I hereby call to order the Roseville city council meeting for Monday April 8th 2024 Mr city manager would you call the role please council member n here council member schroer here council member gra here member STW mayor Ro here uh and council member St indicated that she would not be able to attend this evening um with us at the deas by way of introduction we also have our City attorney Rachel Tierney who's on my right at the end of the day and then the aforementioned city manager Pat Tran on my left at the other end of the day we have other uh staff who will be introduced as various agenda items come forward I want to let folks from the public know if you need a copy of the agenda there are extra copies on the table underneath the clock in the back of the room uh there's also a master copy of the overall meeting materials in a three- ring binder for reference if you need that um we do want to remind folks with uh cell phones to make sure they're either silenced or otherwise assure that they won't disrupt the meeting this evening uh and then uh also um we'll get into the instructions related to public comment as we approach those uh items on the agenda uh but needless to say uh we'll uh make sure and hopefully have everybody uh understand what the process is and with that we'll ask folks to stand if you're able for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all next on tonight's agenda is consideration of the agenda this evening and as always we check with staff to see Mr treen are there any changes to the agenda from a staff perspective Mr Mayor no changes by staff all right and then we'll check with uh council members are there any council member requested changes to the agenda or items on the consent agenda that council members would like to have remov for separate consideration does not appear to be the case uh we will check in with members of the public also this is a chance to see that copy of the agenda that I said was on the back um we do have what we call our consent agenda this is items uh 12a through 12 L starts at the bottom of the first page of the agenda and continues on to the second page these items are usually taken up as a single motion uh and there's they're at the end of the meeting uh and less of an opportunity for public input but if anybody is here to either make a comment or ask a question about one of the items in section 12 of tonight's agenda you can let us know at this time and we'll make sure and move that item earlier in the meeting so that you can uh participate in the discussion is anyone here for an item in section 12 of tonight's agenda all right see no one uh then I believe we have uh the agenda as presented to approve is there a motion from the council second right moved by council member gra seconded by council member schroer uh any discussion on the motion to approve the agenda as presented no all right with that then uh all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously 4 to Z and we have our agenda this evening next on the agenda is our first opportunity for public comment uh this is an opportunity for members of the public to speak about items that are not on tonight's agenda uh but may be of interest to people in the public or or um related to City business once again that isn't on our agenda this evening uh we'll uh go through instructions if we have anybody who is here this evening to speak about uh under this general public comment this evening is there anyone from the public to speak under general public comment uh as I outline not related to items on tonight's agenda does not appear to be the case uh that being so then we'll proceed with the agenda uh next on our agenda is recognitions uh and donations but primarily recognitions uh and this evening we have a new city employee to introduce and so our assistant City maner Rebecca Olson will handle those duties this evening and make the introductions welcome mayor council members I'm very excited tonight to introduce you to Antonio MZ actually I won't be the introduc you he'll introduce himself um but Antonio started with us on Monday March and has already hit the ground running and has been meeting with people and um is ready to go so I'll turn it over to him and let him introduce himself thanks for I appreciate you hey folks I'm Antonio Montes uh the new equity and inclusion manager here at the city of rville super excited to join this organization um let's see here what can I share with you uh I've been here three weeks I learning a ton obviously so ask me any questions I have all the answers um no so I'm from St Paul and I've been spending the last few years working at Ramy County working on their racial Equity work across their organization partnering with uh executive leaders on thinking about how we serve community and how we share power with community and thinking about the disparities that we see in residents across the Ramy County footprint and trying to break the systems that were intentionally created to cause and disparities for folks across the community so uh a lot of that comes with building relationships with Community Building Trust sharing power and just being in community so that's the work that I've done over the last few years excited to do that work here at Roseville there's a really great foundational plan in place so just thinking about how do we partner and do that work across the city of that's what I'm excited to do here so thanks for having you thanks for being here welcome aboard uh and yeah we've we've with the position absent for several months we're all just sort of champing at the bit to get back where we were and so we appreciate that you're enthusiastic and energetic about that as well and so hopefully we uh we don't miss a Beat here and we can uh move on with our plans and efforts and and as if as if there wasn't that Gap thank you all right uh that then brings us to our uh uh first business type item which is to convene as the board of appeals and adjustments uh for the City of Roseville to uh consider an appeal of a variance board decision um and so we'll um convene as that board of adjustments and appeals with the uh roll call as accounted for the council meeting uh that we're adjourning from to do this um and once again this is to consider an appeal of in this case an action by the variance board uh and so I'll turn it over uh by way of introducing the topic to our um community development director Janice gunlock whose department is uh sort of involved with the work of the variance board and uh these types of decisions uh and maybe before Miss gunlock uh begins her uh information I'll just kind of go through what the process will be just for folks who aren't 100% familiar with this uh this board of adjustments and appeals appeal consideration process what we'll do which is very similar to U other types of business items that the council considers uh will'll have sort of an introduction by staff as to what uh the uh situation is uh there'll be an opportunity for the council to ask questions of staff and get clarification of information uh we'll have an opportunity for the uh folks that are appealing that decision uh to present their case to the council and also answer questions from the council uh after that uh and then if there's any followup uh either that the council or in this case the board uh wishes to uh ask either our staff or the uh appealing party we can uh do that and then we'll proceed to consideration of the appeal I should also note and I'm sure miss gunlock will will also say this uh that this is an appeal of the decision of the variant board and essentially the question before us will be uh did they make the right decision on the basis of the information that they had presented to them uh at their meeting um and so with that I'll turn it over to miss gunlock and hopefully I didn't steal any of her Thunder and she can give us the introduction on this item this gunline thank you mayor members of the council I'm filling in for our planner who's on vacation so um Mr paski was the one who prepared the materials for the variance board and presented that to the variance board um that did occur on March 6th this involved two variances to allow a 10ft tall electrified fence at Caliber Collision that business is located at 1914 County Road C the variance the variances that were proposed were for height and fence type the code sets the maximum height limit at 6 and 1/2 ft this fence is 10 ft tall and then um the code does not allow electrified fences staff did recommend denial of the variances given that there are alternatives to a 10 tall electrified fence there is some information in the variance board packet that speaks to that um more specifically the applicant has noted crime is the main reason for the 10- foot tall electrified fence um staff did discuss this proposal with the police department who suggested implementing um Alternatives consistent with the crime prevention through environmental design strategies it's staff understanding that the applicant nor anyone from the business has reached out to our Police Department to discuss these measures and so the um variance board felt that the staff recommendation to deny based on the fact that there are potentially Alternatives available was appropriate and that is why um the variances were denied excuse me the applicant did file for an appeal on March 15th the um letter asking for the appeal claims that the proposed structure is an alarm and security system and not off fence um staff doesn't dispute that the structure does function as an alarm or a security system but it also does meet the definition of offense it needs to be regulated as such um the board of adjustments and appeals is required to hear uh any appeals from the variance board whose decisions are final um and making a decision about whether or not the variance board acted appropriately needs to be done via resolution we have provided a resolution in your packet um you'll have to make a decision about whether or not to affirm or reverse the variance board's decision and then there is a section in that resolution for findings if you agree with the variance board's decision you could agree consistent with the findings that they recommended and we can insert that into the resolution if you feel that there are reasons to reverse that decision I would just note that you should articulate those reasons so we can fill in the resolution appropriately that's all I have I can answer any questions and I know the applicant is here as well all right thank you Miss gunlock uh questions from the board for staff on the staff presentation of the um variance decision and basis for the appeal uh member shter uh yes thank you for um the detailed update on this uh I have a question with if the if they wanted to come back and ask for something other than this particular say they were coming back to ask for a shorter fence how much time do they have to wait before they come back and ask for different variants I don't believe that they would have to wait any period of time they could just make the application um as long as it's different it would be different than this request so there wouldn't be a time limitation okay thank you any other questions from the board for staff right uh thank you Miss gunlock um and I should also mention we'll we'll provide an opportunity for public comment as well I neglected to include that in the description of what would be happening but certainly welcome uh the representative from the appealing uh party this evening and we just ask that you introduce yourself um uh for the public uh and state the organization you're with uh and then feel free to proceed with your case thank you Mr Mayor um I guess there's a microphone here it's it's there yes okay uh my name is Michael Pate I represent amarok uh for um the uh the customer here uh I'm from Columbia South Carolina so a little chilly here for me today um you know basically what we do is we protect properties it's a fairly simple system when you think about it it all runs on 12 volt battery so we are not included in the National Electric Code the National Electric Code does not include our device or any device like it the reason being is the pulsed electrical device so we take an Energizer we take that 12 volts and we amplify it to 7 and N9 ,000 volts that takes 1.1 second for that to happen once that happens that Energizer releases that energy down the interior line inside the existing permited fence line the actual fence back to an alarm panel that alarm panel is looking for a nice clean return if it does not get a nice clean return it starts a countdown five consecutive negative returns we set the alarm off and we go through a call list so let's say councilman grath is number one on my call list I'll call him at 2:00 in the morning and explain to him what we have found on the cameras that are associated with these devices hey we had a big storm took out the fence line let's lock it up go back to bed or I got five guys in a flatbed truck cut a hole in my fence that robbed me blind please call the local police department that's a verified alarm police like verified alarm because they know where to go and they know what to expect he there five guys there not just one so this it's a great great system we have over 7,000 of these all over the country and many hundreds within Minnesota we are not a fence we go inside the existing fence line we are not on the property line we do not delineate the property line it's non-scalable it's tensioned wire you can literally walk right through it if you wanted to the only reason you can't is because every 1.1 seconds for 31,000 of a second it sends a a pulse down that line and if you can hit it you're going to feel it the feeling is just like rubbing your stocking feet across a rug and reaching out and hitting a door handle that's a 15 to 20,000 volt static shock right in your house you don't want to do it again everyone is repelled by that they walk away and don't want to do do that again take their socks off or put their shoes on so that's what we do um environmental design environmental design does not work it never has environmental design means putting up barriers living barriers to basically prevent people from going into a property all they do is provide places for people to hide that's all an environmental design does so you're you're trying to make a solid barrier which someone can hide behind you're trying to put up plannings you start putting up plannings people behind that it cast Shadows even if you have really good light that people can hide on or under or around environmental design does not work and it has not work these devices are tested and labeled by a nationally recognized testing laboratory under the opes of Osha they safe and reliable no one has ever been injured with these devices ever OSHA has a database of all injuries in America that happen for any number of reasons and we're not on these devices have been around for 80 to 90 years they were developed in the 30s in New Zealand and they're actually all over Minnesota right now in the Hinterlands meaning the farm country to contain livestock it's the same technology and there are no barriers in front of these there are no warning signs there's nothing there that we operate the standard we operate under because we're in an urban environment so we operate under a standard which we're tested to so these devices are safe they're labeled they're tested by testing uh testing agencies nationally recognized Testing Laboratories and they're tested and labeled and out there so they're very safe and a lot of people use them so the only thing here that I really want to address now is the height Height's very simple you've got a six- foot fence I got a six- foot device behind it someone's just going to stand on that top and they're going to drop in there's nothing up there to keep them from going over the top most incursions go low people will cut the base of a fence or pull out a panel on a wall they really don't want to crawl over they don't want to drop six seven 8 ft down on the concrete no one does even in my my young Athletic youth when I could actually dunk a basketball I don't want to do that either my hand would be on 10 feet my feet would not that'd be about three and a half so that's why it has to be higher and it's in the standard these standards are recognized by the IEC the international electr technical commission and ansy the American national standards Institute they're safe they're reliable and I would appreciate if you would overrule uh the ruling we got last time in here and and allow this business to protect their property at their own expense any questions I'd be glad to answer all right thank you Mr P uh questions from members of the board for the appealing uh party um member ad um I'm struggling why you say this is an offense if it's something that's 10t tall and has wires going across it why is it not offense it doesn't meet the definition we don't delineate a property line it's non-scalable it's not offense all it is is is suspended wires that basically run the alarm and the deterrent which is the pulse shop without looking up our Definition of offense in in our code I certainly know that part of our code sometimes asks for offense not to be on the proper line we had a dispute about that like six8 years ago in the community instead is on for example um uh on a setback or on a parking lot or things like that so I don't think that we would um look at that definition the same way in this this sense it seems to be a a intentional barrier um that's built up there um in some form and intentionally 10 ft for reasons you've said what happens if you would make it 6 feet but then angle um out to I like back in towards the property so it would be harder to jump over I I need extra height I got to have it I mean if you're at six feet I need at least two okay most industrial areas that we operate in and Commercial areas actually throughout the country allow somewhere around eight and that's why we're usually at 10 but 10's also in the standard that's what everyone in the business builds to is 10 ft one more thing mayor I I would note that your own application refers this as offense in many many areas so I guess I I'm just not sure how you end up saying it's not offense well we we were asked to do that we were told it was not going to be considered an alarm it was considered offence so when we made the application we were told we had to use the term fence I see okay well other questions oh memory shorter and just clarify for me uh how many wires are there 20 20 