Whenever it's 6:00, you hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday, May 4th, 2026. Mr. City manager, would you call the role, please? >> Council member Grath >> here. Council member Strong >> here. >> Council member Schroeder >> here. >> Council member Bower >> here. >> Mayor Ro >> here. Uh and with us at the DES by way of introduction, we have our city attorney Rachel Tierney who's on my right at the end of the day. We have our city manager Pat Trean who's on my left at the other end of the DEAS. Uh we have various staff who will be participating in the meeting and we'll make those introductions uh as those agenda items uh come up on the agenda. would ask folks if you have a cell phone to make sure and silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt our meeting this evening. Uh and also I should point out for members of the public we do have um uh extra copies of the agenda on the back table under the big clock by the back door uh and also which are yours to use in reference uh to follow along with the meeting. We also do have one complete set of all the meeting materials that are before the council this evening uh in a three- ring binder which is available for the public to share. Um, with that, we'll ask folks to stand if you're able for the pledge of allegiance. >> Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. So the first item on our agenda then uh following that preliminary uh business is to consider tonight's agenda. And as always, I'll check with uh Mr. Trean first. Are there any changes requested from a staff perspective this evening? >> No changes by staff. >> All right. Uh checking with the council then. Are there any changes that the council requests to the agenda or items that the council would like removed from consent for separate consideration this evening? Does not appear to be the case. We'll do a quick check with members of the public. Uh there is a section of our agenda called section 12 this evening which is called uh approve the consent agenda. These items are normally taken up as a single motion at the end of the meeting as fairly routine business. Uh usually not involving a lot of uh public input, but we do want to make sure at the beginning of the meeting if somebody is here for one of those items in section 12 of tonight's agenda known as the consent agenda, uh this would be a great time to let us know uh and we'll move that item forward uh for you to be able to make a comment or ask a question as you would like uh for that item. Is there anyone here this evening for an item in section 12 of tonight's agenda? Does not appear to be the case. Uh with that then a motion to approve the agenda as presented would be in order. >> So moved. Second. >> It's been moved by council member Sharter, seconded by council member Stron to approve the agenda as presented. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. We have our agenda for this evening. I do want to just do a quick check with the audience. Is the sound coming okay over the PA this evening? Okay, very good. Then with that, uh the next item on our agenda is general public comment. Uh this is an opportunity for members of the public to speak to items that are not on this evening's agenda, uh but may be related to city business or also of interest to people in the community. Uh we will provide opportunity for public comment during agenda items. Uh but we do always by rule provide this opportunity at the start of each meeting. Uh is there anyone here this evening who wishes to speak under general public comment at the start of the meeting? It does not appear to be the case. Then uh we will move then to uh recognitions and donations. Uh and our first item in that uh area this evening is a uh procla a series of proclamations. We've got three. Uh the first is a proclamation related to police peace officers Memorial Day and National Police Week. Uh the proclamation, I'll read it and then a motion from the council to approve uh would be in order. The proclamation reads as follows. Whereas uh the Congress and President of the United States have designated the week in which May 15th occurs as National Police Week and May 15th itself as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. And whereas the Roseville Police Department plays an essential role in safeguarding the rights and freedoms of all members of the community. And whereas it is important that all citizens know and understand the duties, responsibilities, hazards, and sacrifices of their law enforcement agency, and that members of our law enforcement agency recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property by protecting people against violence and disorder, and by protecting the innocent against deception and the weak against oppression. And whereas the men and women of the Roseville Police Department unceasingly provide this vital public service. Now therefore, it be first resolved that the city of Roseville declares the week of May 10th to to May 16th to be National Police Week in the city of Roseville and May 15th as National Peace Officers Memorial Day. And be it further resolved that the city of Roseville calls upon all citizens to join in commemorating law enforcement officers past and present who by their faithful and loyal devotion to their responsibilities have rendered a dedicated public service to their communities and have established for themselves an enviable and enduring reputation for preserving the rights and security of all citizens. and be it further resolved to observe May 15th as National Peace Officers Memorial Day in honor of law enforcement officers who through their courageous deeds have made the ultimate sacrifice in service of their community including Roseville officer Howard Johnson and officer Bruce Russell or who have become disabled in the performance of duty and let us recognize and pay respect to the survivors of those fallen heroes. >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by council member Grath. Seconded by Council Member Schroeder to approve that proclamation. Any discussion on the motion. Council member Schroeder. >> I just wanted to say that um I think our uh police department does an amazing job and sometimes they don't get all the credit they um deserve and so I'm really glad to see that we have a formal way to show some of that. So, thank you all for all the service you've done for Roseville. >> You're here. Uh, Council Member Grath, >> you know, and I would like to add to that, especially this year, because it's not been the easiest year to be a police officer, and and it is greatly appreciated. >> And I would just add that I think there's there's been perhaps too many years recently where it's not been an easy year to be a police officer. And so, uh, hopefully, uh, we can have some years where it's a little bit easier to be a police officer. I think, uh, both our law enforcement officers and the community would appreciate it. With that, we have the motion before us to approve that proclamation. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Opposed. That passes unanimously. That proclamation is approved. Uh next uh in the uh vein of recognizing u public service. The next proclamation is National Public Works Week. The proclamation, excuse me, the proclamation reads as follows. I get a little choked up on public works. Um it reads, "Whereas uh public works professionals build and maintain infrastructure, facilities, and services that are of vital importance to the resilient communities and to the public health, high quality of life, and the well-being of the people of Roseville. And whereas these infrastructure, facilities and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals at all levels of government and in the private sector who are responsible for rebuilding, improving and protecting our transportation, water supply, water treatment and solid waste systems, public buildings, and other structures and facilities essential for our citizens. And whereas Roseville's 34 public works employees work around the clock and whose responsibilities include 100 miles of pathways, 123 miles of roads, 162 miles of water manes, 276 miles of sanitary and storm sewer pipe, and 5,842 associated manholes, as well as 335 vehicles and pieces of equipment. And whereas it is in the public interest for citizens and civic leaders to gain knowledge of and maintain an ongoing interest and understanding of the importance of public works and public works programs in Roseville by signing up for construction updates, watching presentations made to the public works environment transportation commission and participating in engagement opportunities when public input is sought about public works. And whereas 2026 marks the 66th annual National Public Works Week and part uh oh I lost my dream. There we go. Uh 66th annual National Public Works Week sponsored by the American Public Works Association. Now therefore be resolved. The city of Roseville does hereby proclaim the week of May 17th through 23rd, 2026 as National Public Works Week. Move. >> Second. >> All right. That's been moved by Council Member Schroeder, seconded by Council Member Stron. Uh discussion on that motion. Council member Sher, >> I would just say when you look at how many miles that um you have to keep an eye on I think public works uh the good thing about that is when you are not in people's minds is a good thing because when you are it's usually when something's going wrong. So I think uh I've got I haven't gotten a lot of calls so I take that as a good sign. So thank you for all you do. >> All right. Hear here. Other discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously and that proclamation is approved. And then finally a proclamation in relation to poppy days in Roseville. And that proclamation reads as follows. Whereas after the first world war inspired by the opening lines of John McCrae's wartime poem in Flanders Fields and championed by international hum humanitarian workers Moa Michael of the United States and Madame Gurin of France the poppy was adopted in many countries to commemorate the sacrifices of those who have been killed in war. And whereas the United States Veterans of Foreign Wars in 1922 officially designated the poppy as a symbol of remembrance and conducted their first poppy day drive that year. And in 1924, the VFW registered the Buddy Poppy as its official commemorative poppy. And whereas the VFW buddy poppies are assembled by disabled and needy veterans and the proceeds of the use of the buddy buddy poppies as a fundraising campaign are used exclusively for the benefit of disabled and needy veterans and the widows and orphans of deceased veterans. And whereas the basic purpose of the annual distribution of buddy poppies by veterans of foreign wars is eloquently reflected in the desire to honor the dead by helping the living. And whereas each year members of the Roseville Anderson Nelson VFW Post 7555 distribute poppies at local sites the weekend before Memorial Day to raise awareness about the service of veterans and the importance of Memorial Day. Now, therefore, it be resolved firstly that the city of Roseville hereby declares May 15 and 16, 2022 2026 to be poppy days in Roseville for the distribution of these symbols of appreciation for the sacrifices of our honored dead and further urges the citizens of this community to recognize the merits of this cause by contributing generously to its support through donations for bunny poppies on those days or anytime I should add. Uh, and be it further resolved that the city council urges all patriotic citizens to wear a buddy poppy as mute evidence of our gratitude to the men and women of this country who have risked their lives in defense of the freedoms which we continue to enjoy as American citizens. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Moved by Council Member Grath, seconded by Council Member Schroer to uh adopt the proclamation of Poppy Days in Roseville. Discussion on that motion? >> No. >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. That proclamation is approved. All right. That then brings us to our business items this evening. We have uh one well the first business item stands sort of alone as a separate uh action by the city uh which is for the city council to convene as the board of adjustments and appeals to consider an appeal uh of a variance board denial of a variance uh to the minimum number of required electric vehicle charging stations uh and the required number of electric vehicle service equipment as uh required at a project proposed at 2700 Snelling venue. Um, so we will uh so convene as the board of adjustments and appeals. I'll just quickly outline the process a little bit for folks. Um, so this uh first came before the variance board of the city of Roseville, which is essentially a subcommittee of the planning commission. Uh, they are charged with considering requests for variances from the city code. uh that uh uh at the time of that consideration, the variance board uh denied the request for the variance. Uh and as is outlined in our code, there is a process by which applicants can appeal such denials. Uh which is what brings the item before the board of adjustments and appeals this evening. And hopefully I haven't taken away too much of Mr. Pashky's presentation. Uh but Mr. Pashky, Thomas Pashki is our uh Roseville uh planner and he is going to uh bring this uh before the council. Uh so what will happen is Mr. Pashku will sort of outline the context and the background and information uh related to the case uh and uh perhaps we'll answer some questions from the board uh and then we'll provide an opportunity also for the representative or representatives of the party making the appeal uh to make their case to the board as well uh and perhaps stand for questions uh from the board members. Uh then there will be a quick opportunity for any um clarifications that may need to happen by either party. Uh and then we'll provide an opportunity for public comment as we always do for agenda items of the council. Uh and then we'll proceed to consideration of the uh requested appeal of the variance. And with that, I'll turn it over once again to our city planner Thomas Pashki to bring this uh appeal before us. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the board. Uh this is a request to uh consider an appeal by Humple Real Estate for the variance denial uh that was took place on April 4th. Uh the consideration to a variance from table 101301 to which is the minimum number of required electrical vehicle charging stations and section 101304D 2D1. uh regarding the uh required number of electrical vehicle service equipment. This is uh regarding a specific project that's to be developed at 2700 Snelling Avenue. So the specifics of that variance are uh the request was to allow eight um of the charging stations when 26 would normally be required and 22 of the EV ready or EVSSE uh the service equipment stalls when 53 would be required. And that is all based on a parking lot of 528 total parking stalls for the proposed 125,400 ft medical office and research facility. And you have the report that went to the variance board in your packet. So as I indicated, it went to the variance board on April 1st. That board held the public hearing and uh voted 2 to1 to deny the variance. and the applicant has appealed that uh this evening. Uh you're charged with determining or what the board is to do is to either uh deny or grant the uh appeal of the variance and then list the findings that you've uh determined support that decision and you have a resolution in your packet that explains that. I conclude my introduction of the topic. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Pashki. Are there questions from the board members for staff in relation to this uh matter? Uh member strong. >> So um in light of the proposed parking lot which looks like it's between four and five some uh spots, how was the do you know how the number of eight was arrived at? I don't specifically know how they came to the determination that they would propose the uh eight EV stations and the uh 22. >> Okay, >> that may be a question for the appealing party. >> Just um in light of 10% of vehicles being EV at this point, um that would be 50. Um and so I'm just curious to know um where an eight would come from in a in a spot. Um then I wanted to know um was the city tasked with looking at other similar um sized um uh businesses or organizations that might be in a manufacturing or in a lab type setting elsewhere in the city to see what would be a comparable rate for expectations. Well, what I can say is uh this is the we've only had two fairly large parking lots that we've had to apply these new standards that were adopted about two years ago. And so the first was at Rosedale and it had to do with the Dick Sporting Goods. >> They received a variance. So part of perhaps what the applicant came up with was something of a very similar number based on some of that information that had been provided by the variance that was granted to that project. But there hasn't been another project of this magnitude that the city has had to apply these new standards too. >> Okay. And do you know if the U manufacturer or the organization if they were intending to charge for the use of the charging stations or if these were to be an amenity to the staff that worked there? >> I believe these were to be uh for employees only and not for the general public. >> Okay. >> Which is slightly different than what Rosedales are. >> All right. Thank you. >> Right. Are there other questions? Uh member Schroeder. Uh >> yes. Originally when uh this variance was applied for the staff did support the variance. Correct. >> That is correct. >> And and I think part of it was too because since it was new and I see the um uh our commission is looking has it on their agenda to maybe review the the ordinance to maybe uh see if it's reasonable because part of this was not knowing if we needed to adjust it going forward. So, was part of the um reason staff recommended it that after you've had some experience that this seemed reasonable or what was the um >> Well, I think there were a couple things. One is that the applicant provided a parking study and information related to their research as it relates to electrical electrical vehicle charging stations as well as from staff's perspective that uh it was always understood that with a new ordinance that there may be certain instances where things don't necessarily match and that we'd have to go back and review and determine what actually is a better number perhaps than what is currently identified in the code. >> Thank you. >> Other questions for staff member graph. >> Somewhat of a followup. I understand that this is an amenity for employees, but are the employees charged for using the station or is it free? >> That I don't know. I have no idea. >> I'll ask the right. I did have uh one uh clarifying question and I had uh asked staff about it a little bit beforehand just to make sure I they understood the question but uh in our code we do have the ability to potentially uh cap the requirement on the basis of cost and I just wanted to check whether that uh calculation was a part of this process that got us to this point or not. >> Well, it it wasn't something formally done. uh staff uh determined that this project would probably exceed what that number would be. And so that was never a topic that was broached. >> Okay. >> And so, you know, a project would have to be under about $10 million in order to have that rule apply. And we felt that this project fully developed would exceed that number. >> All right. And there was definitely as I was reading and attempting to interpret the code some question as to whether the cost referenced was the total project cost or the parking portion of the project cost. So that may be something else that the perhaps the planning commission can take a look at if they're going to be looking at this ordinance. Um but thank you for clarifying that. >> Yes. >> All right. Uh if there's no further questions from members of the board, we'll provide an opportunity for the uh party making the appeal, the representatives of Hempal Real Estate to uh come forward and introduce yourselves uh and provide uh your case for the uh granting of the appeal. Hello and welcome. >> Thank you, mayor and council members. Uh my name is Brandon Chample. I'm executive vice president at Hemple Real Estate. Uh our request tonight is not about avoiding the EV charging. It's about approving a phase compliance approach that matches what the employee demand for these spaces will be. This is a private employer. I wish I could say the name, but um I can't yet um until they get their final board approval, which is somewhat uh contingent upon how some of the outcomes of some of these meetings turn out. But um this is 125,000t medical lab. um is going to employ between 5 and 700 employees. Our parking study that we completed um took into account what that EV charging demand would be day one and that's to answer one of the earlier questions about why we came up with eight. Um that was a result of that um study that was done internally. Um we are excuse me we're we are attempting to uh get as close to we as close to the um code compliant language as we can um while also preserving the ability to expand the EV charging in the future. um understanding that the eight demand that eight that the employees are demanding today may be 25 in 2 years and we'll have the we'll have the capacity to uh install the extra stations at that time. Uh but day one the demand was for the eight spaces. Um the other thing the the parking counts in this project are kind of uh difficult to to sort of pin down because it's a it's a multi-shift um situation. There'll be and and the difference that between the two shifts there has to be employees um together at that time. So the parking demand is kind of inflated. the actual number of employees that will be on site at any given time is significantly less than the 500 stalls. But um but during that shift change uh because of the the delicate nature of the laboratory business and everything um there's kind of these maximum points during the day where there will be a lot of employees on site for about an hour and then those employees that are in the previous shift will leave go home and then the next shift takes over. So that that inflates the parking demand um that's really um or inflates the number of stalls that we're kind of being required to um to install day one. Um, but the bottom line is that we're we're really trying to come up with what we think is a balanced and uh phased approach here that meets this private employer's demand for day one, provides the flexibility to provide more stalls in the future um if employees are demanding it and um and then we will install the the infrastructure um that allows that expansion to happen at that time. >> All right. Are there questions for the appealing party? Uh, member Strong. >> Thank you. Um, so what is the current size of this employer where it is located elsewhere? >> Uh, it is a local employer that would be um consolidating 17 divisions into this building. >> So, how many locations are there currently? >> Uh, I don't know the total number of locations currently. >> Up to 17 potentially. It's 17 division laboratory divisions moving into this building that would move into this building. Number of the locations that they operate around the Twin Cities is is significant. >> Okay. And do any of the current um locations have EV chargers? >> As far as I know, no. Uh they they were surprised by this ordinance. >> Okay. Um so given that 10% of the vehicle sales at this point are said to be EV um how did you arrive at the number that you came up with of eight if you don't have any EV charging stations at any of your 17 locations at present? >> That was based on the parking study that we did which required uh talking to the internal operations team to understand what that demand from the current employees here would be. >> Okay. I don't know if that that would be a real good assessment though. If you don't currently have EV charging, someone wouldn't count on that at work. >> Well, a lot of the employees that have u electric vehicles also have charging stations at home. And so some of them maybe 10% of the workforce is driving an electric vehicle, but said they it they didn't necessarily need to have a charging station at work because they can charge it overnight. Um well, just anecdotally, I um someone I know who works for a trucking and manufacturing organization, their parking lot um handles 300 cars. They have 10 charging stations which are always full and you have to sign up for them in order to use them at work during the day. Another per um organization that's agriculture and food science that is very near to here, there's about 200 spots and their spots um their eight chargers are always full. So I think it's kind of if you build it they will come kind of thing. So I think that if you have no reference by which you are making that count and you are just taking a number out of the air. It's kind of confusing how you decided that what you have is adequate when you don't really know what you may or may not need. You don't have any idea what the what the interest would be. >> Well we do based on the parking study that we did. >> Who did you ask in the parking study? I I guess we we're not necessarily debating >> okay >> information at this point. It's asking and answering questions if that's all right. >> I think Council Member Grath, did you have a a question? >> Yeah, I was wondering if you are charging for those that I mean most people charge for that or is it a benefit or an >> I I don't know uh the answer to that if they're going to charge employees or not. I don't think they want to charge employees for it. So um but I I don't know that answer. >> Okay, that's pretty unusual. Um, and what is it? A parking lot that's gated and uh someone watching to see who comes and goes from the parking lot or how are they going to handle? >> Yeah, they'll have their own, you know, security obviously on site. Um, it's a it's a highly specialized lab facility. Um, so they're also concerned about public that's why they don't want public use of the um, EV charging. Um, they don't necessarily want to bring a ton of attention to the building. Um, so they will have security on site that would monitor it. And then as far as I understand, the EV stations would be uh would require some sort of code code access or something that employees would be given so the public won't be able to use it. >> And would it be like permit parking then? So they have some way of knowing which cars are there >> as far as if a car pulls into the to a station and didn't get approval internally. >> Yeah. >> Uh I'm assuming they'll have some sort of permit system in place. is not going to be public access. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for the appealing party? Member Bower. >> Uh given what the ordinance says and the number of stalls necessary, you're looking at like in here you state 1,200 amps of three-phase power. Is that even feasible to bring onto the site? >> It's it's very expensive. I mean, the the base building power requirement for the entire facility was 3,000 amps. And just to add, the power required for these EV charging stations requires over a third of of the total power usage of the entire building um just just to meet the the uh code ordinance >> given that kind of size and demand. Is that Excel even available to do that kind of work? they they as far as I know, yes, there's a there's a long lead time on on securing electrical um infrastructure, but uh I I think that they would be able to provide that capacity if it was absolutely needed. >> Thank you. And just to clarify, is that for the eight that are being proposed or for the >> to meet the ordinance would require 1,200 additional amps for a building that has 3,000 amps in its base building service to to serve the entire facility? >> Thank you. Other questions? >> I did have a question on on sort of the time frame of the project. Um what is the expectation to sort of get construction underway and and have the project completed? Well, if things go well tonight, uh board the board meets on Thursday to approve the project. And if that's the case, then we would be announcing who the tenant is probably the next day. And uh we would be hoping to break her out within 30 days. >> Right. Project completion estimated. >> The base building improvements will be done about year end, uh maybe early January. Um and then the tenant improvements which are the significant portion of a project of this type will take about 9 to 12 months. So uh they would be fully operational year end 2027. >> Got it. All right. Thank you for that. Uh if there's no other questions, uh thank you for coming forward to provide your case. Uh and stand by if any other questions come up. We will provide an opportunity for members of the public who may wish to speak to this uh requested variance uh appeal at this time. And while uh members of the public are coming up, we just note that uh the rule for public comment is a three-minute time limit by council rule. Uh begin the comments with your name and street or address. Address comments or questions to the council, the board in this case. Uh and depending on the number of speakers, we'll provide answers to any questions uh after that. >> Hey, Roger Hess Wagner Place. Uh, I was just wondering, has anyone done any survey on as far as how the Dix has worked out that you lowered the number that they needed or they were supposed to make? >> So, I just wonder if anyone I wonder if anyone's ever looked at the Dicks property to see if if there's been not enough sto uh stations or if they put in more than they needed even though they got a reduced thing. And then uh it seems like they know better how many they actually need than you guys do. So I would think this if they will actually do the uh phased in I would somehow make that a requirement. But I would leave it up to them. It's their business. Thank you. >> Right. Thank you for your comments and your question. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? Right. doesn't appear to be the case. We'll close the opportunity for public comment. Uh just in response to the question, I don't know if uh staff can answer as to whether there's been any follow-up with the folks at Rosedale as to how that uh installation has been utilized or whether they wish they had more. >> Thank you, mayor, members of the council. um we have not asked Rosedale to do that study but I will say that we didn't feel even if we had that information we're not certain it would be an appropriate comparison because Rosedale is a commercial user whereas this is a private employer and that was sort of foundational to some of the findings that staff presented to justify why the variance might be reasonable. So we can certainly follow up with that but we we didn't for this particular exercise and request. All right. And just uh for the benefit of the public, can you introduce yourself? >> Uh my name is Janice Gunllock. I'm the community development director. >> Thank you, Miss Gunlock. Oh, a follow-up question from Miss Strong. >> For Miss Gunlock, um given that we have this ordinance and now we're being asked for a second time in short order to be um diverging from it quite significantly. Um it seems like if we were to ask anyone to abide by it, then they would say, "Well, we wouldn't need to do that." Why do we have this ordinance in place or what is the um point of moving forward with this requirement if um someone's able to make such a significant change and and not abide by what we've put in our um ordinances? >> Well, I think there's a couple of different ways we can answer that question. And first off, when the planning commission considered amending the zoning code to add EV charging as a requirement, we looked at communities throughout the metro area and virtually no one had a standard in place. Uh Roseville is very committed to sustainability and so we thought we needed to start somewhere, but we didn't have um really good information to determine what the most appropriate standard would be. So when we presented information to the planning commission, we were very upfront with them that this is a good starting point. Like any ordinance, we need to look at it as an ability to evolve once we learn more as we apply it to projects because um only new development is subject to this ordinance. Roseville is a fully developed community. We don't have a lot of new projects that this ordinance gets applied to on a regular basis. And as was alluded to by our city planner, this is really only the second project that the ordinance has been applied to of a parking lot of this size. In fact, we've never applied the ordinance to a parking lot that is this big of a private employer, only a commercial employer, which has a different expectations in terms of users of those stalls as opposed to a private employer. Um so uh the other point we want to make is the practical difficulty test is um something that we felt the applicant has met in the sense that we haven't had a lot of projects come forward. Um this one was really unique based on the size of the lot based on being a private employer based on their parking study accounting for three different shifts with overlap. So uh the parking the number of parking styles which the EV requirement is based on is overly inflated because of the overlapping of shifts. So there were a variety of different reasons that we felt the applicant met the practical difficulty test which is under the law in terms of granting an avar granting a variance. The last point I want to make is, and I think council member Schroeder referred to it, the commission already has asked that this ordinance be evaluated. One could argue that that alone presents a practical difficulty for why the city council may want to consider overturning the variance, but of course, that's a decision for you to make based on the information that staff has presented as well as the applicant. But the planning commission packet for this Wednesday included some materials from a commissioner. This was a commissioner initiated request with a memo outlining the reasons he thinks the commission should evaluate the ordinance. Based on the discussion we've heard from the commissioners, I have every expectation that the commission will vote in a majority to study this issue and bring forward amendments to you in the future for consideration. Again, it's up to you whether or not to adopt them, but that's sort of the background and history of the ordinance and the number of projects and why staff felt the approval was warranted here. >> Thank you, Mr. Glock. I I just wanted to follow up on a couple of things. One is the the practical difficulty test is perhaps a little different than the historic variance um requirement in terms of uh the the difficulty not being of the of the property owner or developer's own making. so to speak. It's a because of the circumstances and things like that among among other criteria. Yeah. >> Um and so I appreciate that clarification uh and the fact that that was part of staff's consideration in supporting the original variance request. >> Um >> I think the the challenge that we have uh and maybe this may be more of a statement than a question, but we'll see how it turns out as I get started here. Um the challenge we have is that uh sort of legislating by variance doesn't feel like the right process either. Um I I get concerned that each cons each sort of request is sort of considered on its own and isn't in a context. So I appreciate that the commission is looking at perhaps updating the ordinance. I think we have this specific situation that we have to deal with as as a request an appeal of a variance denial so we can we can work through that. We have our two choices which is to either uphold the denial or grant the grant the appeal. Um, but I think we as a part of this I would expect perhaps the council will have some discussion about some things that we may wish the uh commission to look at or considerations to take into account. Um, because I do feel personally that a little more engaged process and a little more thoughtful process than sort of it almost feels like uh legislation by variance is is akin to spot zoning, you know, something along those lines. And so I'm concerned about that. Um, so maybe I'll leave it at that. Well, and mayor, I would just add, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, and the city attorney can weigh in however she likes, but this particular uh reason was discussed at the variance board. And so, the project timeline came up and there was this feeling that this was a really good project for this property. And while there was sort of this universal belief that we need to examine the ordinance to deny the variance and require the applicant to wait for that process to take place, they didn't align. And so that presented another practical difficulty, especially since there was this belief that there really was a need to examine the ordinance and they couldn't wait for that process to unfold. I can certainly appreciate the concern that you mentioned, but it was discussed whether or not that reason makes sense for this this council and making this decision. That's up for you. >> Great. And I appreciate that additional context as well. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions uh from members of the board at this time? >> I member strong. >> So in this there really is no compromise. Either we say eight or we say 26 or whatever. It's those are the two options that we have as a as a board at the moment. >> I think I checked with Miss Tierney on that and I think that that you are absolutely correct. >> So there's no compromising or finding a a ground that might be that might be more >> amendable to not feel like we're selling the house without you know getting anything but the top. But you know >> so Mayor Ro council member Strunt the issue is kind of the legal framing of where you are there. There's an application in front of you. you need to grant or deny that application. You could certainly give an indication to that you may be willing to approve something less, but that isn't what's before you. And so anything else creates a hard record if they wanted to appeal your decision and it was in a gray area where you sort of granted it it really creates a a complicated record for you. So unfortunately, yeah, you need to grant or deny. You can certainly have a conversation about what you'd be willing to entertain in the future, but I would just encourage you to grant or deny today. And members of the council, when the applicant originally came forward and worked with our city planner on this, uh Thomas and I talked about, well, what is the right number? Well, we don't know. This is the first really large project of a private employer that we've had to apply the ordinance to. That's why we asked them to seek the opinion of an outside expert by doing that parking study and providing at least some information from a qualified professional. I'm not a traffic engineer. I'm not an EV expert. And so that's where they came up with the eight based on their particular business and their parking study. Um, and so that's what they ended up coming forward with because any other number that we would have came up with wouldn't have been grounded in any sort of science or fact. >> Right. Thank you, uh, Miss Gunlock. I did want to clarify too I and this may have to be clarified by the representatives of the folks making the appeal. So the study that we have attached that was in the materials for the uh variance board is the study by TC2 I believe and that as I read it I did not necessarily see a specific recommendation on the number of EV uh spaces. It was it was talked about sort of overall parking counts. Uh but I know it was mentioned that there was apparently like a survey of the done of employees or something along those lines that is maybe the basis for the eight and maybe if if the representatives want to >> clarify that or address that. >> So I don't want to misinterpret what's been said. >> So the specific sorry specific question about the um how we write the eight again. >> Yeah. So, um it's been said that the traffic study led to the eight and the study that we have attached to the materials seems to just talk about the total number of people parking demand >> and so and I heard you say I think during your earlier uh case that that the the eight was based on the employers survey of their employees >> operations team feedback. Yes. >> Right. So that's why I just want to clarify when when I don't want necessarily people pointing to the traffic study that was or the parking study that was done as the basis for the eight. The basis for the eight was the the analysis >> kind of the yeah the day one demand. And again we're we're we are installing infrastructure to expand on that. And if all eight are used, you know, the first 90 days, if all eight are used 24 hours a day and there's need for more, we have the ability to add u the additional uh stations because we'll have the infrastructure in place. >> All right. Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate that. >> All right. Uh members of the board, we do have the request before us on on the appeal to um uh reverse the decision or the denial uh by the variance board of the requested variance to our parking uh standards for EV uh parking space numbers in our code. Um and as was just discussed, our two choices are to grant the appeal or to deny the appeal or uphold the decision of the variance board. Um, I do think that there is some question as to what the right numbers should be. Uh, but we still do have to address that. Uh, member Schroer. >> Um, I would move to grant the appeal. >> I'd second. >> All right. It's been moved by member Schroeder and seconded by member Bower to uh grant the appeal. I think we do have to provide, if I'm not mistaken, some findings. >> Just point of order. Is it really a motion that we're hearing or is it since we're convened as a >> Well, it' be it would be a motion actually. There's a resolution in the packet >> um that needs some filling in of blanks as to the the um findings and we can articulate findings this evening that can perhaps be memorialized as a follow-up as I seem to recall. Excellent. Um so we would want to try to articulate those in our discussion uh on the uh on the uh motion that we have and once again the motion would be to adopt the resolution uh adding the findings of fact I think needs to be a part of it. So if the maker and secondary of the motion wish to wish to begin by articulating some findings uh of one sort or another we can attempt to uh incorporate those in appropriately. >> Mayor be happy to do that. >> M >> if I may just provide you the findings that are in your ordinance. Okay. Um, in order to grant the variance, your ordinance requires that you find that the proposed variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. You need to find that the proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning ordinances. That the proposal puts the subject property to a use in a reasonable manner. That there are unique circumstances to the property which were not created by the landowner. and that the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. >> I can repeat that >> and and those are actually articulated uh to a certain degree in the uh or to a great degree in the uh right or yes page four of six of the variance board packet I believe. >> Yeah. >> Four to five. Let's see. >> So, if the maker and secretary of the motion are comfortable with those as the basis for the motion, that may serve our purpose. >> I was going to say because that was part of why I did it because based on that packet. Yes. >> And I would I would please don't let me put words in your mouth, but I I imagine that the the granting of the appeal is in is um in support of the original variance as outlined. >> Absolutely. I I because of that because of the findings because of the work the staff did ahead of time and it's already outlined in the packet that is why I felt that this was um that we needed to grant this and on on top of all the findings in the packet which um we can put in as um noted versus going through and reading the whole thing is that that hopefully would be enough for for our attorney. And then on top of that, I wanted to say that based on we have such very little as our um director of community development stated, we do not have a lot of information on what the right numbers are and the only studies we have are what the uh um you know the that they brought forward on the traffic study and their employee study. And so therefore um I didn't feel that we could randomly say the number was right or wrong. And and considering that our variance or we've already had variance in another uh um situation and on top of that our commission has already decided that they needed to review that ordinance that there was already some concern about it. I felt that we weren't on um any kind of grounds to deny the appeal. Right. Uh would you consider that discussion as to the motion? Uh member sharter. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh as the second member Bower, >> I'm in agree agreement with what everything council member uh Sharter stated. I am happy that the plan commission is going to take a look at this as well. I think there mistakes were made in this original ordinance or not mistakes I should say but not fully thinking through some of these concepts especially with the difference between charging at home versus you know charging at the workplace. Um, I think we can end up doing something better to better serve Rosville residents. And I say that as a owner of multiple uh electric vehicles for many years. >> All right. Other discussion on the motion to grant the appeal. Uh, member Grath, >> I will support the appeal probably for different reasons. Um, I'm supporting it because it is a private uh parking lot and it sounds like it would be benefit to employees. One of the concerns I have is uh is doing this variance on every time this comes up. That doesn't set a good precedence for governance. So I don't like that part of it. But in this case, I'm going to support it. I think that one of the ways, one of the reasons we wrote this ordinance was to encourage EV vehicle uses in the cities in the in the city of Roseville. And everyone doesn't have charging stations at home as Mr. Bower says that he has at home, that's fine. But renters don't have them at home. So, I was kind of hoping that over time with this ordinance, we would be able to provide some uh places for renters and people who don't have those at home to be able to go in and charge. That doesn't sound like it would be the case with this situation, but I would like the planning commission to take that into consideration when they're rewriting these ordinances uh for us uh as they do that. So I think we need to look forward as to what's going to happen with EV and uh but in this case I will support the the variance >> right uh member strong >> um I believe in u consideration of what the mayor said as well as what I offered I'm not um in favor of this variable uh decision making and it is unfortunate that it um is a time frame that is important to the organization, but I think it's important so that we are consistent with um practices that I would vote uh to not grant the variance and withhold or and uphold the decision made by the variance board for really the same reasons that the variance board mentioned in their out outcomes that they didn't feel that it met the five standards and Um, I I just think that parking study doesn't speak anything to a recommendation on EV stations. The number is just pulled from the air from what I can tell. And for 17 organizations that currently or facilities or more that currently have no EV stations, I don't know um what what grounds there would be for making a decision. I appreciate that the future is there, but it's so easy to not have to ever do it if you if you just say, "I promise I will." But then we have no we have no way to hold you to that at that point. So, >> right. Um I am uh I came into this reluctant uh to uh grant the appeal. I I I'm not sure that eight is the right number. Um, but I think the challenge we have is that I'm not sure what is the right number and I think that's really the heart of this matter. Uh, I think also I'm I'm I've become a little more persuaded by the action that we already took with the variance for uh retail establishment which was a significant reduction from the requirements. Um, and that's potentially an environment where a level two type fast charging might have more demand for, you know, customers and visitors to to a retail establishment. Um so I am I am concerned about that. However, I am I am persuaded uh that uh based on the the timing based on the information the findings that have been outlined uh as well as um um you know the the expectation that we we'll be taking another look at this ordinance that I think um it it makes sense to um support the appeal at this time. I do want to take a few moments just to note a couple of things that I would encourage the the planning commission to look at since this is our last shot at this at least for now uh as they start getting into it and that is um and I'm not sure practically how easy it is to do and so that's going to be something to be looked at as well. Uh it seems to me that uh one of our requirements uh for multiple or multif family residences is like a level one standard because that's longterm parking overnight whatever. I think it could be argued that in an employment situation when you have employees there for a shift it's very similar to overnight that level one charging capability may be perfectly adequate for those types of spots which is certainly has less electrical demand and certainly has less infrastructure demand and cost. So, that would be something I think should be a consideration for employment type uh parking situations. We may still want to have and maybe the categories aren't necessarily the generalized land use, but the amount of the parking that's dedicated to short-term versus longerterm parking for whatever the land use type is. And I'm not sure, once again, this is for our experts to figure out the practicalities of it. Um, but I think that can be something to to take a closer look at. Uh I also uh think that we may want to look at more tiers of lot sizes uh and and adjust the standards accordingly. Um so there's some things that we can we can take a look at. You know, certainly I think it the other factor is certainly is a lot more open to the public or less open to the public and how how does that all factor into it? So um I think some of these things have already been discussed this evening. So, but hopefully that fills out a few more things that came to my mind as I was thinking about this. And certainly if other council members or other board members in this case had other thoughts, we could add those in. >> Yeah. >> You know, when they when it is looked at by the planning commission to also take a look at and you brought it up, you know, uh residential versus commercial versus private businesses as well. Um you know, council member Grath noted I have charging at home. I'm sure he doesn't have a gas station at home, right? So these are decisions that you have to make when you purchase a vehicle just like you have to decide how much uh fuel economy you want. It's a decision that you make. Um and we don't have demand on ordinances uh that private employers actually have to have gas stations on their properties as well. But I think it makes a you know it's a good thing to look at you know should we change this break it out more between private commercial and um residential. I'd be interested to have that as well. >> All right. Other discussion or other thoughts? Uh, member Graph, >> one of my hopes with this ordinance was that, and I'm probably repeating myself, is that it would provide a a source for people that do not have it at home. And no, we don't all have gas stations at home, Mr. Bar. I understand that. But, but everyone cannot afford I do actually have an EV charging station at home, but everyone cannot afford that. I just had those installed, and it's thousands of dollars. So for R what if we're looking at the big picture and trying to plan ahead for how we get to zero carbon uh footprint, we need to think about these things and we need to make it possible for renters and people that don't have these in their homes to find places in Roseville to charge their cars. So, I would hope in the future at some point that people that are putting in parking lots would consider being maybe a good neighbor and m maybe having it available to the public so that they could use those spots even if it isn't a private parking space. Maybe it'd be closer to the entrance to the lot or something like that. I think there's a lot of things that can be done here to make this more um friendly to the planet. And that's that's my point of the uh EV charging stations. >> Right. Member Strong, >> I wanted to bounce off of that. In addition, um that particular area where we're talking about right now is got a lot of high density housing and so that would have been a a key a really nice area to have added some EV charging stations and again it's modest income um for the most part that's over in that area. And so these folks aren't as likely and the homes have been there for a while, so they're not as likely to have their um their units be added to have that. So I feel like it's really important. You could charge the community for that opportunity to use it and offset some of the costs and be a good neighbor. So there's a lot of opportunity to be um not just that, but I think this really speaks to um the conversation we had several weeks ago about what is our green plan for our um city and we were I was asked what what are we willing to pay? And I think we have to remember that all of these little steps contribute to what we are as a green city. And it's not just no, we don't have gas stations, but there's one on every corner. Unfortunately, at this point, there's not an EV charging station at every corner available to people. If you have it in your house or at your home, you're very fortunate, but most people do not have that opportunity. So, you're really putting a dichotomy between halves and have nots, and there's going to be more and more EV cars that are available for secondhand use that people aren't going to be able to figure out how to use if they don't have more than one resource. So, but I think this is where we have to where our commitment to a green initiative as a city, this is part of it. This is part of how we connect and how we say we're really committed. It's not saying, "Oh, get a gas station at your place of business." That that's not going to fit the bill. >> All right. Um hopefully that provides some guidance for the commission and staff. Uh we do have the motion before us uh as a reminder that we have the resolution uh to uh grant the appeal uh based on the findings of fact that have been outlined by the maker and secondary the motion. Uh is there any question as to what that is? Doesn't seem to be the case. The attorneys got it. All right. With that we have the motion before us. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying I opposed. >> Nay. >> That passes 4 to one. uh with members drawn in opposition. All right. Uh thank you again for uh participating in our process and hopefully it hasn't been too arduous and uh certainly uh the next folks through will have uh perhaps a newer process to to work through. But uh I I'm glad that we're being thoughtful about it as we go forward and and hopefully we can inform uh uh ourselves and have a good solution. I I think a challenge is is that there isn't that infrastructure out there. uh but I also think that we have to be careful as to what we ask private businesses to attempt to do for the public as well. So it all is a factor. With that then uh we can proceed back to our business items this evening. Uh we have two financial related business items for the city. Uh the first is to consider approving a resolution supporting um the standard community's uh conduit debt application. We have our finance director Sam Magaranu with us this evening to bring this item before the council for our consideration. I suppose officially I should adjourn the board of adjustments and appeals and reconvene as the council. >> So done. >> So done. We are back to the council uh and taking up item 9A. Welcome Mr. Muran. >> Thank you. Good evening Mr. Mayor, member of the council. Indeed, we have with us this evening me um in front of us a resolution to support Standard Communities conduit debt application. Uh we have uh with us this evening Ronda Scobby from Taft Law uh who is going to be giving us an overview of conduit debt information. A lot of this information has been provided with the packet. Uh but it's good for her to to answer any questions you may have. So she's present with us this evening as well as Thomas Marorrow from Standard Communities. he'll be answering any question related to the project. With that, I'm going to let him come to uh to the podium here and and and present and then I'll be standing by for any further questions you may have. >> All right. Thank you. >> Y >> Hello and welcome. Hi. >> Thank you. >> Mayor, council members, my name is Rhonda Scobby. I am with the law firm of Taft, Statenius, and Hollister. I am here today as your bond council representing the city. Uh the resolution before the council for your consideration tonight requests preliminary approval of conduit bonds for a 127 I'm sorry 127 unit senior living multifamily housing development to be developed by standard communities. The resolution authorizes the city to assist the developer in applying to the Minnesota Department of Management and Budget for an allocation of a authority to issue the bonds on a taxexempt basis. The proposed resolution conveys that the city preliminarily agrees to act as the bond issuer and that a public hearing shall take place for the housing finance program if an allocation is awarded by the state. It's important to point out that the proposed application to the state requests bonding authority in a total principal amount of $23,750,000. But this is not a budget request to the city. No city funds would be used for the bonds. The city would not have any liability for the payment of the proposed issuance of bonds. All risk, liability, and cost related to the bonding process is to be assumed by the developer under the terms of the documents that would be entered into if the state approves the process. The proposed bonds would be issued by the city only on a conduit basis as authorized by state and federal law. This means the city is merely a conduit and the money and obligations flow only between the lender or trustee and the developer. No funds would flow to or from the city other than received by the city of its issuers's administrative fee. That administrative fee is 1% of the issuance of the bonds and it's calculated based on the final amount that is issued as opposed to the the maximum amount that is being sought from MMB. Uh because the city has no financial obligation with respect to the proposed bonds, the bonds would not be treated as a debt of the city or count against any of the city's debt limitations. Multif family housing development bonds are not applied against the city's calendar year limit on bank qualified bonds either. Therefore, this issuance would not affect bank qualified status of the city's own general obligation bonds. The issuance of the bonds also does not affect the city's credit rating on bonds it issues for its own purposes. The developer is responsible for paying all cost of issuing the bonds, including Taft's fees as bond council. The city administrative fee for issuing the bonds would be based on the total amount of bonds issued. I I'd also like to point out that the resolution is for a preliminary approval. So if approved and if the project receives authority from the state to move forward, we would coordinate with city staff to schedule a public hearing at a future time and future approval and consideration of the bonds and their related documents. I'm happy to take any questions on the conduit bonds and Thomas Marorrow with the developer is here to share information about the project itself. >> Welcome, Mr. Mar. >> Hi, uh, mayor, council, uh, thanks for taking the time this evening. My name is Thomas Marorrow. I represent Standard Communities. We're an affordable housing developer, um, with projects across the country. And this uh resolution is for Roseville Seniors, which represents 127 units uh occupied by your constituents. Um and our plan here is to acquire the building and do a substantial renovation uh using these this tax exempt instrument as well as uh low-inccome housing tax credits which will apply for uh after hopefully we get the uh bond allocation in early July. the part of that uh allocation as well as the bonds uh means that we this property will be affordable for another 30 years. So, we're going to do a large renovation, acquire the property, make sure that it's affordable for the foreseeable future, the next 30 years. And it's important to note that no tenant will be displaced, permanently displaced from this project. Um, right now the property is encumbered by a section 8 contract, which means residents pay 30% of their income, whatever that may be. Since these are seniors, typically, you know, social security, it's pretty pretty limited. That will not change. The residents will not change. Uh, our goal is that after this renovation, these residents will remain there and enjoy a newly renovated property uh with low, you know, fewer issues going forward. Just to get ahead of a couple additional questions, um our plan is during the renovation that tenants will uh it'll be a tenant in place. They won't be relocated off the site or anything like that. We will be doing substantial renovations into units, but we'll ask the residents to leave between that hours of 9:00 and 5 and the work will be done during those hours. The residents will return to their units at night. We will have a resident services coordinator as well as a relocation coordinator handling this a point of a full-time person dedicated to the residents during this time. And we will set up areas in the community room as well as other units where residents can enjoy um and spend those hours that they would otherwise be in the units. And again, that's only during working hours Monday through Friday. Um thank you for the time and happy to answer any questions. >> Great. Thank you both. Are there questions from members of the council for the uh bond council or the uh uh developer? >> And I appreciate the uh the information you provided about how that process will work with the uh with the residents. That was an important concern on my part and I knew we couldn't necessarily tie that to the financing, but I wanted to understand it better. Uh Council Member Schroer, >> actually I had a question for our finance director. >> Absolutely. Excuse me. Thank you. >> Um the amount of staff time and um expense that um will be necessary to get this moving, will the fee cover that expense, including the legal expense? >> Absolutely. So, we already collected a $2,500 fee, which is a standard fee uh part of our conduit debt application. So, we collected that. uh that includes my time and just communication with uh the developer with our attorney and being here at this meeting this evening as well. Uh but as far as the 1% fee will be uh sufficient I mean will be solely um collectible by the city uh and it's going to be funds that are going to be available for the city to for any use. Uh we are not going to be responsible for any of the legal services provided by Taft. So those legal services are going to be paid by the developer. So, the city's is not incurring any cost at this point for this process. >> So, it's just your time. >> Yep. Just my time. >> Okay. >> Um >> and that and that is covered by the $2,500 fee. >> The $2,500 fee. Yep. >> Um and it's my time is already paid by you guys. So, that that $2,500 goes to the city's uh general fund um operating budget. But just to clarify one thing, I I've learned this through conversations. Earlier today, we met um we communicated through emails and I think somewhere between the lines the well I I've I kind of got lost in the details but the application is going to be up to $23 million. Uh and they are hoping to get $23 million. So the 1% fee is going to be more of in the line of 230,000 instead of 90,000. So it's it's the significant amount of money that we can u uh be bringing to the city and again there's no restrictions surrounding this the use of this funds. Okay. >> Thank you. Other questions? Uh, Council Member Gro, >> I'm sure it was in here, but what how long is the bond for? >> Well, that's a good question. >> Um, you know, >> it wasn't in there. >> Um, it 17 years think we've been in there. >> I think that's a little TBD at this point. That's fine. >> Um, statutoily it could be up to 30 years, but it's likely to be much less. the the anticipation is 16 to 17 years, >> but it isn't tied to the 30 years of affordability. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> But the regulatory agreement stays on property, >> you know, even if those are paid off. >> And that Go ahead. >> Oh, I'm sorry. The regulatory agreement is a requirement of the IRS in order for these bonds to qualify as taxexempt obligations. So that's not something that could be negotiated down at a later date. It it that's what it would be. So, >> one more question. Sure. Just a comment. I noticed that some of the used for the elevator and the ADA uh compliance in the building. Is that auto compliance at this time? >> I can get back to you on that. My understanding is that it might have been a grandfathered in situation that once you pull building permits, you then trigger >> bring it up. >> Um but for the ADA specifically, since we're, you know, I mentioned low-inccome housing tax credits, we're going through MHFA. that that program has certain requirements uh specifically around ADA as well as enterprise green communities. So they have a list of to qualify for tax credits you have to abide by certain requirements. So I know the ADA uh is definitely part of their requirements as well. >> And can I have one more question? >> And then uh accessible units are you having I'm sure I hope you're having a certain number that are wheelchair accessible. >> That's right. Yeah. Yeah. So um actually I'm glad you brought that up. One point of clarification, I mentioned that residents will be back in their units at night. That is not true for a certain number of ADA units because we're moving walls in certain, you know, situations, moving countertops. They will either be re relocated on site for the duration of their that renovation, which means that we have a vacant unit, we do it up, uh we move them in there, and then we move them back to their original unit once it's finished. Um or if there's no space uh which we don't anticipate but it's possible we would find them a hotel and organized transportation. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh and just a clarification perhaps for members of the public. So uh part of the reason that this uh type of financing is used for affordable projects is the tax exempt status of the the debt as opposed to having to finance it as as a taxable uh type of funding. that that provides a benefit in terms of the cost of the project overall as I understand it. >> Absolutely. >> Yep. >> All right. Yes. >> And so that's the sort of nexus with public benefit that's tied to this type of financing. >> And just to be clear, uh the developer could have used any municipality in the area, not just us to help them issue the death. So they did they didn't want to have a tie connected when we were speaking in the um with the city as being the issuer as well as for the the benefit of this for the city. So that's that's also important to know >> and we have done this before. Do you remember when it was? >> I'm not sure but I I think we have in the past also done it for entities not in the city of Roseville. So >> it's it's it's it's a nice it's a nice thing for as was noted for our finances. >> Absolutely. >> All right. Uh we'll double check if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening. Uh does not appear to be the case. So we do have the request to adopt the resolution uh in the packet uh which uh grants preliminary approval to the issuance of the multif family housing revenue bonds etc. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Stron seconded by council member Grath to adopt that resolution granting the preliminary approval as outlined. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker. Council member Stron. Um I have friends who do a lot of volunteer work at that particular facility. Um and I've heard um it can be seen as somewhat sad and so I'm really happy for the people who do live there that um maybe that isn't the end outcome that it feels has some hope and some like positive vibes about it. I was excited to see that your organization is a B core as well. So the mission of your organization is um is somewhat altruistic. It's not just to gain a dollar somewhere else. So, I appreciate that and I and I look forward to having those folks in that unit and those units there having a having a place that they feel comfortable in and that that suits their needs as they are today. >> Thank you. >> As the second uh council member Grath, >> yeah, thanks for doing this because it it did need that building did need I work in real estate and I I have been familiar that that needed work. Um, and it does it does apply to one of our aspirations as a city of Roseville to have housing for all levels of of our population. And uh I'm glad we're going forward with this one. I hope we are anyway. >> Vote. >> Other discussion on the motion. Right. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. That passes unanimously. That resolution is adopted and we look forward to uh success in the process and seeing you back here for the public hearing. >> Thank you all. >> All right. Thank you. >> And Mr. Margarano doesn't get to go anywhere because the next item in the agenda is also him >> and that is to uh do I guess what we might call our final review of year end 2025 cash reserve levels uh and our annual uh adjustments that we make to uh address fund balance matters. >> Which one? This one right here. >> Yeah, it's a mouse. Okay. All right. Yeah, that has been working all night. Maybe it will. Okay. Well, this is back. Um, we've had an attempt about a month ago, but um, we did complete in our financials in a financial audit. Um we're are looking at issuing our report uh tomorrow actually and we'll be bringing that to council for uh for approval final approval at the 11th uh May 11th meeting. So that open opportunity for us to really get a good sense of where the uh our government our general fund um uh is at at the end of 2025 and some of the other funds that um there's a policy surrounding uh the fund balance and the reserves uh that should be considered in those funds. So with that I put together a quick analysis that I'm going to be walking you through this evening. All right. So the purpose um the purpose of the of this policy surrounding the uh the fund balance um is to continue financial stability um uh to establish best practices um to meet future operational and capital needs as well as uh being um fisc fiscal fiscally responsible um with our um our funds. Okay. So the fund balance policy does provide a cushion against unexpected revenue and income interruptions. If you recall the one of the main reasons that we we like to have uh fund reserves is of the timing when uh revenue are remitted to the city uh from the county with the two settlements during the year. So one is um our residents are paying their property taxes by May 15th and typically we get our first settlement usually in June uh and July and then uh the second portion of the property taxes are the October 15th and typically we get our settlements collected in November and December uh with the final settlement uh the future year in January. So that timing of uh receiving these funds can be difficult to manage our cash flow. So one of the reasons we have a fund reserve policy is to really meet uh that cushion of unexpected revenue in income interruptions and also provide a working capital by ensuring sufficient cash flow to be the city cities need this throughout the year and provide funds to address unexpected or unplanned events. With that I provided uh in the packet uh the current uh fund reserve policy. Um so the general fund has a fund reserve policy of 35% uh up to 50%. Um the recreation fund is 20 to between 20 and 30%. Our communication fund 10% to 30% and our licensing center is 10% to 15%. Now there's other funds that have a reserve policy that we're not going to be discussing this evening especially those enterprise funds are utility funds which we they have different benchmark and depending on their cash flow they're not supported by tax levies. So we're actually been focusing mostly on those funds that are supported by tax levies. Okay. So the the analysis kind of presenting the following findings. uh our general fund at the end of 2025 if we wouldn't do the transfer will follow below its target low target of 35% uh we're looking approximately 29.66%. Uh and that represent $1.6 million short of that low 35%. Uh if we wanted to bring this fund that is high target that would require about $6 million $6.1 million. Uh the park and recreation fund on the other hand uh it's it's above its um highest target of 30%. It's currently projecting at 31.08%. Um, that's about 70 $738,000 over the 20% or $72,000 over its high target of 30%. The communication fund um it shows a deficit in that fund reserve. Not a deficit, but it's not meeting its lowest point target low point of 10% by approximately $40,000. If we wanted to bring that fund at its high target of 30%, we would need about approximately $180,000. And lastly, the license center fund uh also is above its reserves of 10% by approximately $637,000 and it's above its high target of 15% by approximately $56,000. Um and the cash reserve fund fund uh if you're familiar with that fund has been used in the past to really any of these funds that had surplus we would really recommend to move uh those reserves in this fund. If all of these funds will be over their high targets, but since there are a couple funds, uh they are below their lower targets, uh we actually recommending using the cash reserves of $926,000 to help those funds uh bring back that those reserves to their lower targets. So, the general fund is the main one that needs the $1.6 $6 million and as well as the communication funds needs 438 $378,000 $40,378,000. With that, um I can take any questions to this point before I make a recommendation, but are there any questions uh based on this analysis? >> Any questions? >> Okay, >> not appear to be the case. All right. Um, so good question. Maybe you might ask yourself what caused a decrease in reserves in the general fund, right? It's a fair question. Uh, there several factors that I've considered and kind of looked at. One is, uh, typically the conservative budget approach that the US council take and we as staff uh, during the budget year. Uh, we're really focusing on keeping the tax levy as low as we can. Um so to do that sometimes we are focusing and we utilizing reserves as much as possible. So for example for the 2025 budget we actually for the general fund we uh we had reserves we use reserve approximately $227,000. What that means is that we did not have a balanced budget with revenues meet expenditures. um we actually use reserves to offset uh the decrease in the revenues and that decrease was applied to property taxes. So that's one one reason this the decrease in the general fund uh balance. Second, uh we've done that with the 2026 budget. We utilize approximately $145,000 of fund reserves. Um but also we've had an increase every year we have an increase in the in the budget, right? So 2026 budget uh was a $3.8 million increase and none none all of those expenditures have a source an outside source of revenue rather than tax levy. Some do. So in that 1.3.8 million if we had grants or intergovernmental revenues uh they were applied but in some instances we don't have an outside source of revenues. Um, so then the fund reserves always compares it to the next year's budget expenditures. So it's we're not we're not comparing our reserves to the current year's expenditures, but is always comparing to the next year's expenditures. So we ending 2025 and then we're looking at our reserves compared to next year's expenditure. So our our purpose in our goal is to meet next year's future obligation, not this current year that ended. So that budget always going to go up every year. So, our reserve are going to go up. We're going to need more money. And especially if we're using fund balance reserves, we're also decreasing that fund balance throughout the year. And lastly, >> just to clarify, our reserves aren't going up every year, but our reserve requirement to meet the policy is going up. >> Absolutely. So, as as the next year's budget goes up, also our reserves requirement goes up. >> Yeah. >> Yep. And lastly, the governmental funds can also shore uh resources to maintain a lower tax levy with council approval. That's why we're here this evening as well. Um, and just a kind of a little bit of background, the parks and recreation fund that we're looking to bring take some of that money. Um, it has been established to better monitor that activity in that fund, but technically that fund is also a governmental fund. In other cities, as we discussed in the past, some of the activities of the parks and recreation funds are lumped together with a general fund. uh for example also the license center fund even though it's a special revenue fund with council approval we can use some of these reserves to meet operating costs in the general fund as well. Uh same with the communication fund. Again a lot of these funds have been established for uh better tracking and monitoring the activity individual activity of this uh um of these funds. Um and the cash reserve fund also that we're taking that big chunk of 900,000 that's reported with the general fund on the financial statements and it's consolidated with that general fund uh and has been like that all all along. All right. So those are kind of the main reasons why the fund results went down. And I also took it a little bit further and kind of looked at uh the general fund um at the year end it had a net income change of about approximately $1.5 million. And I kind of looked okay why did that happen? Why did we have a positive net income change? Well, the revenues were up about $468,000 at year end excluding any fund uh balance transfers that were proposing this evening. Uh they were about $468,000 over uh we had um over we were over budgeting the licensing and permits. We were over budgeting the intergovernmental funds uh and charges for services due to rose center security that came over uh we are over the budget in court fines. Uh our interest earnings came over budget. a big a large portion of that $448,000 does include market value adjustments which is not really a true revenue unless we decide to sell or exit some of those investments which were not. Uh but then also we were under budget in revenues for property taxes and that's a big big number there. So what that means is that there are a lot of petitions uh with the county and when petitions are approved by the county or a resident or a business wins a petition a petition is uh they are um um disputing their property valuation for property taxes purposes. Uh those deductions actually are reduced reducing our distribution of our property taxes that for that year. So there were a large increase of these petitions the last few years. For this year that was about approximately $588,000. So our percentage collection is I think below 98% right now. And there's some mis miscellaneous revenues on the budget as well. We budget that we're going to be receiving more funds from the state fair reimbursement. Uh I think it's more related to security there or some other programs. I'm not really sure what we do there. >> Parking. >> Well, no. Well, no. It's really probably for the overtime we incur during back to the 50s. >> Oh, okay. >> Okay. >> So, we invoice them and we have no agreement that they're going to pay, but invoice them >> for the extra time. So, >> have they paid in the past? >> I think they have sometimes, but not consistent. >> And I'm not sure if they we used less, you know, we provided less support or what happened, but uh looking at the budget to actuals for that line item, we were about $140,000 less. uh as you know it's it's an ongoing concern and issue and we can't see the traction and really having some type of agreement to do that but regardless we need to provide extra folks on the street when those things are happening we are >> yeah but overall uh when I say over budget the revenues that's a good thing uh so the net impact was uh positive $468,000 over budget uh on the other hand expenditures were over budget which in this case is a bad thing uh because we were about $300,000 more than we budgeted in expenditures and primarily was driven by public safety overtime personal costs. So when I looked at our uh budget to actuals and over timeline for the departments for police and fire uh both of them came significantly over their budget. So that's something we actually have to seriously address with the 2027 budget because the 2026 budget actually was already trending higher than anticipated. So I I anticipate this will be an issue for 2026 as well. Um, so we're hopefully addressing that for 2027 budget. With that, uh, the proposed transfer this evening to re to be rebalancing the reserves, uh, we're recommending, uh, transferring that $1.6 million in transfers into a general fund from these following sources. Uh, we're going to be looking to taking uh, from the license center surplus of $637,643. and that will bring the license center fund balance to its lowest point of 10%. We're looking at utilizing all the cash reserves fund in fund 105 uh $926,8 and we're looking to take the additional difference from the parks and recreation fund $40,978. This three transfer will bring the general fund balance up to its 35% low target fund balance. So, that's the first uh request this evening. And the second is to um approve a transfer of $4,378 in transfer into the communication fund uh from the following sources. We're going to be recommending using this funds from the parks and recreation reserves fund 200. And this transfer bring the communication fund 110 balance up to its 10% low target fund balance. And with that I have a visual how uh how this will be rebalancing after this transfer. So as you can see here the general fund will be at its lowest point of 35%. Uh and then