you don't need an asphalt path, you don't need a concrete path. Um, something like what's at Gibbs is good. So, that's all I wanted to share is to keep the corridor open and don't close the door forever. Thanks. >> Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak uh to this item this evening? >> Hello, Malcolm. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Dan Gallagher. I also live at 20009 Hershel Street. Um I did not coordinate with my wife. [laughter] >> I hadn't planned >> pretty well though. >> Yes, indeed. >> Sorry. Uh I'm I'm prompted to speak to um express my mystification at some of the comments other speakers have made. Uh one of the comments was that less than 1% of the um citizens of Roseville would use this path. So that in some way is supposed to make this less worthy. And uh I think that is not a a particularly compelling argument. uh you have seen the petition, you know that there are large numbers of people in this neighborhood that do wish that do use the path and wish to continue using a path there. So, I don't think that should be a consideration. That just doesn't make any sense. It's also been um suggested that because it's only a shortcut that that makes of less value. Well, uh there are two quote shortcuts between my house and Brim Hall Elementary School. uh they don't take you anywhere except to another street, but I haven't heard any criticism of having those shortcuts there. So, I don't know why that would make come into play. Third, um they seem to think that it's just not important. But having walked that path doz not dozens, many hundreds of times, uh just to get out of off the streets, the business, away from the traffic, uh for me and all of my uh colleagues that walk this has great value. We can get away from the traffic. We can get away from the noise. We can be in a place where you can actually hear birds sing. So uh again that's to me in and of itself is a powerful argument to actually maintain that. So uh I would therefore uh for those reasons and other reasons urge the commission to approve both mo motion one and two. Uh we're not talking about a lot of money here. I don't know why they keep raising the issue of cost. It's a rounding error in terms of the budget of Roseville. And so we need to do this. We need to go forth and have this study done. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Right. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? >> Hello and welcome. >> Hello. My name is Steph Ashenbrunner or Stephanie Keane Ashenbrunner and I live at 2016 Hershel. Um I I when I think back to where we were in I think it was April when this first came up um the amount that we've learned about the path and about um [clears throat] our neighbors and the entire um approach has we've learned a lot and we are at this point where we're we're arguing you know do we go further down this path and learn some more things. Um, we're not we're not talking about uh decision to vacate or not yet. We're just let's learn some more right now by um having this uh feasibility study and um you know this is this is a public good that we're talking about and I I know that um being fiscally conservative is really important especially um you know when when um times get tight and Um, with that said, I think that it's important to balance what what a public good is versus what how much a feasibility study costs and um let let's keep working on this and seeing if we can't find a solution that is amendable to everybody. I remember walking that path many times and um if the adjacent property owners even knew we were there, they were friendly. Um I think that um uh benefit to them to have more land needs to be considered that, you know, they're they're gaining something when the entire rest of the neighborhood loses something. And um I think that you know before a decision is made let's just know all the facts. >> Thanks. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? Remember you can queue up in the seats in the front row if you want. [clears throat] Good evening. >> My name is Claire Claire Talon Ruin. I live at 20 mid Oaks Lane. I'd ask you to please consider the feasibility study. Say yes to that. Community is nourished by shared time and space. A throughway in a neighborhood without sidewalks that neighbors use peacefully is symbolic of community. The Aldine path is an important social feature of this neighborhood. Please consider the lasting impacts of its exist its existence on generations who will live here when we have all moved on. I hope you will choose to maintain the path for the calm that will return. Perhaps not with we who compromise the current set of neighbors. Alas, but for all future Roseville residents who deserve this simple pathway. Deciding to vacate will make this permanent. Establishing a path assumes the best in us that we can get along and that space particularly public can be shared. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Welcome. >> My name is Daniel Ruin. My spouse Claire and I live at uh 20 Minute Oaks Lane. First, I express my support for recommendations from the Park and Recreation Commission to conduct a feasibility study for a walking path through the Aldine right ofway. I believe the recommendations are reasonable. Requests from the city council for direction and more information were carefully considered. I thank the commission for their intentional work. Second, as I and others have already raised at previous meetings, what concerns me more than points for and against a path or rightway vacation are the broken relationships in our community. So, I address my comments to you, the city council, to my neighbors on and around Mid Oaks Lane, and especially to those neighbors along the rightway in a spirit of constructive hope. I make the following appeal not because I think we can change one another's minds on this specific issue, but because of the potential for a longer game if we summon the will to play it. We need trusting neighborto- neighbor relationships in trying times such as these. We will require that trust for the months and years ahead to address even greater challenges together. Since the city is perhaps not equipped uh to facilitate a more formal mediation process, I see no other option than to take this civic responsibility upon ourselves. And so to this point, I and another concerned resident, both of us in favor of a public path along the right of way and hoping for some sort of compromise, engaged in private conversations with two of our neighbors along the right of way this summer, and I continue to keep my follow-up invitation open for active listening, discussion, and possible solutions. I've served as a leader and participant in Braver Angels workshops for the past several years. Braver Angels brings together American citizens across the political divide. And these sessions u they don't try to change anybody's minds. They feature non-judgmental active listening exercises and they result in citizens creating a covenant of agreement on shared values of communication and civil discourse. I continue to believe that we're all people of goodwill and if not always that then at least a people who recognize shared self-interest in maintaining bonds of communal cooperation and mutual protection. So if any of our neighbors along the Aldine right away are interested in such a process, I would welcome that participation. I will work with you to design an equitable and constructive