they're separated about 4 inches apart up to about three three and A2 ft and they go 8 inches apart all the top signs are about the size of a regular piece of notebook paper like this they're yellow have black lettering on International symbol for shock which is a hand with a lightning bolt through it in English and Spanish I actually print the signs in 34 or 36 languages I'm not sure which one it is now thank you other questions M gra I would just say that I grew up on a farm and I know what electric fences are so there is a shock involved at least for kids absolutely um so I wouldn't describe it as not not bothering somebody touchs and I do think it I think the fence issue is uh important because that's how our Zone zoning code reads and this is offense in my opinion um and just one question also so one of the things you emphasized about the technology is that it initiates the calls sort of as an alarm um are are there not other Technologies out there that don't involve this approach that would initiate similar alarms such as motion sensing or those types of Technologies is that something that's that's out there in the indust obviously maybe not something that you provide I mean we don't have motion sensors we're basically what we are um you know everyone has a bread and butter business this is our bread and butter business so that's what we do um my you know my account list is basically every major trucking company in America UPS FedEx FedEx truck all the major automobile repair centers which you have here caliber all the all the major um equipment rental companies in America use this device everybody uses it because it works saves the police tons of money they don't have to keep going back out back to these places they don't have to keep writing reports they don't have to keep doing driveby we stop the crime cold and these folks should have the ability to prevent crime on their property uh and one followup question too is there any uh from the point of view of installation relative to the existing perimeter fences do you want it to be a certain distance away from that that's a good question and can it be farther than that right and that's a good question the the standard tells you have to be 200 millimeters away which is in America somewhere around four to 8 Ines so you you need it kind of in a symbiotic relationship with the perimeter fence you don't want it too far away because you create what's called a zone of entrapment someone can sit in there and basically manipulate the device and break it anyway and then the alarm goes off if they're working really tight together like that they really work as a team so to speak so it makes it very very difficult to get inside the space we're even tighter than that on the gates because most Gates run on right now they run on either electric and or chain driven Gates there are some swing gates left but most people don't use them so we have to be very tight there because there are guides and Ballard that run them in and out so we're probably about three inches there and we we basically install them that way on insulators great thank you if there are no other questions from the board we appreciate you being here this evening and in support of your appeal uh and we'll open it up if there is anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this appeal this evening of the uh variance board's decision as to this uh application this would be the opportunity is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item right does not appear to be the case uh we'll then uh move to board consideration are there any other clarifications we need from uh staff or is the board prepared to uh take action on this appeal this evening and once again we've got the um proposed resolution but there is some some blanks to be filled in on the on the back page depending on whether we affirm or reverse the variance board decision I think on the uh question of the whether this is a fence maybe that's a starting point for conversation I heard I think member gra indicate he felt that it met the definition of offense uh member Edon I think you also uh of that point of view um is there any disagreement amongst members here that that is uh in fact the case as far as meeting the city's Definition of offense that's what I would think right so that certainly seems to be a finding certainly in one sense um and then the second piece is then because it is a is being considered offense then we have the question about uh should they um get the variance to the height limit and and uh should they be able to have an electrified fence uh that was the decision of the variance board was that they should not get the variance on the height or the electrification I think primarily their point of view was that um one of the requirements for variance is that the the essentially the hardship requiring the variance is not something of the uh Property Owners or applicants own um CA cause thank you um and so I think that that was a finding of the variance board as part of their decision as I recall reading through the materials does the board concur with the Judgment of the variance board on those bases I do so a motion of some sort would be in order member Aton I I will move to deny the appeal based on the findings from the variance Board second all right that's moved by coun by board member Edon seconded by board member Gra uh to uh deny the appeal or affirm the decision of the variance board on the basis of the findings of the original decision of the variance board uh being concurred with by the board of adjustment and appeals uh discussion on that motion uh member Aton um I I it clearly doesn't fit our definition um I would like to see the applicant well the the business to uh be working with our Police Department certainly our police department has worked with many businesses to make significant changes to improve security so I'd like to see that um as as a step that they would take I kind of feel like they kind of put their head down and said no and let's pursue this so um I would be concerned about precedent setting um but also that there seem to be other methods we should be trying first but they should be try and as excuse me as the secondary member gra well I I sympathize with the comment about you know problems with fft and catalytic converters and we've been working on that for for some time at the state level and and also here in Roseville but um I do think that this there are other ways they can address this and all those have not been exhausted or even really attempted uh different types of systems that could add security to this location so I would want to see them do that great uh and member shorter yes um I think I I agree with um um member Edon that other options had not been looked at and also going from nothing well there is a fence there now but going all the way to an electric 10-ft fence and that's why I asked my question earlier could you come back and say because it's a business versus residential that's where I was you know going back and forth on on variance for height but can you know the possibility then after working with the police coming back and saying well how about an 8ft fence that's not El electrified I mean so there's ways I think that need to be discussed and worked with our our staff and the police to maybe come up with a solution to this thank you um and I you know again just uh for the benefit of the folks at home the city's definition in our code of offense is a structure providing enclosure or serving as a barrier such as a wooden posts wire iron or other manufactured material or combination materials erected to enclose screen or separate areas our definition does not require that it be at the property line uh it later on in the code does require it to be within the property line uh and not extending into adjacent properties um but that you know to me the key is the enclosing or screening areas or excuse me the enclosing or separating of areas and I think that's exactly what came up in the prior um issue uh which I think was less than six years ago I think it was during the pandemic if I recall um but you know so that's a part of it um and certainly there isn't a requirement in our code that a fence be installed at the property line as I said it can be installed within a yard as it's described in the general requirements of our code I think also there are other technologies that can uh trigger alarms and and call uh trees and things like that that aren't this technology uh and for that matter I believe if the applicant or the property owner wish to do a 10t screening fence that's actually Allowed by code and wouldn't even require a very Varian potentially depending on if I've misinterpreted something there uh and I always do want to stand corrected but uh you know so there are some there as was said by others there are some options out there this isn't the only option and and therefore it's difficult to justify the criteria for variance I think that's important to note as well because there are those other options um that's where the the the trickiness is in saying oh yes this is a situation not of the properties um you know choosing or whatever and and there are actually other means that could potentially allow the property owner to do to to the ability to use their property in the way they wish so I think for those Reasons I'm supportive of the motion in the resolution as outlined which reaffirms the um findings of the variance board in their uh denial of the variance with that is there any other discussion from members of the board no all right uh we've got the motion before us to adopt that resolution affirming uh the uh decision of the variance board and denying the appeal all those favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously four to zero and that variance is therefore denied and the variance board opinion is uh affirmed that will conclude our business as the VAR Board of adjustments and appeals for the city we return uh to our council meeting to continue with our business items uh thank you everyone uh for your uh participation this evening next on our agenda we have uh back before us a uh ordinance related to um private Water Supplies in the city uh and we have our Public Works director Jesse fry Hammer with us this evening to introduce this item back to us uh uh for a consideration once again this evening Mr Fram uh thank you mayor and Council so we discussed this uh the the well ordinance update at our February 26 meeting uh since that time staff did collect some additional data and make a few slight changes so real quick PowerPoint here so um the current number of Wells is 24 um residential Wells that this the ordinance would potentially apply to as I mentioned we did some data collection uh we looked at existing Parcels with City connections that are are larger just to get an idea of you know do we have some really long Wells that have been connected to so uh based on that GIS analysis where we just looked at where the home was and how what the distance from the center of the home to the water main there was 43 uh existing Parcels with connections greater than 200 feet six were greater than 300 and one was greater than 400 um so that was the longest one we didn't have any over 500 um then we also looked at the Wells of the 24 kind of which categories would they fall in so there's only two of the the the from what we can get there's only two of the properties that the well would be over 200 ft one parcel is about 375 ft um the second parcel is about 275 it's very unique though because their parcel actually their garage is connected to city water so um but their house is not so their house is on a well so they kind of have two systems which is actually one of the reasons this is problematic that's very rip for cross connection so their connection is actually only 175 ft So based on that um the the new updated amended ordinance um the overall ordinance would um basically prevent any new wells from uh being drilled for for any purpose um the only well I say the only for for new construction the only well that would be allowed would be for monitoring purposes for uh like mpca groundwater contamination stuff like that um the proposed ordinance would require existing Wells residential Wells on property to be connected to City Water by 2035 so that is not changed from what we previously discussed what we did add was uh water is considered to be available for connection if if water is within 400 ft we made that 400t determination based on existing Parcels since we had one that was greater than 400 ft if someone who was 450 ft can connect anyone at 400 ft should be able to connect um so from that we believe all existing Wells theoretically would meet that requirement um so purpose and need as I discussed last time really say eliminates a risk of contamination since everyone else since the vast majority of the rosville residents are on City Water it eliminates that risk a better way to measure sewer use currently those who are on Wells just assumed a flat rate um that could depending upon how many people you have your house you could benefit or or or could get hurt by that um and then just a better way to protect the overall Aqua for the less Wells are within Roseville the better we could protect AAR for beneath us um we did notify all 24 property owners of the amended uh ordinance they got a copy of that and notified them of the meeting requirement um depending upon what ordinance updates the council passes will certainly notify them of what the final outcome is so with that I will turn it over for any questions right thank you Mr frymer are questions from the council for staff on this update to the ordinance from our last discussion council member gra so am I right that there is just one owner then that would be beyond that so that would be excluded from the this there there's there's none would the maximum we from our measurements we think the L the largest home that is on well is 375 I see okay other questions from the council all right uh then we'll open it up for public comment uh and just to check is there any from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening all right uh we'll go through the uh the rules of the road for public comment then just for the benefit of folks who are going to be speaking uh uh once again by Council rule I should say once again once again for me but not for those new to it uh by Council rule there's a three minute time limit per speaker for public comment and we do ask that you uh introduce yourself by name and either Street or address uh for the public record uh address comments or questions to the council uh we will then uh provide an opportunity to uh respond to those uh once uh if there are questions uh once they're asked um we tend to do that after all the comments or questions so we make sure we kind of accumulate them and then provide a response um questions that are technical in nature we can usually answer or more precisely Mr frymer will be able to answer if the question is more philosophical about why I do this that's probably going to be answered by the council in our discussion about whether we decide to do it or not um and with that I think that kind of cover everything uh so we'll open it up for public comment once again have a seat at the table uh those who wish to comment and uh introduce yourself by name and street or address and welcome I'm vanis deel I live at 2954 Hamline Avenue North and we have a well um so I I get that the main motivation is I think cross contamination and I get that if if one was connected to both I don't quite get it if you only have a well how that um what that affects um so that's a question I guess the other question is I I would be able in the next 10 years or so to uh repair the elements that I see here other than digging a new well hole is that a true statement um okay and then another question is will there be any assistance either information wise about contractors how this is done obviously I've never had to connect to City Water um and or financially financial assistance to actually do this I think that's what I have to say right thank you for your questions we'll make sure and can get some answers for you uh is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening all right we'll close the public comment then uh and move to council consideration uh after answering the questions and Mr Fry Hammer uh will hopefully be helpful in that um I believe it's fair to say that if the well is not at all connected to city water then there isn't the chance for cross-contamination um although sometimes people do use Wells for irrigation purposes even after they connect to city water for for portable water and so there's still those that potential there in that that sense and certainly clarify if I'm wrong about that Mr Fry Hammer yeah no certainly that that's one way um you know sometimes people are on temp water for whatever reasons and certainly any any connection to a temporary Source can cause issues like that um and then just most people assume in fact we've had a couple Property Owners when they found out they had a well they didn't know they had a well just not knowing that they have a well is is a very big concern because they just assume they're on City water and you assume certain things so that's just a giant risk when they don't know so some Property Owners know and take care of their their stuff really well but um you know we're in an urban environment there's a lot going on um so anything can be a risk of of contamination for either the groundwater or or the city system right and then I know the ordinance does indicate that new wells will not be permitted uh essentially starting from the enactment of the ordinance uh I'm imagining that somebody should be able to do repairs on a well as long as it isn't drilling a new well correct so existing ordinance does allow basically for the next 11 or so years to replace a pump with a permit or whatnot so as long as you don't have to drill a new well because you're as long as your casing and the well is still usable you can still use it so if you yeah you need to replace a pump or something else you'd be able to do that for 10 years might if this passes it might not be the best investment but at least you can do some minor stuff right uh and then finally um help or uh assistance to homeowners to perhaps uh uh know what to expect to connect the city water and or potentially you know connecting to contractors that might be out there certainly we don't make recommendations about contractors necessarily we're not