today. It's not today. >> I don't have right here. Hereby call to order the Roseville Economic Development Authority for Monday, uh, September 15, 2025. Uh, Mr. City, Mr. Executive Director, would you call the role, please? >> Member Sher >> here. Member >> here. >> Member Bower >> here. here >> here and with us at the deis we have our city attorney on my right at the end Rachel Tierney and our city manager and who is the executive director of the economic development authority on my left at the other end Pat Trojan uh will make introductions of other staff and participants as agenda items come up. I would note for members of the public that we do have a complete set of meeting materials on the back table next to the exit door under the big clock in a binder that can be shared amongst members of the public. Uh that should be all the materials that the council is considering this evening uh or in this case the EDA. Uh and then also there are extra copies of the agenda on the same table that are available for individuals to use and refer to during the meeting. Um, I will also note that um, we do provide opportunities for public comment during meetings. Uh, and usually there'll be an opportunity for comment on each agenda item as that agenda item is taken up. Uh, and then at the beginning of the meeting, we also do provide an opportunity for general public comment on items that are not on that evening's or this evening's agenda. Uh, just to give you kind of a a lay of the land in regard to that. Uh then finally, I would ask folks if you have a cell phone to silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt the meeting. And with that, we'll ask folks to stand if you're able for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Next on our EDA agenda this evening is uh consideration of the of approving the agenda. And as always, I'll check with staff uh first to see if there are any changes that uh staff uh requests to be made to the agenda this evening. >> Uh yes, Mr. President. Uh we do have one removal that would be 5B, which was to authorize the collateral assignment of the development agreement and tiff note for 2720 Fairview Group Avenue LLC. There's just a few more documents that need to be uh finalized and we're still working on that. So, we're not going to be able to take that up tonight. Since the closing is at the end of the month, I would ask that we bring this back next Monday, the 22nd, for final approval of the documents. Um, we think it's pretty straightforward, but we want to make sure we have all the documents in place here. So, it's all right. We would remove that from any action tonight and schedule that for the 22nd. >> All right. Are there any changes that members of the EDA would like to make to the agenda this evening? Not seeing any. We don't have any consent items on the EDA. Uh so is there a motion uh to approve the agenda with the amendment of removing item 5B? >> Second. >> It's been uh moved by member Grath, seconded by member Schroeder. Uh any discussion on the motion to approve the agenda as amended? >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously and we have our agenda for this evening. Uh as is normally the course with the economic development authority meetings, we'll uh forego the public the general public comment at this time and we'll take that up at the beginning of the council meeting. Uh so we'll move right into our business items. Uh our first business item this evening is item 5A, which is to receive a presentation from the Rice and Larpenter Alliance uh representatives, and we have uh Kim O'Brien here this evening uh representing the alliance. and we welcome you up to the table to uh make a presentation. Give us an update on what's going on with the Rice and Larger Alliance. Welcome. >> Thank you. Uh is it Chair Row? >> President Row. >> President Row. Sorry. Thank you, President Row. Thank you, members of the EDA. Um my name is Kim O'Brien and I'm here representing uh the Rice and Larpender Alliance, of which you are a mighty one-third of. Um, I want to just start by acknowledging the significant investment by the city of Roseville over the past 10 years now in a in a community that was badly neglected for many years um both by the public sector and by the private sector. And I want to thank you because the city of Roseville has truly been a leader in stating that uh those conditions of of community neglect and and the people who live there um could not stand any longer. And had it not been for the leadership of the city of Roseville in standing strong along with our partners in Maplewood and in St. Paul and in Ramsey County had it not been for the leadership of Roseville and in managing a professional services contract or um had it not been for the leadership of Mayor President Ro here in um attending and representing the city um on the board of the Rice and Laren Alliance then I think that we'd be in a much different position than we are now today. So I want to acknowledge that investment and thank you all. Um, I've seen each and every one of you at community events in Rice and Larpenter, supporting local businesses in the Rice and Larpenter community, um, listening to constituents um, of of our neighborhood um, and actually doing things to make it better. I also want to acknowledge um executive or director Treen too for his early leadership in the Rice and Larpenter Alliance work and um director uh Gunlock uh Janice Gunlock too for her um stalwart leadership of this incredible work. 10 years ago leaders you sat together with leaders of of St. Hall and Maplewood and declared to each other and to the community that the conditions of the Rice and Larpender Gateway area were not conditions that could be sustained. Um, back then it was not abnormal to hear stories and headlines about major gun battles and shootouts in our local strip malls, pedestrian fatalities and crashes as as kids and elderly and workers cross Larper Avenue and Rice Street. Um, it was not uncommon to see boarded up buildings, um, blighted parking lots. Um it it was not uncommon and um the con the problems of the Rice and Larpender area I don't want to sugarcoat they remain. You know um while I'm really proud to say that at a community meeting uh leaders from your police department and Maplewood and Roseville all demonstrated clearly that there was a significant drop off in violent crime in the last 10 years. um but that quality of life issues remain for our community members. So the work continues but I'm incredibly proud of our progress. So over the last 10 years um some of our accomplishments together um have been to improve our roadways. So, um, changing Laringer Avenue from, you know, a four-lane road with no pedestrian infrastructure to a three-lane road with, um, designated turn lanes and pedestrian refuge islands that have made it immeasur immeasurably safer. um your leadership in supporting the redevelopment or the um reinvestment in the former Britney Marian apartments um to now with over 600 some odd units in that um to um a place where people can be proud to raise a family and call home. Um the continuation of a pathway from that um important building with many families living in it to our beautiful Lake McCarron's County Park. Um and then just across the street um in the St. Paul side um a significant and visible improvement to the parking lot that included addition of sidewalks, addition um improvement of lighting in the parking lot, reduction of dangerous driveways um and and even um our beautiful Rice and Larpender gateway sign welcoming everybody to a neighborhood we are all proud to share. Those are just a couple of the accomplishments um of our work together. And when I say our, I don't mean Rice and Larpender Alliance as in the organization I help staff. I mean the Rice and Larpender Alliance as in an organization that three cities have come together to found and support over the last 10 years. Um throughout the year we do great work in bringing community together to create moments of unity to support our small businesses to connect residents with resources that support their lives. So, we have event uh a communitywide event in each of the three cities, including at Lake McCarron's Park in Roseville. We bring our neighbors together for a comprehensive community cleanup every year. Um, and we've started a series of networking lunch and learns for local businesses and residents who want to come together and learn about resources and network. Um, those are just a few of the things that we do. I'm joined here today with by my colleague, Mai Jang. My Chi is a daughter of Roseville, grew up in this community and um came to this work with a strong passion for our neighborhood. And I'm really proud she's celebrating two years with our organization now and has led an amazing youth internship program in which local uh neighborhood kids in the Rice and Larer neighborhood get involved in leadership, decisionmaking, and community engagement in Rice and Larpenter. So I just want to thank my chi and also acknowledge the sense that rice and lpender alliance which with started just a few of us have have now become something so much greater. Um our new board of directors is representative of local businesses, local neighbors. I've been very proud to sustain the support of our uh elected officials in all three cities and in Ramsey County. Um and that strong governance and and um support from community means that Rice and Larpender Allianc's work is only just beginning. The county is now constructing Rice Street as you guys have seen in the area south of Larpender Avenue in St. Paul. That work um has basically brought to life, if you haven't driven it lately, brought to life a vision on paper that happened 10 years ago. We see a shared pedestrian walkway. We see expanded sidewalks. We'll see neighborhood scale lighting. We'll see um a much safer and greener um street. And that work um Ramsey County intends to continue. So they'll head south into St. Paul and then they'll continue north into on Rice Street into Roseville and Maplewood so that um residents of our community um can cross the street safely. businesses can thrive and we can attract more investment um from housing and h housing developers and small businesses and and create uh jobs. Um, the Metropolitan Council has also, as you know, declared Rice Street to be a bus rapid transit route, which means that transit opportunities, which have been determined to be lacking in our community for a long time, despite the significant need from our neighborhood residents, um, will be greatly expanded with reliable service and supported um, bus shelters and, um, and great stuff like that. Um, the other note I just want to say is that the Rice and Larpender Alliance, you guys have invested significantly over the last 10 years in this work and I want to make sure that you know that your investment has had a significant return. So we've been able as the Rice and Larpenter Alliance to leverage um this professional services opport you know grant opportunity this contract opportunity to draw down further grants from Ramsey County from the city of St. Paul from other cities and from philanthropy and private investment that go directly into the community. So whether that's paying our youth interns for their work so that they can come and support rice and larpenture events, whether that's direct investments into local businesses to improve facade and signage, um whether that's investments into beautifification like planting flowers um and planting trees. Um this is the kind of work. So ultimately um the I I believe the return of investment and I would love the opportunity to quantify it would probably be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Um what I'm very excited about for the next year is that Rice and Larpender Alliance, if you think of it as a a pilot project, if you will, how three cities come together, create a community organization to sustain and grow a shared vision. Um the proof is there. The community looks and feels different. Um and now but yet the the vision is far from being accomplished. So, um, what I'm excited about now is that we have the opportunity to scale our work, to scale our operations, to do more to support our local business community, to do more outreach and support of developers who share our vision for growing opportunities and job development and housing. um and and to ensure that the Rice and Larpender organization is there much beyond my tenure or yours um and that the community vision could be achieved in the long run. Um I'm hoping that this year the Rice and Larpender Alliance can become its own 501c3 nonprofit organization such that we will be more attractive to philanthrop philanthropic funders. We've done a lot of work in the development space and have prepared ourselves for that effort. Um and um yeah, I think we're at the point now where we need strong governance. We need to keep creating relationships and you know, I am I'm really um confident in the support of our municipalities to continue building on the success of the Rice and Larpender Alliance work. I would stand for any questions, but um I do want to say thank you for the the dedication you've shown this Rice and Larpenter community over the years. Well, thank you uh Kim and uh wanted to highlight one other aspect of probably the last year or so, maybe more than a year of of the Rice and Lar Alliance. And that was a a significant effort uh that we were able to receive assistance from the uh technical assistance for brownfields program of the federal government uh to do a pretty comprehensive analysis of the corridor, the the sites, development potential, um obviously brownfield uh um you know, indications on different properties um and just kind of a wealth of information that is now updated into our vision plan uh that's available for site selectors and developers and people interested in looking at making investments in that community. Uh I think that's something that sort of maybe has flown under a lot of people's radar, but I think that that can can pay a lot of dividends down the road in the terms of of you know, in fact, I think on the St. Paul said, there's, if I remember right, three sites that have been identified as as sort of ripe for redevelopment and more more analysis and specific um looks at those sites has been done uh in addition to the more general analysis of the overall area, but it's got information about, you know, large sites, ownership, vacant versus, you know, redevelopment of existing buildings and that sort of thing. And so it's just kind of a wealth of information uh that's all available at the Rice and Larator Alliance website uh for anybody who may be interested in in you know looking into that and learning more about the opportunities in that community. So I think that was something that was was was big and you know something that we I don't think we knew about as we went into this. it just happened to be that we we made the right connection with the folks uh at the federal government to be able to take advantage of that and and you know I think through some probably some connections with uh some of our board members who have uh have experience in that area no doubt uh but it's just an example of how how this organization has been able to put together information and connect resources uh for the betterment of the of that uh whole community. So I wanted to highlight that as well. Um not not suggesting that that Kim left it out or anything like that but just >> No, I think I did. Thank you. It's a big deal. >> Um but just you know people sometimes ask what is what is the benefit of the rice entrepreneur alliance? What has it done? And I think that's along with I think the significant assistance to local businesses in terms of signage and facade improvements which we've seen uh all all three cities have benefited from or businesses in all three cities have benefited from. I know we've done a lot of support efforts for local businesses um you know and and and that's been huge too and bringing business you know entrepreneurs together who may be in their first uh effort to to own a small business in a in a community and really being able to connect people with each other but then also with uh um you know those those resources that are out there. So, it's it's not just helping people in their individual lives and making those connections, but also, you know, a significant investment in helping the the business community. And I think that's, you know, a perfect tie-in with the with Kim's other role with the Sle Area Chamber. Um, you know, that just sort of has some good synergy there. So, I wanted to mention that as well, but I'll certainly open it up if council members have questions or comments. Uh, council member Schroeder. >> Actually, aren't I a member because we're EDA? >> Oh, right. Member Schroeder. Thank you. Um, thank you for being here, Kim. You know, I know we've had a number of conversations. I appreciate all the hard work you've done. I think there's a lot of people in our community that aren't familiar with this. And you talked about we there's all this work that needs to be done to get to what we're what's trying to be accomplished. Could you possibly talk about what would it look like or what would be happening if the vision is accomplished so that the people could understand what it is that this um organization is trying to achieve. >> Thank you so much. Um is it commission member >> member Schider? Thank you. Um what a great question. the vision for the Rice and Larger area, you know, remains the same from back in that community developed vision adopted in 2018. Um although I'm really proud that we have kept that updated so that it remains relevant for 2025 and beyond um through this work with technical assistance for brownfields. Um, nonetheless, you know, Rice and Larpender area is a safe and vibrant community center um, for the people who live there, many of whom are young families. It's one of our most diverse and densely populated parts of the entire region. Um, these families choose Rice and Larpender Alliance to raise their families because of the proximity of the beautiful parks, because of their proximity to job centers, because of their ability to access transit, because of a safe, supportive, and diverse community full of amenities mostly created by other community members running small businesses like grocery stores and restaurants and service providers. There's local community banks. Um the Ryzen Laboratory revision envisions um additional affordable and um market rate housing, a mixed use of housing because we have found that the population of Rice and Larpenter has exploded, but very few new units of housing have been added to the area. So, um a mix of housing including um single family home ownership all the way to you know um medium density uh market rate and affordable housing for families. Um we envision um more jobs for community members. Um more entrepreneurial office space for the community members who want to start and run businesses. Um this community is full of amazing independent locallyowned businesses. many of whom are minorityowned businesses or immigrant-owned businesses and they contribute so greatly to the fabric of our community and also to their own families and their own staff. Um so I envision more and more spaces for those businesses to start and grow um and for um family supporting jobs. um when when Ramsey County has the opportunity to um come up through Laringer Avenue with the road reconstruction, I see a safer Rice Street and um a healthier rice street with more greening, um more pedestrian amenities. Um, I see a community that whether you are an apartment building at um, McCarron's View or a single family home on the lake, you consider yourself part of a beautiful lake community in Roseville. Um, so yeah, I I see a a neighborhood that's home to tens of thousands of young families and and working families who are contributing and proud of their community. >> Great. Thank you. >> Other questions or comments? Council member Strong, >> I just wanted to say again, thank you for the work that you've done. Um when I was in college, I lived on at um on Rice Street, right off of Rice Street. And uh I recall Rice Street being four lanes, two lanes in each direction that could go 55 to 60. I'm not sure that was posted, but I definitely remember um that being the way. And so you would never want to walk near the street. would never it just wasn't conducive to walking or biking and I remember having a bike and wanting to walk and it was not a possibility. But I also I know it's been a couple years back now, but just the work um to get that grocery store in as we um as a long-term problem property um was we were able to get that closed. And I see in the age of strip malls being vacant and boarded and sitting empty for eons and eons. Um, I mean, I can only attribute to the work that you and the community that you've built that's helping you build this community there that um, we don't see that in those properties and that they look like a vibrant space because even way back when um, it wasn't necessarily um, there was kind of islands of things, but there was a lot of space in between where it wasn't conducive to spending time and certainly not as a family and um, I bike around the lake quite often And um it's an amazing assortment of people from all over the world, all ages um who get to appreciate this space. And I appreciate that just being an extension of that neighborhood. It doesn't matter if you live on that side or this side or where which address you're in. It's just a place where everyone connects and I I really appreciate that as someone who gets to use the space. So thank you for your work. >> Oh, thank you members Jan. Appreciate that. >> Other questions or comments? Uh, Council Member Grath, Member Grath, >> thank you for the work. Obviously, there's I was surprised here 10 years. It has gone fast, but in some ways it's gone fast. I know it's been a lot of work too because we've all been involved with the different um volunteer opportunities you've provided and I think those are community building and I just want to call those out because they they're kind of nuts and bolts things but you know just the uh the trash collection events that you have it makes the area more beautiful and it's something you can do together and you can see the results of it at