atmosphere to have your feelings shared and respected. And you would of course also be asked to do the same with neighbors who don't agree with you on this issue. Perhaps with the input of even one or two neighbors on each side of the disagreement, we might bring more people together to strengthen our relationships and pave the way for future resilience and cooperation. And of course, if there are any resources the city can provide like mediation or space for us to meet or support, we would welcome that. There have been so many statistics and graphs and appeals, testimonies and emails and handouts to save the trees from both sides of this issue. Well, as far as I know, trees mostly cooperate. They make space for one another. They share scarce resources and alert one another to dangers in the soil. What we have right now is like a bad case of buckthornne in our emotional system. What we have is an overemphasis on competing for sunlight out of fear and anger. So I think it would honor these trees if we modeled the way our environment finds equilibrium and sustains itself for the long haul. So I can be reached at 20 Oaks Lane. I've got a Brave Angel sign in my yard. Stop by sometime or feel free to leave a note with your contact information. Thank you, city council. Thank you. Thank your comments. Hello and welcome. >> Good evening. My name is Frank Stron. I I live on Shrier Avenue and yes, I'm the spouse of council member Julie Stron. I've been hesitant to speak on this issue um since the very beginning because of accusations that were made and eventually uh dismissed um because my wife was honest and open about how she thinks and the things that she does. She did nothing unethical, but it but she was accused. This pathway, this right ofway, not it's not a pathway yet. This I encourage you to move forward with the park recommendations and work deliberately on finding a good solution. I I think we I think there should end up being a pathway there. Even if it is just a shortcut, 400 feet from the end of that pathway is another shortcut that goes off to the east. I don't remember the street that um there's a street between Snowing Avenue and Aldine. >> Um >> Rididgewood. Thank you. There's a shortcut through there. And why? I I I don't understand the problem with it being a shortcut. If it's a nice relaxing shortcut through the trees, all the better. Um, and just a sad note about the trees. Um, and I I love the trees. I studied forestry at the University of Minnesota back in the 1980s. But I do know that if something were to happen with that underground utilities, if a pipe were to collapse, the public works would move in and they would cut down every tree in their way. They wouldn't come here and ask you if they could. They they would go and fix it. It's a sad reality of a of a tree in our city and any city really. Uh I I don't think we should hope for that. I like the trees. Um I also like using that pathway or that right ofway which I haven't used for quite a while now. But I I urge you to move forward. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? Hello and welcome. >> Thank you. Here we are again. Appreciate the time that you've given to this and the consideration you the council mayor row. I also want to give a thanks to uh the parks and rec recreation commission for their weighing in and taking the situation seriously as well. I want to respectfully encourage you. >> Can you take just a moment to introduce yourself? >> I'm sorry. Yes. Uh my name is Joe Pribble. I live at 1738 Skilman Avenue West in Roseville. >> Uh want to encourage you to acknowledge and honor the parks and recreation commission's conclusion that the Aldine ride ofway holds value for the city's parks and recreation system and to go ahead with the study that they are recommending. This [clears throat] study might also need to include a topographical survey that indicates grades and slopes along that rightway as well so that um considerations about drainage and um and best pathway alignments uh can be measured as well. And it appears worthwhile to emphasize that support for the parks and rec commission's involvement in this matter not be narrowly viewed as an attempt by residents to convert the rightway to a city formal uh formal city park, but that it reflects recognition that the Alden rideway possesses recreational and ecological value consistent with the commission's mission. Their expertise could help the city design a path whether or not the rightway is to be designated as a formal park. the balance that balances environmental sensitivity, accessibility, and neighbor privacy in ways that extend beyond the scope of what public works is structured to provide. Moreover, while considerable attention has been devoted to understanding protecting the health of the trees and it has been said that most well everybody uh agrees about uh the value of those trees and maintaining them, what remains unknown is the current health of those trees and how a path might feasibly be aligned in a way that sufficiently ensures the trees ongoing vitality. a third party study in particular as recommended by the parks and recck commission seems a crucial and meaningful way to address those questions. >> [clears throat] >> Some residents have concerns understandably about the cost of commissioning uh the recommended study and the time that's given to all that we've already done and ask why we should do more. And I do agree that the fiscal responsibility um that we have is always important. The relatively modest expenditure required to undertake the parks and wreck uh commission's recommendation represents a reasonable and prudent investment when weighed against the potential permanent loss of public land. If vacated, the right of way and the opportunities it represents for recreation, access, and community benefit cannot be easily easily reclaimed. And here we might need to be mindful again of the future of the community and how it may develop and how this right of way can factor into that picture of the future. All of the attention dedicated to this particular right of way uh simply underscores its unique nature and the necessity of a unique resolution. arguments that the Aldine rideway should be vacated does not or because it does not mirror other rights of way elsewhere in the city or because it scores not at all in the city's master pathway plan uh do not adequately account for its distinctive history, evident community use for very practical purposes or the lingering uncertainty surrounding the environmental and accessibility factors at play. and nor does it seem to align with the parks and recck commission's findings that it does have meaning for uh them as they view it in the parks [clears throat] and recck system. So in short, the Aldine rightaway is not a redundant corridor and an inconsequential shortcut with no practical purpose. It's a cherished and wellused public space as the monthslong discussion on the matter has demonstrated and goes on whose final disposition deserves the care, transparency and factual information that a comprehensive expert study and further deliberation can provide. So I would again urge you to accept the parks and wreck commission's recommendation to ensure that the study moves forward promptly so that the eventual decision reflects both the city's commitment to stewardship and the public's enduring trust in the process. And once again, I do thank you for all the time and careful consideration