in that business but uh can you talk to that a little bit Yeah so we can certainly provide a list of contractors we do we know who's pulled permits uh for water repair stuff like that so we could certainly do that um I guess unless Council saw a need to there's no funding associated with this unless Council chooses so there's no assistance in that form but yeah we we can provide all the data on where the water connection is um we we're pretty confident most of the properties the water stubbed out past the curb uh because it was when we built the water system in the 60s or the 70s it was planned that they would connect in these 24 just heaven for some reason so um at least it should be outside the street there may be a chance maybe the lot was split or something weird and there isn't a connection there but we're pretty confident the majority of them would have that connection we can certainly provide that data and work with contractors to to help them come up with cost estimates and whatnot and and just as far as contractors it's generally pluming contractors should generally be if they're experienced with dealing with water supplies in general they should be able to do installations as that the fair exactly so most plumbing contractors will be able to do this a lot of excavation contractors who do just water and sewer outside the building um but this should there should be a wide variety that this isn't uh that specialty of work certainly not like well drilling yeah exactly well drilling would be a lot smaller field right right uh and then just to clarify what you talked about the the St out so the main line from the city is underneath the street typically and then what you're saying is when those lines are generally put in a lateral was taken off of that and and potentially all the way up to the property line which is at the the edge of the rway for the roadway so it could be potentially something like 10 to 15 ft from the curb even and often times we might even have a valve there or something yeah so typically um as long as it didn't get removed or was missed there should be a water service stubbed out on a typical residential street is about 12T behind the curb with a stop box so typically all a contractor has to do is connect to that point and then turn the stop box on and you're you're good to go so um in most cases not having to dig the street up it would just be within your property and then the cost really varies depending upon how far your house is back and where your existing connection is within your home stuff like that got it all right thank you appreciate that hopefully that's helpful for uh the speaker this evening uh may not answer all the questions completely but points in a direction um Council uh questions or followup for staff uh Andor an action uh council member shorter yes um if the water isn't to the curb and you have to dig up the street whose responsibility is that so that would be the property owner's responsibility so they would just like any new home connecting to a service that is not sted out they'd have to install the water connection and then um obviously re restore the road as as necessary so that would be an additional cost and do you have any idea how much it costs say per square per foot to hook up to city water I don't really have a per cost fo my my gut was telling me if you if you're not if we already have the stub out you don't have to go on the road just kind of based on what other people pay for either a water service repair or a sewer repair where you got to dig it's probably somewhere between $5 and $10,000 um for the connection but certainly that could vary if you have more stuff in the way or if you have to dig in the street but it really will vary on your property I mean if you're if your wells in the front yard it can be really simple because you might only have to run 50 ft of of pipe which could be and if if it's an open lawn that that's a really that could even be less than that but but if it's like this 375 ft so certainly that'll be more but um technology allow nowadays they don't need to open cut the whole thing it is it is a pressurized pipe so you can bore that in so um you even out there you might just have to have a bore pit on either end and then uh one long pipe so but certainly the longer the service the more expensive it's typically going to be typically come into the house where the well is question from the public was uh would the water from the city water typically connect where the well water comes in I would guess that's usually the most convenient way unless the well is like on the opposite side of the house or something like that from the street correct so it can be done done kind of two ways one they can bring a whole new connection into the house below the slab into your utility room or wherever your water connection is that'll most likely be more expensive but you can Bard nowadays plumbers can get creative or they can just go and connect the pipe to where the near where the well was because then you don't have to go in the building you're just connecting so if your wells 20 ft outside your home they can just run a line to where that connection is so there are options um you could certainly price out which is cheaper or more convenient so like I said if your Well's in the front yard they only need to get just go five feet past your well and connect on the back side of the wall so there's options sure and just in in the case of my house and probably a number of houses in Roseville uh the old well was under the front stoop and so the water connection from the city comes in right there from the from the street out front so that's usually the most the most common at least in in the typical installation in the City of Roseville great uh thoughts or potential action oh uh Council shter question one last question if for some reason there was um say a hardship or a problem could someone come and get a variance on that 2035 date yeah I guess that would be the the option to appeal the Council on any ordinance okay right and I'm not sure I'm trying to remember if this is the type of of repair or project that might qualify for some of our our city assistance programs but certainly that might be something to look at and if it if it doesn't right now we may want to consider whether it's appropriate to do that in the next 10 11 years all right uh with that once again we've got the request before us uh to consider adopting the uh ordinance related to the private Water Supplies in the city uh is there a motion from the council Council M gra I would move the adoption of the the ordinance second all right it's been moved by council member graph seconded by council member Aton to approve the ordinance amending uh chapter 801 of the C code related to private Water Supplies uh as presented uh discussion on the motion uh council member m graph is the maker of the motion well first of all thanks to the department for doing all their work I mean I think that was very helpful to see that data and the the numbers and and have a clearer idea uh from our last conversation um in real estate we've dealt with the water issue for many years and and the aquafer is you know the aquafer if that's contaminated is an issue a huge issue and I've even run across people who had Wells that were not sealed correctly and he said this is a great place to pour your uh old paint and tur time and stuff down there so sealing these things up is for the public good and that's one of the main reasons I support it um also the cross the cross contamination of course is another issue and then just having our data correct on the uh water usage and the sewer usage is are the reasons I'm supporting this right uh as the second or council member nothing further to end all right other discussion the motion council member sh uh yes I I'd be interested in um obviously not for tonight but I'd still be interested to hear about some of our programs to help residents and if there's a possibility of what that would look like and maybe have a discussion on that some other time right I think we should make a note of that for followup um and if it's already covered and just can be handled with a memo to the council that's that's the the followup that would be needed but yeah if there's more to it we can have that conversation um and I would Echo council member gr's uh thoughts in in in terms of the uh the benefit of of not continuing forward with these residential Wells especially as the um as the wells uh you know ceed their useful life and need to be replaced anyway um you know clearly by law I think in the state you need to seal them anyway it's not not that people don't probably skirt the law but uh certainly that is is a requirement and I and I do think that um that benefit of of accurate sewer billing is important to to consider as well um but um you know by and large I think we've looked at the the existing scenario and and the existing properties that have already made the changes and you know one over 400t connection and and several between 3 and 400 ft I think that that does tell us that it has been done and can be done and and seems to be appropriate to do uh so on that basis I am supportive of the ordinance as well is there any other discussion no hearing none all those in favor of adopting the ordinance as presented signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously uh and then also I believe do we have an ordinance summary in this case or is it short enough that we didn't easy enough thank you again everyone uh then that brings us to our second item under business items this evening item 7B uh which is to consider approving the issuance of a request for proposals for the replacement of the playground at Lexington Park and we have our Parks director uh Matthew Johnson here with us this evening to introduce this item Mr Johnson yeah thank you mayor and councel I'll just uh tap dance a little as I pull my slides up here um so yes this is a this is an exciting one for us this has been on our Capital Improvement program um for a number of years and when we've sort of had highlighted as a as a big uh important visible item to really update our Parks and Recreation system um I think as the parks and rec director these projects are supposed to be like your kids you're not supposed to pick a favorite but you can tell by my enthusiasm this is one I'm looking forward to so um just you can call you can blame the whole it's a departmental favorite there you go I like it I like it um so just as a I'm sure you're all in this room aware but if anybody's observing at home uh as a point of reference Lexington Park is an 8 acre is Park on County Road B and Lexington one of our busier intersections here within the city um and one of our busier parks within the city um this is just a snippet of an overhead again to orient yourselves um we've got the playground here on the north side of the park we've got a park building here uh softball field soccer field and we cut it off to make sure we could see but there's a a really nice skating rank down here more green space and basketball court so in those 8 Acres there's a lot of different activities at Lexington Park as the council is surely aware um we do uh all of our Park assets are within the capital Improvement program on a schedule and the schedule is only step one so uh playgrounds typically have a 20e useful life so as we start getting close to 20 years um we sort of highlight them and and begin to do more than just our basic safety inspection but really start to look what's the long-term Outlook of this asset um the Lexington playground uh we've got some competing dates on when this was installed and my suspicion is because it was two steps but uh as early as as 2000 and as late as 2002 this probably went in so we're certainly well beyond that 20year window um this image that you're seeing here I think is from about three years ago but it's really representative of what that Park can look like on any given day um it's a very busy site a lot of the daycares in the neighborhood use it a lot of multif family houses housing in the area use this park and uh the playground really has been loved but it is showing its wear it is fading um there's some cracking in the plastic uh it's difficult to find replacement components so it's certainly time and uh is not one that we want to delay on any longer um this is the slide I just showed you uh showed you except for a Nifty red box that really indicates sort of the the service area of Lexington Park and um I want to highlight a couple things related to this service area so we know this is a busy pretty dense area of Roseville um and we have Keller Mayflower Park here but Keller Mayflower Park is essentially Green Space there's not a playground there so really as you come all the way over here to Harmar Lexington Park is the first playground for almost all of that housing um including some multif family housing here uh quite a bit of density and then similarly as you get over here to the east side of Lexington again this is that go-to park on the south side of Highway 36 for a lot of the community um and our data reflects that uh it's been quite a while since we've done just a park only needs assessment but when we did conduct that in 2011 um Lexington Park was the second most used Park in the entire Parks and Recreation system behind only Central Park and again if you uh take note as I do when you drive by anecdotally that makes a lot of sense it's busy all the time at that Park um we also have sort of identified this project as a really unique opportunity because of the infrastructure that's already in place um in 2015 2014 15 16 as part of the renewal program there were some improvements done to both the trails but most significantly for this project the park building that you see there um not only is it great as a gathering space but it's really important as we look to inclusivity in that it already has fully accessible restrooms on site and they're not just accessible they're easy to use they're remote operated in terms of locking so they are really an asset for somebody with ambulatory disability to make sure they have a restroom available so as we look for opportunities to improve accessibility we're not starting all over again there that's already there and that's really a helpful element um the last piece that we look we look towards for sort of an opportunity for Lexington Park is it's a huge playground um it's about 9500 Square ft uh the second largest playground I Believe by square footage we have in our system um and you can kind of see it as you look at this overhead you've got some play structure here there's sort of a neat little design of sort of an X of concrete pathway in the middle um got some swings over here and more play structure there um on one hand that means that it's a little bit more costly to replace the structure and the last thing I think anyone wants to do is go backwards we want to do we want to show them something great um but it's also really exciting because in a lot of these smaller playgrounds where we've tried to do um some more accessible elements like Ka park or or the new playground over on County Road B you run into issues where you can't do ramping because you're in a tight spot and ramping tanks linear footage the only way to go up when you don't have linear footage is unfortunately to climb so there could be some real opportunity here to not be fully inclusive in the sense of we can't do what was done at Central Park Victoria that budget is probably three to four times what we're talking here but to really do some steps more in that direction of inclusivity more in terms of accessibility and so we really view this as a great opportunity to do that so we're at where are we at in the process again this was identified on the 2024 uh Capital Improvement uh plan um we've actually before I came to see you I uh met a couple of different times with zultan Maria some individuals one's a Roseville resident the other one is Falcon Heights who were heavily involved in the Central Park Victoria inclusive playground um both are in electric chairs and um had a lot of kind of great Insight just to talking about it uh in October the Parks and Recreation Commission did a site visit to the site and they were really excited about this opportunity as well and could kind of see this vision of again not doing something crazy but just taking it a little bit to that next level so we're at a point where we're ready to issue a request for proposal on this project um and we want to do it or we intend to do it utilizing the best value procurement methods so rather than just put it out and say we want a a 9,000 ft uh playground give us your cheapest option instead we want to work with a vendor from the early beginning stages um and if you'll recall I won't you got a long agenda I won't give you the whole best value Spiel but best value means you don't just use price you utilize past performance capability references and ultimately their approach to the project to analyze a vendor at the front side and that has that additive Advantage then of this vendor will be with us here in the front of the project and we'll be out with us when we engage with the community at every one of those meetings having that back and forth and ideally creating a product that is not oh boy somebody's complaining about this we got to take it out and put that in but instead is actually collaboratively designing and building that playground um this is something we've used in a number of different projects but really the first one was the playground package for the park renewal program and I think the community feedback for those playground was pretty successful and really sold us on this idea of engage the vendor early and be with have them work with you throughout the project rather than just you know have them go low bit at the end so um I won't go through each of these criteria this is the criteria uh roughly that was used again when this was done in 2014 um and again highlights a combination of price past performance and actual approach to the project to select the vendor who will complete the project with us in terms of the budget um again this was already a large item in the CIP just due to the square footage and again not wanting to go backwards um we had put $385,000 in the capital Improvement program um I think as staff we were optimistic and continue to be optimistic that that item that number alone can do more than what's there um we think that um it's more than we spent previously we feel pretty good about that