evening. Uh as is typically the case uh with EDA meeting evenings, we will uh postpone the public comment uh for general purpose until the beginning of the council meeting which will happen immediately following the economic development authority meeting that is underway here. Uh so that then brings us to our uh business items this evening. We have three business items. Our first two are development related. Uh the first of which is to consider a number of uh resolutions uh excuse me in this case consider a resolution of support uh for the OATE OT cent's livable communities account grant application. Uh and I'll turn it over to Jeannie Kelsece our housing and economic development program manager for this item this evening. Welcome Miss Kelsey. >> Thank you President Row and board members. In your packet for your consideration is a resolution of support for an application for LCA money from the mech council. It is for um putting and putting actually offices for the three organizations that are partnering currently. Right now the monastery American Indian childc care center is in the current space has been leasing the space from the church. The church is planning on moving out permanently and relocating and consolidating with another par church in St. Paul. So for your consideration, this group um the three of them want to rehab the buildings, turn them into their main offices, and also offer services based upon their organization's um capabilities and what they offer into the community. They are available for anyone to utilize um just not Native American. So for you and your consideration of the packet, I do have a couple representatives here too in case you have any additional questions. Um but the resolution is up for your consideration. >> Right. And once again, this is specifically in support of the request uh excuse me, of the grant application for the Metropolitan Council uh livable communities grant. Is that correct? Okay. All right. Questions uh from members of the EDA for staff on this uh request this evening. Uh number strong >> I just had a question about the monastery. I think at one point we had been requested by various uh members of the community because they were concerned about the um being able to utilize that for fire space. Is that correct or am I mixing that with a different facility? Uh member Strong I believe you're talking about the same facility but that is for a temporary homeless shelter uh for a period of time which we have set up a process uh to do. So my understanding that's totally independent what this request is. I don't believe there's any plans at least at this point um by the the group uh to do something similar but um I suppose they can answer that question directly. >> Okay. I just wanted to check to make sure that obviously we had mitigated any fire safety concerns if we are moving forward if they're already utilizing that space in that way. Michigan. >> And I I believe if I remember correctly, um the issue was the length of time that the that the the the church wanted to do the the emergency homeless shelter for was longer than was permitted. And so there was some concern about that. But I think we may have an update from our community development director who has come up to >> President Ro members of the board. I think there's two separate issues that are maybe kind of being confused together. There is the temporary overnight shelter and there was a concern about wanting to do that for 60 days as opposed to 30 days. I think the issue you're referring to board member Straw though is there is already a daycare in this facility and there were some issues at the building permit stage and getting that set up because the proper sprinkling was not in that space. And so they did rectify that and the daycare is in there now and operating and has been for a few months. And so they would just continue to use the space in that way. Thank you. Other questions from members of the EDA for staff. Right. Uh does a representative of the applicant for the grant funds wish to uh address the council present any case or uh answer questions? Hello and welcome. if you can introduce yourselves and uh feel free to address the board. >> Good evening, council members. My name is Nathan Ratner. I'm the coordinator for the Oate Center Development Initiative. Um and uh we're really excited and grateful for your consideration of our grant application. And I'm happy to say a few words and answer some questions. And I'll let my colleague introduce herself as well. >> Good evening, council members. I'm Kate Laymer um with Element and we are the project managers and owners representative for the Oate project. Um so the Oate Center is a very exciting initiative of three different um nonprofits who serve primarily the American Indian community in the east metro and they've been doing so for decades and they're interested in finding a single location to to colllocate in so that they can um reach an efficiency in terms of operations as well as in um centralizing services so that um uh families can seek all of the supports that they need from literally prenatal services all the way up through elder support um all in one place to minimize um the um uh difficulty of navigating appointments and locations and uh we're have um really grateful for the partnership and leadership of the New Life Presbyterian Church and their commitment to working with us through this transition for their home. >> Great. Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant for the grant? Uh, member Shorter. >> Yes. Could you tell me how many clients do you think you'd be serving when having all three in one location? >> Yeah, absolutely. Um, so currently uh the uh nonprofits collectively serve about 700 families annually. And what's really cool is that uh their focus is on um the American Indian community and they have a lot of cultural knowledge and um leadership um and native leadership throughout but that they provide services across all communities in particular the food services where uh initially we will have um a satellite um food shelf and then um over time we seek to uh to grow that uh service out but that serves the they're currently located in Little Canada and um they distribute about 360,000 pounds of food a year. We wouldn't do that amount. We would have to downsize and then regrow it um uh over time, but um but it it will serve quite a few people. >> Thank you. >> And other questions? Uh member Bower, >> I know with a lot of these uh LCA grants council, there's uh I think all the ones I saw in the profiles have a housing component. Is there a housing component to yours? >> Yeah, absolutely. So, uh immediately, um the American Indian Family Center, which is one of the three nonprofits, provides a range of housing support from finding um uh um suitable locations uh um as well as uh actually helping with some of the costs of relocating um to uh housing that suits that family's needs the best. In addition, the um Interfaith Action of Greater St. Paul, which is another one of the partners, actually has purchased and is rehabbing its own housing facility in partnership with the state of Minnesota. And so, we'd be able to um integrate with their service as well. >> But for this site, you're not expecting housing? >> No, we we do not plan to build housing on site. Yeah. And then uh I know there's a number of requirements for these LCA grants and just looking through your request. Um just trying to get understand uh I know one of the requirements is a site plan and other items as well. Do you have any of those? Just trying to understand what's all going to be there. It's somewhat a little challenging giving support where we don't really know in more detail what's >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Um council member the do have a conceptual site plan. They've been working with the design team um for I think a couple of years now. uh it is conceptual but um for this pre-development this initial grant then you know that would be advanced enough because this the pre-development is really intended um for this early exploration and to kind of help determine how best to fulfill the different goals and we have been advised by um Met Council staff that you know the uh housing services that they do provide would be important and kind of the stage in the project that they were that they are in sounds appropriate for what we would be pursuing at this time. And when is your grant due? When do you have to submit this the grant to Met Council? >> The pre-development is due July 21st, so about a week. >> Oh, right. >> Thank you. >> Other questions? >> All right. Thank you uh for being here this evening. Thank you for bringing this uh uh potentially to our community. Uh and uh stay tuned. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh and we'll check uh if there are members of the public who wish to speak to this request. Once again, this is a request to provide a resolution of support uh for the applications that uh this this group of organizations is making to the Metropolitan Council uh for livable communities grant funds. As was noted, there is a pre-development grant as part of this uh and then also I believe there is also the uh demonstration account or maybe it's all lumped together but uh two separate. Okay, got it. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak uh to this item this evening? It does not appear to be the case. I'll turn it to the uh members of the EDA. Uh is there a We've got a request uh to adopt the resolution uh that's attached to the request for action uh in support of those applications for the LCA grant funds. >> Second. >> I think it's been made for member graph. You've made a motion because it's been seconded by member strong. >> I'm assuming motion support. Okay. Okay. and uh and member Strong, your second was for a motion in support of the resolution. >> Okay, >> just to be sure. >> All right, discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Um member Grath, >> uh thanks for bringing this forward. I think it's really important that our community support these efforts and uh I'm glad to see that there's a a good use for the uh church that's there. I think it'll be a great addition to the community. I also appreciate that it's open not just to Native Americans but to the whole community so everyone can receive services there. Thank you for bringing it forward. >> Right. And as the secondary member strong, >> uh, I echo member Grath's comments and I do know that we have a good history of having, um, a lot of nonprofits here in Roseville and, um, I appreciate the extent and the breadth of the work that's being done in this partnership. And I'm excited that we don't have a a vacant space, um, but that it's something being used for good. Also, for the last few years, we haven't had a dedicated food distribution site in Roseville. And so, I appreciate um that option as especially as they grow and change. And um it also is somewhat removed from a neighborhood. I don't anticipate that it would have a it's not between a whole bunch of houses meant one side at least is a bunch of people who aren't going to probably bother much about it. Um, and so I appreciate that they bringing this forward. >> It's a graveyard. >> All right. All right. Other discussion on the motion? >> Um, I speak in support of the motion. I think the only other note that I would have is I know uh there has been a community garden on that site and there may be some interest from the community in maintaining that. Uh certainly we will not make that a condition of of this uh this motion or any other approvals, but I just wanted to make a note of that. Uh if there's no other discussion on the motion, we've got the motion before us to adopt the resolution supporting uh the LCA grant applications. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I >> opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Uh I will note there were some nods from the representatives of the uh the proposers here this evening when I mentioned the the community garden. So uh that's a good thing. All right. Uh that brings us to our second item this evening which I started to almost introduce as the first uh under the business items for the EDA and that is in this case a number of resolutions of support for various types of funding assistance uh for a project uh in the Twin Lakes area. Uh and I will turn it back over to Miss Kelsey to introduce this item for us. >> Thank you, President Row and board members. Um this is the last parcel in the redevelopment tiff district of Twin Lakes uh redevelopment one area. Uh back uh there are two tiff districts in this area. Um one is for the hazardous substance on the sites and the other is for redevelopment pooling funds. I wanted to bring to your attention at this point that we are seeking a resolution of support for the use of the um tip districts as that is a requirement for one of the applications that we are going to be seeking to help fill some of the gap. As you see in the information provided to you, we're looking at a almost an $8 million um environmental cleanup on the site at this point. Um to be honest uh with you 7.7 is the number that we have right now. In addition to we have environmental cleanup funds of four and a half million. The rest we're looking at seeking in grant funds depending on our success of those grant funds because we never know what our competition might be coming in from um our city and who else is applying. We will know more later on this year. Many of these grants are due, one of them is due here August 1st. The next couple are due November 1st and so those will be also the ones we'll be seeking which will be the mech council deeds cleanup and also Ramsey County and the three of them then work together to figure out how to make make it all work between the three. For your consideration I do want to turn it over to Paul High for him to do a short presentation and introduction of himself and his development company as well as the project that he's proposing on the site. Hey. >> Hey, Paul. >> Hello and welcome. >> Yeah. Good afternoon. Good evening. My name is Paul Hyde with Hide Development and uh here to give you a little overview of ourselves and the site and some of the environmental and redevelopment uh issues that we're facing and uh things that we're excited about with this project. Uh just a bit about me. Um, I've been doing industrial redevelopment on polluted sites since 1995. Uh, started doing it with my dad who was an environmental lawyer and we've, uh, grown that focus into doing a number of green field sites, but our core competency is redeveloping polluted sites and I we've done more uh, federal super fund sites uh, in this state than anybody else. and excited to be able to uh use our skills on this one which will which we'll use uh which will need our skills. Um so let me take you a bit through the site. Um first here this is an aerial photograph. If you guys can see this this is an a historic aerial photograph showing the original site uh with kind of the wet uh wetlands marshlands on the east side of the site or the right hand side of the page. The red boundary is the site property. The yellow line is our proposed building. And then the different colored holes are uh soil borings, groundwater wells, and hollow stem auger borings. And what we're trying to show here is not only are we going to end up dealing with environmental issues, but there's historic uh site issues with this old swampy area here as well that are going to affect our redevelopment. another uh site with a lot of dots on it. Um this is a aerial photograph of the site in operation. Again, the blue line is um the property line. Uh there's a overview of our current building. And then what you're seeing is a variety of different uh soil borings, uh groundwater samples, both shallow and deep. As we try and kind of take all this historic data that's been compiled so far and get a final picture of what we're going to face when we do the cleanup, what we're trying to figure out at this point is what we're going to find when we start building the building so that we're not surprised. And the reason that's important is we need to be able to handle the environmental issues in approval or per the approved uh pollution control agency cleanup plan and then have the money to pay for it. And so we like to figure out today what we're going to find, not when we're out there on the site. And that's why I have gray hair as I've I've learned that uh over the last 30 years of doing this. We've been working uh with seller and have a the site under contract. We've just completed our field work. We spent over $200,000 uh trying to do this environmental work to get a comprehensive picture of what's out there. And we're trying to decide not only where is it going kind of laterally, but how deep and what's there and what we're going to find as well as what soil condition issues we're going to find that will all affect our redevelopment. Our goal then is to get uh a budget that matches the cleanup plan approved by the state and then we go uh with Genie's help here to try and find the different buckets of money to help pay for that cleanup. You heard about the dates. There is a number of different pots of money that we can access and your staff's excellent at identifying them and we're going to work hand in hand at putting those applications together and trying to fill up those different pots of money from the different uh four different grant funds, maybe more that we can access. So, sitting here tonight, we've completed the fieldwork. We're going to start to get our data back and our results tomorrow which will help uh validate our um initial budget and then we'll have a real good sense of what this is going to cost. Our next step would be then to get that cleanup plan approved by the state of Minnesota and then in for the different rounds of grant funds that are going to run through the course of the summer and the fall which is the subject of some of the resolutions tonight. As I've said, we've we've done this a bunch. Uh we've done sites that are harder than this, but not many. And um excited to be able to tackle this one and uh bring the project to you, which I'll describe here next. Let me see if I can get the mouse. There we go. We're proposing an industrial tech building similar to our Northern Stacks 5 project uh in Fidley. And this building is going to really attract um manufacturing and medical users, lab users, folks with clean rooms, uh think uh people with um R&D functions, uh clean rooms, design and manufacturing of medical device uh technologies. Um that's the kind of use this site is going to attract. Uh we are a year away from delivering the building but already have uh really significant interest from a number of different folks in that kind of bucket of uh companies and just have to get through these environmental issues and the funding of them to be able to get to that point to deliver the the building and those jobs and tax base. A quick look at an early uh exterior rendering of the building. This is uh really just a concept plan that we shared with city and staff last week. We're working our way through all the different requirements of the zoning code to make sure that our plan complies, but this is just an early image of the building. And uh just a look at what the building like looked like at night. We're going to add a number of new jobs here. The number is probably over 200 um and significant tax base uh to this uh technology center. And I got real good experience from having done this just down the road in Fidley that this is exactly the kind of user we're attracting. And we know that because from our early marketing efforts, that's who's knocking at our door. So the point of that is to give you a sense of where we are in the project um in these early days, but happy to answer questions. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Hyde. Appreciate that information. Are there questions from the EDA board for uh the developer? does not appear to be the case. So, you must have made a very good presentation and answered all of our questions. >> Yeah, blind squirrel. All right, there we go. I will stand by in case questions do come up, though. You can feel free to have a seat, but I mean, you know, don't head home quite yet. >> Um, we should check if there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this uh proposal. Once again, a number of resolutions of support are being requested for uh various sources of funding uh primarily for the environmental cleanup associated with this uh project. Uh roughly a $31 million project and roughly 20% plus or minus is the cost of the environmental cleanup on that. Anyone from the public here to speak to this item this evening? All right, seeing no one come forward, uh we'll move to EDA board consideration. Um, I'm gonna just double check. Uh, is it possible to take up all of the resolutions as a single motion? Is there any reason as >> is there any reason we couldn't do that this evening? >> Does not appear to be the case. Just to expedite things, assuming assuming that there's not going to be like more controversy on one than another. I don't know. But I'll just uh turn it back to the board for thoughts from the board. >> I'd move to um um for all five of them to be approved. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by member Schroer, seconded by member Gra to approve all of the resolutions of support that have been requested for this project this evening. Uh discussion on the motion from the maker of the motion, member Sher. >> Yes. Uh I much appreciate your um history and being able to handle these kind of sites because they can be um unknown and a big a big surprise. So you you obviously you're you're prepared for that and just to be able to get the site developed. I'm I'm really happy that this is going to be able to go forward. >> Right. And as a secondary member Grath >> and I would echo those comments and having been on the council a number of years, not as long as May mayor Roe, but we have been trying to get something with Genie and with community development for some time and the other things have not worked out. So, we appreciate your efforts and uh I hope this all goes through well. Uh one question I should have asked. >> Okay. Well, we can we can pause for a question. What happens if the numbers are really bad tomorrow? I just heard you say the tests come back tomorrow or >> Yeah, member Grath. Uh, I checked before we walked in and they're trending towards what we're showing you tonight. Um, but it that's the nature of these and our job is to be flexible and try and attack it at the beginning. And you know, we've had one or two projects in my 30 years where costs went up. You found something extra and there are supplemental grants for that if need be. They're harder to get. >> But um we try and tackle it. That's why we spend so much money up front. We want to know the extent of the cavity at the beginning, not at the end. So sitting here tonight, it's tracking towards what we're showing you in the uh in the uh report. >> Oh, thank you. And I sort of thought that from your comments because you are experienced with this. So you you know you're projecting things from your past experience. So So that's why I second the motion. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And other discussion on the motion. Member Strong. >> Thank you. I just wanted to make sure it's really clear. Um not only do we support the um the development of the site, but it is an opportunity for us to clean up obviously a very contaminated area. you know, people have said, "Oh, it should be housing and other things." And really, um, I know that our EDA has worked very hard to make sure that this we find a suitable use for this. And, um, we appreciate your expertise, Mr. Hyde, and we thank you for that additional step. Um, and hopefully this is the last time we have to be at this point where we hope that something will go forward and that we can. It's a beautiful rendering and I love the down lighting on the outside at night. Um, but I hope that this is the thing that finally um makes sure that that space for the neighborhood and for the rest of the community who go through this area that they're actually in a space that is um not polluted and and is not a detriment to the community. >> Other discussion on the motion? >> Um I did just I thought of a question so I'm going to pause again for a question. This is this is for staff. Um so as I understand it this um these funds that we're talking about from the city are not prospective tax increment but rather would be what has already been collected in the in the district. Correct. So there isn't so the essentially it's on the tax roles from the beginning as I understand as opposed to oftentimes with tiff the district starts with the development and the the period goes forward to collect. Am I clear on that? >> Correct. >> Okay. So this is a this is an unusual situation with tax increment financing >> because it's existing. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> And we got the special legislation to utilize the full amount for Twin Lakes one. >> Right. Right. Because of the fact that uh the development had not occurred during the normal window uh within which it would have had to have been uh done. All right. With that additional clarification, thank you for indulging that we do have the motion before us and this is once again to approve all of the resolutions of support that are sought in this uh particular action this evening. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. Those resolutions are approved. We wish uh the applicant luck with all of the funding and uh hopefully we'll see you back with uh whatever the next stages might be. All right. Uh with that then we'll change gears a little bit with our economic development authority. Uh we do have one final business item. Uh and this is our first look at the 2026 proposed EDA budget and tax levy. And we have our community development director Janice Gunlock with us this evening uh to bring this for our uh consideration this evening. And I believe would we have to take action at this meeting in order to meet the deadline in September or do we have one more do we have one more bite at the apple here? Uh, President Ro, I would have to defer to the finance director. I think in the past we've had one more opportunity in September, but it's always been within like a week. So, I we'll get clarification. I >> try to get as much covered this evening as we can. >> Yep. And I did provide the resolution just in case you were ready to do that now, but if we needed to come back, we could do that. Um, just really quickly, um, every year the EDA is of course tasked with preparing a preliminary and budget and levy for preliminary budget and levy for consideration by the city council. Um, for 2026, staff has proposed a preliminary budget and levy of $364,826. Um, this proposed budget is $85,30 less than 2025. the actual proposed levy is $30 less than 2025. Some details that make up this particular budget and levy um include that $85,000 of revenue has been moved from 725, the EDA fund to fund 727. So over the years we've done it a little bit differently. Sometimes we budgeted for it, sometimes we put it in 725. The finance director has now wanted us to put it in 727. So, it looks like our budget has dropped significantly, but really we're just moving uh revenue to a different fund. Um, some staff costs have increased by $1,912. Um, memberships and subscriptions have increased by $40. We have a few that the EDA funds, including ULI, EDIM, and the business journal. Software costs have increased by $18. And then the big item that is allowing us to have a slight budget savings is we have um removed $2,000 of miscellaneous costs that we were budgeting in the general EVA expenditures program. We still have $1,500 of miscellaneous that we're budgeting in general EDA or economic development program and we think that that is sufficient to cover our needs. There could of course be a really small expenditure if that comes up. we think we can absorb it with the um fund balance in the current fund 725. So when you add and subtract all those things together, that's where you get the difference of $30, the lowering of the levy. Um I did want to take this opportunity to just bring a few things um to your attention. Uh while they might not specifically be in the budget, they could relate to the budget in the future. Um the Rice and Larpenter Alliance funding, this is in the budget of 40,000. This remains flat and has been that way for a few years now. Um we are also not requesting any additional funding for the EDA's various loan programs. You'll see in the report that we put together, we have various um funds that uh contribute to our loan programs and they've been very popular and we've had to move some money around in order to keep doing those loans and so some of those balances are decreasing and we may or may not need to ask the EDA to levy some funds for those programs if you wish to continue them in the future. We don't think that's needed for 2026. uh you certainly could discontinue programs, you could modify programs to prevent levying, but we just at least wanted to bring that to your attention that we have been spending money from different funds in order to keep those programs alive. Um I also wanted to note that the land trust partnership, we aren't uh asking for any EDA budget for that program. Um when that partnership was created, we had identified the um housing replacement fund. I think it's also called the single family fund as a funding source. We haven't actually had to use that because Genie has been very successful in securing grants for our land trust partnership. And I do want to take this opportunity to acknowledge a $620,000 award from the Ramsey County HR to continue to fund that land trust partnership. And so that's been really vital uh in order to continue to do that program. And then lastly, we've talked about this as it relates to the housing needs assessment. Um there is some local affordable housing aid that is coming to the city. Those funds may be able to use may be able to use for certain loan programs. They may be able to be used for other initiatives. Um we just wanted to bring that to your attention that we'll be coming forward either later this year or early next year to figure out what we're going to do with those monies and where we're going to program them. But uh we did hear last week from the Minnesota Department of Revenue that the numbers for Roseville for 2025 are just shy of 400 or $564,000 and that'll come to the city in two different installments and that is on top of the 200 and some thousand that we received last year. So there is some additional money that can be budgeted towards EDA efforts in the coming years unrelated to the levy. Um, we did provide a budget comparison in your packet materials beginning in years 2023 actuals up to year to date. Um, and then we have that resolution that we've prepared which recommends the preliminary levy to the city council in the amount of $364,826. And I um can attempt to answer any questions you might have. >> Mr. Mayor, if I could just add, Mr. >> Tre, >> on on your the DIS tonight is just another sheet showing the EDA budget kind of in the format you're going to see later as part of the city budget. It's it's the same stuff, but uh reconfigured differently. The the the budget in the packet has a lot more detail um uh than that sheet would show, but it shows you the breakdown, but just just for a point of reference. You don't need to do anything with it, but just providing that for information. The council. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Tre. Other questions from the uh members of the board for the staff? Uh member Schroeder. >> Yes. And maybe this goes to the city manager that bench hand out when I look at the total expenditures for 2026, it doesn't match what's in the packet. So I'm not sure because in the in the in the packet total expenditure proposed for 2026 is 3648.26 and then on this handout total expenditures are $449 820 >> probably about $85,000 >> exactly. >> So >> that's a combined fund statement which includes 725 and 727 >> and so so this Okay. So the one in the packet is just the one and this is both of them. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Thanks for bringing that up because oftentimes we're showing different things in different funds. So So it's good that we're all understanding what we're showing. So thank you for bringing that. >> No. No. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure on that. And then u my other question would be with the um rice laber uh initiative. we fund that 40,000, but does the EDA also um get involved with what it's doing and and all that? And so is there um for the 40,000, I guess, what is it that the EDA is expecting um the Rice Labender to be doing? Is that business development or community building or just curious on on a overview on what we'd like to see with that? So, I think it probably would be appropriate to bring the executive director of the RLA in to present their annual report. Um, to more specifically answer your question, I sit on one of the committees and the mayor does as well. Um, he's probably uh more involved in some of the actual programming than I am, but I will say that the RLA does provide business outreach. They engage in a lot of community events. The summer block party is a pretty big event that we get a lot of engagement with the public on. There's a few other events that they do. Um they have placemaking initiatives. You may have noticed the rice and larpender signage that has gone up on the corner to help sort of identify the area. Um they have advocated on um Roseville, St. Paul, and Maplewood's behalf to secure the BRT line on Rice Street that will be coming forward in the coming years. And so there are lots of efforts like that that the RLA is serving Roseville. Um and that's what we're paying that's what we're getting for that contribution. I also want to note um when that RLA was originally envisioned, municipal funding was thought to be able to decrease as years went on and additional um grant funding could be secured. Um we did initially contribute 50,000 and we've decreased that to 40,000 and once CO hit this ability to make up all of that grant funds or partnership donations has struggled and so that's why the municipal funding remains flat. I believe, and mayor, you may know better than me, that the RLA is engaging with a consultant to update that strategic fund fundraising framework plan to sort of think again in the future long term about how we're going to continue to fund these efforts because um Roseville contributes 40,000, St. Paul contributes 85,000, and Maplewood contributes 10,000, and then Ramsey County contributes monies through various grant programs. And the idea is they're all collectively working to better that corner since there are three cities in a county that come together there. >> I think your suggestion that sometime it might make a good idea to have the director come in and update the what they're doing because I think it's I think it's been a while, right? >> It's usually it's supposed to be an annual thing, but I don't know that it always happens annually. >> Yeah. And I think when we updated the um cooperative funding agreement and the professional services agreement with the chamber that came forward in March to the city council for approval and in the past I believe the executive director has come to those meetings and presented the annual report in conjunction with sort of re-upping those next year professional services agreement but there was a conflict this year so she couldn't make the meeting and based on the timing of the actual finan fiscal year we had to do it. Um, but I bring that up only because you could reference those uh March city council materials because there is a work plan that's attached to that professional or that cooperative funding agreement and professional agreement that outlines all of the various efforts that the RLA is intending to engage in in the next fiscal year as well as what they accomplished in prior years. And so I could, you know, resend that out if you're interested in seeing it. and that was the work plan, but what has actually been accomplished would be the update to that >> and that's a part of it. >> And I can certainly add a little bit to the to the mix too. Uh just a few things that the the alliance does uh for local small businesses. For instance, they do have a couple of business connection type events, networking type events and you know where people can learn about uh small business activity in that area and things like that. Uh I think a couple of those a year. Uh there's the alliance is a sort of a conduit for both St. Paul uh and Ramsey County on the suburban side uh for uh small grants to small businesses for like signage or facade improvements for their their businesses. Um I know that the alliance did a lot of work to try to coordinate with possible developers and the city of Maplewood on the uh waterworks site uh that where the rice and leopard gardens are now the community gardens. Um and ultimately the uh waterworks decided that they weren't completely sure that they didn't need that property going forward. And so that sort of has has has not uh materialized like it was hoped to. Uh the other thing that the alliance did a lot of work on over the last couple years was um uh they uh obtained free services from actually trying to think of the federal agency that it is. Maybe it's a brownfield review process. Um, so I'm just not sure the federal agency right off hand, but >> I think it was an EPA program. >> Could have been an EPA program. That's kind of what I was wondering. I wasn't sure. >> So, uh, but anyway, they did a lot of work uh um to identify potential sites, identify potential issues. um actually worked with I think it was uh Stantech was the consultant um um that uh also helped to sort of frame up an update to the vision plan uh for the development of that neighborhood um to to sort of take what had been identified in the prior plan several years ago kind of you know figure out what had happened and then also what where the new potential lay. So, a lot of that is going on and a lot of that is the work that the that the alliance does uh that isn't always as visible as as some of the events that are held which I think are are important in making sure that that community um feels like it is a community and and is able to to to work together as as neighbors and you know local businesses and things like that. So, it all is is layers on on you know the the whatever metaphor you want to use uh as to what's being done by the alliance. But I agree that it probably does make sense at some point to have the the executive director back in or a representative to to talk about it more with the board. Uh are there other questions from members for staff on the proposed 2026 budget and tax levy? Member Bower. >> Yeah, the current fund balance for the uh EDA is I think as stated here in the pack in July uh like $455,000. What do you expect that fund balance to be projected at the year end roughly? you know, board member Bower, I don't really get involved in projections of cash balances. Um, you know, we like to uh make sure that our expenditures are aligned with our budget, which means we won't have to dip into that cash balance. We have used that cash balance to fund the replenishment of our revolving loan programs in the past. Um, and then we've also used that cash balance to fund um, the housing studies. You'll note in the budget we uh, basically budget and levy $5,000 every year and that money just sort of sits in the fund balance because every 5 years or so we go ahead and engage in that broader study which costs, you know, $50,000. And so, um, we got to remember that that is also a source for that cash balance. But I I don't see any major expenditure coming up in 2025 where that number will um dip significantly. Would you be concerned if we that fund balance was to be burned down a little bit just mean that you know funds that go into the EDA you know have end up staying in the EDA and I wonder if that cash balance is getting approaching a larger large number where we may maybe should think about um utilizing some of that for maybe a budget year or something like that. I would say that it is good to use that cash balance to replenish our revolving loan funds. And if we use that cash balance to um reduce the budget and levy, it's decreasing our opportunities to fund other EDA programs without while not impacting the levy. Um, so and every year that I have been here, so for the last 5 years, we have cut the EDA levy. And so I am at that point where I don't have anything else left to cut. And so I do get worried when that cash balance starts to decrease significantly. and whatever our policy is about how much of our budget and levy needs to be reserved in cash balance when you consider that we don't have that much extra sitting there. If I could just just add I mean that's certainly always a possibility as we look at those numbers. It's often um a conversation we have uh if those if that draw down of that balance uh is to fund operational things that we know we're going to continue then in future years we are going to have to make that up and potentially raise the levy again. So there's always a back and forth and sometimes sometimes that's what you need to do. Um, the other thing is we want to make sure and I think we we have sufficient funds in and out to cover the cash flow because we get tax payments twice a year. So, you always want to have some ability for that cash flow. But I think that's always on the table for consideration, but as um as Gunlack said, uh there these are really supplying programs that we're pretty confident in and keeping unless there's a policy discussion. Um and if anything, you would want to use those funds to to supplement some of those loan programs which are the different funds. So, so it's certainly always a conversation. Um, I think there's there's a caveat though. If you use them for operating funds, you're going to have to do something unless you you change the operations and no longer fund that. >> Thank you. >> Great. Uh, member Shorter. >> Um, and just a note on that. I think and of course this comes up every year, the the fund balance, and I think part of the confusion is the other funds have a percentage of where you want to have at least a minimum amount. I think our general fund the most amount is like 50% and different things and of course this fund is over 100% funded and I'm not saying that's not where it should be but I think that's where you know different people have different ideas and that might be something to think about is say do we want it then to say yes we need this to be 100% to be able to fund these things that way it's more in that policy um realm again otherwise you probably are going to have this come up every year. >> Yeah. >> Well, and I do want to say I think we have a policy for this fund that it has to be somewhere around maybe 30 to 50% or something like that because of that cash flow issue. And I think that was the point Miss Gunlock was making is that actually the whole balance isn't what's available necessarily because of the wanting to maintain that policy. And we just maybe need a refresher on what that percentage is. Yeah, that's what my point being. And maybe we want to take a look at that again because I know they upped the general fund amount at one time, not that long ago. >> And we certainly we do get uh I can't remember if it's part of the packet this evening for the council meeting, but uh it was in the last meeting, I believe, or one of the previous meetings. Uh we had that sort of fund balance and and where everything sat, >> that analysis, and I want to say that the EDA fund was in there, but if it wasn't, we should make sure that it was >> or is going forward. Right. Uh member Strong, >> thank you. Um as you said, it has decreased and um I was surprised and a little concerned that we are coming in so low. Um um and in the opposite realm of some of my colleagues, I guess I was really concerned because often we get to the what else can we cut and I was concerned that if this is the bare bones, then we have to say okay, we're done. We're not going to add change anything. I do know it is um I live like eight houses from a a land trust home that's going onto the land trust and it's really exciting and the neighborhoods are it's a really it's a great thing for a house that's sat vacant for maybe seven or eight years. Um, and so I want to make sure that not trying to raise the levy, but um, I I want to make sure that we can do the things that we have made a commitment to doing or change our plans. I know that in past years it has already felt like you were cut to the very to the quick. And so I I'm concerned that um if we cut it so close then some of these things that we've kind of raised rested our laurels on um can't actually happen. Then either we need to change them or we need to make sure we fund them appropriately um to keep them in operation and keep them um working. We don't need to just say it on the website if it's not something that can actually be funded and something that we can actually follow through. Right. Uh if there aren't other questions, uh we're not required to uh adopt the resolution approving the budget and tax levy at this time. It