that you give to this and I thank all the neighbors for their participation as well. Everybody uh deserves to be heard and I appreciate that everybody's getting that chance. Now, we also need to listen. Thank you very much for your comments. >> Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? >> All right. Uh we'll close the opportunity for public comment at this time and thank everyone for their input into this process, not only this evening. Uh but as has been noted, we've had a number of previous discussions at the council level uh and uh two parks and recreation commission meetings uh prior to this. I I don't know that there were questions raised that are necessarily such that um perhaps technical answers may be provided by staff. I would just note uh from the point of view I think one of the early commenters you know talked about storm water runoff and drainage and certainly uh in these days of um water management areas and um storm water regulations that certainly we could not undertake a project uh any project in the city without uh serious consideration of storm water uh management and maintaining uh proper uh runoff and not creating problems. Um I do note that on the the uh topographical information that was provided as part of the packet uh there does appear sort of in the middle between Roselon and the street to the north there does appear to be you know a low spot. Uh and so it is interesting that the drainage doesn't go out towards the streets but rather there is that that low spot in the middle which is probably something to do with how the storm water system was designed and installed in the first place. And uh so certainly all of that would have to be taken into account. So hopefully that helps answer that question at least partially from a process point of view. Um council, were there other questions you noted that uh should be addressed uh as a follow-up to the comments? I like I said I hadn't gotten other ones other than perhaps ones that we can address in our deliberation as a council. If not, um were there any follow-up questions from council members uh for staff uh at this time? Council member Grath, >> I do have one for staff is regarding trees and our tree policy in in Roseville. I don't I guess that would probably be Director Johnson. >> It may have to be Director Johnson. >> I'd rather you ask the question than I decide whether [laughter] to go. [gasps] >> Thanks for being daring. Yes. What is the policy with trees in our parks as far as protection and conservation of trees? >> That's a big question. Um, I think typically we do everything that we can to try to preserve trees. Um, including when we do any construction project, we place key analysis on an effort to preserve trees. Um, that doesn't mean that always wins out. Um, one prominent example is at the Central Park Victoria um, playground there. When we did that inclusive playground, there was a tree that had to be moved. Um, there was an attempt to stabilize it and we weren't able to save it. We knew that risk going into it. But by and large, I think more so than just about any other parks and recreation department, we make every effort possible to preserve um even to add additional resources to try to uh save trees that are struggling um through root stabilizers and things like that. >> So if we have a diseased tree, that that would be something that would probably schedule for removal or a tree that was not safe. >> Yes, absolutely. So um you know examples are ash trees right now but yes disease hazard trees um they are removed but our first track is always to try to save them. So we will typically try to see can we invest in and it all depends on significance and all of that but to try to invest in preserving the tree first but if it can't be saved we we do remove it. Yes before it becomes a hazard >> and then generally we remove uh try to remove invasive species if we can. Is that correct? >> Correct. Absolutely. >> Thank you. Yep. >> Oh, one more question. I don't know if this will be to you. If it is private property, do we have any uh say on how they handle their trees or whether we can stop them from cut removing their trees on private property? >> My understanding is not that's outside of my purview, but we did ask that question and bring it back to the commission. The answer I was provided is no. >> That was what I thought I read in the report. Thank you very much. >> Yeah, I could probably clarify that just a little bit. Um, we do have a tree preservation uh policy as it relates to development in the city. Uh, and that's triggered by things like uh building permits andor, you know, larger development projects. Um, uh, however, if a property owner is not making a change to their property, that that policy does not necessarily affect them. Like I said, it's only triggered if somebody is perhaps proposing an [clears throat] addition to their home or some other change on their property that requires us to analyze the trees that might be impacted and how that might be addressed on the property. Uh but otherwise uh with absent that there isn't necessarily, as was noted, anything that uh that the city has to regulate the the uh ownership and maintenance of trees on private property. Other questions for staff? All right. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Um, we have the request before us of or the recommendation before us from the parks and recreation commission as outlined and once again I believe it's on the screen for people's reference. Um, is there a motion from the council as it relates to this uh recommendation? >> I have a clarific clarifying or a question about clarification. >> Sure. >> When we talk about the feasibility study, what are we looking at for feasibility? I mean, we do have enough width if we're talking a 4 foot wide path. Um, and given this right away, there is enough room for that, right? We could remove enough trees to put together such a pathway. I would be if we go ahead with this motion, I'd like us to actually have a discussion about what we are looking at for feasibility. Otherwise, this is just going to go to staff and they're not going to, you know, have to hand this out to some consultant to put together. I think it'd be good for us to know what we're actually looking for in this feasibility. Um, and also to make sure that the data is there or whatever it is that we're looking for. So, a decision can be made since this has been going on since April rather than just saying we're looking because it is feasible to put a 4 foot wide um non-h hardscape uh trail through there. There's enough space. >> I think what we're talking about, if I had to guess, what we're talking about feasibility, if I had to guess, is the cost [clears throat] necessary for this to happen. You know, do we need a retaining wall? How much earth has to number of trees, you know, minimum amount of trees, how much cover that's going to be lost or gained. I just want to make sure that if this happens that we have the information there to finally make a decision on this. >> I think certainly all those things you mentioned would be expected to be part of uh such an analysis. Um you know I think that uh perhaps somewhat implicit in pathway alignment options is dealing with grade uh and the ability to meet accessibility requirements uh in the grade that's there and what's what changes might be needed to be made. But certainly we can be more explicit about that uh in our discussion