number however we uh have gone out and again like the proud father of all of my uh projects or all of our projects in the Parks and Rec system I talk this project up and the friends of Roseville Park got very excited about this and um they've been very interested in inclusivity and um have uh committed to if we have items that can be added that are above sort of that traditional playground to add inclusivity um they are interested in funding some of those items and have already committed to doing so as part of this project so those would be things um maybe like the inclusive Mar ground or something that is again really built outside of the scope of just a traditional playground something that's kind of bringing above and beyond Additionally you will recall um there is a development that's actually kind of in the construction phase on B and Albert um if and there was a u i I'm I don't have the Community Development language to correctly State I believe it was a variance given to to them for some additional density and as part of that they were assessed the park impact fee little different than Park dedication but the spirit was the same um to utilize to offset the impact of that density on their nearest park which in this case is Lexington Park so that would be again another funding source if we see an opportunity to do something even beyond what we've already prescribed for this um so again we we think we have that opportunity to do something real really special here um as as to where we're at we anticipate releasing this RFP as early as next week uh we hope to have a vendor selected um in June uh and then begin our engagement and to engage with the neighborhood uh through summer and early fall uh we would have a completed design ideally in fall at which point I would touch base with the council and least through a consent item uh and issue that official Po and if all goes according to plann uh we would begin to implement in Spring of 2025 I use a lot of qualifiers on this because again best value says that we use the vendors expertise and if we get the vendors that come back with great proposals but they say your timeline is crazy um we're going to listen to them and we're going to try to make sure that we don't have a bad product uh the other piece is of course Lexington Park as I've mentioned is very very busy and we want to be very intentional about not trying to do this project during a peak time when we know we're going to have to take it offline for a little while so um again we're very excited about the proposal and about the the proposed project and think there is an opportunity to uh again really put a special playground there and it's a little more than some of these few we've done the last years last couple years so I wanted to touch base with the council and I guess ultimately I'm seeking a motion to issue the RFP and move forward with that I will open up to questions all right thank you Mr Johnson are there questions from the council no oh council member shorter oh more comment than and question it's easy to get excited about this project you know what I love is that we do such a good job in funding sources where we have plan for this and so we have the CIP funds put away and then of course with the friends of U Roseville Parks and and to be able to get closer to that inclusion part I love that so I'm I'm really excited about this so this to me is almost easy to to approve so obviously I support it okay perhaps before we get to a motion just to double check to see if there is anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening doesn't appear to be the case so with that uh councilman Bratton I guess I'm making a motion I would uh make a motion to approve the process going forward uh as proposed by staff i' second it you get to choose move by uh well to be consistent with all of our previous motions I believe it was council member gra that seconded it um mooved by Council R second council member gra to approve the issuance of the RPS as outlined council member Adon as maker of the motion I would agree with the comments made by council member Schroeder um I think this is a great opportunity to use our friends at for Parks uh the vision of inclusivity um and some variety of funding sources to make this a feature piece um I think part of the reason it's such a big thing is Lexington's a big throughway and so uh you're getting a lot of people who may not even see some of other Parks um who are people are coming there to play you've got all the Sports for the young kids there there's just a it's there's so many reasons that this is an important piece to SN some extra effort and thought into it as well as dollars so thank you right and as the second or council member gra anything to add yeah of course I agree with those comments um it is a very used Park and I know every time I go there it's just great to see how many people are there even when I've had meetings at the park building which is a very nice building um the the activity around there is is is encouraging and we're very we should be very proud of it in Roseville I too lean into the inclusivity part I think that I'm glad you're using the funding and talking to for Parks because of course they are they have a history with this and they've also been supporting it in the past so they natural uh natural people to go to for that um I just think the other one you did up Ron Victoria was so impressive and it was so good to hear the comments from the people that were using it and how they were able to play with their friends so I'm very other discussion on the motion hearing none we've got the motion before us to authorize the issuance of the rfps for the Lexington Park playground all those in favor signify by saying I I I oppos that passes unanimously four to zero thank you Mr Johnson for bringing this before us and we look forward to the rest of the stages of the process uh with that that then brings us to our third business item uh under uh section 9 this evening 9 C which is to discuss the feedback regarding the uh human rights inclusion and engagement commission scope and duties uh we've had a couple of touches on this as a council over the course of this year uh as well as the human rights inclusion and engagement commission itself uh including at their March 20th meeting most recently uh and we certainly have materials on that in the packet that were provided by staff uh and this is an opportunity for a check-in on the process and so I'll turn it over to our assistant city manager Rebecca Olson uh once again to give us that update and maybe talk about where we go from here miss olon thank you mayor council members as mayor alluded to this is a follow-up from your conversation on March 11th as you know the human rights inclusion and engagement commission uh discussed uh I'm sorry let me back up the council requested some feedback from the human rights inclusion and engagement commission regarding a couple different Focus areas the first area really asking the commission to provide some feedback on their thoughts regarding what tasks or um work area is that group should focus on the second is regarding uh their feedback uh related to the structure of the group there was some prompting questions that was uh developed by council members and staff or staff and council members that was included in your packet if you want to reference that but I'm here to provide a highlevel summary of that conversation at the commission meeting um one thing I do want to point out is that it was a very robust and thoughtful conversation that the commission had and I know many of you have already watched the meeting but um for anyone that is following and interested I would encourage you to to watch that to get the full content of their discussion because I'm I'm hitting on those high level points here the other point I do just want to mention is that uh when I talk about maybe coalescing around a consensus area consensus is really not unanimous necessarily um but more along the lines of that this is something that the group is agreeing to that they aren't um actively disagreeing with um I do also want to mention that there was one commissioner that wanted to provide their thoughts I don't think that that commissioner fully aligned along that consensus point and so that information is included in your packet as well to be fair to that individual for providing feedback um so I'm just going to jump into kind of those key points that the commission did wind up coalescing around and um we'll start with the area on what areas our tasks the the commission felt would be appropriate for that group to work on and it ended up centering around uh reviewing and evaluating policies really looking at how those could maybe have either intentional or unintentional impacts on on various groups within our community they then also really wanted to tie the work that is happening at the city with the city's strategic racial Equity action plan to this group they thought that was a really um positive way to sustain the work of whatever group moves forward because that's something that the city has um actively been working on and has adopted and is going to plan on on doing version 2.0 moving forward but it can serve as a foundation for the work of the group as well um they also thought it it could uh an opportunity for staff and Council to use the group as a sounding board um for Action specifically tied around that uh strategic racial Equity action plan and also a couple other areas that they thought might be appropriate um depending on what comes out of it would be related to the city's actions after you complete your strategic planning what that looks like if there's um priorities that are related to equity and inclusion as well as certain components of the commu the the City's community aspirations um so the last part is that they wanted to really look at the structure their feedback was that the the commission structure was an appropriate structure they thought it was really important that this is work that is done publicly that can be part of a government process I think that also um came forward during their joint meeting at as well um they did talk about a couple different options related to having various groups but ultimately decided on recommending one group to start with um using a commission structure rather than something more similar to the Multicultural advisory committee um they did want to make sure that various viewpoints were also heard um depending on what that looks like um whether it is a separate group or whether it is this group but they thought that was also important um and then I also wanted to mention that um there were a couple other things that were included in the prompting questions that they thought could could potentially be tasks that they work around um that would be the racial Equity impact summaries or just the equity impact summaries expanding that to include other areas as well um and then uh the piece on the work area and and tasks they thought thought it was important to have a narrow Focus they wanted to have parameters set up so that they knew what they were they were supposed to be working on um and they thought that engagement would naturally flow from those tasks I think I provided an example in the staff report in that if they were talking about a policy or a procedure and they felt that the stakeholders that were going to be impacted weren't represented that they would either encourage the city to do that Outreach they could help with identifying stakeholders they could help support staff in some of that engagement um but they didn't want to lose that type of Engagement they thought that was still really important to include as well um uh also in your staff report you will see that under the equity the racial Equity impact summary is some uh data related to demographics we do do surveys of our commission members as well on their demographics we're in the midst of compiling that information for 2024 and what you'll see is that um historically at various times throughout our our data collection here our commissions do tend to um demonstrate a reflection of our community members but historically it has been kind of concentrated in one or two commissions instead of being across the depth and breadth of all of the city commissions and so that's something that wanted to make sure that moving forward we're very intentional about since that is one of the aspects of our our strategic racial Equity action plan so whatever the group looks like moving forward making sure that we continue to have that as a priority uh and that finally brings me to staff's recommendation um tonight we're not asking for any specific action on our part this is feedback that the human rights inclusion and engagement uh commission is providing per the council's request um but I know that council is looking uh for some next steps staff did make a recommendation in there if it's something that council is interested in doing um I know that um there's been talk about making sure that we understand kind of the purpose um the the work areas or tasks that a group would do as well as the role whether it is being evaluators whether it's being um ambassadors or whatever that role looks like so staff thought it might be helpful to do a facilitated conversation at your main 13th meeting um to help get that Foundation established and then following that um the structure can be best determined based on what you're hoping as the outcome and the purpose and role is so with that um I will stand for any questions right thank you Miss olssen and I do want to express thanks to the commission as well having um see I watched the meeting over the weekend and and uh was very impressed with the um the frankness of the conversation uh the willingness to really answer the questions that the council was seeking some some answers to uh and so just want to make sure and and publicly Express that thanks especially since a number of the folks who participated uh that was their last commission meeting because of their transitioning off the commission uh and so uh just you know once again to say how much I appreciate I hope the whole Council appreciates the fact that that they had that conversation and and that it was not necessarily an easy conversation um and that I think the outcome does really help the process and so I want to start with that and then certainly other council members if you got questions or other feedback feel free to uh to do that at this time council member gra more feedback than uh questions I did watch the meeting also and that was a very good suggestion because Miss olon suggested an email and you know I try to watch them but I can't watch every one of these commissions we have other things we have to do to but I did make a point of Watch ing that and it was really important information for I agree with the mayor it was a very Frank and open discussion it was very helpful for me on the council to understand where they're coming from but also I really want to express appreciation for Miss olsson's guidance there because it isn't an easy task to work with that breadth of opinions and try to pull it together and coales it and I think you really did a good job of that um I liked where it landed I like where we're headed I like the recommendation of um of Miss Olsson and the administration so I don't think I really have any other comments I I like the ideas that you proposed here but of course we can speak more to those when we meet in May if we're going to have a workshop other thoughts uh Council shorter yes thank you very much for for all the work on this and I watched the meeting as well and it does help to actually watch it versus just looking at the minutes or the notes on it and and I I want to give thanks to the people who were very um Frank and and you know the people that were leaving actually said some really good thing I thought positive things a way to make things better and actually this high level list that um that uh that was you just went over that's exactly what we're looking for and my view would be that we would take this because I think it lines up a lot with what the council was thinking in in so many ways that to me I want each of these meetings to get more and more further down the line or narrow to where we're going to end up and I think if if we're going to do this Workshop that this might not be a bad spot to start with is these highlevel pieces that are agreement I mean there obviously needs to be some more work there and in a way I'd almost um and I know we have a subcommittee on this thing as well but I'm wondering if it's not a bad idea to take some of this and maybe take a stab at a a purpose based on some of this not not in stone but give us something then to work with and and possibly um modify CU sometimes when you start with something and you want to change it it's easier than to come together as a group and write it at that moment so that's just a thought I would have is take what we've learned and maybe try to put it into the format and bring it back for the work session to to kick around so just a thought right and just to clarify you you said purpose and I think you were intentional in that you didn't mean necessarily the whole ordinance rather the purpose part of it because I think that's the part the council needs to agree on is because this what is the purpose of this group and and I think that's I think we had confusion on that as well where that would end up being and so if we can come up with the ACT ual purpose of the group I think that would go far okay no thank you for clarifying that council member Aton um thank you I would agree with the comments and watching the meeting the commitment of folks uh even in their last meeting to have a rigorous and thoughtful uh uh discussion and a commitment to make improvements for the city and and how we move forward so I I thank all of them for that and yes Miss olon for helping kind of facilitate that uh that discussion I I would agree that I I think that a lot of what they came back with are things that uh fit my general concept so I think it is a great starting point a point of a fair amount of agreement um things like that the S re is there but getting back to some of the data and things like that that have been lost in the last year as we've gone through Transitions and having that group look at some of those measures and checking how we're doing and changing or recommending changes um the idea of expanding Beyond uh SRE and talking about Equity inclusion in general we saw an example of that