is certainly as it is in the packet. That's something we can do. uh we potentially have uh one more EDA meeting before the um September 30th deadline or whatever it is with the uh state for the final budget and tax levy uh for the city operations. Uh I don't know where the board is at in terms of consideration of the budget for uh 2026 and tax levy for the EDA, but uh certainly if we want some more time to think about it. >> Uh yes, and that's certainly and um your your decision. I would note that even if you were to approve the resolution, that's just the EDA. City Council still needs to approve it. So that decision will still come later by the end of it. So we'll have to take that intermediate step. Even if we get to September, we'll have to convene the EDA just to make a motion on on this particular budget. But the council still takes the final action on the levy. >> So that just from that perspective then does that mean that uh the EDA action action has to happen one council meeting before the deadline that the council has >> or one agenda item, right? Or earlier in the evening? >> Okay. So we could always schedule a special EDA meeting the same evening or something like that. Okay. Got member Ber and a question for city manager. >> You know if we take this up and here does that limit or cause difficulties for you as you're working on your city budget. Would you like more flexibility and bring forth this if you need to make adjustments or changes at the same meeting? I'm concerned if we'd make a decision tonight that you know that kind of forces your starts closing some doors for you. >> No, not necessarily. Uh member power, I think, you know, this is kind of a standalone um budget in a lot of respects and um I don't necessarily use savings that are here elsewhere. Obviously, there's the overall levy impact. >> That's more right, >> right? You know, and so having a ballpark to know where the council is. Uh and this really isn't significant levy impact uh this this time around. So, uh if you take action tonight, that's not going to limit to me. And once again, we still have to have the city council approve it. But once again, that's up to you. If you're not comfortable in doing it, you want to wait, that's that's perfectly fine. Thank you. >> Just a clarification before I recognize council member Sher or member Sher. Um, we always have the option, even if we took action on this resolution this evening, recommending the budget and levy to ourselves as the city council. We do have the option to change it between now and the official deadline. And I just wanted to double check if the EDA passes a resolution to the city council recommending a certain budget and tax levy and the city council says no, we want to change that before we do the final approval. It doesn't have to go back to the EDA for reapproval. It's just at that point the council can take that action. >> You're a recommending >> it's a recommendation from the EDA. >> Council needs to set the level. Okay, that's that's required under state statutes. I just want wanted to make sure we didn't procedurally get ourselves in a corner without knowing it. Uh thank you, member Schroer. >> Um question on uh I I forgot this question when we were going through it. In the past, the Northwestern Charitable Pledge had been in there and I noticed that that is no longer there. Is has there been conversations that that's just done at this point? >> Member Schroer, I can take that. So, um it started in 2014. We had a 10-year agreement with Northwestern that had >> University of Northwestern, >> I'm sorry, University of Northwestern uh uh for both uh charitable pledge help e economic development activities as well as a payment in lea taxes ran for 10 years. I did engage uh with leadership over there which uh actually turned over from when we were doing it originally but um and there is absolutely no interest to continue that. I think we'll continue to knock on their door. we try to stay in touch, but um there doesn't seem to be any um desire by them to do that. >> I thought I'd ask because I know that had been there a long time. I didn't know if it was the door was shut or if it was still conversation and then and actually, you know, for the expenses that are in here. I think you've done a really good job and and and I I always do like the way you laid out this budget and in the detail that you do and so I'm comfortable with, you know, what you have in here as expenses for for for your budget. So that part uh makes sense to me. >> Right. So once again, we have the choice to either uh uh adopt a resolution recommending this budget and tax levy to the council or we can take that up at a subsequent EDA discussion. Mayor, >> I'd move to adopt the resolution. >> Uh, this, in my opinion, is going forward tonight and it doesn't preclude us from making changes down the road if we find that necessary. So, >> second my motion. >> It's been moved by member Gra, second by member Stron to adopt the resolution in the packet recommending the 2026 budget and tax levy to the city council for consideration. And once again, this would be uh not to exceed amount. Uh so it could always go down before the end of the year, but it can't go up. Um and I would note that if we discover something between now and the end of September and we need to change make a change, uh certainly that could come back before the EDA uh if needed. Uh with that, I do want to just double check one thing. Uh we didn't provide an opportunity for public comment. Uh so we'll pause consideration of the motion just for a moment uh just to make sure if there is anyone from the public who wish to speak to the proposed 2026 budget and tax levy for the economic development authority in Roseville. This would be an opportunity to do so. It does not appear to be the case. Uh and I would note also that we will of course have our uh budget and tax hearing uh at the end of November uh which will have everything all the city functions in it including the EDA. So there will be at least that additional opportunity as well as all the other budget discussions. December will be a very budgety month. Um uh so look forward to that and then uh December again. Uh with that then we have the motion before us to approve the resolution recommending the 2026 EDA budget and tax levy to the city council. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker member Grath. No, I think as you said, this is the first step in this part and it can be changed if necessary, but I think that we've gone over the numbers and I like us to have some flexibility down the road if something if we have an opportunity. I hate us to get down so far that if we have an opportunity, we're not able to take advantage of that because we've cut our budget so far. That's why I support it. >> All right. Second of the motion. Member Strong, any additional comment? Again, I reiterate um I support it because I I think there's a lot worse that could happen, but I want to make sure that we don't cut it so much that um Director Gunlock isn't able to do the job. and they do an amazing job and as their budgets increase with wages and other things that we've approved elsewhere in our um work that uh we continue to have the ability to do the things that we have set out and made basically a pledge to our people that we're going to do >> right other discussion on the motion >> hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I >> opposed >> that passes unanimously that resolution is approved Uh there is no more business before the economic development authority this evening. Uh the only other item on our agenda is a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> It's been moved by member Grath, seconded by member Straw to adjurnn. There's no discussion. Excuse me. On a motion to adjurnn. Very very emotional moment here. Uh with that uh all those in favor of adjournment of the economic de development authority meeting signify by saying I. >> Opposed. That passes unanimously. We are adjourned. We'll take a few minutes to reset for the council meeting before we start that Right. I hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday, July 14th, 2025. Uh the roll call will stand as previously called for the Economic Development Authority meeting immediately prior to this meeting. Uh that was all members present. Um we uh have the pledge of allegiance at the beginning of the EDA meeting. So we will not have to repeat that here. Uh so next on our council agenda is approval of tonight's agenda. Uh and I'll check first of all with staff. Uh Mr. Trean, are there any changes uh to the agenda this evening uh from a staff perspective? >> Mr. Mayor, there's no changes. >> All right. Uh and I'll check with council members. Are there any uh changes that council members wish to make to tonight's agenda? All right. Uh, and I should just pause uh because we've had a little bit of changeover of folks in the in the council chambers here. Uh, before we go to final approval of tonight's agenda, uh, I will make a couple of introductions. Uh, the city council is us. Uh, we have our city attorney, Rachel Tierney, who's at the end of the day on my right. Our city manager, Pat Trean, is on the other end of the DEAS on my left. We also have a number of uh uh staff uh and other guests who will be participating in the meeting and we will make introductions of those folks uh as the meeting proceeds. I do want to note that for members of the public there is a uh shared copy of all the meeting materials in a large three- ring binder in the back of the chambers on the table under the clock that is available to uh members of the public to refer to as the meeting proceeds. That should be all of the materials that the council has before it to consider. Also, uh there are individual copies of the agenda, extra copies of the agenda. If you wish to refer to that, you can have your own copy. They're in the same location next to the uh big binder. Uh and I would remind folks if you have a cell phone to be sure that you either silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt our meeting this evening. Now, with that, I will ask the council for a motion on approval of tonight's agenda as presented. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Grath, seconded by council member Schroeder >> or something like that. >> Uh we agree. >> Any discussion on that motion to approve the agenda? >> Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I >> opposed. That passes unanimously. We have our agenda for this evening. Uh that then brings us to our first opportunity for public comment. I will note that as agenda items come forward uh there will be opportunities for members of the public to speak to those items specifically. Uh but we also do at the start of each meeting uh provide an opportunity for general public comment. This would be for items that are not under our consideration this evening or on our agenda uh tonight uh but may be of interest to people in the community or are related to city business. Uh so we'll check is there anyone here this evening to speak under general public comment not related to one of the agenda items this evening right does not appear to be the case with that then we'll proceed with our agenda uh that then brings us to uh recognitions and donations and we have one item in this category this evening and that is to receive the Minnesota Park Recreation and Park Association award of excellence in management strategies uh related to our natural resource management plan and we've got our parks and rec director uh Matt Johnson with us this evening to bring this before the council. Uh so I'll turn it over to him without further ado. >> Yeah, thank you mayor and council. I just want to introduce my colleague here, Jason Hicks, who is the assistant parks and recreation director with our neighbors in New Brighton and also is a member of the um awards of excellence committee with the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association. Jason, I'll turn it over to you. >> Thanks, Matt. Um it's always nice to come here to Roseville. as a neighbor to to present an awards. Um so I thank you mayor and council and city manager for having this this honor to speak with you this evening. Um as Matt said, director Johnson shared the MRPA award of excellence in 2024 is awarded to the city of Roseville. Um before I get to the to that part, I want to at least talk about the uh the MRPA, the Minnesota Recreation Parks Association. Had the opportunity to be here a couple times for the parks and recreation commission to share these awards and give them the same the same uh same piece of information. So I want to share that with you guys as well. But the MRPA was formed in 1937 to foster the growth and development of parks and recreation profession throughout the state. Presently there are around 850 professional, corporate, board commission, student and retirey members throughout the state. Members come from municipal, county, state, district, commercial, and private agencies. The MRPA was created in 1937 or excuse me, the MRPA the awards committee was created in 1987. purpose of acknowledging individual members and agencies for their excellence in the field of parks, recreation, leisure services. Committee members represent a broad uh cross-section of the members from throughout the state of Minnesota. In a field, it's important to increase the awareness and the appreciation for the excellent parks, trails, facilities, recreation programs and service that occurring in Minnesota. That is why the awards excellence program was created this year. Um, it was an annual program that was solely created to recognize agencies for their staff and exemplary project that was either implemented in 2024 or received substantial revisions in 2024. MRPA members may nominate a project for an award of excellence in seven different categories which include administrative or management strategies, communications, parks and facilities, programming events, sponsorships and partnerships, sustainability and volunteer initiatives. Nominations that are then received are then reviewed, scored, evaluated by the awards committee members. Only the top scoring nominations receive the award of excellence recognition. So with that, we're here to talk about the Roso Parks and Recreation. So on behalf of the awards committee, it's my pleasure tonight to present the awards of excellence to the city of Roso Parks and Recreation Department for its winning project natural resources management plan update in the administrative or management strategies category. The project itself stands out due to its holistic collaborative process that involved many several diff several city departments, community partners and roles of residents design a plan that will lead to a more sustainable and resilient future for the parks and recreation system. The MRP awards committee would also like to recognize director Johnson who nominated this project for the award of excellence. With that, we do have the award plaque right here which I think you can put up there so you can see it there. >> Yeah, I don't know if we can get we can just do that you guys there. It's very shiny. >> Yes. But congrats. >> Thank you. Um and with that, I just although I'm the one who is handed the the plaque, I do want to take a moment and mention some key stakeholders that really um contributed to this outstanding project that um as we are what 7 months into 2025, we're really seeing, for lack of a bad analogy, bearing fruit um with our natural resources program. Uh but specifically, um Jim Taylor, parks park superintendent. Um Rachel Bogs, volunteer manager. Um the parks and recreation commission weighed in on this a number of times. Of course, our technical advisory committee um which was made up of all volunteers throughout the community that contributed countless hours to this project. And then of course our our partners at Sant Consulting, which put the the program together and the master plan together. So um again, it's really set the groundwork. We have um grant applications out there based on that plan that we're really hoping will will yield significant results, but at minimum we're seeing great results out there in the field and that's a testament to not me but every all those others that contributed to it. So, uh thankful thanks to the MRPA for recognizing us and that's what I have. >> All right. Well, congratulations to everybody who was involved in that effort. I think it's a sign of how how we win in Roseville by being a team together. Uh and really it like you said uh Director Johnson, it can't be done without a significant uh especially volunteer effort on the part of members of the community and all the work that they do uh to um to do the work of natural resources restoration and management in the community, but also this significant planning effort for the future. And so we really are are pleased to to be able to be awarded uh and be recognized for all that work that those individuals uh undertook on behalf of the community. So congratulations to everyone. We probably should have a round of applause. We don't have enough. [Applause] >> All right. >> Should they have a photo up? >> Do you want to take uh just a couple minutes for a photo up? I guess we can have the Because the council had so much to do with it. We >> do the council up here. >> Do we have anyone with the camera? >> All right. >> Really? Why don't we swing around? Thank you. Wow. I have a camera. I should have done >> yours is probably better than mine. You want to use yours and send it to >> All right. Perfect. >> Yeah, let's do this. [Music] >> Lighting is good. Lighting is good. >> Okay, it's perfect. Rosio is showing up in the back too. One, one more. I'll send it to you right away. >> Thank you. >> Thank you guys. Next time he charged you. >> All right. With that, then we'll proceed to the rest of our agenda. Uh we'll get into our business items this evening. Uh we have a number of business items. The first of which is a joint meeting with our equity equity and inclusion commission. Uh and so we'll ask the members of the commission to come on up and have a seat at the table. Why don't we maybe just have just a few moment break in the meeting to allow for all that uh transition. Uh and then we'll reconvene once we've got everybody at the table. If everybody can turn their name towards the council a little bit. So >> hopefully you know each other but yeah >> this is our first joint meeting with the whole crew so we need to we need to remember who everybody is your name will be introducing us with the agenda. >> Okay. >> All right. We just have to wait till we get back on camera here. We may have to do a little passing of the mic. >> Are we ready in the control room? Yeah. >> Okay. >> May roll. >> I'll just I'll just I'll just gave us in here >> just to make sure we're back on the live meeting for folks at home. Thank you for your patience and I think we've got everybody. So, this is wonderful. Mr. Chan, >> we are all city members, attorney, and city managers. Thank you for opportunity to present to you. This is the equity and inclusion council. On our agenda there are six topics. Uh number one why our work matters will be presented by commissioner Stany and Singarama. Topic two is where we started will be presented by our chair Vati. Number three is where we are now presented by Commissioner Granch. Number four current priorities by our vice chair Philip Crawford. Number five what we need by Commissioner Taylor. And lastly, uh, thank you from closing by our youth commissioner, uh, Gwen Gekling. And we proudly to present our youth commissioner who was our vice chair and chair in the past year. >> Turn it over to you. >> All right. >> So, we're going to start off with a discussion of why this work matters, and I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner Singer, who wanted to speak about um, accessibility and accountability. We will need accessibility and inclusion. And the reason why is because everyone has different needs and different abilities and different interests. And this is all throughout Roseville. And everybody wants to participate and not and do the same things and learn and be active and have fun. But everyone needs to be treated like an individual because everybody has individual abilities. Just because one person can do one thing doesn't mean they can do it all. So there's got to figure out a way to accommodate everyone. Also, as we say from Stitch of Stitch, from Lilo and Stitch, Stitch said Changa, which meant ohana, ohana, which meant family. And family means no one is left behind. And this is important because in Roseville needs to be the same as one great big family where there's no one left behind because everyone here needs to be included and everyone in our events and in our community as a whole so we can all have fun here. So to connect to uh what Commissioner Singaram was mentioning, um I think sometimes uh DEI initiatives oftentimes get uh viewed as maybe for lack of a better credit the squishy side of politics. Um but I think in our committee's work, we've talked quite a bit about how practical uh the work of the commission is. Um because we know that when you have diverse stakeholder input uh into uh the government's functions, you're going to have more effective government. Um and so beyond just uh um uniting the community together as a family, we also believe that the work that we're doing uh will have significant improvements to the functionality of local government. Um so implications for our community. Um I'll tell a quick story because I think we wanted to include the story. Uh our first commission meeting, we had uh a member of the community come in um which was from what I understand unusual um for for commission's work. Um and uh the the community member came in and discussed how important they felt this commission's work was. Um and I think in our comments on the screen, we we outlined um a couple reasons why. They they mentioned that they felt that um that it was intimidating to engage with local government oftentimes, especially for um maybe marginalized groups within our community. Um because beyond maybe the forward- facing websites that we have that uh help bring community members in, um this member felt that um uh a more significant and maybe robust outreach was necessary uh to um allow for members of her community um to feel comfortable um and safe engaging with um elected officials and other city uh government officials in order to contribute their voices to kind of the tapestry that is Roseville. Um so um we believe that our commission's work does um address that concern uh that that committee member brought to us on our first meeting of the commission. Um and hopefully by um demystifying the process uh and