hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday, June 2nd, 2025. Mr. City Manager, would you call the role, please? Council member Croft here, Council Member Power here, Council Member Strong here, Council Member Schroeder here, Mayor Row here, and with us at the DEAS, we have uh by way of introduction, our city attorney on my right, uh at the very end, and Rachel Tierney, and then our city manager Pat Trean is on my left. At the other end, we have other staff and guests who will be participating in the meeting who's uh who will be introduced as they uh become part of the meeting. Uh we would ask folks if you have a cell phone to make sure and silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt the meeting this evening. Uh and I will note from a housekeeping point of view a couple of things. We do have extra copies of the meeting agenda on the back table underneath the big clock by the back door. If you need a copy of the agenda, uh you can have your own personal copy as long as copies last and then we can make more if we need to. Uh and then we also have one set of a complete set of the meeting materials in a three- ring binder on the back table which is also available for consultation by the public. However, that is one copy so we'll have to share. Uh and with that, I would ask folks to stand if you're able for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Next on our agenda this evening is approval of tonight's agenda. And as always, I'll check with staff uh to see if there are any changes that need to be made. U Mr. Tre, are there any staff changes to the agenda this evening? Mr. Mayor, it's no staff changes to the agenda tonight. All right. Uh and then next we'll check with city council members to see if the council members wish to change anything on the agenda or if council members wish to request any consent items be removed for separate consideration this evening. Does not appear to be the case. Uh and then a quick check with members of the public who are here this evening. Uh I just mentioned our consent agenda which is section 10 at the very end the bottom of the first page of the agenda. um that those items are normally taken up at the end of the meeting, uh they're tend to be fairly routine, like approving our check register, uh approving purchases over $10,000, uh some agreements, uh and those sorts of things. Uh however, if you happen to be here this evening for one of those items to either make a comment or ask a question of the council, we don't want to make you stay till the end. Uh and so this would be a chance to let us know if you're here for one of those items. We'll actually take that item up earlier in the meeting uh for you to be able to ask your question or make your comment. Is there anyone here this evening for an item in section 10 of tonight's agenda? All right, 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 Schroer, seconded by council member Bowerer to approve the agenda this evening. Uh if there's no discussion on that motion, uh hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. We have our agenda for this evening. Next on the agenda is our uh first opportunity for public comment during the meeting this evening. Uh this is as always our opportunity at the start of each meeting for general public comment uh not related to agenda items that are coming up in the meeting. Uh we will provide opportunities for comments on those items as they come up. But we do want to always at the start of each meeting provide an opportunity for general public comment. As I said, uh that's for items that are not on the agenda, but may either relate to city business or uh be of interest to people in the community. Uh and so with that, we'll open it up to see if there's any public comment this evening. Uh and we'll ask you to come forward and have a seat. And while they're coming forward, just the general rules of the road for public comment for folks uh at home and in the audience there uh is about a we threem minute time limit. Certainly. Okay. Um and um you just have to introduce yourself at the start of your comment and uh direct comments or questions to the council. We if uh we can't and general comment provide a response or an action this evening, we would generally refer something to staff or bring it back for further consideration. Uh however, I believe you may be here for not that type of matter. Just just guessing uh recognizing some faces. Uh so uh with that, we'll open it up for public comment. Welcome. Hello council and um city. I my name is Keith Allen. I'm a resident of Roseville but also um employee of Rose an employee of Fairview Fairview Health Services but also part of the Junth planning committee part of Dog Good Roseville and that's why I'm here before you today to say share some gratitude and acknowledge the opportunity of just celebrating on June 14th. So, we're using this opportunity to just give gratitude and thank you all for being a part of the growth of this opportunity that we have had over the past couple of years. What I would say is one of the has become one of the biggest Juneenth celebrations in the state of Minnesota. That is my self proclamation. Mhm. Um but but it has been something that has been really uh personal to me as being a a new resident of the past 5 years and being able to galvanize this community come together and all has been welcome. And so this is an opportunity and I know Christina will speak with her time just to acknowledge what's going to happen on that day, but this is just a reminder that this day is taking place on June 14th to remind you all it is always great to be in community together. So please make time that day and this is our committee personally inviting you all and your staff to u come out. We appreciate it. Police and fire being present at that event. And so we encourage everyone to come out to this event who's watching, but also you all as if you all can ask your constituents to be present with us. And so this is my way of just saying thank you for the work that you have done with us to build this up. Um even in rain of last year, we had hundreds of people there. and when it was extremely hot, we had over 400 people there and we expect a great weather day if you all can help provide that as well. Um, but just wanted to say thank you and just opportunity to celebrate and lift up Junth as we enter the month of June. So, thank you. So, well, good evening everyone. My name is Christina McCoy. I use she her pronouns and I am also a member of the Junth planning committee. Um, I this is my third year working with the group. Um, I'm also a colleague and friend of Keith's. I work with Fairview and um we are an anchor organization and so we really like to partner with other organizations that are doing great work in the community such as Do Good Roseville. Um and from the the standpoint of the work that that Keith and I are engaged in, we we want to make sure that we are extending health and wellness and connection into the community. And one of the ways that we do this is through building and sustaining these connections like Do Good Roseville has done with the Junth celebration. Um we know we have a lot of families that attend this this event every year. Um, every year the event continues to grow. This year we have more than 71 folks tableabling there. Um, a number of blackowned businesses. So, not only are people able to come and, you know, nurture their spirits and their souls and connect with community, but they're also supporting a lot of local business. So, really contributing back to that fabric of the local community. And so, it has just been my pleasure to be part of that and we thank you so much for your support. Um, as Keith had mentioned, it's taking place on Saturday the 14th. Um, rain or shine. Um, we we again we I would echo the the hope for the good weather. So, if you could help with that. Um, but we fill the park up with just laughter and joy. And this year, we're really excited to be bringing a youth art contest. So, we're going to be able to highlight some of the just brilliance and art uh that is from our Roseville youth. So, again, thank you so much for allowing us to join you this evening. We hope to see you that day. Music, fun, dancing, vendors, um poetry, dancing. Yes. um and just a great celebration of Junth and in this time when we're looking for things for families to be able to do together um we're really excited to be able to bring this free opportunity to the community. So, thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Thank you for being here. And uh for folks at home, once again, it's Saturday, June 14th from 11:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. as was noted, rain or shine. Uh the only reason I mentioned that is I don't think they got the overhead camera showing the uh the brochure as you're speaking. So, I apologize for that. Uh but I wanted to re-emphasize the day and time again for folks that are watching. Uh once again, thank you to everyone who's involved in the planning and the partnership with the city of Roseville. We're happy to be a partner in the activities leading up to and on the day of Junth celebration in Roseville. So, look forward to it. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank general public comment this evening. All right. Seeing none, then we'll proceed with the rest of our agenda. Uh first item or the next item on our agenda under recognitions and donations, we have actually a timely uh item which is a proclamation related to Junth in Roseville. Uh as is usually the case, uh I will read the proclamation and then a motion from the council to approve would be in order. The proclamation reads as follows. Whereas on June, excuse me, I started I'll start over. Whereas on January 1st, 1863, Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation which established that all enslaved people in the Confederate States were set free. And whereas many slave owners in the state of Texas did not release their slaves. And on June 19th, 1865, General Gordon Granger and his troops entered Galveastston, Texas after the surrender of uh Robert E. Lee in Appamatics, Virginia. And upon General Granger's arrival on Texas soil, he issued uh general order number three. And whereas this order officially declared the immediate release and freedom of the remainder of slaves located in Texas and slaves were that were forcefully held captive for almost three years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, excuse me, after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued were finally pronounced free men and free women. And whereas in 1866, black freed men organized the first celebration of Jubilee Day on June 19th, featuring music, ethnic cuisines, prayer services, and other activities. And June 19th is now recognized as a ceremonial holiday in 47 states, with Texas being the first to declare Junth a holiday in 1980. And whereas Junth is a day of committed reflection and recognizes that across people and nations, historic, ongoing, structurally embedded and government sanctioned racial discrimination has perpetuated its impacts upon all of our generations, including to this very day. And whereas the city of Roseville and its leadership strive to be intentional and accountable uh to identify solutions to undo the harm of the legacy of racial discrimination and slavery in this country. And whereas on June, excuse me, in June of 2017, Do Good Roseville gathered volunteers driven by the vision of creating a welcoming environment for the black community in Roseville at Lexington Park in recognition of Junth to be in community with each other and to honor and celebrate black culture. Be beginning a new Junth tradition in Roseville. And whereas on November 2nd 7th, 2022, the Roseville City Council declared June 19th an official city recognized holiday. And on February 3rd, 2023, Junth officially became a state holiday in Minnesota. And whereas the 2025 event committee consists of volunteers committed to providing a great experience to the city of Roseville. And whereas on Saturday, June 14th, 2025, the community will gather again for the annual celebration of Junth in Roseville Central Park from 11:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. Now, therefore, it be resolved that the city of Roseville declares June 19th, 2025 to be Junth in the city of Roseville, and I will add encourages everyone in the community to join in the event on June 14th. So, moved. Second. All right. Is moved by council member Strong, second by Council Member Grath to approve that proclamation. Uh discussion on the motion. Council member St. I would just like to continue to thank um the ever growing uh group of people that um make this work. Started with a handful of people and some pretty enthusiastic people like Mr. Jevy uh Dr. Jevy and uh it's really grown to be an amazing event and I'm very proud that we have that here and I'm so glad we continue. Right. Other discussion on the motion. Thanks for all your work. Yeah. And as anybody who's put on an event knows, it takes a lot of work and planning and so we we know what goes into it and we do appreciate that. So with that, we do have the motion to adopt that proclamation for Junth in Roseville. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. That passes unanimously. That proclamation is approved. Uh our next item under recognitions uh and donations this evening is a recognition of outgoing volunteer advisory commissioners in the city. We do this each year as people uh end their terms of service on our volunteer commissions. Uh we want to make sure that we do recognize uh their service and thank them for their work on behalf of their fellow citizens in Roseville. And so with that, I'll turn it over to our assistant city manager, Rebecca Olsen, to indicate uh who is uh cycling off commissions this uh year and uh to make those recognitions. Thank you, mayor, council members. Tonight we are recognizing all of those commissioners who have um served us over the past year or more um for their service. And um this year we have 45 volunteer commissioners across six different city commissions. And approximately 75 hours are are given in volunteer time by those volunteers on the commissions over the course of their term. Um tonight we're recognizing those who aren't going to be returning and we have five commissioners that are leaving terms in 2025 and um three additional past commissioners on our finance commission. Uh Dan Sagaser was appointed in 2019 and we have four commissioners from the Parks and Recreation Commission that were also appointed in uh I'm sorry, three that were appointed in 2019 and um one who unfortunately did pass away. So that is Joseph Arnison, Daryl Brown, David Dalstrom, and Jessica Rhaegar. We have four that are being recognized from our planning commission. We have council member now Matt Bower, Michelle Crruzel, Michelle Pribble, and Karen Shawousen. And then from our police civil service commission, we have Kathleen Riley who was appointed in 2020. And Sarah Rudolph from our public works, environment, and transportation commission who was appointed in 2023. Um, one thing I wanted to mention is that um, I know staff and council very much appreciate all the time and effort that these commissioners provide us. They've spent countless hours providing advice, counsel to both staff and and council and um we greatly appreciate the effort because we know that it is a big commitment to serve on a commission. Terms are three years and monthly meetings in addition to all the other work. So um just wanted to say thank you. All right. And certainly uh the council echoes those thanks. We appreciate these folks who come forward uh and volunteer for this role. Uh certainly it's uh not something that uh people have to do, but we're very appreciative of the uh wide representation across our community that we get in terms of those who serve on our volunteer commissions uh and the the general high interest at times when we're seeking applicants for vacancies um and the great qualified candidates that come forward each time. Uh so uh thank you again to those who are uh ending their terms of service with the city. And of course that doesn't mean uh that you end your opportunities to volunteer for the city. Uh we really appreciate uh all the volunteer work that we uh benefit from in the city as well in terms of everybody uh in the community who does uh small things one-time or longer term commitments. Uh we couldn't do what we do without all that help. And so once again, we appreciate it all and say thanks. Uh and want to officially recognize all of those outgoing commissioners who will receive certificates of recognition. Uh and if any uh comm outgoing commissioners happen to be here this evening, certainly they could receive that in person. Uh but we will make sure that those who are not able to be here in person uh get those certificates uh because we really do want to uh to show our appreciation for their work. And thank you to Miss Olsen uh for uh the presentation this evening as well as all the work you do uh with the process of volunteer commissions in Roseville. So thank you. All right with that and I should just ask everybody can hear okay in the room. Okay. Sometimes if I don't hear an echo back to me I'm not sure. So I just wanted to double check. Um with that we proceed with our business items this evening. And our first business item is item 7A, which is to consider approving a special assessment role for county road B reconstruction. Uh, and we have Jennifer Lowry this evening with us, our assistant public works director and city engineer to bring forward this uh, assessment uh, role for our consideration and probably give us a little bit of an update on the project as well. Lowry. Um, thank you, mayor and council members. I have a brief presentation. And I just want to talk through um like the RCA says a little bit about the project and about our assessment policy. Um and then the packet also includes um a suggested agenda for the public hearing um and a resolution for your consideration. Um so project scope, schedule, location. We'll talk about funding the assessment policy like I mentioned and how we applied this policy. um to the project to result in the proposed assessment role and then kind of just a brief how to object appeal and um request deferral of special assessment. So last year we reconstructed county road B from Cleveland to the west side of the park. this um was turned over or turned back from the county to um the city after it was disconnected from 280 following the 35W bridge collapse and we added it to our MSA um system in 2021 so we could use MSA funding for it. So we reconstructed the red segment. The purple dots also indicate which roads we did a mill and overlay on um as a part of our PMP project last year that was bid as the same project. The before condition um we had 14t lanes or more and then we had paved um an 8ft um pathway for the length but it was just a line separated. Our built condition is a 25- foot road with curb and gutter. Um, for the most part there is a grass boulevard and an 8ft path. Sometimes the 8ft path is adjacent to the back of the curb. Um, so kind of the the highlights we had the 8 foot separated pathway like I mentioned a 25 foot roadway. There's a small median at Cleveland um which will be planted um and a four-way stop was added at Fulham and that's where the pathway crosses from the south side that extends to the east. It crosses to the north side and extends to the west to the park. And we um prohibited parking on all the new um roadway but for the addition of four parking bays. So, there's a parking bay in front of the new Sunset Park that um is meant for six cars and there are three more um throughout that are sized for three cars. Our contract, like I mentioned, was awarded for both the PMP and the roadway reconstruction. Um this these are not totally final numbers. We have substantial completion, so we know the numbers close enough for the assessment. And we're just working on um filing find fining out some punch list repairs out on the corridor and some restoration updates and stuff. But the work is substantially complete and our um costs associated with the street con construction are highlighted on the left and our revenue that's coming from the special assessments of the discussion for tonight are highlighted on the right. and I'll talk a little bit more about those. I do not expect you to read this. This is um excerpts from the adopted special assessment policy. So, what it is essentially saying is that the city has a policy. It is applied to roadway reconstructions and it explains how um what rate people are assessed at. So residential is assessed at up to 25% of the project costs um or 25% and then the other zoning is 50%. Um now when we determine how much frontage is um is used for these properties to calculate that 25% or 50% rate. um you're only being assessed for um either 10 or 100% of your frontage. And so if it's the short side, it's 100%. If it's the long side, it's 10%. And we look back at prior um assessments as well because some of these are square lots. So all those those numbers um are in the calculations of the assessment role. As you can see, the yellow parcels are the ones that are being assessed as a part of this project. Um, Midland Hills, the whole parcel is highlighted, but they're only their frontage is only calculated based on their actual frontage. And then you'll see, um, uh, Midland View Court, the homeowners association there. They had previously, um, determined as an HOA that they would split their, um, frontage and therefore assessment costs amongst the units. So in 2023, the preliminary assessment rule um came before council. At that time our estimates were um in front of you on on the slide. So um the assessment rates, the average and and the ranges have all decreased with our final numbers. You'll see those highlighted on the right. The average assessment is just over 20 or $2,200. Um, that range for is pretty large, but noting that the 20,858. That's for the Midland Hills property. The residential properties range from 293 to I think it was 5600. I can't see my notes on my screen. So, it's it's something like that. It's in the role. Um, as we noted in our um, public notice for this hearing, we propose a 10-year term because of the um, the the higher extent of over 5,000, a 6% interest rate based on our financial director um, and standards of those rates. And then we're also saying because it's so early in the year, um, we wouldn't file this with the county until October. So full payment or partial payment can be made until October 1st and then that would not acrue interest on that amount paid. Um, I'm not going to provide any legal advice per by training. Um, but I just wanted to point out in this uh the notice for the public hearing, this is text from that. So, it does talk about um if someone wants to object or appeal, they must object at or before this meeting. There was one um written objection that was received that you have been provided. Um and then following that, if they intend to appeal, they need to provide city notice and then file with the district court. Um, and also what we brought before you in early May, I think it was May 5th, we updated our deferral um, policy. And so the the notice did go out correctly. It does have the 65 years or older disability and the active military service. So that um our assessment policy and our deferral policy and form are now on the website and someone can reach me too if they have any questions. So nice and short but um our recommended council actions would be to uh conduct the public hearing and then consider approval of the resolution. All right. Thank you, Miss Lowry. Uh a couple of clarification questions. So uh PMP is pavement management project. That's a reclamation of or a repair essentially maintenance project as opposed to this