Of course. Yeah, that's the life of a realtor. It's always they're blending in with everybody else. He's right. He doesn't know the Jeff, you may have to have a seat in the audience for a moment just in case we have public comment at the start of the meeting. 10 seconds. Got it. Thank you. I hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday, June 16th, 2025. Mr. City Manager, would you call the role, please? Council member Schwarter here. Council member Grath, here. Council member Bower here. Council member Stron here. Mayor Ro here. Uh and with us at the deis by way of introductions we have our city attorney Rachel Tierney who's on my right at the far end. Uh and our city manager Pat Trean who is on my left at the other end of the deis uh we do have other staff uh and guests who will be participating in the meeting as agenda items come forward and we'll make those introductions at those times. Uh we would ask folks if you have a cell phone to be to either silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt this evening's meeting. And just a couple of items of housekeeping. Uh we do have um uh extra copies of tonight's agenda on the back table next to the next to the door under the big clock. Uh and then also um and those are available to anybody who needs one. And then we also have one master copy of all the meeting materials in a large binder on the table in the back of the room next to those agendas. Uh and that you do have to share because we've got the one copy for everybody. Um, with that also we'll just note uh maybe you might as well do it now at the start of the meeting here that um we'll have some rules for public comment that we'll go through as public comment opportunities come up. Uh we do initially have one public comment section at the beginning of the meeting which is for general uh comment and not for items on the agenda and then later in the meeting as agenda items come up there will be opportunities for public comment at those times as well. Uh so 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. [Applause] All right. I did want to uh begin this meeting uh just on a point of personal privilege uh to uh take a moment to recognize the uh the tragic murder of uh former speaker of the house Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark. Uh that's a very sad event in our in our general community and certainly in the state. Uh as well as the shooting of uh Senator Hoffman and his wife uh who have uh miraculously and luckily survived and are in recovery at this point. Uh so I'd ask folks uh in respect for those uh victims uh and uh uh thinking about uh the causes behind the violence that we've seen uh to take a moment of reflection. Thank you. We'll then proceed with this evening's meeting. And our first item on the agenda is to approve tonight's agenda. And as always, I'll check with staff first to see if there are any items uh that need to change or be removed from consideration this evening. Mr. Treasur, Mr. Mayor, we have no changes by staff. All right. Then we'll check with uh council members. Are there any changes council members would request to the agenda this evening or items council members might like removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration? Right. does not appear to be the case. Uh and then we'll do a check-in with uh members of the public. I imagine members of the public are here for one one or two items on the agenda that are in our business section. Uh but we always do check at the beginning of the meeting uh on items that are in our consent agenda which is section 10 of the agenda starting on the bottom of page one and nope doesn't continue on to page two. Uh these items uh there are several of them that are usually fairly administrative and and uh supposedly non-controversial in nature and so they're all taken up at a as a single motion at the end of our meeting. But if anybody happened to be here this evening and wanted to either speak to or ask a question about an item in section 10 items 10 A through I uh this would be an opportunity to let us know. uh and we'll remove that item to forward in the meeting so that you can uh ask your question or make your comment uh without having to stay till the very end. So we'll just check again. Is there anyone here tonight who's wishes to make a comment or ask a question about an item in section 10 of tonight's agenda? Right. Does not appear to be the case. Uh then uh if that's the case uh a motion to approve the agenda as presented would be in order. So moved. Second. It's been moved by council member Grath. Seconded by council member Sharter to approve the agenda as presented. Is there any discussion on that motion hearing? None. All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. That passes unanimously. We have our agenda for this evening. Uh next on our agenda, as I just mentioned earlier, uh we have our first opportunity for public comment. Uh this is once again general public comment which is uh meant for opportunities to share information with the public that may be of interest to people in the community or that may be related to city business uh but is not on tonight's agenda. Um well as I already said there will be opportunities for public comment as agenda items come forward. Is there anyone here who is here to speak under general public comment this evening? Right. Does not appear to be the case. uh then we'll proceed with the rest of our agenda. Uh moving on then to recognitions and donations. And this evening under that category, we have one item which is a proclamation related to parks and recreation month in Roseville. Uh and I will read the proclamation and then a motion to adopt that would be in order. The proclamation reads as follows. Whereas parks and recreation programs are an essential part of the Roseville community. And whereas parks and recreation are vitally important to establishing and maintaining the quality of life in Roseville, ensuring the health of all citizens, and contributing to the economic and environmental well-being of our community, excuse me, of Roseville and our larger community. And whereas our parks and recreation programs build healthy, equitable, and active communities that aid in the prevention of chronic disease, promote social bonds by uniting neighbors, and also improve and ensure the physical, mental, and emotional health of all citizens. And whereas parks and recreation contribute to making Roseville an equitable community by offering diverse programs and services that are appealing and accessible to all of Roseville, educating community members about diverse cultures and providing a gathering spot where neighbors can come together, interact, and build bonds. And whereas our parks and recreation programs increase Roseville's economic prosperity through increased property values, increased tourism, the attraction and retention of residents and businesses, as well as crime reduction. And whereas parks and natural recreation areas improve water quality, protect groundwater, prevent flooding, improve the quality of the air we breathe, uh provide vegetative buffers to development, and produce habitat for wildlife. And whereas our parks and natural recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our community and provide a place for children and adults to connect with nature and recreate outdoors. And whereas the US House of Representatives has designated July as Parks and Recreation Month. And whereas Roseville recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation resources. Now therefore be resolved. The city of Roseville declares July 2025 as Parks and Recreation Month in the city. Motion. Second. All right. It's been moved by Council Member Strong, seconded by Council Member Grath to approve that proclamation. Any discussion on the motion? I'd just like to have continued thanks for Matt Johnson, our director of parks, who continues to listen to the public and be really um sensitive to the needs. Anyone can go to any park in Roseville and knows um on a Sunday or Saturday afternoon the diversity of the people who utilize the park that um it's not just maybe people who lived here 50 years ago, but it's people who continue to find this at home. And I appreciate all that he and his staff do to make sure it's a welcoming place for all. All right. Thank you, Council Member Strong. Other discussion on the motion. Council member Gra. I would echo that. You know, Matt Johnson does a great job and anytime he presents to the council, he really has excellent information for us and I think the public I'm glad they're few here today to hear about that because a lot of times we take our things for granted in the city and there's a lot of work that goes be on behind the scenes that makes that happen. An example was Junth this weekend. It ran very smoothly even though we had the tragedies happen on Friday night. uh we had good cooperation from the police department and everyone felt safe there. So um it was a a nice day and a celebration on Junth Saturday and thanks to the parks and recck department for that organizing that helping organize it. Right. Uh and I would just add thanks also to the parks and recreation commission who does a lot of work in terms of planning uh parks and recreation activities uh as well as the future of the of the system and the programs and uh we really appreciate the the fact that they are volunteers and spend a lot of time in that effort. So I'll add that to our uh thanks this evening. If there's no other discussion on the motion, uh, all those in favor of adopting the motion, uh, approving the proclamation signify by saying I. I. I. Opposed. That passes unanimously. And that proclamation is approved. All right. That then brings us to our business items this evening. Uh, and our first business item is item 78, which is to hear from uh, the executive director of 9 North, Jeffstead. And, uh, he's here to give us uh, uh, the first of many annual updates, right? And and if not, if I'm not mistaken, maybe you were here last year or thereabouts as well. So, second of many annual. I'm getting old, so it may not be that many. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, council members, for letting me come in and talk a little about Nine North, your community television stations in this area. Um, Roseville is part of a nine city joint powers agreement in the northern suburbs. Those cities include Ardan Hills, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, St. Anthony, and of course, Roseville. Um, we do such things, one of the JPA operates as the North Suburban Communications Commission, which is a nine member commission, like I said, with those nine cities. We do such things as franchise, cable franchise renewal, cable franchise oversight, handle cable complaints that people have with the cable company. um that part of our organization is funded by a portion of the franchise fees that are paid by the cable company to the city. We also operate the North Suburban Access Corporation. It has the same members as the communications commission, but we produce local programming programs like the Rosefest parade, things like that, meetings like this meeting, and also do videos about the citizens and people in the communities and events in the communities. We distribute that content on air and online. And we're funded by peg fees, also from the cable company. Um, we do business as nine north. Both organizations are governed by the same nine member board. Your member is Julie Strong and executive director of both organizations is myself and our studios are located in Roseville. We're pretty close to Walmart if you know where that is. That's not our official address. We are pretty close to that. Our website, if anybody's interested in looking, is 9 North and that'll have like all the city meetings on from all the cities, all the videos we do, um, links to all our other social media and everything like that. Sorry, my voice is going. Um, Roseville 9 North. We operate three HD channels and four SD channels in Roseville. The HD channels are Nine North, which has the general um, things like concerts, programs, stuff of all the cities. Nine North Sports which has all the sporting events. We also partner with Roseville High School to air all those um productions that they have. Um we also have 9 North Government Roseville which is the only really unique to each city. Each city has their own unique government channel and the um channel the government channel in Roseville is unique to Roseville. Then the only SD channel we have that isn't an SD and an HD channel is 9 North Access which is where people can come in and um and uh submit programming and we'll air on those channels. We produce over a thousand hours of original programming a year and of that over 280 84 hours are focused on Roseville. Last year in 2024 we produced 95 Roseville meetings like this. We cover all major Roseville events such as Rosefest, the Rose Parade. When election time comes up at election year, we produce candidate forums for as many races as we can. We also operate candidate speakouts where me where um candidates for offices, mostly local and then statewide offices, can come in and have five minutes to say whatever they want on their on their positions. And we've had very good luck with that. I think we had close to 50 people last election cycle. We also produce spotlight stories and that's one thing we've really kind of made an emphasis on last year focusing on the people, places, and history and events of the nine cities. Last year, we did 44 stories focusing just on Roseville. Overall, we've had a 400 400% increase in our production of Spotlight stories in the last year, and we plan another 40 to 50% increase this year. And here's just example of some of the ones we have produced in Roseville. Sorry about the still there. There should be office for a little while while I do my morning routine here. Uh and then she gets to have breakfast after uh after the morning settles down. And one of the unique things about having a service dog is that uh from a handling perspective, whether it's myself or firefighter Christy Showstrom, who's also um one of her handlers, uh she gets all of her feedings done by hand. What we do is we have vendors come out. We have um resource table that for the community. We have food and ice cream, drinks, you know, just a really good time for the community um to at the back of our shirt say celebrate, educate and activate. a good group of people, a strong amount of staff, volunteers to come and really show up and be part of it and to be enthusiastic about it, and really to show that engagement with uh with our community and folks that are coming here uh to donate for Special Olympics, and it's a significant part of the city. Everybody knew where it was. At the corner of Snelling Avenue and County Road C, the Rose Drive-In was opened in the late 1940s and was a hot spot in the 50s. We get skaters of all different abilities, levels. We've had brand new skaters right up through. We had the Minnesota Wild players come out here and come out during some uh public skating sessions where they'll come out and skate. So, it's pretty cool for everybody. We rent skates, too. So, uh we've seen a really big uptick in our in our skate rentals over the last couple years. Uh we have Taste of Rosefest here tonight. What a great event. So our Rotary has worked hard for the past many months in partnership with the city of Roseville. All the restaurants and vendors and wine tasting beer vendors that you see here. Paige Schultz. I'm a fire cadet EMT. My end goal is to be a fire paramedic. So I plan on after I get my fire certifications, I plan on going to medical school. But I if Roosevelt offers me the opportunity to be here full-time, I would absolutely love to have a good future here. In addition to doing stories like that, doing programming stuff, we also do facility assessments each year of the uh um the equipment in each of the cities and we repair those, facilitate the upgrades to the system and see if there's anything that needs fixing or repairing or suggest upgrades. We also provide loaner equipment. If some of the equipment goes out, we'll bring in a loner switcher and replace that out while the actual equipment owned by the city is being repaired. So, we actually expanded that a little this last year to get one more just in case because we had two out at one time, which was not a good thing. For 25 and beyond, we reached an agreement with Comcast to extend our current franchise agreement for another five years, which would be to 2032. and that has been um recommended by our commission to the cities to approve and you guys have that now waiting approval. Um but it's uh it was a really good it was a good um agreement before and we're lucky that we have an extension of that. That's another 5 years on to the end of our other one which like I said brings us to 2023. Um, we are also expect another 50% increase in all our community coverage, whether that's big programming or shorter programming. And we're expanding our public newsletter and adding a city officials staff newsletter to keep everybody updated on what we're doing for other cities and what we could possibly be doing for you or the other cities to see what the other cities are doing. Recently, our studio has been upgraded to 4K. We got a really good deal on some cameras and a switcher and we were able to switch that all around at the end of last year. So now we because we also do in addition to doing work for the cities, we also do addition for outside clients to um um supplement what we get from the cable company. So we've actually had really good um response from that because there are very few 4K studios in this area especially our price range. We've also been embracing AI assisted production to enhance capabilities have along with speeding up our workflow. And I would like to end it just by showing you a couple examples of this has been about two months ago. So to me it seems a little equate them. Oh my goodness. Wow. Sometimes you get better results than others, but we'll show one of those coming up. That's all. This is what we had for a picture, but I cleaned it up and had him walking. And we can even take this, add it, and we can even colorize it. Now, this it looks good, but if you notice, there's a car off to the side that is kind of going sideways for no apparent reason. So, sometimes you get those kind of things in there. It doesn't look like it was that icy out, but it can do a lot of different uh people in the same picture. can do all these kids, all these kids having impress or expressions and looking and waving and stuff like that. I think like eight fingers there. But the nice part is it keeps it keeps advancing fairly quickly on stuff we're able to do and stuff we're able to do very quickly which before this would have been almost impossible to do. But we have Isaac Rose. Isaac Rose and we can turn him into basically a Lifetime movie which has that kind of feel. And these are all just from the single one still pictures. And even we can pick paintings and it'll um animate those into um what you're looking for. And it's still a little complicated how it's do. You have to use a couple different things to get the results you want. But it's moving so fast that especially for historical videos and things like that, the sky's is kind of the limit. But again, thank you everyone for your support. We really appreciate it and we hope for really good things in the future. We'll answer any questions if you have them. Uh any questions uh from the council? I just like to make comment. I am thankful to uh Mayor Row who graciously gave up his spot so that my the meeting time could accommodate my schedule after about 20 years serving this council and and they have benefited from his leadership. And so I I want to make sure we acknowledge the amount of time that he put in making sure you sit in that chair. And um I also think we often hear that people lament the lack of a newspaper. Although uh the Roseville Reader has filled a much desired spot without a physical newspaper, but this ability to bring these stories to life is really invaluable. I think it's also important for people to know that when you run a local campaign, no large newspaper really cares. And so um no large um news outlet cares. And so 9 North gives us a voice to be able to reach so many of the people with no financial obligation to us. You know, com campaigns cost money. Um but I don't think any of us could probably say that that wasn't an invaluable experience to us and the chance to be in front of so many people and share what's important to us. So I think it's really important that we honor and I'm really honored to be on the group. Um it's an amazing group of other city uh representatives. There's of course nine representatives representing the nine cities. Um and it's it's been amazing. They can do so much for us and I think really the sky's is the limit. But I do encourage you to make sure you look through their materials because um newspapers are and we're great. Um but there is so much more that can happen and that they're doing and they're doing every day and they're just on the cutting edge of so many things. So Jeeoff, I thank you for your work and all that you do and your staff bring amazing ideas to our meetings and I'm so thankful for the opportunity to be able to represent Roseville. Thank you very much. Thank you. Other questions or comments from council members? I did have a question just on the the AI generated content. Is there a need for a policy to sort of put a disclaimer on video that you take from a still photo or or that kind of thing? Has there been discussions about that? A little bit. A little bit. Yeah. A lot of stuff now what we've only really used it for is speeding up our workflow on other things sort of behind the scenes. Yeah. Like just if we were to cut something out of the screen. You can do it much quicker with AI. Some of this this kind of stuff is Yeah. Eventually we would have that on there somewhere in the credits. We've done a lot with historical photos and those obviously aren't real, but we haven't done anything with like contemporary stuff where there'd be a lot of confusion on what it was. Okay. Thank you. And there's still, I know, working out nationally what the rules are for that and how to how to u police that so to speak. Sure. Well, and the reason I asked too is because being a quasi public entity, I think 9 north has always been conscious of policies. Uh for instance, as you noted, uh from a revenue point of view, there's a lot of production that 9 North does for outside entities. Yeah. Uh but a conscious decision was made to focus on nonprofits as opposed to trying to compete in the marketplace for serving business uh video needs and that that sort of thing. And so I think, you know, it makes sense that the organization continues to sort of think about the policies that are appropriate for the video content and things like that. So, that was just something since I'm not on the board anymore, I had this my only chance to bring it up. Anything else from council members? Right. Well, thank you again for all the work that N North does and we look forward. I have no idea we're this popular. Yes. Well, yes. See, everybody's going to follow you out. Thank you very much. Thank you. Right. Next on our agenda, uh we have probably what everybody is here for this evening, which is the uh consideration uh of uh vacation of right of way associated with it's known as the Aldine right of way in southwest Roseville. Uh and maybe while we're uh transitioning a little bit here and collecting stuff at the table, I'll turn it over to uh Mr. Fryhammer if he's ready for his uh opening uh comments on this. Uh this is an item that was tabled by the council uh at a meeting earlier this year for our final consideration uh at a later date and this is that later date. Uh and so we've had a fair amount of presentation and discussion uh but we do want to uh get caught up as to where we were um uh at that time and what has happened since then. It looks like we may have a connection issue or are we good? We're good. Okay, good. All right, Mr. Fryhammer, our public works director. Uh thank you, mayor and council. Um, as you indicated, we brought this to council on uh April 21st, 2025. So, this vacation was one of uh about 25 vacations that we had started a process back in 