[Music] hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday, August 25th, 2025. Mr. City Manager, would you call the role, please? >> Council member Shartter >> here. >> Council member Grath, >> here. >> Council member Bower >> here. Council member Strong >> here. >> Mayor Ro here. Uh and with us at the DEIS we have uh by way of introduction our city attorney Rachel Tierney who's on my right at the end of the day. Uh city manager Pat Trojan is on my left at the other end of the deis. Uh we will make introductions uh as various agenda items come up as to who's presenting those and participating as a uh staff uh member. I would remind folks if you have a cell phone to silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt the meeting this evening. Um, we do have a copy of the meeting materials, excuse me, for the public on the back table underneath the big clock by the door. Uh, that is available for the public to use. It's got all the materials that are under consideration by the council this evening. Uh, it is one copy, so you'll have to share. We do have extra copies of the agenda uh on that table also. Uh, and those you can uh keep for your own use. Uh, and with that, we'll ask folks to stand if you're able for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Right. Next on our agenda is approval of tonight's agenda. And as always, I'll begin by checking with staff uh to see if there are any changes uh that need to be made. Mr. Trean. >> Yes. Uh Mr. Mayor, we do have one removal that is uh item 7H was uh considered an abatement for 2407 Dale Street. Staff went out today and the violation has been corrected and so we can take that off the agenda for any official consideration. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Trean. Uh I'll check with council members. Are there any uh changes council members would like to make to tonight's agenda or items that council members would like to remove from the consent agenda for separate consideration this evening? does not appear to be the case. We'll do a check with members of the public as well in regards to our consent agenda. Uh that starts at the bottom of page one and continues onto page two of the agenda. There's a number of items there uh that will be taken up at the end of the meeting. Uh they're usually rather administrative and and hopefully non-controversial, but we do all of them as a single motion. Uh and as I said, we do it at the end of the meeting. If anyone is here this evening to speak about or ask a question on one of the items in the consent agenda, this would be a chance to let us know and we'll move that item earlier in the meeting so that you can uh make your comments or ask your questions on that item if uh and still be here and and get home at a reasonable hour. Is there anyone here uh for an item in section 10 of our agenda, the consent agenda, items A through uh G? All right. It does not appear to be the case. Uh with that being said, then we have uh our agenda this evening as proposed with the exception of item 7H which has been removed and is no longer needed to be considered. Is there a motion to approve that agenda? >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by Council Member Grath. Uh second by Council Member Stron. Uh discussion on that motion? >> Nope. >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I >> opposed. That passes unanimously. We have our agenda for this evening. Uh next on the agenda is our first opportunity in our meetings for public comment. Uh this is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on items that are not on this evening's agenda but are either related to city business or have uh are of interest to people in the community. Uh is there anyone to here to speak this evening not on a an agenda item? Yes. All right. So, what we'll do is uh if you want to come up and have a seat at the table, uh we'll just quickly go through the uh uh process and procedures for public comment and rules of the road. Uh it's pretty simple. >> Just uh give them to Mr. Trean here. >> They're very rudimentary, but the uh the measurements are almost right on. >> Right. Uh and so the the rules of the road for public comment is to have a seat at the microphone and uh let us know at the start of your comments what your name is and either your street or your address, whatever you're comfortable sharing. My name is David Winter. >> Wait till I'm finished with the instructions first. There's a few more to follow. Sorry about that. Uh there is um a three-minute time limit per speaker, which I try to enforce uh gently but also generously. Uh and then also um direct comments or questions to the council. If there's something that we need to respond to as the city and we're not able to deal with it this evening, which is usually the case, uh we would the council would direct staff to provide a follow-up or answer any questions. With that, uh, please, uh, start with your comments. >> My name is David Winter. I live at 260 Lindy Avenue in between Skilman and Eldridge. And in that 1x6 block area, there's two parking rides for the fair. Lindy Avenue only has six addresses on it, and there's no parking at all on Carl Place. It's a dead end. Now, you do the measurements. My truck is 6 feet wide. And from the curb with the mirrors, it takes up 8 ft. That leaves 22 feet for a 40 foot long fire truck to make a 90° turn. It can't be done. There can't be any parking on either side of the street on Lindy Avenue during the fair. And again, I'm not the first person here from Lindy or Carl place. This has been going on for a number of years now. On Monday, I called everyone on the staff. No one returned a call except for Mr. Grath, who knows the neighborhood and said he'd try to help me out. I don't know how many times residents from that area have to come back before you guys. Drive by there. You'll see it. Ask your phone. A 40 foot long vehicle cannot make a 90° turn in 22 ft. So there's like 10 11 addresses on Carl Place. You can't park there already. But on one side of Lindy, you still can. You got to eliminate that 8 ft during the fair. That neighborhood is so saturated because of the two parking ride situations. You can't get to Lexington Park for scheduled events and you can't get to Mayflower Park because the cars are parked all along Fernwood. The only other way to get into Lindy is through Burke and that takes a 90° turn to get there as well. I got to tell you guys, the people in my neighborhood think this is ridiculous. I called public works and I believe Mr. Goff did too. The public works guy wouldn't come out and look. He called the city police chief and they set a cop car out and we see the police car coming down the road and everybody in the neighborhood knows what it's about because it's the same thing every year. I wish you guys would address this. Drive by there on your way home. I mean, is there any parking in front of you guys' house for the fair? >> Yeah. >> By yours? >> Yes. >> Okay. By my place, it's a mess. It's the most heavily saturated spot in Roseville just due to the location of the two churches. You you you have to take care of this or you're going to look dumb on the 5:00 news if there's a fire on Carl place and and it's in the minutes that I brought this up. Bring a fire truck out there. It it's you can't do it. And you guys got to address this during the fair now, not next year, right? It's got to be done now. It's a public health hazard. And I've been living there for 60 years. And there's three residents that have been here more than three times discussing this. And it's got it's got to be resolved. I I I don't owe the fair anything. And I don't owe the churches anything either that make the money off the parking rides. This is a huge inconvenience for just that six block area in Roseville. But nobody cares. You guys didn't care enough to call back, correct? I left messages for for everyone. Like I say, Mr. Grath called back. None of you I don't know. Is that arrogance or insolence? And I don't mean to be arrogant, but it's the same thing every year. Every single year. >> All right, we're at about 3 minutes and 30 seconds here. >> I that that's it. Okay. And I hope I don't have to come back again next year to repeat this because it's the same scenario every year. Drive by there tonight. You'll see. You cannot physically do it. >> Appreciate your comments. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Grath, for your consideration on this when no one else seemed to care at all. >> I just want to check, Mr. Trejan, is there a process by which a neighborhood uh that has I believe there's a restriction on parking on one side of the street could request no parking on both sides of the street uh and have the city consider that? >> Yes, we can certainly look at that. We look at that again. I know a few years ago when >> I understand it's it's based on a survey of the residents at the time that the original restrictions were put in place and and there had to be some threshold of residents willing to do no parking altogether in order for that to be the case. So, we should probably revisit it in this >> while to take another look at it. See what we can do this year, but certainly for next year. >> All right. Thank you. All right. Uh, with that, is there anyone else here for general public comment? [Music] All right. We'll go ahead and proceed with our agenda then, the rest of our agenda on this meeting. Uh, that brings us then to our recognitions and donations. Uh we have one item under that uh category this evening which is a proclamation in relation to um suicide and overdose awareness month. Uh and I'll read the proclamation and then a motion from the council would be in order to approve it. Uh the uh proclamation reads as follows. Whereas the health and well-being of all Roseville residents is vital to the strength of our community and far too many lives are impacted each year by substance use disorders, suicide, and overdose. And whereas September is recognized as National Recovery Month, a time to honor the resilience of individuals in recovery, raise awareness about mental health and substance use, and celebrate the strength of recovery support systems. And whereas International Overdose Awareness Day is on August 31st and Suicide Prevention Awareness Day is on September 10th. And these are important times to honor lives lost uh and support those who are grieving and strengthen our communities to commit commitment to prevention, healing, recovery. And whereas Roseville is committed to being part of the solution, our police and fire departments work together with trained social workers to provide compassionate responses and long-term support by connecting individuals and families to care and services they need. And whereas this approach reflects Roseville's core values of community, equity, safety, integrity, and accountability, and demonstrates our belief that every person in our city deserves dignity, hope, and excuse me, I lost my train of thought there. Dignity, hope, and access to resources that support their well-being. And whereas we honor the courage of those in recovery, the dedication of loved ones and professionals who support them, and the tireless efforts of first responders, health care providers, and community organizations working every day to save lives and strengthen families. Now, therefore, it be resolved that the city of Roseville hereby declares September as National Recovery Month and Suicide and Overdose Awareness Month that encourages all residents to learn more about mental health and substance use, support those who are struggling or in recovery, and help foster a community where everyone feels connected, valued, and supported. >> So, move second. >> All right, that's been moved by Council Member Strong, seconded by Council Member Schroeder. Uh discussion on that motion. Uh, Council Member Strong, >> I'd just like to um mention that some of the families who brought this issue to me to begin with were unable to be with us this evening, but um they had great appreciation for our taking the time to add this um and they were families who had been impacted by suicide and their immediate families as well as um mental health concerns. and um I want to extend their appreciation for our adding this to our list of important um uh acknowledgements and proclamations. >> Thank you, Council Member Strong. Other discussion on the motion? >> Um I and I just want to add also that I'm glad they also have the substance of use in here as well because recovery um a lot of times when you do have other issues, the substance of use is also part of that. So I'm glad that's it's all-encompassing. So, I'm glad to see it. >> Right. Thank you. And it is Thank you, Council Member Strong for noting this is a new proclamation for the city and uh we did uh work a fair amount to get it to to incorporate and encompass all these different aspects and which happened in a similar time of the year and so it uh I think it worked out pretty well. Uh and obviously if we need to improve it, we can do that as well. But uh it's a very I think it's a worthwhile proclamation. If there's no further discussion, uh all those in favor signify by saying I. >> Oppos. That passes unanimously and that proclamation is approved. Uh we didn't have any items removed from consent this evening, so we're ready to uh move on with our business items. Our first business item this evening is to hold a public hearing uh to consider approving a liquor license for Breakthrough Rosedale LLC, uh which is located at no at 1595 Highway 36 in Roseville. Uh Mr. Trean for this item. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. just mentioned uh we're here tonight to have a public hearing for proposed liquor license for Breakthrough Rosedale uh which is an entity that provides entertainment and um restaurant um and drink services. They're going to be located in the Rosedale Mall. They're asking for a wine and 32 on sale liquor license. The uh application is contained uh in the packet and um they have gone through all the review and uh we are recommending approval of this u wine and 32 on sale liquor license uh to be granted to breakthrough. I am not sure if representatives are here or not tonight. Somebody is in the audience if you have any questions about their operations. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Trean. And once again, this is an on sale license um for a restaurant type or entertainment type establishment uh as we have many of in the city. Are there questions from the council for staff on this uh requested license >> or for the applicant for that matter? It does not appear to be the case. Uh does the representative or applicant wish to say anything in support of their case or just be available for questions? >> All right, they'll be available for questions. Uh with that then this is a public hearing uh and so we'll open the public hearing on this proposed liquor license in the city. This is once again a a wine and 32 on sale license for this establishment. Uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak in support of or opposition to uh this proposed license? It does not appear to be the case. We'll go ahead then and close the public hearing and move to council consideration. We've got the application before us and the request. I note uh there is no uh outdoor endorsement being sought. There's also no uh uh extra hours uh being sought as well. So it's a pretty straightforward license. >> It's my understanding. Yes. >> All right. With that then uh what is the council's desire with respect to this license application. >> Might move approval. Second. >> It's been moved by council member Grath, seconded by council member Bowerer to approve the license as applied for in the materials we have. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Gra? >> No. Good luck with the business and hope it goes well. >> Right. And as the seconder, >> I would just second that and echo that. Thank you very much for bringing this forward and wish you all the best. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion. The only thing I would note is that we always do want to make sure that our uh license holders are well aware of our training requirements and documentation requirements and uh the fact that we do a couple of compliant checks or compliance checks over the course of the year uh and to be prepared for those. And obviously we want our servers and managers to be well trained uh in uh proper identification of uh appropriate people of age to purchase the products. Uh and so we will be confident that this is the last time we see you here uh because you'll have your uh all your servers and trainers well or servers and managers well trained and we'll we won't have to see you again other than uh if we uh uh happen to be at your establishment. With that, we've got uh the motion before us to approve the license as applied for. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. That license is approved and we do wish you good luck. Uh that then brings us to our second public hearing. Uh this is a public hearing uh to consider certifying unpaid utility charges to the property tax role. Uh this is a matter that comes before the council, I believe, on a roughly a quarter quarterly basis. Uh and so I'll turn it over to our finance director uh who's in charge of the utility billing process and uh has the opportunity to bring these uh uh delinquent bills before us for uh um approval to put on the tax roles. And Miss Petri uh please bring this item before us. >> Um attached is the third quarter report of unpaid utility charges. These accounts are more than 90 days past due and we bring them forward on a quarterly basis and all the owner properties were notified. Um we do send out more letters than we do certify because we get about 40% of people who do pay. So this is the remaining list of accounts that are delinquent and will be certified to Ramsey County Property Taxes. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Petri. Uh, are there any questions from the council on the information uh presented this evening for this hearing? Right. Very good. Um, we because it is a public hearing, we do want to provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak uh to this item. Once again, these are uh as was noted by our finance director, over 90 days past due utility bills uh that we uh what we do for collection of those is certify them to Ramsey County for addition to the property tax bill uh uh for the next collection time frame. Uh and um that helps with the uh city being able to keep its water and sewer utility finances in good reasonably good shape at least when it comes to uh collecting the the payments that are due to the city. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? And I will note I think if there was somebody here who wished to discuss their particular instance, we would probably remove them that address from consideration and take up the rest. But it doesn't appear we have anybody here uh for this item. With that then we'll close the public hearing uh and move to council consideration. Uh is there a motion from the council? >> So move. >> Second. >> It's been moved by council member Schroer. seconded by council member Gra. Uh and once again, this is to adopt the resolution in the packet which does the act of certifying uh the listed uh bills to the county. That's the maker's uh motion. >> Yes. >> Correct. Okay. All right. With that, is there any discussion on the motion? Maker of the motion? >> This pretty straightforward. >> All right. Secondary. >> Um please pay your utility bills. We don't like to do this. So, um, we would appreciate everyone doing this so we don't have to do this, but if you don't, this is the way it's handled and it will be collected eventually. >> There you go. Other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor of adopting the resolution certifying these properties to the property tax uh, bills signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. That list is approved. Uh, that brings us to uh, probably one of our highlights for this evening. Uh, and that is our annual receiving of the city manager's recommended budget and tax levy for 2026. Um, and I won't try I'll try not to steal Mr. Trean's city manager's thunder as he's preparing his presentation. Uh, but I will just note that there are many steps remaining in the process. This is uh kind of one of the the early steps of knowing what the shape of the budget and tax levy for 2026 will be. Uh which will be followed by an action by the city council to uh certify a not to exceed levy to Ramsey County at the end of September. Uh then we will have our tax hearing uh the first week of December uh December 1st in fact and then the final adoption of the budget December 8th is what our plan is as of our last council meeting. With that, I'll turn it over to city manager Trean to uh bring his recommended 2026 budget and tax levy information before the council this evening. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. Pleased to be here to be able to talk about the 26 proposed uh budget and uh levy. As you mentioned, uh this is the first step, first public facing step uh of many that we have in front of us. As a department head team, we've been working on the budget really since early spring. And so this is a result of a lot of back and forth and uh conversations and looking at our needs and looking at what um uh costs are and putting it together into a package that uh we're here in front of you tonight uh to propose. So I'll just get right into my presentation. Um so um as as you mentioned um we do have some steps along the way. We're in the yellow highlighted area. We do have the not to exceed on on September 22nd and the ultimal ultimate adoption on uh the 8th of December. So there's no formal action tonight. This is more for you all to receive the information, the public to hear uh what is being proposed. Uh we do have uh roughly about a month before we need to hit the not to exceed um uh date where we need to take some formal action uh as the council and that's something that can be altered. Uh the the levy can be reduced but not increased after that point. So, there's still room for conversations to look at. Sharpening the pencil to see what levy um uh makes the most sense. Um couple things I just want to mention before I jump into the whole presentation. So, as you may have noticed, I approached my budget memo and uh the budget presentation a little bit differently than last year. You will find uh that I'm presenting something called the base budget, which is not a term we've used before, which really represents continuing funding all of our existing programs, services, and personnel. We know we have some really big asks for public uh safety personnel and I wanted to make sure that we understood kind of what uh the basic operations of the city as it currently exists would cost to continue into the next year and then we'll look at scenarios if we wanted to add those public safety personnel uh what that would cost uh us and what the impact would be for the levy uh as well. So as we get into it we'll talk about those different scenarios. uh as I mentioned the base budget maintains all the existing uh programs, personnel and services. It does not add any new staffing. It does not reduce any staffing, does not add any programs, does not reduce any programs. Uh we do however uh see continued upward pressure on our costs and as always our biggest cost is typically personnel uh costs that go up year after year. So even maintain maintaining the status quo of all the programs and employees we will experience a cost increase. Another cost increase that's specific to this year is that uh we have uh funding uh federal funding uh that go has gone away from the uh COVID dollars as well as state funding for public safety aid that we do need to backfill um with levy dollars to maintain those existing programs. And we'll get into all those specifics here, but just wanted to introduce some of those topics uh before we get to further into the budget. So uh a little bit about the overall budget. The overall budget is $81.2 $2 million. It's about a 9.6% increase. The largest um uh category um for the budget is our personnel which is about 32 million or 40% of the budget. We also have capital expenditures of this year of 18 million which is 23%. And then the next biggest category is utilities uh which is 20 I'm sorry is 15% or $12 million. The utility charges are uh in a lot of cases pass through dollars. That's the uh charges that we uh get from St. pull water for the water and that we bill out to our residents as well as the sewer costs that are charged to us by Met Council and uh we build back out. But that is part of our budget. So uh for this year's memo, I have some added some more detailed information by budget division about uh the expenditures, what's gone up and what's gone down and little uh brief narrative explaining what that is uh all about. Uh hopefully that you find that helpful to understand kind of the components of our budget and kind of the process we go through each year to see what we can do to uh make some changes to the overall cost uh of the projects. So breaking down uh uh I'm sorry cost of uh doing the operations uh for the city. Uh so uh here is a a table that does show based on funds uh kind of what uh is going to be for the budget for 2026 where we've made reductions where there's been increases and then the net uh cost in your memo. It's much more detailed as I mentioned about the budget division. So this is just aggregated information. Um so you know when we do work on the budget we do work pretty hard to see where we can make reductions, get cost efficiencies, maybe do things differently uh to reduce uh our overall costs. Um but as you can see very quickly uh any headway we make with reductions are outpaced by the increases that are needed whether it's personnel or other inflationary costs. Um so it's a little bit of a challenge but I just wanted to make sure the council understood that we do look at that every single year. So overall, there's a $7.1 million increase in the budget. And let me pause by saying the $7.1 million increase is not a levy increase. This is the overall budget. The levy makes up about 40% or so of the overall budget. So we have other revenue sources that come in. So I'm talking about the entire budget, not the levy. We'll focus on the levy here in just a second. So for the budget increase, once again, budget, not the levy increase, we have $7.1 million of levy increase, as you can see, personnel is a big chunk of that, $1.5 million. Uh once again, uh that's not all levy supported, but uh a big chunk of that is. You will see that the largest increase is our capital outlay. That's $4.4 million. And that's why the budget numbers do fluctuate each year depending on what our planned expenditures are uh for our capital funds. It's important to note that our capital funds are really using existing fund balance to pay for them each year. Each year we do put away dollars uh for future projects. So that is not that does not translate into a $4.4 million levy increase. That is using some existing funds that we uh have in place. Now, of course, we do support our capital funds with levy increases, but I'm not proposing to increase any levy increases, and we'll get into that here in a second. So, you can see how it does fluctuate. And if you look at um this chart, you can see how it does fluctuate. And obviously the trend is upwards. Um but uh you can see back in 21, we had a $63 million budget. In the next two years, we had slightly less than that. Uh and that was primarily reflected on maybe less capital expenditures. Uh then it starts going back up again. So every year is going to fluctuate. Uh what next year's budget is is going to be hard to say. we can uh probably be assured it's going to have to go up, but the capital is going to be what's going to be really driving how much of an increase that's going to go up. Here are some uh newest charts that we started doing last year. There's a lot of information on there and they're probably hard to read uh up on the screen there, but uh just want to show a couple things. This first chart shows our revenue sources. uh we've gone back to 2016 and you can see that uh the kind of orangish reddish color is this is our revenue sources once again this is our tax levy and then the uh next uh one is charges for services which is a dark blue that's the utility charges that's the water and sewer charges and other uh fees that we may be charging um our uh property owners uh up here are some different categories that you can uh kind of read maybe not directly uh on this slide here. And so this just shows you kind of by a quick graphic look about kind of where our money is coming from. And as I mentioned, uh we're not totally funded by levy. About 40% uh or so of our law is funded by levy and the rest of it is all uh these different colors here. On the expenditure side, um you can see kind of the trends as it goes. Our two largest categories are um personnel costs. So this is the blue. You can see how that's risen over the years. And then also our capital which is the lighter blue and which does fluctuate uh each year. Uh we did um diagregate some um other category from previous years to these different colors here. So that's why you're seeing the different colors. Uh but they mostly correlate with uh this blue as you combine the purple and the green if you were looking at it closely. So just kind of see over time and trends and kind of where we're spending our money from or where we're spending our money for. So let's shift from taking talking about the budget which is the overall document that um is our our spending plan to our levy which is a portion of our budget that um um uh that we get revenue from directly from taxpayers. So, um, we are seeing, um, higher costs overall. I would mention again when I talk about the base budget levy, I'm not including adding the additional public safety personnel. This is just the status quo of what we're doing now. So, overall, I'm proposing a levy increase of 7.87% or about $2.4 million more to the um, uh, existing levy. This results in a levy of $33.1 million, which is part of that $81 million budget. The uh chart on the right does show our levy increases uh since 2020. And you can note that I typically like to bring them in a little bit uh less than what I'm even bringing in uh tonight here. But uh there's factors that drive uh why the levy is what it is. You will uh recall if you've been on the council for a while that in past years we've had um significant amount of dollars of federal funds and other state funds that can help patch together uh the budget. Um those funds are for the most part gone and we've tried to plan for them. Um but still we need to start um um um backfilling use of those grant funds. That 8.99% if you recall that's when we uh implemented the employee compensation plan. So that was a little bit more expensive than it typically is. So this is uh the breakdown of what is actually driving that levy increase which once again is $2.4 million. The largest portion is the personnel uh 1.2 million uh dollars of the levy increase uh is towards that and then also the next biggest one is the revenue and fund balance and use changes. So let's just get dive into those a little bit deeper so you understand what's uh behind those numbers. So for the personnel costs the um larger costs are two factors. One is the employee wage steps we have a compensation system where employees based on good performance um go through a series of steps within their grade um and get um additional um income um their wages are increased. So there is a normal process of every year people going through those steps. We also have insurance costs which we budget for 5%. It looks like our insurance cost will be much higher than that but 5% is what we as the employer uh typically uh chip in. We also have the cost of living adjustment which you can see is almost $600,000. That is something we do annually to make sure we remain competitive uh with um other competitors and other cities. uh and that is a 3% cola uh across the board for both union and non-union. A new thing uh that we have to uh plan for is the paid family medical leave. Um that is uh a cost to the employer and the employee. There's a case later on tonight where you'll see there's um a contract we're looking to do with Metife. Um and this 87,000 represents the employer portion uh of that. This is a brand new cost that hasn't been in past budgets and this is something we'll have to continue to have in the budget uh each year moving forward as long as the law is in place. We do uh continue to see overtime increases. Uh I know our chiefs especially work really hard to get that down, but the fact is that we need coverage. When we need coverage and we have uh significant events, we need to make sure uh folks are in. Uh there are other things such as leave that factors into it. uh paid family leave is a perfect example where we're going to have people out for longer periods of time and that does impact our minimum staffing. So that's something that uh we really try to work hard on on reducing uh but uh unfortunately that's where we're at uh for this budget cycle. The police intern uh wage increase we have to make some adjustments there to be competitive and the HR manager uh uh we have to pay for the full year of that in the 25 budget. the council authorized a half year uh for that position. Uh so we need to backfill that uh for the other half. So that's um what that cost is. So all told $1.2 million uh of that le of the 2.4 is coming from personnel. The next biggest category is the fund balance and grant use changes. This is kind of a catchall of a couple different things. I talked a lot about how we had um uh state and federal dollars uh used in the past that no longer exist. One big chunk we don't have really much left of anymore and the remaining portion of that already factored into this budget is public safety aid. This is the state of Minnesota money. Last year we did use it uh for a couple things. We use it to um shore up uh pay for fire cadetses. We also added a police department commander position and we used half levy and half public safety aid. We also funded Tubman uh which was just in front of the council uh for 20,000 as part of that and we also had settled union contracts. I would mention that this levy increase as is mentioned does include Tubman. That's still a conversation the council needs to have as far as whether or not to fund them. But just just for transparency sake, that is already factored in at this point. It's not really a budget increase because it was in the budget last year, but the source was public safety aid. It wasn't levy dollars. If we include it this year, um uh would have to come from levy dollars. So that all told is 251,000. We also for our police department social workers, we're able to patch together uh lots of different funds to make it happen uh including grants. Uh but the net cost uh for us uh to keep our two social workers in the police department which um I think we have found to be very successful and really a great approach for us to uh continue to do is 257,000. We do have um some offsetting grants which you can see the state aid grant revenue and other increases of 150 but only covers if I remember right through half of the year in 2026. So, doesn't get us all the way there for that, but certainly helps. And then finally, we did um have the park and recreation fund balance uh used last year and to the tune of 220,000. As we looked at that fund, we thought that fund uh could maybe uh we could utilize that to offset any levy increases. So, the decisions we made make in past years to try to manage that levy um do eventually have to come back. And so, this is uh been factored in here. So, all told, about $580,000 would go from existing fund balances or grant funds to uh the levy. And once again, this is just keeping what we're doing currently. Uh some of the other categories I can get through a little bit quicker here. The debt service, you're very familiar with that. We um bonded for electric fire engine and this is the uh annual debt service um which is going to be new uh uh for this year uh starting in 2026, I should say. And that represents just so you know about 1% levy increase about every 300,000 is 1% levy increase. We do do see some decrease in supplies of materials. Uh fortunately um winters have been cooperating so we don't need as much salt and sand. Um so that's works to our benefit. Utilities are just minor uh costs. These are things for our um our facilities for utility costs and contractual services did go up. We've had some significant increase especially with uh Ramsey County dispatch another $66,000 there. Uh Metro Inet goes up and just generally the contracts have gone up uh over time. So uh that has added up and then some miscellaneous other changes of $36,000. So uh this is what I showed you before, but this just kind of shows you all the building blocks of why that uh levy increase is $2.4 million. So now I'm going to discuss some budget and levy scenarios regarding the addition of the 15 firefighters and the seven police department employees. We'll take a look at what those costs are estimated to be both with receiving grant funds and not having grant funds. And then I will also then discuss a non- tax levy funding source uh namely utility franchise fees that could be implemented to lower the overall tax levy increase the need the need for um increase the public safety staffing uh if that is desired to be added into the budget. So uh regarding the public safety personnel uh what has been asked by the chiefs and both of these have been presented to the council earlier this year. So, for the fire department looking to add 15 firefighters or five to each of our three shifts, uh they would start September 2026 in an effort to try to minimize the cost for 2026. The total cost for those 15 firefighters is $78,000. We have submitted a safer grant uh to fund this for three years for a large portion of these personnel costs. Um, and if we were to receive that grant, uh, 531,000 of that 78,000 would be paid through the grant, uh, leaving the city with $177,000, uh, to make up with the levy. And that's assuming we get the grants. And I know you're all aware of the timing of the grant. Unfortunately, it's going to probably fall after uh, when we have to set the not to exceed levy increase. We'll probably learn sometime in October. Um, so we're not going to have knowledge before then whether or not we get the grants. If we don't get the grants, then we're looking at a $78,000 levy increase just for those 15 firefighters in. That's just part of the year. It's not the full year. For the police department staffing, uh, the chief asked for four police officers, two patrol sergeants, and one record supervisor. The total cost for uh all those positions, including benefits, is $1 million. We do have a pending grant uh that would pay for uh at least one of those officers uh for $167,000. So, if we were to get that, our net costs for the city would be $836,000. We don't get that grant a million. Similar to the safer grants, the COPS grant isn't going to be known until October. Um, so we're going to be a little bit blind going into, uh, not to exceed, we're not going to know whether or not we have these. So, uh, long story short is if we do get the grants, we're looking about a million, uh, dollars, uh, 13,000 to, uh, add to the levy. And then without, uh, the grants, it's 1.7. So, what that means is, uh, a significant increase on the levy. So, I've created some tables that are in your uh, memo. So just starting on the left, this is the base budget that I tal just got finished talking about. Uh the levy is $33 million, $2.4 million increase, and that results in 7.87% levy increase that I mentioned before. Scenario one is the same base uh budget levy, but assuming we get the grants. So, it' be 177,000 for the fire uh positions and 836,000 for the police, which would lead to a 3.4 million levy increase or 11.17% levy increase. Scenario two is if we don't get the grants. Um, so the costs are significantly higher. So, you can see uh the math there and that gets us to a 13.44% levy increase. Those are pretty difficult levy amounts that I think is going to be a real challenge for any of us to um get behind um including me. I think that's just a very significant uh amount here. But just wanted to go through the exercise to demonstrate what that would be if we were to add all that together. So I want to introduce the possibility of imposing franchise fees um which would go on the bills of electric and gas utility customers. It's really an alternative revenue source and yes it does come from residents and businesses in our community but uh it is through the util utility bill not tied to property taxes or value of your home. So, we do have a additional agenda item coming up after this about the uh more general conversations about franchise fees, but uh they would be um we'd work with Excel to have uh an ordinance adopted to create franchise fees and it's really about their use of our rightway um to uh provide electric and gas services and certainly um you know they're a business and they make money off of doing that. So, and it costs us to maintain the rightway. So, it seems um reasonable to have some type of fee for that use. Uh the franchise fees are actually commonly used in most cities uh in Minnesota. In fact, uh one of the I think we're one of the few, if not the only one in Ramsey County that does not have franchise fees currently. Once again, we'll talk a lot more about that in the next uh next one. Just to be clear, this is not free money. It's something that does come from uh customers, utility customers. It does cover um everybody from single family homes to businesses to uh non-taxpaying entities such as churches and and schools and things like that. So it does cast a wider net, but it is something uh that um residents will be paying more. We think we can have those in place um and be able to provide more services without raising the taxes um uh where we need to be uh by using franchise fees and a combination of levy support to do some really great things uh with both our media budget also but also in the long-term um budget. We will be making some comparisons on what those um cost differentials would be between if we put everything on the levy versus using franchise fees once we get more data from uh Ramsey County here at the end of August, beginning of September to really show what the median impact uh would be uh for folks um doing that. There are some steps Whoops. There are some steps. Okay, I went too fast there. There are some steps we need to take uh before we get there. So um in talking to Excel, this is just showing um some information about the amount of dollars that could be generated by by a variety of franchise fees. So you see three options there and um they can be different numbers. I really focus on the residential um uh amount. And so what uh option one is showing a $3 charge per month on an electric uh bill for a residential unit and a $3 charge for gas services or a total of $6 a month uh to the residents. And then there's commercial and industrial fees as you can see um as they're listed. And that's based on u the use of the electricity or the gas. So, if we had a $3 residential fee on uh electric and gas, that'd be $2.1 million that would be generated. And that would uh for the average for every residential account, not average, every residential account would be uh charged the same. That's $72 per year. You can see option two at 350 gets 2.4 million and option three gets $2.8 million. So, that is a significant amount of revenue that we could put in play for our capital needs, for our infrastructure. So, let's walk through that a little bit. So, um my thought is to use the franchise fees to fund four funds that directly support the rightway. That is our pavement management fund, our street light fund, our pathway and parking lot fund, and our public works equipment fund. All told, uh all four of those uh we currently receive $1.6 $6 million of tax levy every year into that fund to make sure it's whole, that make sure we have enough dollars to pay for the needed equipment, not only for uh this year and next year, but for many years down the road. So, um for the next slide, I I've used the $2.1 million um amount. That is that $3 uh month charge for gas and $3 for electric for the analysis here. So the basic idea would be to replace that $1.6 million of levy support going towards those those four capital funds which are pavement management, street light fund, pathway and parking and public works equipment and vehicle fund and swap that out with the $2.1 million we'd be getting from the franchise fees. Of that $1.6 million, I would look to reallocate $545,000 of that 1.6 six and be uh that we're saving from using the franchise fees and the rightway in infrastructure funds and put them into four different funds. The police department vehicle and equipment fund, fire department vehicle equipment fund, the parks vehicle and equipment fund, and the park improvement fund. We'd also want to keep $100,000 of that existing levy um remaining