I hereby call to order the Roseville city council meeting for Monday March 4th 2024 Mr C man call the role please council member St here council member schroer here council member gra here council member Aton mayor row here uh and council member Aton indicated he would not be able to be here this evening uh so note that uh we also by way of introduction have our City attorney Rachel Tierney who's on my right at the end of the day uh and our C manager P Trant is on my left at the other end of the day we also have other staff who will be participating in the meeting this evening and those folks will be introduced as the meeting proceeds uh remind folks if you got a cell phone to assure that it's either silenced or otherwise won't disrupt the meeting with that oh and I should note for members of the public there are any here this evening uh that there are meeting materials in the back of the chamber uh if you need to refer to those under the big clock on the wall there and there's extra copies of the agenda as well with that will ask folks to stand if you're able for the Pledge of Allegiance Pledge aliance to the flag United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all next on our agenda is approval of tonight's agenda uh I'll check out with staff are there any changes that need to be made to the agenda from a staff perspective no changes Mr Mayor all right are there any uh changes council members would like to make to the agenda or items council members would like to remove from the consent agenda for separate consideration does not appear to be the case I still do not see anyone from the public here so we'll presume nobody's here for a consent item from the public at this time with that then I think a motion to approve the agenda as as presented would be in order motion to approve second all right move by council member St second by council member schroer 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 4 to zero we have our agenda for this evening um I will provide an opportunity for public comment on General subject matter although we once again don't have anyone from the public who's apparently here uh I'll just note this is an opportunity at the start of each meeting that we do provide for members of the public to speak to items that either relate to City business or of interest to people in the city but are not on this evening's agenda uh with that we'll move forward then with our agenda we move right into the business items we have our first business item is to conduct a public hearing uh before certifying unpaid utility charges to the property tax role we have our assistant Finance director Josh Kent with us this evening to introduce this public hearing Mr Kent welcome mayor members of the council thank you you good evening there supposed to be a well no you're just in the dark right now so we want we want we want to Enlighten you there we go want to make sure everybody can see you so tonight I bring forth uh before you a request for Council action to approve resolution of certifying any unpaid utility charges to property tax um as authorized by city code sections 506 801 802 and 9 6 uh the city annually certifies uh these unpaid utilities to the county auditor um any charges are in excess of 90 days P due now the list that you have in front of you is the attachment um that was a list of 90 days P due as of December 31st of 2023 uh we did send out notification to all individuals residents businesses of um potentially certifying these to their 2025 property taxes if it was not paid by uh February 23rd um this would also include the balances of any late fees interest that accumulates with that UNP unpaid or late balance as well um so any balances that remained unpaid uh after February 23rd is what you have in front of you right now um this item has typically in the past been um the consent item but has been requested that we move it to a business item um for public comment so with that I bring uh forward a recommendation from the staff uh for approval of the attached resolution Ling unpaid utility and other charges for collection on the proper taxes thank you Mr Kent are there questions for staff on this item council member Sher uh yes thank you for your presentation I'm curious has anyone protested these or um um actually responded from the letters you sent out sure so actually typically we see roughly around 40 to 50% respond back and they do come in and pay or they pay online with their accounts um if they do reach out to us through the phone or email we do offer or inform them that we do have an automatic payment that they could set up online as well whether that be through a or credit cards just as a recurring transaction so like payments would happen right or unpaid fees wouldn't happen so um roughly 40 to 50% do respond back and they do pay before they go on their taxes thank you yep great uh council member SE thank you so how would this um not because I wasn't here but because I don't have that information right away how does this compare to Prior quarters when we've had to certify that yep so I would say it's it's probably right in line um I mean give or take uh about 10 15,000 either way okay thank you and council member gra just curious is it the same people that are on this list year after year uh it tends to be a reoccurring yeah an educational process maybe this will help and just to note so the in the packet that is the after February 23rd that is the after February 23rd yes so right now the uh the UN the uh unpaid uh balances total about 112 113,000 and with late fees and Etc it's 122,000 roughly correct just to give folks an understanding of that all right are there any other questions from Council for staff great seeing none uh we'll go ahead and open the public hearing and provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak to uh the uh request to certify the unpaid balances uh to the tax roles as for noted for 2025 uh once again it does not appear that there is anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item just keep the hearing open for a couple more moments just to be sure and I know we're a little bit ahead of our 615 times set in the uh in the uh agenda but those are all noted that you should probably still be here at the beginning of the meeting uh but with that it doesn't appear we do have anyone here so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing then uh the council has a resolution in the packet and the list uh the accompanying list of uh delinquent charges the appropriate action would be a motion to adopt the resolution so moved second all right it's been moved by council member graph uh seconded by council member schroer uh discussion on the motion uh council member gra as the maker well not discussion I just I it's kind of frustrating I'd love it love it if that number went down so maybe maybe with this change I don't know if that's going to help that's my goal sure and council member Scher is the second right any other discussion right yeah it sometimes you wonder if people are using this system as a way to manage their cash flow or something along those lines but that being said uh we've got the motion before us to adopt that resolution uh all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously and that resolution is approved uh 4 to zero uh and we look forward to the next quarter in uh the next hearing uh with that then we proceed to item 7B which is to uh consider approving uh the street light policy uh this item was presented to council at a prior meeting uh and there was some feedback provided and staff is bringing this back this item back uh in response to that and I'll turn over to our Public Works director Jesse fry Hammer to uh bring this back before the council Mr fr uh thank you mayor and councel um as the mayor indicated we talked about this a few meetings ago um did bring it back with just a few changes based on feedback so just a real brief presentation um so our current policy as I mentioned last time was uh adopted in 2003 it did identify kind of a procedure so this is kind of items we're going through um it did identify funding source sources um our Lighting systems all 1400 lights that's not really changing as of right now but it could uh and then kind of some of the summary of what the proposed changes are so the big thing we're looking at doing is differentiating the lighting District So currently there's really an enhanced district and the standard District um we would keep that standard District the same pretty much um the business district would be new and those would be defined areas uh on this map it's shown in green those would be the current ones we would Define uh they would have to petition to based on the proposed policy that would have to get petition to be added to those districts U the enhanced lighting District would remain the same so those requirements no nothing major would change and then the city special district it's already in place we're just defining it those would be the areas in red where we the city have decided to to do a higher level standard for for City run projects um standard lighting District um like I said this would pretty much cover what the existing policy says all intersection and curves um based on Cil feedback we did make it pretty clear that we would install the lights at all intersections in marked crosswalks um I know the map shows uh about 156 we think some of those with either um they're too close to another signal or other things we think the total number that we would actually install new would be about 120 um some of those would involve new polls others they would just be dropping a cobra head off an existing pole um depending upon the installation cost most of these should just be paid by Excel and we'll just pay as you go so that would uh increase our annual cost about $16,000 for those and then we think we'd work with Excel and probably take about three to five years to install those um it could speed up but um we'll work with Excel certainly if they need to put new polls in that'd be a little bit and then we did put in the policy that we would for any new installations we would notify Jason Property Owners within 300 ft ahead the light installation um more of a courtesy um but uh not really a chance for them to to argue that midblock Crossings this was the other big change so we did reduce the petition requirement for midblock Crossings to 60% we matched that based on the enhan what was currently written in the H petition District um and then that would be for all Property Owners within 150 fet of a propos light um we did also do some uh we remove the existing lighting standards from the policy that's kind of uh more based on engineering standards as as as lighting changes or whatnot and then um we did not put any procedure in for uh uh street light removal so the current policy currently doesn't have it um based on Council feedback we just left that as is um we haven't really had that request in the past so I don't