2022 where we had looked at a variety of rightaways that um didn't seem to have a a city need at least for the a street access in this case um but potentially um just utility access. Since then, we have heard from uh residents both for and against this, but potentially utilizing this right away for a pathway. So, just real quick, I'm going to give a little bit more background. Um, since the last meeting, we did do some additional investigation on what the city actually owns. As you recall, we had a little bit of question on why the original resolution was kind of wrote the way it was, and there was a little bit of question mark about the west um 20 ft of rightway. So since that time, um, we worked with Ramsey County, um, as well as one of the adjacent property owners, but Ramsey County has confirmed we do not actually own the west 20 ft. So the vacation before the council tonight is only for the east 30 ft, which was dedicated as part of the mid oaks plat. Um, so just just something to consider. We don't have the full 50 ft like we originally did, just to 30 ft. Um other the other thing we did um after the council meeting since there was a lot of discussion about a pathway staff did uh kind of did a mini feasibility report on what it would take to do a pathway. Just kind of a quick summary of that feasibility memo that is included in the packet. Um we do only have 30 ft of rightway as I as I previously identified. Um we've heard from both residents both for and against the pathway. So we just want to uh comment that and those comments are included in the packet. Um the segment would be about 500 590 ft long. Um in the 30ft corridor there's a significant amount of trees and a good in order to get a a proper pathway and a significant amount of them most likely would be impacted if a pathway was constructed. Um it could both be a sidewalk or a a a trail pathway or vuminous pathway. Um e either one would be an option. Um, but the cost for that would vary between $84,000 and about $177,000. Um, there would be additional costs at Rose Lawn if we decided to do some enhanced treatments more than just like signage and crosswalks. Um, talking if you want to do bumpouts, stuff like that cuz you'd have to accommodate drainage and whatnot. Um, otherwise the 590 foot long pathway would provide a quarter quarter mile connection. Um, currently there's, you can make an argument without the connection that you have the pathway on Fair View as well as on Snelling, but this would kind of cut that in half. Um, without the connection, the walk is approximately uh, 1900 ft or 3.3 times further if you via uh, Fair View or about 2,700 ft or five times longer via Snowelling. Um, using existing pathways or on street road pathways. Um we did kind of use our um pre our pathway master plan preference points. Um and based on that scoring criteria, this would score about a seven. Um the current pathway has plans between five and 25. So this would rank relatively near the bottom in terms of uh preference points on the pathway match plan. Now council typically when we do we do that, we don't necessarily build them that way, but just to give you a scale of of where this would rank. So, the requested council action tonight is consider approval of a resolution approving the rightway vacation of a portion of Aline Street um between the properties uh located uh as indicated in the resolution. Since this is a city initiated vacation, a four fifth vote would be required. Um an alternative action the council could could take is consider a motion to approve retaining rightaway and designate a public pathway to update the pathway master plan. And then just to note, if the vacation is not approved and no other motion is made and approved, uh the status of vacation area V will remain as is. So with that, I can certainly answer any questions uh council may have. All right. Thank you, Mr. Fryhammer. Are there questions from the council on uh the information uh presented or uh available up to this point? Questions? Council member Grath. So right away vacation initiated by the city, that's governed by state law. Is that correct? That's why we need a four-fifths. Correct. The four-fifths vote is is state statute in terms of vacating. If it was petition driven, it would be a three-fifth vote. Just one followup. Uh and the city's been going through Roseville and looking for pieces of land that have not been used or connected and we've been initiating some of those and many of them as on on the April meeting you were talking about are not contested. Is that correct? Yeah. So, we back in 2022, I believe, we brought forward a a list to council of ones we'd wanted to do. This was on that list. Um, this was the fifth phase that we brought back, so we're bringing them back in pieces. Um, but like I said, these are ones we had staff had identified as there's rightway on the map. We're not going to connect this roadway. There wasn't a plan for it for any other use. We did know there was utilities, but we can similar to what this vacation would be doing. we're going to vacate and we would retain the utilities, but that allows adjacent property owners theoretically better use of their their property. Um, and it causes less confusion for staff. Is it is it what what's the actual public use of it? Because if we have easements or uh utilities going kind of cross country, most of them are under just utility ements which are easier to to maintain for the city. So that's why we had um like I said brought that originally to the city and then um as we've gone through this process we've since learned that it's uh we've there's some residents that have certainly uh used the path used this corridor for for other uses more. So when we brought this forth we didn't know about the pathway and correct used by the residents to the north. Correct. We did not know there was a uh an existing pathway. It is not it was not identified on the pathway master plan. Um had it potentially been listed, we would have since I've been here, we've done two pathway master plan updates. Um neither time this segment had been brought up either by residents or council or commission members. Um had it been brought up potentially have been added in the time or potentially would have not been added. But uh this was our first staff's first uh inkling that there was this potential other use. Thank you. Right. Other questions from council. Council member Strong, um, can you confirm there is a pathway cut there for a potential path though, is there not? So, on the on the north side of, uh, Ryan, there is a curb cut there. So, um, I don't have any history on why that was, but that was, uh, probably done in the '9s when the road was redone. So, why it was put there, you know, who how how that decision was made to put that there, I don't know. So, thank you. Other questions? Council member Scher. Um, so now that we determined that that 20 feet is no longer um part of this, it's now 30 feet we're talking about. Correct. Yep. And so if we went ahead with the pathway, we'd end up if we were going to actually put a pathway through to the level that uh we typically would do, we'd have to probably take down a number of the mature trees. Correct. Correct. To to to create to put a any sort of improved pathway through there, we'd impact. I don't we don't know how many, but there would certainly be tree loss. There's no doubt about that. Thank you. Just to follow up on that, is is it true also that even if you don't necessarily take down a tree that the the construction activities andor just the presence of perhaps asphalt can affect the the health of the tree? Yeah, especi depending upon the type of tree, some trees are more susceptible to others. But, you know, we we if we do improve the pathway, it would have to meet ADA. So, we do need to have it level to some degree. So that has to meet you know some sort of grading needs to happen either a fill or cut both of which can impact uh trees and certainly if we build something we want to make sure it you know we don't want tree roots completely um you know wrecking something uh real quickly. So, Council Member Strong, can you confirm or um let us know if there are currently things in that pathway um that are obstructing that? Maybe semi-permanent fixtures, fences, or other things that I'm I I know I walk in in the rightway in the 30 ft rightway because I would assume that until this was vacated, they they there should have been approval to have that done. Yeah, theoretically. I I walked the corridor once. Uh we did not do a complete survey so I don't know offh hand. I do know there was pro there's probably some encroachments. I know when when we thought we previously had the previous 20 we know we know there was encroachment on that end but I I guess I can't speak to the I can't speak for sure on exactly what would be in the 30. But we have lots of encroachments in rightaways in Roseville. Council member Bower, sort of along that line, the uh public utilities that we have, which side is those on and do we need to secure something else now that we've learned that we don't have a right away? So, the the city does have um you uh sanitary line that runs the majority of the corridor as well as a storm that runs the entire corridor. Um they are in the existing 20 ft or the previous 20t we thought. So, we will probably have to go through um working with our city attorney. We will probably going through a separate process outside of this process to make sure we get those easements. Uh we may have certain rights already because those utilities have been there for a while. But we will be working through a a process with their attorney to make sure those are encumbered because we like I said, we have sanitarian storm that are serving uh the public and they've been there since the 60s. So, thank you. Just to follow up on that, uh, do we have any utilities in the 30-foot segment as well? The city does not have any utilities. There are power lines and other semi-public utilities, so that's why we want to retain the the 30 ft for access to those utilities. Got it. All right. Thank you. Other questions from council? I did have uh one uh question that I came up with which is it appeared and I can't be sure because I wasn't doing a survey at the time but it does appear as I was examining the existing pathway the existing what do we want to call it um um um improvised pathway uh that um some of it may be even at the north end in the 20ft as opposed to the 30 foot that was the impression I was getting as I was just trying to kind of look at it spatially when I would I would generally agree with that when I when myself and assistant uh city engineer Hendrickson walked the corridor it appears most of it's in the west but it's informal so certainly people have probably used a variation but um I would generally agree that majority of it's probably been hanging to the west because it's a little flatter probably because the utilities got cut through back in the day so um so with the with the clarity now on that 20 ft not currently having any incumbrance by the city. Um that is effectively on people's private property at this time. Correct. Okay. All right. There are no further questions from the council. Uh the next thing we would do is uh is open it up for public comment. And I do want to note uh the rules of the road for public comment. I know a number of people probably have been here at the previous meeting and had an opportunity to speak or to hear comment at that time. Uh but we we do um by council rule have a couple of rules that we need to go through just to make sure everybody understands how this process will go. Uh generally speaking uh comments uh need to be addressed to the council, questions need to be addressed to the council. Uh we're not uh here to sort of have conversations with staff and that sort of thing. If questions are raised, uh what I do is make a note of those uh and then try to make sure we get answers to those once all the the comments or questions uh have been made. Um, and then, uh, the other thing is we do have a three-minute time limit per speaker. You can certainly say a lot in three minutes. If you do have anything written, uh, that goes beyond 3 minutes and you want to make sure the council's aware of it. Uh, if you if you want, we can get copies made if you give a copy to uh, city manager Trean once your comments are finished. Uh, or you can certainly follow up with an email to the council, although obviously if we take action tonight, an email may be late uh, in the process. Uh, but I did want to let folks know about that. Um, we do ask that you begin your comments with your name, uh, and either your street address or your street name, uh, to help identify you for the official record. Um, and then, uh, because I know some people aren't, uh, aren't comfortable giving their full address, but at least the street name helps us with that. Uh, and then finally, um, and we may move the clipboard a little bit, but right now the the clipboard is on the table just for the purpose of allowing people if you have a name that we're not going to know how to spell. I mean, we can probably guess pretty well on Johnson. Uh, but if it's a little maybe maybe an Eastern European name or something like that or or my name, which can be misspelled. Um, just uh once you're finished with your comments, you can step off to the side and just write down your name so that we've got the spelling for the official record. Once again, uh the only other thing I'll say depending on how many people are interested in speaking this evening, uh is that we do have the two microphones in the two seats. Um, feel free to if somebody's using one uh and they're making their comments or asking their questions, feel free to have a seat at the other uh chair and the other microphone and be ready to go. Uh, that'll keep things moving. And then if there happen to be two people up there and you want to be next, uh there are some empty seats in the front row that can give you quick access to get up to the next uh seat that gets vacated. Uh so that hopefully will help move things uh through. Um council member Stan, did you have another one of the rules that I forget? Not a rule per se, but I'd ask for civility. Um some of the folks have indicated concern that if they express their personal opinions that they will have retribution against them from your neighbors. You have to live next to these people. Please remember you will still live next to them. Be nice. We don't need what's happening on in the state level happening here. This is not worth something so terrible. So be nice to each other. Thank you. Right. Thank you. And that's and uh that's that should apply without having to be said to all of our hearings. But I think, you know, given given current events, maybe that's not a bad thing to remind folks of. Uh, but it is it is something that uh that is important to note on some of these these neighborhood type controversies that that ultimately a decision will be made one way or the other. Uh, and not everybody's going to be happy with it. And, you know, feel free to let us know that you're not happy with it. You know, we're we're kind of used to it. But ultimately, as Council Member Straw said, you know, everybody still has to live in the neighborhood. Hopefully, this isn't uh grounds for uh picking up stakes and and moving, but uh but we want to make sure that folks can can continue to enjoy each other's neighborliness uh going forward. Uh because certainly there there are oftenimes more important things to be concerned about in life. Uh with that, unless I missed any of the other rules, uh maybe we'll we'll start there. And oh, the only other thing, um I think I did mention the three-minute time limit, and I'll I'll try to be gentle and generous in uh in uh enforcing that rule. The only thing I was going to note is is that uh this is not sort of performance art and so people aren't here to get applause or jeers or booze or cheers. Uh so we'd ask folks to uh let everybody speak without uh uh audience commentary. Uh and then uh and then once uh that is done, we can then proceed to the council consideration. With that uh thank you for your patience and we'll open it up for public comment. Just briefly as maybe the first person or persons who want to speak maybe work their way up. I will also note all of the comment that was made at the prior council meeting is still available to the council to consider. Um much of it may even be in the packet. We do have our minutes uh from those meetings that we have access to. Uh so if you said something then you don't necessarily have to say anything now. This is not to discourage people uh but we we do want to just make you aware that we do have that information as well as much of what we've received via email or other communications to the council. And there we go. All right. We got our first speaker. Hello and welcome. You can uh do that after you speak if you want. That way we can keep things moving. Good evening. My name is Ann Lahi and I live at 90 Mid Oaks Lane with my husband and our three school-aged children. Thank you to the city council, Mayor Row, and other city officials for thoughtfully considering the future of the Alden Right of Way. Over the past few months, I've gained a deeper understanding about the little path through the woods, its history, its current condition, and possibilities for its future. After reading the feasibility memo, I felt moved to say a few words. My intention is to share my family's experience and offer a message of unity and hope. When it comes to the path issue at hand, I have mixed feelings. I can empathize with both sides. Our family uses the path regularly and we have dear friends and neighbors who live along along it. And frankly, it's been a bit sad to see our tight-knit community become divided. Uh because after all, we're talking about a path that's been connecting people and neighbors for decades. I'd like to address some points outlined in the memo and make a plea for compromise. First, the issue of safety. Our children regularly use the Aldian foot path to walk to school, baseball games, friends houses, and yes, occasionally Starbucks. On some occasions, they walk without a grown-up. And that may seem like a small thing, but to us, it's a huge gift. In a time when many families have to drive their kids everywhere or constantly worry about stranger safety, the ability for our children to move independently through the area neighborhoods is something we deeply value. The Aldine path offers a closer, safer route than Fair View or Snelling, both of which are busy and to access require crossing Roselon Avenue twice. What gives us peace of mind is not only the close proximity of the path, but also the sense of community that surrounds it. We know and trust many of the neighbors who live along or near the path. And that familiarity adds an important layer of safety and allows our kids to enjoy a rare bit of independence. Like some, I too am concerned about the environmental consequences of paving over this woodland area. So rather than constructing a concrete path, I'd prefer we preserve the existing informal natural footpath or thoughtfully revise it so it can remain low impact. A less formal trail could be rerouted if necessary to minimize disruption to large trees and neighboring yards. And from a fiscal perspective, a natural footpath would require far less investment than building a full concrete walkway, crosswalk, etc. Instead of allocating large sums toward construction, the city could consider smaller scale improvements like natural surfacing, thoughtful signage, and possibly offer grants to homeowners along the path who desire additional privacy such as fencing. My neighbors look out for each other. We care for our surroundings. We value community and connection. The Aldine path has contributed to that fabric for decades. In my experience, most path users, our family included, are respectful, keeping voices low, picking up litter. And in return, the path has given folks a safe, beautiful way to move through the neighborhoods and stay connected. And for that we should all be incredibly grateful. In closing, I would ask the council to maintain the right of way as is for now with the hope for a plan D, a a solution that preserves an informal, quiet natural footpath. Perhaps the eastern 20 feet could be vacated to homeowners because I understand having more land would be nice. And leaving the remaining middle 10 feet, for example, for a trail. A quiet path that continues to connect neighbors offers children a safe shortcut to school, friends, and activities, and allows the woodland to remain a home for native plants, and local wildlife. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Do we have another member of the public who wishes to speak on this item at this time? Don't be shy. Hello and welcome. Hi, good evening. Um, thank you for having this hearing and allowing us to speak. My name is Elaniekeas. I'm one of those uh European names that I'll have to uh spell out for you later. I live at 17 Mid Oaks Lane. And I have to say that Ann Lahi did a wonderful job summarizing um my position and my partner's position. and we've lived in the neighborhood for 13 years and it is just a remarkable remarkable little community and we take care of each other. We look out for each other. Um we've been slowly building ties. Now we have um several new families with little kids who are about some of them are about to start kindergarten at Brimhall in September. Um Ann's children of course are already at Brim Hall. The footpath provides access to Evergreen Park for baseball and all kinds of oh pickle ball for the adults. And it is a far more beautiful walk than going to Snelling or Fair View where, let's face it, there are no trees and there's a lot of traffic noise and it would be a degradation of the quality of life for the neighborhood if the um vacation were granted. Like an I also advocate for middle way, a way to keep the path, a natural footpath. Don't damage the trees. I've noted in walking around Roseville that there are pathways that appear to be ADA compliant um that are not buminous, that are not concrete. And I site specifically the pathway into the dog park at Reservoir Woods. There's a a dog park there for um service dogs and the gateway that goes in is just wood chips. It's wide to accommodate wheelchairs. We can do something like that and not disturb the root systems. I will also add that uh trees are hardy and they have vast root systems that go out parallel to the earth and a walkway is not going to cover and damage all the root systems. Still, I would rather see a natural pathway than um an artificial one. I believe like Ann does that we can uh live together. We can make a beautiful thing that is an asset not only to the Mid Oaks neighbors but to the neighbors who abut the path. It doesn't have to be a concrete path. It doesn't have to be ugly. It can still be beautiful. particularly if as I know uh the neighbors of Mid Oaks gather to make it beautiful, we can do it. So I ask you to give us the opportunity. Um, I know the safety issue has been raised in your um, criteria, your path criteria, but I will also note that to the best of my knowledge and belief, there's never been a an accident on Rose Lawn at the base of that pathway. So, I would say that is something for you to consider. the likelihood of an accident happening there is I think minimal to no chance. So, um I'm going to I'm going to note that you're about 40 minutes over uh 3 minutes 40 seconds. I'm sorry. I know I talk a lot, but So, yeah, I was going to say if you could finish your thought. I'm done. Thank you. I apologize for that. Thank you for catching that. Sure. Do we have another member of the public who wishes to speak? And once again, don't hesitate to queue up. It's a way to be neighborly. Hello and welcome. Hi there. My name's uh Joe Donahghue. Uh 1642 Ridgewood Lane South. Um, I use the pathway uh twice a day and have for years as soon as I discovered it um existed to walk my dogs and it is a really wonderful pathway and I truly enjoy it. It's a very nice part of my walk and I I I love the nature and everything else. So, I would agree with the two previous speakers to me. Uh, one thing I did want to mention is in all my interactions with the neighbors who abut the path, they have been truly truly wonderful to me and very respectful and nice