in the public works equipment fund. I know I'm throwing a lot of numbers out, so we'll get to a table that hopefully will explain it. That would leave us $986,000 of that $1.6 million to reallocate onto the operation side that could help us pay and reduce the the levy increase for the public safety personnel. So hopefully this table helps a little bit and I'll walk through this. So uh here are the four rightaway infrastructure funds that I've identified. Here's the $1.6 million that we're currently using levy for. What I would propose instead of putting $1.1 million of levy funds into the pavement management fund, put $1.36 million into the um that fund of franchise fees. Street light fund, 21,000 currently in the levy. Put 96,000 in franchise fees. Pathway and parking lot currently 255,000 of levy. Swap that out and have 365,000. Then the public works, we currently have 235,000 of levy going in. Keep a 100,000 in there uh but also add 285,000 uh of franchise fees for a total of 385. So you can see we're going from for those four funds instead of putting $1.6 million each year, we're putting $2.2 million a year. This these lower uh part of the table here shows uh these four other funds that we reallocate levy towards. So you can see the current uh levy amounts for each of these funds that go in annually at $1.6 million. A lot of $1.6 million here, but uh these are different numbers. Uh I would look to reallocate um $545,000 uh as shown, another 225 in police department, 120 in the fire department vehicle, 100,000 for both park improvement fund and uh the park uh department vehicle equipment fund. So if you just kind of tally that up, we have existing levy of 1.631 million that dollars that go into the rightway capital funds. I would take that and swap that out with franchise fees. Reallocate or re or use 645,000 of of those dollars into other funds that are the four funds, the police, fire, parks uh funds leaves $986,000. So we when you add all this up, we go from 3.25 $25 million when you combine these two uh uh annual funds going into um those capital funds and to $4.37 million or an increase of $1.1 million of funds going towards our capital needs. One thing I haven't talked about in this whole budget and the levy impact is increasing our levy amount. We all know our funds, several funds need some help uh both short-term and long-term. um there just isn't room under the base budget levy to add additional um levy amounts. This is really a way to not only stabilize what we have now, maybe pay for public safety personnel, but really for the future set us up very nicely. Let me talk through that a little bit. So the pavement management fund, we would replace the $1.1 million of levy support with 1.36. The fund goes from being negative. This is how it currently looks right now in 2036 to being fully funded through just about 2044. For the streetlight fund, we would uh swap out 21,000 of lobby support to 96,000 of franchise fees. It goes from being severely negative in 2029 and beyond to be fully funded through 2045. there's just a small little negative balance about 2029 2030. Uh I think we can manage through that. The pathway and parking fund we swap out the levy with franchise fees and it goes from being negative this is how it looks now to being fully funded through 2045. So once again being negative being fully funded public works vehicle and equipment fund swap out the levy with um uh franchise fees and retaining 100,000 of levy goes from being negative in 2028 to being fully funded through 2045. So pretty dramatic change. So this is using the franchise fees directly into those four funds. The next four funds, this is where we're going to reallocate um uh the levy here. So, uh for the police department vehicle fund that already gets uh 225,000, we'll add another 300,000 for a total of 525,000. And it goes from being negative in 2026 to a positive balance in 2029. Now, that doesn't look as dramatic as the other ones. They'll grant you that and we'd hope uh be better and this is something we'll need to continue. But if you look at where we're heading, we're down to maybe $7.5 million in the hole in 20 years. Uh we're down to about three million. Still significant work we need to do. We need to keep addressing that. But I think we've certainly been able to um deal with something that was going to be pending next year. Uh would be negative to extend that for another three years to allow us to keep keep working on strategies whether it's this this budget cycle or future budget cycles. the fire department vehicle and equipment. Uh we were going to add some additional levy to that. Um and that goes from looking like this negative in 2035 to and being significantly negative beyond that to being a little bit better. Uh still 2035 is an inflection point. We go a little bit negative there which maybe we can manage. Uh not really significantly uh negative until the 2040s. Um, as you know, we just borrowed for uh the electric fire engine. So, I think borrowing is certainly a strategy to be using for this to help manage some of those costs, but uh certainly is better than it was in the past. The last two, uh, park and recreation vehicle and equipment fund, we'd add $100,000 or more levy goes from being negative in 2028 to being fully funded through 2045. So, once again, negative to positive. And then the park improvement fund uh add another 100,000. This does a lot of stuff in our parks including our playgrounds. Uh this goes from being negative in 2033 to uh being slightly negative in 20 36 and 37 which once again I think we can manage then being fully funded through 2045. So where does that get us? Um with all those changes I've added two more scenarios. scenario three and four. And so scenario three is assuming we get the grants for the public safety positions. So the cost for the fire department be 177 just like scenarios scenario one. Whoops. Click up. Um 177. Same as scenario one. And same with the police department positions. But remember that levy amount that we freed up by using the franchise fees, $986,000. that would offset the needed increase to fund those positions which would have been 11.17 down to 7.96. Remember the base budget is 7.87%. So we could we would not only be able to do the base budget but also add all that personnel uh for slightly less than an 8% increase. Scenario four because we have to do it um uh is we don't get the grants um we're looking at a 10.23% two 3% lab increase, which is still pretty steep. Whenever you hit double digits, that's something that we would have to pause. But I wanted to demonstrate these different scenarios for the council to think through a little bit about uh where we want to land uh for a levy amount, but also what we want to be able to fund in the 2026 budget. Obviously, receiving grant dollars is something that's really important. So, speaking of those grants, the grants don't last forever. And as I talked about some of the challenges we have now as we're back filling. So uh one idea and this is just one of perhaps many is that we could um look at um implementing slightly higher franchise fees. If you remember through my examples I used the $3 residential charge which got 2.1 million $2.1 million. The other side of the chart had it at $4 a month that got $2.8 million. We could uh possibly, and this is a lot more discussion needs to happen, um uh raise $2.8 million of franchise fees, start collecting that in 26, put that for the time being into the capital uh funds, and that this strengthens the capital funds. And starting in budget year 2027 when we have to pay for the full year of the fire department staffing, so it's gonna be much more than the 170,000. Uh we could uh take some of that franchise fees from the capital and put it on the operating side like the streets division that's covering uh the maintenance of the streets. It pays for the snowplow drivers and and and all that stuff there. that would free up some levy capacity that that we can then use to apply towards those fire um department costs. That's just one example. We haven't gone through all the scenarios on how that would look, but I just want to raise that up because um while we're happy to get grant funds, there's at some point we're have to pay and I think that's still going to be a significant cost. When we did additional firefighters several years ago, we did add a levy uh each year to the amount of like $200,000 to build some capacity when we're off the grant that we already had some levy uh within it. So, we didn't have to do one year big shock um uh raise. So, this would be a similar uh method, but just just a different way to think about it. And then the budget years 28 and 29, we can continue to uh look at how we can reallocate um some funds to put on the operating side. The franchise fees, as long as they're in place, are sustainable and be coming to the city every single year. So, it's not oneshot money. It's something that would come forward um for a period of time. Most uh or I think um maybe it's state law, I'm not sure, but franchise agreements are typically 20 years long. So, you're looking at at least a 20-year window on how to do that. I think it's really critical if we want to fund those positions, really look at how we best can utilize non-levy funds to help support. It may not cover 100% of those costs of the public safety personnel, but it can go a long way towards helping u those costs. All right, just about done here. So, next steps. Uh here's the dates. Uh I am going to the finance commission uh this Wednesday night to present the budget uh to the finance commission and um on the 15th of September the finance commission will come back with their recommendations on my budget and proposals. On the 22nd has been mentioned several times we need to have a preliminary city and EDA tax levy and budget. We'll look at utility rates which I haven't talked about at all here but that's an annual thing that we do uh look at every year adjusting the rates. We'll have the public hearing for the budget on December 1st and look to adopt the final budget on December 8th. And I'll just put this last slide up. This is just kind of covering the basics of what the budget is, what the levy amount is, and kind of what those levy increases would be um and uh then just what the drivers of the levy um cost for the base budget. So, with that, I will pause to see if there's any questions the council has and be happy to answer them. >> Right. Thank you, Mr. Treasure for your uh presented budget and for all the work that uh you and your uh staff and department heads have gone into over the last several months to uh put together the budget to recommend to the council and the public this evening. Are there questions from the council for staff on the proposed recommended 2026 budget? >> Council member Sher, >> would you u repeat when will you have the information the franchise fees versus the property taxes? So if it was on property taxes instead of franchise fees, when would that information be available? >> So I my understanding there's a meeting with the county at September 3rd or something like that. So it'll be sometime next week we'd probably get that preliminary information. Then we'll have to quickly crunch the numbers. So I would think by the end of next week or the start of the week after that we'd be able to have that. I will shoot that out to everybody so you have that immediately and then incorporate that into the documents both for the 15th and the 22nd. on that. We're waiting for some final calculations about fiscal disparities. So, it just uh we're pretty close, but we just want to make sure we have exact numbers. >> Thank you. >> And just to clarify, the question was uh related to the impact to the average property owner >> for the property tax versus looking at the the >> six or eight a month of of utility franchise fees by comparison. >> Right. Yeah. Once we have that information, we can start sharing those impacts. >> All right. Other questions for the staff? So, I did ask uh Mr. Trejudan to do a couple of things which showed up in the bench handout this evening for the council and that was as was noted in the presentation with the use of the franchise fees um the gas and electric franchise fees. the the plan as presented also includes an increase in capital spending uh to shore up the capital funds as was noted of roughly about 1.12 million per year as part of that. And so I had asked Mr. Trean what the difference would be if we instead of using franchise fees if we use the property tax levy uh to uh to get that 1.12 million. Um, and in the bench handout, instead of uh scenario one, which was if we do all the public safety positions, but we get the grants, that was about 11.1% increase to the uh tax levy. Uh, it would go to about just under 15% if we added million dollars of capital spending under levy funding. And then also scenario two, which is if we don't get any grants from the public safety, that was about 13.4% 4% levy increase uh with the public safety if we also added the increase to the levy to cover the additional capital spending of 1.12 million that was about a 17% levy increase and the only reason I did that was to compare to ultimately when we get the information on the franchise uh costs for the average taxpayer what that might look like um and just my initial analysis which doesn't have all of the uh Ramsey County uh uh work related to fiscal disparities. And and hopefully the final projection is that in that scenario, if we did fund the additional 1.1 million, it would be a little bit less per month for the average household using the franchise fees for funding as opposed to using the um uh uh the levy for all of the additional capital funding. Now, I suppose one of our options too is to have a smaller franchise fee, not do as much capital. We could do any number of different approaches. Um uh you know and that's part of our decision-making process as we go forward. But I did want to just provide that for for comparison purposes because of the fact that there's sort of two things going on with the franchise fee discussion. One is um the use of the franchise fees for capital purposes frees up some existing levy capacity that could be used instead of for capital purposes for uh offsetting some of these increases related to public safety. Uh but then there's also because the franchise fee as it's proposed at $3 per uh residents uh for gas and $3 for electric would um provide more funding than than the gap on the on the capital funding or the the gap on the um excuse me on the public safety funding then that proposal is if we do the the the franchise fees to also do some additional capital funding to shore up those funds. Um, and so it wasn't exactly apples to apples in terms of the comparison. And that was that was just my point was that we have to keep in mind some of those moving pieces and and it's hard enough for for us to keep straight as as well as the members of the public. But I did want to try to explain that and I I was debating whether to show a graph this evening because uh sometimes people are visual thinkers, but uh but maybe I'll hold off on that since we're receiving the city manager's recommendation this evening. Um but uh it does the the upshot is is that our levy funds both capital and operations and both capital operations are also funded by other sources. And so seeing how the levy goes up and down and how the capital funding and the uh and the um not and the operations funding go up and down relative to each other may be helpful to do visually. But I think that's something that uh that I'll have to review more with the city manager and finance staff before that becomes something we share uh as theoretically a helpful thing for the for the public in considering all this. uh but I just wanted to to note that uh once again for the comparison that the franchise fee approach is is not only helping to address the costs related to the public safety operational costs but also uh as sort of a bonus to that because the amount that could be collected as presented by Excel is greater than that differential that we could also address these these capital issues uh as well. So, I just wanted to note that that that's that wouldn't be the capital solution wouldn't be part of either the base budget or scenario one or scenario two without the franchise fees because the franchise fee approach is what gives us the funds to help address those capital needs. Uh, and we can certainly get into more detail about that or if uh residents or folks have questions, we can try to help them understand that. Were there other questions from the council for staff at this time? Council member Bower, >> thank you for your presentation. I have a question about the um you said 300,000 is about 1%. >> Uh I asked because if I'm looking here at uh in the packet was the preliminary base budget and appreciate bringing together all that detail. >> Looking at that uh typically our fund balances we try to keep them at 50% I think is the most in any of our funds. Looking at the EDA one it's at about what 200% right now. That's and looks like we're look you're proposing funding $450,000 in that and the fund balance right now is 2024 $930,000. Does it make sense to fund that or just to draw down? I mean the EDA is unique because you can't really transfer out of it but I wonder if we should just not fund you know expense it or fund it for this year to bring it back down into our normal cash reserve levels. I'm concerned that that cash reserve is continuing to grow and looking at the past years u I'm not seeing any changes in expenditures and whatnot and that would be saving possibly over 1%. >> Yep. So thanks for bringing that up. So and and and I should mention that when I talk about the overall levy impact I'm including any impact on the EDA levy which is actually down by is it $30 and you can't remember off the top of my head here but but we're still taxing for it. Uh to your point, Council Member Bower, um couple things and I don't have the exact breakdown and I think it's important that maybe we bring that back and have that discussion that 900,000 fund balance is more than just the operating fund. I think it has some of the other EDA funds. So I'd really like to look at that breakdown uh to understand that a little bit. Um certainly uh we can always look at fund balance um and trade that off of um uh levying for it and that's something we try to look at the EDA the operating side we want to make sure we do have some cash flow just like our general fund because we get those payments twice a year we can figure out what that what that would need to be here um so I think there's maybe some possibility to look at that I would just caution that if we go from 400,000 to zero we're going to have to eventually levy that back up. So, in future years, it's going to be an increase. So, it would have to be a measured approach. But if if it would be all right, I would maybe when we talk about the EDA budget, just bring back kind of that breakdown of that fund of what that 900,000 um is. I don't know if it's half and half of the operating. I don't know what it is off the top of my head here. So, >> I had the same question, which is why I brought it up here. So, I'd be happy to have that conversation in the >> Yeah, I think it's worthwhile to have that just to make sure we're looking at under every stone to make sure we can lower that levy the best we can. >> Thank you. And just if I may on clarification on that too, the impact as we change the EDA levy isn't exactly the same as if we change the property tax levy, the more general property tax levy only because the EDA levy is levied across a different set of payers uh than the rest of the property tax levy. So the impact per household, so to speak, is a little different. So that would be another factor to kind of look at as we're looking at that as well. um because it may not be the the 300,000 impact that we might be thinking it is potentially. Uh council member Shore >> um it's interesting that um you brought up the EDA because I actually had that conversation with the city manager today. I I too had questioned that and actually there's two pieces to that is one yeah you know and there was that you know do you go from the extreme but you could also do increments too so you know 100 each year whatever but then the other piece was um like you said most funds have a um our policies basically say um our cash reserve is a percentage of the next uh uh year's budget and I believe our general fund the high end is 50%. >> But I don't believe um our EDA is at 200%. So, so the question is what should that be for the EDA fund considering the uh general fund is at 50. So that might be something as you're presenting to the finance commission because they're the ones that tend to look at that policy to maybe ask them what they would recommend that should be at because I think I brought this up over a number of years and because we don't have a policy on it's hard to know >> where that should be and I know you cannot spend it on other things but like you had mentioned you could um not fund it or fund it less and then have that balance come down but it would be good to get the finance commissions view on it as well. >> Certainly worth the conversation. I think we want to make sure we're comparing apples to apples. So the EDA general fund for the lack of a better word, >> we'd have to look at what that fund balances versus some other fun. >> And that's why maybe if they look at it, they can get into more of the detail as well. >> Yeah. >> Council member Bower, >> thank you. Uh I do appreciate the detail, the little blurbs you put for each of the funds. Um looking through it, I'm looking at uh just pick one here. recreation uh fee programs you know in all these ones uh you correctly mentioned that there's a 3% cola on all these um looking at like fee programs or fee related ones have we also increased all the fees accordingly so that these become neutral I was trying to look through the budget and match revenues to expenses but sometimes it's rather difficult >> yeah it's pretty aggregated what you see there >> uh we we do have uh we did raise fees and I don't have it right in front of me I know Mr. Johnson's here. I'm not expecting him to off the top of his no, but we can share that information um uh with the council on where we raise fees. It I think generally is a few percentage uh if nothing else. And there were some uh cases where it might have been higher based on >> I was just looking to see if we actually covered uh you know the expenses for these and we try to make these uh cost neutral for us. >> Well, we try >> as much as possible. I'm not looking for them to be >> you want to make sure you don't cost people out of the thing. So, it's always a fine balance. But uh we'll we'll have Mr. Johnson respond to the council on that. >> This goes along with I think you mentioned earlier with Metro Inet increasing their fees, but I believe Metro Inet uses our city fiber lines which you also noted uh we had to increase because of locate costs and things. I would hope that we're charging them increase the costs and the fees to match that as well. >> Well, we try to match it up the best we can. Sometimes there's this lag in time um as as you as you're doing um those those things. And um um you know just just in regards to Metro Ina quite a lot of this pass through cost for licensing everything's a subscription now if you all know that. So uh instead of having an annual or a capital cost it's more of an annual operating cost and that's that's >> for all the all the members it's it's been a big problem as those costs have gone up. Microsoft >> just want to make sure as our costs increase that we're passing those along for those that utilize our resources >> and services as best as we can. >> And if I just on the uh parks and recreation fee programs or fee supported programs if I remember right or maybe the overall parks and recreation operating budget it's roughly 5050 between property tax and the fees. >> And so I think the idea is that we don't necessarily want to upset that balance excessively. um because that you know that's harder for fee payers to to pay potentially. Um but it's all part of the mix in terms of discussing all of that. >> It is. Yep. It's all part of the conversation. >> And I did I mean there was an increase I think of I saw somewhere in here I could be wrong but like an increase in scholarships as well. >> Yes. 5,000 more this year. It's a total of 15 was 10. >> Yep. >> Right. uh council >> that's what I was going to add is that the scholarship went up to help offset some of the fees >> and the scholarship of is supported by other revenues into the program. Yeah. >> Council member B. >> Sorry I will get through my questions. I'm sorry. >> No, that's all right. Uh this may and in that same blurb where you're outlining all the funds, there's a capital outlay funds and one thing that did catch my eye is the building replacement fund. uh you noticed a reduction of $361,000 from 1.2 and or the budget being 1.2 reductions. I thought if you could just expand on that where that came from. >> Yeah, it's really so that's just the total amount of spending uh in the uh in the facilities fund year overyear. So in 20 uh 20 in 2025, I'm getting my years correct here. Uh we're spending 304. What's the number? 