this evening. Um I think tree impacts once again I you know we we need to understand whether the construction impacts the trees uh as well as the long-term presence of a pathway and the impact on the trees seems to me and I'd open it up if other council members have insight into what what the expectation is or if council Ber if you had followup. Yeah, I mean I think you know from hearing from conversations and what we've talked about it does seem that um it's mostly trees that we're talking about as if I had to guess and for the basis I mean I'd be curious to know what other council members have for what they need to know in order to make a decision to vacate or not going forward if it's mostly the trees or it's mostly you know the cost which I don't believe that's the case or um just make sure that it's in there >> because because if it is some of those things aren't there, there may not be a need to do the feasibility studies. What I'm getting at like we may just be kicking the can down the road. >> I think that in reality um unless you are a or any of us are um able to understand the potential need for grading to achieve accessibility. I'm not prepared to say that I know the answer to that at this point. Um you know it could be that um the site is very you know capable of of handling that. It could be that the site requires significant uh change to grade. Uh that certainly adds up to cost and may be a factor. Um I would certainly want to have better understanding of that. Um storm water issues were brought up. I think that's important to have at least some understanding of what might be needed for mitigation of storm water. Um I think it was also noted that we did have some conversation about you know potential for a crossing at Roselon. uh to the extent that we can have some sort of estimate and it could even be just a staff estimate because I think we've got some expertise in that area as to the potential cost of a of a sort of of crossing. Uh that might be something to to look at as well. And once again, I don't know if there's other things that council members have. Council member Restron, >> I think it's also important to know what we're dealing with um at the um north and south ends of that property in the uh properties that are currently inside of those uh fences. We have we don't have really a good idea of the items that are fenced already um on people's properties what that looks like for um I I think until you know we had someone with an expertise that I do not have going in and seeing what we're looking at inside that area um I feel like a third party is really our best but in order to um and someone that you know would be able to look at it holistically from from end to end um and kind of what that would require from the existing people who have, you know, over time encroached a literal lot onto that space knowing whether, you know, what we what we're fully looking at because we can't make an assessment standing on the outside of a a fence that surrounds the area. I guess the only thing I would note to that and I don't disagree with it but we do have some fairly good indication of tree locations and species in the tree survey uh that we've already got and then also pretty good indication of top topography in both of those fenced areas to the extent that that could be gleaned apparently in the process that was used to provide the information in the packet. But I do understand the point that you're making. >> I [clears throat] think the path alignment one is the one I would like to know what the options are. There's some details here that I don't feel I know enough about yet that I would like the uh >> staff to advise us on. I don't feel like I'm equipped right now. I should speak into this for Miss Sha. >> I don't feel like I'm equipped with the information we have right now uh to make that decision on exactly what we need to do. I would like some feedback on that from the staff. And if we do this, I would note that it may in here we have a just says consultant, but I would note that we for what we're talking about, it may be two consultants. I'm thinking one that's much more arous focused and what one that's much more of like pathway construction. I don't believe one will be able to handle that >> and I think that was talked about in the in the parks discussion as well. >> Uh so we have the the request uh and recommendation before us. Once again, is there um an action that the council would like to take this evening? and make a motion to accept the park and recre commission discussion and recommendations and move forward with a study to determine the feasibility of this path. >> I'll second the motion. >> All right. It's been and I'm presuming that that's inclusive of the conversation we just had in terms of what we're looking for. >> I believe so. Yes. >> All right. Just to be clear on the motion. So that's been moved by Council Member Stron and seconded by Council Member Grath. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Stron. Nothing further. >> All right. And as the secondary, Council Member Grath, >> first of all, I want to thank everyone for coming again. This has been a long process, but government does not move quickly and there's a reason for that. Once something's done and if you see in a year it was a mistake, there's no going back. So, I want to be very deliberate about this decision. I know it's frustrating, but another month or two is not the end of the world in the big picture of the world. So that's why we're moving at this pace. I want all the information before I make a decision. I want to make the best decision for everyone, not just the people adjoining the property. You have particular rights. Absolutely. But I also want to make it for the young man who walks to school or the other people who use this as a pathway to rejuvenate. We don't have anything in this quarter that is much for parkland. Most of the parks in Roseville are on the east side of Lexington Avenue. I live on this side. Um, many of our lots are larger, which is nice, but some of them are not. And, and continuous paths are important. They're a way to get around without using cars all the time. So, um, that's why I'm seconding this motion. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion, Council Bower. Yeah, I do feel that if this study goes forward, uh, that this will provide us finally with the last piece of data, last bits and items that we need to make a decision. I can't imagine what would be necessary beyond this going forward. So again, I thank everyone for your patience and doing this and I agree with council member Grath that once we decide something is decided. So taking a little bit more time to make sure that we check everything uh is a good idea. Um, and spending a little bit more to make this happen. But I do feel that this will be the study that is necessary to for us to make a final decision. I do hope that we're able to schedule these consultants and get this answer um before snowfalls. >> All right. And I would just note that uh and in agreement with much of what has been said this evening, uh I you know I did take the time to kind of pour over the information in the packet on the uh topographical study that was done as well as the tree inventory. Um and uh with some question marks I was able to sketch in an idea of a of a pathway that could be run through the site. Um so that gave me some confidence that there is a possibility. Uh but once