which is a complete replacement of the roadway. Correct. Okay. And no assessments are being associated with any of the the pavement management projects. Correct. Just the roadway replacement. Correct. Okay. And then also uh on the the the ability to appeal. So you have to you have to first object in order to have to reserve the right or the ability to appeal as I understand it. So the objection is either filed prior to or at this hearing. If you object and then decide not to appeal that's one's prerogative. Uh but one can't not object and then try to appeal as I understand it. And that's my understanding. One is objecting to one's own assessment on their property as I understand it. Yes. Yeah. Okay. All right. So that helps folks understand the the rules of the road so to speak. Uh first as always uh would be well let me just double check here. Uh first as always would be an opportunity for questions from the council for staff uh on the proposal uh for the assessment role for this project. Are there questions from the council? Council member Grath. Just a clarification. I was reading through the um the wording and it says that in order to pay this off you would have to do so by November 15th of the calendar year if say if it was in three years otherwise you're charged for the whole next year. Or is that how that works? I think interest that so that's not early payment that's after it's um led I believe. Yeah, I believe and then I think that's how the interest is it's calculated per year. Yes. Well, that was my understanding from reading those. Yeah. Lines 30 through 37. Thank you. We had other questions. Council member Schroeder. Um could you again um explain where the 6% interest comes from? Is that based on what? It is the This is where I might have to pull up my numbers. So um it is the um the Michelle's going to be like she's using the wrong words. It's the 4% interest rate. So if we were receiving um the bond rate at the time, so that was 4% and it's 2% over that. So that's where we got the six even and that's a fixed rate then. So for the full 10 years, correct? Okay. Thank you. Right. Other questions from the council. All right. Uh so then we've got some uh business to attend to here uh as it relates to the hearing. Uh so I'll first start by saying I got to read it. Uh this is a public hearing to consider special assessment roles for a public improvement project. The project has been constructed and the decision before the council will be whether to the council wishes to approve the assessment roles as presented or make modifications to the assessment rates. The hearing will discuss how the project costs will be allocated and what the assessments against the benefiting properties will be. The council will consider the assessment role for the project at this hearing. The council may by simple majority vote uh approve the assessment role for the project. Mr. City Manager, next is you. Yes. Uh in accordance with Minnesota statutes chapter 429 required published in legal mail notices have been provided for each of the special assessment public hearing hearings, legal notices appeared in the city's legal newspaper, Pioneer Press, on May 15, 2025. In addition, mail notices have been sent to each affected property owner in accordance with the statute. Mail notices were sent on May 15, 2025. Affidavit of mailing are available in the office of the city engineer. Right. Thank you. Uh so before we get to the public comment or the public hearing part, uh just a couple of uh reminders about the rules for public comment uh which apply to public hearings as well. Uh by council rule, there is a three-minute time limit per speaker. uh you can say a lot in three minutes and if you aren't able to finish within three minutes certainly uh you can uh provide written testimony as a follow-up to the council. Um we also uh would encourage if there are a lot of speakers uh that we can have a person sitting in each chair uh and have one person speaking and the next person sort of queuing up and being ready to go. Uh and then that way uh we can keep things moving fairly quickly. If you're if you want to be next after the two people who are at the table, you can even sort of uh queue up in one of the chairs in the front row uh to be ready to jump up to the table when a seat becomes available. We would ask uh if you have a name that isn't sort of readily uh able to be spelled by people like us, uh you may want to uh once you're finished with your comments uh set to the side and there is a clipboard you can write your name and spell it out uh so that we make sure and get that correct for the public record. Uh I should note that uh by the way in this case because it's a a special assessment hearing uh you should probably as you introduce yourself identify yourself by name and property address so that we can make the connection there uh in case we have questions specific to your property. Uh and then once again if you can make uh comments uh and direct questions to the city council uh and then uh at the end of the public comment period uh or the public hearing if there are questions that we need to respond to that will be the time when we'll do that. Uh if they're technical questions, we can refer them to staff. Uh however, if there are sort of philosophical questions about uh how how or why the council might choose to vote for something like this, I guess the council will answer those as part of our discussion as we usually attempt to do. Uh so with that, I believe I've covered everything. Oh, everyone gets uh one opportunity to speak uh per public comment opportunity. So per this hearing, uh each uh speaker will have one opportunity. So uh if you do wish to come up, make the most of it. Uh and with that, we'll open it up and uh maybe ask Mr. Lowry to have a seat so we free up both chairs uh and open up the public hearing for this assessment uh discussion this evening. Does anyone wish to speak at this public hearing? All right, one more opportunity. Seeing no one come forward, then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing uh and move to council consideration. We have the request before us uh with the assessment role as outlined. Um actually I do have a question for Miss Lowry that I thought of uh earlier and I forgot and now it's come back to me. So I appreciate your indulgence there. On the calculation of the average assessment, does the average include the 20,000 assessment for the one property? I believe so. Okay. So probably the average excluding that is even lower, I would imagine. Okay. Very good. With that then, um, council, we have the request before us. Uh, and I'm just looking for the, uh, requested action to make sure I get it right here. Uh, this would be to approve the resolution adopting the special assessments for the project 24-02, um, as outlined. And the resolution is the first attachment in the packet. Second. All right. It's been moved by council member Bower, seconded by council member Stron to approve the resolution uh attachment one in the packet uh which approves the assessment role for this project on Kenny Road B uh as it is presented. Uh we do note that we did have the one email objection uh and that is part of the record for this evening. Uh and with that then uh for discussion on the motion to adopt that resolution. Uh first the maker of the motion uh council member Bower. Uh yes, I think that someone that uses that road to go to the new Sunset Park, which is wonderful. I think the work was uh nicely done. I good job on that project. Um I would also note that the assessments that we do have in Roseville are definitely less than some areas that I have seen. So I think we've done a very good job of trying to minimize the impact as much as we're able to for residents. All right. And as secondary, Council Member Strong, I would reiterate um Council Member Bower's comments. that's a former city um resident, the assessments were substantially larger even 20 years ago. Um so I I want to make sure that um people understand that we do this sparingly and that with great consideration, this is at least the third time we've had this discussion. This isn't um something that we are just bringing forward and that we really um gave it great care and consideration and and we um make sure that we really consider each item before we bring it forward um understanding that this can be a can be burdensome to our to our residents. So thank you and thank you Miss Lowry for your uh part of this process. Right. Additional discussion the motion. Council member Goff. Also, I'd like to point out it was good to see the numbers come in lower uh than estimated. That's helpful. I mean, we like to see them go that way rather than the other direction, which can happen during you when you're estimating numbers for months at a time, months ahead of time. And also looking forward to that small planter being planted. It's the entrance to the area and it looks kind of sad right now. All right, other discussion. Council member Schroeder. Uh yes. Um, I did want also comment that I'm glad to see so many options to pay it off where you could pay it off immediately and have no interest or over 10 years or even, you know, you can decide that. So, I do appreciate having that flexibility in our system as well. So, that way people can um make that decision themselves. So, thank you. Right. And just uh final comment, uh the um by state law, we do have to make sure that the amount we're assessing doesn't exceed the benefit to the property. Uh and so we do have appraisals done as part of this process. Uh and there are at least a couple of instances where the policy assessment value did exceed the um appraisal value and the policy assessment value was therefore reduced to uh what the assessment was. And so that is a part of our process as well. Uh so with that we do have the motion before us to approve the resolution uh adopting this assessment role. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I opposed. That passes unanimously. That role is adopted and we look forward to the next uh assessment hearing in uh probably another handful of years. All right. Uh that then brings us to our second business item, item 7B, uh which is to consider the presumptive penalty uh for a tobacco compliance check failure for Speedway. We have our chief with us, uh, Chief Eric Schneider Shider this evening to bring this item before the council. Good evening. Um, as a reminder, each year the Roseell Police Department does two uh, citywide tobacco compliance checks. So, those are done at every business that has a license. In early March, we also mailed out a letter to all of the license holders letting them know about the requirements and letting them know about these two checks that we we would be doing. On March 29th, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., an underage compliance checker ended entered the speedway at 2295 Rice Street. The checker approached the cashier and requested to purchase cigarettes. The checker requested um the or the um cashier requested her ID. The checker then presented her um under 21 ID, which is vertically oriented. So, it looks much different than anybody over the age of 21. It also says that they are under 21 right on that ID. Uh the checker did make a comment that you look really young, but then he sold the pack of cigarettes. The employee was issued an administrative citation. Um I'll note that that has not been paid yet, so that has been referred to the courts um for a formal citation. This incident was Speedway's third sale violation within a 36-month period. The previous violations were December 17th of 2022 and July 16th of 2022. And both of those um resulted in the presumptive penalty issued by the council. And I'll just note the mandatory minimum minimum penalty for a third violation in 36 months is a $2,000 fine and a 7-day tobacco license suspension. Right. Thank you, Chief. Are there questions for staff on this item? Council member Strong. Um