Council member Bower >> here. >> Council member Ran >> here. >> Council member Shore >> here. >> Mayor Row >> here. Uh and with us at the table we have our city attorney Rachel Tierney. Uh on the sort of end of the table on my right and uh directly around the other end of the table is city manager Pat Trojan. We'll also make introductions of others who participate in the meeting as agenda items come up. Um we would ask folks if you have a cell phone to be sure to silence it or otherwise sure that it doesn't uh uh disrupt the meeting this evening. Um want to make folks aware that we do have a copy of all the meeting materials for the public on the back table uh by the back door of the chambers here uh which is available to share with other people who are here this evening. Uh we do also have individual copies of the agenda available which are yours to uh use as you see fit. Um, and then also, let's see, we did the cell phone reminder. So, I guess we're up to the point where we're going to do the pledge of allegiance. So, we'll ask folks to stand if you're able. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag, 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 then is approval of tonight's agenda. Uh and we have uh a couple of items on the consent. So they'll do a check first with staff to see if there are any changes from a staff perspective. >> There are no changes, Mr. Mayor. >> All right. And then with the council, are there any changes with respect to the consent agenda or any other aspect of the agenda this evening? All right. See none, I'll just do a quick check with the audience to see we've only got a handful of items on our consent agenda, which is at the end of the meeting, uh which may not be that long from now. Uh but we always do want to check with folks uh who might be here for one of those items. If you do uh want to make a comment or ask a question about one of the items in section 10 of our agenda, otherwise known as the consent agenda, uh this would be the time to let us know uh and we can move that item forward in the meeting uh so that you'll be able to ask your question or make your comment uh without waiting to the end of the meeting. Is there anyone here for an item in section 10 of tonight's agenda? That does not appear to be the case then. Uh so a motion to approve the agenda as presented would be in order. >> So moved. Second. >> Moved by council member Shartter, seconded by council member Stron to approve the agenda as presented. Any discussion on that motion? Uh 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 our agenda is our first opportunity for public comment this evening. Uh as I may have noted before, we'll have opportunities for public comment as agenda items come up. Uh but we also do want at the start of each meeting to provide an opportunity for general public comment uh on items that either may be related to city business uh or of interest to people in the community uh but that are not on this evening's agenda. Uh so uh second go with that. So we do want to provide that opportunity at each meeting as I said and I just wanted to uh invite if anybody is here for um public comment under general public comment this is the time to do so. And as you're coming up I'll just kind of go through the rules of the road real quick. Uh we just ask folks to identify themselves by name uh and either street or address for the official record. Uh and then um address comments or questions to the council. Um we do have a 3minut time limit which we'll try to gently and generously enforce. Uh and then also uh if it's something that we can't immediately answer uh which sometimes is the case under public general comment then we'll try to make sure we follow up in some fashion. So with that, welcome. Thank you for being here this evening and go ahead with your comments. >> Thank you. My name is Tim Garrettki. I live at 2645 Gier Street. This is Ruby Garrettki. And today we wanted to come to talk about the work that's being done on Conroy, in particular the intersection at Galtier NC on the east side of Acorn. And first I wanted to start with thanks to you all uh gratitude for representing our community to the county and uh helping us get the changes made that we expressed LA in the past year. So really thank you. It's my first real interaction with local government and I just want to say we feel represented and our family does and thank you for that. Uh with that said, I would like to if there is an overhead opportunity >> a light area on the table right there in front. >> Y there it is. >> Okay, great. So um the thing that we wanted to talk about today was our family's um interest and our community's interest. So this is my house here. The existing crosswalk uh from Gier to Acorn Park is right here and it's a really dangerous intersection. Both the city engineers and the county engineers have expressed um or have acknowledged that it is dangerous and so they are planning to add an inter crosswalk but further further down the road here about 50 ft. >> Yeah. And uh and uh so with the walk to the crosswalk, we don't think it's going to be effective with the majority of disc golfers here holding heavy bags. Uh both my family, we see we see the traffic here every day. And we don't think that a crosswalk down here is going to be effective at all. And just with a desire for a safer crosswalk, we want to ask the city to consider options for adjusting the entrance to the park to help facilitate um a safer pedestrian experience crossing. And we did see earlier this year a twocar vehicle vapier with the off-centered um intersection. There's just a lot of a lot of confusion uh for cars and traffic. So that's the main reason we're here uh is to just um open you up. We did come with a couple of um proposals for what that could look like cuz we don't want to just be complainers but um come with a couple solutions. So with that that's that's all I got for my >> All right. >> So thank you leave your assistant up to help with >> Welcome back. >> Yeah, it seems like I'm living here. Let's do >> try this. Oh, >> I tried that once. That was enough. >> Um Tim kind of alluded to he kind of started it out. He's kind of pointed out. >> If you could introduce yourself. >> I'm sorry. My name is Greg. I know you. My name is Greg Schrader. I live at 2646 Matilda Street. Um Tim did a good job of trying to point out that the proposal it has come a long ways in refinement and design, but it's still not going to work. It's it's still off to the side. And the problem is is that we're not addressing the real problem out there. The real problem is that the uh park entrance is offset from Gulier and we're always going to have a problem there with traffic. And as Tim pointed out, we had an accident there this last year. So what we did is kind of put our heads together and came up with two concepts that we thought that we should bring forward. The first one is number one. By the way, you each have this in your packet so you can see a better close-up view. Um, number one is is just basically is to realign the intersection of Gier with the parking lot. Uh, put a road in through around there and make that work. The second one is another simple one is basically move the inter the G I can talk today. The park entrance 90 ft west of the intersection. So everything is past that. So the intersection becomes a real true intersection and have it enter in on the uh parking lot drive lane there. So they're very both these concepts are very simple engineering solutions that would turn Gulier Street intersection into a normal intersection recognizable by both pedestrians and vehicles. A very rough cost estimate for these concepts is between 12,000 to $25,000. If this work would occur during the county, which is really an important thing to have happen, uh the the cost of that could could be uh a lot better. You could realize some savings. So therefore, we're basically asking the city council to direct staff to review these concepts and if feasible add an acceptable concept to the Kairo project. And in addition, we request that you keep us informed of staff and council actions on these two concepts. pretty simple, straightforward today. >> All right. Well, thank you for presenting that and uh we will take those requests under advisement and we'll uh have some followup. Uh staff will take a look and we'll see where we go. >> I'm sorry the engineer came out in me. >> Oh, that's all right. It happens to me all the time. >> There you go. You guys have a great day. >> I do. Thank you. >> Uh is there anyone else here to speak during general public comment this evening? All right, we'll close the opportunity for general public comment then and move into our meeting. Um and uh the first item on our agenda under our business items is to consider uh or have a discussion as it relates to an ordinance potentially imposing regulations on excavations uh near existing foundations. Uh and we have both our community development director Janice Gunllock as well as our building official uh Henland here with us this evening uh to talk about this uh and bring back uh the matter for council consideration on the basis of our prior discussions and some additional work that staff has done since then. So with that I'll turn it over to Miss Gunlock. >> Thank you mayor, members of the council. Uh as the mayor alluded to, this item last appeared before the city council on September 8th. Um it entails adoption of requirements on close proximity excavations which are done under the residential building code. Um this is a standard that's already in place under the commercial code. Uh the residents of the Enclave Homeowners Association which is a detached town home development have requested that the city adopt these standards to address some concerns that they have um with the remaining vacant lots in their development. Um, at the September 8th meeting, staff did provide three different examples of potential ordinance language that you could consider. Um, it would address potential mitigations that may be needed for close proximity excavations. Um, during that presentation, staff also outlined several areas that we think need input or further discussion, clarification to ensure that we can apply these standards fairly and uniformally across the city. We did provide a map at that time illustrating somewhere several hundred instances of residential structures that are within 10 ft of one another. We did ask and the council directed us to seek input from a registered design professional on those areas of concern that we outlined. Um, our building official did reach out to the city of Minneapolis who does have such a standard in place for residential excavations and they directed us to an engineer at American Engineering Testing. Um, he's familiar with Minneapolis's ordinances. I think he uh helped adopt them or or at least develop them and he also has experience with the actual implementation on residential constructions in that town. Um after conversations with him and he also reviewed the materials that we provided to you all. Um he uh communicated to us one main rule uh which is that mitigations are not necessary unless the excavations exceed a one one horizontal to vertical ratio. And we have some illustrations that we'll show you in just a minute specific to the enclave to help you understand what that means. Um we feel applying the standard to the enclave would result in would not result in close proximity uh mitigation such as underpinning or sheeting which have which have been mentioned in the past. Um and then we also don't think based on that map that we provided of the several hundred instances of town in town where there are close uh residential structures, it would not apply to those either. Given that, we just think the draft language that we provided to you previously remains