think it's needed at this time um and then funding like it this was kind of some of the numbers the only change on the the slide is like you mentioned the we would have some increased costs we'd probably have to budget for for it we're not accounting for the future Replacements so there actually could be some savings some of the new lighting areas and some of the commercial ones as we downsize that should save us some some costs but in general I think the fact we're adding 100 some lights because of the intersections there would be some slight increase uh street light replacement currently this is 52,500 in this year's CIP that number changes year to year um and I know based on this policy we'll certainly update that for uh Council consideration as we look into the budgets uh going going forward um and then just there was just kind of how we came to the cost per lights um typically in the residential areas that cost is 10 to $20 and then a lot of the the resident or commercial areas are about $ 221 per month um and then based on this kind of the proposed policy like uh as we kind of showed last time the Centerpoint District kind of a good example of what a business district would look like we'd almost reduce ligh almost 50% so that's Al that saves on Capital costs as well as long-term operating costs um and then the aaso Hills neighborhood this will be the one neighborhood we will treat as an enhanced District so that's something that we'll probably send out later this summer at least starting getting feedback if if that neighborhood still wants to retain the lighting to what they currently have um or or or modify as it goes for but we treat that through that enhanced part part of the policy so with that um certainly answer any questions that the council may have all right thank you Mr frymer are there questions from the Council on the proposed updated policy um I did have a a couple of questions one is uh just to refresh people maybe who who weren't paying attention the first time or didn't see this the first time um the commercial area standard is still closer spaced lighting than residential areas if I remember correctly so even though we're reducing the lighting for example in the centerp Point area it's still going to end up being more lighting than if that was an equivalent residential area am I correct in that correct yeah the residential is basically 600 feet the commercial with the proposed is roughly 200 250 so almost three times as much lighting yet so um it depends some areas will be probably between 50 and probably 50 and 75% sure so as an example that once again The centerp Point area probably has about four to six times as much lighting as a typical resid Cal area as it is now okay uh and then on the uh working with Excel for the for the addition of the intersections and Mark crosswalks uh is it going to be a process where we just do it sort of geographically or are we going to prioritize for safety or how is that going to be looked at um we'll probably try to do the crosswalks all for sure first um we don't have as near as many of those um otherwise we might just send the list to Excel and have them give us their feedback some might be really easy where you just have to attach a cobra head they those are very easy to do um ver if you have to put a poll and extend power that'll take a little bit more planning so we'll probably work with Excel to prioritize but um staff will definitely try to prioritize the the crosswalks first because um the majority of the crosswalks that are identified our our mid block Crossing so less likely that a typical driver is expecting a pedestrian right no thank you for that are there uh question other questions from Council all right we'll just check if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item it still appears to be the case that we don't have any members of the public uh the requested action is uh to approve the uh proposed street light policy uh as attached in aend uh excuse me as attached to the uh Council packet so moved second all right it's been moved by council member schroer second by council member St to approve the streetlight policy as presented uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion council member Scher I think we've had a lot of discussion on this already so I'm I'm comfortable where it's at all right as the second or council member strong fully agree all right any other discussion or concurrence with thatr it seems that way all right well once again we have the motion before us to approve the uh streetlight policy as presented uh if there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously that policy is approved four to zero thank you again Mr frymer uh that then brings brings us to item 7 C which is to consider uh a draft of a lodging establishment licensing ordinance this item is uh something that the legislature gave us the ability to put into place at the last legislative session and Mr Tren our city manager has been heavily involved in this throughout the process of both getting the legislation as well as developing the uh the uh ordinance and so U Mr trean will be the presenter this evening yes I will thank you Mr Mayor I thought I'd be sitting down here so I could see you versus turning my neck to the right there so uh thank you for introducing the topic this is um real exciting for the City of Roseville at least we're at uh the next stage of looking to establish uh licensing requirements for our lodging establishments uh I have a lot of background in here that I know that all of you are familiar but I thought it' be helpful just to walk through here a little bit and then we'll get into the specifics uh of the ordinance so with that so as mentioned the past couple years one of our main legislative priorities have been requesting the leg ISL passed a law that allows us to uh directly license lodging establishment currently uh hotels are licensed more for environmental health and sanitation uh uh purposes by the Ramsey County um but we did not have the ability under the current state law to actually regulate and license hotels unless we took over the health authority so that's why we needed special legislation um and this is really borne by uh persistent problems at several of our hotels um that range from uh police calls to Medical calls uh to Code Compliance calls fire code issues that we just saw over and over again um we started this whole process and how do we try to deal with that how do we have tools to make sure those things are corrected with a repeat nuisance uh that's something that we had in the books for a while for Residential Properties and multif Family Properties but in 2021 we did amend our code to specifically uh have uh standard for lodging establishments where if more than 10 calls per month were at a lodging establishment they would be charged a nuisance fee of like $250 and we've been having that in place um since 2021 you may ask why 10 as we looked at the data um was really um just at police calls by themselves we saw a big difference of hotels of the 12 hotels we have three of them were consistantly in double digits uh calls per month while the other hotels and there's a chart here showing I'll show in a second that were under um single digits on a per month basis so in 2021 we had three hotels averaging 19 to 45 calls per month the average number was uh three per month for the other nine hotels um since then we have seen some reduction in numbers of calls as partially because two of the three hotels we entered into memorandums of understanding this was something that was allowed in the nuisance section uh that required them to do certain things such as uh video um surveillance locked doors and things like that so we have seen a lessening of calls however uh I think as the police and fire department can attest and even our code uh folks can attest or continues to be problems there um oftentimes they're not initiated uh by the hotel um just leaving that out there that even though there's a lot of activity out there they're not officially breaking the 10 month per call uh 10 calls per month uh threshold here we've seen that drop but as can be seen I think in the next slide here we still see um fairly high amount of calls in comparison to our other hotels if you look at 2023 you see 15 calls six. 75 and 8.58 nearest one at five and everything else pretty low numbers and you can see that trend from 2018 where uh we had 39 calls and 23 calls and 12 calls and eight and it does VAR each year uh year to year you can see in 2021 actually Double Tree was up a little bit um but uh that was kind of more of a standout year uh versus a trend you can see how this has trended over time the three hotels are consistently above that threshold and uh remain that way uh even after entering into the mou the Norwood and keyn were subject to anou so just to give you some perspective on there so that was really the Bas of why we instituted the repeat nuisance because of the amount of calls that uh hotels these three hotels in particular were giving us and tying up our resources we certainly understand we're a busy City we understand hotels you have a lot of people congregate there stay there and there's going to be issues there uh for sure as you get people together and and what we were saying with this was that we understand that and we're happy to respond and deal with those things as they come up but when there are so many calls in one particular place that taken away our resources and there does not seem to be any institutional control to make sure that those calls are lessened um for for a variety of reasons whether security or uh practices for um renting out their space um and other control throughout the day and night that there needs to be some action taken having said that we felt that licensing was probably the more effective way to go about it because that way we could make sure that they're adhering not just to repeat nuisance and police calls but also other code issues to make sure that there's basic standards that um people can expect staying in Roseville that are met there are some very unsafe and unsanitary conditions in our hotel some hotels um and we want to make sure we have the ability to correct that our goal here isn't to shut down hotels our goal is to have hotels comply with the very basic minimum standards that are safe for people that is not uh drain on our resources so you know some of the things that happened once again I I know the council is familiar with that in 2018 there was an overdose death of somebody uh dealing um think this was heroin and Fentanyl U that led to a death of a young lady 2017 we had somebody actually um at another hotel uh deal heroin to uh a guest and this person was employed by the hotel and that person is now in jail thank goodness but uh these are things that we're seeing on a regular basis once again um Hotel can always control who maybe rents a room what happens in their rooms when we see this repeated pattern a very