the end of the day. So I think those are those and also the uh the art project at McCarron's Lake when we did the mosaics and I know that council member uh at the time and I were there putting up those pieces and it was like at first I thought oh this is going to but it was really fun and it was kind of a uh you were interacting with the other people from the neighborhood. There were kids there and so on. So I think some of those are real strengths and I know we're not finished. Um, quite often these these types of things are actually never finished because there's always another goal that we could accomplish, but I think we have come a long way. And the last thing I wanted to say is to thank Mayor Ro for all his work on that because you did a lot of lifting with that organization and as a member from the beginning and reporting back to us. So, I appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Member Grath. I literally have seen all of you at Rice and Larpender community events. I I'm sorry you didn't call on me, but but I it's really inspiring to see local leaders um give back directly in the ways that you all have. Um you all have I'm looking even at director Trean. Um so thank you. It's really meaningful and I believe that this city is a true leader in coming to the table um to make not only start the rice and larger work but to sustain it and I'm not sure we'd be there without your leadership. >> Well, thank you and uh thanks to everyone uh both on the alliance staff as well as all the volunteers. The young people are amazing. I know for sure we wouldn't get everything done without without them. So, they they deserve a special round of applause and appreciation. But uh but no, I think it's you know, it's one of those those uh efforts that it it's, you know, sometimes when you have another meeting to go to, you can say, "Oh, I got another meeting to go to." Um almost never is the case with uh meetings regarding Rice and Larry Alliance and and so it's it's the the kind of service that really is uh inspirational to be involved in and and keeps you coming back for more. So, thanks again uh Council Member Bower or member Bower. >> Thank you and thank you for all your work. Uh following up on something you said, I noticed in your year-end report you noticed a list of a bunch of corporations, community partners. It's kind of a who's who list of that. I was wondering if you could comment because it has been 10 years uh you know since that original vision and obviously if you look at that vision and where we are, we still have a lot of work to do. I was wondering if you could articulate kind of the challenges you're hearing from these community partners because you have u you know some investors, builders, developers, you know, real who's who on this list. Can you articulate, you know, the challenges that they have and their hesitation for, you know, developing that and kind of some of the ideas you have looking forward to kind of move that along? >> Thank you, member Bar. So, >> if we could help out and what you would ask of us to make that happen. >> That's a great question. Thank you. >> Um, we launched the Rice and Larpender Alliance Community Based Advisory Board in February 2019. Two weeks later, the schools shut down for CO 19, the pandemic. I I think it's it was a challenge we were all ready to face before the pandemic and the pandemic hit and we had a whole new set of challenges as we did throughout the entire city and and world. small businesses have had a hard time recovering from those challenges. Um the smallest serviceoriented businesses like those at Rice and Larpenter were the hardest hit. Um, also the families who live in Rice and Larger Allian and the Rice and Larger neighborhood were some of the hardest hit um, in that pandemic and what came after the recession after um, civil unrest affected our community. So after the um murder of George Floyd, um I went and visited our rice and larper businesses with my broom and my dustpan because several got broken into and there was broken glass and I wanted to check in and um and that further hurt our local our local community and our local businesses. So, we're all in recovery mode. And I and I appreciate that those the three cities who invested and the county decided early on in that journey that we would reinvest, that we wouldn't walk away. And the community-based alliance uh board said, "No, we need to do more, not less. We're here together for a reason in this time for a reason." and we were able to address a community need right away, even distributing thousands of rolls of toilet paper from the Maplewood Costco to our community members. Um, those challenges were real and their impacts are lasting not just in Rice and Lavender, but all over our community. Things that have prevented some of the advancement in in some of the redevelopment efforts have been procedural in nature. um leadership changes at the at city levels, um leadership changes on the board, and the continual work that we need to do from a governance perspective to ensure that everybody on our leadership committee and all of our city partners and municipal partners understand what role the Rice and Larpender Alliance should take in the redevelopment process, if we should be proactive or reactive. we don't own or develop property ourselves. So, how we engage our local property owners in that process. Um, how we set a vision that doesn't feel prescriptive or let our community down. Um, when they don't see the pretty picture on the paper come to life. Um, so continually looking back at that vision and thinking what can be our best strategy for actualizing it and how do we ensure that all three cities and the county and the community are in lock step as far as steps taken and our role in doing that work. Specifically, there's been a few redevelopment opportunities that developers have had to walk away from because of lines on maps. Um uh there's a low-inccome housing tax credit opportunity that is eligible on the Roseville side and ineligible on the Maplewood side. Um lines on maps have been Rice and Larpender's problem for for a century. Um and in that case that line on that map made it such that a development couldn't go through as planned to build housing on that Maplewood side in that example. Um I just met today with a business owner on the St. Paul side. He if you guys have ever been to the coffee cup on Rice and Arlington. Um you know that there was a fire about 10 years ago and it's been vacant for many many years. Um, this family um bought the coffee cup, changed it to the perfect coffee and invested I can't even imagine how much in renovating the space and high quality ingredients. They even hired the old chef from the coffee cup to come back. He lives in the neighborhood and and cook. Anyhow, he was describing how challenging it is to have access to capital. um how he goes to the bank and he has a hard time getting a loan because he says the bank didn't want to invest in his his vision because they weren't sure that the local market could support the level of quality and price point of his restaurant. So, um, I think small businesses, even those investors that are investing and putting their blood, sweat, and tears and all of their family money into these businesses to grow them, are still facing challenges with capa, technical capacity, um, marketing support, the image of the neighborhood, um, and just frankly access to the investment capital that they need to to grow. Um those are a few examples of things pre preventing us. But my hope is is now we've gone through this process of determining our role in the redevelopment process which is to be a hub of information um to be a champion of our vision and to be a connector between municipalities, private investors and community members and businesses such that we can help direct energy and resources um where possible and support that effort. And you know the role is kind of hard to define but I know for sure that it makes an impact. Um so um so I think we have the opportunity now to grow in that effort and to start to actively market with this land inventory that that President Ro alluded to. um that we could start to actively market and u reach out to um developers to deter to demonstrate the type of development and the type of community we have to create some of these real life things. I I always joke that I want um I love the community events and I love the marketing and I love that neighborhood feel that we've been able to foster and I also want to put a shovel in the ground and cut some ribbons at some point because um all the building blocks are there for um for building for the future. >> Thank you. I like your point about uh talking about connecting. Um can you just talk a little bit about how you go about doing that? For example, you know, when a parcel comes up, for example, like the LZ came up for sale, you know, when an opportunity is like, you know, comes up like that, you know, what does the Rice Lumber Alliance do? I mean, I assume you have a lot of things already in place, right? Just waiting for an opportunity like that. >> I um thank you for the question, member bar. Um I think that our our capacity is is growing to do more of that proactive um development, more of that awareness. Um I think that it's an area that the alliance can and should grow more into. Um figuring out how to be notified when those properties come up for sale. um developing that kind of um I guess bench of interested businesses and developers and investors who want to come and take advantage of those things and then connecting to resources for for example um we part of the the technical assistance grant we got was also to create something called a resource roadmap so a comprehensive directory of resources available in all three cities and the county and the state and the metro um council as to how a interested developer that matches our vision might access some of those resources. Um so an example could be, you know, we there's a there's a vacant parcel. We know we want a daycare center as part of the vision plan in the market study. Um, we would be able to go and talk to development community and the business community to leverage those resources and try to bring attention to the area and then say, well, if this area happens to have contaminated land, how do these are some resources that you can mitigate that? Um, which reduces the cost of redevelopment and improves our environment. So I think there's a lot of more work we can do as the RLA and as we grow and scale our efforts at the redevelopment side of our work will be better to um take advantage of those opportunities as they arise. >> Yeah. And from this list of partners we have realtors here and everything. So I think you're in good shape to make all those connections. And final question I mean u it's wonderful that you're trying to become a nonprofit. I think that'd be good. Um I was kind of disappointed in the year- end report not having the financials. Um but you know with the 51c3 those will be there. I think that'll be help very helpful for us to as you mentioned we've been investing for 10 years a significant sum and I think having those financials will really help us uh justify to other residents you know why we continue in the amounts that we're talking about and actually show that dollar return as you're discussing here today. Thank you. >> All right. Well, thank you again for being here this evening uh and providing this update and all the work that is done the other 3654 days of the year uh minus vacation time. We do we do really appreciate that as a community and I you know I think uh once again things are coming together and I think as you were saying the next steps are to start making more of the connections and and you know and growing those those capacities. So we look forward to that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Great. Uh next on our economic development authority agenda, item uh 5B was taken off the agenda because that's not uh ready for consideration quite yet. So that brings us to item 5C uh which is to discuss uh looking at our 2026 and beyond professional services agreements. And we have our community development director Janice Gunllock uh who is also a active participant in the Rice and Marur process over the years uh uh just coincidentally or not just coincidentally but coincidentally um to talk about uh our professional services going forward at the EDA. I'll turn it over to Miss Gunlock. >> Thank you, President Row, members of the board. Um the EDA has contracts with five consultants for various economic development specialty services. They're outlined in detail in the report, but we work with Allers for public financing, Golden Shovel for our Grow Roseville economic development marketing, the Center for Energy Environment on our home loan origination home advisory services, the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers, they administer a small business loan program on the city's behalf. And then Kenny and Graven for our EDA legal services. These contracts are generally for three years and they expire at the end of this year. I do want to make one comment the or one exception the Kenny and Graven agreement expired at the end of 2024. The cost of these services are paid in two ways. Uh one the most common one is their build directly to a project or a developer. So the EDA does not incur any cost and then of course the second is um costs incurred by the EDA for specific services that are not attribut attributable to a specific project. The cost of these contracts ranges from $0, which is the MCCD one, to about $40,000, which is what we pay generally CE on any given year for some of or all of the services that they offer. Um, and again, the written materials outline the specific services. Um these economic development services are very specialized and um we are unaware of other services service providers who co- fulfill a lot of these duties. For example, Golden Shovel does our economic development marketing. We're unaware of any other consultant who specifically works only in the economic development marketing realm. And so um they are the sole provider for that. MCCD, they work with the county to provide free business consulting for all of Ramsey County. So, there's a lot of synergy in working with them on our small business loan program. In terms of home administration or loan origination, there is another local company. Um, the city has worked with them in the past and we have been unhappy with the level of services that they've provided. I think if you even go back, the default rates for a lot of the loans are substantially higher and right now we're at 1% or less. And so, um, sticking with them is something that we would really recommend. And then over the years, we have either gone out for RFP or have solicited for proposals for legal and public finance assistance. I think um, last time we went out for public finance assistance proposals, the only person who responded was Ellers. And again, these are very specific specialty services, which is why we're probably not getting a lot of interest. And the overall cost of the EDA under the contract is usually very small. Even our uh attorney services is less than $15,000 annually. And for these reasons, we would recommend entering into three-year extensions with Allers, Golden Shovel, CE, and MCCD. In terms of our legal contract, we are only recommending a one-year extension. and we would like to go out for RFP next year or at least at the very least solicit proposals from at least three different law firms and bring those forward for your consideration. Um we uh have reached out to all of the providers. Genie has and we have included their rates in the packet. Um MCCD has no cost to the EDA. Golden Shovel's willing to keep their costs flat for three years, but they would uh want to decrease the level of services that they're providing to us. Genie is working directly with them and we'll bring back more details about that in November if you're interested in continuing to work with them. um mostly they write articles on our businesses in town and then those are promoted via the Grow Roseville marketing website as well as our social media and so there's going to be a decrease in the number of businesses that could be highlighted if we want to keep that cost flat. Um Ellers is proposing a 1.5% inflator every year for three years. CE is proposing increases ranging from 3 to 15% depending on the specific service that they're offering because you'll see in the packet they do do several things on our behalf. Um and then Kenny and Graven is proposing a 19% increase. Uh staff believes the proposed 2026 budget as presented to you in July can afford these cost increases based on what is in that budget. And um based on the direction that you provide tonight, we would bring back contract extensions for your consideration in November. But with that, I'm happy to address any questions and take your direction. >> All right. Thank you, Miss Kunlack. Uh questions. Uh C member Bower. >> All right. Thank you for the presentation. Do you know or can you comment on the I mean there's every city has an EDA or many cities have EDAs. The challenge they must be facing these same challenges with a small selection of vendors. I'm assuming that's true. is that I >> I imagine that is why um I have been in conversations with a couple of different communities who have recently gone out for RFP and they've struggled to even get five vendors to respond to the RFP because economic development is a very specialized service. Um that is why the rates are significantly higher as well. Um, we had a economic development attorney with Kenny and Graven that we worked for for a long time and she retired and I think um, that's also the case. There are some attorneys who've worked in this specialty who've recently retired which is really limiting our options. >> And just for clarification, um, we're happy with the services that were gained from Ellers and CE as currently. I just want to make sure because you went through a number of them. I just want to make sure that we're >> absolutely >> happy with both those. >> Absolutely. Ellers is uh a very important contract because they actually underwrite all of our projects to make sure we're not overly enriching a project or a developer. There's only one other consultant who works in the public finance realm and they do not do that and I would not recommend working with them for that very reason. And then CE very very very small default rate. I think it's less than 1% or zero with Caesar. We've had 0% default rate and you'll see during some of the information we provided on the EDA fund balance. We've got a significant amount of loans out that money that's out there waiting to come back and we've got a zero default rate with them. And the other thing with them is they provide home advisory services and connect and can connect residents with contractors if they are looking to do projects. The other vendor that's local does not do that. and we've seen people not able to move forward on projects because they don't have those connections. And so that's why we'd like to maintain our relationship with CE as well. And they're a one-stop shop. There are other um outofstate providers who we could work with, but they don't provide the one-stop shopping experience that a resident gets with CE. for example, maybe they want to do a home loan. They want to do a home improvement project. Maybe they don't qualify for a revolving loan project, but they might qualify for another project that maybe Minnesota housing or the state runs. And so having that sort of ability to one-stop shop is something we can't get with another provider. >> And then regarding Golden Shovel, um since you're looking at November to hear back or you're currently processed there, what would you like us to do regarding that contract? wait till November or bring this back in November and >> I think >> at that time or make a decision now. >> Well, um, member B, we're not actually asking you to take action on any of these tonight. We want to make sure you're comfortable doing extensions with these five because then we would bring back the actual contract extensions in November. um with Golden Shovel, Genie has been directly communicating with them on what what amount of service we would continue to receive and keeping the rate flat, which is $1,50 a month. Um, we think again it's highlighting less businesses, writing less articles, less promotion on our Grow Roseville website and social media channels, but we want to get that clarified and written down so that we can actually present that to you as a part of the actual contract extension, assuming you're willing to do that. The other service providers, the level of service that they're providing under this contract would not change. It's just do you want to continue for three more years and are you comfortable with the rates that we've outlined and again the one exception on the number of years is the Kenny and Graven we're only talking about one year there >> and the marketing services are something we kind of do internally I know we have a communications team not exactly associated with the EDA but >> at least >> so I don't want to speak for what type of capacity our communications staff has to take on something that another provider has been given And that's certainly something we will talk about once we understand more what Golden Shovel um wouldn't be able to provide in order to keep the cost flat. But I just don't think they have the capacity or the expertise in economic development marketing to be able to connect with those businesses in a way that Golden Shovel has been able to connect with them. >> Thank you. >> Other questions? I did have just in regard to the golden shovel specifically. Are we also talking to them about what the cost would be to maintain the current level of service or are we just talking to them about uh what it what gets reduced to maintain the flat level of service or flat cost? >> I believe Jeanie has talked with them about what the cost would be in order to maintain the current level of service and it would be a minimum of a 3% inflator. >> Okay. because certainly um you know if we decided that that was a benefit to the to the EDA efforts we could fund that through the fund balance as opposed to raising the levy if we set a not to exceed that