too vague to implement fairly across town. So, we would not recommend that you proceed with a local ordinance. Of course, we are here tonight to seek further direction from you on where you want to go. I also want to remind you that the state is considering some language. Uh hopefully with the state's language would come interpretation on how it should be applied. We think that'll happen sometime next year. So, if you opt not to do anything, um, of course you can wait for them to adopt their code. And also, as a reminder, if they adopt a standard, then we would have to repeal whatever standard we ultimately put in place. So, those are just my introductory comments. Again, we wanted to give you an idea of what this means specific to the enclave. So, our building official and assistant building official put together some graphics. Um so this is a cross-section and and um our building official can explain these but in generally the the black shaded areas if excavations occurred in that area is where we would uh be concerned. Um this is a view from the backside of the enclave homes. So these are all lockouts. Um you'll see the upper grade as well as the lower grade. And again, an example of where the concern would lie. And then we also wanted to sketch in some of the window wells. Um those are technically decorative as far as the building code is concerned, but the ones that are getting constructed out there are quite substantial and structural. So we just wanted to give you an idea of what what it looked like out there as well. So with that, we are happy to address any questions you might have as best as we can. >> And and just to clarify once again, so what this this technical expert was saying is that generally speaking, if excavation occurs uh in the white area to the upper and right of the darker shaded area, then no mitigation would be required under under their understanding of of sort of the approach that's taken. uh whereas if excavation did go into the dark shaded area then mitigation could be required under under the standards. >> Explain it. Okay. So it's not that there's no excavation at all there. It's just that there's you know a darker area where mitigation would be required or a lighter area where it wouldn't be required if excavation occurred only within that area. That is correct. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Other questions from the council? Council member M. >> Did um the person that you talked with uh state at all or comment on what happens if you know they pull plans they take down the one to one but then all a sudden it goes beyond that what Minneapolis or what their comments were all a sudden thinking like a rain event or um further excavation has to happen once they pass that 10. What happens in that case? Again, that would be a specific situation that would occur. Anytime there would be an over excavation, then mitigation would be required. It would be the same now. Um, you know, say somebody were to dig into that black area. Currently, that could be required just as a good practice for the building. It's not that it would never occur or >> in even look at it. In the case of Minneapolis's ordinance, it's require they would have to stop pull come up with a mitigation plan. Correct. >> Before proceeding going before going forward. >> Okay. >> If it's known up front that they would mitig that they would excavate in the dark area or if there was an occurrence that was unexpected because of some natural >> Yeah. And I was thinking more of the latter. um they some for some reason have to go deeper or there's a >> find bad soils or something >> bad soils or a rain event or shifting of earth >> things I can't now think of but then they would have to come up with a proposal get that approved through the engineering department >> well technically they would have to hire a licensed design professional to present that to the city then that time would have to occur in between then potentially if it's a weather event it'd be an emergency situation where they would have to undertake take emergency underpin, not underpinning necessarily, but shoring >> and is that would they have to do that under the current status quo or only if the state adopts a change to their building code? >> Well, anytime there would be risk of the structure neighboring it, they would have to do it at any point. That would be a hazard that would be known or brought to the attention of the city. >> Okay. And the way the Minneapolis ordinance is now is anything beyond that one one is considered a hazard. >> I believe with the Minneapolis ordinance it reads any excavation within >> a distance. >> Yeah. 10 feet of a a neighboring structure. I'm there's a lot of numbers. There was two feet, there was 5T, but I'm not 100% on the Minneapolis ordinance. >> I know it was a distance from any excavation that's required. the proposed min uh state ordinance or the what the state is proposing though is this one to one. >> No, >> this with some very vague language. Yes, I >> was going to say they they don't propose anything specific. That's that's an understanding of how it should work as I understand it. >> Correct. Correct. Engineer and expert. >> If the idea is to bring in a registered design professional to make a determination, the registered design professional is going to use this one to one. Other questions from the council? Right. And I was trying to find the Minneapolis ordinance, but of course I couldn't find it in the previous meeting. It's >> in the really brief language we put in the previous packet, which is attachment one to your packet. >> Right. All right. So, no other questions from council members. Uh then I would uh maybe provide an opportunity for public comment. We will still as outlined previously apply with the threeminute time limit uh state your name and address or street for the record uh and address council with questions or comments. Um you only have to sign in if we don't know the spelling of your name. >> I think we do. >> How's that? >> I'm sorry. I don't know how to use this. Do I just >> uh I'm not sure. I know how to use it either. So don't ask. >> So I would put the >> Okay. Just because it's taped. >> Oh. Um, >> I've got a USB here, but I just see you guys have it taped, so I don't want to just be >> cuz it's loose or >> patience. We're trying to make it last as long as we should. >> Oh, there we go. See how easy that was? >> Yay. Thank you. >> All right. Um, I'm sorry. Did you say I still need to state my name? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm Good evening, Katherine Barstad. um resident of one of the enclaves uh at 217 McCarron's Place West. Um I'm here uh representing a good number of us. Um I want to thank you again uh Mayor Dan, city council and extended representatives. Um we do feel that city staff is complicating this more than it needs to be. Um the code already exists. We're not asking city of Roseville to adopt ordinance language that isn't already in the Minnesota State Building Code. And while Minnesota State Building plans to make this code change, our concern is that it's going to take until September of 2026 before it's fully implemented. I'd also like to remind you that City of Minneapolis was able to make this ordinance change within 45 days after the residents brought this to their city council meeting. And while staff is trying to argue that the city of Minneapolis example may not be relevant due to them having 0 to2 feet setbacks, the point I'm calling out is that it only took them 45 days. Um, we brought this to city council on April 14th. So, we're currently sitting at 186 days with still no ordinance change made to date. And my questions that I have is why is it that city staff claims they can't do this? Why can't they utilize the language that Minnesota State Building plans to use and then simply revoke it when the code is officially enacted? I'd also like to understand why they won't work with us to come up with a mutually agreed upon resolution. Instead, I feel they're doing this in a vacuum and it somewhat feels like they are making a bunch of noise by introducing other elements that we feel aren't relevant or pertinent and pushing back. I also want to just remind us that the code we're asking to be adopted is an ordinance change that does not mean that every general contractor who builds would be required to shore up before excavation occurs, but rather it means additional measures would be taken like having a certified engineer conduct a soils engineering test to be done to determine whether shoring is required. And this is essentially what we understand AET was basically saying when they said that the existing 200 to 600 homes across the city of Roseville would not necessarily be subjected to this. In addition, I do not believe that those homes fall into what would be considered medium and high density zoned areas. We also agree that there is a possibility that with only a 10-ft distance, it may not be needed. However, the critical point that I want to point out that ADT also makes is that they acknowledge that every situation is unique, which is why they did not feel comfortable formally consulting beyond that their initial input because they did not do the study of where the enclave is. However, Kilo Engineering, who did do the study and uh produced a report back on April 13th of 2020, found and calls out four geotechnical related concerns and recommends that additional measures be taken and even states that shoring be done when excavating. So, what I'd like to understand is why the city staff negated this recommendation or is not willing to go back and talk to Kilo, who did the original study on um so we also did a sort of a cross-section rendering of what we're talking about here. And I'm going to try not to point this laser at you, but I just want to point out that over here is an example. >> Actually, if you can maybe use the cursor on your computer, then people can see. >> I don't think >> there you go. Oh, is it showing up? Okay, thanks. Thank you. Um, so over here on the right is the existing uh foundation wall and then over here is a proposed foundation wall. And we drew this at level elevations. And what we're really trying to highlight here is a cross-section is the darker shaded area is what would have to be excavated with the lighter tan area being the soil that would remain. So, as you can see at this 10-ft distance, it doesn't necessarily mean that the soil that's um next to the existing foundation wall is at risk in this situation, nor is it causing uh a lot of risk to the foundation footing which is the red area. However, in this example where we have egress window and or elevation variance between the two footing uh foundation footings, which is a big situation that we are having at the Enclave because everything is built at a high point and slowly grades down, you'll see that in order for you to maintain a one one cut back, more dirt would have to be excavated. And what that means is that there's less soil that can be left undisturbed without risking um the existing foundation wall and the footings to be at risk. So on April 17th of 2025 when lot 7 got 17 sorry lot 7 was excavated on we were originally informed by Pat Trean and that his building official had come out to inspect and saw nothing of concern. However on April 29th 2025 when the excavator accidentally broke into a main water line. >> So I'm I'm just going to stop you there. Uh so our testimony this evening is about the proposed ordinance either adopting or not adopting it, not necessarily on the uh the the um the history of the events on the site uh to this point. And given that you're approaching six minutes, I did want to sort of see if we can kind of get to >> I just want Okay, I guess I just wanted to point out that one department was saying it was safe and the other