again I think there's a limit uh as we've all kind of noted and certainly I emphasize to to my expertise and my ability to judge some of the factors. You know I note that um some of the tree species are less desirable tree species. uh you know sometimes and smaller smaller examples or smaller specimens of some of those species. Um and certainly our effort isn't necessarily to get rid of less desirable species especially when they are significant and impactful to the community around them. Uh but at the same time uh certainly those those uh you know smaller specimens can be um for lack of a better word you know more expendable when making considerations about these types of projects. Uh we do have some green ash in this corridor. Uh and certainly uh it so happens that at least in in my preliminary um kind of sketch that that the potential is that a removal might be a green ash or a couple of removals might be ash one or two might be small box elders and then you know and then I note there are some arborvites at the north end uh that where there's a fairly significant um topographical change which may require some grading associated with accessibility from the north end uh and you know So it may be that those arbites uh have to have to not be there anymore to make that happen too. Not up to me to figure out. That's why we have uh folks that have expertise in these areas. But these are the kind of questions that came up as I was taking a look at it that made me think that it makes a lot of sense to to have this this check done before we do this action. I think it's been very abley said by residents this evening that you know once the once the right ofway is vacated uh it is extremely difficult and expensive for cities to get property back uh basically it would have to be you know bought at the go market value at that point and and so while we have this opportunity to potentially maintain the property um you know we want to make sure that we're doing the right diligence to to check out the process and that actually includes consulting with our attorney early on in one of after one of our early discussions about even the feasibility of you know using this right of way um and and especially as we were referring it to parks and wreck which I'll get to in a moment um and we got that advice we have that and and so that's part of the picture uh it helps us uh look at this and certainly we do have to have that nexus to transportation as as was noted in that advice as to as to the involvement of parks and wreck and I was one of the people that you know promoted that at that stage of the process is because uh parks and recck system uh has a very good process for and and not to say public works doesn't but has a very good process of engaging people in the community in discussion about planning around parks about impacts about trying to bring people together around solutions uh that is very uh unique uh I think in the parks and recreation system and also serves this particular decision that we're trying to make uh very well and I think would help serve a process going forward if ultimately we decide to do a non-traditional pathway. And so that was part of my reasoning for involvement of parks and wreck. Uh just as a reminder for folks, uh this originally came to the council as a matter that was initiated by the public works department, uh who is responsible for our rights of way, uh and has been in a process for several years of actually looking closely at the rights of way that the city has and that may not need anymore and making sure that those are reverted back to adjacent property owners because ultimately um government uh should only have property for the purpose it was intended for. And if the government does not any longer need that purpose, then rightfully the property should be returned to adjacent property owners. And that is a that is a policy and a procedure uh that this city as well as other communities across the state uh take very seriously. Uh and so it just so happened that as a part of that process, we began to hear about individuals in the neighborhood that used this or had been using that right of way as an informal pathway that I think gave the council some pause in just uh immediately going through the process of vacating the right of way and and wanting to think about this some more. And as has been discussed this evening, that's how we got to this this evening's uh discussion. And I think I do agree that uh that getting this additional information should hopefully provide the council and the public with what we need to make uh some sort of final decision on this at our next discussion. And I would uh concur with both the recommendation and the comments of the council this evening uh that we should take that action as soon as we know the information as possible. With that we have the motion before us uh to undertake the study as outlined both in the recommendation as well as as fleshed out in our discussion this evening. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed. That passes unanimously four to zero and that study is authorized then. And I believe uh Mr. Trean, is there anything else staff needs from the council by way of direction on this matter? >> No, I think uh the conversation was good about the scope and everything that aligned with what we were thinking, but it was good to to hear that u from the council. So, we'll get going right away here and get the some proposals going and uh get the work started as soon as we can. >> Right. And just a a procedural question. If the the costs involved uh are below the threshold uh which the city manager has authority to spend, would that necessarily even come back before the city council for uh authorization to spend since we've provided this uh direction this evening? >> That's correct, mayor. We weren't intending to do that. If the costs were more than $10,000, we would bring it forward for council discussion and approval. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you once again, everyone. Why don't we just take about a fivem minute break here? of because I unfortunately I don't know that everybody's here to stay for the rest of the meeting. [laughter] >> You should you should stay. We promise to be very interesting. >> We're talking about taxes. >> All right, we'll take a five minute break. All right, we're back from a uh short break. Uh and stunned that nobody that was here for the previous item stuck around for the rest of the meeting, but we'll try somehow to uh to get by. >> [laughter] >> I promised to be interesting and it wasn't wasn't enough. I didn't promise that. >> No. >> All right. Uh, next on our agenda is item 7C, uh, which is to consider uh, 2026 levy options. And this is specific to our prior discussion as it relates to uh having received uh both of the grants that the city was seeking uh for funding of public safety staffing going forward uh and having also as a council provided some guidance to staff about the starting time of the um hiring for the firefighters. Uh and with that I'll turn it over to uh city manager Trean uh to present these options to the council for our consideration. Uh, and just noting, and I'm sure he'll mention this as well, that I don't think any request is made to make a decision by the council this evening. Perhaps if we have questions or need more follow-up, this is our opportunity to get that as we go into our final budget and tax levy discussions uh at subsequent meetings. But I'll turn it over to Mr. Tre. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As you mentioned, yeah, we do want to talk a little bit about the various levy options based on the receiving of grants uh for firefighters and the police department. um and the look at an early start date. So, as you mentioned, this is mostlyformational. Certainly, any direction you can give us uh would be appreciated. Uh I do understand that several of those scenarios involve franchise fees, which we have not made a decision uh at this point. Just as a side note for that, I'm working hard to get um some possible ordinances and the fee ordinance in front of the council for initial discussion November 10th. uh then we have an additional meeting but uh fingers crossed we're still working on that uh because that is pretty relevant to the overall final decision you'll need to make here. So um I I did want to walk through some scenarios and provide some information. As you mentioned we did receive the $3.9 million safer grant and 500,000 for the cops grant that does offset some potential levy. The real question became uh when we would start those firefighters. As you recall, we originally in the part of the budget proposal said September 1st. Um given the way the federal uh grant guidelines work, um the grant period starts uh April 11th or so about that date. So if we held to the September 1st date, we would lose, you know, roughly 6 months or so of opportunity to use those dollars and put them in place. I think you also heard from the fire chief that there's several other agencies that did get safer grants and the competition for firefighters uh might be pretty um pretty big. So we want to make sure we're can be as competitive as pro as possible but having that discussion didn't really understand what that impact would be if we had an early start date. So that's why we're here tonight. So um the tables I'm showing are in the uh council packet but I just thought I'd display them. I also gave you paper copies just for you to follow along here. So, uh ended up um coming up with three different scenarios and a and b option for each of them. So, uh scenario one uses both the safer grant and cops grant uh cops grant funds uh to offset the levy impacts. Does not include any franchise fees to offset levy impact and also does not have any additional capital spending. Um so pretty basic um uh budget. It's really the base budget and adding the uh firefighters and police department positions. So if we were to start uh scenario 1A uh start date of 91, we're looking at about 10.84% uh levy increase. I should mention that this is a blended rate of uh both the city uh levy and the EDA levy. So it's combined. Um you did set a not to exceed levy of 12%. Um and that's the city levy that was uh increased by that much preliminarily. Um when you offset the EDA levy which was lowered by 100,000 is actually 11.53% as a blended rate. So um so scenario one with a start date of 91 is 10.84%. Um and then uh scenario 1B starts April 15th. We chose April 15th for a couple reasons. Um it's halfway through the month but it's also start of our pay period uh during that time. So it aligns very well with that. So and it's kind of a good uh benchmark. So uh scenario 1B once again u receiving the grants but no franchise fees or additional capital spending is 11.54%. Remember the blended rate before was 11.53%. It's about 2,00 $2,300 difference between 1B and the maximum levy that we set. So, um, if we were to go with 1B, we would have to, uh, cut about $2,000, which, uh, I think we could probably find a way to do that. >> I've heard that referred to as a rounding error. >> That could [laughter] be. And, as you'll see, the impact to the median valued homeowner doesn't change because it's such a small amount. Yeah. >> Uh scenario two uh talks about using the safer and cops grants as scenario one, but assumes the use of franchise fees for capital spending, redirects $986,000 for the capital levy to support operational costs and it also uh shifts about 565,000 if my memory serves me to other capital funds uh to do that to help really shore up the capital funds. So this is really uh a scenario which uh does a lot of good things for the long-term uh financial viability of the city. Uh but it does raise the levy uh anywhere from 7 to 8%. So 2A uh that was presented to you previously start date 91 is 7.64%. And if we start April 15th that's 8.32%. Now, this is just the levy increase you, as you know, and you'll see in the next uh part of this presentation, there are franchise fees uh that aren't factored into that percentage increase. Uh but that's a real cost. Then finally, uh scenarios three uh really talks about using safer copper grants. Again, uses franchise fees for capital spending and really uses all the um cap uh levy dollars freed up from the use of the franchise fees or $1.6 billion towards operational costs. If you go back to September, that was scenarios five and six I was talking about. Um, so that does lower the levy significantly to uh either 5.54% on September 1st uh or start date of 415 is 6.2%. So once again uh that does not include franchise fees, but that's just the pure levy amount. >> Oh, it doesn't include >> I'm sorry, what? >> Oh, it doesn't include franchise. >> It uses franchise fees for capital spending. Yes, it does. for capital. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, uh to look at the actual impact to the median valued uh homeowners. So, uh up on top here is just that levy increase we talked about. But to really fully understand the impact, you need to add the impact on the levy uh as well as any franchise fees if it's um applicable. So, as you can see, scenario 1A is $14.81. Scenario 1B is $15.71. And I would mention that the uh 12% preliminary city levy uh would get you the same result, the 15.71. It just uh works out that way. Scenario 2A and 2B, that's once again using franchise fees. Uh is $10.67 for the actual impact on the levy and $6 per month. Uh and these are all per month numbers, by the way. Uh $16.67. And you can see with the start date in April 15th, that goes up to $17.56. Then finally, scenario three where we redirect uh all that freed up uh levy dollars towards operations. The impact is $13.96 under a start date of 91 or $14.85 on April 15th. As you will recall, the finance commission recommended a total 10% levy increase and did not recommend franchise fees. What that translates out to is uh that's in red there, $13.72 per month uh with just a 10% levy increase. So that helps you kind of gauge where all these different scenarios fall into where their recommendation uh is. So the start date of 415 adds about $213,000 uh to the levy uh that we um initially identified. Um and uh the cost per month is anywhere from 89 to 90 cents. uh uh per month uh to add that early start date. So uh as I said, scenario 1B is gets you just about to that you'd have to maintain that 12% city levy increase um uh to get to that. Uh anything um u different is a little bit less under the city levy increase. So lots of information uh lots of numbers there and uh but just gives you an indication on where we would fall. As I mentioned, franchise fees are a very big component if we're going to do them or not. That shortens up um or expands the potential options and scenarios, but this is kind of where we're at looking at right now. So, we would certainly love any feedback and direction. Um