doesn't include that for instance um just thinking about you know what we want to have in front of us at the menu of options as we're as we're considering uh contract extensions in November other questions from the council or the members of the board member strong >> thank you I know during COVID we were we were offering some services to individual businesses. Is that no longer the case with Golden Shovel? >> That's correct. Um, Member Strong, we actually contracted with Golden Shovel to um run our True Choose Roseville program, which um Golden Shovel actually went to the businesses to provide them um social media help as well as um like optimizing their search on the web. But that was an extra cost that was funded with ARPA money. And when that money ran out, we discontinued the program. >> I I thought that was the case, but I do know from some of the organizations that were helped by it, how appreciative they were. Um, if you want to shop for luggage, um, they will tell you about it. So, um, just so you know, uh, don't tell them you weren't on counsel because it was it was a long follow me around, tell me about that. But um it was delightful and it was really lovely to see our progress in our uh work in action. But I do see some of the other things that we've um gotten from Golden Shovel. And I I think a 3% increase of a uh $1,50 per month uh seems somewhat insubstantial compared to what it would cost to bring on a staff member for less than $15,000 a year to do the kind of work that we're asking. So, I would I would concur that it'd be nice to know uh to confirm the volume and the um the services being provided because I do think it is a niche as you indicate. Great. If there aren't other questions, I will provide an opportunity if anybody from the public wanted to uh weigh in on this request to uh consider uh negotiating extensions as outlined with the service providers that we've uh got this information on this evening. answer anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening. It does not appear to be the case. Um with that then we've got the request to uh authorize I believe authorize the staff to enter into the discussions to do the extensions as outlined um and bring those back at our November meeting. Uh is there a motion from the board to that effect? >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by member Gra, second by member Sharter uh to authorize that. Did I misstate the action? >> Uh, no. President Ro, members of the board, if I could just get clarity on Golden Shovel, would you in coming back in November, would you like us to provide you the level of service for the same cost and what it would cost to maintain our current service level and then you can make a decision in November? >> Appears to be the case. Yeah. >> Okay. And then the rest >> in accordance with ST. Okay, understood. I see a cost increase of $378 for the year. So I >> I want to make sure that the 3% was what they want to continue to stick with. We want to be sure about >> have that conversation. >> But certainly we could have, you know, two alternate approaches to consider in November. >> We can do that. Thank you. >> With that, we've got the motion before us uh to authorize those extension discussions as outlined and discussed and clarified. Um is there a discussion of the motion from the maker of the motion? Member Grath. Uh no, thank you for the report. It's always good to touch base and and get an update on all the different programs because there are a few things few few moving parts there. Um I wanted to mention that most of these are fees that are paid from uh developers and other things of that sort. So it's not coming out of the levy. Want people to understand that part of it. >> Not 100% coming out. Uh and as the secondary uh member sher additional discussion on the motion we've got the motion before us to authorize uh discussing those um extensions and bring back the uh the hopefully the agreements in November for the board's consideration. There's no further discussion. All those in favor signify by saying I opposed. That passes unanimously and that authorization is given. Uh then uh finally uh discussion related to the operating fund balance in the EDA uh and how it might impact the levy and I think our executive director Pat Trean will bring this uh to the board for consideration. >> Yes. Uh thank you uh Mr. President. So uh I've asked uh bring forward this discussion with the EDA staff so we can u chat a little bit about uh our fund balances. uh it came up at a previous meeting and and specifically looking at potentially um using some of the EDA fund balance to lower the levy for the EDA. So uh I do want to present uh my recommendation to you on that. But before we do that, uh the case contains some information that might be helpful just to quickly review um and um present. So there's understanding that the various funds that um do a variety of EDA things um um for the community. So, uh, just going down that list, uh, fund 720, uh, came from originally from HRA funds when we had, uh, housing and redevelopment authority. We switched to an EDA in 2015, so about 10 years ago. Uh, that money is used for the land trust partnership with Twin Cities Habitat, and we've not funded uh, any of this fund with EDA levy um, since the since the formation. Fund 722 uh, continues to fund property abatements. This is something that was set up probably about 15 years ago to fund the property abatements that we have occasionally to get the work done to clean up a property and then the homeowner eventually pays us back either uh through the billing or through their taxes and um uh that's been kind of refurbished over or uh replenished over the years and has not received any um EDA levy support. 723 was HR funds originally and uh we have five home improvement loans offer there. They're listed in there and that's the revolving loan fund that gets um replenished over time and we have not had any levy support for that from the EDA as well. 724 uh was uh created uh by the HA for multifamily um projects. Uh it was purposely uh um uh built up so we could have some significant dollars for our project. So you'll see that has the highest cash balance um uh right now. Um that has not had any loans go out at this point. uh but that has also not received any levy support. Let's pull this out here. Now 725 is kind of what we call the general EDA operating fund. It funds all the EDA's operating expenses, the personnel, the home and home improvement loan administration, uh origination charges, energy audits, all the things that some of these u u contracts we talked about last time uh last agenda item do uh cover. So, this is fully supported by the EDA levy and I would note and there's some specific information later in the report uh that we've been looking to continue to keep that levy as low as possible and since 2019 we've cut about 98,000 from that levy while continuing the services that we have in there. Fund 726 um is a fund that provides small business loans uh administered by the MCCD uh which we just talked about. Uh we've had a couple loans that goes out from there. This was previously levy supported, but uh we have not had any levy support since 2024. And the last one is the Rice Larper Alliance. It's a separate fund. We're the fiscal agent uh for the Rice Larper Fund. So our $40,000 goes in there. Uh that's levy supported as well as the other communities and uh we pay the bills from there. So uh I think at the last uh time we talked about this, it wasn't clear whether there was an actual uh reserve target uh for the EDA operating fund. So once again, that's uh fund 725. Um we do have a policy that states 35% uh of our budget. Our budget um is uh for 2026 proposed to be $364,000. So that is uh a minimum of $127,000 should be reserved for cash flow like um our property um funded uh programs. we get money twice a year and so for cash cash flow purposes we do need to have some money uh in the bank so to speak to uh pay our ongoing expenses. So, uh, if with that in mind and knowing that the cash balance as of September 8th was $556,000, um, in the operating fund and, uh, removing the 128, uh, thou $127,000. Uh, we have about $428,000 of extra fund balance that we could use for purposes of lowering the levy or reallocating elsewhere. I am proposing at this point to um have the EDA levy use $100,000 of fund balance to lower that levy. Currently the fund um I'm sorry, currently the levy that was approved in preliminary approved in July was $364,000. That would lower it by $100,000 to $264,000. Um, so the reason I I'm doing that is uh even though there's more dollars in there, I think we want to be cautious and careful that we don't use too much fund balance at at once. Fund balance is something that if we use as a funding source, we will eventually need to make up through increases in levy or other other fund balances or budget cuts. And uh at this point, I've not heard the need for any budget cuts per se for the EDA. Uh but I want to make sure we're we're careful and move forward. This gives us the opportunity in future years to continue to look at using fund balance if we would like to but also be very thoughtful about how the EDA is funded. So, uh that is my recommendation and as you are meeting as the EDA officially, I would ask uh that you uh have a motion in place to um act on my recommendation or not um and lower the use or lower the levy by $100,000 by using $100,000 of EDA fund balance from 725. And certainly we can uh have more discussion around it. This isn't the only and last time we're going to talk about it. Uh the council will need to set the not to exceed levy at the next uh Monday's meeting. Uh but as the EDA, I thought it would be helpful to bring forward a discussion um provide some understanding of the different fund balances and take action on my recommendation. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Right. Thank you, Mr. Tre. I did want to I'll start just quickly. Do you uh have an estimate of what the uh proposed levy at 364 would be in terms of the average single family property and what the change to 264 with this recommendation would be in terms of what the the EDA levy cost is whether it's a monthly or annual or whatever, however you want to break it down. >> If I recall correctly, it was $1.40 40 per month total for the levy and this will go down to 99 cents a month. Um so about 40 cents less. It's about $5 less uh over the year on the EDA levy. Remember the EDA levy is really small compared to the city levy. So about $5 or so roughly speaking >> uh over the year annually for the median valued home at $378,000. All >> right. Thank you for clarifying that. Uh questions from the board. Uh member Schroeder, >> um you were talking about this fund 724 of the the million dollars that um had not made any loan since it was um um created. Could you explain why we could not take this million and use that to fund the other um sort the other funds in here? Because I I guess I'm wondering if we're not if we haven't used it for a loan and it's just kind of sitting there, could we repurpose it to the 720, 722, 723 and and put that use that as a funding source instead of just letting it sit in in 724? >> That's a that's a really good question. And so uh the way I would answer it is if it was for the other uh 720 722 723 most likely yes. These are HR levied funds so they are limited to certain uses. Uh since those are around housing programs my belief would be probably yes but I think we would want to go back and really review that to make sure that we absolutely can and we'd be happy to do that and bring that forward for discussion. if we wanted to use it for EDA funding, uh we wouldn't be able to do that necessarily because they were originally levied as HA funds. >> It just seems that these funds are there and it would be nice to put them towards some of these um different funds that were actually getting used. And so that that I I'd be interested to know um if that's a possibility or not. And then um also with are most of these funds invested in in something or is there ca is this a cash funds? I guess I'm curious when you talk about cash availability. Are a lot of these um actually in investments that um over time have to be um hung on to or are they actually mostly in cash? >> That's a question I'm not sure I can directly answer. Obviously, a lot of these programs have uh loans and I'll have M come up uh that have uh loans out that are outstanding, but uh what you're seeing here listed is the cash balance. Um so, Mick, I'll let you have >> the expert >> staff who can >> I saw her in the back, so I thought maybe she would have an answer. We invest all cash whether in direct investments over or overnight money markets and I pull all the city's funds including the EDA fund. So the short term, >> short-term, long-term, midterm, depending on immediate cash needs, most of the EDA, it's all pulled together and then we allocate the interest out based on the cash balances. >> Okay, thank you. >> Great. Uh, other questions? Uh, member Strong, >> um, I was curious to know on the 724, um, if that had something to do with the, uh, Britney Marian Apartments or, um, foreseeing a similar situation in the future, making sure that we had the ability to make some type of, um, changes or step in as needed. And maybe the mayor or Mr. Trean can speak to that. So uh I think originally when the HA was working here and we we talked about that we wanted to build up a fund because we saw uh problems in our larger multifamily units. Britney Marian being an example uh that where we wanted to bring forward some dollars to help rehabilitate and improve those um those projects. So there wasn't any one particular one that was identified in particular but as an example which you mentioned uh was the idea of building that and you know that was uh 10 years ago and so we made some strides in other things and we've seen some investment certainly in Britney Marian uh but that was the original genesis is to create a sizable fund that we could actually use to bring to bear to make some positive changes for housing units. Well, given what we know about the costs of reconstruction and rehab and redevelopment, I mean, a million dollars in this situation isn't going to go very far. And so, while it seems like it's kind of the panacea to solve maybe some problems, it wouldn't it wouldn't do as much. It wouldn't go very far. And so, I I would hate to see us uh liquidate that and lose that opportunity to be available to these folks if they were in such a dire situation, which preceded me. But I from what I've heard it it sounds like it was pretty bad. Um I was just curious to know if um the current budget as presented um and I you know I appreciate the $100,000 cash uh infusion so to speak but wondering as the budget as presented does it impair our ability to fund some of the pro projects that Director O'Brien and others have mentioned especially around small businesses. um does that impair our ability to be available to some of the um immigrant and and new business owners who might uh seek our services? >> So the proposal is to keep the budget as presented in July the same. So nothing would change in lessening of services to the extent that they they help those u groups that you identified uh would it would just uh use fund balance to to fund to make up that gap. So the budget would still be $364,000 instead of $364,000 from the levy coming to fund that. It would be $264,000 and 100,000 of fund balance. So the services and was what was proposed in the budget would not be reduced. It'd be the same. It just comes from two different sources of funding. >> Thank you. I guess I just continue to be concerned because we've since I've been on um the board um the EDA um we continue to have been cutting or keeping the EDA um budget the exact same or less each year. And I just think that that's got to be really impactful to the uh to the outlook for the people who are part of that to feel like maybe it's not of value or that they you know it continue to do the same work um for less funding. So, I just know that um nobody really wants to be in that position. So, I appreciate that. >> I don't know if uh Director Gunluck had some additional comments about that. >> Sorry, I was just listening to the conversation. I wanted to make two comments regarding some of the questions that were asked. First, regarding fund 724. Yes, those were original HRA levy funds for multif family projects, but we have used those funds. Most recently in May of 2023, we transferred 300,000 from that fund to 723 so so that we could continue to administer loans through CE. So that has been working for the EDA uh to operate those programs that are currently in place. And then the question council member Stron you had about um uh Kim's work with the RLA and some of these existing funds. Could they be utilized to help some of those efforts? Um, these originally uh these funds originally incurred through the HA can't I I'd have to defer to the attorney, but I'm fairly certain the attorney is going to tell us that we can't use funds that originated through an HA to fund anything but housing related endeavors. So, we couldn't use those for some of the business programming or facade improvements, that kind of work that the RLA is doing. We couldn't use those funds for those efforts. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Other questions for staff? >> Great. I do want to provide an opportunity once again uh for members of the public if anyone from the public wishes to uh comment on this proposal to uh reduce the EDA levy for 2026 from 364,000 uh in change to 264,000 and change uh by using $100,000 of our $556,000 fund balance. U to do that this would be the opportunity. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? Right. Does not appear to be the case. Uh with that then uh we have the request before us. Uh and is the uh board interested in uh making a motion with respect to that request and recommendation. >> Motion to approve. >> Right. >> Second. There's a motion uh from member Stron, seconded by member Grath to authorize the um uh let's see, authorize the use of the $100,000 of reserves uh to fund that portion of the uh 2026 economic development authority budget and lower the levy by a corresponding amount. Uh discussion of the motion as the maker of the motion, member Stron, >> nothing further. >> Okay. as the secondary member graph. >> Um I feel comfortable with this because uh Miss Gunlock has explained this thoroughly and I think we have the funds to move it around. It isn't a huge amount but it is a small reduction in the levy. So um I feel comfortable with the motion. >> Right. Other discussion on the motion. Member Scher. >> Um you know a couple of comments. Um, yes. And our um since we're supposed to have our fund balance at 35% and we are much more money because it's it's like we do in the general fund, we try to then any excess money we try to use for other purposes to keep the money the taxpayers money being used to um do these services. So, so I think that makes um and I'm I'm assuming then that this doesn't preclude any other um possible changes as we go into next week because I guess I'd want to make sure that the finance um commission gets an opportunity to look at this also even though we if we approve this tonight that I'd want to make sure that they also have this as part of something that they can look at as well. So yeah, and I think the answer to that would be that this is um an authorization uh essentially to suggest to the city council or request from the city council that uh that we do that and certainly we as the city council can uh take that into council and uh and think about it and and figure out if that's what we want to do. Uh certainly if ultimately the city council sets the not to exceed levy based at the 264 level um and there was a decision to use more fund balance and reduce the levy further that could be done because it's a not to exceed. So you can go down but you can't go up. Um but certainly if we decided not to after setting the not to exceed levy uh decided not to use those reserve balances to do that then we couldn't go up. So that would be the only limitation. Uh Mr. treasure. >> Oh, just just real quickly. Uh my understanding, I believe at least the uh the EDA, I'm sorry, the finance commission was made aware of this proposal for 100,000. I'm not sure they really discussed it, but they were released at their last meeting. I think were made aware of it, but they had didn't have any substantive discussion. >> Thank you. >> And and we do have members uh here this evening. I think >> I see that >> for a subsequent uh agenda item. Uh discussion on the motion. Uh member Bower. >> Yeah, I think it's very good that we are uh reducing this by 100,000. I do think that we set these reserve policies uh for a reason. In other accounts, they are swept and um done. I do think while 100,000 is good, I think there is room for more given looking at these numbers. So, um be in favor of 100,000, but I'd be much more in favor of something larger than that. Um and following up with what council member Sher said earlier, I do think it's worth having something brought back to us in the future. this isn't part of the motion to take a look at that 724 account and look at funding those other things especially since nothing is originated from it. I think it's a very good idea. >> Right. And just to that point on the 724 fund, I think I seem to recall in past discussions of that such as when we did a transfer to support some of the loan the the housing uh single family housing programs etc. um that the notion was that we probably do need to continue to look at that program or or because you know as we look at some of the programs in the 723 or whichever fund it is um those loan programs we have modified to try to meet the marketplace and and I know that there's been some challenges with the with the multifamily program uh and what's in the marketplace and what those you know property owners are looking for in terms of finances. So I think it makes sense to to to look at that again. And just to the point about sweeping uh excess above our our reserve policy, we may want to look at including the EDA in that. And I mean ultimately the dollars are still there. Uh but we could look at that going into for instance the revolving loan fund or something like that to help that or obviously we could sweep it into a sweep fund and then decide what to do with it like we do on the on the city city side of things. So, we've got some options there and I think that's all worth talking about going forward, >> right? Because I think I mean the situation it would help us avoid the situation we're in now where we have an excess cash balance that we didn't expect and I don't believe that's the best use of taxpayer money. >> Fair enough. >> We've we've got the discussion then uh it sounds like we've got the motion before us uh to authorize that use of reserves for 2026 uh as outlined. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously and that is authorized. Uh that brings us to the end of our business for the economic development authority this evening. Uh slightly behind schedule. Uh the there being no further business before the uh economic development authority. A motion to adjourn would be in order. >> Second. >> All right. Uh >> I think that was moved by member Grath, seconded by member Schroeder. Uh no discussion on motion to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. All right, opposed. That passes unanimously and we are adjourned at 7:14 p.m. We'll just have a short transition to the council meeting. hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for uh Monday, September 15th, 2025. Uh the roll call will stand as previously called for the EDA. Uh and once again at 7:15 p.m. Uh so we've handled the roll call. Uh we did the pledge of allegiance at the start of the EDA meeting, so we won't repeat that at the beginning of this council meeting. Um and I'll uh check with uh Mr. Trean on the agenda. Are there any changes this evening to the council agenda from a staff perspective? >> Mr. Mayor, there is not. >> Right. Are there any items that council members would like to change on the agenda or remove from consent for separate consideration? Council member Sharter. >> Yes. I'm not sure if this would be a change in the agenda or not. So, I thought I'd start here on the um item number 7D when we're talking about the um um campus project. Um I would like to see that the um part about the or the maintenance center be separate from the licensed passport center. So, I'd like to be able to um um vote on those separately. So, it would be appropriate at that time to uh move to separate the question and that would then separate it into two motions >> instead of um having it be um um D and D1. >> Well, yeah. So, it would be one agenda item, but we would separate the decision into two essentially two motions that would be considered individually if that works for you. >> I believe uh our rules of procedure is what would allow that to happen. >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> So, it's a move to separate is what you'll want to remember for that time. Thank you. >> All right. With that then, uh, and I'll just double check. We've only got three items on our consent agenda this evening, which is the benefit renewals and cafeteria contributions for 26. Uh, the payment uh final payment for the sewer sanitary sewer lining project and the service contract with a companion animal center for the uh police uh with the animals animal control. Uh, is there anyone here for any of those items this evening? Does not appear to be the case. And so it looks like we've got an agenda this evening to approve. >> Motion to approve. >> All right. Second. >> Moved by moved by council member Stan. Second by council member Bower. Sorry, council member Gra. >> All right. Discussion on the motion. Doesn't appear to be any discussion on the motion to approve the agenda as presented. All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. That passes unanimously. We have our agenda for this evening. Now, I should probably repeat some of the things I said as a housekeeping item uh earlier in the EDA meeting. Uh once again, we do have a copy of all the materials that's uh being considered uh by the council this evening on the uh table by the back door underneath the big clock. Uh that's uh for sharing by all the folks here this evening who may want to refer to that uh to see the materials we're considering. Uh we do also have extra copies of the agenda for the council meeting for individual use if you'd like to follow along on your own copy of the agenda. Presuming there's copies left, but it looks like there are. Um, and then also if you do have a cell phone, uh, you want to be sure to silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt our meeting this evening. Uh, and then since we're approaching our first opportunity for public comment, we'll just kind of cover some of the rules of the road for public comment. Uh, that is that by council rule, we do have a threeminut time limit per speaker. And I try to enforce that generously, but also gently if you're uh, looks like you're uh, not uh, not wrapping it up within the time frame. Uh we do ask that folks if you're uh making public comment introduce yourself by your name and either your address or street uh for the record. Uh if you have a name that either isn't familiar to us because you've been here before or one that may not be uh a common spelling uh that uh will no doubt get wrong in the official minutes. Uh we do have a clipboard off to the side and when you're finished with your comments uh that would be a good time to just step off to the side and just write your name uh relatively legibly so we can make sure that we spell it right uh for the record. Um then the other thing is uh make sure that any questions or comments are directed to the city council. Uh we won't always during public comment be able to provide an answer to a question or uh provide the information that may be requested that may require follow-up. What we generally do is as questions are asked, we do make note of those and then at the end once everybody's had their chance to speak, then we attempt to respond to those uh to the best we can uh in terms of whether we have the information available uh at this time. So with that, I think Oh, and then everybody gets one one shot at public comment per agenda item essentially. So uh make sure that you you cover what you want to say. With that, our first opportunity. Oh, >> will there be public comment about the parks and recck commission uh joint meeting tonight? >> Uh that's a good point. Thank you. Um because the parks rec commission is providing a recommendation to the city council and no action is going to be taken by the city council on that recommendation this evening. Uh the thought is to uh hold off on the opportunity for public comment uh until that time when that item officially comes before the city council for an action to be taken on that recommendation. Uh so just to give people uh a sense of that, thank you uh council member Stron uh for asking about that because that uh uh may have an impact on folks that are here this evening. So because of the fact that we're receiving a recommendation but taking no action on it, uh that would be uh something where once we do bring that back before the council for action, uh we'll make sure and provide that opportunity for comment at that time. Uh hopefully that works for everyone. Uh with that then our first opportunity for public comment is general public comment. Uh this is comment that is not on a specific agenda item that is on our agenda this evening because as we've noted uh hopefully clearly there will be an opportunity for comment on those items except as noted just previously. Uh with that uh this would be once again items that are not on the agenda but may be of interest to people in the community or related to other city business that is not on tonight's agenda. Uh is there anyone here to speak under general public comment this evening? Hello, Roger H Jr. Wagner Place. And before you get to your architect thing tonight and that I hope you guys will consider that if you're going to close the leaf facility that maybe you could put the public works new outdoor storage area over there, move the license center somewhere else and then maybe you could build the uh maintenance facility the way it's supposed to be built all in one spot north in the Veterans Park rather than part of it there and part on the south side of the of Woodill. bill. I think it would be much much you've got the money, you've got the land, you should really build a proper maintenance facility rather than breaking it up and making it all inefficient things because I think the leaf area is plenty big enough for outdoor storage and if you don't have a license center on the veterans park that you can still have a BFW where it is and you should be able to fit in the complete original plan for the maintenance center. Thank you. Thank you for your comments this evening. Is there anyone else here for general public comment? All right, with that then we'll close the opportunity for general public comment and we'll move on with the rest of our meeting. Uh we don't have any recognitions, donations this evening or items removed from consent agenda for separate consideration. That brings us right to our business items. Our first business item this evening is item 7A uh which is to hold a public hearing uh to consider approval of a request for a noise variance uh for the county road D pavement project in Roseville actually Roseville and Ardan Hills. Uh and we have uh Jen Lowry with us this evening our city I was going to say city attorney. Would that have been a that have been a a scary promotion? Uh our city engineer and assistant public works director. uh and welcome. Uh and uh I know you're relieved not to have that responsibility as the city attorney. Uh so feel free to uh uh present this item for our consideration this evening and make introductions as needed. >> Yeah. Thank you, mayor, council, members. Um so this is in accordance with uh city ordinance chapter 405, which is our noise ordinance. Um that ordinance states that no work can be done on weekdays between 9:00 p.m. and 7 a.m. or on weekends between 900 p.m. and 9:00 am without a variance. Um and so the county has their Milan overlay project on County Road D. Um we have Paul Hildstead, did I say that correctly? From Batunis Roadways and John Mazatello from Ramsey County here. So they're the requesters of um uh extended work hours to get this project done. So there's um information in your handout. Um the city of New Brighton has already approved the um the the work on their side. Um the railroad and MINDOT have also already approved this. So there will be off-ramp closures from 35W onto D um during the overnight work so that they don't the workers don't have people coming off at highway speeds at them in the night. Um, we did publish in accordance with the ordinance, we did publish uh um a notice in the local paper on September 5th for this public hearing and residents um owners and residents and and businesses within 350 ft of that in of that work in Roseville have received notice of tonight's meeting. Um that was mailed on September 4th. So, I did email you guys a couple of um the responses I heard. There was a couple handouts or there are some handouts coming. Um so, I did hear from three residents and one commercial business of the roughly 80 notices that we mailed and all were in support of it to get it done as quick as possible. Um so, the contractor has proposed um night work tonight if we get approval. M >> um and starting on the north side >> and then on tomorrow night would be overnight work and um then we have proposed early start times on the 17th, 18th and Monday which is an hour before start times during the weekday and also um an early start time on Saturday just to get all the vehicles lined up um so that they can pump out as much paving as possible. Um it's pretty straightforward, but wanted to um bring that before you and they're here too if there's any questions about the specific request. >> And uh one item to note is Friday they have everything mil already from the west side to 08. So where there is houses, we're already done with milling. So the nights would be from Cleveland to 08. >> All right. Good to know. >> All right. Uh questions from the council. And once again, this is on County Road D. >> D. >> Did I say D? >> Yes, you did. I just want to re-emphasize that for folks in the audience at home that it's county road D west of Cleveland uh in the city of uh of Ardell and Roseville. And I don't know if there's any New Brighton in there, too. So, um with that, uh uh questions from the council. All right. Council member Sharter. >> Actually, I'd approve to I would move to >> Well, we have to have the public hearing first. Sorry. So we we do want to do that particular especially since we got the uh so many um people saying they supported it. >> Yep. Yep. No, we do want to officially open the public hearing and provide for that opportunity for comment. So all right, be prepared. All right. Uh with that, we'll open the public hearing and we'll offer an opportunity for members of the public who may be here to speak on the requested variance from our noise ordinance uh to allow uh some overnight work as well as some earlier in the morning work uh than what our noise ordinance normally allows on weekday weekdays and weekends for this project. Uh anyone from the public here this evening to speak on this item? All right, does not appear to be the case. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing then uh and move to council consideration of the noise variance request. Council member Schroeder. >> I would move to approve. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Schroer. I'm going to say seconded by council member Strong. >> Sorry. Council member. Uh with that we've got the motion before us. Discussion on the motion to approve that noise variance. Council member Schroer as the maker of the motion. >> It's very straightforward. So >> no. >> Right. Council member Strong. The comments we received have been positive and um eager to have this done. So, >> right, other discussion on the motion hearing? None. We've got the motion before us. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. That noise variance is granted. Uh and start your engines. >> Yes. >> All right. With that then uh that brings us to our second uh item under business items this evening and that is to hold a joint meeting with the parks and recreation commission. Why don't we take just about a fivem minute break to get everybody up to the table and situated uh and then we'll uh convene that joint meeting. >> All right. Who wants >> Do you want Do you want to be the driver? Do you want me to be the driver? Be the driver. Okay. All right, we're back from a short break to uh make sure we got all of our uh parks reccomission members up at the table who are here this evening to participate in this joint meeting with the council. Uh can everybody hear in the room? I don't know if the >> audio >> lost their audio. Can we get the PA back? The mics are off still. Maybe >> when you start. >> Yeah. >> Still off. >> You're back. >> Okay. We want to make sure everyone in the room can hear. Otherwise, at the end of the evening, I have a very sore throat. All right, with that, we'll uh recognize our uh chair of the parks commission, Lindsey H. Benson, uh to kick off the discussion of our sort of annual semianual joint meeting with the commission. >> All right. Thank you, Mayor Row and Council. It's uh really great to be here and see all of you. I want to start off with a round of introductions. Um I'm Lindsay Mad Spencson. I am the chair of the parks and recreation commission and we're going to start over here with Commissioner Harris. >> Jamie Harris and I am new to the commission. >> Uh Jamie Penny and this will be my second year with the commission. >> Uh Karen Beckman and I am the vice chair of the commission. >> Brian Donaldson, this is my first year. >> Chad Cistra. This is my second year as well. >> And we are missing a few commissioners this evening um due to other things happening in the world. All right, I'm going to turn it over to Vice Chair Beckman. >> So, we thought we would start out tonight with giving you some work highlights of um stuff that we covered uh over the last year and and plan on covering in 2026. So, uh first thing that we wanted to highlight is that we reviewed and updated the natural resources plan. And um a big part of this is that we also received a substantial grant um that was highlighted in the city newsletter of $700,000. Um, another uh thing that we have been doing throughout the year is attending various uh community outreach events in particular discover your parks. We've had commissioners at every single Discover Your Parks event, one or two at every um event, and we've also uh been very active in the Rosefest uh activities uh going on in the the city. Um we reviewed feedback for the uh 2025 and 2026 capital improvement plans. Um so we uh reviewed and uh put in a new uh playground at Lexington. Uh and then we also provided a recommendation uh to the council on the Rosebrook Park capital improvement where we're suggesting the removal of the waiting pool in favor of a splash pad. And then upcoming, oh, I also should mention that a new scoreboard was put in over at the oval, uh, with help of funds from the friends of the oval as well as the Midwest speed skating. Uh, and then looking forward to next year, uh, we did a park tour at Autumn Grove to kind of discuss ideas for, um, that park and then also we'll be doing, uh, a playground remodel at Sand Castle Park. Um we also received uh operational overviews um of particular particularly the recreation programs and then also some improvements that are happening at Cedar Rome. >> All right. And I think we're turning this to Commissioner Donaldson if we remember correctly. I'm going to I'm going to scooch the mic over just in case. Just in case. I know we have the ceiling mics too. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. members. Um we also um have been uh really um talking about our goals for the commission and and I think that came from um request of the council and so we're using a new format that allows the commission to track the progress of our goals and how we're doing and that's part of your bench handouts um that you have today and all the goals um um but we review our goals quarterly um and um again the full goals are in your packet so you can go over them if you have any specific questions we can talk about it a A couple of goals to highlight. Um we uh first of all we have some great um auxiliary organizations that helps the parks um for you know friends of ro parks uh central park foundation the oval friends of the oval and how can we really help those groups to do more combine together on some things um and and just you know celebrate what they do to really make our parks great because they're fantastic organizations that we have that help the parks. Um, and then additionally, um, we really want to provide feedback and support on the Roseville Volunteer Program. We have great volunteers at our parks from planting flowers to pulling weeds, whatever it is. Um, we have a lot of people who get out there and get their hands dirty or help out in the parks and we want to celebrate that. It's a huge asset. We want to find ways to support and grow that. So, those are some of our highlighted goals going forward. Um, but if you see any other goals on there that you have questions about, let us know. All right, Commissioner Penny, let's talk about our tours. >> Yes, I'll talk a little bit about um earlier this year, we had the great opportunity to get out and get out in person and visit uh three uh specific parks, which is kind of an annual thing. Uh this is really a great thing for this commission to do because we all kind of have a lot of different backgrounds and different um sort of, you know, ideas of what parks and recreation means. Um, so going to different physical locations and seeing the different ways you can think of parks and recreation. Um, really valuable. Um, first we visited I'll just kind of go through the three sites quickly. Uh, Reservoir Woods. um visited several sites in the park and a big part of that was uh kind of talking about the convergence of a lot of the recreational usage such as hiking and biking um and some of the issues that that might lead to such as erosion with the unofficial trails and kind of the idea of having our paved trails and then the sort of desired trails and you know how do you encourage people to come out into nature but also kind of you know maintain that nature. Um, and we talked about the possibility of we didn't really land on anything, but perhaps mountain biking would be something that could be a potential amenity that we don't really currently have uh track for that. Reservoir Woods had some possibilities, but there's not without challenges kind of for the reasons mentioned above. Uh, we did review how Reservoir Woods has benefited from the natural resource management program. Uh, next we went to uh, Oasis Park. Um that one we really looked a lot at the community garden plots. Talked about that program and uh the success that that has been. Um also talked about some of the maintenance issues going on with that park building and um sort of some of the challenges too with maintaining a lesser used uh baseball field like we have there kind of you know is it worth it to maintain you know so it's that was uh and then the third one we visited was a very high use park Autumn Grove. Um that one um really has a high level of use um combined with a lot of the sort of weather conditions. There were some pretty poor field conditions that we noted and uh we made some possible recommendations that some better irrigation solutions could be pursued in the future. Uh we also talked about potential for the update and relocation of the playground there. And uh also highlighted a bit of an underutilized currently part on the south portion of that parcel which is uh part of that contains that bicycle pump track which is again a very unique amenity um that uh you know you don't see everywhere but we also have that fairly undeveloped field over there which has some concerns with uh what's underneath there as far as any potential development. Um, but again, it was a great opportunity for us to get out and kind of get a lot of different ideas going um, and seeing a lot of different locations. >> And something that's on here as