creating a more open environment for our um diverse stakeholders uh in Roseville, we can make sure that everyone who wishes to participate uh can and feels respected and and safe to do so. Hi, mayor and council. My name is Praj. I'm the chair of the equity inclusion commission and I'm honored to be here and share about a little bit where we started and how far we've come. Um, I hope to do a little better job than that updated council in February where I sat up here with Antonio where I was probably not as coherent as I could have been. I think I was nervous cuz that's the first time I sat up here. Uh, but hopefully we'll do a slightly better job today. Um, like that first bullet point alludes to, we are a new commission. We were only created in September of last year and we only received full membership in April of this year. And like any with anything new that comes with the growing pains, a learning curve and the need for patience and perspective. Um back to that perspective. Yeah. I mean unlike long-standing commissions like finance, public works and parks and recreation have very tangible metrics to track, equity inclusion is a lot more nuanced, right? It's easy to point to a new park or a well-maintained street or fiscal responsibility. It's hard to define whether a city is equitable and inclusive. Um, but you know, I think or whether a resident feels welcomed, heard, but I think the work at the end of the day is just as important if not more foundational because at the end of the day, we're not talking about a specific policy or a program, but we're talking about people. whether every resident of Roseville, regardless of their background, so race, sexual orientation, um, disability, socio socioeconomic status, feels like they belong in this community and the decisions that shape it. Which is why we spent our first couple meetings not jumping conclusions, but really building a solid base, right? Understanding what came before us, the human rights equity inclusion commission, the strategic racial equity action plan, but even outside things specific to our commission, really just understanding how city government works in the first place. I think all of us, this is our first commission, right? And I can't speak on behalf of everyone, but I had no idea what I was getting myself into. I mean, I didn't know what a commission was. I didn't know that we went monthly. I didn't know commissions had a chair and a vice chair, public comment, open meeting law. Definitely didn't know Rosenberg's rules of order. I think I'm still working on running our meetings better, but getting there, right? But you know you have to kind of we had to spend those first couple meetings understanding everything because to add value you need to have a solid foundation. Um I think when Anton and I came and gave our updated council in February, there was some skepticism from city council and you know to be honest I think some of that was rooted in partisanship and something that you mentioned is you know I think equity inclusion can be seen as political buzzwords which is unfortunate because I really think they're really core values of good governance which is something you mentioned. At the same time, I think that skepticism was valid because we haven't proven what we can do, right? We were still ramping up, still learning, and frankly still missing members. But now, I think things are a little bit different. We've been given a strategic plan um in April, which is again only two months ago, and a clear goals to kind of work toward. And Antonio has a core team, and we have something tangible to build on, which I'll hand over to Commissioner Lranch to LeBron to talk more about. >> Thank you very much. Um, part of what we've been busy working on as well is creating good working relationships. I think for any type of collaboration, um, it takes a lot of trust building and relationship building. Is that better? >> Um, to do this work, but especially when you're talking about topics that can be difficult for individuals to discuss around areas of difference in our community. And so, we've been very invested in building trust within our group. Um, we really enjoy ice breakers. We were a little bummed we wouldn't have time in the agenda to do one with you all tonight. Um, but especially under the leadership of our youth commissioners have really gotten to build some quality trust within our within our commission. And so we really appreciated the strategic guidance and feedback that you all gave us in February. Through that, as we've mentioned, we've been working through our work plan and sort of what's next. And so that collaboration today looks like um continuing to work with our staff leazison with uh Antonio and then the core team that's working within city staff to make sure that we're supporting and not duplicating efforts that we're strengthening the work that our commission is doing as well as the core team. Um we really are working to make sure that this work is embedded across all that Roseville is doing and not a standalone initiative. And so um if you're familiar with the smart objective for smart goals around specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time bound um we'll welcome to SMARTT goals that are also inclusive and equitable. And so rather than sort of having inclusion and equity be an afterthought, it's all integrated together. And that's how we believe that long-term impact will be possible. So enjoy learning a little bit more about our next strategic priorities. Yeah. So, thank you so much for having us tonight. Um, I'll talk a little bit about some of our current priorities. As my colleagues have already discussed, we are working with uh Antonio on the strategic plan and specifically around community engagement. So strate strategic planning is a key piece of what we'll work on right now and specifically again as um Commissioner Lraange mentioned working not to duplicate effort but to support the effort of departments as they figure out how to evaluate their progress on community engagement how to establish solid metrics. We also plan to work again with departments in uh developing effective tools and strategies to figure out where we are now to help benchmark what does community engagement currently look like in the city of Roseville and how do we compare that across departments because engagement with the police department looks very different than engagement with parks and wreck. So, how can we come up with metrics that can be applied and give us a a solid basis to build on? And that will let us identify opportunities where we can help promote more equitable and inclusive engagement with community members and figure out how to how to best provide that support. And another key priority that we have right now is around open communication. Our job is not to be city ambassadors and show up at every event, but we live here and we attend a lot of different events around the city. We participate in different volunteer opportunities. So, we do see it as part of our role to speak to our experience on the commission um when that conversation arises and share with our neighbors and with our friends what we do and what this participation looks like and what engagement opportunities are out there. Good evening. Um I'm here to talk a little bit about what we need from you all. Um and so as we think about moving forward, the first bullet, you know, affirm the importance and legitimacy of the equity and inclusion committee, right? Commission, sorry. um in our external world right now like our work is under attack but we also know it's so critical that everybody can achieve the same kind of outcomes or have those same opportunities at the very least right um and so as we think about us as a commission and what tools we have or don't have around accountability and influence and these things how can you help us with that and how do you become ambassadors for equity in the roles that you have and thinking about um ways to do that can be through words but actions, right? And thinking about how you are asking questions of other commissions and other uh departments in front of you around, you know, what are the outcomes for everybody? What are the outcomes that we'll see across the board? Things of that nature. simple questions like that that can really get people thinking and letting people know you're not going to come to the com the the council and not have uh the ability to explain those things, right? Um thinking about supporting our efforts to collect and standardize um engagement data. So thinking about, you know, the development of metrics, we're going to need to look at data. How can you help remove barriers for us or for Antonio and his team as he's moving that forward? Data tells stories and we can think and we can um uh make assumptions but assumptions get us in trouble. The data tells the story and I I think in a lot of the work I've done like in my my daily job I do DEI work for my career. the data shuts down a lot of arguments. And I think that that's one of the ways that we can really say it's not a feeling, it's not a perception, it's rooted in data and these this is what we're seeing. Help us fix these things, right? Um and then helping promote commission opportunities to diverse residents, right? And you know, I think that's something that again, it comes comes under that ambassador umbrella and really helping folks understand of what does it mean to come to be part of the public kind of uh discourse. Um what does it mean to be on a commission? I love the fact that we've got youth commissioners, right? I think that that is so cool. That was something that I didn't realize until I became a commissioner. So, um just kind of constantly keeping that in the work that you do and how you are showing up. Um and then give us time to trust uh time and trust to grow into our strategic role. We're we're new. Um we're coming together as a team. Um and we're figuring out uh how we are seeing things and how you are seeing things and aligning those in the strategic plan and really trying to think through what that looks like. So, um that grace to kind of build that trust. Equity work is hard work and you have to have that trust to be able to say the things that need to be said without maybe uh emotions getting in the way of good dialogue and discourse. And so those are the things that we ask of you um as we move forward as a commission. >> All right. Thank you so much for listening to us. Um hope you have a good day. That was the wrap-up. >> I think the next is discussion, right? Q&A. >> All right. Um, Council Member Straw. >> Well, first of all, I wanted to thank you. As I sat here and looked, um, I'm thankful we took the time to devise the group of people so intentionally. Um, it it's obvious that you care about one another and I think maybe that's an element we didn't spend so much time about and definitely ice breakers and hugs and all those other things come with Antonio. Um, but I think um I'm really excited about your work um because I one I appreciated that every person had a voice and I love having um the youth voice on that and so I think it's kind of a clean slate and opportunity to really grow and share where you are and so I'm very excited about that. As far as um specific questions, I was wondering, have you gotten to a point where your work plan, I think, was kind of guided to be working internal to the city? And so, have you started to look at things that you're going to obviously data, what kind of data points are you looking toward? >> So, yes. So, we've worked with Antonio to look at the specific goals that that our commission will focus on supporting, which again are specifically around uh community engagement. So, at this point, what we hope to start with is kind of building an understanding of how data are currently collected. Um so not necessarily access to the data yet but just understanding what kind of measurement tools exist, what are the existing metrics so that we can work from that to build um to identify what the most effective metrics might be and how we can build things that can work across departments because one of the unique things about our role as others have alluded to is that we um are working on things that that form a foundational basis for um engagement across departments. So we have to figure out how we can best accommodate that. >> And I guess something very tangible because you just had the discussion on the license and passport center. Something that you said mayor row is you know you don't want to make your decisions on a not terribly well informed electorate and you said that's on us right where you acknowledge that the city council could have done a better job communicating stuff. So when it comes to data, it's like how did you communicate that with the residents when it comes to ballot measures and where can we improve on that so then they're informed decisions that go into the city. >> And I do want to apologize to uh Commissioner Singum that we ran late with our earlier discussion. So we weren't able to have the uh interpreter here for the full time. So >> I'll let her know. >> All right. We appreciate her being here and we're sorry that we ran late with everything else. We'll do better next time. >> He says that's okay. That's fine. >> All right. Have a good evening. >> In addition, I think I would just add is if I remember correctly from the racial equity strategic plan, there's quite a bit around, you know, representation within the workforce and things of that nature. That would be data points that we would want to absolutely see, right? And I think in addition to that, things that I would be interested in is who's being promoted, who's um being given access to stretch assignments, um you know, applications, interview panels, like these types of things representative of kind of how internally the workforce is being developed, right? And then I think that there are also community engagement things that we could be looking at as well. I also want to mention that there's the community survey and that's a a source of data that we hope to be able to to utilize. My um uh day job is in program evaluations. So, I'm hoping to take a look at um I've looked at the survey questions and we're hoping that that's a a data point that we can take a look at to figure out again establishing baselines of how folks are engaging. >> All right. Other thoughts, questions? Uh, Council Member Schroer. >> So, when the finance commission was brand new, I was like one of the first people they put on it. So, I totally understand being a brand new commission and having everybody on it brand new and not being on a commission. So, the learning curve is long and so, you know, I I understand that. I just want you to also understand, don't get frustrated if it seems like it's taking time. That's okay because the city is complicated and the community is complicated. So, you know, yes, we we obviously will understand that, but we want to make sure you understand that and and and give yourself that that grace to um take the time to learn uh in that piece. So, yes, I understand that. And then when you talk about engagement, um even back when I was uh new on that commission, engagement was always something that came up and it was always difficult how to do it and how to do it well and and I you know that that is another very difficult area to get into. So not only are you new, you're taking on some difficult um tasks to do. So, I'm very much looking forward to hearing how you're going to be um and I know you're engaging internally with the departments, but the um community engagement piece I'm also going to be very excited about to hear how you're going to be approaching that. So, again, thank you for being here tonight. >> Uh Council Brown, >> hey, uh thank you for all coming tonight. I took the time to watch from, you know, last meeting which actually you were here not so long ago and so there was a handful of meetings watching. I could definitely see some growth. I know you know last meeting we discussed the possibilities having you as a committee instead of a commission to allow as council member Shore said to uh grow and start you know uh crawl walk run if you will versus just having you as a commission having to run. I am happy to say that watching those meets I can definitely tell that you've definitely are grown and starting to run those meets. I think you've done a wonderful job chair running that meeting. I would encourage you to uh step up even more and really take charge of those meetings and to run them and really determine your own agendas and the things that you want uh eching with council member Sher, you know, start looking at some of that inclusion piece and how do you get more of that engagement with the community and bringing forth some of those items. I think you saw with the EDA meeting here too and we ask a lot of questions of staff as well of like whereas Liz gave some clarifications. I really encourage you to do the same with the the test that you have with the commission of your staff leaison as you know those challenging questions to see because the residents of Rose County on that um you got to represent them just as we represent u residents of Roseville. I think doing that will allow them to or result in a really good overall fabric of as you said of Roseville. So that's up to you. I think it is a lot of growth in just those past three meetings and definitely starting to run and look like a commission as well. And council member Gra, >> thank you for being here and um what a great presentation. Hearing all your voices was just really good to hear how you divided up some of your tasks and how you all spoke to the mission and the commitment of your commission. Of course, these are all things that are near and dear to my heart. So, I appreciate the work you're doing. And I would echo the comments that yes, it takes some time, but you've done a lot in two and a half months. So don't forget the work you've done and build on that. Of course, uh cuz sometimes we're looking down the road so much and feel like we have so much in front of us, we don't remember that we've done a lot in the past, too. So I just think your presentation was uh really really excellent tonight. I appreciate it. >> Great. And just to to top the to put the cherry on top of the Sunday, um I I think all of us on the council I I I think I can speak for all of us saying that we we've made some really good choices in the appointments that we've made for this commission. Uh and um we've hopefully we we it's because we've learned from uh from past experience and a couple of efforts in this area that haven't quite worked out as well as we had hoped they would. Uh so I think that's testament to all of you. uh you know, of course we love to take credit for it, but it's really you who are learning to work together, learning what the work is and how to work together, uh and be effective as a commission. And so we really do appreciate all that work that you're doing um to to live up to our expectations and and I think you're doing, you know, as has already been said, doing a a great job within the short time that you've had to had to come together up to this point. And um you know uh I we will still give you the grace to to occasionally uh perhaps uh to stumble uh to occasionally maybe get off on a wrong track and have to figure something out. Uh because I think we know that that's part of the process. Uh uh and so we're we're very confident that ultimately uh this can be a successful effort uh because uh in no small uh measure because of the work that you'll be doing uh and as you go forward. So, we want to make sure and be that support that you've asked for. Um, and don't hesitate to uh come to the council. You know, we have the official annual meetings with commissions, but by all means, if there's something that you discuss in one of your meetings that you need clarity from us or you need some support from us uh with whatever it might be that you're doing uh or asking for uh that sort of thing. uh please uh you know uh you know adopt a resolution and and have representatives come to the council and make a request for whatever it is uh and let us know what uh what we can do to help. I was kidding about that adopt a resolution but but have the conversation come to a conclusion and then uh send forth your representatives. We we look forward to a good working relationship and I think we all as a council want to do whatever we can to make sure that that's the case. >> Thank you. Uh, anything else we need to cover this evening either from a commission perspective or from the council's perspective or should we just leave on a good note? Mayor Row, I would like to say that Antonio Montes has been a fantastic staff liaison for us and the progress that we've made has really owed a lot to the support that he's given us and the effective grounding that he gave us in in uh the functioning of the city and how all of the departments work and he's just been a great guide. So, I just wanted to shout that out. >> Well, I appreciate that. Thank you for that and thanks to Antonio for that good work. Uh we're just setting the bar really high now, right? So hopefully we can all live up to it. Uh well, thank you again uh for being here for this first joint opportunity to speak together and we look forward to the continuing working relationship between everybody on the commission and the council and the the city and the community. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Enjoy the rest of your evening. >> Right. I'm not sure we need to necessarily take a break to to sort of disassemble the commission here, but we'll pause a little bit just to get everything sort of back in place in preparation for our next uh agenda item uh which is item 7B uh and that is to uh discuss uh potential for pro close excuse me close proximity building regul relations. Try to say that one a couple of times fast. >> Yeah. Right. >> Um uh and with us this evening to bring this item before the council uh is our community development director, uh Janice Gunllock, who's been involved in a number of discussions uh with a particular uh development in the community that have has brought forward this uh issue for the council's consideration. So, I'll turn it over uh to Miss Gunlock for that introduction. Welcome. >> Thank you, Mayor Row. Uh members of the council, I do want to first start by saying I am not a building official. I am not a building code expert and I know our building official really really wanted to be here for this conversation but a family commitment um wouldn't allow him to be. So um I think I've got a good grasp on this issue. So I'm just going to give a really brief presentation and then I'll attempt to address any questions you might have. So, um, the residents of the Enclave, which is the detached town home development over on the south side of McCarron's Lake, has requested that the city enact regulations regarding structural stability of foundations built in close proximity to one another. And in this particular instance, close proximity is 10 ft. Um, these detached town homes are built um at 10ft setbacks from one another. Um staff has indicated the city cannot enact any regulations that are more restrictive than the building code. And this the building code is a a part of state statutes. And um the way that is written and we did provide the statutes within your packet um it basically says and I'll I'll quote right from the statute. The municipality must not by ordinance or through development agreement require building code provisions regulating components or systems of any structure that are different from any provision of the state building code. Um, HOA members have pointed to regulations that exist in the commercial building code, but these homes at the Enclave uh were constructed under the residential building code where those commercial standards don't actually apply. Um, HOA members have also pointed to the city of Minneapolis where uh close proximity regulations have been incorporated into their city code. Um, we did look into that. the city of Minneapolis did get those regulations approved by the state building official. And so I'm going to refer back to that um state statute, the same one I read that says you can't enact regulations more restrictive. It also says that a municipality may with the approval of the state building official adopt an ordinance that is more restrictive than the state building code where geological conditions warrant a more restrictive ordinance. And so the city of Minneapolis went through that process with the state to get those more restrictive ordinances um adopted. So, city staff did reach out to the state building official to inquire about what Roseville could do um to enact similar regulations. And the state building official was uninterested in engaging with Roseville on a Roseville specific regulation, but they did commit to submitting a close proximity regulation to their technical advisory committees who would consider adding it to the residential code with the next residential code update which is slated for March of 2026. Um, we understand the technical advisory commissions have met and they've recommended a close proximity regulation for incorporation into the next residential code and we did provide the language that they put together in the packet of materials that were provided to you. Um, so with that, we wanted to bring that information forward to the city council to make you aware of what is going on. Um, the HOA members have asked that something be adopted and we wanted to advise the council that we think it is best to wait until the state takes action on the updated residential code to determine whether or not that close proximity language gets incorporated and then um if it does, we understand the path forward from there. If it doesn't, we have a Roseville specific path that we could engage. Um, I have some more information, but I uh would rather try and answer any questions that you might have. And I know there are various members here from the HOA who probably want to speak as well. >> Right. Thank you, Miss Gunlock. I I think you did a a perfectly adequate job. Perfectly good. Um, well, I I realized after I said adequate that wasn't high enough, so >> wasn't horrible. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, it was a it was a good job. Um so so that uh thank you. Thank you to my uh my team of supporters. >> Um I I think definitely you know this this type of of uh regulation makes some sense because of the fact of of literally the close proximity. I I think certainly it is a unique situation in this particular development in Roseville which did receive a variance to our code requirements to have the zero setback on one lot and then the 10-ft on the adjoining lot. Um, and as I think about this, I I think that one of the challenges becomes the notion of if you're trying to protect a a foundation structure on the adjacent lot and your foundation is right up against the lot line, what might have to be done to shore up or whatever is, you know, by its nature going to have to happen on the adjoining property, which I think if we had thought more about that perhaps at the time of setting up that arrangement, we may not have have done that because of the fact that it seems like it's a bit of a challenge to do things on an adjacent property. So, I just wanted to maybe get a little bit of feedback from from you as a as a a regulator in this area and certainly in terms of how we do our codes and and this was a variance as I said, you know, had we to do it over, might we have done it differently just on the basis of what we've kind of learned up to this point? >> Yeah, thank you, mayor, for bringing that up. And we did include the resolution approving that zero foot setback variance as part of the packet. Um I think there was conversation about what could happen in that 10 ft and um I don't think anyone necessarily envisioned the excavation issues that would occur with the foundations. Um I am not disputing the concerns that these HOA members have. Um the the the thing I keep coming back to it is the responsibility of our staff to uniformally and fairly enforce the building code across all of the city of Roseville. Um we can't veer from that authority because um of a concern that's not uh a geological condition. And so if you refer to the state statute that talks about when cities can go outside of the state stat outside of the minimum requirements, we have to view something geological that tells us to do that. And in this case, we didn't find that. So yes, going back to your original question, would we maybe do this again? Probably not, just based on the um concerns that have been raised here. But that was a unique development in the sense that it was zoned for medium density residential and the number of units that this development produced was actually one less than the minimum density requirement under medium density. So I think as a city we were really struggling with how does this property proceed in the best way for development based on that medium density residential without you know being too dense um while still meeting the requirements. and we had to actually get a comprehensive plan change for one teeny tiny lot and the Met Council made a big stink because we were one unit shy of the minimum density requirement for medium density. So, there's always sort of this give and take on um how we enforce our regulations in service of our zoning code, in service of the building code, and in service of the best interest of the community members. >> Right. Thank you. Uh other council members with questions for staff. Uh council member Power. So the it's before the uh state building um work group they recommended going forward. Now it's going to have to be taken up by the larger body uh before this can be adopted uh as part of the official Minnesota state building codes. There's a lot of process involved there and there's no guarantee or no assurance that that's going to actually take place. Correct. That they will adopt it and that adoption. We won't know whether there when would we know if they adopt it or don't adopt it. Right now, adoption of the updated code is scheduled for sometime in March of 2026. Um, the building official and I were looking through Dolly's website on Friday to try and see if an official schedule has been published, but we weren't able to locate anything because those technical advisory committees are still meeting. >> And if they choose not to do that, so that's what roughly six months from now or sorry, it's a lot longer than nine months from now. If they choose not to do that, then comes back to us, you're looking at additional times. So, do you feel that there's nothing that we the city can do to help the these residents? >> I don't think there's anything the city can do as it relates to enforcing a standard that's more restrictive than the building code. >> In your conversations with the building inspector, they stated that or sorry, building official, uh, they say they didn't want to make a Roseville specific one. Was that kind of definitive or going back? I mean, obviously Minneapolis did it. I think that's all the municipalities and uh the state has done that too or was a door really kind of slam closed on that idea. >> So I did not directly have the conversations with the state building official. the building official did. But based on what he has represented to me is that um you know the city of Minneapolis is a completely sort of different city with different sort of issues that demand this kind of requirement being enforced there. I think the state building official said so un they have a process they need to follow follow in order to do city specific regulations and they didn't want to undergo that process if there wasn't something specific or unique in Roseville like the city of Minneapolis that demanded us to do that which is why they were like well let's if if this is needed in Roseville this is probably needed in all communities so let's just go the technical advisory committee route to ask for it to be added to um the residential code because there wasn't something specific a geologic condition or or something like that that um would motivate them to do a Roseville specific approval. If for some reason it doesn't pass, we can revisit that. We can revisit it with the build state building official at that time. But until then, residents are kind of hoping that excavations don't hurt their their existing foundations. >> Yes, the builders will have to um be careful >> as we as we saw that sometimes doesn't happen. Uh, and then do you think if we passed an ordinance requiring an additional step like a clarification as part of like excavating next to an addition adjacent property just noting we already have excavation plans a number of other plans we use those to builders use those to communicate what they're doing so then we can uh your department can actually issue building permits. Do you think any anything that we add as an additional step counts as a um increase in the building codes such as just documenting or noting uh mitigations they may take place or they may take as far as protecting adjacent foundations. >> So I think it would depend on what we're asking for. Um, if we're asking for mitigations for something that might happen related to a building system or component, I I think again if it ties to a building system, a building system or component that is regulated under the building code and we're asking for something more restrictive, the building code says we can't do that. >> Right. Which is correct. But in the things that you in the stuff the excerpt that you quoted um there's also at the end of that state building code also noting that uh protecting and maintaining existing structures and existing building systems. I think that's where maybe we get some of this confusion, right? We have one system, right, which is being developed, the new home being excavated and constructed and then we have an existing building system which is one that's already there in placed. So, we're in this kind of and I believe the state building code statute here is, you know, open to interpretation there and there'll be some discussion, but we have both. We have one under development that's brand new and one that we're maintaining and protecting. I wonder if there's opportunity there if we put something in the process to say simply note what you're going to do. That way if there is some kind of issue that's going to happen uh or some issue or something happens with the builder causing problems to the adjacent uh structure or foundation, there's some kind of something to help the homeowners go against the builder as well because there was something that was documented. Obviously, the city can't get involved. The city's not, you know, liable for those kind of situations. We won't take liability for that, but that stuff would help protect the existing residents and homeowners. And I wonder if there's opportunity for us with the statute as there. I don't expect an answer, you know, right now because that needs some interpretation, but I'm wondering if that's something we should pursue. >> We haven't. >> Well, I think the attorney may want to take time to investigate. >> I would also not ask our attorney to make a decision on that right now. I >> I would defer to the attorney and and what the requirement was. A couple of other things I wanted to note that I didn't note in my presentation. When somebody applies for a building permit, um the contractor is required to have a license issued by the state. Um and then we also are required to verify that they have valid insurance. And those two steps do one of two things or both things. um allow a homeowner who's been harmed by the action of a contractor to file a claim with the state's homeowner recovery fund and or to file a claim against that contractor's insurance. >> And that requires our building official to sign off on that. Correct. Before that can be applied. No, a homeowner can make a claim through the homeowner recovery fund with the state um without our building official signing off on them filing that claim. Now the state building official and the processes that they undergo to investigate that complaint, they do go back to our building official to figure out if the building code was adhered to or permits were if permits were applied for um that kind of information. Uh, other questions uh from council for staff? Uh, council member Strong, >> I just I'm I'm really sad that we're in this situation. Um, I recall being the only person who voted against this. I didn't know anything about foundations, so I still am not claiming any major expertise. I was really more worried about um how one has part of their house that they have to maintain with a zero p zero foot setback. Um, I think if we were in a position to be able to do this and be able to apply it across the board, um, I think it's a great idea and I also think that maybe in it doesn't help the folks involved right now. But if we were a little bit more firm about what our policy would be moving forward, whether or not something not allowing that zero foot setback or if that would impact things, maybe it wouldn't change anything here, but if we more and obviously there's always times when there are exceptions that need to be made, but in a um development of this size, maybe that's not a time to make an exception in this regard. Um, but I just think maybe it gives us an opportunity to uh learn and grow from this experience. And I I would hope that that would be very small solace for people who are living through this really un unfortunate um situation right now that maybe someone else wouldn't have to be. But I would think that if the building official is willing to hear um you know, I think we should move forward with it if there's that doors open at all. But if it's not, I I don't see how we can legally go further um without at least our attorney finding a loophole or some way for us to move forward in a way that doesn't potentially damage the city. >> Right. Other questions for staff. All right. I know we have a number of members of the public who may wish to speak to this item. Uh and so uh this would be the opportunity for that at this time. uh just remind folks uh the sort of the rules of the road for public comment. We do have a three-minute time limit per speaker which I try to enforce uh generously and gently uh uh while at the same time firmly enforcing it. So I'm not sure how that'll work, but uh I also do want to note that um uh we ask that you in you start your comments with your name and either street or address uh for the record. Uh if you have a name that's not uh something that is going to be fairly easy for somebody to spell, we do have a sheet there that you can write your name on uh perhaps after you're finished with your comments uh just so that we've got that for the record. Uh direct questions uh and comments to the council if there are questions that are brought up uh that we need to follow up with answers. We'll do that sort of at the end of the comment period at once everybody has had a chance to speak uh and also uh everybody gets one uh chance to speak uh on a topic here. So, uh, keep that in mind. And if you do, uh, have more information than you can cover in 3 minutes, which you can cover a lot in three minutes, believe me. Um, certainly you can follow up with, uh, written information to the council. Uh, with that, we have our, our first public commenter up, uh, right away. So, appreciate that. Uh, welcome. >> Thank you, Mayor Dan. Uh, fellow fellow city council members, uh, city manager Patrick and attorney Rachel. Appreciate it. First, I my name is Catelyn Barstad. I'm a resident of the Enclave at McCarron's. um on McCarron's Place West. Um I'd like to thank both city staff and council members for uh having this on the agenda from when um we first brought this up back on April 14th. Um I would also like to state for the record that our goal here is not to slow down progress of development in Roseville, but we are asking that development be done in a manner that best protects the safety of the existing residents. Um, we absolutely appreciate the effort that's been made by the by the staff um to try to progress and move this forward. We agree with the proposed code change that was uh the language that was provided in the R41.5 um that was provided to you in attachment 2, but we do continue to have concerns around the timing um the delay of it not being able to be adopted until March of 202 um 2026. Um, as Janice had mentioned and quoted, Min State Minnesota State Building Code site under their statutes says, "A municipality may adopt an ordinance that is more restrictive than the state building code where geological conditions warrant a more restrictive ordinance." Um, we'd like to better understand what those geological conditions are. I don't know if this was submitted to the city when the developer approve got the approval, but there was a geological study that was actually done by an engineering company. We'd like to submit that to the council and the staff for review. Um, I think there's information in there that in there that could help warrant uh this particular clause being applicable. Um, I know when I first approached you guys on April 14th, we were in the front of a lot being excavated. Hindsight is now 2020. I'm sure you've all heard about what happened on lot 7. Um, and the the concern that we have here is that there's no guarantee that when the main water line was broken by the excavator and the rapid water flow caused soil to be eroded, there's no way that the city can guarantee that foundation walls and footings were not compromised. So, um, I want to just bring that to your attention because that was exactly what we were trying to prevent from happening is that soil would be eroded and foundation walls would be um, compromised. I also just want to remind the council members that there is no insurance company that ensures against movement of earth. So this is very much um something that concerns all of us here um in potentially what it could uh expose us to in financial risk. Um lastly, I just was curious about what the purpose of building codes are and I thought it was interesting that I came across the main purpose is to ensure health, safety and welfare in the construction and occupancy of homes. So, I just want to leave you with that information as to why this is very important to us. And I would ask that the city staff would um continue to see and discuss how maybe we could get this adopted sooner because March 2026 is 9 months away. So, I appreciate that. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for your comments this evening. >> Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? Hello and welcome. >> Good evening everyone. My name is Susan Plet. I also live on McCarron's Place West and I just have a short item to bring up. It is at the bottom of attachment one of the um extract of the minutes from the city council with the resolution on it. It's item B. It says the homeowners association shall prohibit new structures and additions to the principal structures that reduce such a sideyard setback to less than 10 ft. I would just like to raise the impractical impracticality implausibility of our doing that. Our homeowners association and architectural control committee does not currently have ability to um regulate builders and that's why we look to the permit process for enforcement of code. So I'm just raising that concern. >> Right. Thank you for pointing that out. there members of the public who wish to speak to this item mayor and council. Thank you. Um my name is John Barstead. Uh 217 McCarron's Place West. Um if I may, um my background, I've got a bachelor of science and civil engineering. Been building for almost four decades. Uh targets the reason why I came into town. worked on UHG properties and so forth and a lot of data center work and I can tell you data center work failure is not an option and that's kind of way I look at construction where especially with construction um is so expensive and it's a burden if if it's not built well it will cost homeowners usually a lot more than what they inter um paid for. One thing um with this uh uh u code adoption I want to um I wish the equity inclusion was still here because I want to give him credit. Uh the gentleman that was chairman he mentioned you got to build on a good foundation. That's the same with any building that you have. And one thing um as Kat mentioned with this geo report uh the developer had this nine months before he made purchase on this. Um he got it on April of 2020. So he knew well in advance what he was going to get into from the geological standpoint. And you really need to um from a building standpoint classify the soils to know what your bearing capacity is going to be. It's not so much I want to say the walls but it's the bearing capacity that that foundation sits on. and the event that occurred on April uh late April during the excavation where the water man broke flooded that trench um uh and I don't know what happened if it impacted the bearing capacity on that soil um uh I don't believe it was pumped out before it was backfilled and so I don't know what testing occurred but time will tell if it's going to hold up if settling occurs and this is a risk especially what we found out there's no insurance policy that covers for that kind of, as Cat said, movement of earth. So, any owner that experiences that apparently is going to have to rip apart a house and rebuild that, paying probably more than twice that amount in what they built that. So, that's very concerning to me. the Minneapolis uh um code that was adopted. Um I don't know if they had to go around and get state um uh advocate with the state to get approvals and so forth, but it took them 45 days from the first reading that was presented to the city council to when it was approved and adopted. So 45 days Minneapolis was able to get this pushed through. And um uh I want to give uh some credit to member Straw. Um, I read the minutes. You nailed it. Especially with your uh um residency in Minneapolis where they're 5t from one another. It's Yeah, maintenance tough when you're 5t apart, but it's a lot difficult, a lot more difficult to build when you're 5t apart, too. And I appreciate your insight at that point in time. I understand you weren't thinking about the build process, but more or less maintenance, but thank you for those comments in the that uh um February 22nd, 2021 uh meeting there. >> I was one month in >> and um and so I'm hoping that there there must be a way to expedite this. If Minneapolis was able to do this, um why can't we? because of um as I say the the platting of this is putting 20 sardines in a 10 sardine can it feels like and you really just need to look at this effectively and and smartly and then um the uh um other aspect I want to say regarding the recovery fund that was brought up recovery fund from Dolly is um um what I have read in research currently it's like $550,000 per contract one time that you can tap in into that recovery fund one time. And if there's multiple projects that are uh in error and need correction, that 550 is spread across all those projects. So, you're going to get something rather than nothing, but that's a one-time deal. And I don't know what happens to that contractor's license from Dolly, but um in order to tap into that recovery fund, and I've checked this from uh legal advice, you have to have a judgment from an attorney, from a judge to claim that, but you can't recover that until the following year once you've made your repairs. So the owner's again still on the hook uh to make the repairs and they can't get insurance to cover that, but you can get whatever a dollar amount recovery apparently the following year. So just want to make sure uh the council is very well aware of the process in that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? All right. Um we'll close the opportunity for public comment. I think uh as I've been hearing the the the comments uh one of the things that that seems to me is that there's there's sort of the general building regulation issue and then there's the sort of what happened with this water main break and what do we know about it and and I'm just wondering from a from the city perspective um you know what what is required to deal with the break like that one happen clearly it's an emergency situation but I'm presuming that there's there's there are things that have to be done to mitigate a break like that and to make sure that we understand the impacts. And so I'm wondering from a city perspective what our requirements might be in that regard. Um because it seems to me that may be something that we have that we can talk more about than perhaps the general building regulation as specific to this particular instance. Um so I wonder Mr. Trean if you have have the ability to answer that or if we can otherwise get some staff. >> Uh thank you Mr. Mayor. I'm not sure I can exactly answer that, but we can go back and uh review what we've done and share that with the council and to the neighbors uh as well. And I think we've had some conversation with that, but I would have to go back and really um talk to everybody and and look at what we did when that when that occurred. Obviously, the first priority was to shut off that water man. So, stop it, but then but I think you're talking about the after effects and how that impacted neighbors as well, >> right? Well, and I'm just thinking about if we have a water main break under one of our streets and we've got to we've got to make sure that we do a repair on the street that's drivable and is going to be, you know, able to be functional going forward. I'm assuming we have some standards that have to be met in that regard. I'm just wondering if if if a water mane break happens sort of on one of these developments on a property, what you know, what do we have standards? Are there other standards? just to understand that a little better because you know maybe that's something that we need to we need to look more closely at in relation to this situation because you know absolutely I can understand the concern specific to that event you know not knowing what's going on um you know I would like to I would like to hopefully be able to to have a better sense of that so I just I wanted to sort of separate that from the from the more broad discussion because maybe that's something that we can look more closely at and have potentially maybe maybe not something more to to be able to do in regards to >> Sure. So, um so we we will um go through that information and share that with everybody here. I I would suspect it would probably more be on the building code side of >> issues when when you have um impacted soil that with with moisture, but I I that's as far as I want to go. I'm not even sure on that. So So I would like to take a look at that. >> For sure. Sure. But I I would it just seems to me that that there ought to be uh some kind of standard that has to be met in mitigating or or um um remediating the situation once the break the emergency of the break is stopped >> uh before Phil is put in and some things like that. What are the steps that have to happen? You know, even if we find out there's maybe nothing we can do in regard to that, but just understanding what that process is would be helpful for us and and maybe for the residents as well. Um so I just wanted to note that. Um, I did wanted to double check on if I had made a note about any other question that came up just to be sure. Uh, so I'm presuming that the city, if we haven't already seen it, would probably appreciate getting that geological study that was done um to have that. Okay. So, if we've got that. So, um, just wanted to follow up on that. >> So, you're requesting staff to take a look at that and see if it meets the requirements. I'm just making sure that if we if because the offer was made to provide it to us and I was checking to see if we had it or if we need to get it >> in the room but right we have that >> Mr. Fryhammer, do we have the geological geological study that was done prior to the enclave development that the developer had? >> I believe we have a copy of that. >> Okay. All right. Um, so to the extent I think the question that was raised by the residents was if there's anything in that that tells us anything that might be able sort of to be the thing to hang our our hat on in terms of local regulations because of that clause about the geological conditions. Um, something to look at. So I think that's a follow-up item if I understood that. All right, I think that hits the items. Um, and you know, as far as the the the the clause in the resolution that that put a put an onus on the homeowners association, I do understand that the association may have been set up by the developer sort of prior to there being homeowners. Uh, and so the developer may not have uh been diligent about making sure that something to that effect was in the HOA, you know, documents or whatever. So certainly that is something that uh that the association would want to try to assert going forward uh in your in your existence. But uh but I I it was it was very interesting to note that and thank you for pointing that out. Uh other thoughts from the council or feedback uh maybe to staff on on this item going forward. >> Council member Bower. >> I'd be curious to know what the rest of the council thinks, but I would be defested in investigating, you know, nine months out. I'd be curious for you to do two things. One to see if the door really is shut on making a Roseville only thing. I think the secrets events if we can use the geological study as the thing as you mentioned to hang your hat on, that does make the most sense. There's already there, you know, law there for that. Um, if that's not met, I'd be interested to know if the door is closed to do something that's Roseville only. Um, as far as, you know, adopting the wording that they have that they're proposing from the working group uh earlier for us. um especially since it's already been adopted maybe to you know cover the time gap that currently exists. So, I'd be have interested to have staff look at that and find that answer. And then if that fails too, I'd be also interested to know, can we put something in um as I mentioned earlier as part of the building permit process just to say to list out what the mitigations are and that would be an investigation um you know with attorneys to see if there's opportunity in that Minnesota statute uh for that >> as far as not having a requirement in our code per se, but more a requirement for documentation of something. >> Correct. And my ar my argument and assertion is that doing such is not a creating a more restrictive building code because such an action an ordinance is not a building code ordinance. It is much more of a a procedural thing procedural item. But that's where I would need some clarification. >> So whether we could say require that as a as a >> piece of information that goes with the permit. >> We have other things although there aren't other things. There's you know tree ordinance things like that. I wonder if we could put something else in there. The tree orance is different. So, but we have these tree orance falls on something else. But I'm wondering if we could just put that there. This way we can maybe help the residents with if there is something catastrophic that does occur there is something that's a document that was an agree some kind of agreement in place that they may be able to use to better help their civil suit. >> Right. And I don't know whether it would be an agreement necessarily or or a plan of some sort, but usually I'm guessing what we require for our permits has to be tied to the things that we regulate. Um, so I'm not sure about that, but if the if the request is to get some feedback from staff and our legal counsel as to what we may or may not be able to put in in that regard, again, that's if that's the request because I think there is because we're in a situation where we have the statute says an existing structure and building systems and also new and we're in a situation where we have both, but statute I believe is written thinking there's just one. So I'm not sure if that's feasible, but I would be curious to do that as a stop gap if the other two do not happen uh till like >> I think at least uh unless there's any objection of the council, we can request more information about what we can do in that regard. >> Yes. And I I think it's uh important to bring the city attorney in that to have the official guidance on that. So we'll we'll work with Miss Tney to uh walk through the issues. I think she's somewhat familiar with it, too, but we'll >> and I'll be happy to discuss it with you as well. Right. Okay. >> Anything else from the council? >> All right. I think we've got a few things that we can we can take a look at. Um so, uh with that, so just to maybe to summarize, um see if there's a way we can adopt the proposed state language earlier. Uh talk about whether there's additional documentation requirements we can make as part of our permitting process without necessarily those being code requirements that we can't do um in contrary contrary to the state. and then also look at the geological study and see if there's anything in there that um maybe is something we can look at under that exception under the state code for something local. Uh and then also the discussion about mitigation of the original the water main break that they had and what was or wasn't done or what we did or don't don't require u as far as how that's handled. Mr. Mr. Treasure, >> uh just just the clarification on that. Um the last part about if there's geological conditions, my understanding is the state building official still needs to approve that. >> Oh, understood. I guess the question is, is there is there something in that study that indicates quote unquote the unique geological conditions >> that allow us to request something Roseville specific from the building inspector, the building official different than you know what their preferred process? Thank you. >> Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. I think we got it. >> Thank you again to everyone who is here this evening and the council for the discussion. Uh council member Stron, >> did you want to take a break? All right. Yeah, we are past our 8:00 break time, so we'll take about a 5m minute break. >> Yeah. All right, we're back from a short break here uh and ready to take up our next item on the agenda under business items. Uh this would be a consideration of possible changes to the city streetlight policy and we have our public works director uh Jesse Fryhammer with us this evening uh to bring this item uh for the council's consideration. Mr. Fryhammer. >> Uh thank you, mayor and council. Um, Roseville street light policy was most recently adopted on March 4th, uh, 2024. Uh, it was intended to support public safety by providing consistent, equitable, and technical sound lighting, uh, throughout the city. Um, at the request of council, staff, uh, reviewed the city streetlight policy to evaluate if it would be um, appropriate to add a petition to allow residents to request removal of an existing or uh, proposed street light. So, I'm just going to give a real quick presentation on kind of some of the information we found. Um so really our standard street lighting just a real quick review is real uh really just at intersections curves and marked crosswalks. Um with the the the new policy there's 146 new installations that would be proposed for uh intersection lighting. Um crosswalks that we had I think we did 15 or 16 of them were done in 2025. Um and then the overall plan was to install uh the intersection lighting over the next 5 years. Um, so we did notify everyone in the 2025 notification. Um, we did hear three locations that had some concerns and I think that's why we have the topic before us. Um, in terms of the street light removal procedure, we don't currently have anything in the ordinance. So there's really no the the only uh way to do that is go to have a council decision on that. >> So we did reach out to um um all the cities in Ramsey County. We didn't hear any direct feedback from any of them having a a process to remove uh intersection lighting. Some do have it for midblock lighting. Um you know, if you have one every 600 ft, that seems to be a pretty consistent one, but most cities consider intersection lighting part of their standard and what they require for safety. Um the only two cities that we did find um locally there's Minneapolis. They have a a very detailed policy. Theirs is extremely detailed. Um they have a lot more variety of lighting than we do. Um a lot more lighting than we do. Um but their street light policy bit has a petition process to do it and then it's based on a level of lighting. So I did include that on the right. That's kind of the chart they have and then kind of their procedures that they have. They do have a very high threshold. It is 100% petition of everyone who's on that front footage. Um so it is still a very high threshold to do the removal and then it it relates to a light standard. Um, the city of Morehead also does have a petition process. They refer back to a street technical committee. I'll say it's more of a procedure because their technical committee says they're going to review it to make sure it's meets consistency. So, if it says you're supposed to have one on the corner, it's on the corner. It's still going to meet the policy, but they do have a process to review. I think that's in case maybe there's too many lights per block. Uh, but that was their process. But, like I said, none of the um adjacent cities in Ramsey County had anything specific to to removals. So, with that, I will open it up to any questions. Um, certainly uh answer any questions the council may have or look for any direction uh council may have on on this item. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Fryhammer. Uh questions from the council, Council Member Strong. >> Thank you. Um when you looked at the ability to have people remove it, was there any subsequent uh request to have them put in? Are you aware? So maybe a 100% of the neighborhood in one area said let's not have a light but over 10 years time a bunch of the people changed hands and now those people wish to have that light reinstalled. >> I guess I don't >> we didn't ask that question. Um I said most cities considered it part of their standard lighting. So they don't really ask if it goes in. It's their policy says lights go at intersections. they install it either with a development or as part of a street reconstruction or whatnot. >> Um I know previously our previous policy had it was basically asked to put it in. One of the reasons we did uh draft the policy as is is so we're more fair on where the lighting is. So it's not only if people who ask get it. um because there was a um I think we had um I can't remember I can't remember if it was a 100% petition to get one in, but that would have precluded some areas that potentially could have had lighting, but if you didn't have all your neighbor support, you couldn't get a light. Um but that way it was more standardized on what quality of lighting we have at intersections and crosswalks. >> And I probably should recognize council member Grath because this is the item that he requested before the council. Thank you for your indulgence. >> Sure. The reason I brought it up is I I did only get contact from people that did not want the lights. And there weren't very many. I think this would be a an exception. I don't think this is something that's going to have a lot of people contacting us saying we don't want the lights, but the one is is on the corner of Marion Road and the frontage road for the freeway. And I I included a picture of the the freeway light there because the light we would be installing would be just across the way from that. that light is considerably higher. It just seems like a lot of redundancy. So, there are some places where it would be very redundant. If you used a light meter, it would be way more light if you're talking about safety or walking or anything that that whole area is lit up already. So, uh that is the reason the uh resident there asked for it. And I think 100% of the people would sign that and say no, we don't need a light here. Why spend the city money if it's not needed? It's just a a small amount of money perhaps, but they see it as a tiny way to save money. I think the other thing is um it's just good when we're making policy to have resident input on something and obviously they have the standard ability to do input, but when they feel that things are decided for them and there's no way for them to appeal for us to make a reasonable decision after the fact, it kind of bothers the residents. So, I'm just bringing that subject forward. And also just a, you know, street lights. Do we need more things that are visual clutter if they're unnecessary? Um, and then of course there are the costs that are involved. You have to replace street lights. We could make the street light budget go a little further if we didn't place them where people really don't want them. So, those are the arguments I've heard from residents and uh that's why I asked for some mechanism from the council. Maybe it could go before the public works department there. A light meter could be used. And if it's already meeting the light standards, do we really need to to put one in that that area? And I don't think it would take a lot of staff time because like I said, I've only had three requests. >> Other thoughts from council members or questions? Council member GR. >> I think that's even I think it's an interesting point council member Gra makes. I do like the idea like if there was a you know some threshold meaning that enough adequate light was made in an area that maybe that was allow for an exemption and an opportunity for residents in those areas to um you know not request a street light not be placed there. I think that is an interesting thing especially from what you're showing here with an existing mind dot light right there. So, I'd be in favor of having Lake Works Commission taking a look at this. >> Your thoughts? Uh, Council Member Sher? >> Well, I do like I mean the idea is we really need to make sure we can measure something. So, if it is based on is there light already there that's easily that you can say, "Yep, it's this whatever lumens or whatever it is." And if because I think that's probably we don't we um if if that's the standard in there I think that would be easier because you want to make sure we don't make it difficult for staff if we um have other um vague reasons in there. So I think we want to make sure it's very measurable. So I think that that's important and keep it narrow. >> I think that's that's the other piece too. Right. I did have a question uh and I'm not sure to whom this will be directed. Maybe Mr. Trean to start with. Are is there an appeal process for I know under the board of adjustments and appeals we oftent time handle appeals of land use type decisions. Obviously the installation of a street light is a public works decision. I'm wondering if that's something that's also appealable to the city council already in our code uh through some sort of either the board of adjustments and appeals or if it has you know or if it's just a more general appeal of of city actions. I don't know if we know that but I would be curious to know more about that >> without the code in front of me. Certainly the board of adjustment appeals deals with zoning issues. Um there are other opportunities that are stated in the code for a variety of things in position of fines and things that can come to me, but that's very specific. Um not sure where this would fall and and perhaps Mr. Tierney has an answer now. We would have to take a look at that to see if there's any absolute ability to do that. >> Nothing's coming to mind that jumps to me, but sure statutes that would allow or >> Well, and certainly we could put this in our policy. That's the easy the the easy answer I guess is to put it in the policy for this