in our last last item thinking about Playgrounds and and how we think differently about how we operate um and so a group that wouldn't be limited to the SR but thinking Equity inclusion more broadly in in our functions in the city um I also think that just um in the hiring of Mr Montes uh we had this uh opportunity for some members of that commission uh the current H to be part of the hiring process and to think about other ways as the ma for police officers are there ways to have this group have a role in that uh process in the interviews or making recommendations or providing insights uh as we uh do certain levels of of leadership or something within our city and making a statement about how important it is that um our leadership um is focused on and reflecting uh those values um so those are those are some things that um for me are important uh the one thing I would I guess push back but on on the kind of the review of what came out of the commission is the sense that a commission was the structure that were best I think there was a lot of there were a lot of ideas up to three different groups um you know I think one uh commissioner uh talked very strongly about that as a thing to have uh a commission and and I think there's some sound reasons why but I also think that there was a lot of two groups three groups we not sure I think the for me it's the purpose we need to come back around and and nail that uh first and then we can talk about that process um for how we would get to that purpose but I I would agree uh with uh member schroer and thinking about having some something to sink our teeth into a month from now a little more of a month than now um rather than a free floaty kind of thing and I think we have a fair number of things that are that could help start our structure our discussion U and I just wanted to no I'll go to council no that's right I was just trying to decide was I ready to add something or I just wanted to say I do want to hear what our our um Mr montz has to say too because I think he has a bre of experience that we need to capitalize on in making this decision and as far as the discussions about the committee more like Mac or a commission one of the things the reasons I was hearing was because they thought a organization like mac wouldn't need to follow the same structure as a commission and I think it's really important that we do follow the same structure Commission because it needs to be transparent I don't really like the idea even though they said it might make people more comfortable uh having conversations I don't like the idea of having it off uh out of this the the transparent structure for the public so that was my reason for going down that road Y and actually that was one of the things I was I was going to somewhat disagree with Council Mar retton's analysis of that in the sense that I think they definitely had a lot of back and forth in the discussion and a lot of ideas were out there but I I do think that by and large the group did coales around the idea of the commission and I think it was for exactly that reason that it that it this these topics are things that that uh should be talked about in in the same sort of public way that we talk about parks recreation discussions or we talk about you know uh Finance discussions or or Public Works type things I think that was ultimately where the where the commission came down um but it definitely it was an evolutionary discussion it didn't just start there from the start so um and I appreciate that that's the way it worked because I think that's kind of what you have to do in those cases um so I I do think it makes some sense to perhaps have sort of a draft purpose statement uh if the subcommittee is willing to look at that as as a as something to react to or respond to in our conversation on the 13th I do think that it helps to have that guided discussion about sort of drilling down on some of these other points about some of the roles and and you know thinking about how how the group would interact with SRE how the group would interact with um you know with the equity statements in requests for Council action and things like that um and so you know I can Envision ways that that can work well and ways that it can't work well and I think that's an appropriate discussion to have at that 13th meeting uh especially knowing that we have one of our four five members not with us this evening and so I wouldn't want to wouldn't want to sort of try to do something without the full Council so I appreciate that the other thing just a couple of comments about the some of the things that were brought brought up in the discussion uh at the commission meeting I thought it was interesting um that the the discussion sometimes talked about well uh do we want to make sure that we match what the council's looking for uh and I think there was some some push back on that and inappropriately so because I I don't think what we were asking for was for this commission to read our minds and and Lord knows nobody's been able to do it up to this point so um so I appreciated that that the commission you know really kind of thought more from the point of view of of what what made the most sense and and while there was some thought about going down the the the idea of trying to match with Council expectations I think that that ultimately what came out well it may coincidentally match with some of our expectations certainly I don't think was ultimately what they were trying to achieve as a commission uh and the other piece of it was the um the comment it was very interesting when I heard it which was that that Thomas Brooks had had the commission look and do a sounding board sort of activity related to the original SRE when it was first the Strategic racial Equity action plan when it was first promulgated and was kind of going through that process and that commissioner sort of was confused at that time as to why they were doing that um because it didn't seem to match with what the commission was or what the understanding was that the commission was supposed to be doing and so that to me was a very insightful uh or really it registered with me when I heard that that feedback um and there were other sort of related feedbacks about sort of the the tension between what Commissioners thought the commission was supposed to be doing and sort of what was before them at at each meeting for their agenda to discuss and so um certainly I I would say that that that you know coincides with some of the sense of of some of this tension through the last few years on the commission and and so it it while it may not be surprising it was definitely it would helped reinforce sort of where we why we need to do this work um and so I appreciated that and did want to highlight those two to aspects of the conversation uh but once again very appreciative I actually have six pages of handwritten notes from watching the meeting and so I'll be pouring through those again between now and may uh and probably referring to them in May again and going forward but I just can't emphasize enough the appreciation for the commission for their for their work on this uh council member sh um just a couple more questions on I do like the fact that they want to narrow it down because I think if it's too broad and too General I think people have very different ideas then and I think if we can Define things well and narrow it down because it sounded like some of the new people in that meeting said I confused you know on some of it because it was too General and so I I do like that a lot and the other thing I wanted to mention the subcommittee obviously works very closely with the staff you know a number of people on on the staff so we'll you know come together and and and try to come up with some draft piece that we we can look at with with the help of the staff as well I would like to see some input from Mr monz in that well yeah he'd be part of the staff yeah because it would be you know you have Pat and yeah all of these you know you'd have number of people on the staff to help that's why I say staff because it was not just one it' be number people yes and I do want absolutely I I was wondering if it it was confusing when they said they didn't seem to understand s very well and I was very concerned about about that because in my opinion that's kind of what that commission that what we've been talking about for a couple years so I was wondering if we've had any training or anything that could be made available to them I know we had something for uh all the Departments if I'm not mistaken uh is there any way we could do something like that so that I know members know uh mayor council member graph uh that is uh what we're hoping um would be the next kind of step with this group while we're while the group uh and staff are waiting for kind of that final determination is to get the group better up to speed walk through the S with them talk with them about things that have been happening so that they're more familiar with it they've had they have seen it however the the remaining members um as you know several of them are no longer on the commission but the remaining members are newer or some of them are newer and they probably did not have a chance to see it so we're hoping that that would be the focus of the meetings moving forward is is getting them up to speed on on those types of items thanks great um and the other thing from the conversation uh at the meeting was also the uh appreciation uh of the notion that the work that the that the commission did including their work in November and the fall and then you know up to this point um you know there was concern that that was in vain and I certainly want to Echo the the the the feedback to that from the council's perspective and certainly disagreement with me if you wish but I would not consider that work to have been in vain because if it isn't immediately useful uh for the format and role and and function as we go forward with the commission I think that's still important information that can be useful for the city um I know I think was mentioned in one of our previous discussions sort of from a staff perspective there is uh sort of looking at how to do something along the lines of an ambassador approach you know uh Connections in the community and that sort of thing and I think a lot of that is is valuable and helpful to that probably so I I I don't consider it in vain from from my perspective and and I don't think the city does either but I did want to also publicly emphasize that as as part of our discussion this evening as as feedback to the commission uh and the Commissioners as well so um other thoughts otherwise I think the plan is to to have that uh work session and the reason for the 13th is because that's our next work session we will purposely not have a lot of other things on the agenda so we can give it the time it needs and do it in a a little more informal discussion I would expect that coming out of that we probably won't have specific draft language yet for the ordinance but hopefully a really good guide for what that will be um and so the things we'll be talking about are sort of once again digging down on some of these things and exactly how some of these things will work not all that ends up in the ordinance of course uh you know some of that is just kind of how things work and it isn't ultimately in the ordinance but um hopefully all of that will be helpful to clarify as we go forward with uh the next steps of reconstituting and moving forward with a fully staffed uh Commission as well so if there's nothing else on this item we once again want to express appreciation to miss Olson and everybody who's been involved up to this point on the commission staff and and councel as well thank you all right uh that brings us to a couple of uh topics related to uh legislation uh that's before the uh State Legislature during this session um and uh actually are a couple of things that the city had not taken a position on in our legislative agenda back in the fall or sort of end of end of the year time frame as we went into the new session uh and so certainly some things that I think are relevant to the city and are worthy of conversation of some sort and maybe depending on how we feel as a council some feedback or follow-through so I'll turn it over to uh Pat Tran on the first item uh city manager in regard to the missing middle housing legislation and I think with the support of Miss gunlock as needed as well so Mr Tran on item 7D which is to discuss this legislation related to the uh quote unquote missing middle housing uh that's at before the legislature this session thank you Mr Mayor uh mayor and Council you probably heard a lot about this missing middle legislation this has been something that's been um in the media and a priority down at the legislature since the session opened up earlier this year it is something that is pretty wide ranging and very significant to um local zoning um and development and housing uh the missing middle is really to finding um uh housing types that are not just single family uh housing T duplexes condos Town Homes maybe even all the way up to um um multif family and also uh this missing middle bill is really trying to uh address affordable housing concerns in the state so you have this Coalition of folks in Minnesota that represent affordable housing uh housing Advocates as well as the builders promoting this as an opportunity to address a lot of housing needs we're short of housing especially affordable housing um I guess um on the premise that uh local government is the problem for that not happening we can all have our own opinion on what we think about that um but um that is what's been um brought forward so um this legislation has taken a lot of twists and turns um and I think the moment you think you understand that there's something else uh happening about it but broadly speaking and Miss gunlock did a great job of summarizing in uh the RCA a variety of um uh items that are in there such as allowing multif family development uh as a permitted use in um commercial areas as as they call it um having a very small lot size uh requirements uh having a base density in all districts of at least two units so in a single family District uh you would allow two units on a property allowing accessory dwelling units um then they get into more of the regulatory um review having a 6 day 60-day limit on administrative review for whether it's subdivisions or some other housing not allowing uh cities to add extra uh requirements on certain types of housing uh that might be for Aesthetics as they determine it and certainly as part of any um economic incentives as a requirement to receive Tiff for instance um so as I said this is kind of a moving Target um some of the things that are being talked about this bill are things that um uh we already allow or have talked about access to relling units is as an example not sure how what that state um legislation would do and what the differences in our in our local law but that's something that we've had in place as you know also we do allow for a little bit greater density in single family districts as well um but this is maybe a slightly different Twist on it so all that being said there's been a lot of um conversation about this council member shorter and I were at a league of Minnesota City's event uh where they talked about this and really called it out and uh that was the talk of the conference uh and and so I've heard that this bill has bipartisan support but also bipartisan opposition so um I think um as a cities uh both uh in the Metro and in greater Minnesota there's a lot of concern about what this would be taking away and taking away the the local control interestingly enough after we put together this case it started uh being played out in the media that this bill was kind of dead in this session uh that the legislative leadership and both the House and Senate is saying that this is not going to be taken up as a whole uh they do say there's some things that might be considered separately such as accessory dwelling units and allowing um housing in um commercial districts um as you know the legislative process is very ear that one single Bill gets passed on a very specific issue everything's thrown together uh at the uh end of the session into an Omnibus Bill and that's something that we'll have to continue to to look at so um we really our intent to bring this forward was really to have an ability for the council to be aware of it and I know a lot of you have already tracking this then have a coun council conversation about what position of any we want to take on it uh if there are some positions that we want to take on uh this legislation my sense is probably be most effective if we can articulate those and then communicate to our legislative delegation about those concerns versus passing a resolution which might be a little bit clunky um we can maybe U put something in writing uh something we could bring back or just in trust based on the direction of the council uh for staff and uh perhaps the mayor to work on uh formulating that letter so as I said there's a lot of issues in here I think there's uh Beyond just the merits of whether it should be done or not it's just a lot of vagueness and how it's actually going to work in practice we have seen the legislature U pass a lot of things without a lot of thought and um I think this is another example where there's great impact and one of the stakeholders that are really important to this whole calculation of how we address affordable housing their cities and they haven't really been uh talked to too much um so uh I think there is a lot of concern for this and just generally speaking this is moving a little too fast perhaps it's not going to be addressed in this session but there are certain very specific things that I think the council should have a conversation about and where we would want to stand on that so with that I will pause and be happy to answer any questions Miss gunlock uh is more familiar with the bill um and certainly has some thoughts about how some of these things would or wouldn't work but I don't know what level we want to get into tonight but just kind of kind of teen it up for a conversation right thank you Mr Mr trudon and Miss gunlock for the the background work on this I know it was definitely a moving Target uh even during the course of developing this request for action um just a general question I'll certainly defer to council members but it seems like this is written as zoning standards