serious criminal activity and that leads to death I think that um um behooves us to take uh appropriate action to make sure that our our hotels uh are safe and can have uh people stay there without um this chaos and this death and this violence around them we also see uh multitude of code violations these are just some examples of what we've come across and um several of our hotels have ongoing building safety issues and code issues they include non-functioning fire suppression systems inoperable smoke alarm systems broken windows flooding mold issues and common areas in the rooms and abandoned vehicles in their parking lots and for those that have been on the council for a few years oftentimes a couple times we brought forward uh replication of occupancy presence uh because of these code violations and we've had the conversation here at the council and uh typically what's happened in those past cases is they go right to the Limit and then make the most minimal changes do enough to get the COO back certificate of occupancy back but we know as we go back a few months later we see some of the same same problems so we've really felt strongly and I appreciate the council's support on this to really pursue um legis ative solution to allow us to directly license hotels so last year the uh State Legislature did pass a bill uh that does allow municipalities to license hotels lodging establishments is probably the best way to say it uh it was very basic legislation what you see on the top right there is the total law um it just says that we can require lodging establishments to comply with state and local laws as a condition of the license we did cap the uh license fee to $150 you see Chief shider uh uh testifying down to the legislature we were joined by Ramsey County uh Attorney John Choy in support of this and actually uh we had uh I think deputy chief Adams Even testified at one point uh for one of the uh hearings and very positive support from the legislature across the the board there and I think the only uh challenge we had was the hospitality Minnesota was a little bit concerned about what this would play out in the rest of the state they certainly understood uh the reasons why Roseville is doing it uh so we did work with them the best we can and um continue to work with them and I've shared this um um draft ordinance with them and they um have no particular objection um with what we're doing here they understand why we're doing it um of course there's always the concern about unintended consequences or effects that happens and sometimes you're not going to know until you put this in place here but uh overall uh it's been pretty uh understood why we're doing it we also held a meeting on February 15th with the hotel operators here in Roseville worked very closely with visit Roseville as well uh we had eight of the 12 um Hotel operators in attendance as well as um several members of uh the largest hotel operator TPI that has four hotels here in Roseville some um some higher up folks there in attendance and they also serve in the board of hospitality Minnesota so once again we're trying to have a very good constructive dialogue to be honest as result of that meeting we're able to tweak some some language in the draft code that you have in front of you tonight to address some of the their concerns on there so throughout this process we try to be very transparent on why we're doing it and trying to mold the ordinance in a way that will work for us and uh provide us additional tools to deal with some problem hotels so let's get right into the actual ordinance um and this is just a quick summary um of the ordinance but um there's a couple definitions we Define hotel motels and lodging establishments as reference under State statutes just to be clear in what we're governing here we do have a term called interested persons and this is um comprised of people that would be on-site managers of the establishment owners or operators of the hotels as well as anybody that has 5% interest in the entity applying for holding license we want to make sure that we um in that description capture people that have control over the hotel and can make decisions as part of that hotel and are there on a regular basis to make sure um things are maintained properly and uh behavior is um orderly we also Define license premises so this does not just include the actual building hotel but includes the surrounding area such as a parking lot or any other such spaces they may have under their control we want to make sure it's very clear that it's not just limited to what's inside the building and it's outside of the property as well uh we Define our nuisance related activities uh that we can define a nuisance and this is a pretty expansive um list uh of things um that uh could be determined to be a nuisance um sex trafficking or prostitution public nuisances as defined under the state statutes uh nuisances under city code and noise violations that's chapter four five 47s are nuisances underage or I'm sorry unlawful sale uh possession of controlled substances unlicensed sales of alcoholic beverages unlicensed sales of cannabis and low pocy hemp products that's something we need to add given the changes in state law unlawful gifts uh or unlawful consumption to persons under 21 of those products unlawful use or possession of firearm firearm Parts violations of state law or city ordinances way to licensed activities and then uh actions which constitute disorderly contact on the state statute so we try to cast a pretty wide net there so we have um all potential violations um that could be determined to be a nuisance uh covered by that um some of the basics in 31702 we obviously would ask all Hotel operators to fill out an application uh we do require them to receive a license to um actually operate and that license would be approved by the city council as part of the application we want uh a listing of all interested persons related to the lodging establishments and we will do background checks criminal background checks and all folks that are listed as interested persons uh we would also make sure that U The Establishment is um inspected both initially before the license is granted and continually throughout the process whether that's renewal or if there are complaints uh we may impose reasonable conditions on the license such as requiring certain things to be done uh for that hotel uh this can be done at the start uh when we issue the license all the way through in the middle of the license or um um a renewal of the license and that could that could vary depending on what the need is and there might be some standard conditions we might want to put but I I would imagine two depending on each individual tell in the situation that uh we see them in we may have some additional uh conditions as part of that we also have an ability uh to wave certain requirements um based on those conditions as long as we enumerate them in the conditions an example of that and this came back from the feedback from our meeting with the hotel operators is is that we don't allow for interested persons or employees to stay at the hotel uh flashing back to the 2017 incident when you had somebody on site through 247 uh doing some pretty bad things we do not want to see a repeat of that but they did raise a a question about as um owners of multiple hotels and rosv oftentimes corporate will come to the hotel stay overnight to check the operations to meet with staff and may be there for a day or two and uh we wanted to make sure we could accommodate situ very specific situations like that uh that is something we would write into the conditions as we approve that so this hotel can have um certain people stay over uh night as long as they're conducting business as an example we'll have to work on on that so there's other examples uh that you can may think of uh so instead of just making that special exception we did have the ability for us to um wave some requirements depending on the specific need and once again that that will be listed on the license and the condition so it's very clear uh it's not a handshake agreement not just because Pat said so uh it's going to be more uh listed out there and very very clear on what what can be done what can't be done um let's see here oh the extended state permit um had some questions on that so we did think that it's important to call out um uh stays that are longer than 30 days we do have some hotels uh that have people uh staying in a hotel for a lot longer than 30 days uh becomes a living Arrangement uh some cases oftentimes uh that's fine other times that can lead to some particular problems um and activities in the room that either U maybe not criminal but are dangerous for instance bringing in hot plates or other other things to cook their meals in a hotel that's not set up hotel room that's not set up to do that for instance so those are things that we at least want to make sure we understand what hotels are going to allow for stays longer than 29 days um one is just for information so we're aware of that but two to make sure that the arrangements set up for that are appropriate there's appropriate um facilities and uh safeguards to make sure that that is not going to be a problem some hotels do it as a regular business model you know and they design rooms in a certain way uh other hotels may not and so we want to make sure sure there's at least a pause along the way to make sure we understand what they're proposing uh what they're doing and making sure there's appropriate things in place that we can be confident that that's not going to be an issue as it's written right now we expect to U renew the license annually around January 1st uh I can have some conversation depending on the timing of when we actually approve that my sense is that we would want to uh get some licensing going obviously this year and then um so may be before six months period initially let's just say uh then at the start of 2025 they would have to have a new new license in place um if the uh application is denied the initial application they have the right to appeal and that would probably play out coming to the city council to make that final final decision uh on that I do expect that we're going to uh be very thoughtful and deliberate on any decision and uh have the council weigh in as much as possible throughout that process often times there's kind of the administrative step where staff may deny it or recommend denial uh for something or some conditions that we would um expect that would make it way up to the council for final approval on that if a licensed application is denied the applicant will have to wait 12 months before applying again for lodging establishments so that effectively means they would not be able to operate a hotel um for a year uh there's always going to be the concern about the transition if we deny a license and it's currently operating it's Hotel there is some language in um the draft ordinance that they