particular issue. Um just a couple of observations. Uh one is I get very concerned about providing people the opportunity to opt out of safety requirements. >> I think that's I mean the reason we have this policy is for safety at our intersections and to start to say well some intersections we don't care if they're safe. I mean that may be an oversimplification but you know that's that's kind of an impression people could get. And I think there might be some concern about that. Um, and I will say that I did drive through that area fairly extensively in the dark uh one evening earlier this year when the issue came up. Uh, and uh without street lights there, local street lights, those 35W lights do not light the street. I've drove it and I parked and I turned off my headlights and there wasn't anything coming from the 35W lights. They do a great job of lighting 35W. Uh, and I'm sure that they're visible to residents from their windows. They can see this light source on the top of the pole. But honestly, when you're along that street and there's no light source from your car, it is dark. You can't see other people, you can't see land features. Um, so I would be concerned about providing an exception in this particular case because of that issue, but more broadly because of the notion of sort of providing exceptions to safety. Um, if we tied it to something, a metric, maybe I might look at that. Uh, but I I would want to make sure that it's not a metric that every single situation the city meets because that's not it's not what we're looking for here. Um, um, so I I I maybe I'm going to be the the the the spoiler of the party, but I I would not be in support at this point of putting an exception in uh just based on those observations and the notion of what this policy is. Council member Schroer. Well, you know, now that especially since you say that um the safety has got to be number one and yes, it's the residents, but it's also other people who might be walking or driving through there too. They would have an expectation of it being a safe area as well. So, so you make a very good point. your thoughts, uh, council, >> I guess I would have to say living on that block, that particular corner I'm talking about is lit up and I do walk that area. I don't know if you stopped there at that particular corner, if you stopped a block away, which the where they have installed the light, it was necessary because Acorn Road is a dark corner because of the way the curve goes there. >> Yeah, I know. I looked at several because you're right, there was because of the road project in that area, several lights were installed earlier or late last year whenever that project was done. Uh, but I did I looked at those locations as well as the locations where there aren't lights right now and specifically along the frontage road next to the next to the uh noise barrier. Um, yeah, it was it was pitch black when I stopped and turned off my headlights and that was right at that intersection. >> Okay. >> So, um, but there's a perception because it is very bright >> in your peripheral vision on the other side of the sound barrier. That's why I would tie it to something like um a light meter or something because I think the way our eyes work is not the same as >> that. But and and as far as safety goes, >> they would not be walking along that freeway wall. I can assure you if people do walk at night, they would walk along the residential side, >> but that's not an area. It's one way in and one way out. So you don't have people who don't know that area driving around in there. That's why it's only this one thing, you know. Yeah. Except for the mayor. um to check it out, which is a good thing. But that's why I think it would be very not used very often. And I would just like some mechanism >> that had a measurement involved that would allow people that had that much light to say >> we don't need it here. >> It would be interesting to to actually do some measurements in that area and just see what what we do see because I mean certainly I all I can report is my perception. Um, but I mean I was thinking if somebody was walking along the intersecting street and came to that corner, I would have no idea if they were there in that situ. Obviously, I would be driving with my headlights on, I should be clear, but I but that's the case across the city and we still require street lights for safety at intersections because of the potential for lack of visibility of somebody until they get into your headlights and those sorts of things. So, um, like I said, that's my concern, and I definitely don't want to sort of just have a a get out of safety free, uh, card, so to speak. I think we need to be more thoughtful about whatever we might put in place. U So, if there's if there is some sort of standard we could tie it to and we could understand what existing conditions are, you know, I we could talk about that. I'd be okay bringing something back for for some consideration, but um, I'm highly skeptical at this point. a standard of lumens or something that's a light measurement that's recommended. I if they have that available. I didn't see that in the packet, but I would like to know what that would be. >> Sure. And there is something in the Minneapolis policy, I think, along those lines, but council member Strong. >> Well, as someone who generally walks after dark because I can't seem to get my act together before that. Um there are certain streets that it is scarier to walk on because it's very dark and you're like, "What is that over there?" um you know I'm generally walking with someone else and two dogs but um I do think I think we as far as safety it shouldn't be if you ask for it I think it should be part of it so I think if there was an opt out I think it should be a specific if you abut um harm mall then you probably have enough light um coming into your property and you probably have a light there anyway but um But I do think that just making sure that we have it equitable. And I'm more worried about over time if we don't put in a light or we take out a light that the makeup of the neighborhood would change. Maybe there'd be a severe incident that would happen in that neighborhood. And suddenly everyone's much more then we're reactive than proactive. And so um I can certainly see um situation by situation. Jesse, are you able to um bring back that the light year the year where they were >> the map where they're because we don't Yeah. >> Yep. So just in maybe just more intentional about where the plan is, but I would not advocate for changing removal um of mid u mid street lights just because I think we can be as conscious as possible about and I know we do a good job about trying to make them be down lights and we you know make sure they're as safe as possible and I know there are people who don't want city lighting But we don't have sidewalks and by and large and so I'm walking on the street in the dark. >> Mhm. >> Um and so I, you know, I'm relying and often I'm out there with the deer and the rabbits and everything else, but I'm just I'm also relying on there being a consistent safety standard on any block that I walk on, not just, you know, the ones that I know are, you know, going to be the same. And I I would want that for everyone else who might be can't get their act together before 9:30. >> And is definitely this plan is almost exclusively intersection lights from what I can see. >> Correct. It's only intersection lights. That's really the only true standard lighting we have is intersection lights. Midblock lights um as the policy indicates are desirable and should be considered for placement if uh the spacing between existing lights is greater than 600 ft. If the above conditions are met, an individual property owner may be a petition, a um circulated petition is 60% consensus, then it could get built if it meets the standard. So, for midlock, >> for mid block, so mid blocks aren't guaranteed. We know we have a lot of longer blocks that do not have midblock, but since it's not standard lighting, we don't just put those in. >> Um the only standard lighting is intersection lighting. >> And I wouldn't see this as someone requesting removal of lights because for one thing, I haven't heard of anyone asking for that. I'm just seeing it as if there's not a light there when they're notified if they could prove or or could ask for a light meter to be shown >> standard meets the standard of of lighting that would need to be installed. >> So, I guess from the technical point of view, this may be a question for staff. You know, is is there a standard that our overhead intersection lights have to meet as far as the lighting of the of the area? >> So, we don't we refer to Excel. We just work with Excel. They use I can't remember what watt LED at the intersections. They do a little higher level in at busier intersections like county roads. Um so we could work with them on what the appropriate number is. I I don't know. Looking at uh ex um Minneapolis example. I don't know if that's 0.3 to 0.6 is the appropriate number. I'm guessing it's going to be somewhere around there because that's a residential area. I'm assuming that's at an intersection. Um we could certainly investigate what that number is if Excel. Otherwise, you know, if we do go down this road, we can see what the average inter residential intersection in Roseville is >> to make sure it's appropriate. >> Roseville intersection. >> Yeah. Let Roseville intersection cuz like I said, they're just they're all they're typically all done with the same traditional uh light. Like I said, unless it's a larger intersection, then it has a larger one. But a residential is like a 15 watt LED head fixture. >> Okay. >> So, that is feasible. I mean, it could be feasible. and then we add a chart like this or something that that could be an option. I think you know if we can come back with some information for the council to take a look at we can we can consider policy unless there's unless there's objection from the council any >> council or what >> well I think it should come back to council since the council adopted the policy >> that's fine I was just getting clarification >> because I think we we're looking for information I mean if we want to then refer it to the commission I suppose we can do that but uh >> since we're started the conversation I think it might be more sense to do it here. Okay. >> All right. Staff have an understanding of what the council's looking for. All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. >> All right. That brings us to item 7D uh which is under the area of finance which is to uh have our first look at the uh 2026 to 2045 capital improvement plan otherwise known as the CIP. Uh and we have uh with us this evening our finance director who's been uh patient and waiting through a number of other items uh to bring this item before us this evening. Welcome Miss Petri. >> Thank you. Um at the deis you will see three sheets of paper which have um updated numbers simply because when they printed the numbers were too large. So hash signs printed. All right. So, so this is your preliminary look at the 26 to 20 to 45 CIP. A CIP or capital improvement plan is a long-term plan for replacing city infrastructure, facilities, vehicles, and equipment. It includes assets that are necessary to maintain current city programs and services. Key assumptions are that city programs will remain at current service levels. also contains a number of assumptions with regard to IA asset life spans and replacement costs. However, departments do look at their items each year. This is the first step in the budget process and departments will update the values to today's value. They will also move projects back if they don't need to be replaced at this point in time. And if there are vehicles or projects that are failing that are scheduled in out years, they will bring those forward. So, the 20-year plan um is totaling $260 million of expenditures. City of Roseville is one of the few cities that does a 20-year plan, and I generally advise people don't rely on numbers beyond year five because we do not know what inflation's going to do. However, this is a $26 million increase from last year's plan or an 11% increase. Some of the changes in funding sources that are being proposed include decreases in the administration equipment fund, the finance equipment fund, and the central services equipment fund. We evaluated the needs in those three funds and there are sufficient reserves to meet at least the next 10 years. In the case of the finance equipment fund, there is a large expenditure out in 2040 that will likely continue to be moved out. That's the replacement of a finance software system which we just implemented. But those generally get replaced every 15 to 20 years. The total CIP breaks down into the city functions as shown in this chart. The largest chunk of our infrastructure is in the water and sewer funds and that also includes the storm water fund should say the utility funds. Um streets and pathways make up our next largest area of CIP that would be roads and paved pathways. Looking at um the CIP over the course of the 20 years again you'll see the utilities fund is the largest number other than in year 2042 facilities takes a huge leap and that's for the replacement of the refrigeration system at the ice oval. The funds that are in the utility funds cannot be used for tax supported funds. So this chart is strictly looking at those funds which are supported by property taxes and you will see we have funding for the next nine years at this point in time. So, some of the funding strategies that we've internally discussed, some have been proposed by the council. Um, we did make some minor adjustments in the tax levy. City manager Trojan and myself were looking at potentially increasing tax levy in a few funds and at this point we have decided not to include that. Um, we will be looking at the utility funds. Um the CIP projects are factored into the utility rates and Ellers who did our utility rate study last year did use our existing CIP. So we will be bringing back utility rate adjustments later this fall. Some future funding strategies that will need to be considered in the next few years are increasing property taxes to a handful of funds, potentially issuing debt to fund certain capital asset replacements, and in the case of the Oval continued ask from the state to be included in the state bonding. >> And if I if I could just jump in here, one thing that isn't on here, but um I'm aggressively pursuing is franchise fees. Um in fact, I'll be meeting with Representative Excel on Wednesday and see how much we can sort that into this budget cycle here. So that's another alternative funding strategy that if we were able to implement that, we would be able to shift some of that levy that's currently going in into the operation sides to forstall a levy increase. as a sustainable process. So more to come on that but uh that is also something we're very seriously aggressive. >> So some additional considerations with look examining the CIP um the funding strategies should be considered in conjunction with the operating budgets. We do adopt a total budget which includes both capital and operations. The city manager's recommended budget and CIP will pre will be presented on August 25th. The preliminary budget/CIP and tax levy is scheduled for council approval on September 22nd. The council must adopt a property tax levy by September 30th. Continued work does occur after September and we do bring back a final budget and CIP with a final tax levy at some point in December yet to be determined. Um, as a reminder, our truth and taxation hearing can't occur in November unless you move your meeting to a date other than Monday. Um, because unfortunately the Monday meeting is a day too early um, according to state statute. >> So, and that's all I had. >> All right. uh questions for staff on the next 20 years of capital needs and funding >> and and uh you know I'm sure that Miss Petri would really love a detailed question about a particular expenditure in a particular fund in a particular year right exact in year 19 exactly council member Sher for that >> come on okay I and I and we have had some interactions already so I will once again not do 86 questions while I'm sitting here. But um and thank you for printing these out again. I think um I was probably one of the few that noticed the little X's because you know I think that was in in year 19. So yes, I did notice that. Um and before and and the France fees I'm glad we're re reviewing that because just about every Cindy up when I was up in Duth almost every city I talked to was doing it already and everybody around us is. So it's not it's not unusual. So thank you for doing that. But um the the one thing I did want to ask was you especially in the water fund and the sewer fund and you've mentioned it in a few places about the idea of possibly doing uh debt to pay for some of these big projects. Mhm. >> Um I thought it would be interesting to see if we could take the our um spreadsheet and put that in and say if we decided to do debt as uh on a couple of these, what would that look like for the funds? So that would be something I'd like to request is to see what that would do to the um the numbers. >> And council member shorter, is that beyond what's already been shown there? >> Yes. Yes. because she talks about that, you know, in here you may consider bonding or you may consider long-term de debt and then under one of your strategy as it says possibly use a debt financing for longer lived assets. So I guess my it's almost like doing a little modeling around it just to see some of these especially it's it's mentioned in a couple of these funds but how would that and obviously then you have debt and you have now you have to pay for >> that but how how would that look if we modeled that in? Yeah, based on the discussion, you know, from last meeting, uh we will be doing that. We haven't officially started doing that, but we'll be looking at other funds where there's um >> big expenditures and where it would be advantageous and just kind of test it a little bit, see how that would look like. So, >> more to come. >> I'd like to see that if Yeah. when you do that. >> Yeah. The one of the dilemmas with with issuing debt like for tax supported equipment is you do have to actually raise the tax levy to pay for the debt service. So I played around with it a little bit but need to spend a little more time modeling that. Um and in the case of the utility funds, um at one point in time, Ellers had recommended bonding for the water fund specifically and I do believe also the sewer. Um but then based on rate increases, based on cretailment of actually doing capital projects, our reserves had gotten to a sufficient level that we didn't need to issue debt. And you know, we do have utility rate increases programmed. So when the council does make the decision not to increase a rate in accordance with the study or to in fact decrease the rate like we did last year in the storm water fund that could impact the funds potentially further down the road. Um so I'm trying to model that as well. um whether we stick with what Ellers's recommended for utility increases or whether some of the funds we can bring in with a 0% increase this year. >> Well, and that's especially, you know, with Eller suggesting possibly using bonding and also the finance commission, but I've been thinking about it too and and it's hard to know unless you actually do the modeling what because you're right, there's there's pros and cons to it. So that I guess that's what it comes down to is let's let's if we could do some modeling on it and I'd be interested in seeing that. >> Yeah. Certainly in the water fund there's a fairly big expenditure >> right >> in 28 that might >> you know >> whatever that those series of projects are some portion of it could be done with debt. >> Exactly. >> Because that helps the fund >> stay more even. >> Yes. >> In the following years. >> Yep. >> Council member Gra. Thanks for getting back to me on those couple easy questions today. I don't need to go over those, but I just wanted to speak more to what we're discussing right now about the issuance of of debt or or bonds. And and just to reiterate that if we did use that, it's for larger items or for things that are amvertised over a long period of time like 10 or 15 years. It's not some small amount to fill a little thing because there are costs involved in that >> that will make it not worthwhile. And I think that's what you've been saying. Am I correct? >> Yes. Um, you do not want to issue debt for operations. You do not want to issue debt for assets that don't last at least as long as the debt issue. >> Hopefully longer, >> right? >> We do try to be very aggressive with keeping our debt schedule short. Um, and you'll see this next week when we actually issue the equipment notes for the fire to pay for the fire engine. >> It's almost It's like a It's a mortgage kind of. >> Exactly. That's what I was thinking. >> Yeah. I know. So, exactly. You want the item to last longer than the >> You do. Yeah. And it m It's Yeah. If you think of it as like a mortgage, that's exactly how you want to uh use debt. >> Yep. in the in the as it's been described I think even by our finance commission it's um you know having future rateayers pay for an asset that they're going to be using as opposed to sort of using savings which is past rate payers paying for something that they may or may not be using you know correct but anyway so that's another way to to think about it as well but you do have to pay for the privilege >> right >> the interest rate is is the cost on top of the the asset itself that that those future rate payers yeah >> uh council member Bower Do we need financial modeling as well for the uh franchise or using the franchise fee as well? Be curious to know how you're you know you don't have to answer now, but I'd be curious to know what you're thinking of using that for to offset and maybe modeling that as well. >> Yeah. Um thank you uh council member Bower. So the first thing is to understand kind of what we would potentially get in the range of costs. Um, and I think, um, at least in my mind, I'm primarily looking at the street fund, um, to put transfer that dollars. We put what, $1.1 million of levy >> every year. >> Every single year. And if we are able to cover that with franchise fees, that does free up significant portion that can be repurposed without having to raise the levy. So, that's where I'm at right now. Um I I've tried to do some back of the napkin estimate of what that uh amount is. I would guarantee it at this point. We need to sit down with Excel and get a better sense of and and we do have some um ability