there is always timing uh with any of these things. So, the sooner we can get to uh if we're going to go with an earlier start date, we can start getting stuff in the background. It's practically November already. Um, but I understand too you're at a disadvantage because we have to figure out franchise fees first. So, it's going to be awfully hard to u fully commit. But any feedback you can give to us would be much appreciated and I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Treasure. And questions from the council for staff at this time. >> Apparently, this is the completely informative presentation that doesn't require any questions. Uh, also this is a matter that has been before the council once or twice before. So perhaps we're all uh so familiar with it that we don't don't have any questions at this time. Um, and I will check if there's anyone from the public to speak to this item at this time. It does not appear to be the case. Uh, and so with that, um, we don't have to take any action this evening. Uh, certainly if council does have questions subsequent to tonight, we can follow up with Mr. Trean uh, and get that information and then that will be part of our discussions going forward. Uh thoughts or questions? Council member Grath, >> and you don't maybe maybe don't need this tonight, but neighboring cities do use franchise fees. Am I correct? >> Yes, they do. >> So, we are kind of an anomaly in our neighborhood. >> Yeah, most of Ramsey County cities do. My research just small handful that don't. >> Okay. Thanks. I believe you further at the League of Minnesota cities. I believe council member Sher was saying that we were one of the few if not the only one when she was attending. >> That's what I remembered her saying. Yeah. M >> so I don't think the public understands that why I'm bringing it up again know because you know it all comes from them eventually but we aren't charging that right now. So >> well it probably does make sense at our franchise ordinance and franchise fee discussion at subsequent meetings to maybe have some of those materials back in the packet. Um, and I would include in that, um, uh, I know we had received some analysis from a resident of sort of the, and this was, I believe, statewide information as to the percentage of the property tax that's paid by different property categories. >> Um, and I don't know if we have that analysis for Roseville specifically. Uh, if we do, it's great. Um, otherwise, in comparison to that information, I think we had done some analysis, at least I had done some preliminary analysis and passed it on to Mr. Trejan of the of the similar comparison for the franchise fees uh as opposed to property taxes just to see how that shakes out and compares. Uh and I think it'd be helpful to have that as part of that discussion. >> See that? >> Yeah. >> Um and I think also there was um some additional information as to how the how the franchise fees well no that was the breakdown by t by payer. So that's the same information I was just talking about. >> All right. I'll be quiet then. Council member Bower. Yeah, I was going to comment on the start uh the difference between the A scenarios and the B scenarios. Um I'm still in favor of starting on the 15th. I know in conversations with those in the fire department that they're already seeing increased number of bridal longs. The safer grants are been released uh in mass. Usually it's you know doled out. So all firefighters looking for a transfer or a move or something like that are now actively looking. There's an increase in ride alongs that um I believe the chief can comment on. So, it's actively going. Um, so it seems like a good thing for us to do. I know other um I just saw something in my one of my feeds. I think an NAD for Bloomington and others looking for Fiverr. So, it's already started. >> Yes. >> Um, and we should actually be there as well. So, I'm still strongly in favor of the 4:15 start date. Um, and you know, if we can get some kind of agreement there, I think that would help the department as far as being more comfortable with the recruiting and getting those processes in place to know like this is the 415th. We don't want to start the hiring process of recruiting on the 15th. We want to start that now. >> Right. >> Great. Council member Strong. >> Thank you. Um, I also support the April 15th start date. I have noticed um there are a lot of fire uh positions posted on the League of Minnesota cities. Um a lot of south metro and um larger communities. So um I think it's really important that uh I didn't see as many in the north metro. So if we can kind of nab some of the people who want to be geographically this side of the world, um I think it'd be really helpful and I so I really appreciate that. One thing I wanted to note um or just clarification between scenario 2B and 3B. We had talked um last time about one of the scenarios putting us in a rather big deficit when it came to our capital levy um and that it would take quite a bit for us to get our way out of. So can you speak is 3B that situation that we were speaking about at that time? So, um, scenarios three or previously scenarios five and six redirected all the, um, capital dollars that were going to the infrastructure funds that will be replaced by franchise fees. Um, all towards operations to get that levy down. What it wasn't doing was repurposing some of those levy dollars to into our funds that have a lot of issues. our police vehicle equipment fund, our fire department vehicle equipment fund, park and wreck vehicle equipment fund, >> public works vehicle equipment fund. [laughter] >> And and as we demonstrated, while it's not perfect because you always have rising costs and greater needs here, that goes a long way towards stabilizing. So that would be option scenario 2A or 2B is probably the best optimal ones to have not only um repurposing of some of the capital U dollars to the operations but also re reinvested in other capital funds that really sets ourselves up well. If we fail to do that as part of this budget cycle, uh we will be dealing with that in the forefront of the next budget cycle. And we already know we have um needs in 207 budget based on these grand dollars and other needs. >> Now, one plus on um starting April 15th is that u change uh is a little bit less than uh uh than uh the 91 start. we don't have to make up as many dollars uh because we're starting uh in April. So we have three and a half months to make up versus you know nine months of levy [clears throat] dollars um to do that. So so scenario two is probably what I would recommend um as being the most responsible and balances all different needs that we have but certainly scenario three is an option consider that redirects everything towards the operations. Can I just clarify in scenario one um there is no additional capital spending um and that includes that that we hadn't proposed to increase the levy for additional capital spending as part of your recommended budget in August and so scenario one >> either A or B >> is is also not improving our our situation. Would you say that scenario 3 A 3B does help the capital situation because of the additional funding from the um um franchise fees, but it doesn't help it as much as scenario 2 or A or B. >> So, uh scenario three would help four specific funds. There's $1.6 million going into those four infrastructure funds. It' be replaced with $2.1 million. Those four funds would be