well that we will touch on in a little while is we did take a tour of the Aldine right away. Um, a number of the commissioners went out there and um, walked through the property and everything to help inform uh, the recommendation we'll be making this evening. Um, moving on to the campus campus master plan implementation. Uh this is one of the reasons why I wanted to join this commission in the first place as a user of Veterans Park and a dance mom at the Roseville School of Dance. I think those are two incredibly important facilities that we have in the city of Roseville. And I just really wanted to say thank you to the council for considering the option for that keeps Veterans Park and does a dance studio and license center building on its own that would be owned by the city. that was um really important to a lot of the community that uses those fields. I have a son who plays soccer at Veterans Park this fall and being able to make that connection with the community when everyone's wondering what's happening there and to be able to say this is likely going to stay and here's what's going to be happening and just seeing the smiles on people's faces and how excited people are that we get to keep the park and the kids are just excited about that and seeing them run around and see families see that we're not losing parkland for that. Um, so thank you for having that um, looking at that plan of this split maintenance facility. I really appreciate that as a citizen of Roseville as well as a dance mom and a park user. Um, and speaking of that, um, Jamie and I are going to tag team the recreation programs a little bit. Um, we're not just commission members, we are also recreation program users a lot through our kids and we're able to really, one of the best things about this commission is getting to make connections with the community. Um things like I mean being a dance mom it's having that close connection to the program and being able to advocate for things that the dance program may need or things that I'm hearing from other parents that they may need to the dance program and the wreck program. Um other fun things about the connections is just I mean we get to make connections with the community. my kinder my son's kindergarten teacher lives near Oasis Park and wanted to know what was happening over there and I was able to connect her with Director Johnson so that they could have a conversation and just really be able to um make more >> I keep saying connections but that's kind of what it is. That's the beauty of this comm. It's the beauty of this commission. >> It really is. Um I can kind of um chime in a little bit here. So yeah, another role I have outside of this commission is uh because apparently at one point I realized I didn't have enough, you know, I had too much free time, so I had to do something about that. Uh I am a leader with one of our local Cub Scout packs. My son is in there um with about, you know, 18 other kids. Um and in that role, um outside of the commission role, I've had a couple of really great experiences here um that I have really sort of informed my role as a commissioner as well. Uh the first was the Martin Luther King uh day of service um back in January where uh we did sort of a seating native uh seating event in the park and uh part of Cub Scouting is volunteerism and outdoor uh you know conservation. So I had a pretty good group um of my kids come out and and participated in that. And the next month in February, we had um the pleasure of uh volunteer coordinator Rachel Bogs gave a presentation to our commission. And I made a comment along the lines of, "Yeah, I brought a bunch of kids. I don't really know if we were all that effective, you know, with their little 10-year-old hands throwing this stuff." And she said something that really changed my perspective, which is to say that um these volunteer programs, >> sometimes it is about really getting the work done, but just as much it's often about um kind of providing an enrichment opportunity for those volunteer participants. Um, so it really is almost run like a recreation program um, in and of itself and not just a way to get some work done out of people. Um, so that's something that really informed sort of the way that I will approach that conversation with members of uh, the community as far as the volunteer program goes. Um, the second one I'll highlight really quick um, so I don't go on and on here, but uh, back to Discover Your Parks, there was one event where um, I had the Cub Scout pack come and do kind of a station. This is the one at Pioneer Park. The theme of that was spirit of adventure and uh we really worked very closely uh specifically with Mattie Champa on the uh parks and rec staff to kind of integrate it. It wasn't like we were sort of an outside group. We were very much part of the program, the theming. Um we talked about logistics and what we could and couldn't do. Set up a little model campsite. Um just had a lot of fun and got a lot of really good feedback about that. Um, and what that informs me as a commissioner is just to talk to members of the public and let them know, you know, this department is kind of open to your participation and your suggestions and, you know, it's not like it's just run and that's just the way it is. Like, you know, feedback and participation is important. So, kind of went on and on with that, but >> that is all right. Um, and the last bit that uh is kind of an upcoming thing that we're thinking about is the parks and recreation system master plan. It was adopted initially in 2010 and it probably needs a revamp. Um, so Director Johnson brought it up to us as a commission of, hey, do you think this would be a good idea to look at? And I think that is and we didn't vote on it or anything, but I think the general consensus was yes, we do think that um the parks and recreation system master plan could use an update. Uh, especially since the, you know, demographics of Roseville are changing. There's been a lot of development in the city since 2010 and just the way we recreate is changing and how can we, you know, do things to make it more bikable and more livable and be that you know a city that everyone I mean we are the city everybody brags about our parks and so let's keep it that way and how we can um revamp a master plan to really forward think in that area. Uh and this just on the slide is all of us at Discover Your Parks this summer. It is really one of the best events. Um my daughter came out to be a junior commissioner one at one of them or something like my kids are always there wanting to be junior commissioners and talk about the parks. But it is really just such a great opportunity. We see many of you there at discover your parks as well. I even saw former council member Etton there at one of the discovery parks because um you just can't get enough of city events, right? Um and so it's just a great way to show up, talk to the community, really find out what people are interested in and then make those connections. So, there was somebody talking about a hornets nest in one of the playgrounds and I said, "You know what? I know the guy who can fix that." And Jim Taylor was over at the Rosebrook Park thing, and he was responsible. He's like, "I got somebody on it. They'll be out there in the morning to fix it." Um, I had another situation like that emailing Jim on the weekend about something of like, "Hey, I saw this at the park." And he's like, "I got you. It's it's fixed." And it's just really helpful to know somebody and have such a responsive staff to get to work with. And I'm just trying to not make director Johnson like you can't say positive things about but I mean the entire parks and recreation staff is incredible to work with and we are so lucky to work with all of them and I think it's just you know a good time to give them their public kudos because we are so lucky to have such a great group of people to work with. So um is there anything you would like us to look into? Well, first of all, I we we do need to agree with you on the staff. The parks and recreation staff is amazing. Uh starts right from the top down through everybody uh that's involved. You know, even the folks that are out taking care of fields and things like that. I think it's just um you know, it as you noted, it's one of the things that really brings people to Roseville uh and keeps people in Roseville. Um and so you know it's it doesn't happen just magically without you know significant thought significant planning significant work organization uh all those things and and that's because of the folks that we have you know both on staff as well as our volunt our incredible volunteers and so um you know it it's definitely something where um the people make the difference and and actually that includes the commission as well. So we'll throw you guys in there too. Um so we'll start with that. Uh questions or feedback from the council? Council member Strong. >> Well, thank you. And um a special shout out to um Lindsay uh Matt Spenson as uh we share Lexington Park is our park. Um it's beautiful. If you've gone there any weekend, the amazing amount of uses that it is besides just that brand new beautiful uh space um at the >> the playground >> at the playground, but every part of it is being used in a different way. Um I have an ebike. I go as many places as I can and I see a lot of beautiful places and a lot of beautiful playground structures in other cities that just are empty. I don't know that I've ever walked by or driven by uh Lexington Park and seen it completely empty no matter the time of day. And so I feel like it, you know, when you go to these um when you're doing these outings and you're looking at how things are being done, it's not just the staff that's eyes are on it, but it's parents and people who live in the neighborhood and see every Saturday, Sunday, who's out there playing soccer and playing volleyball and playing whatever else in the park. Um my wish list is um more bike racks. Always want those, especially at Central Park. there just aren't enough. Um, if there's a way for us to have a city dog park or some kind of place where people can um, have some space. Um, more community gardens. A lot of people want more community gardens spread around the neighborhood. Um, and now that council member Etton's not uh is a former, I would love to double stripe the um tennis courts at Victoria Central Park so that they also could accommodate pickle ball because it's one of the only places where their houses aren't that close. Um, and then I think just continuing finding ways that um, bike pedestrian areas can be um, can be separated. There's a lot of misconception from people in the public that the trails, the two minutes trails are not intended for bicycles. You get a lot of push back from people. And so I know I've seen personally seen some people do some serious number on those white sticks um on Hamlin, but I really appreciate as a biker having that little bit of protection. And um I think it can do great wonders for families, especially had my kids been younger. Um I always biked down the sidewalk because I really didn't need them to get taken out by a car not paying attention. So I appreciate all the work you do, but I appreciate all the different types of perspectives you bring and I am so amazed by your dedication. every discover your parks there's, you know, more than one of you there and really giving that ambassadorship that I think we had in mind um bringing it to life. So, thank you. >> Great council. >> Yes, thank you all for all your uh hard work and actually um yes, I do hear from um Mr. Etn all the time about different things and he comments about the parts and what's being done constantly as well. So, I mean, he does appreciate your work still. Um, but I a couple of things I wanted to um touch on is, you know, I do like the um the accessibility of the parks for people that don't have the um um the ability to get around well. Ex. And I also appreciate some of the inclusive p um playground equipment which um also the beautiful job that was done at Lexington Park up there. That's amazing. But I u wanted to um talk about a you had mentioned at the beginning about working with the friends of these different I think that's really really a good thing that you guys could be working on because I I see some of the um things that they have done in the past for us and and and I mean our parts and everything are amazing and then you put that on it they become incredible and so to figure out ways to work that resource I think that's a really good idea. on that and um I'm just really impressed with um yeah of the parks and you're right this is what people talk about when you ask people what do you love about Roseville and almost most of the time they they start with the parks and so yes making sure that they stay you know in good condition and that we reinvest in them and that's the volunteers and these groups and everything else and and I wanted to mention that volunteer thing I am so impressed with the volunteers years in in our community that they too can add a whole another level. I mean, if you even just think about all the flowers being planted on Lexington and some of these things, I think a lot of people don't realize that's all volunteers and and so yeah, so being able to access and utilize some of these um beautiful resources we have, I think is wonderful, especially if you're working on, as you say, making those connections, bringing all those pieces together. I think that that's that's really important to me and I thank you for bringing that up. >> Other thoughts? Uh, Council Member Grath. >> Well, thank you for all your work. Obviously, it's a commitment when you join a commission and I know that I've seen many of you at the different events, uh, distributing flyers about upcoming events and things like that and it makes makes a difference. Um when when everyone's talking about the parks in Roseville from my job as I I had clients that moved out of Roseville into a another suburb a couple suburbs away. Two years later they called me and they said, "Wayne, we have to get back to Roseville. The parks just do not measure up." So we had they came back and their kids were involved in the uh park system. So, it really affects people's daily lives with with with what you're doing and what the parks do in Roseville. I think uh as council member uh Schroeder was saying about the other groups, I think that's you know, four parks are a great resource. I think working together with them and for Roseville uh the friends of Roseville, all of those things are really helpful and I think that's a good good thing for you to point out. And lastly, my last point is you are the eyes and ears that we need to the community. We can't we do try to go to many things ourselves, but you can't hear from everyone. So when you're hearing things and getting that back to to Director Johnson or even to one of us, that's all really really helpful work. So I just want to express my appreciation for that. >> Great. Other thoughts, feedback? Council member Bower. >> U left with the bottom of the bucket here. I echo everything my fellow council member said. Uh thank you all for your work. Uh what I'll just add is if you notice under your agendas there's always a option for commissioner uh initiated items and I do encourage you uh as well as other commissions to do that. If there's something that you wish to discuss or bring up do do that. Uh you don't necessarily have to have staff come up with what it is that you're talking about. So I just want to empower you with that. That was the whole idea. Um we believe that's an Edin thing as well um amongst others uh to do that is so we can have that going on what council member Grath was stating if you hear something maybe that's something for you to have a discussion and kind of to see that uh two things you may want to look at um well first um as you're discussing some of these things we've been talking about biking you know you also have the opportunity to work with other commissions as well and you can work through staff to make that happen as posted and whatnot but there might be some overlap or you want to hear what they're doing that sharing information it's easy to get siloed in some of these things, but some of the work that you're doing may be complimentary to some other commissions. It's always nice to also hear what others are doing and um so point that out. And then also after public safety, your budget is the largest uh that comes. So if you know something you may want to discuss if you want to have more insight into what's going on there, it's another thing you might be able to discuss. We're going through the budget process right now. It's a lot for us to go through and something you may want to consider. Also, if there's changes or things, you can also recommend those. Thank you for all your work. >> Great. Um, I just have a couple things. One is um I didn't realize it was 2010 that we did the last update to the system plan. >> However, now that I think about it, that was uh that was uh that's exactly right. Um because I was on the steering committee as I seem to recall. Uh so, I think that's definitely something important that we that we take a look at as a community. I think all the reasons that you stated are absolutely true. Changing demographics, changing way people recreate, what people are looking for in terms of facilities, all that's important. Uh because really we need to, you know, we need to be informed in our decision-m especially about our capital needs in the park and recreation system. Uh we can't be, you know, uh planning for, you know, certain types of fields that nobody's going to be using and that sort of thing. We want to make sure that we're using the valuable resource of the taxpayers dollars and and those who pay for recreation fees towards, you know, what really benefits people in the community and is current. So, that's important. Um, just along the lines of what Council Member Stron said, uh, in regards to the activeness of our parks, uh, just a very quick an anecdote. I went out uh with staff to do the uh filming of the state of the city earlier this summer and we decided one of our stops would be at Sunset Park, our newest park or one of our newest parks out in the western part of the community. Uh and this was probably at, you know, 9 and 10 in the morning on a Friday weekday. And as we uh pulled up to the park and got all the the camera stuff ready and I was, you know, doing my hair and makeup, um we had the uh the kids in the neighborhood just started showing up. Yes. >> And started playing on the playground and and you know shooting baskets in the in the basketball hoop and things like that. Uh and it provided an excellent backdrop for the state of the city comments that that happened to be made at that time. But it was just really you know it brought home the fact that these parks are active at all times and and I think in a neighborhood where there was a lot of question I think as to the use of the park, the value of the park and and all of that. It was just really validation as to all that decision-making uh in which the commission itself was involved and maybe not not all of you individually uh given your tenure but um the commission had a lot to say about the choice as to whether to do uh dollars or land as park dedication for the development that took place there and the decision was made which was I think maybe the first and only time or maybe the second and only time of two that uh in all the time I've been on the council we took land instead of cash or you know not accom nomination. So, and I think it just paid off tremendously for the community. So, I wanted to point that out specifically. Uh, and then finally, uh, all this talk about everything that the commission does and and how how much fun it is on the commission. It's hard to believe, uh, that you guys have all this fun doing all this work when the public works, environment, and transportation commission has stated that they are the fun commission. Um, so not not to try to create some rivalry there, but uh, but uh, but you may want to have a talk with them about that. >> Down the gauntlets. So uh but once again just echoing all the thanks uh and appreciation for all the work that you folks do in the decision- making and guiding uh both recreation as well as our parks and our facilities. Um so is that enough feedback? Does that help you at all in your in your deliberations and and and hopefully in your egos? >> All right. >> All right. We have one more thing to talk to you about tonight and tonight we are just providing a recommendation. We are not asking for any >> I don't think there's any action happening. Um, a couple months ago, you all sent over the Aldine right ofway to the parks and recreation rec Wow, it's hard to talk now. The parks and recreation commission to talk about the um is would this area be valuable as parks or recreation space? Uh we talked about it at two meetings uh both August and September. And at both of those meetings, there was a significant amount of public feedback from residents. Uh both property owners who are line the area as well as folks in the neighborhood. We took a site tour. Um was it like the first day of the state fair? It was like the first or second day of the state fair and so we were anticipating parking nightmares and it actually was super calm in the neighborhood and we were able to walk through look at the trees look at the tree tags um with Jim Taylor was there Kerry Anderson was there Director Johnson was there um and really get a sense uh with some of the residents as well about and seeing what it really is because you can't really understand it until you're actually there walking through and getting burrs on your clothes from all of the invasives. Um there was a tree inventory done. Uh we received the topographical survey. Uh and so the commission reviewed relevant information um from that 2010 parks and recreation system master plan, the site conditions, the pre the tree preservation information as well as we talked about accessibility standards because that was a really big concern. trees and accessibility were the two really big things as well as kind of noise um that were brought up by um residents. So, we discussed at our last meeting two pieces of information and we held two different votes. Uh one was that