and I've never had a problem with any of them. They've all been really fabulous. So, I totally understand their viewpoint and wanting the uh property and all that. So, I mean, I think no matter what happens, I think people are going to be be fine and we're all going to win on this. So, I just I just wanted to say that just to I really have appreciated all the neighbors that do about the path because they have all been wonderful to me and one of them even found my dog for me when it got out. So, that was really great. So, anyways, I just wanted to say that I do use it, use it a lot. I love the pathway even when it snows and I have to break through there. And the neighbors on either side have been wonderful and I want to just throw out a compliment to them because they've done a great job. Thank you. Hello and welcome. I'll be short. Anyway, Mary Bland, 1639 Ridgewood Lane. I have been walking that path between 40 and 50 years. I don't remember exactly at least 40 to 45 years. And I'm just it's just such a little piece of heaven right there. And I'm just hoping that you will consider preserving it for future generations so that they can enjoy it as I have. Thank you. Hello and welcome. Hi. Um, my name is Andrew Raymond. I currently live at 44 Mid Oaks, which is just on the corner there. Uh, but I grew up uh next door to Mary Ellen and across the street from Joe at uh 1649. Um, so I've been using this P pathway since 1994, which is most of my life. Um, I have a son who is 5 years old, will be starting at Brim Hall, and I am really looking forward to him being able to use that path. Um, and then I have a daughter who's two, who in a couple more years will be using it as well. Um, I used it just about every day growing up. Um, I still use it just about every day. Um, and I would I don't know the best way to handle the situation. I don't uh I'm not an engineer. I don't know how to build a path. Um, but whether we go with a natural or artificial or or get rid of it. Um, I' I'd really like to to continue to be able to use that area for me and my my children. And if anything, Joe is underelling how much he uses that path. He's out there at least. I don't know a lot. So that's all I have. Thank you. Evening. My name is Art Quinn. I'm at 89 Mid Oaks Lane. And just for the record, I will not become a land baron by an extra 30 ft of of raking room. So, uh, we love our location. We love the path. We don't mind people walking up and down it. I think the concern was this is brought up by the city and kind of put on the neighborhood to make a decision. And we're used to the path, right? And it's great and it's great when people are respectful. They're walking back and forth, but what we see proposed is either granted to us or we're going to knock some trees down. We're going to put a path through there. We don't see this natural path on paper. And we've not now seen, you know, it's it's 50 feet, it's 30 feet, it's 20 feet. I mean, I have a hard enough time edging my lawn, let alone trying to figure out how far back it goes. But, um, if there is an opportunity for a natural path, I guess we' we'd entertain the conversation, but one is not presented. So, to that end, the opposite is I hear trees being removed, and that's a bummer, right? Because we love the canopy. Uh, I think the previous meeting some of the statements are about the magical path. Well, the magical path is because we got the trees. So, if we remove the trees, it becomes less magical. So, to that end, um, thanks for your time. Appreciate. Thank you. Oh, sorry. Hello. Hello and welcome. Um, my name is Olivia GS. I live at 2021 Hershel Street and um I spoke at the last meeting in favor please keeping some kind of path natural pathway I hope you have in your packets but I brought a copy to give to city manager Trean if you don't after the last meeting because I was so surprised that there was animosity toward people using the path um I and two other neighbors in one week gathered 98 signatures of people neighbors asking please to rema maintain some kind of path. We're not asking for a paved path, some kind of woodland path through there so that we continue to have access. We don't want to take away people's land. Now I understand it's we were saying maybe just make it be 10 feet in the middle. Whatever you can do, we would just like to have some kind. And there were 98 people who within one week signed immediately and wanted to maintain it. If we had continued longer, I have no doubt we would get more names. So please, I will submit this and I I hope you already have it in your packets. And we do. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Hello. Welcome. Um my name is Kyle Fitzwater. Uh my husband Steven Roseno and I live at 32 Mid Oaks Lane and we've lived there for the past 21 years. Um, I urge you as council members to vote against the vacation of land in question this evening. Uh, I understand that this unfortunately has become a difficult issue for you to grapple with in the same way that it's become a contentious issue for those of us who live in the neighborhood. That said, the passageway has been a neighborhood asset for decades. Generations of families have come to rely on their access and their use of it. My husband and I, not like unlike many of our neighbors, use this passageway to walk our dogs, visit close friends in other parts of the neighborhood, and allow us access to Ridgewood without having to traverse the unpleasant walk along the outer road on Snelling Avenue or on Fair View. It's become a safe alternative to avoid traffic for adults, children's, and pets. I urge you to recognize that as as Olivia just shared that close to a hundred voting Roseville residents signed a petition to ensure that you, the city council, hear our voices. That you hear that this passageway is a neighborhood asset and that the greater good that serves the many and not the few is to not vacate this property. I understand that we live in a time when we only think in a binary way and that it's easy to see that how how that has occurred in these conversations. You as a council can lead our community effectively by not allowing yourself and your vote tonight to reflect that way of thinking. If you're leaning towards vacation due to the complexity of the issue, I urge you to think broader to recognize that we that you can be creative about how this issue is approached and ultimately resolved. I believe that the constituents who voted for you deserve that. Of course, there are additional questions to be asked and answered with the decision to not vacate, but I believe that the creative compromise can always be possible and that multiple things can be true at the same time. The greater community good is what I ask you to consider here and therefore I urge you to not vacate the land in question. Thank you for your comments. Hello and welcome. Thank you. Um, good evening, Mr. Mayor, council members, uh, my name is Michelle Pribble. I live at 1738 Skilman Avenue, just a couple blocks north of the Informal Path Woodland area. Um, and I'm coming to to you tonight to speak in favor of not vacating this. Um, like some of the other speakers, we regularly use this path to walk our dog or just go for a beautiful walk in the neighborhood. We really appreciate the the woodland path as it is. Um I think I fully agree with the other speakers who said keeping it um informal woodland path keeping the trees as much as possible would be I think the preference of of all both in respect to those who use the path and those who live adjacent to it. Um, I understand that there were some comments at the previous meeting about um, homeowners adjacent to wanting to um, get rid of the invasive species that might be growing in the in the right of way now and be able to garden more of the area that's in the right of way. Um, and I personally think of most of us have land in our yard that is technically in the right of way. whether we have a path in front of our home or not, there is some area that is grass or landscape that is technically public land and we maintain it as if it is our own. So I think for the if it's not vacated for the homeowners who are adjacent to it, understanding what what can they do, what what would the city encourage them to do and what could the city support in doing to enhance the woodland path? not remove the trees, not um pave it over, but if we want to remove the invasive species, encourage more native plants that the homeowners adjacent to that path would like, I think having that clarity and support with for that would be um helpful and help to build that community and I'd be happy to help plant some of those. All right. Thank you. My name is Carla Lewis. I live on 71 Mid Oaks Lane, so I'm kind of in the neighborhood. And I must say, I'm a very neutral person. This is kind of fun to come and watch how this uh transpires and see my neighbors. My concern is there was just a lot of confusion about what this was going to be. And I think for some of us that don't use the path, don't have dogs. Um there was concern about what it would look like and my understanding for liability and so forth is there may need to be pavement and maintenance and liability issues and so forth. And so I think the understanding was just we want to be clear about what is this really going to look like? How will it impact the people that do live very close and have property close by? Uh with full respect to everybody who has a very strong opinion and again I I really don't I love all of my neighbors and I would like to see this however again today has too many problems in the world. I'd love to see this be solved in a way that could be of some consensus for everybody. And I'm not sure how much wiggle room there is given the kind of statutes of building paths, but I appreciate all your attention to the issue. Thank you. There are other members of the public who wish to speak to this item. Hello and welcome. Hello, Mayor and Council. Thanks for uh having this hearing. Uh my name is Kevin Watson. and I live at uh 2001 Aldine Street, just three doors up from the uh start of the path. I have uh three kids, 9, seven, and three, and a big big dog, and we use that path quite a bit. So, um, I wanted to, uh, recognize your, uh, parks and wreck month and I think, uh, uh, your support of parks and wreck, uh, sort of dovetales nicely with this path and, uh, uh, and it complements, uh, that recognition very well. So, uh, kudos there. Um, I think we've all heard like everybody that uses the path and really enjoys the path and it supports the people that are there now, but we also have to think about the people that are uh are coming and uh we just learned about the Les Bolsteads uh golf course that's going to be sold likely and probably housing. I can only imagine that in the decades to come those uh farm fields will probably be sold someday and there will be houses there or something there. And so, uh, this would be a nice connection for the neighborhood, uh, to connect with people or things or places that are, uh, there across Roseline. Um, uh, I was surprised to see I was checking out the GIS, uh, page, uh, for the county and surprised to see that the western half of that rideway was uh, given back for um, a legal technicality. Uh, as far as legal technicalities, I'd encourage the council to look uh at this path. Uh, maybe there's a prescriptive easement since it's been there for decades and used by the public for decades. Uh, maybe there would be an argument that uh there could be a prescriptive easement uh for that pathway. Um, I think and and along the lines with what everybody else has said, I think we're just looking for the path to remain sort of in its own its current status. Uh I don't think anybody's looking for uh a concrete or asphalt path. Uh I think we like the sort of trail like in the north woods sort of vibe that we get for about 500 ft. So thank you. Thank you. Are there other members of the public who wish to speak to this item this evening? Hello and welcome. Thank you. Um, thank you, Mayor Ro, and and council members. Um, good to be back. I was here a couple months ago. I live at 93 Mid Oaks Lane. So, I'm one of the adjacent property owners that for several reasons prefers the vacation. And one of the things I'm Introduce yourself by your name as well. Tim Tim Brown. Sorry. Tim Brown, 93 Mid Oaks Lane. One of the concerns I have about um a lot of the discussion about the this sort of magical dirt trail is that that becomes an amenity that the city is going to engage in and and take responsibility for, but it won't be for everyone unless it is ADA compliant. And and I think it it that you as a group representing the city as a whole, that should be an important consideration that whatever goes through here is going to be suitable for people in wheelchairs and people with limited mobility and so forth. One of the things we see a lot of our bikers zooming through this trail. Um and that's a concern for the pedestrians in their safety in my view. and they'll they'll they'll cut through one of the neighbors driveway and go zooming into this path. Um, and so we see hazards like that and and the outlet onto Rose Lawn um is so far been safe, but it's um a rush hour headache that I don't see people trying to cross when the traffic is backed up almost to Fair View. And so I would say that your your idea of making this trail ADA compliant and having a safe crossing at that location is really important for public safety, especially if you have have users on this trail that have limited mobility and so forth. Um I'm I'm really surprised to see the number of people that um that use the trail. We we live right on the corner and we have a an office that looks out at the trail and and I'm around as a retired person. Um and this is a lot more people than I've seen. So, um it that's great. Um and I congratulate the organizers for getting all these folks together. Um but um like I say, from a citywide perspective, I think you need to make sure you do this so everyone can use this trail. I and I am an engineer. I have actually built lots of trails, but I won't bore you with any of that. But I I have to put some things to numbers. And so one of the things I did was take the the4 million dollar estimate that that Jesse put together. That's the top end of the estimate, including the crossing. And if you divide that by the 98 people who signed the petition, that's $2,500 per person to to to build this thing. Um but at heart we want to save the trees and we'd like to continue our restoration of the of the vegetation and all the other um maintenance issues that folks have been taking care of for years along that corridor and we would hope that you'd vacate it and let us do that. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. other members of the public who wish to speak to this item this evening. Hello and welcome. Hi, thank you very much. My name is Cindy Geller and I live on Hershel. Um, and I was here at the last meeting also. And I have I um the previous speaker brought up the ADA compliant path and I'm just curious about this because um I think we're pretty much everybody in this area is familiar with Gibbs Farm and last fall Gibbs Farm completely redid their path system through their prairie there specifically so people in wheelchairs or wagons cuz They get tons of school groups there can actually go on the paths. The paths are made out of like a um I don't know if it's crushed limestone or what, but it's not asphalt and it's not concrete. It's the kind of understated path that could work in a natural setting like that environment. So I don't know um if that is a possibility for PE for ADA but they seem to be have done that there so that they could accommodate their many many they get I don't know how many visi how many school groups go through there but tons every day so the other thing I wanted to mention is that there is a path that's been forever between so this is not in Roseville this is in Falcon Heights and it goes between Pascal and Holton. So, it's a very short path. You're shaking your hand. And and it's like probably from the path to the people's windows. It's our the distance between us and the uh it's a narrow path. And they recently redid it and they did the most beautiful thing. They put up a sign just asking people to respect the homeowners on each side of the path and to pick up after their animals. And then they also put one of those little um dog waste receptacles up. So I thought that was um something to consider. Signage just asking for respect at both ends of the path. um I think would be nice and I totally agree with the other com people who commented that it should be something that fits in with if a path is approved that would fit in with the natural landscape of the woods. So anyway, that's all. All right. Thank you. Thanks for your comments. Other members of the public who wish to speak to this item this evening? Right. Hello and welcome. Hello. Good evening, Mayor Row and City Council members. My name is Mindy Ericson. I live on Mid Oaks Lane and I use the materials in the packet. Two options were presented and so I'm going off that and and nothing else. I ask for your vote to vacate the Aldine Street rightway. The rightaway was established about seven decades ago for a street that was never built. It was identified by city staff back in 2022 as no no longer necessary for public benefit. As noted in the staff memo, which is in today's packet, this segment is not in the Roseville pathway plan because it is about a quarter mile from existing paths along both Fairview and Snelling. The existing path spacing already meets layout goals. In addition to deviating from layout norms, a city path on this right ofway would create a peculiar singular deviation from path location norms. It would recreate recreate the first and only city path situated between eight residential properties. The staff member f staff memo further notes that constructing a path that meets pathway stand plan standards would destroy dozens of mature trees and cost upwards of a4 million dollars. Finally, city staff used the pathway plan ranking criteria to rank the segment among the city's proposed paths. The segment sums to a very low ranking when all city path priorities are considered and accounted for. Roseville's mission statement aims for ethical, efficient government and prioritizing environmental conservation. Please put the mission statement into action by respecting the Roseville Pathway Plan location and layout norms, safeguarding dozens of mature trees, valuing the substantial investments already made in building accessible paths along both Fairview and Snelling, and spending limited city resources, our taxes, on higher priority paths than a neighborhood shortcut. Please vote for the original city proposal, full vacation of the Aldine Street right away. Um, regardless of your vote, I thank you for taking on the responsibility of being an elected official and for weighing everything that comes before you. I appreciate your service. I appreciate your time. I really respect what you're doing here tonight, regardless of the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else from the public who wishes to speak to this item? Keep them coming, folks. Hello and welcome. Hello. Nice to see you all again as my name is Rachel Brown. I live at 1705 Roselon Avenue West. I wasn't sure what I was going to say tonight because I felt like um the staff did such a nice job of presenting the two options and like the logic is really behind um the vacation just because of the path um the cost of the path and the feasibility score. So, but instead of being all logical, I'm going to give you numbers. Um, seven seven is the score that that received and that is um it is 71 to 75 in a ranking of 79 path options on that plane uh on the pathway um master plan. So, if you add this if you do option B and put it on the on the master plan for the pathways, you're putting it in the 70s of 79 possible paths. I'm just just to put that number in context. Um, another one is $2342. That's how much we paid um my fiance and I to um get a survey done because there was no clarity on what this what this land really was and what it meant. Um, and as lovely as all the comments are, it's um I I all I said last time was that it was intrusive. And I don't know how that gets turned into an argument that we're not um or that we're escalating somehow. The it's what what I found out I found out the night of really clarified the night of this last meeting was that it's private property. The 20 ft was private property. So, everyone um who says they want to keep it as is, like I've had one person who approached me and one who responded when I pointed it out to them, what what it means to be suddenly faced with the idea that this property that I thought wasn't mine is and has been for 25 years. So, um and it's not a legal technicality. The it it the coun the um county said it was true. Um and then uh another one is 293 feet. That's that's the length of um of a path if it went along in the right of way in the 30 ft of right way on my property. It's it's a really long stretch. So it has great impact on on just the feel and the character of of the property. I too agree that if it's going to be done, it's got to be done right. and e and if you're going to argue for equity, you have to make it ADA accessible. Um, and then finally, well, no, two more. uh num 98, the number of people who replied to that survey. You have it in your um I sent a a message to um uh Mayor Row in response to that survey because that was done uh with lots of misinformation including the information that came to light after that that the 20 ft um that the bulk of the trail, the ASIS trail is on private property. Um and then finally, it's um and I'm not going to sing it for you, but this is straight from Rent. um 525,600 minutes. That's how many minutes those of us who live along this ride ofway, the 30 feet rideway, um experience this property. And that's a lot different than the three minutes it takes to walk through the shortcut. So, thank you for your time. And I think you know how to spell my name because I've written so many times. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Other public comment on this item this evening. Hi, I'm Sheri Midendorf and I live on Mid Oaks Lane. Full disclosure, my property does abut the path. I'm here to support vacation. As a few of the previous speakers have pointed out, a lot of the path does run on private property today. To reroute a path would disrupt a lot of the tree canopy that everyone cherishes. Um that was called out in the staff memo. Um, I keep coming back to that low score, that seven score to tell us what the community value of that path would be. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. I saw thought I saw another speaker that was preparing to come up. Good evening. Thank you, council mayor, for allowing this conversation to happen. My name is Joe Pribble. I live at uh 1738 Skilman Avenue. Um my wife spoke earlier and um I'm going to maintain peace in the household and agree with things she said and not make it more of an interesting evening for anyone. Um but I do have to um ask that we consider that um that there's a broader context here. We do have this nice right ofway between Aldine and Roselon, but there's also a system of other rightofways in the neighborhood that are used in conjunction with this one that make the neighborhood more walkable and inherently safer. Um, when pedestrians and those that are using these walkways and paths don't have to share a surface with motorists. Um I do think and agree with all the comments that have been made as far as um what makes for the greatest uh number of that assist the the the greatest good to be done with what's available. So, um, you know, if it can indeed be something that's accessible to, um, all people, um, have it be ADA compliant, that's wonderful, but I don't think we need to get into an either or discussion about if it's not for some reason ADA compliant, then it can't be used by anybody. Um, we want to be sensitive to everyone. And just as I think so many wonderful thoughts um on both sides of the matter have been expressed tonight with um sensitivity to everyone, I think we can work together to make it something that works well for everyone and maintain a public space that um can serve the greater good, the greatest number of people and um have everybody be able to make um some contribution to it in a way that is beneficial to them. So I appreciate your listening and taking everything into consideration. And I want to thank all my neighbors, too. Thank you. Hello. Uh my name is Stephanie Ashen Brener. Um I spoke last time and uh I I'm going to try not to repeat myself. Um I just you know hearing the developments and hearing, you know, whether there's plan A of um vacating or plan B of destroying trees and putting down pavement, I do think that there there's got to be a a more creative response um that uh is a middle ground where people will um a win-win situation that we can find And uh I would uh just I I question whether this decision needs to be made tonight. Um I think that there's you know still uh alternatives that could be considered and uh a full evaluation of them might um be in everybody's best interest. Thank you. Thank you. Other members of the public. Hi, I'm Sarah Quinn. Um, thanks for listening to us tonight. I am at 89 Mid Oaks. Um, I bought the path. I've lived there four years and even though the property technically belongs to you, I've taken care of it lovingly. I've eliminated all the buckthorn. I have a beautiful understory of wooded plants there. Um, elderberry, wild ginger, lots of things. Um, so I have taken care of it. Um, you mentioned curb cuts earlier and I do want to mention that there is not a curb cut on the south end of the path. Bikers that use it use Rachel's driveway, which is obviously clearly on her property. Um, I want to save the trees. I've never minded the people walking back there, but I want to save the trees. And given that the entrances are each on private property, I don't know how the path can exist as it is right now. Um, so that's why I'm asking you to vacate. Thank you. Right. Thank you for your comments. Other members of the public who wish to speak to this item. Last chance. Right. We'll go ahead and uh close the public comment then. Um and I did want to note that there were a couple of questions that were raised uh by members of the public and so I want to uh try to see if we can address those. Um so uh one of the questions and this gets to I think a discussion we almost always have on right-of-way vacations. Um and and I think we talked a little bit about it at the last discussion, but it bears bears maybe touching back on it again as soon as I stop my timer. There we go. Um the um question of sort of who's responsible for maintenance of just as it is right now as as you know delineated right of way um you know who's responsible for maintaining it. I if I remember correctly, the city is not out there maintaining it in any way and it is the adjacent property owners very similar to the 15t of my front yard that is city right away for the street that's in front of me. Is that correct? Correct. Since it's unimproved rightway, we don't do normal maintenance um for the there's utilities in the corridor. We would maintain it if we need to access the utilities. Um obviously the power company probably maintains it to a minimal degree to keep the trees off the power lines, but yeah, we're not mowing it. We're not purposely going in there to remove trees for any purpose unless it was affecting a city. Even Even Buckthornne. Even Buckthorn. Even Buckthornne. All right. So, that was one of the questions or items that have been brought up. So, essentially, as it stands right now, the adjacent property owners and most likely because of the way it's the 30t to the west of the people on Mid Oaks, it's probably pretty much entirely up to the people on Mid Oaks given that the 20 ft is owned by the people to the west. Correct. everything that would if if the vacation does go through all 30 ft would go to the properties to the east. All right. That's not a situation where the county would decide to give correct. It was all platted as the 30t was dedicated in the mid the mid oaks plat. Got it. Okay. Thank you. So the folks that live to the east of it are the people that are responsible for the 30 ft directly to the west of them as it stands today. Um, if we maintain a utility easement, it's still we have the ability to access to maintain utilities or the utility companies do, but it's still the responsibility of the property owner to maintain that that property. Correct. Our maintenance doesn't change, right? And um, in the case of whether well maybe I need to, this may be an attorney question. Um, so of course we have uh nuisance standards for maintaining properties as it relates to the the length of weeds and you can't have bare soil. there's got to be coverage. Um, how does that apply in the two scenarios? One of which is where it's vacated back to the property owner or if it's maintained as right of way. Um, can a property owner totally not maintain uh vegetation and things like that on a piece of rightway that's adjacent to their property? Mayor Ro, I'm not sure whether Jesse or I really want to jump at this question. That's why I asked. I I don't know that I've been presented with this actual question, but let me just say that GI It's a right-of-way easement, correct, Jesse? It's It's platted right away. It's platted right away. Makes it harder. Um, of course, I I I don't know the answer. Okay. Um, obviously, if it were vacated to the property owner, then it would become 100% their property. No question. They would have to maintain it, right? Um, what happens in the middle ground where it's not being maintained? That's a good question. One of the things I would want to know that I don't know is is what's the city doing in the rest of the city? I'm confident there's other similar similar circumstances. What happens when those become overgrown, trees fall on them? Who cleans them up? That'd be my first question. Sure. Um so I don't know the answer right now. I can get back to you with it though. All right. And I think we may want to have a good understanding of that for a number of reasons. But I, you know, I just think about how we expect people to maintain their yards when it's adjacent to a city street. they don't get to let the 15 feet between their property line and the city street sort of go wild or become bare soil or those types of things. So, I'm just trying to make sure that we're sort of thinking about how we apply those things and whether or not regardless of what we do on the action this evening, this is a question we may have to be prepared to deal with down the road. Uh just to clarify, so we from a tree perspective, um we we don't we're not proactively going after residents for for for uh fallen trees or anything like that. So I know a lot of these corridors, they're not maintained. Um a lot of times we get questions, will we go out there? And our response is no. Um we're not we're not going to go remove the tree cuz that's it. I have a tree falling down if there's a dead tree. We don't proactive. Now, a lot of these corridors are similar to this one. They're wooded. They're not really part of people's yards. They're, you know, they're kind of hidden spots. So, it's they're not they're not going to look like manicured yards, but I don't think it's because it's the buffer between two properties. That's t that tends to happen. So, Sure. Sure. And it doesn't mean that that that's the right way it should have been done, but it's just the way it exists today. So, okay. All right. Uh sorry to get off topic a little bit there maybe. Um, so as far as um the liability to the city, I guess was the question associated if we don't do a paved pathway of some sort. Um, I'm not sure if the city's liability is any different for one type of facility versus another. Um, and once again, this may be more of an attorney question than a uh public works director question, but uh it does come up. Obviously, we have pathways across the city. sort of what is the city's liability associated with our pathways. So I guess if we right now it's an informal pathway so it's it's not really a pathway technically by that standard. So we don't maintain it. We don't do anything. So I don't think we really have any liability. Certainly if we make it a pathway um we we do typically need to make it ADA compliant um and and meet that standard. Um so obviously we do any sort of improvement we have to make sure it has proper curb cuts. it meets proper grade and has a proper surface. Now, currently the pathway master plan for rightway pathways or what falls under more of the public works um natural ones technically aren't allowed per that. Not to say they couldn't be allowed, but that's currently we don't have any pathways under the pathway master plan in that. Now, we do have more natural pathways within parks. Cottontail park. Um, I know there was used to be a couple segments in Central Park, but maybe they've been paved since then. But we do have other examples of other areas, but they're not in I would say right away. They're in parks. But you could do that. That being said, you still have to do grading to make sure you you're still going to have to do some sort of improvement even if it's not a hard surface to to meet proper grade in terms of the abil the slope of the pathway. Exactly. To be accessible. Correct. more or less you need a 5 foot wide less than 2% cross slope so someone in a wheelchair can get through. So it's not to say it's got to be you know can't has to be perfectly flat on one plane but it you know can't build into a side of a slope. Uh in the and if you don't know the answer that's right but in the Cottontail Park example does the city do any maintenance of that pathway uh in the winter time? We we do appar I did confirm that with parks we do we do actually plow that. So, um I think once it gets frozen, they they might might plow it when it's uh um maybe a little soft, but we do it it is maintained in the winter. Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh let's see here. Um I think the actually one of the speakers spoke to the the question of the legal technicality aspect of the of the 20 ft on the west part. So, I don't know that we need to answer that one. Um, so as far as as far as um whether we have to comply with ADA, I'm sure that the language of the law speaks to that. Um, and if we're if we're subject to ADA, we have to comply and there may be different ways to achieve that, including with a non-paved pathway, but we still would most likely have to comply with ADA if we if we improve the rightway. I mean, if it's left as is, I don't think we're under an obligation to do that, but certainly it creates other issues. We did something in that corridor. Correct. Okay. All right. I think that gets to the qu and then I think the the the mention of the Gibbs farm sort of relates to the previous discussion we've just been having. So, I don't know that there's more to say in that regard. I think that gets to the end of the questions that I had noted. Were there other questions council members noted from the public that we should answer? not questions from the public, but I want to make sure I do want to make sure we cover that topic. Okay. Um and then we'll go to if there's any clarifications council members might need to have with So, it sounds like we've addressed the the questions that may have come up during the public comment. Right. Right. Other clarifications from council members or questions from council members? Council member, I mean, I think this speaks to some of the questions um on the um request for council action page three, line 111 and 112, it indicates if the vacation is not approved and no other motion is made and approved, the status of vacation area B will remain as is. So many people who came forward requested that there be a third option, which to me this indicates there is. Um, it is not uh simply giving it back to the landowners and it's not decimating trees and requiring a public path, but put putting it off for a future time to decide maybe there's a way that these neighbors could um work together and find a way to um to create a a workable space that's long-term or that obviously the cost and the plan to take out trees and other things can't be the only thing. I think the important piece to mention is if there is no access to this easement or right ofway at either end of the property, then the property owners on either end are not following the easement. So, they're not following what that easement is. If there's no access, then they have already impinged upon that access. And so, that really needs to be brought up. And when in residents had asked about that about whether or not they could bring that up in this meeting, they feared for the people who are coming forward just as I fear and saying anything because my livelihood as a person outside of council has been jeopardized for, to quote Rachel Brown, 60,480 minutes while I thought I had an ethics violation that would maybe impinge my ability to hold my job in the public sector, which I do 99% of the So if people cannot come forward and share what's important to them, then why would they in this light of two assassinations yesterday when they or this weekend when they think that they're going to be harmed, we need to find a way to figure out how to do this together. And my eye pie in the sky resolution would be that not only would this find a a way for the neighborhood to work together on this, clean up Buckthornne together, figure a way to make it accessible and remove that piece where the fence impedes on either end this pathway. But maybe this would be the location of a future neighborhood block party and where people come together and use this space just as I have and I mentioned which was called into question. I've walked this many times with my dogs. that I think is pretty cool, but it is hard to know where to go at the ends and that should be clarified. But I don't think we have this third option in our resolution tonight which says if the vacation is not approved and no other motion is made, the status will remain as is. So it's there and that has to be an option that we present to us as a council and that we don't talk about it not being there. It's in this request for proposal tonight. Thank you. Right. Other uh items for clarification from the council members. Council member Schwarter. Yes. Um a clarification. Um the beginning of the path on either side, is that in the 20 ft that is no longer available or is that on the 30 ft that's still right away? Do we know? I guess I I'm not 100% familiar with where the existing pseudo pathway is, which is on um I'll just say the existing 30 ft cor corridor does connect to Ryan on the north and Josephine or and uh Rosalon on the south. Does that mean hub where the path where people are cutting into is Yeah, I didn't like I said I don't have a survey. I don't want to say which side it's on, but there is if the pathway wants if the council decides to keep this for a pathway, there is a legal way that to be done. And so and then the other piece is it's confusing because it it sounds like a lot of this path is in the 20 feet that is actually private property now. So how would we then u make sure that that path is no longer going through that 20 ft. So if there was I mean I it seems like it would be confusing to figure out that if a path that's you know being being used is on private property now how do because then the the people who own that land would have the legal right to um you know I suppose fencing or or or saying not don't use it or I'm a you know so how how would that fit into this? So from a property owner's perspective, they could certainly put a fence up or delineate it how they wish. Um certainly if the council says construct a pathway or put it there, we we can delineate where the rightway is andor obviously we would construct the pathway within the 30t foot of rightway that we do own which would go through the trees which would be on the east 30 ft. Yep. Okay. I'm just trying to clarify where exactly this path is and and and where the entryways are. So I was just trying to get a little more Yeah. And certainly any pathway that is constructed most likely isn't going to be the existing pathway where it is today because of the rightway issue. Yeah. And then being able to figure out how to get that old pathway not being used anymore could be a challenge. Okay. And I just want to clarify one thing too. You talked about potentially the property owner of the of the owner of the 20 ft to the west. Um putting a fence there. Do we have any restrictions on installing fences within uh utility easements that we're trying to obtain? Yeah. So if or maintaining a fence that might be built prior to the acquiring of that easement, I would say on the west we would take that as a case by case basis and evaluate it. I would say to the east if the rightway is retained, we can certainly deal with encroachments. We have mechanisms to to deal with encroachments within existing rightway. So if there happened to be there happened to be an existing fence in the rightway that can be resolved. The reason we've never resolved it to date is it hasn't caused us an issue for anything. So even though it might if there's one in the existing 30 ft, it hasn't impeded the city. Like I said, we weren't aware until recently that there was this pathway or and like I said, we haven't had access to our utilities we've been accessing in the previous 20 ft we thought we had. And if I may, I didn't mean to steal your your time here, Council Member Sher, but to follow up on that too, if um if the city were to put a pathway facility in the 30-foot section and there had was an existing fence or some other structure from a private property owner in the way, we might have to ask them to make a change or remove or Correct. We'd request them to remove that encroachment from the rightway. Okay. Right. Thank you. Uh, Council Member Grath, not to muddy the water too much, but we had something similar like this on Lake McCarron's where the the person built the fence over the line and he had to remove it. It was, you know, if it's not in in their property, that can happen and we have mechanisms to do that. I also think uh kind of under council member Schroeder's comment, we do surveys and that's how in real estate you determine lines and Miss Brown did that, but we would have to do that if we were doing a pathway obviously to have it in our rightway section. I did walk the path today. Um, it isn't entirely clear where everything goes there, but I do think there are encroachments that are coming from Mid Oaks Lane into that. There's a building that looks like it's been put into the rightway and also fencing down at the Roseelon end of it. So, um, those are the obstacles and that's why people are right walking on the Browns property driveway because it's blocked by someone's fence. And that's why it shouldn't that should not be there as far as right away goes in my opinion. Is that on the 30 foot side? That is on the 30 foot side. Okay, good. That's what I'm trying to Okay, thank you. I think on the on the northern end there may be some fencing within the right of way, but I'm not sure it goes all the way to the edge of it. It it but it was hard to tell. Um once again, you know, I'm not a surveyor or don't have that innate sense of that. Um it does there seems to be a sense that that the north access point may be on the private property too. It's hard to hard to tell. So um certainly that would have to be uh something that would need to be further investigated uh depending on on how this goes forward. Are there other clarifying questions that council members had? So um as noted uh the the three possible actions are the uh adoption of the resolution vacating the right of way uh and maintaining the utility easement over that 30 ft. Uh there is certainly u not taking any action leaving things as they are. Uh and then there is also the potential to direct um that the um right ofway be maintained for specifically for pathway purposes uh beyond any utility easement. uh and direct staff to uh add this segment to the pathway master plan. Um I did want to clarify on that point um given this the score and given the nature of what else is on the pathway master plan and sort of what other construction plans are for roadways in the community. Um even if that action was taken that does not mean that instantaneously there is a new pathway built there unless the council so directed outside of the master planning process. Is that correct? Correct. So yeah it um typically and we don't go in order. It's a preference list not a priority list. Um but typically we a lower scored one would happen because of either some specialized funding or an adjacent project where it just made sense to do that. Um I'm not aware of any other projects in the near f future over here. So that probably wouldn't apply for this. But same thing and then from a budget wise um we don't have a lot of dedicated funding for new pathways uh particularly ones not on a um a city street or a county road or we could use some of our state aid funds which we've done a lot of our pathways. So that would something have to be prioritized against other commitments that the city has for pathways. Right. Uh and then once again, if we don't do anything uh in regard to this, which certainly is a legitimate option, it may or may not mean that the existing access remains depending on what the property owners to the west do and how that relates to what's there now. Um and so there there there's also sort of not necessarily guarantees associated with that as well. um just for the benefit of the public and and the council in terms of the options we're looking at. So the next step would be for the council to come forward with a proposed action in the form of a motion in relation to one of the three uh act well I guess we wouldn't technically need a motion to not do anything. I guess it would just be really quiet for a while. Uh but uh if there's a motion in relation to either of the uh the other two proposed options, uh this would be the time for a council member to make it. Uh council member Grath. Um I would move to deny the right away vacation and we can go further. There's discussion. Second. All right. So I'm just thinking about this. So we we're asked to either adopt a resolution um or or do another alternative action. So this is a motion to specifically not adopt the resolution as I understand resolution and have the right away vacated. It would not have the right way vac. All right. So essentially it's the status quo option I would I would say. Okay. All right. And then that was second by council member Straw. All right. Uh discussion on the motion coun as the maker of the motion. Council member Grath. These aren't easy things as you can all imagine having listened to the comments tonight. But once we make a right-of-way vacation, there's no going back. If this is done, that property's gone. The city will never get that property back again. I think there's enough discussion that's been brought up tonight about pathways and other alternatives. Maybe looking at a different type of pathway, maybe exploring a different type of surface that could be ADA compliant that I as a council member don't feel for comfortable going ahead and making a decision that would be uh permanent um dissolution of this right away and we would not get it back for any purposes for the city or for the residents that use that. So that's why I'm voting that way. Right. And as the secondary, council member Stro, I just re reiterate my previous comments. I hope this isn't a neighborhood divider, but a way for there to be an opportunity. I bet you don't know everyone in this room and never met half of these people before this conversation. I hope you'll take it as an opportunity to improve what we have. The bigger world is already scary enough. if we can find a way to build the community instead of tear it apart. All right. Other discussion on the motion? Uh, Council Member Schroeder. Um, I would say um if that if this passes, you need to respect now that that 20 ft is no longer available. So, if that is part of the path, that is no longer an option for people to walk through people's property. So that would be important. If if it is on people's property and they ask you not to walk on it, please be polite and respect that because that that is um no matter what happens tonight, that is foregone conclusion. That that is private property on that. And um I really do not want to see a path developed there because I really