better. um not all of them are struggling as the equipment funds. Uh but certainly in the long term it helps but it does nothing to do with nothing to help the equipment funds at all. So kind of yes it does help a little bit but not fundamentally some of our more systemic issues with our vehicle equipment funds. That scenarios 2A. >> Okay. Other questions? Council member Strong. >> Just clarification though. So it does um scenario 3 A and 3B do improve the capital uh accounts more than senior scenarios one and 1 A and 1B. >> Yes, that's correct. That is correct. >> So kind of priority wise the one that provides the most stabilization to the capital uh funds is two >> but then we were stepping it go three and then one would be the least con. >> Yes. Um impact. >> That's correct. >> Thank you. Great. If there's no further questions or direction to staff for information, we'll look forward to this coming back on uh the uh scheduled time. All right. That concludes our business items for this evening. Uh we do have one set of council minutes from October 13th. Um are there any additional changes or corrections to what was presented to the council? Uh or a motion to approve as presented? Move >> approval. Second. >> Right. That's been moved by Council Member Grath, seconded by Council Member Bower uh to approve the minutes of October 13th as presented. Uh any discussion on that motion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero. And those minutes are approved. Uh then that gets us to our consent items. Mr. Trean, would you go through the four items on our consent agenda this evening? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item 10 A approves payments in the amount of $269,65325. Agenda item 10B receives a city grant applications update. Item 10 C approves the extension of the contract with timesavers off-site secretary for reporting secretary services. Timesaver does all the meeting minutes for our city council and commission meetings and the cost represents a three and a half% increase over 2025 and have been in accounted for in the 2026 proposed budget. Then finally, item 10D approves entering into an agreement with the US Department of Agriculture to conduct the city's deer management program for $20,68 and is funded as part of the 2025 budget. That is the consent agenda. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Trean. Is there a motion from the council on this consent items? >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Council Bower, seconded by Council Member Strong. Discussion on the motion. Hearing none. All those Oh, Council Member Strong. Um, I appreciated the uh staff comment in 10D since I've been the one who's kind of pestering about the non-lethal reduction methods and I appreciate their ongoing attention to checking out available resources um as they become available. And so I appreciate that and I hope the community is aware that that is ongoing study that it's not just a foregone conclusion that we do it this way but that we continue to look at other options. >> Great. Uh if there's no further discussion, we once again have the motion before us. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Four to zero. Those consent items are approved or received. Uh that brings us to the future agenda review. Mr. Trean. >> Yes. Uh thank you. Uh we're down to four meetings for the remainder of the year. You can see November 10th is a very busy uh night. Uh we have a lot of agenda items. So we'll start off in the EDA meeting. see if a tiff district report from Ellers is kind of a good background on status of all our tiff districts. We'll look to do some more transactional things, professional services contracts, look to set the EDA calendar and approve some changes to some agreements that one that is in existence, another one would be an amendment, both are existing, sorry, um both be amendments to existing agreements. Then at the regular meeting, we would introduce the fee schedule, the utility rates, uh discuss the franchise fees, as I said, and probably more specifically look at those ordinances and the fee ordinance. Uh we hope to receive an update uh from the retail crime unit at Rosedale. Uh they've been in existence for about a year and been making some great strides out there. So, we want to get an update from that. Look to approve the city council calendar and uh EDA calendar. That doesn't necessarily have to be on the 10th, but that's a pretty simple item. We have uh liquor license presumptive penalties. I believe we have four of those. We'll look to approve agreement for the construction manager at risk for the civic campus ma uh campus project and my understanding is that we can split those contracts. Um so we will be working to doing that uh and then approve the agreement for the civil and prosecuting services. On the 24th, uh we'll have Met Council uh Representative Pete, uh Peter Lindström, uh coming and just talking a little bit about the work that they're doing around transit, but also talk about the comprehensive planning process for 2050. Uh we have a bunch of business license renewals, pretty standard stuff, but we do them on MOS as much as possible as we get close to the end of the year. And I still have the franchise fees on there and knowing that we'll probably have to continue discussion. Uh just by the way, I was talking to our attorney uh that's representing us uh through the league for the Norwood uh lawsuit and we may be having a close session on the 24th. Give council some background. So more to come on that. At the December 1st meeting, uh we have the public hearing for the budget and levy. And on the 8th, we'd look to adopt all the budgets and the fee schedules and utility rates. And I'm sure [clears throat] there might be some other business items that just haven't surfaced yet. But we'll wrap the Europe uh with our meeting on December 8th. And that's the future agenda. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Treer. Are there questions on the future agenda? Are there uh future agenda items uh to be initiated by council members, reports, or announcements from council members? Council member Strong, >> I just wanted to comment. Um we've had students come here before um asking for our assistance in lobbying for the school board to um have EV buses. And I want to note that they have a new bus vendor this year who does actually have EV buses. So, um, their work paid off, but um I know that they had asked multiple times for support. Um, so just kudos to them for their ongoing uh tenacity in that, but and um job to the city uh for the school board for moving forward with something that aligns with their values. >> Right. Thank you. other uh items. Council member Grath, >> I've been a bit remiss. Arts Roseville did have a uh dedication of the mural across from the fire station on the Showtime Studios and coffee shop. And it was a bit of a rainy night, but they had good attendance and u that was partly funded by the uh Roseville Fund Foundation. So, so uh thanks to them. Thank you to them and uh they continue to do work to promote art in Roseville. Right. >> There's no further business before the council. The only item remaining on our agenda is a motion to adjurnn. So moved. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Grath, second by council member Bowerer to adjurnn. No discussion on a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Four to zero. And we are adjourned at 7:55. Thank you.