department was not saying it was safe. And the point I'm making is IBC and OSHA both require excavation to be performed in a manner that does not endanger life or property. And the last thing I'm going to just end with is the purpose of public building code is to protect public health, safety, and welfare by setting minimum standards. The code isn't for general contractors who are going to overengineer, but it's for those that take shortcuts and to ensure that they do not just take the minimum level possible. The example that I was showing earlier was just to illustrate that we've experienced a general contractor that took shortcuts. And in a previous conversation that I had with Janice, she said that unfortunately city staff is not able to deny a permit submitt if a general contractor is licensed and their plan meets code. So this is really to protect against general contractors that take the shortcut. The last thing I want to just end is that the homes at Enclave range from $650,000 to a million dollars. So, what we're talking about here is less than half a percent in what would potentially be absorbed by the general contractor or passed through to the property owner who's going to build. We did read the staff's proposal to pivot and unfortunately we're not in agreement with it because we're not the HOA is not and cannot be the authority and do not does not want to hold liability by approving whether an ESC excavation should occur or not and it also only addresses one side of the homes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. I'll I'll be very quick here on my John Barstead 217 mccarian place west. Um one thing um in the Minnesota building code the the code exists and let me get you there. The 2020 Minnesota residential code is a derivative um and referenced from uses the international residential code as reference. But in the uh uh preface here in that code it talks about the 2018 edition of the IRC the international residential code is fully compatible with all other international codes the I codes published by the international code council including the national building code which is also in reference to the Minnesota building code and other codes they may they mention the other um chapter on it's entitled effective use of the international residential code. Uh the international res the IRC was created to serve a complete comprehensive code um regulating construction of single family homes, two family homes or duplexes. Uh the building is consistent of three or more town home units. All buildings within the scope of the IRC or you could call this the MRC, Minnesota Residential Code, are limited to three stories above plane grade. So, wherever you have your turf outside, three stories up uses the IRC or the Minnesota Residential Code. Quote unquote. For example, a four-story single family home would fall within the scope of the International Building Code, not the IRC. So right now as of the 2020 code at least way I am understanding this plain language is that fourstory house if built in Roseville would have to be built under the Minnesota building code not the Minnesota building residential code. If that's the case, then these two codes under the Minnesota building code under chapter 18, the soils and foundations um which are uh outlined under the 1803.57. And this is the code that the state is what I understand is recommending to adopt into the Minnesota residential code, which a very very minor change. But if that again were also the case, not only would you have that code to follow, well talking about the protection of the um excavations and so forth, but then in chapter 33, there's a code that um excuse me is titled under the um 3307.1 protection required and it's the adjoining public and private property shall be protected from damage during construction, remodeling and dem demolition work protection. ction shall be provided for footings and that's the critical part if this whole entire discussion and from the rendering that we had that red box in that area that's the most critical area that if that area is ever compromised your soil bearing capacity is compromised you have an enormous risk of losing the support of that house and settling and you can even ask probably some of the other older homes in the area where if they have cracken foundations and so forth or water leaks. That's the settling failure you don't want to see have seen especially in these new homes. Um the other provision behind this 3307 final as most important is provision shall be made to control water runoff erosion during construction and demolition activities and council member uh power you mentioned that same very issue is what happens with these renderings if you have rainfall and erosion occurs and we've seen it out there on on our builds. This is the biggest risk that you want to prevent where you put risk at an existing structure and that bearing capacity and under that existing footing and foundation. And I think it's it just it would behoove I think everybody to adopt this code or somehow incorporate these two codes between residential as well as the Minnesota building code. So, thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? Yeah. Like to say something just very quickly. >> So my name is Gary Dian. I'm also at the Enclave. Thank you. Um just the quick thought unless I misunderstood what was presented earlier. Um, from the city perspective, you're talking about if a rain event or some other event occurred like a wash out that we've had on lot 7 at that time, you'd bring in or there'd be the effort to bring in a certified engineer, a design engineer. That's a little late. We should be not reactive. We should be proactive. to ensuring that event an event like rain won't cause something that then has to be resolved. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Anyone else uh from the public wish to speak? >> All right. Um thank you for the comments this evening. Um, and I did want to just uh ask staff to clarify one thing if I can um because I think there may be some misunderstanding about that and that is where mitigation might be needed and where it wouldn't be needed once again. So we may have to bring up that graphic again because I think in in the the the presentation from the residents there was there was >> so they undid the computer here. I can get a free our technical expert city manager here. >> Other duties has assigned. >> So, uh, as as I understood the information from the the expert and and from the presentation this evening, the the the place where the one to one is measured from is the bottom of the footing. So, in other words, they're trying to protect what's supporting the footing from below. So as you dig down deeper deeper than the footing and you're within a one one from that point that's where mitigation might be required. So if your excavation never gets any deeper than the existing footing then mitigation most likely given the the analysis of that expert the at least the analysis to to check may not be required in in how they would interpret those standards as I understand it. Is that correct? That is correct. All right. >> So, and I should also say that um the one one is not a required excavation area either. So, that um for that excavation for the adjoining foundation, if they only have to excavate a couple of feet away from itself and they don't get into that that area, maybe they only get into that area at the very bottom of the the dark area. They just have to mitigate in that area, not excavate everything else and remove all that that earth. >> That's correct. Okay. Yeah, >> that was that was the other thing that may have been a misunderstanding on the part of the residents too. It sounded like so I just wanted to clarify that that it's it's that it's not that you have to remove all of the earth above that hor that diagonal line, but rather if you go below that line as you approach the adjoining foundation, that's where you have to start looking at making sure that you're accounting for potential issues that might affect the the underpinning of the of the footing. >> That's correct. And I don't know if the expert talked about this at all, but um is there um any relation to how how long along the adjacent foundation excavation might occur? You know, if they just had a little point of excavation that went into that area a little bit, is that different than having like 15 or 20 feet of of removal in that same zone? >> He didn't allude to that. I wouldn't think that that would I think any encroachment into that would require mitigation. I just wanted to understand that for myself because that was something I was trying to envision as I was trying to understand it uh going into this discussion this evening. Um you know that the extent that that width of the of the adjacent excavation mattered to the situation >> more would be more problematic. Yeah. >> Yes. And then depth is really the issue is as far as starting to undercut the support of the the footing >> the lateral support of the footing was the concern. Thank you for that clarification. Uh, Council Bower, >> um, this code exists, as you mentioned, in the building, this Minnesota building code, but it only applies to commercial. Um, I think when you were here before us last time, you noted that usually when these are adopted, there's a grace period while they try to figure things out. This code has been existing in the Minnesota building code for some time on the if, as you say, the commercial side. Did you consult what the notes were for that? I mean, it seems like a lot of our discussion is about we're not sure what to do, but there's got to be, you know, it's been in place for a long time on a different scenario. >> Well, and that would be with commercial contractors who are very familiar with it. The reason for the six-month kind of grace period, as you call it, would be to educate residential contractors who are potentially unfamiliar with that requirement. >> Right. But my question is you're are we're here trying to figure out or you're stating earlier that you're not sure what you know if we were to implement this it's not enough clarity even you said with what the Minnesota building code is being proposed for in 26. Um there's not very clear. It just seems odd to me that it's been existing for a long time. There's probably notes already on the commercial side and I haven't heard at all you know what those notes are or have you consulted those notes and what did those say? Seems like that would be a good place for us to figure out what is going to be likely to happen. >> Yes. And what really what we would be looking for is that professional licensed design person to come to us to tell us what needs to be done based on that. And most commercial uh building projects start at the beginning with soils engineers with those architects looking at that what has to be done. Uh we did speak to the um engineer about that specifically and he said do that there's so much involvement pre-exavation with these tests and every all the mitigation are put in place just in case. That's kind of the difference with residential where they're they're not doing that. They're marking out a building. They're surveying it and then they start the excavation. Um, no one that I know of would be intent on digging under a neighboring foundation or really within that proximity. That would be the uh unintended consequence of some event they found on site. >> Makes sense. And they're doing those soil samples. I mean, you mentioned that they doing those soil samples and those things the commercial and I'm assuming they're doing that just because that's what the notes are saying as far as related to that commercial building code or that's because I mean the commercial building code doesn't state, you know, take soil samples or do those kinds of things. It states pretty