350. >> Uh I only have the 26 number here. $350,000 less compared to 25. So, so if you remember our caps, each year we have listing of projects. So, the projects in 25 are costing X amount. >> Mhm. >> And the projects in 26 are costing at $350,000 less. Um, that's all it is. It's just an aggregate. So, if you were to look at the >> and it's in one of the uh division handouts, I'm trying to remember what page number is. Um you can see kind of how what the expend for facilities in 25 was the capital funds was x amount and the 26 it's just gone down >> $350 attachment C. >> Yeah. Page 29 attachment C. Yeah. What I wanted to make sure was that we're not deferring something that wasn't um a deferral or something like that that rather it was just what we had planned and situation. >> Yeah. And you know, and it's a good point. Every year we do look at all the capital things and we don't spend when we don't need to spend and we do defer often if we can. Um sometimes we have to move things up because things break and everything like that. So you know, so what's proposed in 26 is what we believe we need to have and that just happens to be $300,000 less than what we needed to spend in 25. They're completely different things we're doing each year, right? So it's not the same thing cost $300,000 less. is just the aggregate of the projects in 25 were this and it's $300,000 less than 26. >> I'm glad you mentioned that deferral because I know in the past, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the past we've deferred some things I think with some public works projects and things for a couple years. Do we look at doing any kind of deferrals from I'm not saying public works because we've deferred enough there, but like other areas to defer to help with reducing that base budget number. Well, the base budget, not the levy, the base budget number is where it would come into place because if we're using capital funds, that's money we already have. So, yes, we always do look at that. Everything from vehicles, do we need to replace a vehicle as soon or equipment uh to playgrounds is another one that we look at every single year. Um if if you know, we want in a perfect world, we'd be doing things a lot quicker and we try to make sure things can last longer and not spend the money uh as quickly. So we do defer a lot of things and like I said sometimes we have to move some things up. So it's an annual extraes actually throughout the whole year even if it it's scheduled for 25 let's say we get to that point and we think you know we think we can probably um get along for another couple years then we'll defer that but we also try to do that the front end too. So going into the year, we know what we we do or don't do. But all that will do is if we defer it, um that will just the overall budget, the big number might be a little bit less in capital expenditures. Often times though, I I I want to say that even if we defer something, there's something else that might be moved up, >> which is why we defer. >> Yeah. So you kind of do the swap here and so the net might not be any different or might be a little bit higher. Uh it's because that thing you have to move up is more expensive than what >> more of an exercise try to smooth things out. >> Yeah. Yeah. You really want to smooth >> is all that would you achieve by doing that. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Trean. If you could bring up from your presentation those graphs on the on you can pick any one of the the capital funds. >> I just wanted to go through that a little bit. >> Yeah, I just closed it here. So, let me get it up. [Music] Okay. >> Takes a while. Yeah. >> Thinking thinking. >> Okay. >> So, and this this was this kind of relates to the discussion that was just had. So, the red bars on the graph are the annual planned expenditures of when we expect to replace various sections of segments of roadway in our payment management fund. as this is so essentially and then the green is the annual revenue um and in this case we have revenue from um tax levy we have revenue from state aids and things like that so that can that can account for some of the fluctuation uh but generally speaking what we're trying to do uh as far as the city finances is set aside a little bit of money each year into essentially our savings account uh like people might do if you're planning to do a major expense at your in your home >> um uh and uh that is that is what the green represents. And the problem we've had as these graphs this particular graph shows is that the amounts that we plan to set aside and have been setting aside haven't been keeping up with the way the costs are going. And so that's what we're challenged with is to try to make sure that we're accounting for that. And just like in our home, uh if if it's a big enough expenditure, we may look to borrow money for it as as was noted earlier. um for instance, for a large, you know, $2 million fire engine, we it's hard to set aside $2 million over 20 years >> um and then pay cash for it necessarily, although we still try to do that in most cases on our capital needs. Um, but the I guess the point being is that as it was discussed just prior to this, as we start to shift some of the red bars left and right or some pieces components of them, um, you know, the impact may or may not be that significant as itffects affects the overall program, but it may help in in a particular year. The challenge is to the extent that we're paying for those expenditures with savings we've already made, the impact to what it might be on the tax levy at that given year is where we don't necessarily see uh as much impact as we might otherwise because we're using savings to pay for those things often times. Um so that's the challenge I think that that this whole discussion brings up. So I just wanted to provide a little bit of a visual aid to help with that. Uh or make it more confusing depending on your point of view. Um other questions from the council. Council member Bower. >> Uh that's great you brought that up because and I'm glad that we have this graph up too because you mentioned in your um proposed budget a comment about as you mentioned starting to use uh debt for some of these things. Um do you have or you probably don't have but a plan of how to use that use that or a policy that you're thinking that would work because that very much would factor into this. We're talking about using a combination possibly of franchise fees and now publicly increasing our amount of debt which we have a lot of capacity for and probably does make sense to do. It seems like we should actually have a policy or a financial plan a model or something like that before we just start running into and doing these kinds of things especially when we're trans if we were to do that. transitioning from something where we kind of prepay for this stuff to that that transition period can get very interesting if we don't do the proper financial analysis. >> Yes. So uh we have uh the finance director and I have done an initial sit down and looked really at 27 and 28 expenditures um about what potentially from the certain funds that um could be uh potentially um have debt issue uh for uh you're looking for something that is a longer term asset not something that's going to need to be replaced within five years something longer because you want to have the length of time to pay for it. So, we've identified some of those and what that impact would be. I think we need to do further analysis. We really didn't bring it to bear in the 26 uh budget because it's it's right right here in front of us >> to be ready. >> Yeah. So, 27 28 we've already kind of uh pencil in some things that we want to look at further. I think it's important though that we held that discussion with the council and the finance commission about here's here's some ways to approach it and what's the trade-off because you are adding more debt levy uh to it. And so if you have, you know, versus having funds in place, we just got to play that through a little bit and understand what that flow is. I my personal sense too, I think it was even more critical to look at that prior to discussing franchise fees to stretch your dollars more. Not saying you don't look at it, but franchise fees does provide another revenue source that we didn't have. So we had to figure out the trade-off um of adding levy versus using franchise fees. I think we have such large needs that we probably both is the answer in the end. um to try to try to look at it. But um so that's something we'll continue to bring forward here as we go into future budget cycles. >> And final comment, uh I enjoyed reading the budget. I learned that Kines's are a capital expense. >> Yeah. Yes. >> All right. Uh and on that subject of capital expenses in the the public safety side of things, actually, if you could maybe scroll ahead to the the police and vehicle police vehicle and equipment replacement fund. Yeah, >> this was one that caught my attention uh because even with the additional funding from the um uh potentially from the franchise fees, we're setting aside not enough each year and the the costs each year are fairly consistent and higher. And so even with that solution, we're still probably something in the neighborhood of $200,000 annually short. um which is why the graph goes negative so soon even with the improved situation. So I really do think if if we don't address it in this this budget cycle, my preference might be to do that. But um certainly in the next budget cycle, I would like us to really look at how we get that that particular fund since it seems to be very much an in and out. You know, almost every year we have essentially the same expenditure. We should pretty much have the same amount of dollars going towards it every year. Otherwise, it's not really a fund. It's it's a wish. >> Yeah. Uh so I think we need to address that. >> The only thing I would say and this is true for all the funds is we don't inflate anything. You go further out the costs are going to increase. I think the cost for police vehicles have doubled over the last 5 years. >> Sure. >> Hopefully it doesn't continue to double every 5 years. I can't imagine it will but um so even if we make it look good uh by putting 200,000 which would make it positive for 20 years, we have to understand the outy years. But I guess it's my my point is it's a little easier to make small adjustments to 200,000 every year than it is to, you know, go from zero to 200,000 more. >> Um, >> you know, once you get it sort of right sized based on non-inflationary, then you can deal with the inflation a little easier. So, which is where we thought we were >> 15 years ago, and it turns out that we we needed to we need to keep looking at this, obviously, and that's why we do the 20-year lookout. Mhm. >> This was the one that caught my eye too in the uh in the graphs that you were showing and >> I I thought we need to address that one. >> Yeah. My my comment was, well, couldn't we take, you know, if we were to use the franchise fee approach, couldn't we take some more of that, >> you know, or or the allocation of the of the the savings from the franchise fee in the capital side? Couldn't we spend more of that on police and vehicle police and vehicle and equipment? But obviously, you got to you got to try to satisfy a lot of different needs. Push and pull, right? Exactly. Exactly. Right, Council Member Sher. Yeah. And and and talking about that and I think that gets back to then having that combination then with the um with the debt because it's typically when you buy a house or something big, you usually take on a mortgage, right? And so if you have another area where you can take on some debt to pay, then that could free up maybe something you could put into this fund then. And so if we had the right combination of and debt plus revenue um you know some of this that I think that could help it. And um as the finance commission did come forward they said we have quite the bit of capacity for debt and it's not that we obviously want to fill that up but if we are underutilizing that that that's not good either. So if we could somehow use that then and then free something else up for this, I think that could be a combination too, >> right? Yeah. And the challenge we always have is that debt still has to be paid off annually, right? But levy funds and so it's not right. It's not it's not like borrowing money. >> No. No. But there's but there's that. Right. >> You have to run out the numbers, right? The cash flow is what it is, right? >> Yes. >> All right. Other questions from the council? Right. Well, I I thank you again uh for presenting this this evening. Um I'm going to forego the public comment on the budget and tax levy since we just received the information this evening. Uh and there will be opportunities for public comment as we get to our decision-m in December as well as later in the year. Uh and I know there may be some folks here who wish to talk about uh franchise fees, which is our next uh item on the agenda. So, if it's okay, unless there's objection, uh we'll move right to that item on the agenda. >> Mr. Charger. >> All right. All right, I'll just stay down here. I don't have all my notes in front of me, but uh I will do the best I can. So, um as mentioned as part of the budget, um scenarios, franchise fees is a possibility uh for us to consider to bring additional revenue in to help u pay in uh the proposal uh for capital funds. Franchise uh fees are allowed under state law. Uh first uh we should dial back is that typically uh cities and the utility companies have what is called a franchise agreement which is usually passed an ordinance form. The city of Roseville um did have u franchise um ordinances um in place um as far back as I went to is 1998. Uh they passed a 20-year franchise ordinance uh that expired in 2018. Uh, so we're actually without one and best practices that we should should have one. So regardless of whether we charge franchise fees or not, we should have a franchise ordinance. It really lays out the roles and responsibilities of the utilities when when they're working in the rightway. I would mention too that um um utilities do pay permit fees when they actually do actual work uh in our rightway on a specific project. So that's something that's always been charged. Um but the franchise ordinance kind of lays out kind of the the the roles and responsibilities between the city and uh utilities. So it's a good good practice typically um within those franchise ordinance and I believe me I think there's uh been a lot of conversation over decades of franchise agreements about the language and I know the league and our attorney has some really uh good staff uh that have worked through kind of the standard uh franchise ordinance. Um, and so what we have in your packet tonight is the initial draft of that franchise ordinance, which is very similar to what we had in the past. And if you look at any other city, uh, it's the same. It's the same. Um, but anyway, within that uh, franchise ordinance is the ability for the city to charge a franchise fees. The ordinance itself, if you can pause it for a moment, uh, there's somebody in the audience that appears to have a phone or something that's has reminders going off. If we can try to silence those. >> Sorry about that. Thank you. >> So, uh, most franchise ordinances, and you'll see it, uh, I believe in the drafts we have, um, tonight, um, that, uh, do allow for, uh, cities to charge a franchise fees. Passage of the franchise ordinance does not automatically, it doesn't at all, uh, uh, impose a franchise fee. There has to be a separate ordinance that, um, is adopted and considered by the city council. it is um technically a negotiation between the utilities and the city even though we have the ability to do that. So we do try to uh would want to work closely with in our case Excel for uh any franchise fees as well as the franchise ordinance. Uh they do have a a draft of the franchise ordinance and we've talked about the franchise fees with them as you can see as some of the data I propose I brought forward came from from them. They don't necessarily oppose uh franchise fees, but they certainly have some caveats on on how some of it is structured and what that means for them as far as permit fees. So, we would have to have continued uh conversations, negotiations with them before we'd bring back something um for you to consider if that's the direction you want to go. Just want to mention two uh quick things regards to the franchise fees. One is I did um uh do some research about who has franchise fees here in in Ramsey County. Uh and I was surprised because I wasn't aware of this um until started asking. Uh almost all the other cities uh that I could find have uh at least one franchise fee uh if not both of them. Gem Lake, Lauderdale and White Bear Township. I was not able to get in touch with the right people to uh determine whether or not they had franchise fees, but every other city in Ramsey County um do have franchise fees in place. Uh just a point of information uh just wanted to share the other thing that's in the packet is we've had Ellers's um provide uh some additional information about franchise fees and this is not an exhaustive list. Uh but you can see what the franchise fees uh around Minnesota are and you see all the cities that are listed with franchise fees including some in Ramsey County. The median um franchise fee is $4 per residential. You remember we talked about $3 to $4 uh range. They also have information about uh the gas and the region centerpoint energy which doesn't serve us. We have Excel Energy on the different uh rates there and that's about uh $4 as well the gas. So that is information to consider. I'm only bringing this forward uh tonight because the council hasn't had a discussion uh about it and since it's part of my budget strategy, I just wanted to bring it up for initial discussion. Not looking for any action tonight uh at all. If there is interest in the council to pursue this, uh I would propose bringing back the franchise ordinances. Those are the documents that are in your packet to the September 22nd meeting uh and look to pass that. Then from there, if there is interest to actually pursue pursue the franchise fee or uh ordinance, uh get that in place because if we're going along with the budget, if that's the direction we all want to go, then we need to get that implemented because there's a time lag before that takes effect. So, uh that's just kind of the outline and it's more of a discussion and conversation at this point, but I wanted to bring what information I had in front of you so you can discuss and be happy to answer any questions. If I don't know the answers, uh we can find that out for the next time we talk about it. Right. Thank you, Mr. Trojan. Um, and and so I would note that the it sounds like the ordinance uh the draft ordinances that are in the packet don't necessarily impose the franchise fees. They just put in place a franchise agreement between the city and the utility which the city has had before and under that prior franchise agreement ordinance did not charge franchise fees. So we wouldn't essentially be different conceptually from what we had before. >> Correct. and and it gives you the ability to do it if the city council decides to do it, but that would be a separate conversation and separate decision. >> And would that then be an amendment to the ordinance at that point? >> No, be separate separate questions. Okay. All right. Thank you for clarifying that. Are there questions from the council for staff on uh the information presented related to uh franchise fees this evening? I did have one question on the um the larger commercial and industrial. I note that in the information from Excel um they were talking about fees for um residential and for smaller commercial industrial it seemed seemed relatively in line with what was in the averages or you know in that range for