such that it's not something where they're saying as an example for accessory dwelling units cities need to permit accessory dwelling units in their zoning code and then we get to still sort of determine what the parameters are it seems like it's written much more like the the the um Sanctuary the what am I I think sacred settlement where it's here these are the requirements and cities just have to do it is am I correct in sort of interpreting maybe all of these requirements along those lines for quite a lot of things I think the the bill also uh tasks the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to do a model zoning ordinance Housing Finance and um zoning are a little bit different but um that is what is called under the legislation at least the latest draft and so so I think there is some specificity uh but also there's a lot to be determined and I'm not sure how much leadway we're going to have to deviate too far from the general tenor of what they're trying to get at this I I would just add mayor members of the council we included one of the letters that the league and the group representing the league sent to the house and one of the things that stuck out in that letter to me is you're right a lot of the content of the bill is actually creating requirements not just you shall allow accessory dwelling units but then they add certain language that has to be compatible so there's lots of language in the bill that conflicts with one another which creates a lot of uncertainty with implementation what we will or won't be able to do um if it passes and just you know from my perspective uh and I'd be interested to hear from other council members you know one of the things I would generally object to is the state sort of writing zoning codes for cities in the state statutes it's one thing to set standards that cities may have to meet um uh and and general parameters but it's a whole other thing to be specific about just everything down to the nuts and bolts and things like that so just at a top level that's something that I would certainly have have objection to just in general about this approach and and I think it it was demonstrated by the sacred settlements legislation that it really took a lot of the ability to put our own local relevant parameters on things into what would normally be local decisions so that's that's that's my take there but certainly I'll I'll open up for any other thoughts feedback questions from Council Members council member Scher yes um I as um our city manager mentioned I I was there when when this was presented and there was a lot of uh reaction from a lot of cities but before that I just wanted to say I think rosille does a very good job with this I think we've intentionally have has our zoning set up where and and if you look at even with um you know us the requirement on all the different types of housing we have I think rosell's done a very good job and I think each city has to decide that and to have it taken away that we would do the zoning or figure out what's best for our city I think is is very um very short cited I do think the letter that the league of Minnesota cities wrote is excellent I do like the what they pointed out in here um I I do think it that's exactly where you know some of my concerns were um and I I actually would probably support the thought of maybe us writing a similar letter like this as from our city saying something similar to this just to show uh where we stand on this because I think it is a bad idea that they're trying to take away a lot this from uh each City CU one size does not fit all with cities we all know that you know if you think about all the different cities in Minnesota that just does not work well and especially if you have some vague stuff in there it it's it's it's for disaster so anyways that's my thought on it other thoughts council member gra well I pushed back a little bit on that because Roseville does do a very good job on it that but others surrounding communities don't and uh part of the reason for this is that everyone Bears some of the weight and that's what what the logic was behind the bill um I'm not supportive of everything in this B Bill obviously but I probably wouldn't support a uh letter that we support we we are against it I wouldn't go that far I would I would stay neutral on the bill councilman Ron um I I would appreciate uh mayor your point on state determin zoning versus providing parameters that can open up more doors for housing I think there's a lot the state or the Met Council in their guidance on on zoning maps and things that um could do to um ensure that there are are more housing or more spaces in which housing can happen without this dramatic rewriting of all things an example um allowing um housing and the housing could be 150 ft high if You' got another structure Close Enough by um in a neighborhood a business thing makes no sense because they can be directly adjacent to single family homes it has a significant impact on those homes for a variety of reasons allowing a scalable maybe you can have town homes in neighborhood business and in Regional business having as we have um allowing up to 150 ft right so thinking about yes you need to have housing in your business districts but not it must be this whole kitten Kaboodle of the biggest housing that's possible but rather a scalable piece to that would seem to be a reasonable adjustment to something um from this so so I I'm concerned about that I'm concerned about um this removal not just of aesthetic things but more substantial code language the cities would be able to create uh talking about what Miss gunlock brought up some spot says hey it needs to fit the uh neighborhood and the other spot says well you don't have you can't put any code languages around height and um neighborhood character and and and uh materials and things like that well those are obviously in contradiction to each other and I think that we can have broad standards that still aren't zero standards right so I'm I'm concerned about things uh things like that um and their impacts on um partially on the quality of homes why are the builders excited about this because they can cut Corners right anytime you've made bed fellows with um people but on the opposite side of these issues before you have to stop and say what why are they looking at this it's probably not to make cheaper homes but to make homes more cheaply and not there's no guarantee that the price is going to be lower and so I think that we maybe trying a blunt force instrument to get towards um some goals that we could be more specific and targeted with um open up some doors without blowing all the doors off the off the barn um I I would support a a letter um along certain lines it it may be different from um the league of Minnesota City's thing um but I do think that we have and our citizens have a real um um I can't think of word we have something in the game here we got skin in this game um and it's important to discuss and I think provide here are some things that we do or that we think are reasonable I think we do allow housing in almost all our businesses you don't want it in industrial areas right I mean there's some areas you wouldn't even want housing right so opening up all those doors seems to show to me a lack of understanding of how it would impact people um as as it happened so yeah no I exactly the notion of potentially having housing in industrial districts I mean what kind of quality housing is that for those people you know on the one hand we're talking about affordability but I think ultimately as was noted the housing needs to be decent housing too it's not just simply trying to hit some affordability Target um I think I would support a more General letter along the lines of of sort of you know disagreeing with specific requirements from the state but uh supportive of providing some parameters for cities and some more generalized you know requirements obviously the devil's always in the details I think the league has done a pretty good job of specific objections to specific Parts um so I don't necessarily think we need to repeat that I was trying to think of if we can make it a onepage you know three paragraph letter that's probably would be ideal if we could do something along those lines but je definitely expressing to our legislators legislators uh you know the concerns we have about the level of control over local decision- making that is embodied in some of the legislation that has been brought forward council member ad you know we talk about local decision making it sounds like what exactly what they're after is that not my backyard concept and I think we've proven as we have already um gone well beyond the affordable housing requirements from the Met Council for 2040 that we are willing to go and I understand your point member graph that not every city is and has so how do we open some of those doors again without getting rid of everything and I so it's not just about local control it's also about understanding local impact and then a broad stroke from the state government eliminates the ability to consider local impact of some of these pieces and I think that is something that will negatively affect people um in their current housing or even if you got future housing and said well I can get this cheap land over here but it's not connected to Services it's not connected to bus routs it's not right then suddenly we have housing in random spots or housing that isn't supported by the infrastructure is noted um that doesn't really make sense but is cheap and easy to build um and so that those local impacts even Beyond local control um that the broad brush stroke from the state would is missing and would definitely miss those and would have negative potential negative consequences custom can we tailor that so that it's Roseville specific rather than trying to address all you that that's what I would be interested in I'm not interested in and I do want to stress that and probably to our own uh legislators is probably where I would feel best to yes that's where it makes a difference nobody up in uh St Cloud is going to care if they get a letter from us so well but I think well we may be Rose so specific I think it still makes sense to talk about how what makes sense for Roseville may not make sense for Paynesville you know I mean there there it doesn't mean that Painesville shouldn't have things they should should strive for and perhaps broad parameters they need to fit within to your point about not everybody's doing something and I don't mean to single out payville they may be doing a wonderful job I have no idea um so it would just there was there was a parallel construction the city name there but anyway um so I I think it's important that we do talk about that that that the reason we've been successful in Roseville is because we have taken into account and been sensitive to those adjacencies and those impacts and how it can work in our community which may not be which may not meet the letter of what was in some of these requirements in the in the legislation so I think that's the kind of the Nuance the local angle but also still tying it back to how how something coming from the state legislature doesn't always it's fit for all all localities Council yes and I think maybe I wasn't very clear when I talked about I agree I think it's the from Roseville the local and I was just saying that more like this format or how they did this was more my point on that because they did pick up very specific things and I think that's important for us to do to say this doesn't work for Roseville because of this and this and this and you know we don't know what will work or not work for other cities we really can't say that but we do know what does and does not work for Roseville and I think that's the important part here and I think you just want to make sure and send it you know to the people that might be passing this bill that's why I think we should send it to um you know to let them know where we what we think committees yeah y so okay so beyond just our legislators then but also probably the chairs of those committees at least relevant committee me okay and I I do think we have we're sort of on two different tracks here I do hear both and maybe it's mostly for me the general the general approach where and and also the this the notion of sort of itemizing specific concerns that Roseville has with the requirements um once again I I tend to not necessarily think especially given that the bill may be sort of kind of dead for this session perhaps the most valuable feedback is right is to talk about you know not getting into such specific requirements for anybody and and how you know I guess we could still talk about how some of them may affect Roseville but I I just don't want to use examples I don't want to have like a a 15-page letter I'm trying to trying to figure out how to how to be concise because we also want it to get R yeah that's where you got the two I mean like I said this format I think is good because of the size too Mr TR so just a couple thoughts here in the conversation um you know the purpose of any letter to our legislative delegation is to let them know that there are concerns we have generally speaking about the bill and we can list off the different um spots I suppose that we have challenges in I know earlier on the legislation was kind of bypassing the whole public hearing process and that's been taken up you know for now you know and you don't know so I think we'd probably be chasing our tail a little bit to get very specific I think it'd be helpful to say we we have some concerns about the way this bill um has been going through the process the lack of involvement of local officials and some of the um decisions we can talk about you know what we've been doing on a local level and we would encourage them to stay in touch with us as this process moves forward whether it's a session or future sessions to have a conversation with us U about what is is workable before they pass the bill you mean well I mean and I would say that it's not on our shoulders to prevent this bill from happening that's why we have legue of Minnesota cities and Metro cities to to Advocate uh for us and we can certainly mobilize on that but I think if nothing else the legislators would have appreciate this hearing from us on where we stand or don't stand and something like that I would also I want to be a little bit cautious about uh sending to different committees because this is goes three or four different committees and and it's going to be hard and and I think it's kind of dead now so I went to some committees but you know I don't know where it's going to go um and we can certainly do whatever the council wants I'm just saying that that might be we're chasing ourselves again a little bit there because there's a lot of committees well actually Pat you know I I'm I'm open to where you think it would be the best served yeah me too I think if you think it's our constituency I find of that Cil there one more piece of that I think it's super important for us to outline that we are concerned about that local impact um and potential unattended consequences not just hey we want to be involved but without itemizing the most recent Bill we might have seen that in the end we're talking how might another Roseville towers that something within 500 ft which could land it right in the middle of single family homes someone buys up the land you know at that point it's the economics are pretty easy actually if you can put a a 10 foot build a 10 story building there it really Chang that economic that that kind of unintended consequence um for people who are um who are in our local communities and taking away the ability for cities to be thoughtful about how those uh work as we combine housing with other uses well I think for maybe a couple examples like that if if I was on I'm just trying to think of how if I was on the other side of this and getting something I would need something like that or something like you mentioned earlier if it be in the industrial neighbor this these are the type of unintended consequences we're concerned about you just say unended consequences it's too B no I think that's exactly right those two examples are perfect examples um and even if the law As It ultimately you know May stand now or or or will stand later you know doesn't exactly do those things they're still good examples to use so and having been at the legislature last week at a testifying at a hearing uh nobody has a problem using you know arguments that may not be relevant to what's actually in the bill so right so um that being said um I think we can probably put something together in the next few days maybe you know it might make sense to run a draft just by all of us yeah I like to circulate that so every with what we have but we'll take a stab at it and then we'll sounds good that sounds good thanks everyone uh the second legislation oriented uh item here under business items is s s 9e uh which is to uh discuss the proposed special legislation that the Ramsey County has before the legislature related to their ability to create an economic development Authority and I'll turn it over to Mr Tran again thank you Mr Mayor um I know I've given you a lot of background on this in the past um and I think you're pretty up to speed in the case uh talks about maybe how we got here but the basic um thought here is that we wanted to bring this conversation forward there's awareness of this and if there's any conversation we want to have around this uh such as taking a stance on it or not um we just wanted to make it uh available to uh the council for a discussion as indicated um the Ramsey County uh as an organization has had a bill introduced to allow them to create a Ramsey County Eda the original bill that was presented to local leaders uh the mayor and I sat in a meeting um would create the Eda um through special legislation uh if you're not aware there is currently under State statutes a process for counties to create an Eda which involves local communities and this would kind of um not do that and just create it um as a matter of fact and the original legislation gave them full powers under the statutes for an Eda uh which covers the gamut of things but including um the ability to have a levy a separate Eda Levy um the premise that it was brought forward was not to create a separate Eda Levy but they want some of the Eda powers specifically to help small businesses um that they cannot um use funds for currently through the HRA which