much the same as a proposed language that we're seeing in 426. Right. >> Correct. >> And they're doing this because this is what over time people have decided and agreed upon what's should be done. >> Correct. And with the commercial code, it's required to have a licensed design professional in charge of the entire project from the beginning. So that's that's I would assume that's their process and procedure. >> I see. So you're saying that's what's pretty much the extent of what the node is saying is. Okay. >> So the the one one is more of a professional engineering standard, not a code standard. >> Correct. Yep. Nothing in code that is specific to one. It's intentionally vague, I believe, on purpose to give sight specific uh conditions. >> So, a professional engineer theoretically may be looking at a situation and say, "Oh, it looks like you're going to excavate within that. We need to take a look at what might be required and do more analysis of the soil. Um, that sort of thing to plan ahead for what might happen. If the plan didn't show any excavation in that area, the design professional might say, "Doesn't look like we need to be concerned about it." Correct. >> Okay. >> In the on the commercial side, >> on the commercial side, >> based on their understanding of engineering standards as it applies to what the code asks for. >> Okay. Other council question. Sorry, we've been kind of down here. Council of comments questions. I just had a comment. not necessarily for staff, but um I'm sure this is exceptionally frustrating for everyone who lives in the enclave, but um the comment about 45 days from Minneapolis, just a reminder that the Minneapolis City Council is full-time and we meet about two t two hours three times a month. So, please keep that in in mind as well as they have full-time people on their staff who do all these things that we've had to go out and do. And I do thank the staff for taking the time to um end um resources needed to go and to um address an engineer who is a professional because this is not my area of expertise nor really probably anyone sitting at this table because that's not part of what we do. We each have kind of our different skill sets. I always rely on Robin for certain things. Um she's going to look at the numbers. >> Yeah. And but I think just a reminder that um we are just other citizens in Roseville too. And so I think it it feels a little bit like a jury and we really were not intending to um go against someone or to make their life difficult. we've been out to this site and you mentioned the cost of your properties and while that's important um I want to think that everyone here would make the same decision if your property was worth $200,000 or $150,000 as if it were a a million dollars and I don't want that to feel like that unfairly impacts what our decision is while we sit here thoughts or further discussion from the council. So I it appears that the recommendation is is not necessarily to do anything on the city's part um because there you know the it doesn't appear that the impact requires it I guess is maybe a way to say it. I am concerned about doing nothing though. I mean there are a number of lots still out there that are available and I'm concerned about doing nothing there may cause those lots not to be developed you know given the the risks and whatnot. So, I guess I'm >> I don't know what those risks are for sure. >> Well, I mean, >> it depends on the design of what somebody wants to put on the property. I guess >> it does depend on that. Um, and I guess when just seeing what has happened out there to date, especially with the, you know, digging into the water man and the amount of erosion, I mean, that was a situation where OSHA came and said it was unsafe to continue construction and here we're saying, uh, but it's fine for your house, uh, to be there, right? So, it's a little bit little bit different, but uh still >> I would like to see doing something going forward. This is going to be adopted uh by Minnesota um building codes in the future. I think it makes sense for us to do adopt something here sooner to help with development of that enclave and to protect those that have already developed out there and have, you know, become Roseville residents. Um and you know noting what already exists uh based on what we've heard today with existing building professionals with the onetoone it seems like we should be able to craft similar similar language um as well. I mean noting I think the additional cost right that was a concern that was brought up earlier uh and I think that was why the home values were brought up saying that that additional cost while is an increase is not a significant increase to the overall cost of a development of a home out there. So, I would be in favor of continuing to look at this and to put something in place uh until the Minnesota ordinances uh is building code is adopted for something that's similar to this. >> Council member, >> well, as I remember this, we had this discussion about them a few weeks ago and we asked you to go out and consult with some professionals because I didn't think any of us had the skill sets to do that and I feel we have done that. Um, I accept the information that's been received and I think it makes sense. I understand what you've discussed here in the diagram. So, I think at this point we do need to wait until the state makes a decision and pursue it that direction. That would be my opinion. I would concur with uh council member Grath that we forgo adoption of an ordinance at this time and um as we do not really know what a new ordinance would say from this or what a new regulation from the state would be um if something's been in the commercial code for quite some time and not been adopted into the residential code that does give me pause that maybe that's not something that's right on the tail of ready to go into it and I think it um seems counter counterproductive to staff and to um to try to push something out um new ordinance and changing it when we have specifically been tasked and told that we're not supposed to be um putting things out there that are more restrictive than the state code. Um I think we have a lot of other really important things. This is very important to the people who live there. But I also think there is some um there's other tasks that we will be learning a lot more about this particular project very soon and I'd like to wait. >> So okay, my understanding is the what's in the commercial code is what they're going to adopt in the residential code. Is that and what's been in the commercial code has been there for a while. It's a variation of what's in the current commercial code. Yes. >> And so, um, do we have a copy of that commercial code in our packet somewhere? >> I don't remember if that thing that was >> I think that was one of the three options we gave them, wasn't it? >> And so that was that was actually what was in the commercial side of it that I that's why I was just trying to make sure that that was the piece. And so is that more than likely that's what they're going to uh adopt on the residential side as well? >> To be clear, the the language the state has proposed for adoption to the residential code is worded differently than what is in the current commercial code, but I think they're getting at the same things. >> But they're they're basic. Yeah, maybe some of the words. So I guess my question would be what other than we would have to um resend it when the actual wording is done I guess what what would be the downside of just adopting that early what I mean what what would cause the staff or what would be the downsides to that I guess >> so council member Sher I think that's the issues that we pointed out in that presentation that we prepared on Septermber September 8th. Um I understand the enclave may not be exactly what we're dealing with anywhere else in the city, but if we adopt an ordinance, it's going to apply citywide. And we did map out several instances where structures are very close together. And so our concern is if we adopt that vague language, then um any project and we'll have to get clarity of what kinds of projects. Is it new homes? Is it additions? Is it footings? because it we we went into that in the ETH. They're going to have to get a registered design professional to come in and make a determination if mitigations are necessary. Our concern is based on what we learned from a registered design professional, the instance at the Enclave, the registered design professional could very likely say mitigations are not necessary. Are are are we supposed to get the affected property owner at the enclave to review that and okay it there there's just I'm not certain if we adopt this vague vague language it's actually going to produce the mitigations that I think the residents at the enclave are hoping that it will produce which is why we've suggested underlining land order consent to grade beyond your legal property boundary is a more effective way to address their concerns in the more immediate term because then if if they want to give consent to grade beyond the property boundary, they get to determine under which conditions that gets to happen. As opposed to a registered design professional who's going to be applying industry standard engineering practices which may say this isn't required and they're not going to get what they ultimately are hoping to get out of that. So, but what I guess what I'm getting at is are we going to end up in the same position once the uh state comes down with the wording? So, we it's going to be the same thing because when they adopt it, it's not going to we still have to deal with the same problem. >> That's right. >> So, so really it's it's you know, if we adopt it now or later, we're going to be dealing with these issues. So if unless they dramatically change it, which they probably won't knowing how the state works through some of the stuff. So really those issues aren't just because of the this that's going to be an issue even once they come out with the final wording for it >> depending on the guidance. They may or may not put out with the language they adopt. I think the the main difference would be in the proximity to a property line for excavation and the proximity to another structure or foundation to a property line. These are zero clearance or zero setback lot lines. So they're built to the property line differing from most homes. That excavation doesn't occur across property lines generally on every other construction or excavation on residential properties. So I think that's where the difference is is the crossing of a or approaching a property line. >> So you what you're saying is that when they come out with this ordinance that wouldn't it would be I I'm not really sure that that's going to come into play very often. Um the language I and I don't like to quote from memory but it's excavations that will affect um the word is will in there it will affect uh neighboring structures or structures in close proximity. If you're 5t from another structure and you're excavating you have that full amount of soil. I don't see where that would come into play where 5t of your property is still there and you're excavating at that >> with the organs in place. It wouldn't help. That's what you're saying. >> I don't believe it would. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, and just to quote the language that was in the packet from the ETH that says where excavation will reduce support from any adjoining public or private property foundation, the registered design professionals shall prefer an assessment. So, it's interesting. You have to know that it's going to have an effect, reduce the support, then you have the professional make the assessment, which is an interesting way of of constructing it, which I think gets to some of the question or concern that that staff may have in terms of the implementation because you could have situations where people who wouldn't have to do anything are suddenly in a position of having to theoretically engage an expert to tell them that they don't have to do anything. they've just now, you know, encountered some additional cost on their project and and you know, potential delay or whatever. So, I was curious, Miss Gunlock, you had mentioned um permission uh for excavation on an adjoining property, and I was just thinking about individual property rights. I mean, right now, can my neighbor uh dig a hole onto my property uh for something they're doing on their property without getting my permission first? And maybe our attorney has to weigh in on that, too. So, so interestingly enough, and and to be clear, I I am not trying to not help the residents of the Enclave. I just want to make sure we're all clear about what we're what we should be doing and what we're supposed to be doing. >> And I just add to that, what can be accomplished and how it relates to what the issues there are. >> And if we are going to implement an ordinance, make making sure that it will actually do what people are hoping it would do. Um, but to go back to your question, before we finish, we were trying to figure out alternatives that could help alleviate concerns for the Enclave members in the short term. And so I was back and forth with the city attorney on several iterations of that and she kept saying, "No, no, no." essentially. Um, >> that's what attorneys are for. >> But, but what we did land on, she was like, "You can't do anything that you're not currently doing." And I talked to our city engineer. I talked to our public works director and he was basically said, "Anytime It is not uncommon for people to have to have to excavate beyond a property line in order to accomplish a project. Under those instances, they do require landowner consent in order for that to happen. You don't have to provide landowner consent or you may only want to provide landowner consent if if they agree to do a few things that you think are necessary to protect yourself. Um, in this with the homes that were built out there already, the, you know, public works director said it's our understanding the HOA has construction easements are place or they're they're required to allow that to happen. So they didn't ask for the underlying landowner consent, but we could moving forward knowing that the HOA has higher expectations under which that grading should occur than just a blanket construction easement that says you have to allow it. So that was our thinking behind that, giving them the opportunity to work with the builder to do something that they feel needs to be done before that excavation happens. Because again, we can only apply the code as it's intended to be applied fairly and uniformally across the city. >> So are we saying that we want to have something in our code that requires that? That how does that mechanism happen in this particular instance? >> With a building permit >> for a new home and our engineering department reviews the grading plans for those and we would be on the same page with any flag. will put a flag on any vacant lot in that's left in the enclave that says, "Hey, if there's excavation beyond the property boundary, which there will be on one side of every new home that's left to be built there, then they have to get underlying land owner consent." And it's probably based on how those lots are platted. It's going to be of an individual owner. It's not going to be of the HOA, just of how that side of the property has been platted and ownership of land actually works. >> All right. So, that would be built into our permit consideration and approval process by the city. Uh, not into a more formal structure >> and I believe our city attorney said we do it that way and that's how it's been applied in past situations. Okay. >> That's right. >> Council strong. >> I had a question. You know, this part of this comes back to that zero um you know, zero setback and I remember being pretty human about it having lived in northeast Minneapolis where my neighbor lived not much farther than a m a foot away but a couple. Is there something that we should be putting into our like an automatic trigger effect? Like if something went I really don't like the zero uh foot setback, but if we ever approved something like that, is there something that we could put in there that would automatically trigger something like that in the um in the building permit or some anytime or do we just say they're not allowed or how do we prevent kind of a situation where we're in this scenario? Based on the situation we're in in this scenario, from a planning perspective, I'm not interested in entertaining a zero foot setback anymore. Although I would note the developer came forward and requested that. It wasn't something the city asked for. Um, but the approval resolution for that zero foot setback alluded to the fact that there would be structures or activity that occurs between the homes where there's a zero foot setback. And that approval resolution put the responsibility on the HOA to manage that. So I think there was some forethought at that time before anybody owned a home out there before construction started that there could be issues happening between these homes and that it was the HOA because it was a planned development with an HOA in place that they could manage how they wanted that to happen. So I think the challenge we probably ran into is that because it was before anybody owned any of the properties at that time the HOA was set up by the developer essentially probably with the standards that the developer felt were appropriate from their perspective as opposed to uh individual property owners perspectives >> and I think at that time the builder wasn't known >> just the land developer. So, um I did want to get to the the the issue with the um the like with the hitting the water mane and the the significant flow and things like that. I mean, I think the the comment about you know what OSHA was saying is that's an unsafe place for workers to be in that excavation until it shor up because of the fact of the erosion that happened because of the main as I understood it. I don't know that um the close proximity excavation ordinance or even the state building code even addresses that. That's more of a I would think a worker safety slash uh stormwater management erosion control permitting matter if I understand those things. >> The contractor was working without a trench box in that location and that's what OSHA cited for that work. >> Yeah. And I think every time I've seen excavation in streets for water mane repairs or replacements, there's always those boxes being used or should be. Um, so I think that the question really comes down to what what can or should we put into our ordinance that's generally applicable um that also addresses some of the concerns that have been brought up uh you know by the residents in this area. Um, and I think, you know, my concern is is that it doesn't seem like even just adopting what is proposed by the state code is necessarily going to potentially accomplish what they want to accomplish because if somebody doesn't excavate down below the level of the footing, close enough to the footing, it doesn't even seem to come into a play. Um, so that's my my concern about this this feeling that we have to adopt something quickly because that way we can have something to impose. I mean it, you know, it doesn't seem that it may matter, but that's that's where where I >> I will note that in saying that you're making an assumption because the what the language that's being proposed for the Minnesota statute or Minnesota bill code doesn't note the one one or any of those things, right? You're basing that based on what this one expert is saying and based on as you said in the guidance. So >> again, it's I think it's a little bit premature to say that it would resolve the I guess the other thing is I don't know that we can presume that any excavation near an existing foundation is catastrophic either. I mean we can't assume the the opposite either. You know there you have to the situation is the situation in each case. Um I will note that the case in the enclaves though like with the egress windows as uh staff brought out I mean that does require excavation right to the adjacent properties foundation and so that is significant and we saw from the photos too that you have two you know an existing structure that's completely exposed uh while the new structure is being built. So I mean in that case I agree that you can't do that again some of the existing properties but in the case of the enclaves when you see the structure >> so as as it's up on the screen the the area in the dark shading if it's not excavated in there there doesn't have to be mitigation I think that's the point um so even if they are excavating you know between the two buildings above the footing or at or above the footing it doesn't seem that any >> they Right. Apparent mitigation required, >> right? So in this case, I mean, this is a great example, right? You have two egress windows right next to each other. In order to put the footing for the new structure down, you're going to have to dig down below where that footing's going. So in that case, you are in the dark shaded area. >> Well, but if it's if you're digging for the one on the right, you can dig as much as you want for the one on the right as long as you don't do the angled line from the one on the left. they can dig in the dark shaded area directly below the one on the right to excavate for the right egress window. >> I would agree with that, but in what we've seen out there in practicality is not that. >> Well, and I'm not an expert on construction either, so I'm going to limit my comments there. Um, I don't know. I I still just don't I don't really fully see that that adopting the proposed state building code language is going to necessarily um change much. But I think it may be more effective to do the the permit action and and have the ability for adjacent adjacent properties to in fact have some you know understanding of what's going to be happening and perhaps put conditions in place that they impose. As long as that's acceptable, >> I think I could accept that. I mean, that's at least puts, you know, if we're not going to do something, at least allows the homeowner, the existing homeowner to uh put in whatever requirements they require. >> And I'm not even 100% sure that if we adopted the language in the state building code today, that that has any effect on prior excavations that occurred prior to today anyway. >> No, I would be surprised at that. >> Right. So it is really still prospective looking for this. >> Other thoughts from council members? Council member. >> Yeah, that that was one comment I was going to make. Unfortunately, everything we're talking about is is kind of pre and so much has happened unfortunately is post of of this construction. And so that is a good point that this wouldn't help what's already happened. It's it's more on what moving forward. And I do like the idea of um having um more teeth into the permit side of things. And my guess would be you will have a very sharp eye on any activity over in that true that it does it gets taken care of. So, y >> is that something that exists in terms of the engineering review of building permits to have some kind of written standard that the city has uh talking about having the requiring these adjacent property owners to to have some say when there's going to be excavation across the line. >> That's my understanding from the public works director is they have that in place currently. >> So, it is already it is already a a policy if it's not an ordinance or or a