the park recreation funds is will be taking approximately $80,000 out of it will be bringing its uh fund balance reserves to 29.86% u just below its high target. And then the communication fund will be at 10% and the license center fund will be at 10% and the cash reserve at this point will be zero. Yep. And with that I can take any additional questions you may have. >> Right. Uh I'm going to just clarify one thing. So I think our cash carry forward policy is that the amounts over the high targets >> in various funds w would would be swept into the cash carry forward fund. >> Yep. >> Which is a sub fund within the general fund. >> Y >> so in the case of the parks and recreation fund uh according to that chart uh it's about 72102 >> and for the license center fund that's about 56,028. And I noticed that both of those numbers are lower than the number that the total that we're asking to transfer to the various funds. Uh so I just wanted to note that that is sort of additional transfers in addition to our policy transfer. Um and it sounds like you're also suggesting we just do the transfers direct rather than sort of sweeping and then allocating from >> I think it's really extra work and extra things to approve. I mean we can we can uh direct this transfers to be going straight into the in the general fund and without passing it through the fund reserve fund. >> Yep. >> Which is a sub fund of the general fund. >> Fund anyway. Yeah. So >> I the main thing was I wanted to point out that we're actually looking to transfer at least in two of the cases more than what we need. Yep. >> Talks about um and in the case of the license center fund that's actually getting us down to the minimum 10% at that point. We're basically transferring everything that is above the 10% target. >> Um, >> so and I I that creates some questions in my mind, but I'm I'm becoming more uh comfortable with it as as the evening progresses. >> Yeah, I I mean I I wish you could follow the policies as is stated to only transfer the surplus to keep those funds at their highest point. Uh but in this year there's there's a little bit more need than than that that we can do. So we have to transfer a little bit more than um to bring those like the the parks and rec fund is going to drop at 29.86. So close to the high target of 30% but not quite uh but the licensing center from 15% which is the high target we will be at 10. So ideally we wouldn't have transferred uh that much but uh in this situation I don't think we have many other options. um we can consider increasing the levy next year. >> But just to remind you the the fund balance reserve is important to show at year year end. So this journal entry is going to be posted in 2025. This is going to be part of our 2025 um uh report. So this entry is not a 2026 journal entry. It's going to be a 2025. And one of the reasons we want to do that is because what's coming ahead uh especially with the bond issuance a lot of times if we have to go through another bond uh rating call they will be looking at our reserves. So if our reserves are going to be below uh the recommended office of the state auditor which is 35%. That might not be favorable for us. So one of the things we want to get this done finding these resources and and allocating these resources to the general fund to help the general fund uh maintain at its low uh target that 35%. And if I understand the transfers correctly, um if we only did the the policy transfers, we'd be overall about $140,000 short >> of which aboutund 100,000 roughly would be the shortage in the general fund, which puts us at uh >> 30 some something under 35%. >> We'll be under 35%. So at that point um we recommend to using to kind of take more from the parks a little bit more and actually the license center has a has a different cash kind of cash flow and uh I think uh you know we could have split between the two funds. I I think there were some upcoming uh projects in the parks and recreation uh that might be coming over budget. So we we thought we would take a conservative approach and uh and keep that fund at its high closer to its higher target versus the license center that right now is just kind of operating pretty well and uh it's already projecting to have a surplus in revenues already quarter one as we'll be seeing at probably you've already noticed that on the staff report for the quarter one financials. Um so I'm comfortable with this recommendation. I think uh Mr. the Turjan and I met and tal discussed about it and you may ask as well but um we can always look uh if we need more funds in the license center at that point to bringing um a transfer from a different source um but for year end purposes and to keep that general fund at 35 I think this will be our best scenario right now >> right and just two two follow-ups on that one is um when you say the license center fund is is coming in revenues are coming in ahead of projections is that taking into account the budgeted if there was a budgeted transfer to the general fund already kind of built into the general to the license center operations. >> Um not necessarily. I we're not looking at the fund balance projection. We're looking at budget to actually within the quarter. Okay. >> Like what we actually budgeted for revenues. Got it. So those are over what they're coming in. >> Okay. >> And the fund balance impact if if if we're coming overall let's say four quarters we're over budget. So year end that surplus is going to go into the fund balance ultimately, right? >> Increasing that fund balance again for this. >> And then I just did the quick calculation. If you took about $100,000 out of the general fund fund balance on the the table that's there, it gets you to 34.667%. So it's really close 35. >> I I was I'm more comfortable being at 35. I think the it's 35 something. Uh the financial statements I think after we it's all said and done um it's 35.0. 0 one or two, something like that. So, we're we're right there. >> Yep. >> All right. Absolutely. We need to we need to show fewer decimal places, right? >> Yeah. >> All right. That that answers my questions. Certainly freed up for the rest of the council. Council member Schroeder. >> Uh yes. Well, and I think another point is with the license center, their revenue is coming on on a continual basis, right? where some of the other funds that's more relying on and I know we have some parks and rec there but I think a lot of the other ones were um we only have the revenue coming in on a less frequent basis. Yep. >> So, so that that's I'm comfortable with that. And um also this is what the cash reserve fund was meant to be is there when we had a shortage to be able to you know that what had been put in there ahead of time from previous years is this is when we want to use it. And actually if you really think about it this is like taking from the right pocket and putting it in the left pocket. So, so in a way we are transferring but in a way it's becomes one >> you know you know it all comes up to the top when you're looking at it from an audit. >> It it does from from a financial statement presentation that's kind of our goal with these transfers to really uh I mean we we we created these funds as I mentioned earlier to really have a better uh understanding of the activities in the cities like the parks and recreation fund. Some cities have it as a department part of the general fund and they only track the uh the programs as a separate uh special revenue funds and when I mean programs is volleyball, basketball and just those type of programs but nothing related to the parks maintenance and operation of our parks. Those will be a department and the general fund. So um here is it's it's a large program right so it makes sense to have want to have a better handle on how the department how those funds are doing. Same with the license center. Um um and then the communication as well I think has been created just to have a better understanding how much money we're spending specifically and what other resources can we bring in the table. What's the levy? >> It helps us see what's actually going on. And my last question is um kind of related is we're going to get the audit before the you know long before the night before the when you're going to present it. Right. The audit is going to be presented on uh May 11th. >> Next Monday. >> Next Monday. >> I'd like to make sure because that's a big document. So you'd rather before Thursday. >> I need it before Thursday. >> Yeah. So I think we're going to officially wrap it up and get a final report done tomorrow. >> Uh we've had a final review and went through all the changes with the auditors today >> and then you'll have this. >> Yep. This actually has been already posted in the report. Uh I was really hopeful that this will be supported. If it's not, then we might have to delay for another couple couple hours. Um uh but I if this is not supported, we we'll be definitely looking at a presenting of reserves under the policy and under the OSA recommendation. So I think we don't want to do that. >> So yeah, like I said, the sooner we can get a copy of that audit, the better. I'd be happy to drive over and get it. >> You think we can get have it ready for tomorrow? >> Yeah, absolutely. That's the goal. I think tomorrow we we should have a copy. Uh my plan is to get the the staff report no later than Wednesday and have all the information available in the staff report for the 11. >> Send the report out. >> Just let me know. I'd be happy to come get it too if that makes >> I can email them to all of you or if I can make some printing some copies as well if somebody prefers >> a copy. >> Sure. Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Yep. And we'll bring some really nice copies at the meeting on the 11th too. Uh more hard copies style. Yep. Great. Yeah, >> I'll I'll request not to have a hard copy. >> Same. >> Okay. >> Absolutely. >> Other questions for staff. >> Otherwise, I believe it is a request. Well, I should check if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item. >> We got somebody. >> Why not? >> Why not? >> Why not? >> Someone's got to do something around here. We got some people in here. >> Well, you came all this way. >> We got to have get some people in here. We're just we're just glad to see you again and you're here and and hail. Yeah. >> Well, Roger has place. >> So, these numbers are probably over four months old. So, how has it gotten any better since then or has gotten worse? >> We do have our quarterly uh financial report as one of the items in our consent agenda this evening. So, that'd be an opportunity to take a look at that and see how things are going. Mr. Magano, just generally speaking, are things better or worse? Yeah, I mean in fund balanced terms we're beginning with 35% reserves. Um I think over overall the the quarter looks good. Um uh it's hard to tell at this point. Like I said quarter one and one of the reasons I decided to do quarter one on consent. It's typically we don't have a lot of activity. There's not a lot of the revenues collected to date. So it's kind of hard to tell. The expenditures I can speak more on those. They are trending under budget. But there's a reason for that too. The our biggest largest cost drive here is personal cost. And the way we budget for personal cost is we budget uh at the highest rate for an employee because there's two different things that happen throughout the year, right? We get a cost of living adjustment on one one and then the employees get their step increases or promotions throughout the year on their anniversary date and and those dates differ for everyone at a different point. So it's kind of hard to capture a full quarter of activity of personal cost. So if you look in the report, I think those came under uh 25% which would be an expectation of a normal business. You say, "Okay, I have a quarter of three months. I should be at 25% of expenditures." I think we're more than the 17 to 19 range for most of the departments right now. And there's no departments that have been over budget right now. So as of quarter 1, we're doing really, really well. Let's see how we do quarter two and quarter three when some of those expenditure starts hitting a little bit different and some of the revenues are coming through more consistently too because we're going to have the first elemental revenues coming in June July but then also some of the the programs are starting in the parks uh because it's they're seasonal too so none of those revenues have hit our books so quarter one is pretty kind of mild mellow in most cities quarter two is more active and usually quarter four is really wrapping it So, it's kind of hard to predict. We are doing as of now, we're in a 20% to budget range, which is good. >> So, as the XL fe started coming into the general fund because that should be putting over 2 million into the general fund. >> Yep. So, the franchise fees, we received uh our first uh dispersement of funds in April. That's going to that's trending a little bit lower than what we expected because um that was due to the timing of the franchise fees actually coming into effect. I believe was as of March 1st even though we wanted to be as one one I think it's is really based on the resolution and approvement from that point I think excel energy takes about 60 to 90 days to implement the franchise fees and is not working retroactively so I think when we budgeted our process we took our budget we took that in account that revenues are going to be less this year so our first dispersement so far has been $4ome >> but still that's going to add like about 2 million every year won't it >> it will I think on our budget process. If we're looking at our budget process, we have already uh planned how those funds are going to be spent. Um so, uh budget to action, we didn't bring any revenues yet, but we will. >> And the last thing, I still I still like don't want you