do not want to see anything done to those trees. The the mature trees I think are so important. People talk about this magical thing. If we have to take those trees out, it's not so magical anymore. So I I would not be in support of u making it an official path that because of that. Uh, Council Member Brown, I'm sorry. Is someone new? I was Brown. Bower. Thank you. I am new. Yes. Yes. Uh, I will agree with uh Council Member Schroeder. Uh, my concern going forward is that if we uh to give this property back to the neighborhood and have the neighborhood decide and so the magic continue. I'm concerned that if we continue making this a rightaway, it's involved with the city that the city uh only uses big pieces of equipment and does much, you know, large motions and we'll end up losing the trees. We'll end up losing what's magical about this area. Um vacating this does not mean that there can't be a path there. It's just turning it back over to the neighborhood to decide. Just like all of you have come together here tonight to try to figure this out and had you, you know, prior to this coming up, you figured out some kind of solution. I think it makes sense to vacate this and hand it back to the neighborhood and have all of you come together as you have today to work out what the next steps are and I'm pretty comfortable that you would. I'm very concerned that if the city continues to be involved that what it is that you know the magic that has brought you all here will go away and that's something that I don't think this body wants or anyone here attending wants. Right. Um so and just a reminder that the the motion before us is to not adopt the resolution and to not vacate the right of way uh essentially maintaining the status quo. Um, and I have to say that I'm not 100% sure that that is the ideal solution uh for many of the the points that have been made about, you know, the potential that that what's there now isn't even going to be available because it it may be on the private property and that is going to that's going to require some some workroughs. Um I think you know the challenge we have is that it's very likely that if we pursued the step as I noted before of identifying it as a as a a planned pathway um the status quo um may not be able to be maintained either um because nothing's going to be built for a while and we still have the private property conflict issue. Um, so I'm not sure that that that's a great solution. Uh, because it it it's essentially the status quo with the hope of something down the road. Um, I think that um that the and I will say with vacating that does provide some certainty to the property owners, but it certainly doesn't address the the the access and the longtime use. There may be other solutions out there that none of us know of at this point. Certainly, there is the potential, I suppose. Um, and I don't know for sure. So, I'm pleased if I'm completely wrong from from any number of points of view um that um you know down the road there could be some kind of action to return the property to some sort of private ownership that may not necessarily be the adjacent property owners. I don't know how that happens. Maybe 98 people take up a collection and acquire some property if that's even possible. And I don't know that it is. So, you know, don't get your hopes up. But uh but those are the kind of things that could be solutions. Maybe there's a an aldane pathway natural pathway association that somehow takes responsibility for something and it's not the public's. I think the challenge we have that's been brought up is that if it is a city facility, if it is city property and we have to do something as a city, the the considerations we have are such that we may not be able to maintain what's there now uh the way it is. um we we may be able to take measures to try not to have as much impact as certainly an asphalt or concrete pathway. Um but those are still things that uh that we're not sure of at this point. So that's why I guess I'm defaulting to uh supporting the notion of the status quo. Um and certainly one of the potential outcomes of the status quo is that the um that the adjacent properties petition for vacation on their own and this comes back before us. Uh that's always a possibility as well and try not to suggest or encourage one thing or another but just kind of letting folks know what possibilities might be out there. Um so I think from that perspective um either I think regardless of whether this motion passes or fails, the status quo may be the outcome. So, I'm not sure how how that means I have to vote here. Um, maybe it's more active or more passive uh in the end. Uh, but that's that's kind of that's where I'm coming from. An amendment to make you feel more comfortable. Uh, I'm not sure that I'm not sure what that amendment will be necessarily. It seems fairly clear as to uh as to what our options appear to be at this point. So with that, unless there is further discussion on the motion, we do have the motion before us to not vacate the right of way, essentially maintaining the status quo. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed. Nay. That motion fails. Uh unless there's a motion to vacate the right of way. I'd like to make a motion to vacate. That would be an appropriate next action, I believe, because we're at the same meeting. All right. So, not was the previous motion. This is to vacate. I heard a motion from Council Member Schroeder and a second from Council Member Bower. Thank you, sir. Yes. Um discussion on the motion to and this would be to adopt the resolution to vacate. Yes. This requires the four- fifths, right? Correct. It's a well and technically it's a two-thirds vote, but in our case, it's has to be four fifths. Uh council Oh, Mr. Just want to point out there is a bench handout for the resolute resolution. There are some slight changes and Mr. Brammer can go over that. It's just some technical cleanup. Uh doesn't really change anything, but I'll let Mr. Fryhammer. Thanks. Just for a moment. Yeah. Yeah. Just for clarification, we just clarified some language about the retaining the utility easement. So, it's it's highlighted um on your bench handout, but it it's just clarifying that we're retaining the utility easement over that 30 ft. Okay. Which was the intent. Yep. Oh, it always was the attendance, right? All right. Thank you for that clarification and that is the motion is to adopt bench handout resolution with that clarification maintaining the utility easement over that stretch. All right. As the maker of the motion to the motion, council member Schroer. Yeah, I I do think this is what um um staff has brought forward originally was to pass this and that we've done this with so many other properties and and so I think it's just what we that piece but um again I'm really concerned about the tree canopy and of course now that we don't have that 20 ft that changed a lot of um things on that. So, it just it just does not make sense. And um the status quo still we it it just it just seems to let it hang out there. And I did want to make the clarification that it's four fifths if we bring it forward. It's only a majority if it's petitioned. Correct. That is correct. Okay. That's what I thought it was. So anyway, so I I do think um um supporting originally what the staff had come forward to um on this and and again um the tree canopy is is really really um important to me. So right and as the second uh council member Bower. Yeah, I will second all those thoughts and again restate what I said earlier. Uh I have all the confidence in the world that the neighborhood uh best use of this uh vacating this is giving it back to the neighborhood and having the neighborhood decide what to do with it going forward and removing uh and giving some clarity going forward. Right. Other discussion on the motion council. I just have to mention I I don't think it's giving it back to the neighborhood. It gives the property to the adjacent owners. So, so we shouldn't mislead the people saying that it's giving it back to the neighborhood cuz they don't have the option of working and building a pathway through there. I'll clarify giving it back to the neighborhood such that they can come up with their own solutions on how to work together to either maintain this path or what solution as the mayor had stated previously coming up with a pathway association or something like that. That's not what we're only if this only if the property owners along there agree to that. Exactly. Correct. that it's something for them next steps for them to decide what to do. Great. Other discussion on the motion. Council member Strong. Again, I also agree with Council Member Grath. If we give these this pathway back to the owners that are adjacent on the east side of this, it's essentially their property. It's no longer available for the community to make any considerations. Um because if one property owner along that path said sure and the other six said no um there's no path. So that's that's not what we're suggesting here. Um once it is given back to the adjacent property owners, there's no longer an opportunity for a path to ever exist in this space. And I agree with council member Schroeder in that um yes, the property to the 20 feet to the west is no longer available, but that does require that the property owners on the 30 ft to the east of this, they abide by the that and they they remove their fence from that. So that is a walkable space for where people are allowed by this um current rightway to walk. they have access. And if you want them jumping your fence and then walking through your yard and then jump in your fence again, I guess you can do that. But here it is. The reason they can't walk in the right way is because you've encroached upon it with your decision. And so no one's going to force you. But I think if you're saying the neighbors are walking in the wrong place, it's because you've made you've made conscious decisions about where you've placed your fence. Right. Um, and I will just note once again, I think that um that um I'm not sure that the vacation is the is the right decision at this time. Um, and and it seems apparent that probably would not pass with four votes this evening. Um, and so I guess I have the luxury of of opposing both of these motions and maintaining the status quo. Um, and I just would point out that the status quo as far as any kind of uh pathway through this strip is not an officially sanctioned city approved pathway by any stretch. This is still an unsanctioned sort of uh grandparented in situation. Uh, and certainly that could go away for a variety of reasons whether it relates to access to utilities or something like that. Um, so um I just want to make that clear. Um, but with that, we have the motion before us to adopt the resolution, the bench handout, uh, vacating the rightway. Once again, this does require a two-thirds majority vote. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Opposed? Nay. All right, that motion fails. Uh, and I forgot to mention on both motions, just to make sure it's clear for the record, uh, the, uh, the nay votes on the original motion to, uh, not vacate, uh, were council member Schroeder, uh, Council Member Bower, and myself. Now, I'm got myself so confused. Uh, and then the nay votes on the motion to adopt the resolution were council member Grath, Council Member Straw, and myself. Uh, for the official record. With that, I think we are at the conclusion of this item. Uh, and the, uh, the status is to maintain the status quo at this point. Uh, we appreciate all the input from everybody. Uh, and, uh, we will see, uh, where things go from here. I know there's a is there one more round of vacations uh, coming up. We have one more, but it'll be a while before we bring them back. All right. Not necessarily because you've learned a lesson from this one, but just because there's probably some more work to do. Correct. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Mr. Fryhammer. Uh we are approaching our break time of eight o'clock and so I think it's appropriate for us to take about a five minute break till like 11:30 All right. All right, we're back from a short break here. Appreciate everybody's uh patience here and uh especially given the fact that we're somewhat behind schedule. Uh next on our agenda, we have um a joint meeting with the uh finance commission. uh and we appreciate that they're here this evening uh or the most of the commission is here this evening to uh visit with us uh on the annual uh meeting that we do with the finance commission. Uh so I'm going to turn it over to Chair Bester uh to make introductions and uh kind of kick off the discussion here. Thank you, Mayor, City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to meet together again each year. We really appreciate it. Uh we would have had one more member here, but the babysitter time ran out, so Uh I'm chair of the commission Bruce Bester. Our vice chair is not able to be here tonight. Sadik Dir. Other commissioners with me tonight include Safa Barklay, uh Commissioner Kevin Davyy, uh Commissioner Ray Kaz Kenbach. Uh u what we're going to be talking to you about tonight is it really is the heart of the information will be the to present uh the information that we found when we did a review of the annual uh comprehensive financial report. Uh this is something that I kind of had. Yes. And so if you happen to have your copy uh with you tonight, it'll be useful to uh to follow to follow along uh some of the points that we're making and some of the uh some of the pieces of information that we want to bring forward. Uh so the finance commission reviewed and was scheduled to receive the annual C the ACFR on May 13th with our auditor from Red Path, Rebecca Peterson uh and our city finance director Michelle Petrich. Uh my feeling uh in the past has been that the finance commission has received a rather top level summary uh briefing on the audited financials and and so I was curious as to what the city council received and and uh after attending the city council meeting on the 12th of May uh I realized that really the same report was essentially the same report was given to both bodies and uh from my perspective at the finance uh commission level. It didn't go as deep as I'm accustomed to receiving uh in past boards and and finance commissions and audit uh committees that I've been part of. And so uh on the city council meeting of May 12th, the council made it clear that their expectation was that the finance commission take a deeper dive and and have a a deeper level understanding of of what's included in the reports. And there's a lot of information there. So anyway, the finance commission, I'm here to tell you, is pleased to accept the responsibility uh and the assignment to to take a deeper dive. It's part of our charter. So here we go. We'll just jump into the points that you should have received in your advanced packages. Uh first item, we looked at the uh percentage of levy collected. uh our commissioner Kenbach uh noted that our collections had dropped significantly to to appear to be 90% collections versus 97 98 99% collections in previous years. So the most recent three years appeared to drop to about 90% versus 90 close to 99 in the the prior three. And that would have amounted to about $2.2 $2 million per year. So, we were obviously very concerned about that. Well, what did we learn? We learned that uh the reported levy collections for 22, 23, 24 really should have been reported at 98, 98, and 98% respectively. The levy dollars from P fiscal disparities were not uh included in that report. So, so we we were misled as to what what our collection really was. So, it was a reporting issue, not a collection issue. That's what we learned. And we should also say that's in the unodudited portion of the report. The first I'm going to talk about that in a little bit. The first 110 pages is the audited part and then there's the statistical supplement and that was when the within the statistical supplement. Thank you. Excuse me. Do you want us to wait till the end to ask questions? Is that how we're going to do it? Um, it might make sense to go for questions as we hit the topics, I suspect. Okay. Because because each question is kind of an interesting piece there and so um is was the should the auditor have picked up on that? No. That's why I say it's not audited, but they put the supplement in the audit though. It's a city annual the comprehensive financial report. The first 110 pages is the audit and the financial notes and then the ne the rest part is the statistical supplement. Okay. Thank you. Uh second item uh if no other questions uh principal property taxpayers uh looking at page 126 of the ACFR uh again in the statistical u part of the report but it appeared as though Rosale Shopping Center was paying $719,000 in property taxes and compared to 2015 when they were paying 1,679. Uh well, what we learned was that not all of the parcels of the Rosedale Shopping Center were included in that report. So, a reader would have been misled as to the amount of it. It would appear as though Rosedale paid less than it had 10 years earlier. Uh it also uh the the comparative information with other shopping centers and and other uh uh commercial businesses would have been off as well. Uh page or item number three page 122 actually chester just to clarify on that point. So the the difference with Rosedale is that since 2015, they've sort of divided out ownership of the various parcels. And so if you compare the same owner to the same owner between those two time frames, that's where the discrepancy is. There's probably actually still a high amount of property tax paid by all the parcels when you add them together. It just doesn't show up the same way on the list. Is that essentially what we're saying? That's what we're saying is that uh all of the parcels should have been uh considered, right? Okay. and then we would have had reasonable comparative information. Thank you for clarifying. Uh item three, uh page 122, Roseville has a strong commercial sector. Uh our commercial sector assessed property values are in a ratio of nearly 50% 50 and 50. Uh not common. It's very common for other cities to have ratios more like 70% residential, 30% commercial. Uh item item four uh investment earnings page 21 of the audited financial statements uh investment earnings increased significantly uh on page 21. Uh but that was because uh two $2,700,000 was included in that page that re money that really earnings that really belong to the fire relief fund uh and had in the past been reported in the fire relief. So investment earnings were overstated on page 21 and that's in the audited report. That's in the audit. Yep. They weren't overstated as a mistake though. It was a change, right? It was a change in change in how they accounted for where it went. Yeah. Yeah. It wasn't an error, but 2.7 was real money, right? It it looked like, well, how come there's a difference? Well, there's a good reason for it. But a reader would have been misled as to the amount of investment earnings on page 21. They would have been overstated. Had had that 2.7 million not been there, had it been reported in fire relief as it had been in the past, uh we would have been uh had net investment income of 1,600,000. That's pretty close to the 1.2 that uh from the year previous. So it would have been in in the ballpark of what I might have expected. And I just to clarify again um the change from how it was previously reported in terms of the fire relief earnings and how it was reported in this past year, was that a change in how say accounting standards wanted it to be dealt with? um or was it a change just a change in how the city handled it or I mean was there was there something behind it other than um just sort of a random change I guess you know was there some purpose to it um as you understand it and I know I know Michelle Miss Petri had just left the room here so in my conversations I understood it to be an error not a result of a Gazsby change or or request for change in how it was reported okay such that in sub next year that uh this won't be I was told that this won't be happening. It would reflect how it has previously. Got it. Okay. That's why I just want to make sure certainly not driven by accounting standards. Got it. Okay. Is that a material um problem with the report or no? My my personal expectation is that something that could have should have been caught at least in a you know just a normal fluctuation. I mean it caught my attention in uh looking at page 21. it it kind of jumped off the page at me. Would there be any reason that we'd want to restate that statement or is that too much? Is that not to that level? Uh my guess is the auditors would probably pass on that. Okay. Okay. Uh let's see. I think we've already talked about the investment earnings. I'll skip over um item five. Item six, uh the net increase in fair value of investments. Uh that uh that increase of $600,000 uh was terrific uh compared to a an increase in fair value of investments of a million799 in the previous year. Both of those were certainly welcome changes from the $5.9 million uh decrease in markettomarket decrease in 20122. Uh item seven, uh it was reported to you, you've already been made aware of the fact that there was an audit adjustment of uh 2,ion214, an adjustment to EDA notes receivable. And as a result of that, uh audit adjustment, that item was deemed to be a material deficiency in internal controls. That's item or that's noted on page 10 of Red Path's supplementary report. Question came up as to how long we've been with Red Path and uh I think what at the council and the finance commission level and they did our first audit in 2017. So it's been an 8-year history. Uh item eight, uh we want to acknowledge and compliment uh finance director Michelle Petri and her team for the work that they do to prepare the ACFR uh in its entirety. Uh not every city can do that. They uh not not every city can do it in such a timely manner. uh by doing it in such a timely manner, it positions us well when we come time to prepare annual budgets. Uh budgeting is harder to do when we don't have the results of the previous year buttoned up. And I'd like to say it even stronger than that. Not only not every city, I mean this is really unusual. Uh you know, I was an investment analyst in municipal bonds and so I've looked at you know literally thousands of financial statements and almost nobody gets it out in four months. If you get it out in six months, that's good. There are places that take more than a year. Uh the standard is it would be good if you get six months. To do it in four months is rare. So that's uh really good performance. Totally agreed. Item nine, debt and bonding. Uh Roseville's debt load is low in an absolute sense. Low when compared to other cities, and we're paying off our bonded debt rapidly. So, uh, look for the majority of our existing bonded debt to be paid by 27. Nevertheless, certainly we're going to be issuing debt when it comes time to cons, uh, for construction of the maintenance operation center. We're blessed to have a major league bond pro on our team, uh, when it comes comes time to do that. Uh other uh interesting points there. Uh we do we have been funding an awful lot of our uh capital investment program with cash. That puts an extra burden on on the levy uh for purchases that will benefit both current and future beneficiaries. And so we're suggesting that that uh we look for opportunities to to fund our asset purchases with with bonded debt. Uh debt to equity ratio for the city is 0.21. That's a very conservative number. It's a very healthy number. Minnesota statutes limit our debt to 3% of assessed value. So that's 3% of 6.7 billion means that our our limit would be 201 million. uh of that 201 million, 9.8 million of our debt counts against that. So, another indicator that our debt load is is very low compared to what it uh could be. And I'd like to chime in on that. So, uh clearly you folks have decided to do a lot of the capital improvements on on a pay as you go basis. There's nothing wrong with that at all. But if you determine as you look at the capital needs that boy there's a lot of stuff and we really it's important to do it now. Maybe things are deteriorating too much or that sort of stuff. If you decide that's the case, you've got plenty of room