they have the housing Redevelopment Authority and I think the feedback heard back uh from um that first meeting was the intent is is fine and good but um the ability to create an Eda out of nothing without any consultation and also the uh ability to Levy at some point in the future um was concerning to us so to the credit of uh Ramsey County they did go back and made some changes to the legislation that specifically did not allow them to have an Eda Levy and also allowed for uh cities to as they say opt in or opt out of of the business programming on that so um there was another meeting I wasn't able to attend but the mayor attended where that uh outlined it and there was some additional conversation around the process and why uh the county wasn't following that particular course of action outlin in the state statutes there was a hearing on the Senate side um I think it was last week where the bill was heard um and there were a lot of questions uh from some of the committee members about why this process is being used where City stand on this a particular item after um some conversation bill was laid over for inclusion in possible um Omnibus um bill at sometime down the road so but the bottom line I want to make sure it's it's clear that this in hearing from the county was not to create another taxing Authority it is to use some of the powers that um edas are allowed under State statutes to do things related to businesses they they would keep their H Levy and under this legislation would be a way for them to spend some of those dollars on business related items um and they had a breakdown I can't remember what it was like 80% still towards housing of that Eda um the H Levy it was also pointed out that they will continue to invest in affordable housing with the uh sales taxes in the metro area uh they would be able to provide significant resources so uh once again this is a little bit of a moving Target uh don't know where this is going to end if it's actually going to see the light at day or not but at the very least I wanted to bring It Forward uh for your awareness and um weighing in on this um they are not directly asking for us to have any uh letters of support or resolutions of support but uh wanted to make you aware of it we can just receive this information and see how it turns out or if we do want to weigh in one way or another um I'll take your direction so with that and the mayor may want to add some things cuz he was quite involved in the meetings as well yeah I would just add had uh so the um I believe the county was able to do some small business support over the last couple three years with uh Co relief money um and I think those programs were met with with some support and enthusiasm in the in the county maybe enthusiasm is too strong of a word but anyway um but I think they were appreciated uh and and the county desired to keep those moving forward but their only funding sour Source other than the general County Levy which I'm not even sure legally can be used for these types of things um was the HRA Levy which definitely legally can't be used for these types of things the H Levy as the city knows having had an HRA and converted to an Eda the Eda uh has most of the tools if not all the tools of an HRA and then also ability to do some business assistance um and so that was the theory behind the the county looking to add the H to their toolbox if you will but you know their their intention was not to you know Levy an Eda Levy uh and one of the things they talked about was that that actually with the sales tax I think their current HRA Levy is something in the order of 11 or 12 million countywide and their expectation is that their sales tax dollars dedicated to housing are going to be almost the same order of magnitude and so that's almost doubling their amount that they can spend on affordable housing in in in the county um and so the idea was is if they can get the Eda powers to use with their existing Levy capacity they could do continue this business support in years to come and I think they talked about going online in 25 or 26 with it so it's not immediate necessarily even with the legislation uh but the idea was in their minds I think at the county was because it's a relatively minor change to their business and they're not intending to Levy dollars for it specific to that that that they could do the special legislation as opposed to the longer more involved process of consultation with the communities in the county and recommend recommendations back to the county and then ultimately you know going forward with a plan um that was their their argument and so I you know it makes some sense from the point of view of of what they're trying to do they just had had written an ordin or written a statute or a special legislation that basically gave them all the powers of an Eda including doing a levy which they weren't even saying they wanted to do and then also it specifically excluded the requirements um in one section of state law that talk about that consultation process but another part of that same section talks about the whole opting in and opting out part for cities and they just kind of wiped out everything with the the way they had written it and so they went back and and specifically targeted no Levy and and yes the opt out stays in or opt in opt out stays in so from my persp perspective it is better I don't know that we have to take a position on it uh certainly if we're opposed to it we'd want to let them know probably but I'm you know for my perspective I wouldn't recommend that we oppose it so but if there are questions or thoughts this be the time to talk about it council member gra just a quick one how would you see this helping Roseville I think you know one of the things because we have our Eda we do some business support programs I think there may be things outside of the scope of what we do that the county may be able to do and certainly we partner already with the county with their open to business and things like that um but I think it it would just help sort of fill gaps or or augment the things that the city does and certainly we do have the ability apparently to op opt out if we wanted to maybe not to opt out of paying the levy because that's the H Levy but certainly opt out of the programs customer yeah it's the concept is fine it was just the method which is what I have issues with there's a reason there's a process in place and that if you know and and so to go around the process I think that's that's that's where it's a little yeah I mean again the concept isn't isn't I think it makes sense but there's a reason we do have a process for this stuff and I know you know all it seemed minor but well want to get into the detail not so minor so yeah that and that's why the process is in place so people have that you know that opport Unity to point out some things like that so I would uh yeah I mean I I don't think we need to do anything with it it's just hopefully they um learn something from this especially given this is the second time they've had this issue council member I I would agree with the statements that have been made I certainly think there are possibilities that this is positive with within the housing aspect we have dovetailed with each other and and augmented each other or or okay the count is doing this thing how can we be unique and help in this level so certainly there are possibilities of of supporting businesses in Roseville in a positive way um the process we talked through it it doesn't look right um doesn't smell right but okay um the only thing I would have about saying something direct would be to say hey we support this legislation because of X Y and Z changes to it um to highlight that for our local legislators that here are the key key things so we don't want to have oops accidentally go backwards again perhaps a letter to our local legislators similar to what we just talked about justan it's not a negative letter rather saying we appreciate the county has made these changes there could be some positives for the city we would not want to have this go backwards to the original that left cities out of the process and allowed for a levy because we have concerns about that that skipping process letter saying we appreciate that the county made those changes yeah and supporting the potential positives for our local businesses Within These parameters right that could definitely be a onepage letter yeah better comor well I I don't know if I'm comfortable with the letter as an i unless we put in there we also still um support the process that's in place we like these ideas um and we also U you know like the idea of what the process is normally statutory process certainly I think we can say if the desire by the county is to do a levy or to go beyond go beyond what they've talked about then we would still support the statutory process yeah I think it's important that we put that in there for sure yeah that and we probably want to copy somebody at the at the County as well on that so they're aware of it we know people down there yeah and and I will say that I think and and Miss olon can can attest to this I think at the end of that second discussion that's kind of where where at least I think Roseville left it I think there were still some uh a representative of City St Paul who still had some concerns that it was still too broad um but I think the reality is is that there's just so much overlap between HRA legislation and Eda legislation already that the differences between them are still pretty narrow so you know and when you take out the levy capability there's not a lot left so um that's why I was pretty comfortable with at the end of that discussion but I good suggestions about how how to put that letter together and we'll we'll look at that one this week yeah okay very good and I think there's more to come in terms of legislation but we'll get to that at a at a future meeting uh so with that we'll move then on to our final item which is local city legislation Believe It or Not uh related to our hotel licensing this is um at least the second time if not more than that that it's back before us and there were some there were some questions that were raised at the last discussion so that's why it's back before us so once again we're considering uh because we have special legislation from or legislation from the legislature to license uh hotels and we've got some specific reasons to do it we've been in the process of drafting something and uh we had questions at our last discussion on the first draft and so it's back before us and I'll turn it over to Mr Tran again to bring it back and and talk about what has happened since that last discussion well thank you Mr Mayor you took care of my first slide so backgr so I'll tend to roll through this what I want to do is just I'm just taking the language that was in the RCA just put it on the screen so we can talk through them but just highlight the changes from the last um last meeting here so um underpinning uh everything here um is really based off council member str's question about what type of buildings uh does this um cover we use the term lodging establishments which is a term used in state statutes um so we classify it as a lodging establishment license and going back and looking at the legislation um the City attorney uh uh felt and I would agree that the way the uh legislation was written it just defined hotels as a certain part of the state statute sections which the definition is there basically a hotel motel and bed and breakfast that leaves out Resorts boarding houses and furnished apartment houses that are part of the definition for loding establishs not that we we have any of those that we believe uh in our community uh we just want to make sure we're very narrow so just Define it as hotels so it's very clear in what it is and they confer to State statutes and that's what the legislative authorization is so while that is you know that's a change it's a even bigger change now we're not calling it a lodging establishment license it's a hotel license so you see throughout the whole document a lot of changes from lodging establishment to Hotel uh and that's what that reference is so just kind of wanted to mention uh that to you the next item um these were in any order here but um CER graph raised concerns about the Extended Stay portion of the ordinance and its impact on Persons deing to stay at the hotel for extended periods uh we did also hear some uh feedback from uh Hotel operators um not necessarily opposing it but wondering how that was going to work and not all of their Extended State um rooms have all the requirements that we have in there and we're talking about how how could we accommodate that after um hearing uh the comments and conversation at the council meeting and factoring in again the hotel operators City attorney and I decided that it was probably best just to remove that completely what we were trying to do is just trying to get an understanding of where the extended state places were happening but found um that it might have some challenges for staff to enforce and meets a lot of complications as well as the um impacts that council member gr uh brought forward here so we have removed that completely from the uh requirement I would State though we still do not allow for permanent residency and hotel and that's still in there and that's something that um you know if if we um determine that somebody's staying at a period for too long we'll have to investigate and move forward through the process here but um having a separate permit and adding that level of bureaucracy just felt um a little bit um over the top and I think in contacting the um Hotel operators they do appreciate that because it was confusing to them and how it would work the uh next change um and this is just an addin of uh just prohibiting renting a room under uh to a person under age of 18 we believe that's covered in state statutes but why not to say it directly in the ordinance just to to make sure it is the other ones are more policy related here and so council member graph R is concerned about the short time frame of 15 days uh for hotel to seize operations after license revelop really talking about people that may be longer term residents and where they would find a place to live I think it's a very um good point to keep in mind uh we did talk about that um and as a staff and we certainly um take Direction differently we felt that 15-day period uh was sufficient for a couple reasons one is the 15-day clock doesn't start one day and then it has to be done in 15 days um there's a process leading up to that 15 days and then there's an opportunity to appeal and we have to go through the process so there's might be in some cases many months of back and forth um for that so um now so for the the immediate visitor that's just in town There's G to be some some some notice of that for the longer term residents I think uh we would uh leverage our community action team and our social workers to really work in helping relocate people that don't have another place to go we found that as we dealt with um some homeless encampments here in Roseville that we just took a very methodical U process and I think we're pretty good at doing that now we have some experience in doing that so from those perspective is we think uh having a 15-day period um is short enough to make sure um issues don't continue on and on and on but also um a long enough for people to transition to something else so that would be our recommendation so nothing had has been changed in this ordinance and then uh mayor roow asked about the issuance of license when you want to sh run we have a series of licenses that go from July F uh July 1st to June 30th and then some that go from J 1 to December 31st here and looking and I layout kind of which ones we do there's substantial more amount of work uh for the July 1 to June 30th just been the sheer number sometimes the complexity and um given that we have 12 uh hotels right now we felt in talking to staff especially the person that would be doing the licensing that uh they would prefer having a January 1 to um December 31st what we did though is the effective dat and appreciate U City attorney tney uh really kind of thinking about this that you when this whole ordinance kind of goes into effect and is there needs to be a rampid period that we get the application out we review the material we do the inspections and allow time for the back and forth that may be necessary that the uh actual application period would take effect September 1st our goal would be probably maybe to try to get some of that material out beforehand uh September 1st but then certainly give us the opportunity in the fall to process all those um do the inspections and if there are any hiccups along the way that we need to um take some action uh with Hotel uh we could um go through that process as well but the bottom line is all hotels would need to be licensed by January 1st 2025 uh to to operate um I do see just in a practicality standpoint that if we uh have an application uh submitted on September 15th we review it for 6 weeks and and look good we may be issuing a license before the end of the year um and so there might be a little bit of coverage in 2024 into uh December 31st 2025 after that it'll just be an annual license like other things and we would create mechanisms to make sure we are doing the proper due diligence each time around even renewal makes it a little bit easier since there's some awareness but we still want to make sure their inspections happening and um all the other guidelines that are met and uh there are also some cleanup language um by the City attorney just to clarifying section 131170 31702 uh about the um clarifying language about the application process interested person in background check some of it was just moving stuff around just adding clarifying language we also um took out uh the reasonable uh conditions I think there were some questions and comments on that but what does a detriment to the peaceful enjoyment of urban life or promoting security and safety in nearby neighborhood actually means and so uh we just took that out because that that's certainly in the IV holder and we just want to be as specific as possible on that uh also uh we took out directly if you may recall we required as a basic fundamental of operating that they need to have a video surveillance system in place uh the City attorney after looking at the legislation uh thought that might be a bridge too far to require that out of the gate um but