thank you. Uh, Chief, can you remind us of what would happen if there was to be a a subsequent um failure in the 36-month period? That would be a replication of the license. Okay. Thank you. Right. Other questions? Council Bower, are there any checks that we do during the seven day period if this is approved that to ensure that the sale of tobacco products isn't occurring during the during the seven days? Yes. Yep. For both of our alcohol and tobacco, we send um plane close officers in to verify that the businesses are complying by the suspension. Thank you. Yep. Other questions? Right. Is there a representative of Speedway here with us this evening who wishes to speak to this? Does not appear to be the case? Uh, is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this request to uh institute the presumptive penalty of uh 7-day suspension on a $2,000 fine for this uh tobacco compliance violation? Anyone from the public? Right. With that, uh we have the request before us to authorize the issuance of an administration of the presumptive penalty as outlined in city code for a third violation within 36 months. Uh is there a motion from the council? So move. Second. All right. That was prompt. Uh, council member Schroeder moved. Uh, council member Grath seconded uh, authorizing the issuance of the and administration of the presumptive penalty as the maker of the motion. Council member Schroeder. Yes. It's very clear what the rules are. So I I you know and when um when people are are sent letters that this is happening and they know what would the penalty be. So we're very clear about it. So it makes sense that we would go ahead and and do this. Right. Uh, and Council Gra is the secondary. Yeah, I think it's important for the public to know that we, as the chief said, we send out a letter letting them know this is going to happen. This is not a surprise that that we're trying to trick people with. We're trying to work with businesses to make them help them keep compliant and they need to do the training. Obviously, that's supposed to be happen every year with the staff so that they know which way the license. If it's as you said vertical, that would be indicated it's a an underage purchaser and you should deny the purchase. So, um, it is a little, as you can tell, I'm a little frustrated as as I'm sure the police department is that that people don't, uh, get this through through their sales, their people that are selling because it is a big cost to the business. You'd think it would be getting their attention seven days without a sale without sales is is a lot of money. And um, and if it happens again, it will be a termination of license. So hopefully this gets their attention. Thank you for the work. Other discussion on the motion. All right. Uh we have the motion before us to authorize the issuance and administration of that presumptive penalty, which once again is a $2,000 fine and a 7-day suspension of the license for sale of tobacco products. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously and that penalty is authorized. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. Right. Next on our agenda is another uh uh public hearing. This one is related to uh the consideration of a liquor license, a new license I believe for AMC Theaters Rosedale uh located at 1595 Highway 36. And I will believe turn it over to uh city manager Trean to introduce this item and this hearing for the council's consideration. Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just real briefly, AMC Theaters, as you mentioned at Rosedale has applied for a liquor license. They have submitted all uh necessary uh information and uh we are recommending approval of the liquor license for AMC. I would note that this uh request also is for uh Sunday liquor and 2 a.m. liquor license as well as part of that. This is a public hearing. I know it's a representative of AMC that's joining us through Zoom and perhaps somebody in the audience as well and um so they can certainly answer any questions you have. All right. Thank you, Mr. Trean. Are there any questions from the council for the staff on this item? Uh questions from the council for staff. Council member Strong. I mean this may be staff or um business. Um given that we've just discussed a um liquor license or a tobacco license failure, I want to know what um this is a somewhat unique situation and I want to know how we are going to u make sure that we are not having liquor violations in a very multi-age environment. So I I can answer partially. Council member Stron, um we always make applicants aware of our server training requirements and make it very clear in that packet of information. Uh I I would imagine AMC probably has um some other commitments as well as far as training that they can address, but we certainly make them aware that this is a necessary thing that we do look at. Okay. I just know that in a bar um you're generally going to have restricted age. Um so that's going to make it easier. maybe a restaurant, there'll be a different policy, but um anyone of any age could be at a movie theater at any time. So, I just want to make sure that um that is a special consideration as we make sure that we we we just don't want to see you back in six months. Right. Uh there are other questions for staff at this time, right? Uh this would be an opportunity then for the applicant if they'd like to speak in support of their application or answer uh the question that was brought up by council member Strawn. We just ask that you introduce yourself and your role with the organization. Uh and then uh feel free to make your remarks. Hi everyone. Uh hopefully you can hear me. Okay. My name is Scott Stipits. Uh I'm the director of food and beverage for AMC Theaters. And first I just wanted to uh thank the council for taking up our application. Um, and I believe also in the room we have our general manager of the Rosedale 14, Samantha Harrington, as well as our senior manager, uh, Lindsay Pay. Uh, I can answer here. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. Um, and the timing of the the agenda coming up after the the uh speedway violation is uh certainly fitting to ask that question after that concern. What I can tell you is on top of obviously what the city uh staff has has explained to us as far as regulations, we take that even more seriously. Uh recognizing that we are a family environment. Um we started looking into alcohol service in our theaters about 17 years ago. Uh and the strategy is really to drive more adult guests to our theaters. It's an amenity that uh through guest surveys we we found a desire for, but it's also something we take extremely seriously from an ID checking standpoint. So, our policy is to ID everyone uh that looks under the age of 60, which at times can be a little uh uh surprising for some of our guests. Um, but we find it's the best policy to uh to follow to ensure that we're always in compliance from a liquor license standpoint. Um and then the other thing that we do is uh we have a zero tolerance policy for any type of a violation of our policies related to uh liquor service. Right. Thank you. Um are there other questions from the council for the applicant at this time? Council member Grath, do you have any other theaters that this that you have a liquor license currently at? Uh yes, we do actually in the uh in the Minneapolis St. Paul market. All of our theaters have liquor licenses. So that would be uh Eden Prairie 18, Inenver Grove 16, South Dale, Center 16, um Coons Rapid, Rapids, uh and Mounds View. Have you had any compliance failures with those? No, we haven't. Thank you. All right, other questions. Actually, I just wanted to note a couple of things. So, at our previous meeting or one of our previous meetings, we actually had a number of violations, compliance check violations come forward at uh other tobacco and alcohol establishments. And a clear theme uh at those was that in almost every case that I can recall uh the the person at the establishment asked for the ID, looked at the underage ID and still served or provided the product to the individual. Um which I think is the bigger concern or is a big concern that that I think we have is that despite training processes aren't working. Uh and so I I've lately been, you know, wondering if that means that it may be worth it to our license holders to consider uh if there is technology to do scanning of IDs, you know, through the point of sale system or whatever it might be uh that can help to make sure that um that that decision-m doesn't still go ary. And I'm not certainly saying that the city is at all requiring that uh expenditure on the part of our businesses and our community. Uh but it certainly seems that that might be a way especially if technology becomes more uh reasonable for uh you know license holders to to to hopefully minimize that impact because certainly um we are still seeing issues. It's certainly not every license holder. Uh we have um you know probably something like over over three dozen restaurant license holders of for on sale uh and around 10 offsale uh license holders in our community and and we had probably I want to say six or seven total that had had violations in the last round. Uh so it's not universal a problem but it's clearly something that is that is still out there. So I just wanted to make a note of that uh in my comments this evening. Um, so with that, uh, we'll check. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this request for, uh, a, uh, liquor license as outlined for the AMC theaters at Rosedale? Right. Seeing no one come forward, uh, close the public hearing then and we'll move to consideration of the license by the council. Is there a motion from the city council? Second. All right. It's been moved by, uh, council member Schroeder, second by council member Grath. uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion, council member Schroer. No, it's um it sounds like you have a good track record and looking forward to adding one more um item in Roseville that'll attract people to come in. So, good luck and uh looking forward to visiting there sometime myself. Not to say you haven't. Not to say you haven't already. I guess I said they've been around for a few years. I know, but it gives me a little more motivation to go through. All right. And as the second of the motion, Council Member Grath, nothing. All right. Any other discussion on the motion? Right. Hearing none, we have the motion before us to approve that liquor license. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. That passes unanimously. That license is approved. Uh thank you again for being here this evening, and uh we wish we don't take this the wrong way, but we hope to never see anyone from your uh your establishment again. Yes, you can count on it. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. That then brings us to our next business item. uh item 7D uh which is to consider a complaint alleging violations of the Roseville ethics code by city council member Stron. I'll turn it over to C manager. Oh, actually no, that's right. I we we had discussed this earlier. Uh so in uh matters of uh ethics complaints against uh public officials, there are a couple of individuals who are responsible for doing the investigation and providing findings uh to first the ethics commission uh and then ultimately to the city council for uh disposition of those matters. Uh in the case of uh many uh office holders who are city staff, the complaint would go to the city manager and generally speaking, the city manager would conduct the investigation perhaps with the assistance of the city attorney. uh for public officials who are elected officials in Roseville. Uh ethics uh complaints uh go to the city attorney for investigation and reporting. Uh what we have before us this evening is the result of that process. We did receive two ethics complaints from members of the public uh regarding uh council member uh Stron in relation to uh our discussion of a right-of-way vocation that was uh had at an earlier council meeting. uh uh city attorney Tierney uh performed the investigation, provided a report to the ethics commission. The ethics commission considered that report and case uh and made a unanimous recommendation to the council uh uh supporting the uh findings of the city attorney. Uh with that, uh that matter comes then before the city council for final disposition. And I'm going to turn it over to see attorney Rachel Tierney uh to give us a summary of uh the investigation and outcome uh or report uh at this time for our consideration. Thank you, Mayor Row, Council members. Um I'll just be pretty brief and just quickly walk you through the report. I'm sure you've all reviewed it. Um the question here is whether or not um there's been a violation of a particular section of your code, which is section five, paragraph M of the ethics code. Um, I did look at the the rest of the ethics code to see if perhaps there was another provision within the code that might fit the factual scenario and I didn't think that there were other provisions that should be considered. I really think it's either um paragraph or section five paragraph m or or nothing. Um and so the specific provision is whether a whether the specific prohibition says that no public official shall take an official action or attempt to influence any process which will benefit any person or entity where such public official would not have otherwise taken such action but for the public officials family relationship, friendship, business relationship with a person or entity. And so, um, as you all know, the allegation is that council member Stron, um, took an action. The action in this case specifically was an action to lay over, um, or to table an item for the future, um, because of her relationship with her sister-in-law who testified during the public hearing in opposition to the petition to vacate. Well, the question of whether to vacate, this is not a question. I want not a petition. I want to be careful with my language there. Um, and so couple details matter. Is she a public official? Yes, Council Member Strong is a public official. And then there's this question of what is a benefit? And so I I did some analysis on what a benefit is. Um, and um, look to the the your code doesn't help a lot because it doesn't define the term benefit. It does define the term thing of value which is nearly everything I could think of on that list including a favor and the only thing on that list that would apply in this situation would be a favor. But again the language in this particular provision is benefit not thing of value. So then I looked to other ethics codes and when you look at other ethics codes what you see is that almost exclusively um ethics code violations are triggered by some sort of financial interest which I don't think is the case here at all either for council member Stron or her sister-in-law. Um I I just want to back up a little bit. I made kind of some factual findings here. I just want to explain to the council what I did to get there. Um, the hearing was about an hour long. I watched it several times. I actually also had one of our one of our support staff give me a rough transcript of it so I could be sure that I wasn't missing important details. Um, and so, as you'll see from the summary, if you as you can see from the summary, um, there's a lot of pretty important facts in there about the discussion of the council in general. And so, um, I'll get into that into that in a minute, but I just wanted to give you a sense of where kind of how I came about those factual, um, determinations. Um, the so the first question is whether there's a benefit. The second question is is what what do we mean by what does your code mean by family relationship? Again, not a lot of help for you in your code because it doesn't define family relationship. it defines immediate family and so there's an open question of whether immediate family um is the same as family relationship or different than family relationship. So those are kind of the the factual questions before you. But as far as the legal questions before you um we have to look at the the motion that was made by Council Member Strong. motion she made was a motion to lay over. And I go into the facts in the in the report about what what the topic of discussion was. Um when she made her motion, she said something to the effect of to answer a legal question and to investigate uh the the path, get more information about the pathway. Well, the pathway issue was initially brought up actually by Jesse Fryhammer when he testified in front of you that they hadn't been aware that residents were using this pathway and he opened up this topic of should whether this should be considered to be part of the pathway master plan. Uh the legal question issue was actually brought up I think first by the mayor because there was some confusing resol language in the resolution and I had said you know my colleague Sarah Saul is a smart lady. I think she had a reason she put that in there. I think you should let me go back and give you a better explanation than I am able to give you at that time. So when council member Strand made her motion in the context, those were the two reasons for her motion. And so now we're now we're to the real legal meat of it. Your your ethics code has two uh burdens of proof provisions that matter. One is that in order to find an ethical violation, you have to find that but for this reason she would have made a different motion. So it's a it's a causation question. Is the family relationship and the benefit to that family member the only reason the the the causation but for that relationship she would have made a different motion. That's the decision you would have to make in order to find that she had committed an ethical violation. Now, how how convinced do you have to be that but for her family relationship? Well, your code says clear and convincing evidence, which is a fairly high evidentiary burden preponderance of the evidence. Everybody knows what that is. That's your standard standard civil court action. That's the way the the the scales of justice just a little bit to one direction. Now you have preponderance of the evidence. Clear and convincing is beyond that standard is more than that standard. It's not quite reasonable doubt standard. We're not talking criminal conviction here, but we are talking more than your standard civil burden. Not just more likely than not, but clearly and convincingly, was there an ethical violation? And um so with that framework, I won't bore you with my further recitation of the facts, but it's my opinion that that that standard isn't met by the facts here given the record before the council at the time the decision was made. I'm happy to answer any questions, obviously. All right. Thank you, Mr. Tierney. Uh questions from the council for our legal staff or legal advisor. Right. I don't uh see any questions from the council. Um then uh we will provide an opportunity for and so just to note once again the report from the attorney is that uh the finding is that there is not an ethical violation uh based on the code and the standards in it. Uh the uh ethics committee commission uh met and con uh concurred with that uh conclusion uh and forwarded the report then to the council for disposition. Uh with that uh I did just to give you the framework I did want to provide an opportunity for public comment as well. Uh just would uh ask folks once again to uh follow the rules of public comment that we've outlined earlier. Uh three minute three minute time limit per speaker. Uh identify yourself by name or and address or street. Uh refer comments or questions to the council. Uh and then um if there are questions uh we'll answer those at the end of public comment. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? Right. Not appear to be the case. We'll close the opportunity for public comment and move to council consideration. Uh we do have, as was noted, the uh report of the attorney as well as the uh concurrence by the ethics uh commission uh before the council this evening. So, it would be uh and I'm just going to once again look for the requested action. uh the city should review the information uh including a report by the attorney and make a decision on whether there were violations of the Roseville ethics code as alleged. Uh and so a motion uh for the council to consider would be either there uh there is a concurrence with the uh opinion that there was not a violation or violations of the ethics code uh or a motion uh to the contrary. Uh so with that perhaps a motion is the first step in the process. Is there a motion from the council uh council member Grath? I'd like to make a motion that there were not any violations of the Roseville Ethics Code by Council Member Strong as alleged. I'll second that. All right. It's been moved by Council Member Gra, seconded by Council Member Schroeder. Uh discussion on the motion. Council member Graph is the maker of the motion. First, I'd like to thank uh Miss Tierney for her thorough investigation. It was very helpful to go over it in detail um and to understand how the ethics code would be applied. Um, and I think that the crux of the matter is it was a motion to table it and that was for further information. Um, so there were were no violations in my opinion and I I was glad to see that the committee or the the commission concurred with that opinion. Right. Other discussion as the second council member Schroer. Yes. um looking at how the attorney had defined and um explained the ethic code, I do not think it rises to the level of um violating the code as well. But um with that said, I the residents do expect the public officials to be impartial on issues that come before us. and having a council member testify as a resident and also vote on an issue was unusual and it could cause confusion, but it did not cause an ethic violation. So, but I could understand why people might get some confusion around it. And other discussion on the motion. Uh, Council Member Bower, I agree. Uh, looking at the report, I agree there was no did not meet the level necessary for an ethics violation. As well, I do want to acknowledge, as council member Goff noted, are residents, the residents that did file this, it's important that residents hold elected officials to a higher level. Um, it's critical, as Miss Tierney pointed out in her report. Um, council members use um the resources and the uh environment and things that we vote on every day. Um, and it's important that to for residents to know that when something comes before us that uh we're impartial to it. Uh, including when coming to this meeting. I know for myself when I come to these meetings, uh, I have an idea. I have done a lot of work, but I'm always open to hearing knowing that I'll hear something from residents and from council members that may sway my mind. I think it's critical for this uh, body to work effectively to uh, residents to know that that's the case. But in this particular case, I don't believe that uh there is an ethics violation. Right. And I would just add uh that you know it it's um it's a challenge uh to be a council member uh for a lot of reasons but specific to this particular case I think it's a challenge um to u be able to make sure that we uh as I think is expected by the public share with the public why we are uh about to vote the way that we may end up voting um or to share uh our perspectives uh that inform that uh and and our experiences that inform it. As as was noted, uh we live in this community. We use the streets, we use the pathways, we uh use a lot of the uh facilities in our community and we're uh part of neighborhoods and we see uh our neighbors, we see homes, we see businesses and how they're operated and and that all can influence the decisions of a city council member. And I think our job uh and it's a very important part