the uh the Ellers study that was in the packet. But it did seem that the large commercial industrial uh franchise fees did seem on the electrics seemed a little higher than what the average at least was in the Ellers's information that was averaging what about a 111 112 somewhere there 11150 whereas uh the proposal at least in the at the $2 million level under the city's information from Excel was about 329 uh for the large commercial and industrial. Now obviously as you can see it goes up to 525 >> somewhere but uh >> on average it was about 111. It was just interesting that our our you know theoretical numbers for what was looked at by Excel for residential and for smaller commercial industrial seemed in line with the averages here but the the larger commercial and industrial just was a fair amount higher. So, just wanted to know if that was part of the discussions with Excel or or if I mean do we we have the opportunity I'm presuming if we want to set a franchise fee to to make it what we feel is appropriate as a city. >> Uh the the last part, yes, we can do it subject to having the back and forth. Uh I really can't tell you why that number from Excel is where it is as what they gave us. Um not sure the rhyme or reason. I think uh just initial conversations with Ellers there would be um some additional assistance we could get from them to find uh the right number that might work uh or makes make the most sense versus or compared to other um um cities in doing that. But no, that's just what they gave us. So I really don't know more beyond that. >> Okay. >> And we we didn't talk about that. We talked more about residential rate. >> I'd be curious to know more about where that came from. uh just to know if that's something that uh I don't know if if XL says well that's what the average is in Ramsey County or some other basis. Um just understanding what that is would be helpful for the discussion from my point of view. Uh council member Strong >> thank you. Um when I look at this the the rates provided are 2025 for Excel and 2024 for Centerpoint. Do we know anything about the historical? you know, if if that's something that's been gradually increasing, you know, would it be helpful to pull a 22 from each of, you know, these to see if this has been a lever that other people have been pulling or if there's any indication from other city managers or other folks at League of Minnesota cities if this is an area that other cities are looking to increase because, you know, if everyone is hoping to go up a couple dollars, then our $3 would be online. if not low on the low end, but when you see some of these um cities have 80 cents um on a residential, you wonder um you know if is that just something they put in place in 1992 and have forgotten about since. So >> probably in some respects sometimes yes. Um my my understanding is in a lot of cities they've been in place for quite a long time. Um, so there's probably some opportunity for them to look at that again to look to either raise it now in during their existing franchise ordinance or when they look to renew that. I do know Maplewood just recently within the last year up up their um electric uh franchise charge. Um, and I believe Fat F badness Heights did too recently. just talking to those city managers. Um I know uh some other cities as I uh talked to other people and we had a kind of a group conversation that some felt oh maybe it's been a while since we've looked at ours. Maybe we now I'm seeing what other cities are charging. So so there might be some some upward um pressure to do more but um I think I think some cities do look at it occasionally. I think it's maybe a little bit more challenging in the middle of um franchise ordinance. Not saying it's not impossible uh to to increase them, but um I think cities have done that in the past. >> Great. Thank you. >> Other questions for staff. >> All right. Uh we will uh open it up for public comment on this. And once again, no decision uh is expected to be made on this this evening. Uh this is uh something that uh for the most part I think the council is really just starting to uh look into uh and so uh with that we'll just uh remind folks of the rules of the road for public comment and that is uh the threeminut time limit per speaker uh address comments or questions to the council uh if we can't answer uh we won't be answering questions as a back and forth with the individual speaking but we may be able to provide answers once all the comment is done. Um the three-minute time limit. Begin your uh comments with your name and either street or address as you prefer for identification. Uh and with that, we've got our first commenter with us. Uh so I'll recognize you for your comments. >> Okay. Roger has Junior and Wagner, please. And you don't need to answer these. These are just questions I'd like to uh be answered before you actually decide something. So number one, I was just wondering are is a city getting to its limit of how much you can levy on the general levy that you need to go through such a roundabout way to get more money out of property owners because it seems like it's just kind of like a conuted way to just get more money from people, which if you need more money, that's fine, but I'd rather have it taken right directly from property taxes rather than going through XL then they pay Anyway, so that's one question. Just wondering if you're getting toward the levy limit that you need to do something like this. And I was wondering if you guys have an an estimate how much uh properties that don't pay property taxes, how much you'd be collecting for the me annually the total because if that's a huge amount of money, then I could understand it. But if it's, you know, just a bare minimum, that shouldn't really be part of your decision that you're getting from churches and whatever else. And uh do city- owned properties have to pay this? Like you have you have, you know, high voltage towers running through Central Park and that. So XL has is using right away on city properties all over the place. And I don't know if the city has to also pay these franchise fees, which if you do, that might be more than what the non property tax paying people now would be paying for franchise fees. And um I guess that's my main things. So just things that hopefully you'll answer if you ever decide to go forward with this. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments and questions. Hello and welcome. >> Thank you. I'll fill that out later. Mayor and council members. My name is John Kissolition, 3083 Victoria Street. As you know, I served as mayor of the city from 2000 to 2004. And this amazingly is my 30th year of involvement in the state legislature as a staff member, citizen lobbyist, or paid lobbyist. During my 30 years, I've attended over 500 tax committee hearings, and I probably sat through about two dozen property tax presentations by Senate House staff during that time. So, the question you've got before you is simple. Should the Roseville City Council shift millions of dollars of what should be put on a property tax to a new electric and gas utility tax? Now, answering this question requires a careful tax analysis to determine if it will benefit or harm Roseville taxpayers. Currently, you have no analysis before you. simply the argument of other cities are doing this so we should copy them is not what anyone would call a tax analysis. Now the packet that I've distributed to all of you is packet of information that really should have been provided upfront by your staff. The first pie chart shows the half of the property taxes collected by Roseville by dollar amount come from commercial industrial. The other half comes from residents. That's unusual. Most cities do not have such a strong commercial industrial tax base. The second chart though says if we look at property tax parcels or people that would be build by the electric and gas utility, over 90% of the property tax parcels in this city are residential. The next thing that's in that packet are pages that cover the various property tax circuit breaker programs that thousands of Roseville taxpayers benefit from. So, we're talking about programs that protect homeowners and renters who have high taxes or rent and low income. We're thinking senior citizens that are living in their homes for decades and are surviving off of social security and retirement income. minority group residents, moderate to lowincome residents. There are no circuit breaker programs for utility taxes or sales taxes. When I see a $3 million shift every year from property tax to new electric and gas utility taxes, I see every person who currently benefits from every one of the legislaturator circuit breaker tax programs being negatively impacted. When I see costs shifted from our industrial commercial base, which is paying a predominant majority of taxes in this city, I'm seeing that that's at the expense of residential property taxpayers. When I hear the term flat tax and flat tax schemes, I think of flat taxes benefiting generally those with the highest incomes and the largest and most profitable businesses. And I for one can't understand why anybody here would be supporting that. >> What I'm not hearing from >> 20 seconds, so you're going to have to wrap up with one more thought. >> What I am not hearing from staff is any analysis on the impact of property tax circuit breakaker breaker programs. And I'm also not hearing anything about the fact that we do not maintain anything for Excel Energy that this tax does not impact Excel Energy's profit margin and I think any statements alluding to that are simply incorrect and should be backtracked. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item? And I should note that if you if more than one person wants to speak, you can queue up at the other microphone if you're comfortable doing that. Uh or at least be uh in one of the front seats in the audience ready to go. >> Hi, my name is Lori Stellarzik. I reset at 2825 Pascal Street, which is a multi-family apartment complex. All right. I'm here today to um I was listening to what was said regarding the budget and I understand the entire premise of you know getting the budget under control and making contingency plans and what I heard was that you want to put on a franchise tax but only on one util one thing which is the utilities and I was wondering why it wasn't thought of to be spread apart. Um, such as taxing part of it on liquor, part of it on other things other than just one lump tax to handle that that amount of funding that you need. And also I wanted to also mention that this year they implemented a ratio utility bill system for anybody in an apartment complex within the state of Minnesota. For myself, I was paying a $20 straight service fee per month. It is now going up to over $50. And that's for water and sewage per month, which is one and a half times what I was paying before. And that is an impact on my income. And there are a lot of other people. And the way that I understand this is that it's based on how occupancy. So, if there's one person, it's $50 or more, a little bit more. But if there's two people, it's more than that. If there's three people, it's even more than that. And they even include infants in that count. So, if you're a small family with infants, they're counting those as a person or an occupant. So, it will make an impact for this year. and we're this is something that is newly implemented. It's called our UB and I thought I'd let you guys know about it. Thank you very much. >> And before you go, I just have one quick question for you. You mentioned I think in regard to that last comment about the the the change that that was for water and sewer costs. >> Yep. Water and sewer. >> I wanted to clarify that was not related to the electric or gas. >> No, it was not. That was water and sewer. I just wanted to clarify. >> I just wanted to make the point that people are now having these increases >> that I wasn't sure if you were aware of. >> No, I appreciate that. Thanks for that clarification. >> Great. Others that wish to speak to this item this evening. >> Hello, council. My name is Carl Crump and I live on Roselon here in Roseville. Um, you're trying to be sneaky by getting this called a franchise fee is what you're doing. and you're trying to tax us more and you're being sneaky about it. People would appreciate a little bit of honesty. Just because others use a franchise fee doesn't make it right. You're spending a lot of money. When I watched this presentation here, I didn't see anything in related that was related to how can we cut costs. It was how can we sneak something past the public? We'll call it a franchise fee. And if we call it a franchise fee, and nobody can understand their utility bill anyway. I'll bet none of you can either. So, we'll call it a franchise fee. And that leaves more room in levies for the future. So, it seems like you're being sneaky. I think people would appreciate some honesty. I also didn't understand some other stuff too, but that's related more to the budget and I don't think this I don't think I don't think you're taking budget questions right now, but I didn't understand something like I have no problem with fire department, police department, but 15 more people and seven more people. Again, thank you very much. I appreciate your time. >> Thank you for your comments this evening. Uh, and I certainly would encourage folks if you have questions about some of those uh, staffing needs in relation to public safety that we do have a fair amount of information either from prior meeting discussions of the council on those topics or certainly connecting with uh, police and fire departments uh, to get more information. I think they'd be happy to provide some additional information in regard to that. Um, so uh, hopefully that that gets to that piece of information for you. Other comments or questions from members of the audience on the uh proposed consideration of franchise utility fees or utility franchise fees. It does not appear to be the case. Then we'll go ahead and close the public comment. Uh I think there were a couple questions raised that I I might be able to answer although some of them were definitely uh going to require uh more information uh either from staff or other research and then certainly more discussion from the council. Um uh there uh at this time the legislature has not imposed any limits on city levy increases. That's often what's what can happen and it's been years since the last time it happened. But legisla the legislature can because basically cities are uh created by a legislative act. uh the legislature can decide to uh control city actions through for instance putting a percent limit on the increase to the tax levy. We don't have anything like that in place right now and hopefully we can we can uh continue without that. Um I did ask Mr. Trean for a little more information and I don't have this in a fancy visual so I'm going to attempt to just do it verbally and and hopefully the record can uh or that you can watch the video later if you want the numbers. So for uh residential customers, oh and just uh quickly to confirm uh Mr. Treen in our conversation back and forth, I believe the information from Excel was that apartment dwellers count as the residential. That's correct. >> So they would be in the three or four three or 350 or $4 amount for apartment uh uh residents >> um for so I think that's in these residential numbers then. So residential uh payers count for about n uh excuse me 88% of the affected accounts. That includes both about 16,000 electric accounts and 11,000 uh uh gas accounts. Now certainly there's going to be some overlap between those. But if you consider an electric account separate from a gas account, the total number of accounts is uh works out to about 88% of the accounts that would be paying these fees potentially if they're imposed. And under the $2.1 million proposal from Excel that those uh 88% of accounts would pay about 46% of the total amount which seems comparable to some of the data as to the the number of payers on the property tax versus the contribution. Um then uh on the small commercial and industrial um and let's see that works out to about between the two categories it works out to about uh 11% of the accounts and about uh 17% of the the dollars collected. And then finally on the large commercial and industrial uh those work out to uh just over a half a percent of the accounts and they would uh provide about 37% of the revenue under the the franchise fee and the $2.1 million information we had from Excel. So that uh provides some information. We can certainly follow up with that as part of packets in future discussions uh as this goes forward. Um let's see. Um why not tax other things? Uh the city once again is is uh controlled by what the legislature wants cities to do and uh cities are not able to collect taxes on uh alcohol for instance. Uh we are not able to collect income taxes on individual incomes. Uh there's a number of things that cities are not able to collect taxes on. The primary source is as was noted in Mr. Tremend's budget presentation. About 40% of our budget is paid by property taxes. A significant additional portion is paid by the utility fees for water, sewer, and storm water, uh, and recycling, those types of things. Um, so that's why we're limited as to what we might be able to do. Um, and then I think that that gets to the questions um that were brought forward other than perhaps ones that we need to have as part of our conversations at the council. Um the other thing I just did want to note too is that uh the reason for this authority or the reason cities have this ability is also under state law. Uh the the things that we can do franchise um fees associated with uh as cities are uh cable television services uh and utilities like this and there may be others that are using the public rights of way to run their wires or pipes or whatever it might be. And the theory being is that that that that that is a public property, a public good that is being used for non-public purposes. Uh and there ought to be a compensation to the public, which is the taxpayers, for the use of that public um uh property for that purpose. And so that's the theory behind franchise fees. And I'm not going to get into whether that's a good idea or a bad idea. I just let you know that that's for members of the public that is the basis for franchise fees. Um and certainly it is uh something that is controlled by the legislature as to whether they are charged or not. Um just in general. So I think that gets to the information that I think was brought up in the comments. Uh maybe just a quick check-in with the council on any further discussion or particular information we might like to have from the city manager or staff uh before our next discussion. Uh I know uh Mr. Trean, you talked about bringing this the the ordinances back on the 22nd of September, which would be the time frame for also our adopting are not to exceed levy. Right. >> Um so that might be good timing. >> And once again, it's a franchise ordinances, not the franchise fee, >> right? Right. So there would be two separate actions. Uh council me, >> is there a duration of the franchise uh ordinance because you mentioned some have expired. So what kind of term would we have? >> 20 years is typical term. >> Okay. Thank you. Oh, and that was one thing I was going to clarify. So, you had mentioned that that um there may be a challenge to change the fees in the middle of the franchise term if fees are imposed at the beginning of the term. I was wondering if those are sort of if they're set for the whole 20-year period or do people build in escalators over the course of the franchise agreement or how does that work? We think you can build in inflators in or escalators, however you want to call it, um throughout it. It's probably better to do it up front so everybody's aware of it uh versus the middle of it. But I don't think anything stops you from reopening in the middle of franchise, but once again, you have to sit down with utility company to sort out what be willing to accept. >> Right. So, we've got a number of questions I think that have come up through this initial discussion that hopefully we can have some more information on for that next discussion >> and certainly there'll be an opportunity for members of the public to continue to weigh in through this process as well. Uh with that, I believe that concludes this item uh and then we'll move on to uh switching gears fairly fairly substantially here uh to consideration. I believe this may be uh our first council actions as it relates to a a cannabis bu business, a specific cannabis business in the city of Roseville. Um, and we have our this is a conditional use consideration uh which is uh a land use type approval uh related to a proposed business in the city of Roseville. Uh, and I'm going to leave my introduction at that and turn it over to a much more expert person on this topic. Uh, our city planner uh Thomas Pashki to bring this item before the council. Mr. Pashki. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the city council. Pashki, just I forgot as courtesy of the council, do we want to take our 8:00 break at this time before we get into another item? possibly or we can >> council. Do we want to take about a fivem minute break? Why don't we go ahead and do that? Sorry, Mr. Pashki. I I just realized as I look at the clock behind you. >> That's fine. >> So, we'll take about a five minute break. We're back from uh we actually were fairly on time with that break. I'm impressed with everyone about a fivem minute break here and we're uh continuing with our agenda uh with once again item 7E which is to consider a resolution approving uh cannabis combination business uh as a conditional use at 2218 County Road D Sweet 200C. I was much better with my introduction this time and I'm turning it over to seed planner Thomas Pashki to uh bring this item before the council. >> Thank you mayor. Members of the council, as indicated, this is a request for conditional use at 2218 County Road D. And just for those in the audience and uh watching on television, it's going to be this portion of the uh building that's located uh in the uh northwest corner of the property. Um, per our ordinance, a cannabis combination business or as the uh state refers to them, a messo or a micro business uh are required to have a conditional use in the um uh MU3 or the corridor mixuse zoning district. And so, uh that's the purpose of why we're here. And one of the main reasons is because of the different elections that they can take uh as it relates to their uh registration with the city as well as their license to the state allows them to do multiple things uh um on their site. But in this case, it's on-site consumption and retail sales. And so, uh, under our ordinance, actually, both of those are permitted uses, but because of the way that our ordinance is set up, it requires the conditional use, uh, to go through that process. Uh, staff analyzed this as a part of that process, brought that analysis of the uh, five conditional use criteria to the planning commission. on August 6th, planning commission voted 6 to1 to support the conditional use approval for this property and that is what our recommendation would be this evening. And so with that, you have an ordinance uh that is a part of your packet. I believe it has three conditions on it and our recommendation is to support or to adopt that resolution for the approval of the conditional use. And with that, I conclude my presentation. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Pashki. And that was the first thing I was going to clarify. resolution versus ordinance. It is a resolution for conditional use. All right. Um and once again uh further clarification. So if this uh project or this proposal, this business came forward as just a retail business and maybe also had the consumption but wasn't licensed under the state system as a micro business, we wouldn't need to do the conditional use. Is that correct? Okay. So it is really because of that category as a micro business. >> Correct. because they can select a number of different uh options that they can do. And so under the state statute as well as under our ordinance, we require that to be a conditional use, but separately they would be permitted. >> So as we consider a conditional use, are we trying to anticipate any of those other ones, even if they're not necessarily being proposed as part of our consideration of the conditional use? because the conditional use runs with the property on the basis as as a micro business or talk about how that was looked at or is thought of from a planning and and or the planning commission perspective. >> Uh two things I believe uh uh if their state license only has them checking those two boxes. The only way they can do other things is to go back and modify their state license, which then would require them to come through the city and uh I believe modify their registration that they have with us, which is also trigger them to update or modify their conditional use. So there are checks and balances in place for making changes or adding on to your license to do something different. I'm not sure how it all works through the state process, but that's what our requirement would be through the registration and the land use portion. >> So, an example or comparison might be we have conditional use approval for a drive-thru on a particular site and the business decides to change the plan of how they're going to run their drive-thru and and route their traffic and things like that that might be uh different from what the conditional use was originally approved for. They would have to come back to the city for a new conditional use approval. type of change or revised >> revised. Right. Okay. >> Exactly. >> Right. Thank you for helping clarify that. And with that, I'll defer to the council members for additional questions. Council member Strong. >> Thank you. Um, so is the conditional use tied to the business or tied to the property? >> Uh, well, it's recorded against the property, so it's on there. In this case, it's tied to this business because it only allows this business or that use within that facility to be able to do the two things that they're seeking this evening, which is retail sales and eventually on-site consumption at some point in time in the future. >> So, if it were to change ownership, would there that any of that conditional use been granted to that would that anyone new would have to start over or would that be implied? Uh my understanding would be that uh if a new owner took over, they would only be allowed to do those two things. Now, I don't know how it works with our registration and whether or not it starts it all over and we'd have to go through the process again, but typically if an a kid initial use is in place, as long as you don't do anything outside of what was approved, then you're allowed to continue that um particular use with those conditions in place. >> And this is probably a question for the attorney. Is there anything that we could or should do to make sure that maybe we knew if there was a change in ownership to make sure we could vet out that new ownership as well like we do? I mean, I don't know that we have the same potential as we do maybe in a massage therapy business where we run a background check and things like that. >> Mr. Council member Stron, um as maybe you recall when we were adopting the cannabis related ordinances, um state law restricts significantly what kind of authority cities have approving approving particular operators. And so what would happen in this situation if this um if this um operator left the zoning permission would continue but they would still need to go through the state who would vet their license and then it would come to the city for approval approval of a registration but if you recall the basis to deny a registration is very very limited so the vetting would really happen at the state level. >> All right thank you. Other questions for staff? All right. Uh it doesn't appear there are any uh looks like we may have a representative of the applicant with us this evening. Uh is there anything you'd like to present to the council in support of your case this evening or do you just want to stand for questions? >> Yeah, I' I'd love to talk if that's all right. >> That'd be fine. Uh if you can introduce yourself and absolutely um address the council. >> Yeah. >> Uh my name is Jacob Afelt. Uh this is my wife Abigail Afelt and we are the two owners of Frostbite Cannabis. Um and I just wanted to talk a little bit about our our kind of backgrounds uh before going into this to kind of ease a little bit. We do have to go through background checks at the state level to make sure we don't have any crimes or anything like that that would be disqualifying for this. Um, also if we had if we choose to do any of those other things that Thomas had mentioned about like uh cultivation or production, uh, it would go through the entire process again and they would contact local government to make sure that we met all of the the zoning and everything like that. But, uh, my background is I work for a utility company here locally. Uh, and I work with them across eight states, 88 unions on, uh, nuclear power, on electric power, and on gas power. and I do all their technical training for them on those things. I'm very very familiar with working in highly regulated spaces. Um, in fact, the spaces I work in today are probably more regulated than cannabis. So, uh, and my wife is a, uh, director of product information and e-commerce for a large manufacturer here, uh, in Minneapolis and is very, very familiar with how to, uh, handle customers, how to handle their journey and make sure they have a positive experience. Um, so we just want to make sure that we are um, positive for the community as a whole um, and here to really be kind of be stewards of the community as well. So, and happy to answer any questions that I can. >> Thank you. Are there questions for the applicant from the council? >> Great. Thank you for for being here this evening. >> Absolutely. >> All right. Next in the process would be uh if there's anybody from the public who wishes to speak uh either in support of or opposition to uh the proposed conditional use approval for this uh site uh and this use as outlined. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? >> Does not appear to be the case. And once again, we did have the public hearing at the planning commission where uh there was an opportunity for public to speak as well. But we always do have one more chance uh at the council uh as well. With that then uh the uh ask for the council is once again to consider adopting the resolution uh in the packet which would approve uh the cannabis uh combination business as a conditional use at that location uh as outlined with the conditions as noted in the resolution. The alternate action certainly would be to uh not adopt the resolution essentially denying the conditional use. the city council would have to uh put find put forth findings to that as to why not to adopt that resolution or approve that use as a conditional use uh in that case. Uh council, >> I would move to adopt the resolution. >> I'd second it. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Grath, seconded by council member Schwarter. Uh discussion on the motion. Once again, this is a motion to adopt the resolution approving the conditional use as outlined with the conditions in the resolution. Uh, Council Member Gra, as the maker of the motion, >> reading through the materials and with your comments, I think it would be a well-run business in Roseville. We welcome you to the business community in my opinion and um I think it'll it'll fill a service that some people are looking for. Thank you. >> And Council Member Schroeder is the second of the motion. >> And and thank you for coming forward and um giving us some history. I I think that's uh it's always um good to know that there's some strong people that are going to be running the business, you know, considering it's a new industry for here. So, you need to have people that are really going to, you know, work on especially the regulation side of things and um Roseville does like to be friendly to businesses. So, we look forward to see see this one open. So, thank you and if it passes, welcome. >> Great. Additional discussion of the motion. Council member Bower. >> Uh following up on that, it is a new business for you, but this is also something new for us in Roseville. So, we very much are interested in working with you. Um so, please do reach out uh through the city if there's things that come up. It's been a long process for us to get all this in place with the zoning. Miss Journey can attest to that uh with their work on the planning commission to make that through. So, definitely reach out. We're very excited to have you here and wish you the best on your new endeavor. and Council Member Strong. >> Uh, thank you for sharing your information. That's helpful. Um, I think with most people the the notion of a cash only business is a little scary for for safety and so I um trust that you will um keep that in mind and make sure that the area businesses are also safe by um providing adequate um protection and adequate um kind of make sure that I know other uh businesses in that in that strip mall that are that's their biggest concern is that we aren't um making it into a situation where anytime you have a cash only business can get a little get a little sketchy and so I think that's the biggest concern that I hear. So I I hope that you will keep that top of mind. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion. Um I would just add that uh I think as was noted this is our our first consideration under our new regime here in Roseville of ordinances. Uh and so it was helpful to go through this process and be reminded of some of the aspects of what we had uh considered as part of our decision-making process. Um and you know certainly that's not the reason that we consider these things is just to re-educate ourselves about how what we decided before but it's it's it is nice to see the practical application of regulations and make sure that we can see whether the whether the scheme is working as it was intended to. So, that is helpful and and hopefully we'll have a couple more chances uh in the future to to do that as well. So, with that, we've got the motion before us. All those in favor of the motion to adopt the resolution approving that conditional use signify by saying I >> opposed. That passes unanimously and that resolution is adopted. >> Wish you the best of luck. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. that. Then uh in another change of gears, we have a couple of uh land use, excuse me, a couple of uh uh nuisance code violation type issues uh to consider uh this evening. The first one is item 7F, which is to consider a request to perform an abatement for unresolved code violations at 1140 Roselon Avenue in Roseville. And I'll turn it over to uh David England, who is our codes official, uh and uh look forward to his presentation on this item. Thank you, Mayor Row and members of council. As stated, this is a request to perform an abatement for unresolved code violations. Uh, this case came to us as a complaint from a neighboring resident. And what we found on site was numerous vehicles that were inoperable due to uh expired licenses as well as flat tires on vehicles. Uh we posted a door hanger at this requesting the property owner bring it into compliance within 10 days. Um after 10 days, three of the vehicles had current registration. One still remained with a with several flat tires. Um so we posted the property at that time for this meeting here tonight. Um so it could be discussed for an abatement. Um, at the writing of the RCA, I had no contact from the property owner, but as of Wednesday last week, I did receive an email from the property owner who stated he would have the property into compliance by today. Um, I did receive an additional email from the property owner today saying he was not able to um, source tires for his vehicle um, until today, but he felt he would have everything corrected by Friday of this week. Um, so it was at that point where I decided to leave this on for tonight's consideration and request council approve the abatement. However, if council should choose to do that, they could stay the enforcement. But since we were already posted, we were already set for this meeting tonight, I wanted to keep it moving forward. This is a property that's had um concerns in the past. um leading to also we did issue a repeat nuisance fine to this property owner because of these latest items. So should council wish to approve the abatement um we could either go forward with it as soon as possible or we could stay enforcement if you would wish. >> Great. Thank you Mr. England. Are there other questions from the council? Council member Strong, >> can you speak to the repeat um when those were or what that was this the same type of issue that we are talking about here? >> These are um we had the exact same issues last year um with the vehicles. Um we had two cases last year which brought him to a repeat nuisance warning letter that was issued last year and then with we had also two more in the spring of this year. And so now we at this point when we received this complaint, we decided to issue the repeat nuisance in hopes of um spurring the property owner into voluntary compliance. Um we believe he actually did receive the repeat nuisance the same day that he contacted me by email. Other questions for staff, right? Is uh the property owner or representative here this evening? Does not appear to be the case. Uh with that, is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this request to perform an abatement of the violations on this property? Does not appear to be the case. We'll close the opportunity for public comment then and move to uh council consideration. I guess the first question is does council wish to look at staying the enforcement uh perhaps for a week or until the end of the day Friday or something along that those lines based on the information from the property owner. thoughts from the council. >> Believe we've given enough time for this. I mean, looking at the timeline, this was first noted June 4th. It is currently August 25th. That's probably adequate time. Also, the nature that this is a repeat. This isn't something that's new to that to the um homeowner. So, I'd be comfortable with um proceeding at the earliest convenience to rectify have the city rectify this. >> Other thoughts from council members? >> I would agree. Uh do we have a motion with respect to this particular uh code violation? >> Uh so move to make a motion to or make a motion to uh direct community development staff to abate this property. I'd >> second. >> Right. That's been moved by Council Member Bower, second by Council Member Sharter uh to direct staff to uh uh abate the the nuisance as outlined. Uh noting no stay of the enforcement as part of the motion. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker. Uh Council Member Bower. No, I appreciate the timeline and the giving the um property owner enough time to resolve this >> as the secondary. Council member Schroer. >> Yeah, as they say, this wasn't his first rodeo, so I think he understands the uh how this works. And so I I would agree with that. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimous. That abatement is authorized. Uh, the second abatement case we have this evening is to consider a request to perform, excuse me, perform abatement of unresolved violations at 325 Capital View West. Uh, once again, Mr. England is here to present this item for us this evening. Um, this one has taken us quite a while. Um, this started as a result of the neighborhood enhancement program through the proactive inspections. Um our our staff member did post a door hanger at that time on June 4th to notify the property owner of vehicles and the long grass on site um that were a problem. Um we did go back um through NEP on the 17th and the 27th of June um which is common for NEP. We try to give us an additional amount of time um to bring these properties into compliance. It was transferred over to regular code enforcement on July 7th. Uh and then we basically start the process over where we notify the property owner of the violations on site. Um we did that numerous times um up until August 5th when we decided that we would bring this before council again tonight on 25th. Um through the entire process, through the number numerous notices and postings that we placed on this site, we we have not received any contact from the property owner. We did conduct an accelerated abatement for the grass. Um that was substantial. And again, we received no contact from the property owner at all. Um which is unusual. Generally, these are when once we put the council notice on there, we generally receive uh comment. Uh we did also try uh contacting the property owner by phone and by text um because we have had contact with this property uh last year. Um and they were able to bring it into compliance then. Um but again, we have not had anything at this point. Um, and just for reference, this vehicle here is not registered to the property itself, and it does not display license plates in the front. The rear has a license plate, but is expired, I believe, six years. Um, this vehicle is inoperable because it has expired tabs. Um, this but it appears otherwise operable. Um, same with this vehicle here, expired tabs, but it it has not moved. Um, this is this is posting day, August 5th. This is last week. Um, so it's there's movement at the property. There's there's people there, but just not contacting us, and I haven't figured out a way yet to get contact from them um to see what their plan is for this. But the request tonight is um to abate all of the nuisance codes violations that exist would be to remove all three vehicles that are unlicensed and inoperable and remove the storage of the items that are in the driveway here, this pile of um items there. And that's what we would ask council's approval for tonight. >> Thank you, Mr. England. Are there questions from the council on this particular uh requested abatement this evening? Right. Is there uh the property owner or representative of the property owner here this evening? Does not appear to be the case. Uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? Also does not appear to be the case. Uh given that uh we'll move to council consideration. We've got the request before us uh to perform uh the abatement of the code violations at this property uh at 325 Capital Avenue Capital View Avenue West. Uh is there a motion from the council? >> I would make the motion to abate this property. Direct step to obey it. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Council Gra, second by Council Member Stron to authorize the abatement of this property. Uh discussion on the motion, maker of the motion. Uh Council Member Grath. >> Mostly I'd like to thank Mr. England and the department for their persistence and their thoroughess in notifying people and you even called them trying to make contact. Um, and with that in mind, I think it's the only way forward is to conduct these abatements so that the very few residents of Roseville that do this understand that this is going to have to be taken care of and there are costs and penalties involved in that. So, thank you for your work. >> All right. And as the secondary council member strong >> I agree my neighbors you know that's I think the most frequent reason my neighbors reach out to me is because of grass or concerns of other homes and so I think you really really did a lot of work to get to this point. So I thank you for that and hopefully we can get some um maybe they'll call you if their colors are gone. I don't know. But I I we want them to be in compliance and we want them to be responsive and hopefully this will be uh the last time we have to deal with this property for a while. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion hearing. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. That passes unanimously and that abatement is authorized. Thank you, Mr. England and for uh all of your staff efforts. >> Thank you. >> All right. That brings us then we did not have uh the third abatement item was resolved as was mentioned by Mr. Trean earlier in the meeting. Uh that brings us then to a storm water update. Uh and we have Ryan Johnson with us this evening from our public works department to uh bring forward this update. Mr. Johnson, welcome. >> All right, mayor, council members, thanks for the opportunity. I always appreciate being able to come up here and talk about the fine work we do. And uh yeah, 2025 storm water update. Uh this is going to be the pond edition. Um, we did have a uh presentation like this uh that we talked about m basically all of our drainage issues uh storm water infrastructure in 2024 which we'll kind of cover next here. And um like usual I have a lot of slides in here. Um I promise I won't go through detail on every single one of them. A lot of them will just be reference. Um you can look back at it, things like that. Um but in January 22nd uh 2024, we did talk about again kind of the drainage issues, how we handled them, how we prioritize projects. Um that's one thing that we've always worked really hard on is just trying to get a handle on all the different moving pieces we have downstairs with how we handle all of our utilities, how we manage them, you know, especially on the storm sewer side. What do we do with a lot of the um just kind of the nuisance issues we have? What do we have with like the major more critical issues with our storm sewer infrastructure? Um and council agreed that you know trying to get a bunch of these with our pavement management project is a really good way to kind of help spread the dollars. Um you know work towards trying to get a lot of the uh drainage issues kind of uh solved as we work through that if we have time and money. Um you know and have a really good opportunity you know doing a standalone project to make uh faster improvements on some of our issues you know is is great. But yeah, it's like we always monitor these um you know, every rainfall at least a couple times a year. It's like we are out and about looking at all this just to try to stay ahead of it because you know it's like uh infrastructure that's 60 years old. Uh things change quick. Um especially when we have wet years. Um so yeah, we just try to stay ahead of it. Um this is a similar table and just some uh text uh from our last discussion on it. Um the only addition has been uh we added the 2026 numbers that we worked with Miss Petra with um the finance director and you know our budget's been uh relatively you know right around the 3 million mark. Um and then kind of the big note for the 2026 is just we are up to about 1.8 million for capital improvement when it comes to like our storm water infrastructure. Um and a lot of that will be actually a project too that we'll talk about a little bit later with Willow Pond. uh just with you know kind of the size and uh scope of what we really put into you know just these uh storm water ponds and how we have to maintain them. Um but then uh just the other note with that $1.8 million uh CIP money for that uh we usually budget about $585,000 for uh just pond maintenance. Um again as we kind of talk about Willow Willow's kind of the exception because it's a you know it's a 11 acre wetland. um it's got a lot of water going to it. Uh and how we kind of manage that to function and then also uh you know help you know maintain just it's a natural resource. So um we've been pumping storm water to it for years. I guess not pumping but draining to it for years. So um you know there's a lot of lot of things into it. Um and then the remaining 1.2 2 million. That's where we put all of our catch basins, manholes, storm sewer pipes, um you know, our underground BMPs if we add additions like with our uh pavement management project to help reduce some of the drainage issues. So, that is the first couple. Um but again, it's like this is what we kind of prioritize and look through every year, 126 miles of pipe. Um and then the same thing, we also have 400 publicly owned BMPs. So, that's ponds, rain gardens, underground structures. Uh and then we also try to keep an eye on the 300 privately owned ones. Again, a lot of these go in because of um whether it's uh watershed district regulations or storm water requirements. Again, it's like we're asking these properties to put them in. Uh we try to get out there every few years, if not every year. Take a look at them, make sure that they're functioning because again, it's like Roseville just has uh some drainage issues and we'd like to stay on top of them. And again, if we're asking somebody to put them in, we'd like for them to function. And then we also like to make sure our own our own BMPs are functioning, too. Um try to lead by example. And you know, all of this is within our 14 um roughly 14 square mile area here. So, there's always a lot of things going on. Um our 5-year roadway CIP really drives a lot of the storm water projects. Um and that takes uh ponds into consideration, too. Uh so as we're looking through all the streets that are coming up and just trying to identify what we can do where what year we can do it, you know, this also helps drive our B um you know our CIP projects for our storms our storm water as we're also looking at the roadway. So um you know we try to plan ahead as much as possible. You know a lot of the prep work with you know televising storm sewers, doing inspections um you know usually the u we know where a lot of the flooding and the drainage issues already are. Um, but again, new ones always pop up as kind of the infrastructure changes, as time goes on. Um, we never know when we're going to have a random failure. Um, we get random sink holes. You know, we had a couple this year within right off of Dale Street and then one on Victoria and B. So, one of them was kind of a nuisance in the past, but one of them was new. So, um, they just, uh, they come up. So, with all the prep work, um, you know, as it relates to ponds, it's like we're looking at inlets, outlets, we're looking at the baometric data. So the the contours of the pond bottom, you know, what is we don't have a lot of the information of like when these were installed, what they looked like. So anything we're getting now for the bath metric data is really new and it's helpful. Um that for a lot of them it ends actually being more like our our front-end data now. We can actually use that as kind of our reference point. Uh unless we notice something is just rather bad on it. So um so yeah we try to get as much data as we can on the front end just based on the um PMP map here just so we can be ahead of it and at the same time we also have uh regulations that we have to follow. Um this is the total maximum daily load areas for our storm sewer permit um with the uh pollution control agency. So within these areas we're required to pull out a certain amount of phosphorus for example for a lot of these. So, we're trying to work through all those along with also, you know, maintaining all of our infrastructure. This is our Fair View and C pond. Uh, this kind of just goes over again the prioritization schedule of like what we're kind of looking at. Uh, and then what we're looking at for like the scoping. Um, a lot of these ponds again were installed. We don't have a lot of data for them. So, what we try to do is we try to cram in everything all into one process. We want to look at uh all the inlets, all the outlets, what's the pond bottom at. We want to know what the high water level is. Uh this one is kind of a unique example with the blue line around the pond is the uh what we call the 100red-year high water level mark. And as you notice, it goes right through a property and it runs down the street. And um you know, these are this is one of the worst ones thankfully. Um, but it's like when we're going in there to look at all of our infrastructure, we want to know what it is. Um, and if we can improve it and we also want to make sure we don't make it worse with any of the infrastructure that we kind of modify with it. So again, with this one, uh, it's just a really good example because it ends up coming up in a couple pictures from now. But, um, again, it's like we're looking at all this data. We want these things to work. We want to make sure that private property and public property is safe. Um, so yeah, we tend to put in anything from 24 months or even 12 months is pretty fast turnaround, but again, it's like we try to get these built in as fast as we can. That kind of fit into just the overall budget. >> And on this slide, uh, I I'm old enough to remember that the city bought the property just south of the pond, used to have a house on it. >> It sure did. >> And we bought that as part of our ability to try to deal with the flooding issues. Uh so it's interesting that uh that here we are still still dealing with them, but at least there's one less house that's flooding. >> Yes. No, that is true. And we uh you added a little bit of flood storage by getting rid of the house. Um so that was uh but yeah, um I'm even old enough I wasn't in Roseville at the time when this is all purchased, but I remember I actually met with the property owner uh before they sold. Um and it might actually been after that 2011 rain event where they were trying to look at other options on what they could do. So, we've come full circle. Um, but no, it was uh um yeah, it was an interesting just situation. That is for sure. Um all right. So, and again, it's like the reason we do so much of this background work is we're trying to find out, you know, we're trying to lessen the nuisance issues. We're trying to lessen the street flooding. Um you know, all these things that happen. Uh and then yes, it's like the top right picture on the screen now is the now vacant lot. um where uh yeah the house was sitting where yeah it's like now it is an extension of the pond. So basically the pond rises up goes all the way through the yard all the way down the streets. Um and again it's like these are the more drastic photos from the 2011 uh flood that happened that year. And then as we're looking at like a current project, um we've had several discussions with the property owners around Willow Pond. Um they are very organized and uh they're they love their uh they love they love Willow. That's about what it comes down to. Um so we've uh been working with them for years just on whether it's you know the algae, the water quality, um just high water levels, things like that. So it's like we, you know, take these concerns uh very seriously. We want to try to make it, you know, as um nice as possible. >> Didn't get that. Did you try again? >> Seriously didn't get that. So, um >> which is fantastic. It's all I have to remember that she doesn't understand storm water. >> I didn't get that. Could you try again? >> Technology is great. >> If you just want to throw it out there, >> I was actually thinking about that. Um anyway, so it's uh yes, we want to improve these as much as possible and it's like the aerials, you know, are just historic um just from the 40s, 50s and then, you know, it's like what we know as Willow Pond today. So there's >> um again, it's like this just captures a lot of storm water. Yes, council member, >> where's Gotfrieded Pit? >> We're getting to that, I think. Okay. >> Um it's way southwest of this >> Larper Avenue. >> Yep. Larpender and Fernwood Cub Foods. >> Okay, >> that's down there. It's down in that area. >> Okay, thanks. >> Um All right. So, uh yeah, so Willow Pond again, um this is kind of what we know it as today. And again, it's a massive drainage area, 300 almost 400 acres. Um and you know, this this is one of our bathtric maps that we took in like 2015. Part of the reason to get this info is we knew that storm water projects were going to be happening at Highway 36 with MDOT and that Roseville area high schools was also going to have a project with all their fields and everything like that. So went out got this data on the front end. Um because unfortunately what happens is no matter how hard we try, you know, erosion control permits and everything construction happens. We do get those rains that you know just kind of blow through everything. And this is two different events of, you know, sediment laden water just going into Willow Pond. Uh, and again, this is part of the reason why the residents know me so well is I think I was on speed dial for those 5 years roughly the projects were going on. >> Um, so it's like we got a lot of calls, we got a lot of complaints, so we were trying to work through as much as possible. So >> So this this is u dirty water from the construction runoff on those projects. Yep. You know, high rain event. Okay. >> Yep. So yeah, this is going into Willow Pond. And again, it's like I think these ones were from the Highway 36 project >> uh specifically. Um but again, it's like uh yeah, just massive areas all open and again when you have all that draining to one spot, >> it causes some problems. So um with that with the resident complaints, um you know, it's like we did do one uh piece of maintenance on this between 21 and 23. Um our we're basically our outlet structure for the pond failed. Um apparent apparently when you have iron um sitting in water all the time it rusts. So it did fail after kind of basically a massive ice sheet shifted and just kind of pushed it over. So uh we got that maintained otherwise we would do this all with one project. Um, but again, it's like with all of this, you know, we're looking at if we're taking out about one uh one foot of material over the entire 11 acres, we're looking at about 18,000 cubic yards. So, we're looking at over a million dollars just for um the dredge material, plus some inlet um inlets and uh permitting costs and everything like that. Um you know, this will be probably our most expensive pond to actually dredge. Um, so yeah, we'll look at about 1.1 1.2 overall just to dredge all of this. Uh, and again, part of the reason this was such a big issue is this is our 2024 bathtric map that we took. Um, basically, again, just trying to get updated info knowing that all this construction happened. We knew everything was going on. Um, you know, we still had complaints from residents about just Willow Pond and how it looked. Uh, and as you'll notice, there are contours that are just completely gone. Uh, we lost about two feet from our deepest elevation, and our average depth went from 2.8 ft to 2.2. So, that's a pretty significant uh decrease over 9 years um from when uh it started to ended. And again, it's like those are where the we basically lost contours. So, it's like we lost feet within those areas. Um, so what happens when we see something that's this drastic, we basically get some more information. Um, we hired a contractor again to come out and basically get sediment cores to be able to tell us in these areas how much sediment is there over like the natural wetland bottom. And within all of them, I mean, we had one that was 1.7 feet of sediment. um you know all the way down to an area where there's 02 but it's like there was significant change in the past 9 to 10 years. Um so with that you know we there was just a lot of material going into uh willow pond. So this one is uh on the short list for probably whether it's this winter um whether it work happens in 25 or you know January February 26 um this one will be going on um and then just kind of quickly it's just this was our fair view and se pond again um just you know this is the data hole that I go into and just kind of nerd out for a while looking at >> what what is going to But if we dredge it, do we keep it the same depth? Do we dredge it deeper to get more uh treatment out of it? You know, what are we looking at that fits basically um into our budget that we can really um you know, improve the downstream waters within this area. So, and again, our infrastructure is a little bit uh little bit ratty. Um and then yeah, just flared ends, inlets, outlets, tipped. Um, uh, the big one there on the right is basically that one clogged all the time. So, we basically modified everything. We submerged, we put in an overflow outlet uh, just to make sure if anything got clogged, water could still get out because we don't want it to go up to Rose's Place again. Uh, and so, yeah, it's like now this is uh, a much better functioning pond. Um, and yeah, we have uh hopefully less concerns about it just again kind of with some of the redundancy and now the maintenance is done on it. Um, and again, we always work with partners. So now our big next project is the um that's coming up that Rice Creek is working on is this Jones Lake project in New Brighton. um basically stemmed from a water management uh uh project that we were working with um that we actually petitioned them to do uh to look at just ways to make in that case Roseville, St. Anthony, and New Brighton just drain a little bit better. So, they're looking for a $10 million project uh in this what they call Jones Lake. Um, and it's amazing that if they, you know, when this project actually goes in, this one project will basically make the west half, west third of Roseville drain much better just because unfortunately our water can't get out of Roseville fast enough. So, because it gets kind of clogged up from Jones Lake back into us, right? >> So, now with Jones Lake opening up, we can actually get more water to it, maybe a little bit faster. There's more storage. we don't flood Jones Lake any worse and roads will actually uh drain a little bit better. >> Yes, council member. that'll so this will kind of impact that um old highway 8 county road eight or 88 kind of that whole corridor that has we talked about it with another project that was people were concerned about when we were talking about a building project but I know that they've had >> long but this kind of seems like this might be the epicenter of their issues or >> yeah this is uh this project will definitely help improve all of that um some of that was local too just with our storms who were not being able to, you know, take all the water. Um, you know, kind of a combination of this flood storage opening up, um, with some more local improvements on our side would, you know, make night and day difference in that area of the city. And, uh, last slide is just this is our basically six years of the short list of what's coming up. Um, again, it's like we're always looking ahead on what ponds are coming up. Again, we try to get them into the um lined up with our roadway CM um PMP project slot. And yeah, we have plenty of just projects to do just on the, you know, the pond side of things. Um, and kind of the juggling act with this again is we usually have that 585,000 roughly for pond maintenance. Um, so again, it's like we didn't do a lot this year for ponds because we knew Willow was going to be coming up next year. Um, so that, you know, freed up this year's CIP money to go get allocated towards that. So, kind of talking about, you know, deferring for a year to get a little bit more capital up there to um, spend up the next year, but then after that, a lot of it ends up being kind of some of the maintenance. Um there are a few on here that'll you know that could be much worse than what the estimates are just with uh the amount of material that's in there and what actually the material is. So based on like what we actually pull out dredge um you know it can be anywhere from 20 $30 a cubic yard to pull out all the way up to 80 to 100 uh depending on how contaminated it is. So we'd never know that until we uh start doing some of the tests which then again shifts all of my you know nice work of my graph arounds here. So but other than that um again that is kind of the end of the presentation for that. If there's any other questions, uh, more than happy to answer them. Um, I was happy to give a storm water update. And, um, again, it's like the big thing with this one is, you know, it's just wanted to make sure council was, uh, familiar and, you know, accepting of kind of how we prioritize all these, you know, projects, whether it's the storm water like with the infrastructure or if it's a lot of the ponds and things like that. So, I'm open to any feedback, questions, or anything else. >> Questions uh, for staff. Uh, Councilman Bower, >> how long do you think it will take to dredge below? Roughly, >> it it will really depend on um basically what the weather is like. If we have a cold year, we can probably get in and out in, you know, maybe six weeks, eight weeks. Um, if it's kind of one of the if it's like the winters that we had in the past where it's like we have a few weeks of cold, then we have a week of 20 degrees, even 30 degrees where we start getting some of the melt and everything coming off the roads. Um, there's really no way to stop the water coming from, you know, um, basically everything drained from the north into Willow. We can't stop it. So, if we once we get a little bit of sun and a little bit of heat, you know, heat being 20° get some melt, that'll significantly slow down the project because we'll have to continuously just keep pumping it because we need that bottom to freeze to really move equipment around in it. >> Thank you, CR. >> What do they do with the dredge to uh if it's contaminated, what do they do with that? Oh, if it's uh really contaminated, um that material has to actually go to a landfill >> and that's where you get like the 80 to 100 yard per yard because it's like it's trucked down to like uh Rosemont to like SKB or something like that. Um if it's anything if it's like a level one or two um most of the time those go to like whatever the whoever's doing the work usually has a pit, they'll bring it there and they'll basically keep uh working it until it gets down to a suitable level where it can get used on another project. Um because even if it's a level two, which is uh not the most contaminated, that can get used for, you know, construction projects. Um and since the material has shown that it's, you know, silty kind of sandy material, um you know, they could actually use it for some kind of fill or to basically blend with something else to make into a construction project. >> So if it's more contaminated, the landfill it has to go to is a special landfill that can deal with contaminated material. So it's not just going Yes. in back into the environment. Yep. Right. Got it. Council member Schroer. >> So, you talked about it um especially with Willow, if if the weather conditions weren't right, you wouldn't be able to do it. >> Would that be the exact same thing for all of them? Or would you could say if you couldn't do willow, is it possible that maybe like acorn then would be still doable or once it warms up none of them are doable? >> No, it's uh it's a little bit more specific to the area that's draining to it. the ones with the smaller drainage areas um that maybe we're not working in such a, you know, Willow is 11 acres, it's a big drainage area going to it, that's much more detrimental than if we have something like maybe Acorn or, you know, even like uh we did Fulham a couple years ago, which is kind of southwest Roseville. You know, if we would have had, you know, a little bit more warmer days or something like that, those could still get done. Um just because it's like you can kind of contain it based on like what the drainage area is. It's not any, you know, it's not easier when obviously we get it, but there's a lot that are still doable. >> So, so if you can't do well, then would you go ahead and do the next one or would you just wait? >> Um, it depends on if we're ready for the next one. I try to be at least a year or so ahead. Um, just because we do have, you know, if something does fall through or if we have just, you know, something comes up where we have the additional capacity. Yeah. I like to be ready for it. So, no, it's like shifting them as long as they're permanent and ready to go. Um, yeah, it's like we can always um move from one to the other. The contractor might not like it if you know they bid on Willow and find out that they can't do it, but they get to do a twoacre pond over here. Um, but winter money for them is, you know, kind of nice. So, they like to keep busy and if we have something else for them, they'll take it. >> Other questions? Right. All right. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? It does not appear to be the case. Thank you for the update. I'm sure we'll be uh seeing more about these projects as uh things come forward and uh look forward to the next storm water update. >> You and me both. >> All right. >> Right. That brings us then to uh consideration of extensions to our civil and prosecution legal services contracts. Uh and for that end, we have our assistant city manager, Rebecca Olsson, with us this evening. Uh welcome, Miss Olsson. >> Thank you, mayor, council members. Um tonight, uh you are being asked to provide some uh direction on next steps for both of our legal services contracts. As you may recall, back in 2023, we entered into a contract for civil services. Um our city attorney from Kennedy and Graven is here. And then we also have a agreement for prosecution services with Ericson, Bel, Beckman, and Quinn. Um, both of these agreements had an initial three-year term and that's coming up at the end of December here that will expire. And with that, you are being asked to provide some feedback on whether you'd like to go out for another request for proposals or if you have per our professional services agreement, you do have the option to extend the contract term. um you can wave that uh provision in the professional services process, professional services agreement. Uh as part of this review, staff did conduct a uh survey of all of our department heads and city manager to provide feedback related to both the prosecution and uh the civil side. And the staff was asked to provide feedback on five general areas. um speaking about general responsiveness and communication, quality of work and legal advice, understanding of our city operations and our values, cost and the value as well as professionalism and collaboration. Um it by far came back as staff was very satisfied with both uh the prosecution side and the civil side and with that staff would recommend an a contract extension if council is interested in that. Um, if you do decide to go out for a request for proposal, that would be a separate process and we would involve both staff and council in that process. Um, so either way, whichever you choose, this will be coming back before you in one way, shape or another. Um, either with the request for proposal or for an extension of professional services agreement. >> Right. Thank you, Miss Olsen. Uh, and I think the the idea of putting the policy in place originally was to make sure we had first of all a policy about our professional services. Um, certainly we always want to make sure that we're making sure we're getting the best value for the taxpayers. Um, taking advantage of, you know, whatever innovations there might be out there in the marketplace and things like that. Uh the idea of putting in the ability of the council to wave that you know every 3 years requirement was to say that there can be cases where we're perfectly satisfied with our services and the council has the ability to to wave the requirement to go out for proposals every contract and every three years. Um so that's where we are. Uh just to kind of summarize what Miss Olson had said and to give a little bit of historical context. So really our decision is does the council feel it's in the city's interest to uh go out for requests for proposals at this time on these contracts or to wave that requirement. So, uh, interested to hear from the council, uh, council member Stron. >> Um, since we had just gone out for proposals, um, three years ago and gone through that, um, due diligence at that time, uh, vetting out the proper folks and with the high satisfaction rate on five metrics, um, from the staff, I would be inclined to um, extend the existing professional services agreements. >> Uh, Council Member Grath, >> I would agree with that. I we did a thorough vetting the last time and and I was part of that committee that that went through the process. I think it was done very well at the time, but I think repeating it every three years unless we had something that was an issue is unnecessary use of staff time and actually the councils also and there are costs involved in that. So I would go for waving at this this in this period. >> And other thoughts from council members? Council member Sharter, >> I'm just curious. Did you talk to any council members about their ratings of this service? >> We did not. We did an internal review. >> Perhaps we'll hear more this evening. >> I was going to say since you were part of the the original process and then it would be the next one, I thought it would make sense to talk to council members as well as staff. >> I will say in the past that has been part of the process when renewal was was being looked at and so just as a note. Um, other thoughts from council members, council member Bower? >> Uh, nothing. I mean, it wasn't part of it three years ago. I'm typically always in favor of going out for RFP. We just saw a budget that was quite large. Uh, and I'm always one to beat up vendors and to do vendor consolidation, whatnot. It's a great way to lower cost. So, I would be in favor of doing RFP just from the side of just, you know, reducing costs. >> Right. we or I guess I haven't spoken up yet. Uh I I can see and understand the point of view and and once again that's why the policy was in place to give us the ability to look at the the financial part of it as well. I think that uh um in this case I'm not 100% sure that uh from our experience that we necessarily see a lot of reduction in costs uh when we have gone out before for contract or for requests for proposals. Um I don't know that we were seeing things necessarily come in uh under where what we're spending now. I think there's sort of a going rate for these types of legal services. Um and so there's it sometimes I think it in these cases of some of these professional services it it relates more to the service we're getting and whether we're satisfied with that and if we have concerns. Um and I can say in this case it doesn't appear to be uh the case. I know that um um in our last goound um I did learn some things about the incumbent uh city uh civil attorney uh at that time that I hadn't been aware of. So it was helpful to have council involved in that and I think that that uh helped inform the decision-m um but my understanding at this time of my personal point of view is that I don't necessarily see any issues from a performance point of view. Uh and I think that we um having just done it three years ago, it it does make sense to continue uh at least for another uh extension period. That's my thoughts, but um ultimately we'll have to have some sort of motion, I think, to uh to wave or not to wave. >> Mayor, I'd like to motion to extend the professional services agreement as for the two um for Kennedy and Graveman andor um Ericen, Bell, Beckman, and Quinn for additional three-year terms. >> Seconded. >> Right. And just before we get to consideration, I just want to make sure is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening. >> Right. Doesn't appear >> I would just note we're here. >> All right. We do have our incumbent prosecuting attorney here as well. Yeah. >> Uh just to find out what we're up to here. >> And and so if you ever want to see us, invite us to a workshop. You don't see what we're doing on the criminal side of things. So once again, the the request is that if the council wants to know more about the prosecuting services and what's going on that was certainly we could schedule them for a presentation and a work session, which is not a bad idea necessarily. All right, with that we have the motion from uh council member Strawn to uh wave the requirement for the request for proposals uh and uh authorize the renewal for three years for both uh civil and prosecuting. That was seconded by Council Member Grath, I believe. All right. Uh to the motion, uh Council Member Stron, >> I think we've discussed I think we we did a lot of work on this three years ago. We have um largely satisfied folks and it does take a lot of staff time and I feel like um there's a lot of things on the staff side of things that are coming or or it would just be nice to put this aside for right now and say that one, we've got that for right now. um that for sure I think after two cycles it's absolutely worth um looking to see what else is out there but um so that's my thought >> right uh additional discussion as the seconder council member graph >> my thoughts on are uh that the legal advice is very critical to the city and to how comfortable I feel here so going out for the lowest bidder is not what I'm looking for in this type of thing I'm looking at from someone who gives us good representation, uh, prosecutes things thoroughly and, uh, gives us good legal advice at our council meetings. And I I feel very comfortable with who we have now. Um, I'm not saying in three years we shouldn't look again, but I do think you have to look at legal services a little differently than some other services. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion. Council member Bower, >> as someone that's had uh bad uh expensive lawyers and good cheap lawyers and everything in between and a full set of them, uh yes, you do look at things other than just the dollar signs, I think that's evident. >> Other discussion on the motion, council member Sharter. >> Yeah, since u I wasn't involved with the vetting of it. I'm And of course, we weren't asked our opinions on what we thought about it. Um yeah, I have a tendency to not support it. So, >> all right. With that, we have the motion before us. Uh if there's no further discussion on the motion, once again, the motion is to wave the requirement uh to go out for uh proposals based on the policy uh and allow for the extension uh which is uh allowed under the policy. With that, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying I >> I opposed. Nay. >> That motion passes 32 with uh Council Power and Council Schroeder in opposition. All right. With that, then that brings us to um item K under our business items. I don't know if we've ever gotten that high on our business items. Uh this is uh to consider appointment uh to the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission to fill a vacancy. Excuse me. I was just going to look up what that vacancy is for a term ending March 31st, 27. Thank you, Mr. Trean. With that, we did uh conduct the interviews of the two candidates we had or the two applicants we had for the commission last Wednesday. And as usual, we had two very good applicants um very capable and and um would uh both serve uh us well. So, we get paid the big bucks to make the tough decision between those two excellent candidates. Um, I don't know if the council wants to do a little bit of discussion uh before a motion or if we want to dive right in with the motion, but I'll defer to the council on that. >> We could have the uh statement that the the chair of the commission made that was in our packet. >> Um, we Yes, we do have that. Did you want it to be read or >> I think it should >> or considered? >> Considered. >> So, I think I think the um and I don't have it. It doesn't appear to be in the packet. Oh, >> I think we received it separately. >> That was an email. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, it was said as an email. >> Yep. Not that we can't look. >> I just thought he did a good review of what his comment. >> Yeah, I appreciated that comment. >> We're just uh zeroing in on the email. >> I have it. >> Mr. Treasure, >> you can How about lengthy? >> I was just going to say, how about a summary? >> Um, interview both candidates presented themselves well and appreciate the application and interview responses. Preference of the chair's open spot is Katie for the following reasons. Prior experience in a volunteer government role, her demeanor and self- selected characteristics. Her answer to the fourth question, what do I love most about living in Roseville um bring a different perspective to the council reflecting where she lives and her lived experience. Bring some gender um balance to the commission as well. So that was uh six comments. >> Thank you, Mr. Tre. I appreciate that. Um with that then uh anything else the council wants to uh consider or comment about uh in relation to this appointment and I finally got the names of the two candidates in front of me. I'd like to make a motion to appoint Katie Brok La to the um PWAT commission for a term ending on 33127. >> Second. >> Right. It's been moved by council member Strong, second by council member Grath uh to appoint Miss Broka Pali. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker uh council member Strong. Yeah, I just um uh Chair Fisk mentioned the um and I had an opportunity to speak with him after and I felt we had two great candidates and I was I saw them as very similar um but he really brought home this part um that he appreciated what she loved and it was that she said she loves a diversity that it's a close-knit city that feels like it it can be accessible to everyone and so I think that really spoke to him and that's why he recommended her and after listening to his reasonings of how she would fit into what they need, the skills of um the other candidate are matched by some of the other members on the existing commission. So, it's not that in a different makeup it wouldn't have been the perfect combination, but that with the people who were there already, some of that person's um expertise already mirrored and that um she brought a different set of skills that he felt would be really valuable. >> Right. Thank you. And uh Council Member uh Gra is the second of the motion. >> Uh no, I I did read through Mr. Fus analysis in his email and I thought it was very spoton. Uh again, we had two excellent excellent uh applicants and uh as you always say, mayor, they should always apply again because another time another another commission would probably come out differently. >> All right, other discussion on the motion hearing none. Uh is there excuse me, all those in favor signify by saying I opposed. >> That passes unanimously and that appointment is made. Uh, congratulations to Miss Bro and our apologies if we've just totally butchered your name pronunciation. Yes. >> All right. With that then that brings us to the end of our business items this evening. Uh, we don't have any council member initiated items before us this evening for cons for direction. Uh, that brings us then to meeting minutes. Uh, are there any changes or corrections to the draft meeting minutes that were presented with the packet? Uh uh these once again are the minutes for our August 11th uh council meeting. If not, a motion to approve will be in order. >> Second. >> It's been moved by council member Gra, second by council member Bower to approve the minute minutes from our August 11th meeting. Any discussion on the motion? >> No discussion. >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Uh those minutes are approved. That brings us then to our uh consent agenda. Uh Mr. Trean, if you'd give us an outline of the items on our consent agenda this evening. >> Certainly. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item 10 A approves payments in the amount of 3,689,784.54. Item 10B approves one massage therapy establish establishment licensed to tan massage located at 2855 Hamlin Avenue. Agenda item 10 C approves the purchase of new irrigation clocks at Cedar Home Golf Course, replacing the old ones that were installed in 1988. and for uh at the Roseville Skating Center, the purchase of new fire alarm system replacing the system installed in 1999 and the purchase and installation of new rooftop units to control the temperature in the arena. Item 10D approves the termination of an easement in the Twin Lakes Parkway south of the pick parcel. The drainage easement was created in 1978 for the previous property owner to the south and is no longer needed. Item 10E authorizes the city to enter into the agreement with Metife for group insurance benefits and paid family and medical leave administration. Staff went out for proposals and based on the responses and interviews is recommending the city switch from New York Life to Metife for life insurance benefits and use MetLife for the paid family medical leave um program that will start on January 1st, 2026. The change will lead to a slight dollar savings on the life insurance benefits. Most importantly, the city's cost as well as the employees cost for the paid family medical leave program will be less than a participating in the state paid family leave program while still enjoying the same benefits of the uh state's program. Item 10F approves entering into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to accept autotheft prevention grants. The grant will allow the city uh city's police department to purchase two stationary cameras using license plate reading technology to be deployed in high autotheft areas. Then finally, item 10G approves an amendment for the Roseville Fire Department, I'm sorry, an agreement, not an amendment, an agreement for the Roseville Fire Department to use the building located at 15 uh 100 Highway 36 West, the former Department of Education building for training for a one-year period. And that is the consent agenda. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Tre. Is there a motion from the council on the consent items this evening? >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Council Strong, seconded by Council Member Grath uh to approve the consent items as presented. Uh discussion on the motion. Council member Strong. >> Uh yes, I wanted to um definitely applaud the uh the department for going out for RFP or RFQ on um Matt life because of their efforts. The paid family medical leave is supposed to be um 088% of gross um earnings split evenly at 044% between the employer and the employee because of their due diligence. It's actually going to be 75%. So it actually saves the employee um a bit and it saves us as well. So, um, pretty much unheard of from anyone else that I've heard that goes up for a a quote and with the two-year guarantee, um, that there is a cost to opt out of the state plan, but is by far outweighed by this participation. So, >> thank you to Miss Olsen for being available to chat about nerdy HR. Thanks. >> All right. I think that falls under other duties as assigned, right? Um, other discussion on the motion hearing none. All those in favor uh signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those consent items are approved. Uh, that brings us to a brief review of upcoming agendas under future agenda review. Mr. Trean. All right. Our next meeting is September 8th. We have a couple proclamations to the meeting up. We'll receive an uh update in the street light policy. I think we had some direction last time. will bring that policy potentially for adoption. Uh we'll also have the discussion with the close proximity building uh ordinance and um have some some ideas on what to bring forward and looking for some direction. Uh also uh we want to discuss the future of the Roseville leaf recycling program uh I'm sorry uh site not program as you know we operate that um and we do have some costs coming up that we do need to have a conversation about the future of utilizing that site. It's a site that is very popular and well used. The problem is we're not able to really staff that. So we get a lot of extra stuff that is put in there whether it's leaves or not and certainly not always from residents and often from contractors that should be using it. So we need to talk through that issue a little bit and it's just more of a discussion at this point. Uh we want to discuss beekeeping regulations. I wanted to get it on this meeting but just couldn't put it together. So we'll bring that back up and then approve the franchise extension agreement with Comcast. Finally getting that in front of the council uh for approval. was really great news that you see the the franchise agreements take a lot of work. Uh there is I think it goes through 20 couple more years at least >> five years. >> Yeah. And this extension is five years beyond that. So so uh the mayor is well aware of it and straw is now serving on it. So it's really a great win um by 9 north to get that done. So we'll get that approved as well. On the 15th we have an EDA meeting. So certainly uh we can talk about the stuff we talked about earlier um uh tonight about the fund balance um which is not listed on there directly but that on talk about the um Bryce Larurn Alliance and really receive a presentation u from the executive director uh consider an amendment to the development agreement for TIFF note at the harbor which is the um properties um on uh county road C and then review uh various professional services contracts that are coming up legal with all CE and golden shovel. We'd also have a regular council meeting that night and we'll look to have a joint meeting with the parks and rec commission receive the finance commission's recommendation and budget and levy and look to award the contract for architectural services for the civic campus project. Deadlines are coming up on that. I think it's Wednesday they're supposed to be. So we'll start looking at those and come forward with some recommendations and then you can see the meetings in September you know uh my second is not to exceed and then we have other meetings in October and right thank you Mr. Tretin. Are there any uh council member initiated items for future agendas or council reports and announcements? >> Right hearing none then the only other item we have remaining on our agenda this evening is a motion to adjurnn. So moved. >> Second. It's been moved by Council Member Grath, seconded by Council Member Bower to adjurnn. No discussion on a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously and we are adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Thank you everyone.