the parks and recreation commission acknowledges that that piece of land that is the Aldine rightway has value for the parks and recreation system. The second thing that we voted on was that the parks and recreation commission recommends that the city council direct staff as expeditiously as possible engage with a third party to conduct a detailed study of a non-traditional path. So not a batuminous pathway, anything like that, but that includes pathway alignment options for accessibility and tree preservation um and those specific tree impacts. and that a final decision be made immediately following receipt of the study. We're happy to answer questions about that too if you would like to ask us questions. >> All right. Well, thank you first of all for your deliberation on this and uh taking that uh request from the council and really doing uh what I think we all expected you would do is a is a good job of working through the information and and thinking about it and having discussions. Uh questions from the council. All right. Um once again, uh we are receiving the recommendation this evening. Um this will be back before the city council. I don't know if we've uh Mr. Trean scheduled the particular meeting for it, but I want to make sure I don't misspeak in that regard. >> No, we have not. I would expect it to be the October meetings. >> One of the October meetings. Okay. All right. Uh so we'll take this under advisement. Um you know, I think that uh uh once again, we're not taking any action this evening on the recommendation. And I think that we want to make sure and be uh contemplative about it and make sure that we've got the information we need to have. And so we we do appreciate uh having all the information provided from the commission on its deliberations including the minutes uh and the other information and and the recommendations. So we'll be taking that uh under advisement and uh and considering it uh once again probably at one of our October meetings. And we'll certainly keep everybody uh including the commissioners as well as the neighborhood uh and interested parties uh aware of when that will be happening uh because we uh will be certain to have some some feedback uh during that process and would expect no less. And so uh we'll look forward to that opportunity uh and once again thank you uh for you know this extra work that that we gave you and and and you know doing a good job with that. Uh I think it helps us in our decision- making process. Is there anything else from the commission on this item particularly that that you wanted to highlight or point out from your >> highlight all the work that the staff the staff did and provide information and respond to our specific question they really quickly wanted to appreciate >> Matt and his department for that. Right. Right. If there's nothing else then on the joint meeting, we appreciate this opportunity to visit with you. Uh and thank you. Uh and you certainly are welcome to stay for the rest of the council meeting at your option. Uh we've got a couple of more business items to take up. Uh so again, thank you very much. >> Thank you. Bye. >> And it is our 8:00 break time. So why don't we do our normal five minute 8 o'clock break. Yes. All right, we're back from a short break. Uh, and uh, we've got more excitement and fun on our agenda this evening. uh I should say with our other fund commission, the uh the finance commission is here this evening uh to make some recommendations related to our 2026 budget and tax levy uh after having considered as the council is considering the city manager's recommendation that he made in August. Uh and so with that, I'll turn it over to the members of the commission who are here this evening uh to introduce themselves and then talk about their recommendations. Welcome. Well, after listening to this park and wreck, we decided that the finance commission >> to have more fun, too. So, >> so what are you doing here? >> Sure. Anyway, we're here making a recommendation. Uh, so I'm blessed to work with uh a real talented team here. uh commissioners Ray Consenbach and Commissioner Hannah Bervore uh have been just uh tremendous uh people to work with along with Kevin Davey made some great suggestions at our last budget meeting uh Safa Barklay. We have a new uh student uh on our commissioner Aldo Burrquist and one of one of our commissioners is on medical leave. So uh and vice chair Sadi Dier uh we're here to give you a little background on some of the discussion that we had uh and how we came to the recommendations that we're going to present to you. Uh so I'd like to step through this bench handout number one uh with you and take maybe five or 10 minutes to to step through that. Uh then we can open up for questions and dialogue after that. Uh so the finance commission uh started by looking at the franchise fees and there are a lot of pros and cons as you all know. So pros included most cities already use this as a source of revenue. That was a big pro. Uh franchise fees would apply to exempt properties that would allow them to help share in the cost of city government. We like that. uh franchise fees might help us to avoid the use of pilots payment in lie of taxes. Um that um is has the potential to be arbitrary, potential to be inconsistent and certainly the potential to add up an administrative management burden. Uh cons. Uh franchise fees are a tax, a regressive tax and a non-deductible tax. That also has a biggie. Uh we could be criticized for being sneaky for disguising this tax. Uh and and we we at the finance commission meeting actually got some of that input. Uh it dilutes or reduces the Minnesota property tax credits for many homeowners or uh renters. And at the federal level, we have a new state and local tax deduction that has increased from 10 to $40,000, which would mean uh more people will be able to itemize their deductions. So, in the end, the finance commission uh after discussion agreed that we would recommend that the franchise fees not be considered as a source of income uh or source of revenue for the for budgeting purposes. We then moved on to staffing. The staffing requests uh are uh for police and fire are significant factors in the 26 budget uh and and beyond uh in a big way. Uh so seven new FTEEs are requested for police adding to a current force of 71. 15 new FTEEs are requested for fire adding to a force of 29. grant requests have been submitted to provide some offset to the cost of these. Uh but regardless of the outcome of the grant request, uh both chiefs have have advised that they intend to proceed with all of the new staff positions uh regardless of the outcome of the grant request. So again, more background and research that we did knowing that this is going to be a a real big part, a big increase in the budget. Uh, I spent a lot of time reading and reviewing documents, including the police request for council action dated July 7th. Uh, the fire RCA dated January 27th. The Axtel report did ride alongs with the police and fire department. Uh, had in-person meetings and and operational briefings by the police chief Shider and P the assistant police chief Adams. in-person meetings and operational briefings by the assistant fire chief Neil Scholstrom, battalion chief uh Cody Thorn Thornberg, and I have to say thank you to both police chief and fire chief for kind of a lengthy dialogue and and uh uh entertaining a lot of questions that I had regarding the budgets. Really appreciated that. That very helpful. So, uh, clearly our call volume has grown and that's that's, uh, the basis for the request for for staffing, but we also need to be clear and I want you to know that, uh, the city has responded with staff additions over the past 5 years, uh, to attempt to meet the growing call volume. So, for example, police serious offenses, the 5-year increase has been 16%. uh police calls for service over 5 years, that increase has been 14%. Uh traffic citations over 5 years, 94% increase. And the 5-year increase in police FTEEs has been 24%. Fire incidents, the 5-year increase has been 36%. Fire inspections, 5-year increase, 3%. Five-year increase in fire FTEEs has been 34%. uh we have a pretty good handle we have uh on the calls and incidents it's been harder to get information about FTEES and so just just know that that's an imperfect uh count but but we did our best to to understand the growth of FTEES. So uh as the commission uh discussed this matter, we asked ourselves questions such as what number what minimum number of fire additions would it take to move us from three to four staffed response units? That's I think probably where we are weakest in terms of the uh the comps that uh with other uh cities that we've deemed to be comparables. uh were we're were way on the low end with three response units. Uh at that point uh the commission decided uh that questions such as that are really better answered by city staff and the city manager. Uh the finance commission uh then proceeded to make a recommendation with respect to a levy target. Uh we acknowledge the growing public safety need and we recommend a levy increase not to exceed 10%. So I'll stop there open for dialogue, questions, additions. Anything else from the commissioners to fill in uh details on that? >> Right. I think one of the things that we where our advice might be the where most expertise or whatever is has to do with the franchise fees and um we discussed that a lot as to whether that made sense or not. That that's kind of more in our baywick than how many more police are you know police or fire. That's that's the trade-off you guys have is how much more of that service do you want and how much more levy goes with it. That's that's the political decision. But if if you want we'd be happy to talk in more detail on the why we want to uh decide against the franchise fee if you so desire. >> All right. Uh questions or ideas or thoughts from the council? Council membersh. >> Uh thank you. I guess my questions probably are more about that second part that you're maybe saying you don't feel as comfortable because I was wondering if you had to assess the FTE equivalent on our current overtime outlay for the public safety department. So, when you look at what we currently are paying for overtime for police and fire, because that really should be um I know that that overtime is expected to cover the cost of quite a few of these um full-time staff that we're thinking of replacing. So, was that something that you considered in your analysis? >> No, it was not. And that's a very good point >> because really then you expensive. >> Yeah. And you're talking a person and a half for each hour of, you know, for each hour of overtime. You're looking at um other another piece that I know was addressed extensively in the Excel report was indicating the impact of the upcoming paid family medical leave act, which is a state law that's going into effect on the 1st of January, which will allow up to 20 weeks of paid leave paid by the state of Minnesota for our staff. And I've had extensive discussions. is we have a very young um childbearing age public safety department and even if they're not the childbearer they are allowed bonding time with their so we expect there'll be a lot more time of replacement time on those staff and so that is another really important component that we add when we look at just an FTE and FTE is saying that that person is in the building doing their job every single day but the reality is if they're granted up to 20 weeks paid paid leave to be off to care for a new child, adopted child, some injury. Um, they can't be on the job and someone has to replace them. So, part of that uh overage is covering for that overtime and part of that overage is covering for that um additional time those folks are away from the position. So in addition to adding to staffing an additional unit, one other piece I asked about was um the possibility and I had asked this question as well um was about going from 12-hour shifts in um the rotation that it is currently to eight hour shifts. um a lot of young family uh employees with young families, they get um like six hour six days of um paytime off per year. So if you want to go because of the 12-h hour shifts um and so if you want to go to the child event, you have to take one of your precious few days off. So I think it's really important that we take I do believe in the questioning that I did of the Excel group after receiving their report they had taken a really thorough review of this staffing component and adjusting to this work life balance. And so I um having been all public safety folks themselves I felt like we were kind of at a meeting of the minds and understanding of that. So I I get it. The bottom line is one thing, but I also want to make sure we take the human component in this and we talk about these are people's lives and we want to have some longevity to what they do and we want to be a good employer to them and we have to we're mandated by law to require to allow them to have some of this time. So some of we I think you really have to look at and I I think it helps to say maybe that's not your bay we wick but to understand that it was someone else's who recently reviewed this and that that was part of why they made the recommendation the way they did because it's not like the old days you get two weeks of vacation a year and you cover that by somebody else. If you're saying you're going to lose maybe five, six people a year or more to 20 up to 20 weeks of paid time away, you suddenly have a very different impact on your FTEES for your whole organization. >> Great. Other questions or thoughts? Council member Sher. >> So I I'll focus on the area you guys said your experts did. So the franchise feed side of things. um you talked about dilutes or reduces the uh property tax credit. Um did you you know looking at that? So I guess I'm I'm kind of wondering the actual impact of that. So say if you if the residents pay say $10 a month on the franchise fee, so $120 a year. Um how you know how how much does that does that affect um their actual credit that they would get? So, I I'm I'm wondering how big of a deal it is from from that aspect because then I think um looking at um and of course there's always the balance between do you end up paying more in property taxes or or do you pay um and that was one of the things I know um the mayor and the and the city manager were working on some spreadsheets on figuring out you know if you did that instead of going to property taxes how much is cash flow then involved too with with a residence. So is it more you know so you have that how much you actually pay in property taxes and then how much would you get reduced in the franchise if you had a franchise fee with your deduction versus actual cash flow out if it was all in property taxes. So it's an I was just curious if you'd looked how much detail of that you looked into. I mean, when you look at each person, the >> or >> the dollars are they're not big, but but the principle of the matter does apply. >> The franchise fee is a de facto tax, but it's not a legal tax. So, on all the on the programs like state programs that can give relief to tax relief, franchise fees aren't part of that, right? we're under re and the same thing as as Bruce said on the uh at the federal level uh where we were limited the state and local tax deduction the salt deduction had been reduced to $10,000. Now it's back to 40,000 up to 40,000. So presumably more people will be itemizing and they can you know that'll help there on their federal tax uh by deducting but that's only on the property tax not on the franchise fee. And so it's and it is uh regressive in that it's um x number of dollars you know per per connection per householder uh as opposed to things that are a bit more graduated in that uh if you got a more expensive house you know paying more property taxes. So it's mildly regressive as well as less efficient for the taxpayer if if they can take advantage of some either state or or federal deduction. That would be the that's the problem. Those are the problems with it. Does that answer your question? >> Well, it it it does, but it's it's not a big amount that would reduce their deduction. And then did you look at um that when you look at these franchise fees that actually it's you it's not just how many percentage of the household they'll pay that you know that percentage of the revenue. So for example if um a commercial property for example may end up paying more in a franchise fees than a residential. So then if a residential is say 90% of our um connections but they may end up only paying say um you know 60% of the actual fee total. So I I mean I'm not saying one way or the I was just kind of curious if you looked at the different configurations that way too. It it it's hard to make a huge case out of any individual uh renter, for example. Uh but it the principle does apply that that uh they they'd be looking at a non-deductible tax whereas they they would have possibly some some benefit on the the renters's credit through the state. We did not receive data as to how exactly how that would be or um or how much is on tax exempt properties that would pay, but there aren't a lot of properties uh that much we know. >> Right. >> So, we don't have a lot of hard hard numbers on that. We not they were not available to us. >> Okay. So, it's it was more on the principle that you're you're looking at it than the actual numbers. >> The principle and the general logic. Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions? Uh, Council Bower, >> I want to step back a little bit. Um, talk just the whole process. I was just curious as you've gone through and come to your recommendation uh that you brought forward today, which thank you for um did you find the budget process that we have, you know, areas of it lacking or things that we could change to make it more beneficial to help you come to a decision? I'm curious about the process if we need to make adjustments or if there's more data or something else to make you I watched your full meeting that you did and it was wonderful meeting there such good participation for everyone but I did notice that you were struggling in some areas um because of lack of the data and information so I'm curious if you've if you haven't thought about that I would encourage you to discuss that at a future meeting uh because I'd be very interested and maybe other members of the council be if there's some opportunities to make this process a little bit more efficiently for you to be more comfortable with the recommendation. >> Examples of that um struggles with trying to get FTE counts. um other examples and uh included some of the some of the information that was reported in in the uh ACFR um we had questions about and and so uh I think where that leads us on on both of those is to to do a more careful job uh in the coming year to make sure that our data is >> but I would say on the on the general that was on something that we hadn't done before in the franchise fees. So, you know, there wasn't really a process for that, I would say. And this is my first time on the on the commission. But as far as the budget stuff, I mean, there was a lot of detail uh a lot of detail. So, uh, uh, that seems to be pretty locked down >> and and we were concerned going into this budget year, we knew that the there were, uh, from from the taxpayers perspective, uh, there were going to be a lot of things that they would be looking at, a new sales tax, uh, potential for a a hefty increase in the, uh, uh, the levy and and a new franchise fee. Uh so we were concerned about that whole package coming together and and creating a an issue that that would make homeowners and renters uh and business owners uncomfortable. >> And I would say, you know, our recommendation was 10% but there wasn't any science to that. It was, you know, we're run the decimal system. I mean, it just seemed just seemed like a lot if you're asking for more than that, but there wasn't a scientific. I think the key thing is we said if you want more staffing for these things and therefore a higher level levy, that's your call. What can the citizens tolerate or what do they want? And that that's a judgment call. It doesn't have a right or wrong answer to it. So we we're you know basically >> you're not making our decision for >> given given extremely disappoint. >> So that I mean that that 10% was just it was basically I think we were saying boy some of that's 13 14% that's an awful lot. That's probably more than people can stomach. It was I mean that was about the extent of that kind of analysis. Um um >> so once we start we passed this budget uh you know we now started receiving the quarterly reports those are aggregated reports you know and funds are you know not I mean here we saw the earlier today the EDA right where we had each individual fund and it's cash balance and whatnot I know the reports that you're receiving to make sure that we're operating well and we're following the budget are aggregated. I'd be curious to know, you don't have to answer it now, but it would be something I'd be interested in um you to discuss to see if you want that report changed somehow to actually list out each individual fund or something. Make sure that you're getting um the information that you need to feel comfortable that we're running and managing our funds appropriately. So maybe in a future discussion for you to discuss uh amongst yourselves to see if that report is sufficient for what you wanted to do. At your request, we've received uh I've I've not been in receipt of of interim financial reports. I mean, I think I think that's a natural thing that this commission ought to see from time to time. >> Yeah. >> Maybe quarterly, maybe semianually. >> Yeah. And I would encourage you if that's something that you want to one of those council initiated or commission initiated items to discuss that amongst yourselves and request that. Um, and then my final question is, um, in this budget, we look at our CIP and we look at our CIP 20 years out. I'm curious to know if that's beneficial at all. I bring this up because in that CIP, we don't have any sense of inflation in there. If you look at the numbers, there are lots of copy and paste. It seems to be like an exercise. I don't curious, you know, again, not answer here, but I'd be curious for you guys to I guess if that was