have uh 15 days uh to cease operations and so that's going to be a challenge I I I don't want to say that it's not because you're going to be dealing with real people and situations that people have to relocate but at the same time we need to have some process where it stops being a hotel uh until um they a are eligible and then assuming they're eligible that they can comply with all of our regulations so uh some basis 3703 talks about the basis of denial for licenses and I think this is mostly kind of at the GetGo at the initial um issuance of it um and what you would expect not complying with relevant health and safety codes an interested person having a license suspended or revoked uh in another city or someplace else uh repeat nuisance service call imposed by the city of rosille by or by another jurisdiction being delinquent in property taxes assessments or other Financial claims such as lodging taxes or utility charges and then uh an interested person that has oversight of the DAT operations having one of more criminal convictions relating to logic establishments so we're once again trying to cover U the gamut of things that potentially could be problematic in making sure that the uh operation of the hotel is safe uh and these are things that we'd be looking at pretty hard I would say that each case is going to be individual and will weigh um the situation accordingly and um um there's always an issue of magnitude um also history and the impacts uh it does have but uh I know um that we're going to look at this very carefully because we don't want to set up a situation where we know there's particular issues that haven't been addressed and ignore them wait for a year for something to happen and then try to take some action so um we'll rely on this pretty heavily as we do the initial scrutiny to make sure that um they're complying uh to these type of requirements uh 31704 gets into the minimum standards of operation um uh there's a long La laundry list of them but making sure that uh people are registered in the room and providing suitable identification uh informing the city of any illegal activities having U video surveillance systems in the first place but also uh proper maintenance and access to that by our our law enforcement folks uh prohibiting the rental of hotel rooms on an hourly basis there is an exception in there for the truck companies but generally speaking um we can't it out for the hourly basis not permitting The Residency of a lob establishment for more than 30 days unless they have an Extended Stay permit uh and the residents uh and you know the the staying of persons of interested person employee manager contractor at the logic establishment to get out some of the persistent problems we saw in some of the hotels and as I said that was something that was raised by the hotel operators as being something that may not work for their particular hotel and so having that ability to W certain requirements um would give us that ability to work through that um for that particular Hotel uh we want to make sure there's a register of persons who are staying at the lodging establishments if we have to do some followup and then also um this is pretty basic but um doesn't always happen cooperating with authorities in response to an emergency call for servers or reports of suspicions or legal activity we want to make sure uh that the owner and their employes are working with us to um resolve an issue uh versus being um not helping us this is the best way to say it uh 31704 also goes into minimum standards of operations and these are just some Basics a proper entry door toilet laboratory bathtu a shower uh heating air conditioning a smoke detector and fire sprinkler closed closet and 24hour access to telephone access that became an issue in one of our hotels when we had just had an incident we want to make sure that people in that room can call 911 services or the front desk so uh once somebody does have a license uh we have a range of penalties that um can be done anything from a fine to an imposition of additional reasonable conditions to suspension of a license to all the way to the revocation of a license um any of these um um measures would uh need to be imposed after a full notice of the allegation an opportunity for um to be heard regarding the allegations and penalties I imagine for some of the minor things that might be coming from staff and they could appeal to me on that and then if they didn't like what I decided they could appeal to the council I think this is my preference but uh I think for some of the larger items like suspension and revocation we would want to bring to the council U for decision but um so um hopefully we don't we won't get there once again our attention isn't shut down Hotel but we need to have tools in place to make sure that proper behavior and conditions are met um for the community expectations so um oh one more uh these These are these are the um uh the what can be um I'm I trying to say this uh the penalties that we were imposed would be based off these things so U minimum standards uh non compliance with law in position of repeat new service calls because I would say that that is still effect as well and we're not get rid of that um arrest related to Legal activities occurring on the premises State violation of State Health codes nuisance calls maintaining premises to all uh code standards failure to follow correction orders uh interested person with a Criminal conviction Rel into L establishments failure to notify of additional interested persons that are part of the ownership uh then failure to pay taxes assessment utilities and local lodging tax once again this is um as they have the license in place if things occur during the place we can then Institute a penalty from a fine all the way up to the revocation uh the last thing I think that was the last of my slides there um is that in your H packet is um the racial Equity toolkit we did uh look at that um thought not very carefully about uh what we're doing here some of our hotels that are PR hotels are lower uh budget um hotels and uh we would expect um that the standards would certainly impact more than um more of the corporate owned hotels and certainly the people that stay at those places don't have all the means so we're well aware of potential um impact um some of our enforcement may have in the short term uh on those hotels and the people staying there but we also think that's it's important that we have standards that um we can all expect when we walk into hotel and just because you can't pay a lot for hotel room doesn't mean you should settle for anything less so uh we feel comfortable in going ahead with these knowing that in the short term it might be uh challenging but long term uh everybody should be better off and we'll have better Hotel operators in in the city of rville so with that I will pause and be happy to answer any questions City attorney attorney uh worked great on this I think we had 14 drafts before it was finally done and all the staff behind me here all worked on it as well and we're part of it it's going to be a massive undertaking once we pass this because this is something that we're not necessarily staff for we don't have a hotel license uh Guru uh it's G to be a collective action by all of us who we're going to work together and we know initially implementing this will take a lot of work um but we all feel it's worth it because um I've been City Manager for 10 years and we've been talking about hotels for at least that long and we continue to have problems so we really hope we can uh get to the bottom of some of the root causes and not have the continual problems we see in certain hotels so with that I will pause all right thank you Mr trudon are there questions for staff from members of the council um council member strong I have many but I'll start here um is there I don't see anything in there requiring a minimum age for the renters is that something that we can place in our requirements I don't see why we couldn't I'm not sure what state law says and I'm looking to the attorney on here we don't have that specifically call you're right about that um I'm not sure if person's under 18 can rent a room in the first place under state law but I don't know I've made a note okay well we check on that yeah yeah I just think especially if we're concerned about underage drinking um I know that Proms and other things like that can be a very big night for people obviously their parents can rent rooms for them but if they can't rent it themselves that maybe helps deter a little bit um is there any way that we could require that their current on their utilities in order to have a license yep absolutely and so so when when when they're delinquent in the utility that's something we can not issue a license in the first place or suspend fine revoke uh for that so that that's language we made sure was in there because we see that on a regular basis perfect um is there a possibility that another type of building could fall into the lodging establishment category um like apartments that maybe would be rented on short basis um maybe some of our short shortterm rentals a condo a bed and breakfast rooming House Resort and kind of what Provisions have we made for those possibilities well we have the definition of hotel motel and lodg and establishments as defined Interstate statutes I can't see I can recite cover um look at the City attorney if you know of any um difference between what we're talking about now what is potentially could be covered by this as well under the I think the biggest thing difference I I saw was that in the state license uh State information it was five or more rooms and I don't see that added to our um ordinance that the definition was five or more rooms um under the Minnesota statute council member council member we we well I will check on that um but I remember when we wrote the lodging establishment definition in the hotel motel we refer directly to state law so I will make sure that that is accurate and and maybe it might be smart to make it clear too so we'll take a look at that yeah I just want to know I know we had a conversation within the last year about with a condo owner who most of the condo units were no longer being rented or occupied and were condo units I don't know that they would fall under this short term but I know that when I've stayed at Airbnb type things there have been times when I've stayed in apartment buildings and they've rented out the individual Pieces by Night by night so I don't see when I do a curse research that there are establishments but I feel like if we can be proactive and kind of plan for the possibilities it would be helpful well council member St I will tell you that within this this rental space between a rental license an Airbnb a hotel a motel a BNB there's a lot of ambiguity caused by the way the world has changed in the last 10 years so what I can you know I think that'll continue to evolve in