to issue debt in a in a still a conservative way if you think that's the way you want to go. ask a question. Just follow up. Um, so when you're talking about long-term investments, you're talking about something that would be a major capital improvement, not just some little item. Absolutely. So, you'd be talking about something that would have a 12 or a 20 year lifespan at least, I would assume. Major streets, major, you know, something like fire fire trucks because it's good to it's good to have lending ability rather than be at your max. So yeah, you've got the lending ability if you decide you need it. It's there. Thanks. And and I'm suggesting further that that it it by not only using the levy uh we're balancing future and current beneficiaries of sharing in that concept. Uh we as the commission uh item 10 uh looked at fluctuations in incomes and expenses. Uh we focused uh probably several of our questions on page 21 of the package of the audit report. Uh revenue questions included operating contributions and capital grants. Investment earnings we talked about already and fair value of investments we've talked about here. Expense questions that we asked about included the increases in expenses for public safety, police and fire. uh increases in expenses for economic development and decreases in expenses for for water. Uh item 11 uh self- insurance of our workers comp fund noted on page 65 and 109. Uh at first glance when I first looked at this I was thinking oh my this is an impressive low loss ratio and that's still my impression and and that's a good thing. That means it's a safe city. Uh so hoay for that. Uh we found one place where the workers comp claims pay payments were $104,000 and that didn't reconcile with the $4,000 reported on another page. Uh learned that we received a payment of $100,000 that that helped to reconcile that apparent difference. Uh we also understood that the workers comp wages for people that are on workers comp uh loss situations, their wages are charged to the operating department. So that would tend to not show up as as as workers comp expenses in the pages 65 and 109. Still, the fact of the matter is there's just a couple of people on workers comp situation. So the the overall loss ratio continues to be terrific and the safe environment continues to be a very fair statement to make. Uh we asked questions about budget versus actual comparisons uh and uh understand that budget versus actual comparisons of our different funds only only the general fund and legally adopted funds are required to present budget versus actuals. So in our case that would be general fund recreation community development and economic development authority. I personally would love to see a a citywide budget versus actual but but u the reality is that for business proprietary funds budgets aren't really used in quite the same sense. Uh so that that their budgets are used more to help to determine utility rates and capital investment planning. Uh item 13, uh there's a a reporting difference error uh of $10,000 total assets on one page. Back to number 12 real quick. Yep. What about um like police and fire departments? those actual to um budget. I think those are in the general fund. General funding. Right. Right. But I mean, so what about like sub accounts in those? Is that something that that you would look at or just having it all rolled up together? I'm just thinking from the commission's viewpoint. What level do you go down would you would be interesting to go down into? Uh at at budget time we get into a lot of detail. So you get down to that that sub level then. Okay. That's what I wanted to hear. Okay. But end of year reporting. No, no, no. But you you'll look at the detail within the commission in budgeting. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Uh let's see here. Item 14. Uh so we the commissioners uh we realize as we move into budget development cycle of our uh calendar uh we're concerned about the financial pressures that were likely and I'm not telling you all anything that you don't know aren't aware of but uh uh we're concerned about the financial pressures that we're likely to encounter. Inflation is going to drive up almost all of our costs. Uh commitments to staff, new staffing requests will likely add to that pressure. businesses and residents probably have limited growth opportunities uh to accommodate some of those increases. The same con constituents uh uh voted to approve uh a new sales tax uh for the red redesign of uh the campus redesign and the construction of the maintenance operation center. So what we understand that one of the beginnings of the budget development process is requesting and receiving departmental budget input and needs statements and we asked the question whether it would be useful to provide departments with some sort of budget targets uh as we move into budgeting time. What we learned we learned that the city council is indeed providing the city manager with with some input and guidance in the budgeting process. Uh item 15, we uh you have seen the recommendation that we made about uh limited investment in equities. Uh you've seen the the history of the S&P 500. Uh and an item new that was brought is the risk that's involved in that market. Uh and I'll let Ray speak to that. Uh it it's in your packet. the the pees and and uh corporate profit. Okay. We So we're going to we're going to talk about this proposal for a few minutes then. Yeah. Okay. So my understand legislation state legislation uh allowed now allows equities within certain funds. I think it has to do with capital. It's very limited for things where it's expected to be there for a longer period of time. And if we do that, it would be done through the state board of investment. Uh in the past, it only bonds, fixed income, money market stuff has been allowed. Uh we look at the returns over the last 10 last 40 years, it's Iveraged 10% a year. Uh I think it's very very unlikely that we're going to get anywhere near 10% a year going forward because that was driven from a period of time where the price earnings ratio of stocks that is the the price of the stock compared to how much company's earning per share went from eight times to 24 times. In other words, for a dollar earning a share, stocks are paying more and more and more and more. In order to keep getting 10%, you got to keep getting more and more and more and more. We're at very, very high levels right now. And the other thing that's driven it is earnings have been strong. Corporate earnings and corporate earnings as a percentage of the whole national income of the whole pie has continued to increase and now is at best I can tell the highest record highest it's ever ever been. in order to get the 10% a year, you also have to keep getting corporate profits are going to take a bigger and bigger piece of the pie going on forward. I I don't think either one of those is likely and looking at uh like professional mutual fund managers when they've done uh estimates and they tend to be optimistic because they want to sell mutual funds uh nobody thinks it's going to get 10%. It's more like five or six and those are the that assumes nothing goes really wrong with uh with the economy. So when you look back on the last few years, you get 10% of stocks on stocks compared to one or 2% when interest rates were so low for so long. That's a big spread and you could tolerate some risk on that. Uh now you've got higher interest rates. So when we invested it, we're not earning a half a percent or 1%. We're earning three and a half, four, four and a half%. And what are stocks likely to do? It's more like five. Uh the spread isn't nearly that big. And remember, uh as market value of securities fluctuates, you have to accounting standards require you to recognize the gain or loss in the income statement. And there was a loss on longer term bond investments. uh in 2022. So you've got this pain of you might be doing fine on your budget and then but you know stocks did poorly and you're showing that you operated at a loss. So I don't think it's worth it is basically what I'm what I'm saying and my understanding is only two uh uh two cities have decided to do that so far is what is what I'm told. So uh so we had a disagreement as to uh you know whether we ought to do that or not and you can see which side on that. We did indeed have a disagreement and and and uh we had a a great uh lunch together and and and what the committee uh what matters here is what the finance to me anyway the finance commission after further discussion uh and deliberation uh has decided to keep its recommendation for investment in equities but to pause on the suggestion that it be implemented until we feel more comfortable as to the right time to do that. So, it could be done in the future, but just right now with this quick turn, we've got all the enabling pieces that uh the council has enabled uh the staff to bring a proposal forward. We have enabling legislation at the state level, statutory uh uh support at the state level. So, so if the whatever the collective we is uh feel the time is right, then then we'll we'll come forward with the recommendation. But we're pausing for now. Uh, last item I I just personally find kind of interesting. The population that's reported on page 132 uh has remained about the same in 24 versus 2015 at 35,000 with all of the multifamily housing. That that puzzles me. Well, I the reason is because uh household size and this is true across the country. the average size of the household has been dropping since I don't know 1960 or something like that. So in a fully developed city like this, in order to keep constant population, you've got to add more housing units because you're having fewer people per housing unit. And so really to be for a fully developed community to keep a stable population means you've actually had growth in in housing units. Yeah. I'll just note that it was it was interesting in some of our uh review of in not this most recent but the previous uh look at the comprehensive plan some of the projections for populations for the city of Roseville that were being made back in the 60s and 70s sort of assumed a constant rate of growth that was going on at that time and so like by this time we would have 74,000 people in the city of Roseville. I'm not even sure where they would have gone, but but it was just interesting to see how how you know reality kicked in uh you know as you noted and we've we've had this household uh size decrease trend going on for some time. So through across the country and most the world for that matter for sure. Uh next up is a a report by Commissioner Barklay on on some of our other accompl accomplishments and and and work items during the course of the year. Well, thank you all. Chair um approves. I want to thank you so much for um council members over. Thank you so much for the opportunity we had to uh Could you move? Yeah, we might have to move the microphone a little closer. There we go. Now you're all set. Okay. I'm sorry. That's good. Well, uh my name is uh Sarah B. I'm one of the commissioners. I want to say thank you for uh the opportunity we have um to share um this particular time with uh the finance commission. I've been here for the past six years and um it was a great opportunity to have been you know working with these great people. I want to say thank you to uh Michelle also um for just being part of this commission. Um so over the past year we have been working as a commission uh uh you know we the finance commission basically is as you all know is you know is an advisory um to the city council. So we do review you know the city financial you know management we do also review a recommendation to the council. So we you over the past years we have been working tremendously to see how best we can um um come up with a a plan and a budgeting plan you know that aligns with the city council. So uh Bruce being a chair and um with these great people that you know we have on the commission we have we have been review and we have considered a lot of things over the past year. The u the finance commission basically over the past year yes since the last meeting June 17 2024 the finance commission has conducted the following discussion and activities and I'm just going to go through what we have achieved over the past year. Um the city finance commission has reviewed assets cash reserve fund for 2024. We also received and reviewed 2024 audit report. We we review and made recommendation to the city council on reforming water uh middle deposits. We also review and made recommendation and on the 2025 2024 2044 capital improvement plan. Um we also review and provide a recommendation to the city council on the 2025 budget uh tax levy and utility rates. We also also do review um the re the utility rates study. We we review and um obtain understanding of the fiscal disparity as well as reviewing and obtaining understanding regarding how the city style budget is built and conclusively also review the 2024 investment portfolio performance. So um with you know with all of this accomplishment um this the finance commission has achieved I want to say um from the p you know from the perspective that we are we we are glad to serve as um I know this this is just about volunteering services to the city but it means a whole lot you know just just seeing us coming you know and and and having the financial discussion that benefit the city. So when we we we we want to thank you so much for just the time that we have to discuss this information and how this um accomplishment that we have as a as a city financial commission. So I want to thank you so much Bruce and for your leadership and I want to thank Michelle for hard work making sure we got all this discussion available for our meetings. Thank you so much. Thank you. you know, the everything you've been working on is really important. As as we know, having a healthy financial part of the city makes everything else possible. And so, this is really important work that you are doing. U making sure um helping guide us as we're moving forward. This isn't just looking backwards, you're also looking forwards, which is important for finance. Um so then help us move forward. even things like talking about, you know, maybe we should think about financing things a little differently for long-term debts or or cash or looking at the policy. So, everything you've been working on, greatly appreciate and and um look forward to you continuing doing these things. So, thank you. Thank you. And I have another comment. I'd like to talk about this weighty tome. The annual comprehensive financial report comes in at 160 pages. The first 110 pages are the audit under the Gazsby, the government accounting standards board and its notes. That accounting standards what we're required to do. Uh it is arcane. It is difficult. If you've tried to read through it, your eyes have probably glazed over. And it's not because you're incompetent. It's because the standard it's brutal. But uh we starting on page 112, you get to the uh statistical section and that lays out the first few pages. It's a 10-year history of various lines items of revenues and what kinds of revenues and by departments the expenses the changes in fund balance and it's done in a easy to read easy to understand uh is what they call modified cruel accounting which is is a good way of doing municipal accounting in my judgment and you can just you can see all sorts of stuff. But just you just read across the line there and you can see what the trends have been and where it is. It's it's easy to read and easy to understand. And then uh so that and that's you know a 10-year history. It has a it it also then tenure history of all the the taxes that have been levied uh the changes in property values, the uh the debt outstanding. Then it has things like the city employees by department. Uh and then it has uh another section next is operating indicators and it has things like police calls uh the serious ones and then all police calls the uh number of feet of sewer pipes cleaned. Uh the number of rounds of golf played, uh tons of street patchs used. There's just all kinds of data with 10 years right across the line. You can see what's going on. It's a really great resource. The finance department I know spends significant effort in order to create this and I think it's very usable. So my recommendation to the council members is to take this and open it up and turn it to page 112 and use that and the next 26 pages are really valuable when you're it shows what's happened in the past. Then it gives you the snapshot of what we were as December 31st. And I think it's really helpful in looking forward where you can see where where that is. And it's just it's usable. Uh so I would keep it if I were in your shoes at the corner of my desk right there as when I you know looking at the police or the streets or the sewer and and stuff is right it's right there for you. So it's if you haven't used it as a regular resource, I highly recommend it. It's well done in my opinion. Some of us have it on the corner of our desk more often than others. I think, but I I'm glad you pointed that out because I did find that the most accessible piece in all of that report because I did wade through it all because I feel it's my responsibility. And uh that one was very easy to understand and it's accurate. I I think it's accurate. It's not audited, but it it tells you what's going on. Mhm. Oh, it gives you trends, too. And the trends. Yeah, it's great. And it's so easy to read. It's just so much easier to relate to the budget document than the other previous pages as well because I think that's where I've always struggled is when I'm trying to try to compare, you know, past budget documents with the financial report document. I need to just go to that that statistics section and ignore the other part. So, appreciate that. Well, maybe not ignore it. Well, good point. Well, for that purpose of making those comparisons, right? All right. Council member Strong, I just had a comment. I really appreciate your deep dive and um I really appreciate uh Ray's especially enthusiasm um for you and Robin probably hang out for hours. Um, but I I I would make a request that maybe in your notes that maybe they're less um like spoken text and a little more presentation and bulleted because it does get kind of lost. Some of the sentences are kind of just like fragments and as someone who is a writer obviously not as number oriented but um sometimes it was a little unclear what you what your resolution was based on that information. it was more like notes and so if it was just a little bit more presentation friendly and I was um kind of snickering that you know Miss uh Olsen has assistant city manager Olsen can come up with a mean presentation and that we don't need to give her more jobs but anyway um but I just ask that maybe it be more bulleted and a little bit because like in line seven it says eight years that's the sentence so just maybe so that it is with all your work it'd be great if this can be public information and shar shared with the public all that you've done. Whereas without context, it may be more challenging for them to understand what you really analyzed. Good point. Thank you. Was there more information to be presented? I didn't want to I you know any highlights for 2025 or No, we're we're we're I want to thank my fellow commissioners for being patient. We went through some long sessions to go through uh this deep dive. Uh it was the first at least in my time on the commission. So um I think it was time well invested. I'm glad we did it. Uh um the presentation needs to be taken up a level for sure, but we wanted to get the points out on paper and and we probably could have gone on and on because this report a heck of a lot of information and a lot of the points that he made were things that we noticed and said, "Gee, that doesn't look right." Right. And it turns out well there was a good explanation for it. There wasn't anything wrong. It was just but it it did show that we we were looking. Yeah. Well, and given that though I do just given the hour I'm going to say maybe if we have continued discussion that we take that up. Yeah. No, that's one more comment though. One quick comment from council member Bower. Uh you know one thing you know going back to page 21 some of these things that these numbers you know that numbers just jump out at you right because the trend just stands out. Is this something we should expect the AR to ask questions? Right? The auditor is just functioning on the data that we give them and the numbers that we provide them. But for example, when you see like the investments being very different, when you see the investments being very different from year to year, isn't that something that we would expect our auditor to then ask a question about and get clarity? I'm concerned about it just getting to this point where it's appearing in this document along with a couple other ones. that I'm wondering if you know there's something a problem we have with the auditor or we should look at at something different. So for me on page 21 it the number that jumped off the page there was the 4.3 million same in investment earnings up uh versus 1.2 million in the previous year. That's where we started asking questions to realize that $2.7 million really didn't belong there and wasn't there in the past. it belonged and properly was should have been included in the fire relief fund. Right. I'm just wondering, you know, because going forward in 2020, you know, the next audit will be used to for our bonds going forward for the maintenance facility and so that will be looked at uh in detail with a fine tooth comb and I feel like that's a report that we need to get correct and I'd much rather take an action early if we need to maybe look at a different auditor. I know we've had some turnover in the finance department. I'm wondering if a fresh set of eyes would make sense to uh you know going forward. It doesn't need to be answered now, but something I would you know be interested in hearing your future if you were to future discuss that at a future meeting. I'd be interested to watch that. I mean and and I've said it before in this session that the the uh the 2.7 million misstatement uh in my opinion should have been caught as part of the audit. I completely agree with that. All right. Thank you again. Appreciate it. Thank Thank you for speaking up and giving some time, Council Bower. And uh we'll look forward to uh the next uh opportunity to visit with you folks. All right. Um after some weighing of changing the order of business, I think we're just going to proceed as it's been laid out here. Uh we do have a number of things to accomplish. Uh this next item hopefully will be fairly uh short, I've been assured. Uh so um and I'm sure Miss Petri will appreciate it being short too. Uh this item uh is item uh D7D, which is to consider establishing a date for the sale of the issuance of the city's 2025 general obligation equipment certificates for funding the uh electric fire engine. I'll turn over to Miss Petri to bring this item before us for our consideration this evening. Well, I will keep this really short and sweet. At the January 20 22nd, 2024 city council meeting, you authorize the purchase of an electric fire engine. In that council report, it was noted that equipment notes would need to be issued to finance this purchase as the fire equipment and vehicle fund did not have enough cash. So I am here asking that you approve the attached resolution establishing a date of sale for the issuance of the note not notes um which will occur um July 21st 2025. This is standard procedure where you establish the sale date um because it takes about 30 days to pull together the official statement and all the documentation other than the audit that goes into the official statements. Right. Thank you, Miss Petri. Are there questions for our finance director on this request? I'll second it. Right. Uh just a quick check. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item this evening? does not appear to be the case. Council member Grath, I would make the motion to approve the attached resolution setting the date of sale for the issuance of the city's 2025 general obligation equipment certificate for July 21st, 2025. I'll second that. Right. It's uh motion's been made by Council Gra, second by Council Member Schroer to uh adopt the resolution setting that date. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker, Council Member Grath. No, we we knew this was coming and this has been discussed before and so um this is the last piece before we actually issued the bonds and then received the money back into pay for the the new fire engine. So, all right, Council Schroeder, a secondary. No, it it just Well, the only thing I'll say is it this makes sense in how we would help finance this and looking forward to seeing the new fire truck that comes in. Right. Other discussion on the motion? I think the only thing I would just add is that it it's not that we didn't have money in the fund to buy a fire engine. It was that we didn't have enough to buy this fire engine. The cost was different than what we had been saving up money for. And so that was the reason for using this. Thus does also using these uh uh equipment uh certificates does give us the ability to be a little able to use the money in the account that's still there that we're not using for our fire engine to better position ourselves for future purchases. So I think it makes sense. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor of adopting the resolution setting that date of sale signify by saying I. I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Uh that is set or will be set uh on that basis. Next, we have a couple of information type items uh as a result of ongoing activity by the the city and evaluation of where we're at and where we're going. Uh the first one is to receive uh the report from the Axtel group in relation to the evaluation of the Roseville Police Department resources and efficiency. And I see we've got Chief Shider here to introduce this item, but I have a feeling she's not the only one involved in this. Welcome, Chief. Correct. Uh good evening. Um I'm going to turn it over. I know the we're a little bit behind schedule, so I'm not going to take up a lot of time and turn it over to uh the Axel group to present. I just wanted to note um one thing. Our hope is that uh tonight they'll be able to address any questions that you have with the report and then it's my plan to come back on July 7th to really provide a roadmap of how we plan to move forward. We've already taken some of the recommendations in the report and are looking at how we can do things better. And that was kind of this whole intent of this report. How do we do things better? How do we do them more efficiently? And also how do we make sure our officers have the support and the equipment they need. So with that, I'm going to turn it over and I'll pull up your presentation for you over there. Thank you, Chief. Hello, everyone. Thank you very much for allowing us to be here tonight and allowing us to work with uh your incredible city, your incredible police department over the last six months. We've we've learned a lot. Uh I want to thank all of you uh first of all for your service, mayor, council members, attorney Tierney, good to see you again. Good to see you. Thanks to you so many years. Um she kept me out of trouble a lot. All she does is get us into trouble. I'll tell you later. Okay. Tell all the secrets. Um yeah, city manager and and police department members, community members that are here. It's it's really been an honor uh over the last six months to work on this report and engage your community. Um we're going to be uh talking extensively about um uh and succinctly because I know time is uh not a not a premium around here. So, um, this is a, uh, has been a really, uh, a community based process that we've engaged in, and I think that's really, um, what allows us to bring back the recommendations, not just from from our point of view as uh, uh, previous police officers. Rob and I retired in 2016 or excuse me, started in 2016 on the on the department as chief and assistant chief and recently retired in 2022 after serving 33 years on the department. And now we get to do this really impactful work uh working with cities and counties and states and uh departments throughout the country. And uh we're finding a lot of uh it's it's it's fun and meaningful work. So now that we have the uh the first slide up, I'll I'll get right into it. Um so this presentation highlights the areas of strengths and outlines uh technical uh recommendations to support the long-term investments of your resource planning over the this year, next year, and the many years to come. We hope that this will serve as a bit of a roadmap moving forward. Um, I'd like to say you have a great city, as I mentioned, and a great department led by Chief Schneider, um, Deputy Chief Adams, and the women and men of the Roseville Police Department are absolutely second to none. We're so impressed with their ability to engage and um, their thoughtfulness, the forward thinking of the department. You really do have a lot to be proud about. And uh, we I don't say that with with every one of these projects that we do. you really have a great department. So I want to applaud you all for that. Um so what we do is we we do this work again mostly throughout the state of Minnesota but al also the country as well both uh public organizations and private organizations. And we focus on improving uh performance reducing risk which is very important and aligning uh law enforcement operations with community expectations. It's important to note that we really um we do lean into the academic portion of producing uh the the assessments and the recommendations, but we never forget the uh the human side of the job. And now more than ever, we know that the toll that that this uh calling, I won't even call it a job, the calling of the women and men of the Roseville Police Department, uh it truly is a calling. And it takes it takes a toll on on the human behind the badge. And so we we we look at that and we uh make sure that we um attend to those issues as well as we move move forward. So um the next slide is uh we're going to dip right into slide three here. Um as I always say even in the best of financial times and with unlimited uh recruitment we understand that a report only provides a roadmap as I mentioned earlier uh with operations to the city as you choose to evaluate what priorities you all want to adopt moving forward. um uh the the available budget that you have. We know money doesn't grow on trees and the countless other factors to consider while making these decisions. It integrates uh uh qualitative analysis uh with community feedback, again heavy community feedback to align city resources with both operational needs and public values. We built our process following um discussions with Chief Schneider and um that are specific to Ro uh Roseville. She made it perfectly clear to us at the time that this wasn't just going to be another staffing assessment, a staffing study that a lot of a lot of cities do. She wanted to make sure that uh this was specific to taking an in-depth look at the department's performance, which I applaud her and the city for. uh the efficiency and the deployment of police personnel in the city of Roseville. What we did is we conducted over 50 employee interviews during this time, 400 staff hours we worked on this project and we went through over 350,000 lines of data to make sure that we were well informed before we came to you today. Uh, additional research components included a departmentwide employee survey, making sure the voices of the women and men of the Roseville Police Department had a a significant place in this report. Uh, we did a full policy review and several community engagement sessions. Again, very very much community grounded. Um it's important to remember that every city is a unique and as we look at uh the benchmarking portion of this report. We often put benchmarking data in comparable cities, population, budget, etc. But there's so many uh unique variables that go in that. It's really hard to um just say because one city does things this way that every city should do it the same. Um the culture of the organization really in the city has a lot to do with with the recommendations as well. I'm pleased to report to you uh slide five that I'm pleased to report to you that you have a high performing community oriented police department. Your community employee voices align very well which we don't see all the time. You have a significant community trust and support and you have uh rising demands and stretched resources as you can see with the chart here on this slide. Again throughout the years the demand for service continues to go up and uh again stretching those resources and having impact on police operations and uh how how your officers go about uh their jobs each and every day. Matter of fact, Rob and I, a couple weeks ago, we were in Nashville at the police executive research forum meeting where the um some of the better minds in policing throughout the country come together and um the same issues that you're going to see in the report today really are a national trend. It's nothing nothing is surprising to us, not just in the state of Minnesota, not just the metro, but throughout the country. It's very uh it's very common. We're going to discuss these on the next slides. um relating to high-erforming community oriented police department which you have the Roosevelt Police Department as I mentioned is very well led. Our research confirmed a high level of internal professionalism and external responsiveness which really do go hand in hand. Staff uh by are described by the community um as compassionate, skilled and deeply committed to public service. and the non-inforcement programs really do exemplify a modern 21st century community oriented policing model. Your community employee voices uh as I mentioned earlier are really well aligned. There was a strong uh alignment between community expectations and the internal staff concerns. We don't always see this. Both groups voiced a shared desire for increased visibility in your community, both in residential areas and business corridors, more a desire for more proactive policing, and a stronger focus on wellness and officer support each and every day within the organization. Making sure you're putting on officers who are well-rested. um uh who who uh are and feel supported in their in their agency, supported by their community. This is something that your employees want. This is something your police leadership wants. I know it's something you want. And without question, after our engagement with your community, we know your community wants the same thing. The employee survey re revealed a high level of trust in supervisors but did flag burnout, limited leave flexibility um due to the staffing um uh position right now and a desire to uh uh for more more time to build the meaningful community connections. Not just community engagement for the sake of community engagement but but the the authentic engagement that's really required to build the trust which has to be the foundation of any legitimate police agency in this country. You have significant community trust and support. Community engagement sessions really reflected a widespread report from all walks of life. Um uh it's it's it was really really great to see. There's a high level of support. Your residents emphasized appreciation for the department's uh transparency, professionalism, and engagement efforts, particularly through the programs focused on youth, mental health, and crime prevention. The department's partnership with the diverse communities, especially through your MAC, the multi- multicultural advisory committee, are reviewed as a model of authentic public safety collaboration and not just doing it to check the box. This is really authentic meaningful work. And the last uh topic here is um you have certainly rising demands as you've observed in your report. Um you have stretched resources and while the department's performance remains strong, very strong demands have outpaced resources. Calls for service case complexity. I I know you've uh observed this in the report. You can see the trajectory of of all of the uh um technology, the evolution of technology and the extra work investigations are occurring really is having an impact on your your department. And over the next slides, I'm going to turn this over to Rob to pick it up from here and then we'll certainly be here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Chief Council. Uh it's a pleasure to be here. Thank you again. My name is Rob Thomaser. Uh I was the one also getting in trouble all the time. I mean my my career is in debt, too. Uh it was a pleasure working with your department. If I could just say on a personal note uh we get to work with a lot of departments around the state and uh having shared a border with Roseville and worked with Roseville uh in other capacities. Uh the department turned out to be exactly what I expected it to be from my experiences over the years. So it's truly an honor to partner with your your city and thank you for letting us be here tonight. I know everybody's read the report. I know you've had a chance to digest the report. Uh I'm a little intimidated that you have a writer on the council. I hope the report was Tuesday. I I didn't know that coming into this, but uh we did try to capture in our 99 pages what we learned over five months working with your department and and what I'm going to do is just go a little bit deeper in what uh Chief Axel was saying. My my role in this was to be the project leader of the team that worked on this. We had a team of analysts and uh other data specialists to help us try to synthesize what the department has done over time. And we know that the the chief comes up and speaks to you about what's happening in the department and you get regular briefs about what's happening with the department. What we tried to do is take that story line and paste it together over time to so we could capture trends over a period so that you could assess how the department's facing and and dealing with service demands uh call loads things of that nature. uh today uh what you saw in the report is is uh what what the data shows and that is that the department is busier and and uh just to say it in just layman's terms um everything is is uh busier and what I mean by that is you have more service demands in the in the in the terms of calls for service and you get a call that comes in and I think in 2024 you had just over 26,000 it was the highest number that we found on record uh for your calls for service for the department. Uh along with that, we looked at the outcomes of those calls and what we found is your police officers are writing more police reports than they ever have in the history of the department. Uh why is that significant? And we broke it down different ways in the report for you to see is that if if there's a reported crime, there's usually more steps involved with that call for service. It takes more FTE resources. So what we tried to do is understand not just the calls for service but what the call outcomes were so that we could understand the amount of time that was invested in each of those uh calls for service. Of course uh with that comes uh with more police reports becomes uh I'm sorry we have more uh witness interviews. We have more crime scenes to process. Your officers have more data to collect in terms of evidence. Uh everybody has a camera now. Everybody has some sort of technology. Everybody carries a phone. These are all pieces of evidence that your police officers now have to recover and turn in and process. Which means the handling of a call today is is a little bit more consuming and complex than it was just a couple of years ago. uh that uh coupled to the volume of calls really painted a picture that the amount of time required to handle the service demands really was increasing for the department. That has a trickle down effect of course that goes into then what happens with those service demands and and again when we measure those service demands we took out the proactive things. Your police officers do a lot of engagement and and uh contact with the public through traffic enforcement. Uh the department's done really good in leading the state, I think, in its innovative ways, how it handles some sort of traffic infractions, but besides that, there are still times when a car has to be stopped or is stopped in and connection to an investigation or something else. And not only are your calls for service or your service demands higher, when you look at the data, the the proactive activities are also still high, which means your officers are really engaging. And when we interviewed them and talked to him about that, that was something that was important to them that they wanted to be engaging. They felt that they had a role. They wanted to do that role. And this is all the the the the positive side of that. That has an impact though. And we'll talk about that impact. Uh when we get into the investigations that come from the result of those crimes or reported crimes, uh your investigative staff is busier than it's ever been. I think there was 7,300 a little bit more than 7,300 investigations conducted in 2024. Uh I don't know that we found a number higher than that. That number actually is higher than number of police reports that your department documented through the year. And how does that happen is the department intakes calls for service and business through other means other than than uh someone calling 911 or a non-emergency line. Uh things come in through state reporting. things come in other ways and the department then has to under state law and mandate deal with those, investigate those and and resolve those just like if it came in through a 911 call. So what we were able to show in the data is that the department is busier in terms of volume but also in terms of process that goes with that volume. We didn't talk about the nonfrontline sort of things and you have a lot of dedicated staff. I think uh 13 15 now is your nonsworn staff, your professional support staff. They are as busy as as your front line. And when I say that is is uh every one of these crime scenes where evidence is recovered or property is held that goes into your property room where you have staff managing that. You have a a significant increase in the number of records that you have to handle and produce. The records that you handle and produce have uh additional reporting requirements today than it did four or five years ago. You everybody remembers the transition from uniform crime reporting to now NYERS which is a much more complicated system where the city has to give data to the state that reports that to the FBI. A lot more information has to be uh collected that's required and to be honest with you uh not all that information is always known at the time of the first report which means a lot of this is getting cleaned up in your records unit which means your records unit is extremely ted right now. The department has done some great work in in trying to bring innovation to how they handle the service demands. Uh the department for example had uh has uh available to the public an online reporting system which is a terrific way to handle non-emergency reports of minor or or less uh significant property type crimes. Um right now you read in the report there's some some hiccups with with some of the efficiencies that we found with the current reporting system. And and why is that important today? The reason that's important today is because it is adding a significant additional FTE time requirement to what was required before. So again, when we paste it all together, what we can say is the department has become far more busy and your first responders and your professional support staff that are handling this workload are feeling overwhelmed and they're feeling um like there's a lot to do. And what we found is in the survey is that they are committed, they're dedicated, they want to do the job, but they're realizing that they're having a hard time keeping up. And what they're they commented about is their ability to maintain the quality that they want to have. They they the the service delivery that they want to provide and and personally uh they reported that it's having an impact on them personally in their in their personal lives. Uh that sort of thing. You I'm going to switch things just so we can keep going here because I'm going to transition a little bit to the personal side of the story. I thought I was just going to run this thing, which I'm not qualified for. Uh, in speaking to him about that, uh, what we found is is that, uh, again, is as committed and professional as that they are, uh, they're they're human beings and and they, like you, uh, sometimes have things going on in their personal lives. They need a day off. They need they need, uh, uh, take care of something someone in their family, stuff like that. And what we found is when we looked at the totality of the deployment model. So, uh, and again, I'm trying to be quick because I know we're short on time. We looked at your deployment model through a couple of different lenses. You have a deployment plan. Your your chief and your administrative staff have have created a deployment plan that requires a certain number of people to be on the street at any given time. The the deployment plan uh requires a certain level of staffing. We also looked at the the the the staffing level though through the lens of the city's uh need or obligation to provide contractual time off in addition to meeting the service demands of the department and that deployment model. Uh we also looked at that deployment model through the department's burden of providing training and other professional development or professional time off the front line to handle court or other things of that nature. And what we found is when you put all three together and you mirror them through all three different lenses, we start to run into a little bit of a staffing shortage. and and we don't say that lightly because we know the addition of personnel is an expensive uh investment and and frankly uh we tried to make as many recommendations as we could that didn't have to do with spending more money on additional people. We tried to put as much efficiency as we could, but but what we found is is because of the increases in service demands, because of the increases in in the complications of the job that they're doing today versus four, five, six, 10 years ago. Uh, couple that to the training demands on the department, uh, which we we we can put a number to. We know how many hours have to to to be trained. And we put that then next to the increasing number of contractual obligations that the citys meet whether it's earn safe and sick or those things I know you guys have always talked about that those numbers are increasing also. So when you put them all together what we find is a deficit or a delta between the number of officers and frontline staff that you have and the number of FTE hours that are required to accomplish the mission. So that's that's what our 99 pages are are meant to put together. And what we didn't want to do and again why we put such an emphasis on the the employee survey is we wanted to not just have the the just the facts ma'am kind of thing. We wanted to have how do you feel and and when you look at the response responses from the employees of how they feel they're tired retired and I think what they would say is it's really hard to get a time off and I sometimes come to work when I don't feel like I should because I know if I don't come to work it's going to act impact one of my colleagues and I'm committed to one of my colleagues so I don't want to do that. So sometimes people come to work when they feel like I really shouldn't be here today. I don't think I could be the best police officer today. And so they're very personal. They're very honest. They're very upfront and again very committed professional people. But that that Delta did exist and that's that's what we just trying to go through time here. Uh so I'm going to jump to the recommendations. Uh you have already a deployment model that uses a 12-h hour shift. And I say that, and I think it's important to say that because it's about as lean as the city can run in a 24-hour model. And I don't know if how much modeling you guys have done, but if you had a 10-hour schedule or an 8 hour schedule, that would