of our job is to inform the public as to where we're coming from in terms of the positions that we take on the issues that we ultimately vote on as a council. Um I think the technical analysis is is exactly right that um the um the question of of the benefit of a motion to table um is is certainly hard to define uh in general but as well for the individual. the the case of the motion was to uh table for getting additional information and clarification. Um so once again I would say it's very difficult to determinate benefit associated with that. uh no final action has been taken on the uh the proposal to vacate the rightway and the matter is coming back before the council and so all council members will have an opportunity uh to state their point of view uh and uh we will uh have the ability to weigh the testimony that we received from staff uh from the public uh and information we've also received subsequent to the initial meeting discussion uh as well as reports that evening as to any updated information or responses to our requests for information uh and only at that time uh will the council take a vote and and that's what really matters is the making of a decision by the council. Um and certainly my expectation is and hopefully the public's expectation as well is that everybody on the council will uh explain to the public where we're coming from and why we're uh intending to vote the way we do. Uh and at this point this evening, I don't know what the outcome of that vote. I don't even know what the motion might be before us uh when the item comes back for our consideration. Uh and so I I can't say what will happen. I think all of us sitting here this evening couldn't couldn't say with certainty uh because we haven't received all the final information yet and that will happen at our next council meeting. Uh so on that basis uh based on the analysis of the ethics code, my understanding of the expectation of city council members as public officials in terms of making the public aware of our perspectives and and why we are looking to vote the way we do and not wanting to potentially have any kind of chilling effect on that for public officials in Roseville going forward. I do support the motion to find that there is not a violation of the Roseville ethics code in this situation. Council member Strong, I'd like to just add that the motion to table that um that particular night was made 50. So, every one of the council members voted in favor of table. Thank you for noting that. If there's no further discussion on the motion, we have the motion before us. All those in favor signify by saying I opposed. Uh is there any abstension? Council member Strong abstains. That motion passes four to zero with one abstension from council member Stron. All right, thank you everyone. Uh then with that, we'll move to uh the next item on our agenda on business items. We have item 7E uh which is to consider approval of termination of a lease agreement with TDM Salons LLC. And I'll turn it over to Mr. Trean to introduce this item. Mr. Trean. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, mayor and members of the council. As the council is aware, in 2018, we did purchase the Lexington Shops uh retail center. Uh that is the location of our license and passport center. the passport or the property was initially purchased because uh we wanted to own the city wanted to own the building where the license and passport center was. It's part of our uh exploration of a future uh campus improvements uh including for the maintenance operations center. That property was included as part of the overall redevelopment. Uh when we purchased the property, there were several uh commercial tenants whose leases continued um under uh city ownership. Uh however, once uh we took ownership of it, we took on some responsibilities uh since we purchased that for our project and namely that we uh were required under the uh federal uniform relocation assistance and uh real property acquisition act and the Minnesota uniform relocation assistance act or we'll just call them the uniform acts uh to uh provide some relocation financial relocation assistance to those tenants uh in the future here. So, we're at the point where um while the project still needs to take form, uh we're still talking through that. Uh the owners of Salon 27 or TDM Salons is the LLC name um has decided in the best interest for their business and their employees to um close up uh business given the pending project and they did cease business operations on May 31st, 2025. Based on the uniform acts, uh we needed to conduct a fixture appraisal to determine uh what the value was for all the immovable trade fixtures and improvements in uh the salon. And based on that and that appraisal, which is included as attachment one, uh the city uh would be required to pay TDM salons $143,760 for those removable trade fixtures and improvements. In addition, uh TDM salon is eligible to receive fixed payment uh for uh in le of moving and reestablishment cost in the amount of $50,000. So a total of $19376 70 $760 uh is required uh to be paid uh to TDM salons as a result of the uniform acts and this in this pending project. I would say that the uniform acts are um very purposeful to provide assistance to tenants or property owners uh when there's a government action for a project. Uh it's often used as part of any road right away and or highway improvements, but also for cases where there's redevelopment on here. It's very strict and uh we have um made sure that we've certainly complied with that, but if there's any opportunity for us to um uh do anything different, uh we certainly do that. But, uh, this is where we're at as far as the total amount, uh, that would be required to be paid as part of the project. Uh, as I noted back when this was first purchased, uh, this relocation dollars is always going to be a future cost for the city and we'll have, uh, we have two remaining tenants and we'll have those costs at some point in the future. Okay. And and I and I would note that we uh have worked with the tenants for as long as possible to keep them in there in there for them to have a viable business and also to receive uh rent uh revenue on behalf of the city to offset our costs. And uh I at this point I did not indicate that they had to leave, but they made that decision on their own uh given like I said the best interest and their employees. I would also mention that this uh amount of of dollars would be covered uh by the sales tax revenue and talking to the bond council. Uh this would be um uh uh able to be paid u uh by the sales tax revenue. Uh in the short term uh we'll um just uh utilize uh general fund for cash flow. We have a separate account as we collect uh sales tax um starting July 1st. Uh we'll reimburse the general fund for that. So uh that's a long way of saying that we have an agreement for you to consider uh termination of lease agreement prepared by uh the city attorney uh that would uh actually terminate the lease agreement and it also discusses the payments uh that we are talking about uh give them tonight. Assuming approval of this we will then cut that check uh to TDM and uh we move our obligation for them moving forward. So with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions, but the actual motion here would be to approve the termination of lease agreement with PD. All right. Thank you, Mr. Trean. And are there questions from the council? Uh, council member Schroeder. So, um, they stopped business as of May 31st. And have they actually moved out as well? Uh, yes, actually they have. They had till today and I walked over there about 3:00 and it was empty of all their stuff. We were going to do the final walkthrough on Wednesday, just the checklist, but from what I could see, it looked pretty pretty empty in there. Okay. Thank you. And empty of everything, but they're immovable fixtures. All right. Other questions from the council? Council member Power, are there any concerns on this termination of police agreement? The dates in there will be uh prior to us actually executing this agreement. I guess that's maybe a question towards you. No, I I don't have a concern with the difference in the dates. The follow um this when was the fair market study done? June. Uh it was completed I think sometime in December. Okay. Yeah, I see a date of January 22nd. Yeah. Now it's June. Six months have passed. They just recently moved out or we but we haven't done any depreciation on additional depreciation. The numbers here are based on depreciation of I would assume December 31st or something, right? So, uh yes, you're correct, Council Member Bower. Uh uh this took a little while to get across the finish line. The uh uh business owner uh wanted to understand what that uh um potential payment would be before they make the final decisions. And it did go back and forth. I did indicate to them that if we went past June, that's a full six months, we would probably have to do an update to the appraisal. So, we're right at that that line. I did talk to the appraiser um and uh if we were to add another six months, this is just an estimate. Uh that's anywhere between $3,000 to $3,500 potential difference. I would also mention that um we have six months beyond June, you mean just to clarify? No, no, from December for this year if that would be factored in. There's things he didn't factor in there is any other inflationary costs that may have been there. So that was just just back the napkin uh estimate. So um $3, $3,500 is real money of course, but um also in the in the overall totality um not sure um that makes a significant difference. They've also um they've also agreed to this amount here. So I think it'd be a challenge to go back at this point uh to do that, but certainly we can do what the council desires. But uh they have u signed the agreement and they're ready to move on uh with this agreement and um so I would not recommend uh looking to do that again but uh that is up to the council. Thank you. Other questions for staff? Uh council member Strong. Um I wondered if you could speak to some of the comments that were made uh in that it I'm surprised it didn't make it to our bench handout, but the um public comment that we received today from a resident or the email the email. Yeah. The public comment that we received uh about um so this being a month-to-month lease, is that correct? Mhm. So, we needed to give them I mean, they knew we were moving at some point. So, did we have provide some asurances over time that we were going to hold on to them for a certain amount of time or were they always operating under the month to month? Well, they they they had a regular lease for quite a while, but in the last couple years went monthto month because they kept on on not wasn't sure what they wanted to do in the future. regardless if it's month-to-month or a long-term lease, we're still on the hook relocation dollars. It does not matter one way or another. Um, it was the most flexibility versus negotiating another lease agreement. Sure. And I guess just the other piece was obviously we talking about relocation, which is one thing, but the other piece is the uh depreciation costs of the um equipment that they had. um you know if that accurately reflects I don't know the depreciation rate of some of the items that we're discussing. Um and then were they planning on are they planning on staying on as a business or are they just dissolving as an entity? My understanding is uh for some consideration they're dissolving certainly as TDM salons they're um hair stylists have found other employment. Um so at this point they've indicated that they'll probably just retire. They're getting close to retirement according to them. has decided to pack it up for good. Okay. So, there is no motivation to try to resell any we don't have to expect that they would try to recoup some of the cost. We are just paying them off. So, there's there's movable items that immovable