to you can do a percentage my understanding or a fixed dollar amount. Um most cities seem to do a fixed dollar amount per account. Yeah. >> Um so once you kind of get those account numbers you can start calculating a little bit better. Um so so yes that would we would be looking at that then okay how much can we raise and where would that potentially go and then from there we make some informed decisions as my recommendations but also your final decision what you want to do and there is a process to set up an ordinance and all that stuff but that that can follow after get some analysis done it's worth pursuing thank you >> other questions uh council graph >> just a thought on that so when you do it on a fixed amount is that considered more like a regressive tax because it's not a percentage. >> Um I I I I suppose so. Uh you know, depending if you do what I've seen like three or four dollars per month uh to an account. Um so whether you use a lot or or not, income doesn't factor. Everybody's treated the same. >> If it's a percentage of your utility bill, then >> again, that might not be t tied to their socioeconomic status. This is what their what their use is. Um my understanding um is most cities have done the fixed fee and I I don't know exactly what the rationale is. >> Thanks. >> Well, and I did come from a city that used the percentage franchise fee and the reason they stuck with a percentage was because the homeowner had the ability to adjust their consumption if they so choose. But the percentage worked out to a couple bucks on the bill anyway. So >> yeah, I mean that's that would be interesting to to sort of think of it from both perspectives because it you know the flat amount may end up being as you're saying more adversely impactful to, you know, smaller users. So yeah, it's kind of like what we look at with our with our fees on our water and sewer, right? the the base fees, you know, want to make sure you're not being excessive with those for for low users. >> Um, I did have a question on the sanitary sewer fund. So, I remember I should I should use my old man voice. >> Yeah, I remember. >> Maybe I use that every day already >> back in the day. >> I I remember a time when we we actually were transferring money from the sanitary sewer fund to shore up the water fund >> because the water fund was struggling. And then I open up my 2026 to 2050 or 2045 uh uh CIP and the sanitary sewer fund goes negative in two years. >> Y >> what what did we do wrong? >> Well, that was about 12 years ago. Oh. Um, that's part of it. >> But but um when we did the first utility study, we did it for um water and storm and then when we did the next update, we did include the sanitary sewer fund. Um just to remind you, there was a um 0% increase for two years in this fund. >> So that's one contributor. The other contributor is that this is the end of the public works curtailment of capital projects. We because this fund did have a problem and then we we adjusted the rates and public works went to a bare minimum on their projects. um they have we're now at the million2 um number that they need for sewer relining and the cost of the sewer lining has increased significantly. So they have a a plan they're supposed to be doing x number of miles every year. They were only doing this many miles instead of this many. So, so we'll have to look at the rate increases for that fund. >> Just out of curiosity, I don't know if Mr. Fryhammer can answer this, but uh have we have we crossed the threshold where lining is now not as advantageous as as excavation and replacement or are we still significantly higher for excavation and replacement? I'm guessing I know the answer to this. >> Lining by far is still the way to go. Um costs have gone up dramatically since COVID. Um mainly because I think there's less supply. Um but yeah, our costs have gone up dramatically and um I I don't think we've raised that line item since like 2015. >> So which is why we requested it because I think I don't have the exact number but it was like 240%. The costs have gone up since since 2015. >> Ah okay. So um we're be more diligent in our updating of our costs. >> Yeah. So we we've kept it flat and as Miss Petri had mentioned, we did curtail it for a couple years, but we we are getting back into we want we want to be proactive. One of the reasons we do lining is if we're proactive enough, we don't have any large issues and have to um you know go fix something underneath. Uh we're really right now proactively trying to line sewers underneath uh trunk highway 36 Snelling Avenue. Uh we don't want to go close one of them down. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Well, and we're not the only ones that are doing more of that. >> Correct. And there there's a lot more cities doing lining, but yeah, it's we we've since I've been here, um we actually had to do one recently, but we've only dug two done open trench on two for two blocks since I've been here because it is so much more cost effective. >> Right. Okay. All right. Thank you for telling us what we already knew >> or thought we knew. >> Or thought we knew. Yes. >> All right. Other questions for staff? Uh certainly this will be coming back with more >> information that we've requested as well as as as staff continues to evolve the uh the the information here. Uh but I'm encouraged because certainly um you know that that significant amount that we've been putting into the street fund. I mean it does probably go a long ways towards helping some of those other funds where the annual expenditures aren't too high but we're really running negative pretty soon in the future. So if we can we can look at some ways to to shore that up. I think that would be that would be uh great and and certainly as we mentioned at our last meeting with the franchise fee that the the pool of payers is a is a broader pool than the property tax and so that has some advantages to it as well. >> Anything else from the council on the CIP this at this time? >> All right. Thank you again, Miss Petri, for all the work you guys do. >> All right. That then uh brings us to a discussion of uh our youth commissioners and attendance policy related to that. Uh and I'll turn it over to Mr. Trean to introduce this item which was uh brought forward by uh Council Bower. >> Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just real briefly, as you mentioned last meeting, we did talk about this about making sure that uh we understood what the attendance expectations were for youth commissioners. We do currently in code in 201104F uh have the out uh outlines the attendance policy um which we believe is for all commissioners but maybe that's where we need to get clarification to make sure we we state that that absences whether excused or unexcused are treated the same and if they miss three consecutive meetings in a row or three consecutive meetings goes without saying and then or more than 30% of meetings in a rolling 12-month period the staff leaison working through me will share that information with the city council. That does not mean it's an automatic um dismissal from the commission. The coun uh by the council the council can consider that or they could just take that under advisement here. And uh as I looked at the code or the yeah the code myself, you know, if if there is lack of clarity, we should probably really state that this applies to youth commissioners and probably under 201104F where it says um is the expectation that commissioners, you know, maybe something as simple as including youth commissioners attend all meetings of the commission. Now, there is there's a conversation to be had that do we treat commissioners, youth commissioners differently on the unique role. Uh they're younger folks. They have maybe different responsibilities such as school uh and things. Um but there's probably a balance, right? You don't want somebody appointed that doesn't show up, but you also want to have an ability maybe some flexibility. So, so just saying all that to set it up. I'm not sure which direction you want to go and and council member Bower certainly may have some thoughts on this too, but um if it's clarity, I think it's very simple addition of words. If you want to have a different level of expectations, we should talk through that then. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Trean. Uh since Council Bower had brought this forward, I'll I'll >> sure if I brought it forward, but I know I brought uh brought it up >> brought it up close enough. Um yeah, and the reason I brought it up is because I think there was a situation where there was a few more absences in one of the u commissioners, youth commissioners, which we did ultimately um reappoint, and I think that was the right thing to do, but it just brought up this kind of open-ended this question of what to do about these uh absences. So, I'm comfortable with, you know, as city manager noted that it's not an automatic you miss 30% of your meetings in 12 months that you're remove commission whether you're a youth commissioner or um an adult commissioner. And I think that's the right thing. I think in a lot of these cases um there's situations there circumstances that come up. So, I'm a little bit hesitant to just making a hard and fast rule for this. Um there's all kinds of things that can happen and I don't think there's a need for that. Um, and I think we should maintain the flexibility. Uh, and if there is some confusion with the youth commissioners, maybe making sure that that applies. I I brought this up uh because it was ambiguous with what this meant with the youth commissioners as well. So, it may just be that this is, you know, nothing needs to be changed here, but I definitely don't want to put something more restrictive uh on this for any commissioner or any commissioners. >> Sure. And I can see I could actually see non- youth commissioners arguing that they've got a lot of demands on their time too and and they would like the same amount of leniency as well. So yeah, it's a it's a it's a balance for sure. Um you know, as I read the code, I think it it you know, one could read the code that any reference to commissioners applies to all commissioners and that ought not to be ambiguous, but if we need to be more clear, we could certainly be more clear. Um, I would be okay with with some clarity in that regard. Um, certainly, um, I'm not necessarily interested in adding additional attendance requirements for youth commissioners are more more stringent. Um, um, so certainly we'd be okay with being where we're at. I don't know what other council members thoughts are. Council member Schroer. >> Yeah, I I that's how I read it. It was for all um, commissioners. And actually the way I also read it is it's just information for us to have >> and actually if if say a youth or anybody is missing a lot that gives us that opportunity to have a conversation then and say hey is there something you know we need to help you with or whatever. So it's it's really I made it I see it as more it gives us more information and and that it doesn't say that we will absolutely do this or that. So, I I I would be um comfortable leaving it the way it is. >> Um and I should clarify one thing, too. Uh this is information that's provided by staff to the city council, not in a council meeting or in a packet >> other than at the point of reappoint, there is a summary of all the members that are up and their attendance history. But if there is somebody who's having an issue with attendance, that is brought to the council offline. And as you were saying, there are things that can be done probably mostly at a staff level offline to to work with members on that. Um, Council Member Strong. >> Yeah, and I appreciate that comment just because of privacy. You don't know what someone's going through and I I think I'm comfortable with leaving the attendance as is just because differing from um an adult commissioner, a youth commissioner may not drive on their own. they may be dependent on a family or a shared car or school obligations that they can't control. So I think um when we had none I really appreciate having some and tonight we saw the advantage of having the contributions um and so I want to make sure that we don't make it so impossible for someone you know 100% attendance required you know they may have a job and other things too. So, we tend to get the folks who are involved in a lot of things um because that's the kind of kid who wants to do this kind of thing. So, I think we need what I what I noted though was I didn't see anything in the ordinance itself about the voting which we had decided that the youth commissioner could be a voting member or not. So, I didn't see that written out specifically in this advisory commission. Was that intentional that we omitted that >> or some it is in the policy? >> In the policy. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And that's also where the where the background check aspect of of adult members and commissioners commissions with youth and things like that. That's all in the policy part of it which wasn't in the code. >> I believe is there a carveout for the planning commission though >> or do we not put a youth commissioner on there because that is a >> judicial >> I know we talked about that. I'm trying to recall. I think in the end >> I don't I'm not sure we did. Did we have a carveout? Do you remember at all? Should we have it carve out? >> Well, I think because the because it's at the commissioners and families option to opt into voting, that's a part of it and we'd have to look to see what we said about specifically the planning commission. But I think you're right. There's >> there's something related to that because it's a statutory, >> right, >> thing, right? There's like they can count towards quorum or >> those things. Council member Grath. So, I would agree with the comments that have been made. Um, I do want to have some leeway for young people that are learning. Uh, it it's a different group of people than someone who's a 30, 40, 50 year old professional who's used to, you know, meetings being important and all that. Um I would like us to have the chair or maybe the staff leazison reach out to the people uh before it comes to us as an issue so that we under understand if someone's having family issue or you know whatever their issue is that there is some leeway there and I know we have that written right in here that may you know we use the word may so before we ever did that and I think that's what we've done in the past mayor is we we've gotten more information before We we don't kick people off the commission, >> right, >> lightly, >> right? Well, and I think, you know, in the CA it was interesting in the case of the particular uh youth commissioner reappoint, uh I think it may have been a bit of a surprise to council members that that person had missed five or 10 meetings or something like that. Um, and so that the system didn't quite >> work in terms of getting the information to the council >> offline and and so and I'm not, you know, certainly it's not about, you know, saying something terrible happened there or anything, but >> uh, if I could, two things. Uh, one, I was going to address that there are mechanisms and they're good mechanisms and we sometimes fall short of that. So, we're going to reinvigorate that system to make sure there's there's that knowledge in there. So, my apologies for that because that's not something that I want to see. It's very clear in the ordinance and it's more information sharing and so we've fallen short on that. So sorry about that. So measures to make sure we do that better and consistently. The other thing I just got a nudge uh from somebody watching out there uh that we do not appoint uh youth commissioners to planning commission and police civil service. >> Right. That's the so answer the question. >> Got it. Got it. Thank you to that person. >> Yes. >> Someone who has his phone number. >> Right. And I I do want to recognize an opportunity for public comment because uh we have a member of the public who has been patiently waiting for that opportunity for us to be quiet so they could speak. And so I appreciate that and welcome you this evening. >> Yeah. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council. U my name is Amanda Lraange. I call Roseville home on Irene Street specifically. >> Um and I really appreciate the comments that you've all made about the importance of our youth commissioners. uh as a member of the equity and inclusion com commission um there are two pieces that I really wanted to celebrate around youth commissioners and the first is around the insights and benefits that they bring to our commission and the perspectives of so many youth but also so many folks connected to the school system that our commission would really be missing out on um without those commissioners. I also think back to when I was their age and I think of what an incredibly informed citizen I would have would have been with such an opportunity and so I think um there's an amazing opportunity for these youth but also just for our community more broadly um for investing in them and so as many of you have commented chances are the folks that are willing to say yes to these commissions are most likely the folks that have said yes to other obligations and the flexibility that's needed um just as kind of a no-brainer to make sure that we can continue to have um really rich perspectives on these commissions. So, appreciate that you all seem to be aligned and um the bringing of the kind understanding and flexibility that's needed for to continue investing in these youth. So, thank you. >> Great. Thank you for your comments. Appreciate that perspective >> and thank you for waiting. >> Right. >> You're welcome. >> That's that's part of being engaged. Sometimes you got to wait till that thing comes up that you want to talk about. >> We wish there was a way we could do it all simultaneously, but we're not there. >> All right, I think we've covered this item. All right, then. Uh that brings us to uh no minutes this evening. Actually, that brings us all the way down to future agenda review. Mr. Trean and Mayor and Council, I'll be really brief. You know what's in front of you for our next meeting. We have a very lengthy agenda. Uh some topics we know will have interest uh from the public here. So, uh, we will try to make sure we can expedite things that we can, uh, the best way we can, but certainly we want to make sure there's ample time for you to deliberate and for the public, uh, to, uh, weigh in. I know we sent some initial information to the council previously, so you have some background on that, but the case will contain that full amount of information there. Um, after that, we have two meetings in August, two official council meetings in August, the 11th and 25th. The 20th once again is the date for the uh commission applicant interviews which I think we're just trying to fill one vacancy on PWE. Then you see the September meeting. So I'll have a little bit more detail at the next meeting about the August 11th meeting. We have some topics that we can certainly uh add to that. 25th um two things um to note there that city manager budget u which um you all are aware of and we also anticipate um actually I should uh okay I do have it on here last bullet point. Uh we are bringing forward the request for proposals for the final design for the maintenance operations center license password studio schedule we talked about today at the um um August 25th meaning we're looking to uh authorize the release or to >> sorry so like >> 21st we're to release it and to award thank you on the 25th of August to award that contract couldn't come up that way. So, so, so just so just to anticipate uh that and then uh if assuming we go with that then uh we'll off to the races to get some of that design work to be underway. That's all I have at this point. >> All right. Thank you. Uh questions on the future agenda or initiated items from council members. >> Uh question on a future agenda. It was noted that we might have a meeting in November that's not on a Monday. Is that something scheduled? If not, can we get that scheduled so make sure? >> Yeah. Yeah. Um thank you for bringing that up. That's something that we noticed that we going to have to address. We'll try to tee that up. We can still have the meeting at the at a regular schedule November meeting. We just can't hold the truth in taxation. So, either >> we do it on the same night, December 2nd, or we do two meetings in December. So, we'll we'll frame that up for you all and you guys can have that conversation. >> Didn't we talk about this when we adopted our meeting schedule or did we just punt it? We >> did. >> We mentioned >> I thought we talked about >> we mentioned it time at the end of last year. >> Yeah. I yeah I I don't think we we >> unusual for us to punt something like that. >> We we'll teed back up and and and and have the conversation. You have some options. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure >> calendars are free. >> All right. Other questions on future agenda items or council leaison reports? I did want to note uh for the benefit of the council just very quickly that uh um you may be aware of the fairly substantial incident at McCarron's Park uh I think on the 4th of July weekend >> uh and um there were a number of questions raised and I had just forwarded some questions to to staff for some followup and asked that the council be included in the in the information that's provided. So just want to make you aware that that would be coming. Uh, council member >> and one other uh note uh myself and council member Sharter had the pleasure of touring the new uh St. Paul water facility and they are actually uh serving water out of uh a portion of that starting I believe Tuesday. Is that correct? >> Tomorrow. >> Yes. >> Tomorrow is Tuesday. >> You're both right. >> All right. Uh and that's the St. Paul water facility on the other side of Rice Street in Maplewood. >> Yep. They did a major major major project over the last several years to update their facility and change some of the way they treat the water and hopefully make it better for all consumers and also more cost effective to operate. But >> right so good >> and better than what they have right now. So water should be even more award-winning. >> There we go. On that a high note uh we should note the only other item on our agenda this evening is a motion to adjurnn. So moved. >> Second. It's been moved by council member Grath. Uh second by council member Stron to adjourn. No discussion on a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. We are adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Only 4 minutes behind schedule. Thank you. >> How about that?