the definitions that we apply in the way that cities regulate them but we may have to learn a little bit while we're while we're flying here um to figure out how how these things work I've talked to some of my colleagues working for other cities and nobody's had a problem come up yet but we all are kind of aware that maybe that could happen Okay and maybe if I could just clarify to I don't think our intent is to license people who are doing short-term rentals in homes or kind windows or that sort of thing so unless I'm wrong about that we if we can be more clear in our language and definitions I agree that would be would be helpful and I do know in looking at that as we were looking at our at our short-term rental licensing program at the time you know there are it seemed fairly distinct in the state law up to a point but yeah to the extent we can be clear about it I think that makes sense just I had two final one comment I'm sad that the $150 seems quite inadequate for the amount of efforts especially background checking you know that's two background checks I'm sorry if interrupt so the fee if the license fee is $150 but we can also charge for the background check so okay cover that but the overall fee is C 150 which is is pretty low that was something that um as we're going through the legislature there was some concern about cities overcharging so that was an amendment um based on the hospitality industry to put in there and from my perspective the money didn't matter so to much as want the law passed in the first place so certainly well the last thing I was just wondering if there was going to be any impact um on the ordinance or the ability for any um of the establishments to gain licensing based on theou that's currently in effect so if you have a memor understanding with some of these problematic will that impact any of their licensing options well my my sense is that uh what was contained in those M us would at the minimum be part of their license conditions right so right from the GetGo and we probably add to that um theou was kind of a bridge since we didn't have any formal requirement that we can make them do stuff that they could voluntarily enter so I would imagine those would um while maybe still existing become a little bit more moood and just the license would take you know really the have the teeth and making sure those things are done properly sure thank you and just on that point I would imagine that if somebody was delinquent in their performance under a memorandum of understanding that could be taken into account in terms of the consideration of a license application okay thank you uh council member strong council member shorter and then C yeah thanks for the presentation uh I just have a few uh questions you touched on this the extra resources that the city's going to need to do this I think you talked about an additional person to oversee it or or will who will be doing the inspection I assume it'll follow into the fire department's realm so so so I'm sorry Council M if I misspoke I'm not saying we need to have a person to do this saying we since we don't have a person doing this this can be Collective action and and I would say while this will take a lot of work uh to initiate and especially to educate first time around we're all spending that time right now dealing with that U because of the problems um so uh the sense is that's going to be um the actual license and the application will be handled on Administration uh fire will do the fire inspections Community Development do the Community Development inspections that they have police will weigh in as well as regarding calls and conditions and uh what we'd want to do so it's really going to be a team effort that we would meet on a regular basis especially from the GetGo to really sort out the particular issues at each hotel and talk through involving the City attorney as well as we look at those conditions so you think you have enough resources at least to start with this yes I think we do yeah I think the ongoing um maintenance of of this um whole process yet to be seen how much time it's going to take I do think it's really important out of the gate to make sure we set the standard and I think if we get the expectations out there uh like any other program there's going to be some busy times of the year but hopefully it's not going to be too burdensome but time will tell okay great and then um we talked about the or the motel hotel holds the license but then you have this interested party piece so I'm a little confused on that so you'd have one of the interested parties actually applying for the license but I it almost sounds like say if someone was the owner and then there was a manager who's also an interested party and they did something wrong could that then cause the license to be suspended even though they're not the ones that applied for the LIC so and I'll look to the attorney here but we're asking for the entity the business to apply for the license so that would typically be the owner the interested person is as you described could be the manager it could be somebody that's 5% could be the operator of the hotel could be the actual owner if any one of yeah if any one of those persons has a particular violation we can hold that license that license holder being the business accountable for actions whether it's a fine suspension replication but it's really the licenses with the business and the owner I'm looking to miss journey to see if I'm little gray he's close um it's more about it's more about who is going to run the place and so you know a corporation is is a faceless name it's just words and so what what you need to know as a licensing Authority is who's going to operate the place and are they um are they a good a good operator so if we have someone for example who just came over here from Wisconsin where they ran a broel instead of a hotel do we have to give them a license no and we're not going to track that to a corporate entity that's not how corporations work they change their names we track that to a person and so we want to know who the important people are in the um Corporation in the business so that we can make sure whoever is operating the hotel is suitable to operate the hotel we do this in liquor licenses and another similar license where we dig just a little bit deeper into who's operating The Establishment so we make sure that they can safely operate it and that the public isn't put at risk by who is operating The Establishment well I think about um with so you have night managers and day managers and the turnover with employees could be you know frequent and that's that's kind of more where I was getting at yet you you may have a general manager but then you'll have the night manager and the weekend manager and so any one of those could cause an issue then I would say generally what the way that most cities would would look at something like this in and obviously not in Minnesota not with hotels but with you know liquor licenses or bars or something like that they'll look at a general manager probably not dig as deep as the assistant manager but the general manager because what can happen in certain organizations that aren't running the way that cities would um aren't being staffed by individual cities would believe are qualified they'll have a license denied and then they'll switch the name to their buddy next door and now they're the general manager and that's really what the purpose of the interested person is is to dig deeper into to make sure that you're you're the people running the place or the people you believe are running the place okay the higher up level and then um my last question is on the background investigation the background check what is it that we are actually looking at when we're doing that and I know there were some things that could happen that would prevent them from getting a license but what specifically would I mean is there something else that you might find in this background other than some of the things you mentioned that could possibly disqualify them again this is really it's a criminal background check okay it's not it's not their credit or we're not running a crial we're running a criminal background check and then just so you know you're on a criminal background check you're you're limited by a couple things one of them is in order to disqualify a person from obtaining a license or in this case from being an interested person their background check would need to have some kind of crime that related to the business itself so if someone wants to work as a desk manager and they had a DWI five years ago we don't care we can't care there's also a state law on on Den buying a license based on criminal convictions the city has to evaluate how old it was how related it is to the occupation and then also tell the person hey we're denying you this license for this reason and they have a right to rebut that and say I'm rehabilitated I'm off probation uh here's my probation officer's name and we have to take all of those things into account in denying a license good no that's good to know right thank you that's that's all I had and just a clarification the other thing that we can look at though as was brought up by Mr Tron is if they've had a license denied or suspended for similar operations in another jurisdiction which I don't know if it comes up in a criminal background check necessarily but it's something we're also looking at under the same category as being appropriate to have the license how would you find that generally the license application will ask if they've owned businesses in other places um that's one way and and sometimes we hear rumors from other cities and figure it out okay okay thank you you know for instance on our massage therapist license we do ask um whether H license and license has been remoted on the application so it's supposed to tell us if we they don't we find out that's also ability for us to deny that therapist license but um yeah there oftentimes there's there's a word out there that you know um certain operators may not be okay thank you appropriate and just one final clarification we wouldn't necessarily deny based on the rumor we would still have to confirm the information first yes okay just to be clear uh Council M graph thanks for your patience oh no problem yeah there's so many concerns I have about the gray areas here so I'm really glad that you're saying that this is an ongoing process because I can see tons of unintended consequences coming up with this uh with this and I understand our big goal and I'm totally on board with that because I would like to reiterate most of our hotels are run very well in Roseville we have a few problems and those are the ones we're targeting the Congers tonight could be Mis construed as a we have a terrible problem with all the hotels and rs we do not so having said all of that um I I'm concerned about the extend of stay there are people that do that uh I've known people