something that we can certainly um uh add as a condition if we articulate the reasons why that that video surveillance is necessary I'm not 100% positive but I believe um most if not all of our hotels have some form of video surveillance already so we're not going backwards on that necessarily but something that just wanted to call out and then uh the last one uh was about this book a very specific book they needed to keep and certain measurements uh about records and we just found after I think U mayor Ro brought a question up about that that was overly spe specific and we did not need to have that level uh in the ordinance and there was a lot of electronic records too and this as long as we have access to the records is important so so really just some cleanup on on some of those items from last time so um along the short of it is uh we are um we believe in a position where this uh ordinance is ready to be approved I have communicated this uh uh revised ordinance U Back to visit Roseville uh but also the hotel operators as well as Hospitality Minnesota um and they're all on board with this legislation I'm sorry this uh ordinance and really appreciate the the the changes and feel this is a really good process they appreciate it being involved and feel that this is a good model uh for others in the state to use as we forward here so with that I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have all right thank you Mr Char and did we communicate to the hotel operator specifically that this was under consideration this evening yes they they they knew it yeah okay yeah they did all right and clearly they've uh they've jammed the chambers with their representatives and that's unfortunate because I I was hoping that they would uh come in because after our first meeting in that was February uh they I said give us something in writing you know let us know and the said yeah we'll get something and okay nothing well perhaps their absence sends a message that's right right uh Council m m grath um yes and I had heard also that they really appreciated the the uh interaction on this it was really good process and they feel like the final ordinance is very doable and as you said could be replicated throughout the state so that maybe the three times around was worth it it's getting closer to right I had one question and uh under the um part however permanent residency in a hotel is not permitted as shown so how would we police that as a city I mean how would we find out if someone is a permanent resident work and why would be well so yeah it's not something we be knocking out doors right uh it would probably be his response to a call um and finding that this person has maybe been staying there for a longer period of time we would then um say well that's not allowed under a code work with management to educate them if they're not aware then I would really think we would approach it uh in a way that let help this person land somewhere else that that makes some sense so I guess when I say that do mean hey you live in here permanently you're out on the street we would say okay we would treat this person this needs some resources that need to be brought forward to help them out it's a good question I think we should be deliberate and thoughtful on that so I appreciate you asking that um but um it's mostly going to be on either a complaint basis although I'm not sure who would be complaining necessarily but more on interaction as we interact with u people maybe at that hotel and that that individual if they're not don't have some permanent housing we may want to find assistance just a quick follow but that I mean not that this is going to happen I think I like the idea we're going to help them find permanent housing because technically they could move out for a day and then come back and then they start another period of time yep it's just kind of a council member shter actually I was going to move to approve ah okay two steps before that council member ad and the Fig we could discuss after that um we may have some questions still it may mentions fines are we going to put something in our fee schedule or is this something that is more of a floaty fine depending on the problem or how's that how would that work I'm trying to recall exactly where we say the fines is it the general mrd meter fine or are we having specific things in the fee schedule do you remember um council member and council members um we talked about whether to create a um fine penalty schedule like you have in some of your ordinances and um felt like that it might be premature um I think it it we may need a little experience in determining I I suspect that this will be the kind of licenses where we'll have um enforcement actions that are not a big deal at all and enforcement actions that are a very big deal and so um it makes sense to me for the council to to look at this is a a traditional administrative fine um my guess is you'll probably end up with a 25500 1,000 2,000 um um graduated fee schedule but we kind of intentionally left that off knowing that we would want to Hope Pat remembers this how I do um that we would come back in and propose something in the future once we have a better sense of how this functions but at some point they'd be Fe schedule whatever okay very good and then inspections done by the fire department it'll actually be done by uh mainly the fire department but also Community Development staff so because there's the building code and then the fire code issue no our fire department has been kind of the lead on inspections despite the Dual potential need so I didn't know who was leading on yeah and and Al often uh Mr England is very involved and other they helping and assisting so that's already kind of happening right now but we have a more more holistic approach as we go out there not just one Department one day another department the other day okay thank you and just to follow up on the attorney's comments the uh significant portion of the penalty is things like revocation uh and those sorts of things which get Beyond fine or that sort of thing so we've got sort of a range of things we can do uh and and so I I get that that and that we might not even know what specific Financial penalties may look like until we get into the actual enforcement process which seems right council member schroer do you have anything you wanted to do at this time just first seeing that there isn't anybody here from the public to speak I won't open it up for public I was going to say it seemed like a a good bet on that side I said I would um move to approve second right this is moved by council member shter second by Council ratton to adopt the uh Hotel licensing ordinance as presented uh discussion on the motion council member Scher is the maker of the motion um and I think I would Echo what council member graph said has come back a number of times and we've had quite a few discussions and we've talked to the the community that's involved so that's where it just seems to make sense it's it's time to put her out there uh further discussion as the second or Council I I have a few things first I in reading this I was not at the last discussion in reading this I appreciate uh questions uh from Council Members gr and strong I think um they really helped improve things and I think uh staff did a nice job of responding to that I also would note you maybe talked about this last time but the dramatic Improvement after our repeat nuisance ordinance came in um hopefully that is actually core Improvement rather than just phone calls not happening um but I understand they are continuing health and safety considerations um that we need to make sure we are addressing I also appreciated see the racial Equity tool kit in action sometimes um some of these bigger things we're using that for and I really appreciate that that was part of the uh part of the packet um and thinking about um people staying in hotels for a long time I think all ultimately our goal would be to find greater stability for individuals than living in a hotel room it's such a limited um way to live um unable to you know produce your own food a lot of times and you're dependent on uh so many other things so hopefully um we're not going and kicking people out but continue to use our robust services that we've developed um with Partners to um help people find stable and Supportive Housing um for them long term so um yeah those are all appreciated and reasons why I'm supporting this all right thank you other discussion on the motion to approve the ordinance nothing further right hearing no further discussion all those in favor of approving the ordinance signify by saying I osed that passes unanimously 4 to zero I'm presuming for this there is a request to authorize publication of a summary uh is there a motion to that effect moved second removed by council member gra second by council member Scher to authorize publication of a summary of the ordinance uh this does require the super majority uh 2/3 which in our case is four fths of the council uh so we need some unanimity here on this one this evening I know I know it's such a controversial vote on the ordinance itself with that having wasted that time saying all of that is there any discussion on the motion to authorize the publication of a summary hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes the 2third majority requirement and we will have a summary published of that ordinance that concludes our business items this evening thank you everyone for all those um we do have a couple of uh sets of council minutes uh from our March 18th and our March 11th meetings uh do we need to take those up as a separate motion due to attendance or can we take them up as a single motion or are there any changes or Corrections that people have I don't know I would move approv set second has been moved by council member gra and second by council member shorter to approve both sets of minutes as presented uh discussion on that motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I that passes unanimously those Mo those minutes are approved 4 to Z uh that then brings us to our consent agenda no items were removed so I'll turn it over to Mr Treon to give us a rundown of the consent items this evening thank you Mr Mayor uh item 12a approves payments the amount of 1,81 18,7 19738 item 12b approves an expenditure to replace an HVAC uh heat pump at the oval to replace the existing unit that is unrepairable I item 10 C I'm sorry 12C approves two temporary gambling permits one for operation dignity for a raffle that they will conduct at smash Park in April 26th and the others for the friends of Rosevelt parks for p bingo at Cedar home community building on May 11th this action also approves a temporary liquor license uh for uh bent pertiller for an event on April 20th item 12 D approves the city award in the base bid and bid alternate number two to sunram Construction in the amount of 24 8,000 $550 for the construction of a new park at 2381 County Road B item 12E approves two Professional Service agreements regarding McCarron's retaining wall project The First Agreement will U be with tkda in the amount of 55,974 construction observation services and to review the shop drawings the second agreement is with brown uh Intertech in the amount of $922 49 for quality control and testing of materials item 12f approves a short-term rental license for 419th Judith Avenue item 12g adopts a resolution approving the conditional use request for tro Auto Care at 2171 Hamin Avenue to operate a motor vehicle repair auto body shop and motor vehicle sales in the neighborhood mixed use one District as a council will recall the zoning code was recently amended to allow this type of use and the Planning Commission did take this up at their last meeting and on a vote 6 to0 recommended approval of the conditional use request Quest item 12h appoints Kirsten Bower and Alexis jando to the public works Youth and environment um Public Works environment and transportation committee as youth Commissioners for terms ending July 31st 2024 item 12i approves a service agreement with needy sanitation for garbage services at City facilities item 12j adopts a resolution toward the contract for the 2024 sanitary sewer lining project to hydroc clean LLC in the amount of $856,000 453 .90 item 12K adopts a resolution toward the contract for the 2024 pavement Management program and the County Road B reconstruction project to gmh Asphalt Corporation in the amount of $2,754 th000 the city of Falcon Heights will pay the city 106,000 about 107,000 all total for the work done in their Community as part of the pavement Management program and then the last item is uh item 12 L which Awards the 2024 through 2026 storm water best management contract to sandstrom Land Management for a total of $244,000 over the three-year period and that is the consent agenda thank you Mr trudon is there a motion on the consent agenda this evening move approval second to move by counc member Aton seconded by council member Scher to uh approve the items in the consent agenda any discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed that passes unanimously those items are approved that brings us then to Future agenda review council member Communications reports announcements uh and first as always we'll start with the future agenda review and Mr trudon thank you Mr Mayor uh we have a series of meetings coming up in the next few weeks uh next uh Monday April 15th we will have a work session we have a couple items on there uh the county will be here to talk to the County Road SE project we do want to have staff bringing forward a conversation about the recycling RFP and more particularly the discussion about carts uh something that we want to talk about whether or not we will provide the carts it's something we previously talked about and have been collecting some dollars for but we wanted to understand uh the council's position on that as we prepare the RFP for the recycling then also receive a forestry and EAB update U from the parks department so that's what we have right now on that meeting on the 22nd we have uh uh an abatement assessment uh for sewer issue at 435 Judith we'll have a presentation from minda on the high 36 multimodal study presentation this is touched before they've been doing some Outreach in the community so they want to come back and report on that uh consider approval of the rosale police officer contract uh something that U we talked about previously but now we're in a position that we think we can actually do that um this is where the rosale um um Center U Center business would be paying for two officers um uh for that area we also want to have a conversation about smoke free housing presentation the association not smokers approaching me a little while ago and had some thoughts and felt that that was worth maybe a conversation um and uh whether it's from education all the way up to an actual uh ordinance prohibiting that uh also we want to get our strategic planning uh underway and like to present an RFP uh so we can go for bids and get that going here sooner than later after that on May 6 the only items we have currently on there is the presentation of the financial audit and we want to um officially establish the budget process calendar I think you've seen that before but also double back on the conversation we had I think it was late January about um the things that we the council like to see in the budget just kind of continue that conversation on the 13th um prior to the work session we will have just one item for Eda um that's just updating the housing study that's something that community development director gunak has mentioned has been overdue maybe um so it's worth maybe looking at doing that uh we have something in the budget already for that so just kind of getting your blessings on that and then we'll talk about the HRC prose scope en roll I put tenative because I wasn't sure where you guys are going to go but take the tenative off and we'll be doing that on the 13th right thank you Mr Tre are there any questions on upcoming agendas uh as presented or any council member initiated items for future agendas or reports and announcements from council members uh reports and announcements from Council Members council member we're having the Northeast Youth and Family Services luncheon it would be the back after uh Hiatus of Co and it is May 8th 11:30 to 1:00 p.m. and it'll be in Badness Heights Commons so um you know contact NFS and go online and put in your registration be a good Gathering soorts good good work in our community sounds good other Communications announcements reports I would just note I alluded to it earlier I was at the legislature last week uh for the second time testifying on the equal access to broadband act which is uh something that we have in our legislative priorities which is diversifying the funding of local media uh what this particular legislation does is it sort of mimics cable franchising uh but applies it to um Broadband providers and so local communities would have the ability to franchise Broadband providers which as a reminder is the ability to essentially charge rent for the use of our public right of way to provide the wires for Broadband so it's not it doesn't it specifically exempts Wireless Broadband uh Wireless providers of any kind um and there's some other exemptions in there it also uh specifically doesn't allow for sort of double charging for for instance if you have the same provider for both cable television and Broadband you don't have to pay franchise fees on both just one or the other and there's some other things I'm not exactly sure where it's going to go at the legislature um it I believe may now have a sponsor in the Senate uh but they're not the process in the Senate side is a little murkier than it was in the house we specifically were before the Commerce Committee and then before the local government committee last week um and so we'll see where it goes but I did want to give you an update on that and and we'll see where it goes and once again it was something that I was able to point to the city having it as legislative priority as part of my testimony so that was helpful if there's no further business before the council the only other item on our agenda this even me is to adjourn second moved by council member Aton seconded by council member gra to adjourn uh no discussion on the motion to adjourn all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed that passes unanimously 4 to Zer and we are adjourned at 8:33 p.m. thank you everyone e