items. So, they've taken all the movable items. Okay. So, the chairs for instance, they would take that and they're probably sell I'm not sure what they're doing. I'm sure it matters one way or another, but yeah, they potentially could sell it. We have uh ownership of the immovable things, the sinks, the plumbing. uh the stuff the set lights and things like that. Uh we will try to uh sell those the best we can. Um I can't guarantee any return on that but that could help offset something but potentially but um uh so we are retaining the uh immovable but they took the items. Okay. I don't know in uh real estate so I don't know if that's standard practice that arrangement like this would be negotiated in this type of situation. Well, once again, it's a little different because we're government. Um, first of all, they've made all the tenant improvements when they came in in 2014. So, all those improvements, whether it was the sophet lights to the sinks, that was all their cost. Uh, initially it was just a shell of the building for. So, and obviously we're not looking to reuse that space for a hair stylist or any other type of business. In fact, we're looking to tear that down. So, um there's no real value um beyond just um sale value for folks that may be interested in purchasing those. What are the other two businesses that retain that remain there? So, there's Huntington uh Huntington. Yeah. Yeah. Huntington Learning and the gas station. And are we expecting similar or more um costly moveout costs for each one of these organizations? I think each one is different. Uh Huntington is more of a of a space that is used for learning uh doesn't have a lot of trade fixtures. Uh the gas station is a whole another ball of wax. Um and I think that would be quite expensive, but I I can't say either way. And have these costs been considered as we figured into our plans for the renovation of that area? Yes. Yep. Yep. Now, it's it's an estimate because you never know until you actually go through it. Other question. I did want to just clarify too. So it sounds like basically um this appraisal is related to the essentially leaseold improve the permanent leaseold improvements that were made by the tenant correct after they moved in. And certainly those those do have value a real estate value that is what is considered here and it's beyond just uh costs of some chairs or something like that which are not uh even considered in this. Council member Sher. Yes. Um and again uh a big part of this is the way the state has written the laws. When uh we own a retail property like this, it's very we um these costs are pretty much spelt out. So um it does tie the ability to negotiate um any type of deal because we have to do it by the letter of how they have it in the in the law. Correct. Yeah. based off of appraisals, based off of uh the standards, there's some set figures out there, moving amount and moving amount. Yes. And remember, this is all predicated that if we did not purchase that building for a future project, they would still be there and um they are moving against um their wishes. Now, over the course of time, businesses kind of come and go, but the fact that we're in the chain um uh is always going to u trigger that. And it's both federal and state law. I think it's the federal law has been in place since 1870. So it's been very specific and uh that's always going to be a cost of doing business for anytime we do any type of redevelopment whether it's this project or some other uh property over my career I've been involved in these and the outcome's the same. Do we have to pay the appropriate uh amount yet to factor that in? Right. And I would say compar a a comparable situation is when the city acquires property for redevelopment purposes, say through a condemnation process. Um the law requires that the property owner receives fair compensation, usually based on appraisals, and we've been through a little bit of that in some of our prior efforts as a city as well. So, excuse me. It's very comparable. All right. We'll double check if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item uh that's before us. Once again, this is to authorize entering into the agreement. uh essentially closing out our relationship with this particular entity in the strip center that the city owns. Does not appear to be the case. Uh is there a motion from the city council? So moved. Second. It's been moved by council member Grath. Second by council member Bower uh to authorize entering into that agreement as outlined. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker. Council member Grath. Well, I appreciate the discussion on the council, but it's pretty clear that this is regulated by law. So this is the procedure we need to go through if we're going to move ahead. So, I'm supporting it. All right. Other discussion is the second or council member Bower. I agree with Council Member Gra. This is the unfortunate consequences of uh local government owning property. All right. Other discussion on the motion hearing? None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. That agreement is authorized. Uh next we have uh a number of actions related to uh our prior action uh author uh updating our code to allow for uh certain uh uh pre-existing billboards in the city to be converted to electronic uh forms. Uh and we have one particular case coming before us this evening which involves an agreement as well as uh some uh cleanup of some text in the code uh that we did at that time. And so I'll turn it over to our city planner, Thomas Pashki, to bring this item for for our consideration this evening. Mr. Pashki, good evening and thank you, Mayor, City Council. You said most of it, but I'll go through it uh all. So, back in January 27th, you approved uh some modifications to the uh sign code and a couple other sections as it relates to the conversion of static billboards to uh digital displays or dynamic uh billboards. And as a part of that um um ordinance amendment, there are several things in that ordinance that uh have to either be considered, reviewed, and or approved uh by council. So, it's all predicated on receiving a permit. We received a permit for the static billboard at 2560 Long Lake Road. staff has reviewed all the items that we need to do as it relates to distance, proximity, height, those types of things, and uh that permit is pending your approval uh this evening. And so we've basically uh are in support of those items. Uh the next item has to do with um approval of an agreement. Uh the agreement that uh in essence is related to um the sign itself. uh as well as uh how the uh items are displayed and things. You have a copy of that as a part of uh your uh packet. I've worked with uh our city attorney as well as um Clear Channel Outdoor to uh get that to you in the form that it is. It's probably why it's taken a little while. There's some back and forth that we had to do and a couple of other things, but uh everybody is in agreement with that um agreement, I guess. And then as a part of the agreement uh you need to uh uh in essence uh establish in this case uh based on what the attorney is recommending a policy related to the content for advertising. And so you have that as well the policy before you. If you have any questions related to that I direct those to the city manager. I'm not uh privy to that. I just produced the uh staff report and worked on the agreement. And then lastly obviously is a amendment. As you recall, you uh made a uh motion to modify uh one of the items that was contained within the ordinance that staff brought before you, which was changing 8 seconds, I believe it was, to 12 seconds, which in essence changed the number of uh views and those types of things. So, what we're uh requesting is that the seconds be uh stricken from the uh text and it just says 20 hours of uh time that it's given to for public uh display. And with that, uh our recommendation is to approve the uh agreement, the uh modification to the uh ordinance that you adopted. And then uh if you have questions related to the policy to ask uh those to Mr. Tre. All right. Thank you, Mr. Pashky. And I was just going to clarify. So we're not being asked this evening to take any action on the policy. That's a that's an administrative policy of the of the city. Yes, that that's correct. That's how we drafted it. We wanted to include it for information. So just you're aware that there is some policy behind it and certainly would happy to take any input you would have on that, but uh we would look we weren't looking for you to officially adopt that. So, the two actions are to approve entering into the agreement and to approve the ordinance um mod the ordinance amending the code as outlined with the tech technical amendment. Correct. And just to double check, I don't know that there's any reason we couldn't take both of those up as a single motion. Doesn't seem to be a problem. All right. With that, are there questions for staff and council members? All right. Uh is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? does not appear to be the case. We do have a representative clear channel this evening. Uh is there an elaborate case you'd like to make for this item this evening or are you just here for questions? Good evening, Mayor, City Council Matthew Allen, Clear Channel. No, I just want to take time to certainly thank you and especially your city staff again for working with us on this ordinance amendment that's going to allow us to invest in your community by updating our science of the current technology. Uh so we're very excited to do that. It's going to allow us to provide more opportunities for your local businesses to advertise and allow us to further a commitment to the communities we serve in by the public service messaging we're getting adopted tonight so we can provide that messaging. So again, thank you for your consideration and working with us. Thank you. Uh all right. Uh we have the ma the request before us to uh approve entering into the agreement as well as to approve the ordinance amendment. Is there a motion from the council? So moved. Second. All right. It's been moved by Council Member Schroeder, second by Council Member Bower uh to approve the agreement or authorize entering into the agreement as well as to uh approve the ordinance amendment. Uh discussion on the motion uh the maker of the motion, Council Member Schroeder. Uh second here, Council Member Bower. Right. Other discussion on the motion. Right. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. The agreement is authorized and the ordinance is amended. That then brings us to our final business item under business items this evening, item 7G, uh, which is to consider an update to the residential sanitary sewer backup cleanup backup cleanup assistance policy. Uh, and I'll turn it over to our, uh, public works director, uh, Jesse Fryhammer to bring this item before us for consideration. Welcome, Mr. Fry. Uh, thank you, mayor and councel. So, I have a real brief presentation just to kind of summarize uh what we're proposing here. But, yeah, we're looking to update the residential sanitary sewer backup policy. So, just a little background. Um this policy was adopted, I believe, for the first time in 2011. It basically provides residential properties if there is a sewer backup on a city main. Um it does give some immediate assistance. um you know, obviously it's no fault of their own that there was a backup, but um it it does allow for some immediate cleanup and uh that usually helps calm the situation down in a lot of cases. So, um basically under the policy, the city does hire a vendor um and then we cover the costs up to $5,000 to do that reimbursement. Um and then there is also in the policy about a backflow preventtor. policy is not used as frequently, but we can help pay for that if people are concerned that or residents are concerned that they're going to continually get sewer backups. I will say the the the backup or the backflow preventers, we've only maybe done three or four in the last 10 years. It's just it's not as common maybe as it was, you know, a while ago. So, um on average, we've typically do five to 10 cleanup assistants per year. Um it varies, but most of them do hit the costs do vary, but most do hit the $5,000 cap. Um and then the current budget we have in the sewer fund for sewer claims, which this would be under is $26,000. Um needs for the change. The big one is really a cost of cleanup has gone up. So that's why staff has recommended the change. Um obviously you can't get uh $5,000 doesn't go near as far as it did back in 2011. Um and then we did want to we did want to confirm the definition of residential properties. it's referenced as a residential uh policy, but it's not explicit to what residential properties that is. So, um we did propose language on that. Um the other big proposed language, like I said, increasing uh the cleanup per incident for per property from 5,000 to 7500. Um we we estimate that this would cost the city approximately $10,000 annually. Um and then update the proposed backflow pretor from 300 to 500. Um that's same thing. Cost of that has gone up. And then we did define residential property as single family, duplexes, triplexes, and town homes. So basically anything that has individual services serving their home. Um we did that because these are really the properties that are affected. Um I checked with staff. We don't have a perfect record, but uh our utility superintendent's been here um for a very long time and we have not he doesn't recall any like apartment buildings making a claim um like that. We don't get these as as often. Um it usually affects people with with full basements. most apartments don't have a full basement or at least that would be uh people living in it. So that's where backups usually go. So that's why it tends not to have the case. Same thing with commercial. Most commercial properties are slab on grade um and don't have the backup. So um that's how we kind of based our definition, but certainly if council feels we should modify that, we'd be open to that. Um we did provide this to the city attorney for review. Um they did update the format a little bit. It was a little dated. And then we did provide this to PET uh the public works environment and transportation commission at the May 27th meeting and they supported the proposed changes. So with that uh we would recommend to council to approve the updated residential sanitary sewer backup cleanup assistance policy and I can answer any questions. Right. Thank you Mr. Fryhammer. Questions from the council. Council member Schroeder. Uh yes. Um I the 500 um dollars for the um for the backflow prevention. Does that cover the full cost or what what does something like that typically cost? So, it'll that'll probably cover half the cost of the um half the cost of the material, but then you're going to have to pay to to install it. So, um yeah, so it's it's not covering the full cost and and I already know the 7500 definitely doesn't cover the full cost typically. Correct. Correct. Especially if it's uh you have a full finished basement and the extent of the of the backup. Thank you. We had other questions from the council. Right. Uh seeing none, we'll double check if anyone from the public wants to speak to this update to the policy. It does not appear to be the case uh given that we seem to be kind of lonely in the chambers here at this point. Uh with that, then we're being asked to consider uh uh updating the policy as presented. Is there a motion from the council? So moved. Second. All right. It's been moved by Council Gra, seconded by Council Member Sharter to update the policy or approve updating to the policy as outlined. Uh discussion of the motion, uh Council Gra is the maker. I think it was a good step to review this. I mean, obviously the costs have gone up and this will not cover anybody's cost totally, but maybe it makes them feel a little better about it and uh if they put the backflow pretor in, at least they used to places that were chronically getting problems with it, it stopped that process. So, and they can get insurance for those things, too. I mean, they have homeowners insurance hopefully to cover some of it. Okay. Uh, Council Sher is the second. Yes. Um, I have heard from people in the past that the 5,000 was inadequate and so I'm happy that we're looking at this because I think it's a a good gesture for our residents that we're going to up this. So, it's it's a it's a really good idea. Other discussion on the motion? Uh the only thing I will add is I think one of the benefits that we noted at the time and I think it continues to be the case is the city uh contracting to have the work done uh because that's a very stressful moment for people who have had a backup in their home. Uh and as as we know in a lot of cases uh you know not all contractors are well vetted and sometimes are taking advantage of situations and so this is an opportunity for some peace of mind for the resident that's that's dealing with a lot of stress in that situation anyway. Uh so that's another benefit and I'm glad we're keeping the policy in effect for sure because of that. Uh with that we have the motion before us to uh approve the update to the policy as outlined. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I opposed. That passes unanimously. That policy update is approved. Uh thank you Mr. Fryhammer. That brings us then uh to consideration of city council minutes. We do have the minutes of our May 12th uh council meeting uh for our consideration this evening. Uh were there any further changes or corrections uh to the minutes as presented to the council? Otherwise, a motion to approve as presented would be in order. So moved. Second. All right. It's been moved by council member Schroeder. Second by council member Bower to approve the minutes as presented from the uh May 12th meeting. Uh discussion on the motion hearing. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those minutes are approved. That then brings us to consideration of our consent agenda. this evening. No items were removed. Uh Mr. Trean, could you give us an outline of those items this evening? Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh item 10 A approves payments in the amount of $1,254,17529. Item 10B approves the expenditure to conduct condition survey of 28 miles of roadway and 23 miles of concrete sidewalk with Goodpoint Technology in the amount uh for the amount of $17,275. Item 10 C approves a series of business licenses including 25 cigarette tobacco products licenses, four age restricted cigarette tobacco licenses, two private gas pump licenses, 26 massage therapy establishment licenses, and four veterinary examination licenses. This is the bulk of them. I think we have a couple stragglers that we'll probably take care of at the June 16th meeting. Item 10D approves a license agreement with the property owners at 560 Ryan Avenue to install a private driveway, sanitary sewer, and water service connections within unimproved rightaway. Item 10E approves applying for uh the community crime intervention and prevention program grant to continue funding for the police department's embedded homeless outreach uh worker and a dedicated staff support position to assist in the administrative task for that position. And then finally, item 10F requests approval to enter enter into a three-year janitorial services contract with a company called Environmental Control starting January 1st, 2026. This contract will result in about an 8.3% cost decrease from the 2025 pricing of our current vendor. And that is our consent agenda. Right. Thank you, Mr. Trean. Is there a motion on the consent agenda? Second. It's been moved by Council Member Straw, seconded by Council Member Grath to approve those items. a discussion on the motion. I just wanted to add um that environmental control, I really enjoyed their business statement and that's a really nerdy thing to say, but I um I don't know that I look forward to the savings, but I also appreciate the time and effort they took into making um cleaning sound interesting and like it's really valuable. Everyone knows when it's not clean the way they want it to be, so appreciated that. And then of course we all appreciate the ongoing effort to keep uh Carrie McCuller on our crime prevention uh team and and any efforts there can be made on that are deeply appreciated. Right. Other discussion uh council member Bower. Yeah, it was nice to see the uh new vendor for uh the janitorial services and I would just encourage uh staff to look at more vendors uh and look at vendor consolidation and rebidding these things. Uh there's a lot of opportunities with the current environment to uh save money. Right. Duly noted. Uh with that, if there's no further discussion, uh we have a motion to approve the consent items. All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. That passes unanimously. Uh that then brings us to our catchall at the end of the meeting. Future agenda review, communications, reports, announcements, and council member initiated items for future meetings. First, we'll begin with the future agenda. uh highlights as noted here, Mr. Treasure. Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our next meeting is June 16th. Uh we have a pretty packed and full meeting. We'll have the consideration of the Aldine right away. We'll have a joint meeting with the finance commission. We'll receive presentation from the Axel group called the police department uh police department allocation study. We'll also receive a report a report from DKB regarding the civic campus master plan. And then we're also u this is fairly procedural, but I did want to bring it forward um um as a business item versus consent. Set the date for sale of issuance of the geo equipment note to purchase the electric fire engine. It's been a little while since we've talked about this is just kind of setting some dates up into the future. Wanted to bring that for discussion. Uh reminder, uh Rosefest parade is June 23rd that I think most if not all of you will be um participating. I'll uh get a little bit closer. I'll give you some instructions, but the parade starts at 6:15. So, obviously we'll need to get there before, but you've all been through it before. So, would also mention I shot a late email in the day, but Taste of Rosefest is on Thursday, June 26th. Uh, I do have tickets if you want to buy them for me or you can buy them online or from other Rotary members as well. Uh, on July 7th, so we only have two meetings in in in June at this point. Uh July 7th, we will bring back a discussion with the street light policy that was initially brought forward by council member Grath. And then also at that meeting, we'll talk about any changes in the property tax base that we're aware of, any legislative changes depending on what they do down there, and if there's any discussion on city council budget goals. We have two meetings in July. Uh we do have an EDA meeting in July 14th. We have two meetings in August. There's not a date called August 251. Is that August 25? I guess there was one extra number in there. So those are meetings for that uh time. So really uh we only have a few meetings in the summer. If you look at it, we have one uh three four six five six meetings. Can't do that. Six six more meetings left uh before uh Labor Day. So wow. All right. Time will fly as it always does. Uh questions on the future agenda from council members. any uh items item council member requested items for future agendas or reports or announcements or communications. If there are none, the only item left on our agenda is a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. It's been moved by council member Grath, second by council member Stron to adjurnn. There is no discussion on a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously and we are adjourned at 7:39 p.m. Thank you everyone.