who came to work in a city for a number of months and they just wanted a hotel room why would we why would we make that a requirement I guess is what I'm asking in customer graph you're talking about the requirements and how the room is set up yes particular yeah so we we we did put that in there to make sure that if somebody was um going to be an Extended Stay which is more than 29 days and I think we cap it at six months if I recall um that there are certain things since they're staying there more like a residence then just a guess that there are some facilities as part of that in that room that would be um more um expected for somebody that's staying there for a longer period of time so some business models and some hotels have those Extended Stay um when they have multiple rooms and a full kitchen um that's not always the case of course um and so once again getting back to that waiver if there is a restaurant or a a dining area in the place for instance we may say you don't need to have a kitchen in this particular instance what we want to get away from is people just renting hotel rooms out just a standard hotel room having people stay there for months and not really understand what's happening in those places whether it's a heavy content um there's a lot of junk in there or they're doing uh doing cooking uh in there that they shouldn't be doing so that's the intent but I I understand where you're coming from I think there's kind of a two Edge uh two edges to this that if if we over overly regulate we're going to impact some people perhaps unfairly and while we're trying to get at some of those persistent problems and once again this isn't saying you can have an extended uh stay it's that we just need to be notified that you're proposing this and then we look at that specific situation to make sure that is actually an Extended Stay versus just having somebody stay there for three months because they have no other place to go which raises some other issues I understand but um it's not just for a traditional business model where they have extended stay for for people coming in town because they're working on a construction project project or in town as a part-time job or something like that so um yeah or they're under a contract for a number of months or something yeah that does bring up another issue is because because of the way that's worded uh one of the things I really don't want us to see is increasing our homelessness Problem by putting Ono burden on you know some people don't have the first and last month's rent so they are staying in a motel or hotel as housing and it continues on longer than probably even they would like but they're not in a financial position to do that I would really hate to see the city putting people out on the street we already have problems with people living in parks with that situation so I think we need to think about that and address that because that that is not where I would want to head with this ordinance other than that oh the other thing would be is if we revoke a license and they have two weeks notice that does create a problem for people that have already booked in those hotels um I I don't know I don't know the answer to that but that is another concern I would have so um those are the things that I made notes on I don't know if you the answers to anything there great uh council member St you had a thought yeah I just wanted to add I while I fully understand that I'm hopeful that um most of our hotels don't want to be in the position of having their license revoked or even a possibility of it um my uh extended family is coming to stay in two weeks and it's embarrassing to say please don't stay at these hotels don't look at those hotels it I don't want them to inadvertently go to one of these places that I know isn't somewhere where I would I would be embarrassed that if this the first time to Minnesota and this is where they're going to stay to hang out with me um I mean I'd rather have them sleep on my floor and they don't want to do that so um I I appreciate that all of those things I'm hopeful as I think you probably are that we're hold we're calling them to a higher standard the goal isn't to shut them down but to require and impel them to bring their facilities to a higher standard so that it is not necessary at least that would be my thought is that if they didn't want to be in the business business of having a hotel then they should sell the hotel to someone else and move on and maybe we can encourage them by having very strict standards if they can't operate the hotel for a year after losing the license then maybe you know some other Budget Hotel would be happy to come in do some Renovations and start over with a better process so that's just my thought right um and I'm going to follow up on some of the things that were brought up as well as a couple of questions I had uh so we say in the ordinance that the effective day is when it's published you you alluded to talking about sort of when you would start the licensing process and so I'm wondering if we want to talk to that in our ordinance as to when we're going to begin to issue licenses after the passage of the ordinance and some of that plan just so that the the hotel operators in Roseville can understand that I think that would be something to to think about um the other thing is you know we talked about the time the year with the with the January 1st December 31st time frame I know all of our liquor licenses are on that schedule I know a number of other licenses are on that schedule if from the point of view of Staff time and and everything if we want to look at changing that to a you know July 1st to June 30th calendar just to make it a little easier for for um for staff I'm only bringing it up as a possibility uh just to to because I know we have a lot of things on that January 1st to to December 31st schedule um the other thing was um um on the initial application and if there is a background check and um and I think actually I just saw that that was addressed in the code if a particular interested individual you know fails background check or something like that it sounds like they have the ability to make a correction to their whatever change ownership or not have that individual involved or something like that and before a full denial happens necessarily although I suppose if they don't undertake to do that we would still probably deny at that point am I correct in that I see nodding from the well and and we could also do you know sometimes within a corporation or if you have you know a family that owns something you'll have someone who's ineligible for whatever reason you can also that part of you can address that in a license condition where you're going to allow it but but they're going to agree that this individual won't have certain responsibilities okay that's I just want to make sure that was part of the thought process um and then just maybe to um the uh the comments some of the council members have made I think I tend to agree about the concern about sort of you know taking people out of a situation that they're using for housing um I would hope that while we've got certain standards for um um you know what an Extended Stay minimum requirements are um that there may be some flexibility where if a an establishment can can demonstrate that they've you know addressed an issue in a way that maybe not spelled out exactly in the code that that might be something to consider as they come forward and want to get that Extended Stay you know permit um only from the point of view of there may be a solution that isn't delineated here but but works adequately in practice or something like that that we could make a condition of that permit um and so just thinking about that um because I know absolutely I would be very concerned about people having a lot of possessions in their room and perhaps cooking with a hot plate or something like that I mean these are these are things that I'm sure Drive firefighters crazy um is those possibilities um and and I I completely understand that and I think that that is what this is trying to get at is that that there are there are ways to do uh extended living uh that provides some sort of minimum standard that a protects the life safety and health of people in the building but also the building itself and you know provides for uh adequate facilities for those individuals so I think that's what we're trying to get at and if we need to do anything with the language to sort of allow for some discretion in our ability to to issue those permits and have conditions that address some of those concerns that would be something that that might be a way to address some of those those initial concerns um but I completely understand what's being brought up there uh the other thing is it may make sense to have some some specific consultation with the operators about that sort of if your if your license is revoked or or not approved for Renewal uh the wind down period of you know 15 days or 2 weeks or whatever it is you know we may it may need to be longer than that but I would only do that if that's kind of what the the folks that operate the the hotels are telling us um because I think that in reality if a hotel has a major fire tomorrow they're going to have to you know rebook people they're going to have to deal with a lot of issues and they're probably going to do it a lot faster than 14 days so you know it's not like this industry doesn't have some understanding of dealing with those types of things and and potentially I would imagine if there's a denial or revocation on the uh in the offing it's not something that's going to be necessarily unexpected by this this this operator so um maybe the 14 days is adequate but if it needs a little more conversation maybe that's an opportunity to do that I think those are the major things I had uh and then just a very very very minor thing on uh line uh 2 292 and 31704 B3 I believe that it is intended to say that the pages of the book need to be 8 by 10 in rather than saying the the book itself is to be 8 by 10 in so that's just my suggestion insert pages of um because I think that's what people tend to measure rather than the book itself so Mr Tron um if I just could just to follow up uh thank you coun gra for bringing for for the fact that uh we have very good hotels in our community and I almost always lead off whenever I talk about this that we have really great hotels and I failed to do that today so thanks for pointing that out we have some really great uh businesses uh that operate hotels in our community that provide great services that bring visitors uh to Roseville uh that bring a lot of Vitality uh to our community and it's a great asset to have and we understand uh that uh given the congregation of people you may have particular issues but we work very very well police fire and Community Development work very very well with the majority of our hotels and if there are any particular issues