a factor in your discussion and looking at the budget and if it makes sense to reduce that from 20 to 10 because um or something else because I know for me personally beyond 10 years, it's just unless they factor in a bunch of inflation and other costs, it's just a silly number. It's not even close to reality. >> Agreed. other organizations that I work with, we have inflators on the the 10 20 year look ahead, >> right? I think council strong, you >> um I guess a couple things that came to mind. Um I don't know if this was something in your assessment. One, just looking at FTEES doesn't tell you a lot. I oversee 400 and some employees on a daily basis. That's just for FTEES doesn't really mean FTEES the person who's a receptionist on call versus the person who's in charge. That that doesn't really probably tell you enough. There's a lot of nuance to that. So if you're just looking for a number probably there's a lot of different pieces to it. So unless you are really going to educate yourself on staffing and compensation um I don't know that getting a number is probably going to just it doesn't plug and play. Everybody gets paid different. They have different scales. They have different rates. They have So, I I get that it might be frustrating. I would think that um maybe Mr. Trean would be your best um resource on some of that information, but again, it's not just everybody makes this much money and you just interchange them. As you know, the request was to add some higher level um captains and things like that that >> have some more uh take some of the responsibility off of the even higher level people. And so again, these reports which we've received throughout the year kind of explain a lot of that. But so I'm not sure what the intention was of you know I needed more FTEES just know that that's just not a fixed number and a fixed thing. Um, and then I think just I am not an accountant, so I'm not the person to um address this, but as you're talking about, you know, this can't be deducted. Um, how many of our people in our city don't make enough money to even itemize deductions? So, how many people in our city are going to So, oh yeah, they can itemize this if they if we're talking a franchise fee that's like $3 a month, it's $36 a year. they're not it's not going to be enough to put them into a a um an itemized deduction category when they need $15,000 or whatever to to even itemize. And so I think make sure we understand who we're talking about here. Um it's not not going to the average person, I can guarantee you doesn't change their ability to itemize versus not itemize. And maybe there are some, but I'd say our renters and and people in most of our properties here, that's just not going to be the it's not going to be the tipping point for them on that. So, um I get it that it maybe feels sneaky, but it also captures a different population. And I know that um Council Member Schroeder has gone to um multiple each time that she's been on the council. She's gone to the League of Minnesota Cities and this is not some hairrained idea. This is something that other people in other cities are saying works. This has been something that she's really pushed for us to investigate because it's thing it's something that pretty much every other city in this area is utilizing. And so, um, I've often said if if uh council member Schroeder is reviewed it financially, I'm probably going to be okay with it because that's not my forte. But I don't want it to be dismissed out of out of hand because knowing, you know, like I said, that threshold, a lot of our people aren't just hovering on that $36 difference between being able to itemize and not being able to itemize for their taxes. And I'm not saying that we should try to sneak people in, but if there's an opportunity to get payment from some entities that would not normally be paying us, then we we need to be creative so it's not all being taxed in the same way. Well, I I do want to note that uh that this is a opportunity to receive a recommendation and that certainly the council will have the discussion amongst us and the debate about what to do with the recommendation um and why. I think that's important as well for the public as well as the commission to understand our our thought process here. So, I want to make sure we we use our time wisely this evening to to focus on on the recommendation and if we have questions about that. Uh so if we can refocus a little bit in that regard. Uh council Ber I think I saw your hand up. >> Uh yeah um just a quick point on that for the ask from police and fire they did assign a dollar amount for each FTE correct in their budget to come up with their budget amount. >> Yes. >> Okay. So we did actually assign a dollar amount to an FT. So thank you. >> Great. Um and I just you know this is in regard to the um the deductibility. I think the the the challenge we do have is is understanding that um you know whether you pay $1,500 in property tax or $1,570 in property tax, what does that translate to and on your tax bill? And of course, every taxpayer is going to be different because they have different income levels. They're in different tax brackets, etc. They have, you know, obviously different other deductions. Um, but I think to to council member Shorter's point, I think and and perhaps council member Stron as well, the the relative impact of of a, you know, even a $6 a month, which would be electric and gas under the proposal that's been put forward, you know, on that ultimate tax bill on the federal income tax. You know, I just need to understand that better to to I don't I don't want to overweight that in my consideration and I'm not expecting you to have the answer for me on that. I just wanted to put that out there as information I'm trying to put together as we look at this. So, there's a lot of factors that enter into it. Um, and and I think we're going to probably have some some requests for for Mr. Trean coming out of this for information to help us with our consideration as we go forward. But I just wanted to put that that little thought and perspective in there uh from that uh just as to how I'm trying to think about those factors. Um, anything else from the council in terms of questions to the commission about uh background behind the recommendation or discussion or deliberations that underwent? Um, council member Sher. >> Um, again, you know, um, just to what what the mayor was talking about the, you know, trying to uh, seek to understand the actual impact of these things because I understand the philosophy because you didn't have some information to look at the numbers. Um and so you know and like I said you know having the idea of you know is it if is it you know $36 or $100 you know how much difference would that make to someone but also again looking at you know understanding the um the impact of say if again if you have commercial is paying a higher amount than the residential then the commercial ends up paying more of it than a residential and then the thing is if it is only um $36 a year. It's the same. It's a very stagnant amount. So with property taxes, if you put it all in there, then then that you know that can go up and down a bigger swing than than that. So it's just more in seeking to understand some of these financial actual uh getting into the weeds as they say. And so, and I think what uh council member Bower was saying, making sure we get the data that you need to possibly look at some of this as well. And I know um different people are working on that. So, I would say that again, we're seeking to still understand how some of that works. And I'm hoping any information we get about that that we can make sure that you also have it so you get an opportunity to see if that makes any difference what where your recommendations are. one uh I think wrapping up the council discussion here. Council, >> yeah, one final question I forgot to ask previously, so apologize for that, but when you were looking at the budget, uh did you receive anything as far as possible cuts that might be opportunities to save cost or reduce cost or changes in services? And if so, would that have factored in your decision or is that something you would like going forward as part of your decision-making process? There was one table of of of some cuts that were that were made. >> The the budgets they gave us a bite department had and in some detail the increases and the decreases uh and there there was a lot of line items. Obviously, there were increases than decreases, but they spelled those out. You know, we're not experts in every department. We asked a bunch of questions and I would say the consensus we didn't see anything that was at all unreasonable. Uh it all you know we can't fully evaluate it but uh anything that looked a little odd we asked about and um you know got very reasonable answers. the levy's going to go up a lot. If you're going to if you're going to add, you know, FTEES in some areas and you're not going to increase the levy enough or the levy and the franchise fee enough and have to cut somewhere else. Where is that? We don't have a suggestion on that. >> Yeah. Nor would we expect you to come up with that. >> Curious. But I mean, they did spell out, you know, increase by line items. So in parks and wreck probably had I don't know 20 line items and most of them had increase and several had some decreases with usually a little description on it. So those was a lot of information a lot of information on that franchise fee there's not so much information because we haven't been doing it. So, we've asked for some of that stuff. How many, you know, how much of that would be the tax exempt properties? And he said, well, they were working on it. They haven't come up with other than it's not a lot of properties. So, there may be additional data. I once earlier you talked about the EDA, the $100,000. Uh, we had consensus that made a lot of sense. >> So, you did ask if the finance commission looked at it. We did wasn't much discussion. We just Yeah, that makes sense. >> Great. Uh, council member, >> I just want to say a couple things. First of all, thank you for looking at it because this is a, you know, many things were factoring in here and you have one perspective that I do appreciate you coming forward with it. There will be other things that we have to all discuss as a council and obviously the end is council has to decide this, but I just wanted to say I do appreciate your perspective and I appreciate your question. >> Great. Um, there was one more thing I was going to mention, but I've I've lost my train of thought now. Oh. Um, so, uh, on the subject of of reductions in the budget, uh, so I did add up all the line items, at least on the reduction side, because that was a question somebody had asked, and I think it aggregated to something around $2 million order of magnitude. Um, and about 1.6 six and a half or so was was some capital reductions, but there was a good 300 some, 350, 360 of of of operating cost reductions that were that were incorporated. And now obviously there were, you know, that those sort of get swamped over by uh cost of living increases, step increases, even if you didn't make any changes to the staff. And then on top of that were the discussions about the additional uh fire and police employees. And so um you know, that's how we got to where we are. But it but it was interesting and I appreciate very much that that this has been a part of our budget process for a few years now is is the itemization of the pluses and minuses because that hopefully helps us as well as the public as well as you as as our our guardians of the finances of the city to to be able to see and understand that. So um to the extent that that's you know might be able to be adjusted or improved, we'd be glad to hear from you in that. Hopefully we can improve one 300,000 on a $32 million tax supported base like 1%. I think we could probably do better than 1%. Well, and just to that point, I mean, I I think that having done this for nearly 20 years now, um, you know, I I've definitely felt that every virtually every budget we've passed has been, you know, pretty much, you know, no improvements to operations, no no adding extra things other than very specific things that we specifically were looking at in given years, whether it was the staffing up to to do three responses and now we're looking at the or um you know whether it was other targeted spending. So I I don't think that the city of Roseville is is and and I constantly we're talking about our staffing levels and the workloads of staff and and I think that was evidenced in the report from Axtel Group in the police department how we're doing incredibly amazing things with pretty lean staffing in the city and really as a service entity staffing is our big cost. And so, you know, if we're going to be cutting costs, it's going to be cutting staffing. And then the question is, what kind of service levels are we going to get? Um, so I I that's my just my little little fivem minute excessive push back on um you know, cost cutting and and how much we can really get from that at this point in given the history of our operations and where we're at. That doesn't mean we constantly don't look at improvements and we see that in efficiencies and things like that. But the reality is is that we're not going to have some miraculous uh budget I think that that zeros out our increase for for our taxpayers and keeps everything where people are at now. So um you know we we should make sure we we set ourselves a reasonable bar here in this regard. Um I just wanted to put that out there. We grant >> that. Anything else from the from the commission or or uh things you want to know from us or questions you have in regard to what we've discussed this evening? or do you need some time to process too? >> Well, there's a lot to process. Uh I mean just individual examples. If we for example uh uh council member Strand mentioned that uh uh overtime that would be a great one to uh if we can reduce overtime that would be u a premium savings uh if if it's replaced with new staff save the premium dollars. >> I mean just that's just one example. That's true. >> Right. Similar to that, you had mentioned council member Sirhan how the um the new family law comes into effect in 2026. So can we phase in those FTE because wasn't it September or something when we were going to begin? So maybe that is an option to um you know keep the budget down. If you get additional data on some of this stuff that we don't currently have and you want us to look at it, >> I think we'd be willing to look at it. What do you think? >> Absolutely. >> Well, I did want to point so we we do get the quarterly financial reports and I think that's an item in the in the council packet and there may be a process whereby depending on how that's all put together and the timing of everything that there can be either a pre-review by the by the commission or at least simultaneously receiving that information if you're not currently receiving it because uh because it's being done. So, we can just make sure that that you're in the loop on some of those things, too. I >> mean, that's been a real blind spot up until this point. >> Sure. >> All right. Very good. Well, keep letting us know if there's things you need or that can help you with your deliberations, and we appreciate your your effort and time on on, you know, looking at each year what the city manager recommends and providing a recommendation to us. you know, uh, in past years it it may not have been as as challenging or difficult for you because we didn't throw a franchise uh, fee uh, approach at you, but but we know you're up to the task. >> Well, there's a lot going on this year. >> Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you very much. >> Very much appreciate all you guys do very much. >> Y All right. And once again, oh, I was just going to check, Mr. Tre, I think you had asked if there was anything you that the council may want to um, get information on for our deliberations next week on the not to exceed and I was going to put out there that and hopefully there this is something that the council can agree on. So certainly just as as a baseline all of the prior scenarios are still on the table for our consideration in addition to the recommendation from the finance commission. My thought was to throw an additional item in there to get information on, which would be uh the same impact to the property owner as the recommendation of this of the finance commission, but still consider looking at as an alternate to that, you know, including in that amount the the $6 franchise fees for the residential and what that gets us and how that affects our ability to fund uh some of the public safety uh you know, positions and things like that. So, does that make sense from the council's perspective as one more thing to look at? And hopefully we don't have 10 more things, but maybe one more thing. >> So, you're suggesting locking at roughly 10% and then add >> So, it would be the same dollar amount as a 10% which was I think $13 a month or something 1340 or something like that and and just include within that the franchise fee uh because we do raise some more revenue from that which can apply to fund capital and maybe free up some existing levy capacity or remaining levy capacity for some of our other operating costs. So just to be clear, sir, I think I think I we're on the same page as we discussed earlier, but um that the total impact of the levy and the franchise fees would not exceed that 10% total >> would not exceed the same dollar amount >> same dollar amount on the average property. >> So it would be com, you know, levy plus franchise fees equal this amount. >> So if if if in fact the the number was 1344, >> um you know, the impact would be 1344 inclusive of $12 of franch or $6 of franchise fees. That include that. Yeah. >> All right. >> So that's a scenario we can run. >> Yeah. >> All right. Is there is there anything else that you would like? So what so I mean you all know this but just say it out loud. What we need to do is not to exceed. So there are some decisions that u we can't make yet including the franchise fees is you know we have to go through a process to implement that. Um so um we have to look at it that this is the not to exceed even even though that's maybe not the number we're going to land on. Um, and we have a lot of unanswered questions. I think we all do, including the grant dollars. We don't know, we won't know until mid-occtober at the earliest on that. So, you know, a little bit blind as far as what we're going to end up with, but we want to make sure we give enough ability for us to be uh reactive to those changing events. So, maybe keep that in mind as as well. Um, ultimately, we have to pass resolutions uh with numbers in them. And while we can quickly um uh calculate those uh based on the scenarios or if we go off off script, if there's some things that you just want to eliminate right now and not have us be prepared for, that's perfectly fine. Maybe you're not prepared to have that discussion tonight, but just want to open that up in case there's any any things that we know we don't want to be doing. >> I don't know if we want to eliminate anything right now at this point in time. >> Okay, that's fair. >> All right. Thank you again uh and thanks to the commissioners once again for the input. Stay tuned as always. All right, that brings us then to our our last business item this evening, and that is to consider selecting an ar architect or architectural services uh provider for the civic campus project. And I believe our public works director, Jesse Fryhammer, is going to introduce this item for our consideration this evening. >> Uh thank you, mayor and councel. Going to go through a real brief presentation just to get everyone up to speed on uh kind of process and how we went through this the recommended selection. So, um, little background. Uh, in July 7th, council approved more moving forward with concept C. Um, uh, at the July 21st meeting, council approved the RFP for architect services, uh, as well as the construction manager at risk. Uh, we did release that a couple days later. Um, and then we did have proposals due uh, on August 27th. Um the scoring matrix which was in the proposal included six items of you know quality of the consultants proposal qualifications uh of the the lead architect firm um other various uh components as well as as cost which was which was the largest component. So that's what the consultants were scored on. Um so when we did get back proposals one of the processes was uh they did give us have did have to give us a notice of intent. We originally received 10 of those. Um, of those only seven of them did submit an actual proposal. So those were Meer Group, HCM, BKB, uh, LHB, W Architects, Kodat Architects, and U, uh, Bush Architects. Um, based on that staff scored the the RFPs, uh, using the the matrix on the previous slide. Uh, the city manager, myself, the parks uh, and recreation director, the city engineer, the park superintendent, and the city planner were were, uh, a part of that review committee. Um in the the packet we did include but uh kind of a summary of the scoring um from from from that review process was done. Um the top three firms were BKV, LHB and HCM. Um also included in the packet was just kind of a brief uh breakout of costs and hours associated with it as well as an alternate. The alternate was for uh some additional cost to do an increase in sustainability design similar to a B3 which a lot of the state does. Um so there's obviously increased cost and designing for a higher sustainability level. So uh we do we wanted to include that table just to get a little bit of scale. Um obviously the the level of effort reflects costs. Um so based on the proposals um uh staff recommended to short list down to three for interviews. Uh that was HCM Architects, BKV Group, and LHB. Um all three of these firms were listed as the top three um for each of the staff on the scoring criteria, but there was just in different orders. So it was very clear that these were the top three proposals uh in terms of scope. Um all three of these firms were very capable of doing the work. Um but very clear separation in terms of costs, knowledge of the project, and project experience to to deliver a similar project for Roseville. Um se on September 