resolution from the council. It is already a city policy in terms of practice that implemented years. >> So, we It's not that we're going to be doing something differently. It's that we're going to be having, you know, extra attention paid. >> Exactly. >> Specific to these sites, for sure. And not to mention that that we've been doing it as a practice on excavations that cross property lines. Anyway, >> we're not going to assume the easements that are already in place imply consent to just do whatever they need to do to accomplish that. We'll get it in writing. >> Right. Okay. Does that sound to the council? >> I think that makes sense. I think that I I want to say to the enclave, I sympathize with you horribly. I think this is an unfortunate situation, but I do think this is the best way for us to go forward. And I hope that we can accomplish the goals of getting this developed and in 3 to 5 years, this will be a faded memory. And you'll enjoy your places where you purchased it. I hope it ends up being a successful community. >> Does the process allow for one more question? >> Yeah, it would have to be a follow-up after the meeting with the council and through either through staff or or direct with council members. If there's nothing else on this item then Oh, Mr. Trean. So, I was thinking of whether or not to respond to some comments earlier, and since it wasn't a public comment, I I feel the need to really um object to the comments about staff delaying things purposely um that bringing noise to the subject matter really impuges the character of Mr. England and Miss Gunlac and they have been working hard. This is the third time we've brought this forward. September 8th, we brought three ordinance uh languages for suggestions. After discussion, the council wanted additional information and that's why we're here tonight. I just need to point that out that we are not trying to delay anything. Just because the answers may be uh or the information we're bringing back counters to what they want to see doesn't mean we don't care, doesn't mean that we're delaying. and I thought long and hard about saying something, but I since it was brought up right at the initial part of the conversation really um attacking staff saying that we're purposely delaying things, I just felt that it needed to be called out. So, I'll leave it at that. >> All right, then. Uh we will then proceed to our next item on the agenda this evening, uh which is to consider updates to the appointment and reappoint process or policy for advisory commissions in the city. Uh and we have our assistant city manager, Rebecca Olsson, with us this evening uh to bring this item before the city council. >> Thank you, mayor, council members. Um sorry, I will be up here for a little bit, so you're stuck with me for a little while here. Um somehow, >> uh tonight you are being asked to consider some updates to the appointment and reappoint policy. As you know, the city has seven standing uh commissions and our appointment and reappointment policy really guides how those commission vacancies are advertised, how applicants are interviewed and selected, and then how current members are considered for reappointment. Um, I'm going to put something on the overhead. Um, so as staff was reviewing our appointment and reappointment policy, there were some minor updates that we thought would be appropriate to make. Um, and I'll just walk through them. Um here can thank you >> technology. >> Uh so the first one is in the very first section under background and it simply updates the name of one of our commissions from human rights inclusion and engagement to equity and inclusion. Um the second update is under section two which is procedure statement for reappoints. Um this is a redline version. And I don't know if you can see the the red lines very well there, but um the words in writing were removed. And what it reads is no later than 60 days prior to the expiration of a term, each commission member whose term is is expiring will be contacted and we removed in writing to determine their interest in reappoint. Uh simply making that because many of the staff liaison will often contact them at the commission meeting verbally. So, it just allows for both both rather than having it only in writing. The third change is in that same section um where we um in section A, I'm sorry. Um and really this reflects the council decision previously where you have requested that people who are interested in reappoint fill out a separate reappoint application. So, it's simply just updating that to reflect the current practice. Um, under B, this was clarification that we added so that we know when we're bringing back these items. Um, in January, council will consider um those reappoints. And so, we put the timeline in there simply because we have some change over in staff and in council. It's really just helpful to know when it happens. Um in addition we clarified that the uh commissioners who are eligible for reappointment um and seeking reappoint their attendance records will be reflected in that staff report which is our current practice. Um just to note that does not change the the um other piece that is in city code that says any commissioner who may or may not or who may miss three consecutive meetings um that information would be forwarded to the city council. So, this is just updating what kind of goes in the staff report for re reappointments. Um, and last but not least, under C, I don't know if it's necessary, but we did add just a little grammatical s um under individuals. Um, I don't know that it's necessary, but um it's added. So, with that, I'm going to pause and see if you have any questions, if there's other changes you think need to be made, if these reflect what uh you feel is appropriate for the practice. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Olsson. Uh questions or feedback from the council? Council member Shore. >> Um thank you for going over this. I think it does um address, you know, what we had talked about. And I was kind of chuckling about the S because I thought about all the detail you went in and what you're going to go over. So this is I'm I'm not surprised on this one. So So I I think it I think it makes sense. >> Council member Grath, >> I would agree with that. It's good to have these updated every now and then and I think you know what what we do in practice should be reflected in the document and so I feel good about this. >> Other council feedback or questions, comments. >> All right, mayor. If it says individuals, should it say merit then? Uh that was going to be >> if you keep it the way it is without the s you don't have to make any other changes but if you add the s we need to talk >> I will 100% defer to how council members >> I think because we're we're talking about individual appointments it probably just makes sense to refer to an individual in each case. >> Yeah. So that simplifies things >> and then so because otherwise you'd have to take out s on merits and they >> and the grammar. Yes. There's a lot of lot of things happen. and >> policy handbooks all day. >> Yeah. But no, I think the rest of it does track with what our policies are, procedures are. So, um request for then a motion to adopt the updated policy. >> Yes, that would be the second move by council gra second to adopt the updated policy. Discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Grath. >> Thank you to staff for the second council. >> I thank you. >> All right. And other discussion from council members. All right. Uh we've got the motion before us to adopt the updated policy. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. >> And once again, Miss Olsson is still with us to consider uh this even more. We are we have been in a process for the last several months to uh what's known as recottify our city code. Uh and uh I will leave it at that and let I don't want to steal any thunder from Olsson. let her make her presentation this evening. >> Well, thank you, mayor. And actually, this has been in process since 2022. That was when we first started this measured month. >> Still several months. Um, um, yeah. So, we started this process back in 2022. Um, chose a vendor. Um, MUN code is the the co I'm sorry, the vendor. Um, they work with our current agenda management system also, um, which is Civic Clerk. But, uh, as the mayor alluded to, reconfocation is a comprehensive process of reviewing, updating, um, reorganizing, republishing our city code, which includes our laws and regulations. And typically, I would say cities usually try to do this every 10 to 15 years. I believe the last time we did it was close to 30 years ago in 1995. So, it was a very large undertaking. Um, uh, and in here we have the updated code. Um, if you have any questions about the specifics on what is changed, we have multiple review periods, but just wanted to highlight some of those review periods and what they entailed because it was a very large project that um, all staff, particularly department heads and the city attorney worked on um, for a very long time. And so it started with really collecting all of our ordinances. As you know, our current code is um, maintained manually on our website by our deputy city clerk. And so compiling all those ordinances, sending them to Munich Code who then normalized them into a a set format, um sent us a draft draft code um after they did their legal review, which they had a code attorney go through and really conduct a what they call a statute level analysis that flagged inconsistencies or obsolete text. Um they recommended some fixes. I will point out that there were quite a few areas that um were substantive that we were not included in the recontification. Um staff is maintaining a list. So you will probably see things coming forward um on a more routine basis to update some of these things because we were able to go through the almost 900 pages of the city code word by word multiple times and identify areas that probably needed to be updated. But in order to keep this um as simple as possible, uh we took all of the substantive changes out and only did the um the statute level um obsolete or the grammatical changes, those types of things, clarification. Um once we did that, um we then sent our final proof back to Municode who then um reorganized it. One of the things that you will notice is um sections were moved under different areas trying to group them under like like areas that um make a little bit more sense on how to find them. And then they sent us back a final proof which we have worked along with our city attorney to go through to make sure that again nothing was substantive that it made sense that um some of the the cross references and everything were were working well. Um, and then once we had the final proof, they um have printed this and we are now at the stage where we're asking council to consider adopting the code in its entirety. Um, tonight you should have a bench handout which is an updated ordinance. Um, I am going to just um put it here. The we have two ordinances, one ordinance and one resolution which is the summary publication because we don't want to publish this whole thing. this would be your budget might not work well with that. Um, and one of the things that was added to this ordinance is section 8. Um, and really it was added at the recommendation of our city attorney. Um, there were a couple errors that we did find um some changes and everything that might need to be made in this um final proof that allows us to go in um make those nonsubstantive changes. for example, updates to the table contents, reformatting sections, um, or correcting errors that are really inconsequential. Um, so with that, um, I will pause. I wanted to just see if there were any questions, um, at this point. Um, and go from there. >> All right. Questions from the