they're taken care of and and dealt with unfortunately we have some that aren't that way and that's why we're here today and I wish we didn't even have to have this conversation that we could compel those hotels to do that so I've been very uh upfront about that as I've talked on visit Roseville board as well as we met with the elel operators that um this is really shouldn't be seen as a shame on you you guys are operating a bad business it's really trying to deal with some persistent problems we just can't get ahead of but thank you for bringing that up because that's very true and accurate and I failed to mention that okay right any other questions uh from Council for staff I do want to provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak to this proposed licensing scheme and ordinance uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening does not appear to be the case uh with that um I know we've got the ordinance before us uh I know we've had some discussion about aspects of it and I also know that there wasn't necessarily an expectation to pass the ordinance although we did do all the things necessary in terms of notice Etc so that the council could do that uh it sounds like and perhaps Council correct me if I'm wrong that we want to refer this back to staff uh to uh either research things we ask for research on or make adjust that we asked to be made and then bring this back is that correct and I'd like to have council member who's missing have some input too right so uh and I think that was staff's expectation is that this would not be necessarily active upon this evening so we've got I think some good things to to take a look at and and uh have back before us then at a future time uh and certainly at that time I'm I'm imagining that we'll make uh the hotel operators aware of the that particular date as well as an opportunity to to once again be able to weigh in before final adoption yes all right very good thank you to everyone who's been involved in this process and and I know this is of great interest to the council uh and members of the community as well so uh we look forward to this coming back for further consideration with that that brings us then to uh business item uh 7D which is to consider reappointments uh to our advisory commissions um and a number uh or at least I was thinking that we had taken action on this back in January when we had looked at the process for reappointments but in actuality we did not um and so that's why this is before us this evening um I don't believe at the time in January when we looked at this that there was any concern on the part of council members as to those who were seeking reappointments but uh we do have the request this evening uh to reappoint the nine listed Commissioners for the human rights inclusion engagement commission parks and wreck planning uh police civil service and Public Works environment and transportation as they're listed in the request for Council action uh Council are there any questions or discussions or a motion to reappoint I move to reappoint Second all right it's been moved by Council gra second by council member St to reappoint the nine individuals outlined in the uh uh Council or staff report uh all those any discussion by members of the council either maker or seconder the motion just a quick thank you you know I think that they've done some really great work I try to watch as many meetings as I can got some really good advice for us some good thoughts great second okay Council Sher um just a clarification I agree I think we had some really good people with the U where we I believe I wasn't at the meeting but you had decided that we were not going to um appoint new people to the HRC EC and so I didn't know if that also included reappointment or not you know honestly I don't think we' specifically talked about that um I because of that I think specifically that language that evening was talking about the new appointment process yeah I think so so I I just wanted to clarify I want double check yeah with the council that's a good point is there any reason we wouldn't just go ahead and and reappoint the one individual to the h no I think so because we're in a time that would be my opinion because we're in a time frame where we were just didn't want to bring new new people my understanding was we did a lot of discussion about onboarding new people in this but this would be someone was already on me so that you guys were comfortable with that thanks so and I just was echoing the thanks for the people who wanted who steep forward and want and I actually think it's really important to uh reappoint in the H because it is going to be such a regrowth and this person knows that um I think it's really important to um affirm their commitment to being part of the um the team because I think if we pushed that out that maybe would make them not feel like it's something that they wanted to continue to do so I think it I would really like to include that in the reappointment right and these are reappointments for full terms uh so it would be threeyear threee term correct for everyone all right we've got the motion before us then is there any other discussion hearing none all those in favor of those reappointments indicate by saying I I oppos that pass isy 4 to zero those uh members existing members are reappointed to full terms uh that then brings us to our second item related to commission appointments this evening we've got two vacancies on our finance commission which are both full terms we also have two vacancies on the parks and rec commission which are also full terms uh staff has provided the tabulations of the uh responses and preferences of the various council members uh and then separate from the tabulations we also have the thoughts of the uh chairs of those two commissions uh and or vice chairs depending on who is participating in that process uh so with that uh first we have uh the consideration of appointments for the finance commission are there uh is there a motion uh for one or both appointments I would move to um appoint the two with the highest um tallies that would be Mr Davey and Miss vort yep and and the uh terms are the same they're the same yes F so so that's why you don't need to do them separately second all right that's been moved by Council M schroer second CC member ston once again to appoint uh Mr Davey and Miss vort to the uh Finance commission for those full terms my apologies if I mispronouncing any of those names uh discussion on the motion as the maker council member shorter no as the second council member St other discussion on the motion I just would like to say I did call Mr Davey and and had a good conversation so I'm very pleased that we were able to do that since he wasn't able to P the other and you I think they'll have good input on the commission right other discussion I would concur with that and once again as with a lot of our appointment processes we had a lot of good applicants to to consider uh and sometimes these come down to fine differences between people and so uh I want to make sure that everybody who doesn't get appointed uh knows that we appreciated them coming forward uh we appreciated their interest in serving and we I believe anyone would have been good in service but I think these these two are are the candidates to appoint at this time with that we've got the motion before us to appoint those two individuals to the finance commission all those in favor signify by saying I opposed that passes unanimously 4 to zero those people are appointed and then we have the Parks and Recreation Commission is there a motion from the council motion to um appoint the two uh with the most tallies Mr Chad kustra and Jamon Penny second all right to the three full T to the two full terms I was going to say all right on the parks Rec commission and it was seconded by council member gra once again that's the appointment of Mr qura and Mr Penny discussion on that motion as the maker council member strong this was a really strong pool of people I think in any other day it we could have gone completely different it was really nice to see such really passion of people who were willing to offer their time for this service so and as the secondary council member I would just agree with that I I was thinking of how to even you know we we have to make some choices but it was difficult because anyone that applied were they were very knowledgeable and they were very uh they would have very good input for the city and I think of course I know you always say this mayor but don't don't be apply again and look at other commissions because um we'd love to have them working with the city on issues other discussion council member sh um I did want to say I really appreciated having the opportunity to watch the interviews since I did not have the um I was not in town to be able to attend them and so I agree I saw their application but to actually watch them it really showed the strong candidates we had so I fully agree being in the same situation good good and I will add that the echo what council member gra said about reaching out to Mr Davey on the previous uh commission uh it was it was uh very helpful that he made himself available and and and hopefully everybody was able to Avail themselves of that um and I just want to also note uh you know I think this round of appointments continues to demonstrate that we need to do some work on reaching out to a diverse pool of applicants uh because I think that was the one thing uh with all the great people we had here that was the one thing I think that we were still missing from consideration and so uh that continues to be something as a city we need to we need to focus on and work harder at uh so I just wanted to make that that note as well uh we do have the motion before us uh to appoint those two individuals Mr ker and Mr Penny to The Parson Rec commission for full terms ending in 2027 if there's no further discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I oppos that passes unanimously 4 to zero those appointments are made congratulations to those indiv those four individuals uh and once again as council member gra said for those who weren't appointed uh try again tell them how they're they'll be notified all right and staff will be following up with everybody who applied whether they were appoint or not within the next few days here I'm sure to let folks know uh and there'll be an onboarding process for the new uh um applic the new appointments and we're continuing to fine-tune that and improve that so hopefully uh this will be the the best round of that yet that we have all right with that then uh we don't have any Council minutes to consider this evening that brings us right to the consent agenda no items were removed Mr Tre would you give us a brief rundown of those items yes uh thank you Mr Mayor uh item 10A approves payments the amount of 166,167 $6.97 agenda item 10B approves several expenditures including the replacement