9th we did interview the selected firms. Um based on the scores in the interview staff recommends selecting LHB as the architect for the campus master plan for final design. Um they've done numerous projects with similar size and scope. Uh project manager the lead architect and their team have um large experience with large scale projects uh including remodels and expansions projects which this isn't just a green field site. It's it's a it's a combination of um and then cost of services and hours provided um were over or over overall best value of the top three firms. Um so getting into the fees. So they did provide the the the breakout in uh two parts. So the maintenance operations center and the licensed passport dance or license passport center dance studio. So that was because we have different funding sources. So um the maintenance operations center cost was a little over $2 million and that would would be funded with the sales tax. um the license passport center dance studio that's um about $631,000. Um that funding uh hasn't been fully determined but um either bonding or something or levy something similar. So the overall cost was a little over $2.6 million. Um the alternative for a higher sustainability for LHB was about almost $150,000. Um I think that extra was an extra slide there, so ignore that last bullet. Uh and then construction manager at risk. Just wanted to identif f firms from the eight that were submitted. So that process is is running parallel. Um we are recommending to bring uh a recommended firm at the October 13th meeting. So just wanted to keep that in mind. And then the table on the right kind of related to that is we did try to summarize a little bit on where where this is at in the budget. This is one little aspect of kind of the soft cost portion of the budget of what was presented uh with the last update of um the last study that was completed. So for the overall uh maintenance operation um the total funding is 64.2 million which is the the ref the referendum uh costs um the total project budget based on the civic campus master plan update from July this year uh was $60.8 million. um the soft cost portion of that budget uh was about $12.9 million. So the for in this case with this proposed architect it would be uh just over $2 million. So there would still be about $10.9 million for the other soft costs when we get we hire construction manager at risk. That'll further refine that. But there are other soft costs for permits, furniture, um other other items like that. But um just to give you a little idea, it's it'll slowly come into picture where we're at with budget, but there's still a lot of other unknowns, but we did and we did that as well for the licensed passport center, dance studio. So certainly this is just one aspect, but um just just uh try to we'll try to update you as we move through the process so we can keep track of where the budget is. So with that, um the request of council action, uh staff would recommend approved selection of LHB for architectural services related to the civic campus project. Um, and then if selected, staff would bring the the actual agreement for approval at the October 13th meeting, which as I mentioned, um, we would at least at that point also have a recommended, um, um, consultant for the, uh, construction manager at risk. So, theoretically, we'll have we'll have a a little closer idea on the cost at that point, but um, we we obviously need to negotiate to get the final costs in the agreement, which we'd bring back in a couple weeks. So, with that, I can answer any questions that the uh council may have. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Fraham. Are there questions from the council on the uh recommendation from the uh group that worked on uh the process to get to the um selection of the architectural services firm? Uh, Councilman Bower, >> uh when you conducted the interviews of the three uh firms that you uh brought in for interviews, did anything really change or swing or you know, you don't have to like name. I'm not asking you up for name, but I'm just curious if after doing that that really changed a bunch of things or didn't change or >> No, I I think overall they they they all scored very well. It's it's very clear they're all very up to speed on it. Um you know, obviously based on on the the committees, the group, we all realized uh LHB could do it. Um cost was certainly a factor in that they they were the the the lowest firm and they could certainly do the work. They've done a lot of similar projects. their their their um staff that was at the thing has has a lot of experience and um you know horsepower to deliver a large project like this. So we're we're all very comfortable with the proposal. Thanks. >> Other questions for uh staff uh council member Grath. >> Just on that line, have you visited any of the facilities they built in person? >> So we have not done that. Um one of the um as part of the proposal, one of one of the scope items is for them to provide tours. So, but um one of them that they did do is the environmental center. I personally have not been there. Maybe there's other staff that has been there, but um the recommended for that is that was one very local project that they've done. Um obviously similar in terms of >> kind of some of the customer service um a little bit different in terms of what a maintenance operation center would be, but they had other examples of mind or or county structures that would be similar in nature. >> Thanks. >> Other questions? Uh and just to to be clear, the recommendation at this time is not to include the alternate for the B3 design. >> So we didn't >> appear to be in the total. >> Yeah, we did we didn't do that. Um certainly we would not recommend probably going to the full B3, but certainly we didn't we didn't have a real deep discussion on that if that's something council wants us to explore further. Um certainly there'll be some aspects of a sustainability, but if we want to shoot for um a lead design or other things like that, that's something that's a much higher ask or want. Um certainly it could be like a so the B3 standard is really set up for state projects. If you get state bonding funds you have to design to that. Um so certainly it could be a modified version of it um to some of some of those uh uh working with other projects where where um agencies have had to deal with that. There are very high standards. So um which which can be good but there can also be a lot of costs associated with that. So um we didn't really provide a recommendation on that. So certainly uh we could uh take any feedback council may have on that as well. >> Right. And I know that uh at the time that we did the fire station project uh I don't know that B3 was in existence at that point. Certainly there was lead silver and different categories like that. And we ended up at that time on the council sort of uh choosing something less than lead specific because I think there was I don't know $100,000 cost associated with whatever that was just for the certification uh let alone designing to it. So I think we I don't it'd be interesting to know what what ultimately our standard was on the fire station. It was it was probably Roseville fire station standard whatever it was. Um, so that may be a challenge to try to track down, but uh, you know, I I don't think we want to be, uh, ignorant of looking at some of those sustainability aspects of the design, but I also don't know for sure that we would we want to do the full-fledged B3, Mr. Judge. >> Yeah. And I'm just trying to recall I remember that exact discussion. We did not want to pay to be certified because just to even be called that, you had to pay a pretty exorbitant fee. But there was an interest in doing some some sustainable efforts and we still did that as part of like we have a white roof up there. So I think those conversations can be ongoing without official certification but knowing that we are doing what we can within budget within what we have for cost and that might just be an ongoing conversations as we get into the design and start talking about we could do this or that and maybe not necessarily be caught up on are we this certification that we can put up on a plaque. It's more about what's important for uh the the operations and what's the cost effectiveness of that. >> How does that affect the the contract with the uh with the architectural firm if if they're not doing the B3 design? You know, what are we getting for sustainability for the price? And do we have to look at some additional dollars to cover sustainability design? I just want to make sure we're not sort of selling ourselves short. if we're looking for that kind of design work. I don't want to I don't want to find out that, you know, we're not getting that in the in the current contract proposal. >> So, certainly there's some level of effort, but um you know, there'll be some baseline um you know, sustainability, but you know, to look to a higher degree, higher standards and really starting to get into really details. There's going to be additional costs to do that um you know, different iterations on that. So, >> is that a conversation to have with LHB as part of the bringing the contract back then? Yeah, we we could certainly do that. That that that'd be a a simple option. Um, you know, or that's something as we get a little bit further down. Um, obviously I don't think the original schematic design will get too detailed into that and as you come up with cost that maybe that's something that could be added a little a little bit later um as you maybe start detailing the finishes and and and exact more more detailed as you as you go through the process. So, it could be something that potentially could be an add-on service a little bit later as well. That might be something we bring forward to the council for either we try we'll try to get the information we can. I I don't think we want to go to full B3 at that cost, but maybe have some allowance in there for sustainability efforts for D >> or just know that there's going to be some potential changes over the course of the contract to cover some of those costs. I'd be curious council thoughts. Council member Grath. Um, and I'm I'm not asking for details tonight because I realize how these things go, but I would I would like to know what the paybacks are for the different uh concepts that would be going in there because some things you do you know on any of these like even on energy audits on home homes when they do it to give you a rundown on this is the payback for insulation, this is the payback for this and so then you can analyze what the cost effectiveness is of each item. And I I don't expect that tonight or even it can be a discussion in the future whether it's you know how much time that takes and so on. >> Council member Sher. Well, and I do like the idea of giving us some flexibility than just saying this is we're going to go to this particular thing. But so and and anyone who's gone through a construction project knows that that you can say well you know this is what's you know if you want to do this this is what it will cost addition which then we get you know there's that opportunity to make that decision including the paybacks and that. So, I do like the idea of, you know, not, you know, saying yes, we're going to look at it, but not lock it in, you know, so then we can, like you said, let's decide, you know, what what's a good payback and what makes sense versus, >> you know, that certificate only kind of thing. So, I do like the idea having some flexibility around it, >> right? And certainly probably having more conversation with LHB may inform that because they may say, "Oh, yeah, this is something we do all the time. >> It's this, you know, or whatever." Council member Strong. Yeah, I guess I I agree with that. I was thinking more like something like a heat pump or something, you know, that's important to know before you get started. That's not an aftermarket thing. You add, oh, well, we have some room here. You know, it's something you have to put. >> Sometimes you do it at your skating center. >> Yeah, it'd be a lot easier to do it at the beginning. So if we if we make sure we know I think like council member Grath and mentioned just if we know what that payback is I know you know if you look at solar panels or whatever they give you you know this is when you're going to this is your break even time and if we're paying for this building for a certain amount of time and we hit that over that time well then then it's become cost effective. So, I think there's got to be that type of tool to figure out where your ROI when you hit that break even >> because anything we do today is going to be nowhere near what the standard will be in the future. So, you know, if we don't shoot for somewhere in the middle to upper range, we're going to be so far behind before the thing even is up. And that's how it works. But um you know it'd be nice if we're at least trying to be a little bit closer to pay get the best we can for the price we pay I guess. >> Right. Right. Uh do want to provide an opportunity for public comment before we uh finally uh take the action on the recommendation uh to proceed with LHB. So open it up for public comment. >> Roger has Junior Wagner please. And I just can't believe that nobody with all the money you're going to spend here that nobody wants to talk about it from the public. I still remember when my father was on the council in the 70s and they were contemplating building this building. There were huge crowds of people up there talking about it. So I don't know why nobody else seems to be interested. But anyway, I hope that uh before major decisions are that part of the uh process for the architect to work on that you'll give them some options or live give them the leeway to give some options like uh maybe we can get a better public works building and outdoor storage if the license center is somewhere else and it gives you more room over there because we have a lot of room that you could put that uh I mean you could even put in the current outdoor storage space for public works or hope you'll at least have them look into how expensive it would be to build a basement and or a third floor. I mean, the police department needs space. You need to move people out of here somewhere else and give the police department more space. So, you you can't be doing these things as silos every time. You need to think about other needs of the city that if they could be taken care of at the same time. And I still think You can build a be you could build the whole public works over on the north over in Veterans Park if you'd move everything all the outdoor storage to the leaf place and just keep the fuel station across the street here because they don't need to be going to the outdoor storage 20 times a day, I don't think. But I assume they have to get fuel all the time. So I don't think it'd be that big a deal to drive from here to Dale Street to get some salt or whatever they need to get over there. So anyway, good luck and thanks a lot. >> Thank you for your comments this evening. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? >> All right, not many left. >> We'll close close the public comment then and return to deliberation. We do have the request to authorize uh working up a contract with LHB for the architectural services um in the amount of the 2.6 6 million and change as recommended. >> Motion to approve as suggested by staff. >> All right. There's a motion from council member Stron and a second from council member Grath. Uh is there a motion to divide the question? >> I was going to say that's what I was raising my hand for. I'd like to divide the question to do each of those separately. >> All right. Is there a second? There's a second to divide the question. So it's two votes on the on the main motion. um uh one for the maintenance center services and one for the uh license center etc services. Uh so we've got the motion to separate the question. Uh is there any discussion on that motion? Actually I'm not even sure there is a discussion allowed under the rule for that. >> Uh uh so we have the motion. All those in favor of separating the question signify by saying I. >> I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. So we'll take two votes then. Uh we'll proceed first on the uh motion by council member Stron uh and seconded by council member Grath to approve the uh architectural services for the maintenance facility uh in the amount of approximately $2 million and some change uh discussion on that motion. >> I appreciate the work that the group has done. Thank you. >> All right. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I >> opposed. That passes unanimously. Second the motion by Council Member Straw. Seconded by council member Graov to authorize the architectural services on the license uh and passport center and dance studio facility etc for 630 and some change uh discussion on that motion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I >> opposed. >> That motion passes three to two with council members Schroeder and Bower in opposition. All right, that is authorized then and we'll look forward to that uh contract and perhaps some of that additional information coming back before the council in October. Thank you again to everybody who is on the team that did that review and the process and we're taking more steps here. That brings us to the end of our business items this evening. Uh only now 25 minutes behind. That's not too bad. We are at our consent agenda. Uh and Mr. DJ, I'll turn it over to you to introduce those items for our consideration. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We just have three items on the consent agenda tonight. Item 10A approves the 2026 insurance benefit renewals and the city cafeteria benefit contributions for city employees. The overall rate increase is approximately 13.6% in 2026 with the employees covering 8 and a half% of that increase and the city budget covering the 5% uh remaining uh of the increase. Due to the increase, the city will be offering two additional plans to employees to help manage their increased costs called accountable care organizations that have smaller networks but do have a lower premium. Item 10B approves the final payment for the 2024 sanitary sewer lining project to Hydroclean LLC. Then item 10 C approves entering into an animal services contract with a company called the Companion Animal Center to provide animal inpound and support services for the Roseville Police Department. the last year and a half, the city has been using the uh animal humane society providing these services to Roseville. Uh but the humane society recently notified Roseville and the other cities that served that it will not be able to provide those services in 2026. And that is the consent agenda. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Trean. Is there a motion on the consent agenda? >> Second. >> Moved by council gra uh seconded by council strong >> in that case. >> Sorry, council member. Uh uh discussion on the motion. I want to think this is a those aren't just minimal things. Each one of those took an immense amount of time to um at least A and C >> um especially a I'm in the midst of that and everyone is increasing having facing 20 30% uh increases to benefits and so I really thank you for being creative on how you approach that because it's a sensitive topic with people and so I thank you and then C was there was a lot to know about that too. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. And uh if I'm not mistaken, we still have the employee benefits committee that is involved in those discussions about >> the the programs, the plans, and the costs and all that. So, appreciate their work as well. And and that's I think a key part of how we've been able to keep some control over our healthcare costs as an organization. >> Uh all right, with that, we've got the motion to adopt the consent items. If there's no further discussion, uh all those in favor signify by saying I opposed. >> That passes unanimously. Those items are approved. Uh that then brings us to our future agenda review. Mr. Trejan. >> Yes. Uh our next meeting is next Monday the 22nd. Uh we uh need to hold a public hearing for liquor license for Burger Dive at Rosedale. They're having another space, as I understand, in the mall outside of potluck. We also, as we previously talked about, need to approve the preliminary tax uh levy and budget. Uh we have a minor plat at 2035 Twin Lakes Parkway. It's a commercial lot out there by uh Walmart and uh Denny's. Uh then we have three abatements at this point. Uh those addresses listed and then uh we'd like to uh have uh the council consider approval of an agreement with Stantech to complete the natural resources work plan. As you know, we have received a big grant uh to do that work. And so Mr. Johnson will be here with a presentation and talking about what the work that'll be doing. Uh our next meeting after a couple week break will be on the 13th. Um, we'll look to select the construction manager at risk as Mr. Fryhammer mentioned, receive a street light policy update and then approve the architect professional services agreement that was just approved just to highlight a few things and you see the meetings we have for the rest of the year. We're down to eight. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Treasure. Are there questions on the future agenda? Are there any council member initiated items for future meetings uh or reports or announcements from council members? >> Um, we have the captain and then clerk on Friday. 6 pm I believe at the oval >> fundraiser >> tickets are still available >> and at the door I believe >> at the door too. >> All right so we look forward to everybody being out there supporting the better parks. >> Well as long as it doesn't snow we've set the bar pretty low >> the first one. So true >> any anything better than that is is fine but it looks like it should be pretty good. >> So with that uh if there's no further business before us the only other item on our agenda this evening is adjournment. >> So moved. Second. All right, it's been moved by Council Member Schroeder, second by Council Member Stron to adjourn. Uh, no discussion on a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously and we're adjourned at 9:13 p.m. Thanks everyone.