council for staff. >> All right. Um, and I just want to note I think one of the one of the examples of why the section 8 of the enabling ordinance made sense was that um, in one point in the definitions um, a word was defined but the word used in the definition was the word from the the next definition down below. So they had swapped two around. So it's like owner >> and then the definition was an ordinance is. Yeah. >> And then ordinance and owner is. And so they just had swapped those around in the definition. So anyway, that that type of thing certainly I don't think needs to come back to the city council for the extensive review. So I'm glad the attorney has the uh that language all ready to go for these. >> And mayor, one thing I will mention is um we are also working with them for our supplementation. So every quarter we will receive updates. Um the online code will be hosted through them. That will be updated much more frequently. Um I believe I think they said within 24 hours um when an ordinance is adopted. um I think it's 24 hours. Um but then we will get the printed supplementation with all the cross references um every quarter. So the the printed copies that we maintain for our files will also be updated but they will have online um ordinances and the entire city code which will be searchable and accessible and um it's if you ever want a like an overview of it, I'm happy to come back once we get that going. Right. Uh, and just a curiosity, is it required that we actually print our code, maintain a copy at city hall? >> I believe it is. I believe it is. I I think it is. >> Okay. That's what I figured we wouldn't be doing it unless unless it was required. >> It's like in the newspaper. >> Someday that may change. >> Someday. >> Someday. >> Other questions from the council? Uh, is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? >> All right. We tried to make it as exciting as we could. Controversial note. Um, >> one thing I So, this would all be searchable by the residents. So, they could look in the code and everything and be updated every 24 hours. See, this is so much better for residents than the way it's been because otherwise they had to kind of it could be a lag time of >> not just for residents, for staff also. >> Yeah. I'm very excited about being able to council members. Yes. Yeah, >> absolutely. >> Well, and I have to say that what we have now is kind of a step back from what we used to have many many years ago online. Uh it was much more like you know each >> chapter or whatever was it own independent document. So it's much easier to find in that regard. And and that's not a complaint or I don't know how that came to be the way it is now and it probably wasn't people that are sitting at this table but probably not just yeah it was when that happened it was like council >> um I wanted to just u thank you for doing this and I mentioned this to our city manager it you did have to drink a lot of coffee to go I don't know about you the rest of you but going through >> and and in bits in pieces >> and considering it wasn't substantially changed. It was it was kind of a slog. So, I can appreciate the work that that everybody did. It's >> glad I don't have to. >> That's very strong. >> Can I motion to adopt? >> Sure. >> I'll second it. >> All right. And this is to adopt the bench handout enabling ordinance >> which allows for summary. >> Uh well, no, this is the ordinance itself right now. a resolution for the summary and I do have a question on that when we get to >> adopt the ordinance. >> Yeah. >> Is that what you're seconding? >> Sure. That's what I'm seconding. >> All right. >> This is why I clarify. All right. So, we've got the motion before us to adopt the enabling ordinance which is the bench handout including section 8 that was added the attorney's edition. Uh discussion of the motion as the maker of the motion council. A second council. >> All right. Other discussion on the motion? All right, hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Now, before the resolution, um I'm presuming that we wouldn't just publish the enabling ordinance. We would have to publish the whole thing if we didn't do an ordinance summary resolution. >> Yeah. >> Okay. That's otherwise I was to say this is only one page longer than the or than the resolution. So, but okay. All right. Now, I understand. With that, is there a motion to authorize or pass the resolution authorizing the summary? >> Second. >> Thank you for not waiting for me to kind of knew what you were saying. Seconds adopting the resolution uh allowing for the publication of a summary of the code ordinance. Um discussion on the motion. Once again, this does require a twothirds majority, which in the case of five member council is four votes. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. meeting that for requirement. Thank you again to staff and our attorney and everybody else involved in this whole process and we do look forward. Uh the only question I had about the uh substantive changes is I'm imagining that you're you're you're endeavoring to do a bit of a prioritization process. Do we make sure the things that are like most important to get done quickly can take care of some of the more >> I believe our city attorney is already working on some of those. So >> wonderful. That then brings us to item uh 7D uh which is to approve or consider approving updates to the city council advisory commission rules of procedure for remote participation and this is another item coming back before the council have prior discussion and I'll turn it back over to Miss Olson for this item as well. >> Thank you mayor uh council. As you are aware, during the 2025 legislative session, the Minnesota legislature made changes to the state's open meeting law. Um, particularly as it re uh pertains to remote participation. Previously, the law had required that a public official who was participating remotely had to disclose the location of where they were at and that location had to also be um open and accessible to the public. There was an exception to this uh if they were um for example participating in duties um for military service or if they were advised by a medical professional um to not be in a public setting for medical or or personal reasons that was limited to three times per year three times per year. Um the change in state law does remove that requirement to list the remote location in meeting notices and it also removes the three meeting exception um for the military service and health related conditions. Therefore, there are no limits per state law on the number of times a public official can participate remotely. Um there are some other requirements that need to be met in order to do so that are part of the open meeting law. However, at the August 11th meeting, council did provide some guidance after discussion on changes to our city policy. Um, our policy is um our Roseville rules of um procedure for advisory and council. And they pro uh council provided some direction on um limiting the remote participation for up to three times per calendar year. And so staff uh took a stab at updating some language under rule 7, remote participation. Um this is the red line version here and really it just um removes the consistent with Minnesota's open meeting law because if we're adding the three times per year that isn't consistent with the open meeting law and then um also making sure that the all the other notices and requirements of the open meeting law are met. Um down below it also um one of the conversation pieces at that council meeting was making sure that there is um advanced notice um of at least one business day and that is on line 117 that did not change. So with that I will stand for any questions um feedback edits that you'd like to see in this um policy. >> Questions or feedback? Council to say something. I was uh trying to remember Brad just asked. Uh so the the Minnesota law uh allows unlimited remote or I guess my question was more clarification on the military service aspect of it because the wording that we have here if you know someone's deployed they were they can't miss more than three >> participate more than three times is what we're saying. >> That would be correct. >> But Minnesota open main law would allow that. >> Yes. I guess I was just bringing that up if we still want to maintain that or make an exception for that case. >> So, was the prior open meeting law that there was an exception to the three meeting limit for military deployment? >> That's how I read it. I w I would defer to our city attorney for legal interpretation, but my understanding is it was you could use either of those reasons up to three times per year, per calendar year. >> Oh, okay. >> So, Got it. Okay. And I'm just was wondering about uh because I was thinking about the definition of a year recently for some reason. Um, do we uh is it important that it's three times within a calendar year or is it three times with any 12-month rolling period or I mean you know I'm just trying to think of how this practically is going to work for people and you know I don't know if it's that different from each other actually but uh I wanted to ask the question since we're thinking about it maybe it doesn't make any difference because I know like on our our um for example our looker uh compliance check violations is it's three violations within a a 36-month period. So, you know, your look back is from the third one essentially. And I don't know if that is necessary in this case or not, but because of that subject matter, it came to my mind. >> Council member Strong, >> I do say on uh line 46, we do mention the calendar year. Um, so I would be inclined just because our terms tend to run >> 46 of the clean version. >> Yeah, just of our actually on the um the request for action. Okay. Yeah, it was mentioned that encompass what we spoke about before just because our terms tend to run somewhat consistent with the calendar year. that seemed like a >> um I would be inclined to um take council member Bower's uh comment about um active military into consideration since um like this is their permanent home address and if that were the situation I wouldn't want someone to have to be precluded from participation. Um, I know that I think our intention when we said three time limit was to not have somebody living elsewhere. Um, but that's kind of part of our obligation that acknowledge and and respect. Um, and so I would be open to if that were to be the situation to allow them to have a, you know, some type of just the ability to participate remotely during the duration of their assignment if it wasn't longer than a year or something. I think that maybe becomes the question is the length of a deployment because does that as for for example >> as an appointed or elected official does extended absence from the city you know for for military deployment differ from uh extended absence from the city just for qualification for service >> in you know under requirements for elected officials andor for our appointed officials because I know if somebody moves out of Roseville, for instance, they can't serve on an advisory commission anymore and probably can't continue to serve as a council member if I'm not mistaken. But I don't know if there's any exceptions in that for military deployments. I just don't know, >> mayor, council members, uh, in our city code, we do not have any of those, um, exceptions. I don't know about state law. >> I was going to say it would have to be state law that I would think would would talk about that if it does, but I don't know. I don't know if there's even been cases where that's been brought up, but um you know it's military deployments are going to be for a year, 13 months or so. I was thinking more than three meetings for sure. Exactly. >> And from our experience um they are usually unable to participate in in meetings, right? Exactly. Exactly. Maybe we're overthinking this. >> I just wanted to bring up discussion. >> I think it's a good discussion. Would we allow someone the ability to take a leave of absence if they were ill like in the situation of our previous commissioner had he moved? You know, obviously he could have sought reappoint, but undergoing a significant medical illness or medical situation. Well, I think all of our requirement for commissioners is that we are made aware of absences >> and that certainly if somebody is undergoing medical treatment, they're not necessarily no longer residing in the city. They very well could be residing in the city by any definition of residing in the city. So, I don't know that there would be any concern necessarily, you know, other than, you know, putting pressure on them to serve when maybe they should be focusing on something else anyway. Uh I don't know that that's something that's really become an issue or has been an issue. >> Yeah, it's very difficult to have communications when they're going through something seriously say hey you know what do you expect? So I think you're right Mr. Mayor that the attendance policy is about notification to the council and obviously there's going to be maybe extenduating circumstances that at least if you're aware of it then maybe it's a different level of a concern versus somebody just not showing up um to meetings purposely totally >> incommunicado. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> That makes sense. >> So, we've got the request before us. Oh, I should ask if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening appear to be the case. Uh we've got the request before us to adopt the updated uh rules of procedure for council and commissions as presented. Uh is there a motion from council second by council valor to adopt the updated procedure? Uh discussion on the motion as the maker council member McGrath >> I think it's good to have this clarify the second council to add other discussion. I think the only other thing I'll just note is that if we find in our application of it that it becomes problematic we can as council by majority vote always make a change to our rules of procedure. All right, with that the motion before us, all those in favor signify by saying I. I pass. See those rules are updated. >> Right. Thank you, Miss Olsson. All of those items. Uh that then brings us to our consent agenda for this evening. We just have the four items. Mr. Trean, will you give us a rundown of those items? >> Yes. And if I could uh have the computer screen pop up. Okay. Uh, agenda item 10A approves payments in the amount of $1,286,155.99. Agenda item 10B approves expenditures to make repairs at the Oasis Park building and includes the purchase of five Mark squad vehicles for the police department plan for 2026. The cost of this purchase will be partially offset with the sale of an existing police department vehicle. Agenda item 10 C approves accepting grant funds to the US Department of Justice for a cops grant. This funding will provide for up to 75% of the salary and benefit for the next three years for four police officers proposed to be hired as part of the 2026 budget. Then finally, agenda item 10D approves applying for the US Department of Justice grant for uh to use a drone for uh first responder program. The program would deploy drone technology immediately to co uh to calls for service to provide real-time situational awareness. The grant which does not include a city match would uh provide funding for drones, launch stations, software, data management systems and funding for one additional sworn officer for four years and that is the consent agenda. >> Thank you, Mr. Charge. No other questions on the consent agenda or a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second move by council Bower, second by council. Discussion on the motion. very excited about the cops crime. >> Well done to uh the department and everyone involved >> did a wonderful job for writing that. Yes. Thank you. I'll pass that along. >> Discussion. Um and I just want to note I did see a news report on the drone as first responder uh as it's been implemented in Metatonica, I think it was. And it was pretty impressive the way that they're able to assess a situation, you know, more quickly before even squads get on site. And so that's an ability to to sort of triage the response of the city and make sure that we're measuring it to what the situation is or >> Rochester's using it. >> Rochester, too. And and so if there's somebody that's sort of, you know, at large or moving in a direction, the drone can help >> be predictive about where to respond and how to respond. So I thought that was great. >> Um all right, with that, we've got the motion once again before us to adopt those items. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those items are approved. Uh now on to the future agenda, Mr. Treasure. >> Yes. Thank you. So, uh, our next meeting is next Monday. We, uh, have a consideration of the park and rec commission recommendation regarding the Aldine right away. If you remember, you received that and, uh, but did not have any discussion. So, it's about the next steps to do with that recommendation. Look to uh, approve professional service agreement for the construction manager at risk uh, for the civic campus project. That's Krauss Anderson. Also, uh, consider approval of professional service agreements for civil and prosecuting attorneys. Then also uh we'll have a case prepared about the levy impact for an earlier start date uh for the firefighters as you know we talked about that and this is just more information is probably not likely any decision but just information so you're aware we can discuss uh what those implications are. Uh then on November 10th we have an EDA meeting. will receive a TIFF district report. Uh consider adoption the professional service contracts that we discussed before, set the EDA meeting calendar, and then two agreements. Uh one is Metropolitan Liveable Communities Act uh for redevelopment um projects for repayment of the grant proceeds as repayment proceeds for grant funds as loan proceeds. Uh we did something similar in the council, but the EDA has some say in this as well. And then also an amendment to the redevelopment contract for the tiff node for the harbor at Twin Links. Then we'll go into the regular meeting and we'll have the fee schedule. Uh the utility rates, both are just introductions and first conversations about that. Uh on this meeting and the following meeting, I have discussed franchise fees. Um um still kind of waiting for some actual language back and forth, but I we do need to be talking about them. So I just scheduled time for both of them on there. Look to prove the calendar. And we have um I think it's four liquor license presumptive penalty hearings. Uh which is less than we've had in the past, but still too many. Uh, and my understanding, no tobacco violations this time around. And then November 24th, thank you, mayor, because I dropped this off my my list. We didn't lose a meeting in November. Uh, so we'll have Peter Lindstöm, who was my council representative, uh, come and just talk about the upcoming uh, conference and planning process and any other updates. We'll have kind of the business license renewals that start at the first of the year, the first batch of them, and then the franchise fees. Uh, then on December, December 1st, I don't have it listed invest the public hearing for the budget and levy and December 8th is our last meeting of the year where we look to among other things adopt the uh final budget levy the utility rates the fee schedule uh things like that so that is we're down to just about five meetings or six seven >> six all right questions on the future agenda comments other items council members may request for future agendas or reports or announcements the catch all Yeah. >> Um I was um my north meeting which has many different names probably all know well known to mayor about >> I have to sit in his chair because he sat in the same place for so long. I said do I have to sit over here? >> They spent all that money on that gold encrusted chair with the >> and I was like I feel so far away from everybody over here on the side. No, that's where Mayor Latit sitting that far away from everybody. I guess there was people absent, but they made me sit way. I felt like I was in timeout. Anyway, um I just wanted to bring up um thank you to our staff, especially for this MUN code and the city code um codification as they talked about the um the requirements of public websites having to meet certain disability standards. And I'm sure this would be much better um use in that. And so there was a free site but I wasn't able to see if our website passed the muster. Just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that five cities in South Washington County have um joined together to um have a broadband franchise which um North Urban um communication commission is hopeful that maybe something like that would help to replace some of the lost funding. they lost funding from um TPT and from other some other federal and local um state programming. And so they thought maybe um and would also potentially um find ways for there to be discounts for seniors and for just those with disabilities um in the uh and see broadband as more of a uh utility and something that everyone should have access to. So, just hopefully after we're done with this budget process, we can start I know uh Jeff said he'd be reaching out to you, Pratt, but um just knowing that that's something on the offing that they're hoping we um if we are willing to coordinate together that we they thought we could get a better rate and that we could find a way to um have that be a way that we could have fees associated with that because that could contribute to the commission. >> Right. So, more to come on that. >> More to come. Brand new. >> Does that require Do you know did they have to get special legislation for the the communities in in Washington County? >> Um, not from what it sounded like. It sounded like it's a fairly new piece that can be accommodated because of some changes at the state and federal level. >> Good to know. So, I remember testifying at the legislature about trying to get legislation for cities across the states to do franchising. >> Woodbury, Newport, Cottage Grove, Greg Cloud, and St. Paul Park now have that. >> All right, good deal. Um, I did want to just follow up with a question for Mr. Trean on the future agenda review. So, the two discussions about franchise fees, there's also a discussion about a just a franchise ordinance without relating to fees specifically. I know that's been on the agenda, too. Do you anticipate that's maybe part of the first discussion? >> Yeah. Yes. And I'm sorry I just used the franchise fees as kind of shorthand, but there's there's two ordinances uh that just sets the franchise itself for electric and gas >> unrelated to any feature no fees. And then there's a separate ordinance u bring in the fee. We need to accomplish the first before we get to the second. So, like I said, those are kind of placeholders. But when I say franchise fees, I mean the whole franchise discussion um that we need to to go through and currently we're going back and forth on language for the um actual ordinance um itself with Excel. Thank you. Other comments, questions, announcements, reports. All right. The only other item on our agenda this evening is adjournment. >> Some moved. Second. >> All right. It's been moved by Council Strong, second by Council Member Schroeder to adjurnn. Uh, no discussion on a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. That passes unanimously. We adjourned at 7:45 p.m. per our schedule. >> Like when we hit the conf