of the rubber flooring the lobby changing area of the oval exterior painting of the skating center and the purchase of a new boiler and HVAC system for the police department both of which are 20 years old at and at the end of their useful life agenda item 10c adopts a resolution accepting donations made in 2023 to the rosville police department a total of $2,826 was donated to the city police department we thank all the donors for their generous donations item 10d uh receives the annual Police Department forfeiture account summary agenda item 10e approves the city applying for the 2024 uh AARP Community challenge Grant to support the work of the police department's Community Action teams embedded social worker workers and housing Navigator receiving the funding will provide resources to allow members of the cat to become a mobile Outreach unit to provide on-site and in-person assistance to navigate the housing and financial assistant programs item 10f approves a memorandum of understanding with the law enforcement labor Services unions representing police sergeants lieutenants and the deputy chief regarding the retention incentive payments item 10g adopts resolution approving the master agreement for maintenance of traffic control signals with Ramsey County this agreement will create uniformity on traffic signal maintenance and operational responsibilities between the city and the county the master agreement will replace separate agreements in place for each signal in Rose for County Roads and their traffic signals that are located on them item 10h approves the street naming policy this item was discussed by the city council at the September 25th 2023 meeting and sent to the public works environment and Transportation uh commission for additional review the commission met uh on January 23rd and reviewed the final draft made one change regarding uh the notification procedure and recommends the city council approve the policy as presented in your packet then finally item 10 I approves plans and speci specifications and orders the advertisement of bids for the Reconstruction of County Road B from Cleveland Avenue West to eus Street in addition this action also approves a resolution prohibiting parking on County Road B except in parking Bays that will be constructed as part of the project and that is the consent agenda thank you Mr Tren is there a motion to approve the consent agenda second it's been moved by Council gra second by Council M St to approve the consent agenda uh any discussion on the motion oh I wanted to mention I that was really excited about that a community challenge Grant and what options especially the the breath of potential funding that could come with it and the average funding and I appreciate the ongoing um bringing forward of different grants in order to continue our great programming good observation uh we have the motion before us then uh is there any further discussion if not all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously 4 to Z and those items are approved or received uh that brings us then to Future agenda review Communications reports announcements we'll start with the future agenda Mr Tren yeah I'll just talk about the two remaining meetings in March uh just as a reminder I will not be at either unfortunately um Rebecca Olen assist city manager will be taking my place the uh meeting next Monday is more of a work session we just have three items uh one is to receive a presentation from Ramsey County about the Dale Street project um and the work they're planning on for that we also want to bring forth the ordinance Amendment for the uh commission scope and duties and functions for the majority of the commissions the council has seen this but uh this is kind of just some final tweaks to it so I would expect that to go forward pretty uh quickly and then the uh other item is probably a lengthier discussion that's um about the whole uh HC human rights inclusion engagement commission scope dues and functions uh this is an opportunity for the council to really talk about you know what you all see as their schope duties and functions and you haven't had that opportunity to have a group discussion so this will be a work session so it'll be at the table so hopefully it'd uh lend itself to some good conversation for Council uh council member strong well members of the HC be present for that discussion yes yes uh coun M around they are aware of it um uh we did tell them this wasn't necessarily a joint meeting uh but they're welcome to attend um so my understanding is they all plan to be here meeting thank you certainly there'll be an opportunity for public comment which would include those members thank you council member sh yeah I just wanted if there had been um Jason and I were doing the sub commmittee on that one and um we did um have lots of conversations with on multiple people so we do we have captured a lot of voices but they will also be able to be and that we will also um present a possible um idea on on where to go forward with it so we're we're looking forward to it so hope hopefully we did capture some of the voices or a lot of them and but again they're open to come and and and also be part of that so thank you one other question sure our new um Dei person um will they be able to have um an opinion or offer any input into this just I know it's unfortunate on timing that they just got here but it seems like they may have some um ideas that would be valuable in our discuss um as of right now no because the pr won't start until March 25th um but as this evolves over into uh the rest of the spring certainly um be able to have some but um uh Rebecca was involved with it and she had been very much involved with our last M manager so she she did have some really good input great I thought maybe our new person would come with some ideas it's a little too soon they're not even started well and hopefully you know this the 11th is the start of the conversation and not the end of it anyway so that that that person would still have a chance to weigh in um all right okay and then uh just on the 18th uh the following week uh recognition of the outgoing Commissioners uh we do want to talk about grants from the police department we did receive a grant to fund the Hy Navigator position for two years from the state which we're really excited about and and beyond that actually for for other resources not just for Staffing um but we thought it'd be a good opportunity to formally accept it but also have Carrie mller here uh our housing Navigator just talk a little bit about some of the work she's doing uh just to I I know all of you are pretty familiar with it but it's good just to keep talking about it and bring that up so we'll have that opportunity we the excess cash Reserve report uh we bring forward uh to kind of close the books in 20 uh 23 um and then U Mak any particular decisions on regarding the EXs funds and then uh we'll bring back the two ordinances we talked about last meeting the water meter security deposits and that was more cleanup of some language the second one is maybe a longer discussion about private Wells about maybe have some exceptions of based on um distance and things like that so staff is working on that I don't know if we' come to any resolution on that as of today but uh we're working on that as well so we bring B back both those ordinances for your consideration and approval if if you're ready that's it all right thank you Mr Tron are there uh any uh council member initiated items for future meetings or uh reports or announcements from Council Members this evening mcth just uh report I went to the um the Highway 36 uh event at rosale mall on Saturday and it was really well attended it was giving people an idea of what will be happening this summer as far as closures and so on so if anyone we should all be interested because iway 36 is such a major thare so there will be some closures on some weekends and things like that and you can look at their website of course to find that out but I thought that the uh participation from the U the attendees was really really good and I thought the people working from the uh I think it was the county if I remember right were were very knowledgeable and answered questions really well so that was well done so good was that I I thought there was a part of that was to talk also about sort of that study of the future of Highway 36 was that much disc was a little bit but most of this was actually about uh the biggest item I'd say were was about whether or not Hamlin will have an access to 36 okay and it looked like it probably won't is my guess but I don't know what that hasn't finally decided then there was also a lot of discussion on B paths and walking paths and how you get across 36 U so that it isn't quite as isolating for people that don't use a car good good I appreciate that update the only thing I'll add is that you mentioned that they have information available on the website you can actually sign up on their website to get email updates or any other form of update on that 36 project and I found for other projects that itot has been doing that affect my commute it was really helpful to have those email updates because it kind of gives you that reminder that this is the weekend that that closure is going to happen because we W remember right now what's going happen exactly exactly so I would definitely encourage members of the public and council members to and staff to uh to to sign up to get those emails because it can really help you avoid uh uh a pickle you might say and the only other thing is that I did attend the visit rosville meeting last week we have them every other month and and they did discuss the ordinance from tonight and as I said most of the hotels the ones who attend there are all on board they just want to make sure it is thought care carefully thought through and I think that's what we're doing so good all right council member strong just a reminder that tomorrow is primary election so um if you're interested in voting and hopefully you are you will seek out your polling place and exercise your right to vote and that's specifically the presidential primary if I remember right the the the the normal state and city office primary is August but this is the presidential primary which which is kind of important too I guess so and it's different than usual so it's not on people's radar but that it is tomorrow only the second time that the state of Minnesota has done a presidential primary at least in recent years so exactly and it only happens every four years right all right anything else from Council Members by way of announcements or Communications otherwise the only thing we have left on our agenda this evening is a motion to adjourn second council member shorter moved Council St seconded the motion to adjuring uh no discussion on a motion to adjourn all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously 4 to Z we are adjourned at 7:30 p.m. thank you everyone