guys taking money out of the license fund because every dollar you take out means that's another dollar you have to bond for when you build a new building. It would have been nice if over the last 20 years you left all the money in there and could have built a building without having to issue bonds. And it looks like you've got $63 million that you're investing right now. And some of it goes out for like 12 years. So I'd rather see you take $1.6 million of the money you're not going to use for 10 or 12 years and use that to fill this hole >> because that simple. Uh if you even make four if you make 4% that's only $64,000 a year. >> There's a lot of rules and things we can meet in our own oneonone basis and all that. So we can we can talk about finances. >> All right. >> Acknowledging the comments and the questions. Thank you. And I I broke our own rule by by engaging in conversation. So it's my fault. So >> all right. >> I didn't talk for three minutes. >> No, you definitely didn't. You definitely did not. And uh and that is noted for the record. >> All right. Um, >> I would make the motion if you're ready for that matter. >> I think we're ready for it. >> Uh, second. >> All right. And so specifically, this is a motion to uh >> as request. >> Make the transfers as request. >> Exactly. >> All right. It was moved by Council Member Grath, second by Council Member Strong. >> Discussion on the motion. Council member Grath. >> Well, thanks for doing all this work. This was an excellent presentation. and it makes it very clear having been here for several years that but the first year I remember going through this was very confusing to me. So I appreciate the work in it and it all makes sense to me. I like making the funds at least up to the minimum and it makes sense for any bond proposals we need to go forward with. So yeah, I'm supporting it. >> All right. As the second council member Strong, >> thank you. And again, yes, thank you um for the work you've done, the presentation and the way you laid things out. I find it really easy to understand. Um, and I I hope that that means that the general populace also feels that way when they look at it that it makes good sense. Obviously, five or six years in, it's a little easier to get the whole >> piece, but no, I really appreciate um all the pieces that you've sent along have been very informative and um and your presentation was very helpful. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Other discussion on the motion. All right. Hearing none. Uh, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously and that transfer or those sets of transfers as outlined are authorized. >> That concludes our business items this evening. Uh, we don't have any items uh, council member initiated items to take up at this time. So, we can move to consideration of a number of sets of minutes. And I think we did get a a revised uh, set of our uh, April 6th council minutes. Uh just making a couple of corrections on pages 21 and 24. >> Uh and those have been noted. >> Are there any other changes or corrections to those minutes? I believe we could conceivably take them up as a single motion. I don't believe anybody missed those meetings to abstain. >> I would move to approve all of the minutes as shown with the um corrections on the bench handout. >> Second. >> All right. All right. It's been moved by Council Member Schroer, seconded by Council Member Grath to approve those minutes as presented, including the updates to the uh April 6th minutes as handed out to this evening. Uh discussion on that motion. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those minutes are approved. That brings us to the consent agenda. Mr. Trean. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item 12A approves payments in the amount of $1,332 I'm sorry 1,33,260.14. Item 12B approves expenditures for a portable emergency generator, a landscape maintenance contract with Sandstrom for miscellaneous street rights away, purchase of turnout gear for our firefighters, purchase of two new 12 passenger vans for parks and recreation department to replace 20-year-old vehicles, and the rehab and modernization of a 33y old elevator at the Oval. This action also approves the sale of a police vehicle being rotated out of service. Item 12 C approves the renewal of the 2 am liquor license for the AMC Theaters Rosedale. Item 12D receives a quarterly grant report. To date, the city has received $1.4 million in grant funds. Agenda item 12E approves a no parking resolution on Hamlin Avenue between County Road C and Snelling Avenue. As part of the Hamlin Avenue rehabilitation project, the roadway will be narrowed and therefore parking must be restricted on the entire stretch of Hamlin. Agenda item 12F approves a resolution awarding the contract for the WHansi sanitary sewer lift station project companies in the amount of $44,600 after a competitive test value bid process. Item 12G approved entry into a cooperative agreement with Ramsey County for the Hamlin Avenue rehabilitation project and Snelling. The city will serve as lead on the project. Item 12H receives the first quarter financial report. Item 12 I approves entering into an amended joint powers agreement with Ramsey County for the violent crime enforcement team. Uh this amendment amended agreement is being required due to two agencies dropping out of the joint powers agreement. And item 12J approves awarding contract for Hamlin Avenue rehabilitation project forest lake contracting in the amount of $4.56 million after a competitive bid process. It should be noted that this bid and all other bids were received for this project were higher than the original engineered estimates. While it's not totally clear the higher costs may reflect increased fuel and transportation cost related to the project. That's not a time we continue to see with our projects. These costs of this project are being shared with the cities of Roseville and Ardan Hills and Ramsey County. And that is the consent agenda. >> All right. Is there a motion on the consent agenda moved? >> Second. >> It's moved by council member Grath. Second by council member Stron. >> Can I have a question in there? Certainly >> on under the AMC theaters. Uh do we do compliance checks there? >> Yeah, we do. Yeah. Yeah. >> And did any come in because I didn't see them listed here? >> Uh as far as the compliance checks or >> their fails? >> No, I don't think they >> because I've always been worried about that in the >> No, it's a good question. But no, I we do do compliance checks. I don't recall us ever having >> Okay. Thanks. >> having a liquor license there is relatively new in last. >> Yeah, it's only a couple years old. That's why I was wondering if we'd had any compliance checks or not. All right. Uh, any other discussion on the consent agenda motion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those items are approved or received. Uh, that brings us then to future agenda review. Mr. Treen, once again to you. >> Yeah. Uh, all right. So, as mentioned, we do have a meeting next Monday. We'll start off the evening with the EDA meeting. We do need to formally enter into a contract with Twin Cities Habitat Humanity regarding the land trust partnership and specifically the use of LAAHA fund that the EDA previously discussed. This is the actual agreement. We want to have a conversation about the balance of the abatement fund um and have some conversation about maybe putting that money to different use. Uh and then also look to authorize release of the EDA attorney legal services RFP. At the regular meeting, we'll receive the audit report as we just talked about. Um and I something on there I guess but just the auto report nothing about the board of adjustment. >> Okay. Uh we also want to uh have a discussion about the community survey. As you know every uh two years uh we try to do a community survey. We're bringing that back. So in your packet you'll have all the questions we've asked before. We do want to have some conversations about some additional questions to help us um gauge the community and how we're doing and some of our plan priorities. So we're working on some examples for you as well on there. And I would note that uh it's always an opportunity to look at the questions, make sure we still want to ask them or if we want to ask new questions. We had about six or seven questions in the last one um that revolved around the sales tax. So those probably could be remove and then uh have the city manager performance evaluation and close session meeting. On the 18th, we have several proclamations as you can see. Uh we also uh will have our kind of normal quarterly uh public hearing to consider certifying unpaid utility bills. I look to award the national nature playground consultant contract nature center and talking to Sam earlier today. We might be having a joint finance committee commission meeting with the members there. As you know we have the chair and new members there. So be a good start of the year for them. I know they're talking about at their meeting. next week the 12 between now. Yeah, between now and then. Yeah. Um so, uh assuming that that day they can sort that out and they'll make that plan for that. That's all I have for that. You see the June meetings here. Um we have only two regular business meetings, the 8th and 15th and the 22nd is the best parade >> which is not a meeting. >> It's not a meeting but uh >> but we do publish it since we're all together, right? Yes. I lost my mouse here. And I just I don't I won't plan on spending time on it, but in the packet is um uh this update on the commissions. >> Sorry, like so I'll pull it up for information. We missed the last time doing this. So this just kind of gives you I know most of you watch the meetings or read the minutes, but this is a nice summary of kind of what they've been up for you and public's review. And that's all I have. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Trean. Are there any questions on the future agenda uh or council member initiated items for future meetings or reports or announcements or communications from council members? >> Well, council >> you should have already sent in your uh the deadline again. >> Boy, I I No, I think at this point it called me, but I I don't want >> Yeah. So, it's Wednesday at 11:30. is Northeast Youth and Family Services lunchon and uh we're expecting a good crowd. So, look forward to that. >> All right. Any other communications announcements? Otherwise, if there's no further business, >> I wanted to add some of the things that were these will I'm sure come up onto our list as we get closer, but just um our Junth celebration is on June 13th. Um, and one of our key contributors is not participating this year, so we'll really all need to give it an extra go to make sure it's a success. Um, Discover Your Park starts on June 17th and Live at the Rock every Sunday and Thursday is music at starts on June 14th and then the Rice and Larger Alliance has an event on 5:16. >> So, a week from Saturday. So, just wanting to make sure that some of the local things as it gets nice out that we make sure we get out there and show our calendar. >> Yeah. And a few years ago, I um made a push to try to get as many of us as possible up to Discover Your Parks. Um and that was because we were doing the Envision um piece, but I still think it was um really powerful and last year I continued to ride my bike to many of them. Um it really means a lot for people to see you. So, um, if there's any way that we can rotate out or take turns or at least try to hit a few, I think it really makes a big difference to our, uh, residents for us to show up and and be present. Rarely do they ask questions, but if they do, uh, usually there's a lot of city staff around >> Right. All right. Uh, I did have just one thing actually just came in the mail right before the meeting here, and that is just a quick thank you to, uh, the city council members. Uh uh resident expresses gratitude for the efficiently run Roseville cleanup day which was on April 25th. Uh everyone was helpful and kind. Uh such an important service to the community. Uh so once again, we get to take credit for something that we really didn't have a lot to do with uh directly other than continuing to uh make it happen each year with our approvals. Uh but I did want to point that out and this is from uh resident Norman Jorgensson. So it's to the whole council. So wanted to read it at the meeting. I would like to also add um a few weeks ago I happened to use the Saturday services at the Kent Street Recycling Center. Amazing. Yeah. >> Um so efficient, so well laid out, and um what a what a gift we have in this opportunity to recycle so many things there. Um when I talk to people from other cities, they can't believe what we're able to get rid of and um with no cost or little if any cost. So really make sure they're open on Saturdays from 9:00 to 4, I believe. So super convenient for people who work during the week um to have that opportunity. There wasn't waiting. It was just >> very efficient. So >> a well-run organization. I highly recommend it. >> Well, why don't we take credit for that too since it's in Roseville, but it is Ramsey County's facility and it is available to county residents and I believe sometimes metrowide uh residents can >> avail themselves of some of the the services there too as I seem to recall. So, uh, but we'll take credit for. All right. With that, if there's no further business before the council, uh, the only other item on our agenda is a motion to adjourn. So, move second. All right. >> Oh, man. I didn't get it. >> Close close race. It was council member Schwarter by uh >> feel like better not use any horse racing analogies here. Uh, seconded by council member Stron. Uh, no discussion on a motion to adjurnn. Uh, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. We are journed at 7:0 7:57 p.m. Thank you everyone.