that would require more police officers just to get the same coverage that you have in a 12. That's that's a good model to employ. It has its downsides, though. And one of the problems it has is when it's not properly staffed, the department runs into then overtasking employees with the number of hours that they're asking them to work. And now we know that if we have a deficit on the inside, just meeting the department business, and we couple that to then the other things that police officers do for the city, whether that's contractual overtime, over uh offduty, whatever the term is that you're using today, those sort of things, you run into some limitations in how many hours you can employ a person to meet all those demands. So that's one of the things that when you look at our recommendations, uh, one of the recommendations we made in the terms of of adding personnel is we we believe and we we we suggested a couple different growth plans in the report that the city would benefit from uh investing in some frontline patrol officers to close that delta. most importantly, and I think this is a a fair assessment, most importantly to take care of your first responders. That they're coming to work. They're meeting the dean the the demands. They're answering the calls from the department, ask for people to come in on their time off, stuff like that. That all could go down and you could take more or maybe better care of the first responders if you were able to close that delta just a little bit. That would be our first recommendation. Uh, another recommendation that we had, of course, is uh, we spent a lot of time looking at your supervisory model and I and I know you've read the report. Uh, the department has done a a great job spreading out the patrol supervisors that they have in the compliment to cover as much time as possible. The reality is is the the patrol coverage plan cannot accomplish the 24-hour coverage. That is probably the best model. And I would say from the the national uh interactions that we have with police chiefs around the country probably which is becoming the standardized model is I think communities are expecting supervisors to be available 24 hours a day. So that uh when you have those events that are risk producing that cause um uh significant risk to employees, significant risk to the people that are on the other side of those employees. And when you consider uh your liability related to torque and other stuff, uh having a supervisor available is is the industry standard. The model that's employed by the city is again is as efficient as it can be. The problem it creates is there are times of the day where you are able to field a controlled supervisor, which means you oftent times have a not as tenured as you would probably want employee being in charge. The department has been very creative in its solutions. There is an officer in charge program where uh the department has uh employees that have u uh the ability to then transition from their role as a first responder to become the onduty supervisor. Uh it's a solution. It would not be our recommendation to be a sustained solution. Again, I think it's again uh and I don't know what your attorney would tell you or the the the the risk analysis on that, but I think I think that would be probably uh right up there with the the police officer Delta to to consider if if you're going to choose to make investments into the department to close that gap. Um I think uh about 50% of your department uh number might be a little bit different because the date has changed now uh has about five years or less on the department. You have very well-intentioned very well-trained police officers. But when young police officers are encountering very dynamic uh high-speed events and I don't mean driving events, I mean a high-risk fastm moving uh where where there are real things at risk. uh having a a supervisor who brings the department's leadership vision to the scene of how we want to deal with these things to deal to to act as that buffer to the front line to have that that field command sort of view rather than uh I'm I'm on the line uh you know dealing with someone either verbally or uh choosing to or or considering a an engagement weapon or something like that. Having that field supervision can really I think help that employee succeed even in not those those high risk events. Having a mentor, having a coach, having someone with with experience who again speaks from the department's point of view when it comes to the chief's vision, the the administration's vision, that just I think is a game changer for a department if they're able to fulfill that. That would be the the second recommendation. If we're talking about priorities, again, I know we're in the the the frame of time here. Uh we talked a little bit about training. Training is is uh becoming more complex. The state requires training. Of course, the post board requires training. Uh your department feels a lot of technical things which all require training for employees to maintain their their lensure or or certifications to use that stuff. Um it all takes time and again as we talk about the three demands of the department, the service demands, the training and the time off. Uh training is being done by the department. We reviewed your training records. We we audited uh several of the employees. The department's getting it done. But when we looked at the training model there, the department has uh had to rely uh a lot on a uh video training platform to deliver a lot of training. uh that's very appropriate for a lot of topics. Uh but what what you don't want to get to is over reliance on that. Again, when you have a department that has five years or less, you have employees that have questions that would benefit from the interaction of dealing with an instructor and being shown and uh there's there's a lot of research out there that would just say delivery training via video uh is not as effective as an in-classroom dynamic sort of training environment. So uh we think that the department has enough the research we think shows that the department has enough training topics. It has enough personnel to have a more coordinated training program which probably would benefit from having a training coordinator. That is another recommendation that we put on there because we know that uh in the event of of something uh going on that you don't want to go on or if there is a look back of how do we get here, training is always reviewed. Training is always evaluated and in hindsight I think there's no department that would ever say we train too much. we train them and I think one of the things we didn't want to leave behind is the idea that especially with a young department the the idea of having a good training coordinated program u that just doesn't deliver what's required but allows the department to to do things that as a as a command staff assesses hey we would benefit as an agency to spend a little bit more time talking about this that or the other just as one example you transition to a new report uh management system uh you read in the report. We think that the department would benefit from additional training about that report management system to to increase efficiency to increase your your uh outputs as as to getting good data into your systems. Department really doesn't have capacity to do that because it's its current training model is getting it by with making the the required training uh time uh and getting that done. So that's that would be a recommendation. Uh we don't want to leave behind the last bullet on on this uh we don't want to leave behind the professional support staff. Uh I think this is we we did a lot of benchmarking and as the chief said the benchmarking isn't the end all beall. You can't say one community is good as the other but looking at your internal support system compared to your peer departments. This is an area where that the department is a little bit uh behind compared to the peer organizations. Uh we just know from looking at your department, looking at your data, uh again with the complexities of a new records management system, with the changes of the re reporting requirements, there's a lot going on and that support staff is really being, I think, uh stretched to its limits and beyond. And so we made some recommendations related to your record staff. Uh again, we know these investments have to take time. You have to prioritize. Uh so we're not ringing the bell that there's a fire, nothing like that. We just say that the record staff could use relief. There's there's a lot there. Your property and evidence section is is is busy, overwhelmed, and because of policies with the county jail with uh the amount of evidence that's now being collected by your officers. There's a lot more stuff going into your property room. there is risk for the agency in your property room if it's not managed, if it's not purged, if it's it's you can quickly run out of you guys know you've heard the chief speak about this. I'm sure. Um we also of course made recommendations for nonhired sort of things. Uh we know that down arrow U there's there's there's probably 30 or so nonh highire recommendations that I know the chief and and her staff are looking at. Again, these are just recommendations. We we were asked to do something beyond just a regular staff study and knowing that the the department if they were able to identify ways to become efficient and more effective in ways other than hires this is something that we thought we uh would really spend a lot of time on. U these are some of the the most important. Again, I think uh if the department were to spend time and be able to work through its records management system, uh whether that being with additional training or getting some of the glitches fixed again, uh your online reporting system, which is not working as it should, is creating a double work standard now for some staff. So, stuff like that. And so, we're hoping our 99 pages really were able to capture what we felt and heard from your department, what we uh felt and heard from your community, and uh what the data showed. And so I think u I think I'll be quiet because it's late. No, thank you. Yeah, thank you all very much uh for your time. I know it was uh you know lengthy a lot of information in the report but um there's this we hope that this serves as a as a guide map. We again we know that um money doesn't grow on trees. you have a lot of priorities in the city, but um this this gives you that roadmap of where you'd like to be. And even if you wanted to hire 10 officers within 6 months, it's pretty much impossible to do that with the hiring um position that all cities are in, not just in Minnesota, but throughout the country. So, having that um projection of what you can afford every year and and the priorities that we laid out, we really firmly believe that those priorities really would best serve you as the leadership of the city. And um but you know and and again I I can't say this with every uh uh study that we've done, but you you really have a solid uh the well-led, professional, forwardthinking police department, and I would be honored to live in a city like this knowing that uh we're protected at this level. So well done and we're open to any questions you may have. Right. Thank you. and appreciate very much that uh that that outside look in because I think that's exactly what we were striving for with some of the direction that we looked at over the last several years in terms of you know leadership on the council and and working with the leadership of the department uh and the community. And so it's it's it's nice to have that validation as well. Um I think we also are receiving the validation of the of the the stress points uh that that I think we're we're you know aware of in various ways and you know if nothing else anecdotally uh so appreciative of that um and in the thoroughess of the analysis and and all of the areas outside of just strictly personnel side of things. Um I appreciated all of that as a reader of the 99 pages. Uh so very much appreciative of that. Uh I think we we really did uh you know get what we were looking for here uh in terms of the product that we have before us and I think it will serve us well. Um we've just got a couple moments if there are any council questions. Um I see council member Bower. Maybe I'll recognize you first. Thank you again. Thank you to the department for putting yourself out there and working to make the study um the quality of the study can happen without the department's willingness to do that. And I hope this body here can uh you know take action to accomplish those problems. One question I have for you is when we listening to these staffing, one of the things I gained from reading this report is how adding patrol officers actually causes some downstream problems for us as far as like as you mentioned the collection of evidence, things like that. So my question for you would be as we're thinking about adding uh full-time patrol officers, should we also be thinking of not just that but also combining it with analyst as well? meaning that as we, you know, if we were to hire 10 new patrol officers, this probably wouldn't work for us because we don't have the other things necessary. So, when we're thinking about budgeting and whatnot, should we be thinking of like we want to add a patrol person? That means we need to add a half analyst or these kinds of things. I didn't see that in the report. Right. That's a that's a great great point, Councilman. I'll let Rob chime in on this as well, but one of the things by uh making investments to get your department to a level where um uh you know really focusing on the wellness aspect of the department when we talk about adding the staff to make sure employees can get time off, making sure that uh you can really conduct training not just to check the box but really the the hands-on authentic training and not just doing the post standard training. training, but really taking it to the next level. Uh, for every hour of training, police training in this country, um, I I don't know right off the top of my head, but studies show for every hour of additional police training, you're reducing the liability of your city. You're improving the trust due to better outcomes because of well-rested, well-trained officers. So I think the the first uh impact will be shown is you're relieving that that that pressure point on the department that you're seeing today. Secondly uh part of this is is by um of course you know analysts are very important and Rob will talk a little bit about this but um continuing to improve and make these investments. We all know very few people commit most of the crimes in our communities. So becoming more strategic, having enough officers to chase down the leads, having enough investigators to truly solve the crime, working with our prosecutors and the bench to hold the few people who commit most of the crimes accountable will inev inevitably lower your crime rate. That's one piece. Rob, you want to talk a little bit about uh Yeah, thanks. Thank you, Chief. And council member, that's a fantastic question. And I I think in some ways um I think the data would show that there wouldn't be a direct correlation if you were to put additional police officers or uh an or supervisory staff in to make more crime occur. Is there some unreported crime occurring in Roseville? Yes, there is. It's in every community, but I don't know that you would exponentially change that where you would be taking in so much more property that you'd have to change that or or your record staff. I think the benefit of creating efficiencies. So if you had more consistent supervision on the street uh coupled with uh some of the recommendations about uh really deploying a standardized patrol plan where everybody's kind of focused on the same things. If you can improve your efficiency and effectiveness there, I think it brings down some of the the uh stress points that happen downstream. For example, uh good supervision is going to lead to good mentoring, good coaching, which means there's going to be fewer mistakes in reporting. There's going to be fewer mistakes in how property and evidence is handled. So the people that are on the other side supporting and handling those things won't have to take it back and won't have to handle things more than once. That's one of the challenges right now with the records management systems is there's a little bit operational confusion with that. And because there isn't supervisors always available, there's a difference we found in the in the in the uh completeness of reports depending on which supervisor. So I think you'd be able to standardize some of your processes and uh I'm sure the chief is already thinking about this, but u that would I don't I don't think there's a direct correlation that you would automatically have more things coming in. Thank you. Yeah. No, it's a great question, Council Member Sher. Um I did want to echo what's said. I mean, I think we all knew how great our department is and and I know being out in the community, our community talks about how they really respect and and really are positive about uh our police chief and the the whole department and so so that wasn't surprising. But my question is, have you considered the problem of space as well? We're after this presentation, we're going to be talking about our campus uh master plan and things, but um you know, when you talk about recordseping and evidence and even if you if you go to the police uh department, you do see, you know, people on top of each other and and the different thing. Did you consider at all the space requirements and and how that might help with this as well? Yeah. And and I I'm assuming that I'm going to hear from some of the police officers that I interviewed because one of the things that was on the forefront of their mind was the fleet. So, uh and their their desires about the chief the fleet and how the fleet could be uh increased so that whatever. Uh so, uh it was a little beyond our scope. Uh I think we were looking at the operationalness of the department and uh but yes we would agree that the department is packed in in the in there and uh that would be a something that would have to be confronted and figured out but yeah we we were looking at the operationalness of the department and again trying to look at it from the perspective of the employees and so looking at the the the facility wasn't really we didn't understand that our scope but it it is something that would Yeah, council member you bring up a good point. We so we we do a lot of work not just in in this area but also um recommendations and audits around property and evidence rooms, right? And so we see uh we come into some agencies from time to time that are in a little bit of trouble in that area and a lot of the trouble that we find is because they're running out of space and things get sloppy and then things get they're missing and it's nothing nefarious, it's just that the the process isn't working because of space issues. So I applaud you for thinking about that moving forward is to really have a thoughtful approach about not just what you need today but what you're going to need in the future understanding all the technology that continues to evolve and all the needs you have addition with the additional officers as well. Thank you. Thank you. Right, Council Member Strong. Uh I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to talk a bit about the um the cost of the um officers. I did a lot of math um in looking at your 12 hours versus 10 hours versus um maybe pie in the sky of eight. Um but I think it's really important to note uh I think something that really struck out at me was the new officers getting 80 hours a year of PTO, which is just over six days a year for a 12-hour shift. So if you look at that time loss, um you know, you're probably going to have quite a few people who are on unpaid days. You want to make your kids ball game or whatever. you're going to have to take off a whole 12-h hour shift or try to figure out how to work it out. My guess is there's no unpaid meal breaks when you're in a car. Um, but I think you can't underestimate that there's probably room for more FTEEs instead of overtime. Um, and the reduced stress, retr reduced attrition, cost of hiring, cost of training, all of that. if you can hire a fraction of the people in a year, the amount of money that it takes to recruit and hire and train from scratch um is can't be underestimated and people have to make sure that they put that into that total cost. And then again, I did see in your report the uh the real cost of PFML and what that's going to mean for um the department. Um I've talked with uh city manager Trean in the past. The average age of the fire and police department being very procreative ages um and so many um young parents and with this opportunity to have paid leave which is wonderful for them. Um it does pres present um some unique challenges and absences and not a lot of overlap um or secession planning in the whole process. So, I appreciate you bringing that up and I can't think yes, we have to think about does that mean we need an analyst here, whatever, but we have to make sure we have enough bodies who can do the job for more than a year at a time. It's a hard job. I think our last week we saw how last weekend we saw how hard um and you know across the state. So, I appreciate your efforts and I appreciate your HR pieces that you added to it because that can't be underestimated when we look at how much it really costs to do business as a police department. Thank you, Council. That's a great point you bring up and what we find in in our work is cities that are more forward thinking about just that um how you can best staff a department allow officers to get time off and you know 12 hours does uh have have a a benefit of allowing more days off throughout the year. Um and you know limit there are some limitations to it but in in this environment we have with with hiring and retention cities that are forward thinking about these issues are not only hiring uh at higher rates when they need officers but they're retaining officers because they they know they're not that they're not only you know being taken care of but they really feel feel that value which is really important. So, um, you know, showing up and having those conversations and thinking about those issues, your officers hear about it and whether they're here tonight or, um, looking at the tape tomorrow, they're going to hear these things and they're going to tell their friends from other departments what's going on in Roseville. And that's how you recruit and that's how you retain. Right. Hey, Council Member Grath. Um, I did read the report. I have lots of things under underlined and highlighted, but I'm not going to spend more time with questions. I'm going to depend on the chief to digest this a little bit and come back in July with some, you know, let's do this or suggestions that way. But I I have read it all. I think it's really important. Good that you presented this to the public because the general public just wants someone to be there when they're in trouble. Yeah. And they don't think about all the rest of these items and this puts it forward what that involves. So, I appreciate it. Thank you, council member. Well, if that's the questions, I do want to thank you again for uh this thorough report and all the work you did getting to tonight. Um, you know, because that's that's the behind-the-scenes work that makes it all work. So, very appreciative of that. I think you've validated our our decision to uh to put this project in your hands and we know that you're continuing to be involved with the department in terms of the accredititation process. Uh we look forward to that uh moving forward as well. So, uh, as was noted, we expect to hear from the chief, uh, uh, with some of the, uh, I think already I've heard that things might already be happening, but then also some of the things that we'll be looking at as we look forward to 26 and forward from there. So, thank you again and apologize for you having to be in Roseville so late at night, but it's because of our wonderful police department, you should have no trouble getting home safe. This is a great place to be this time of the night. So, thank you all for your service as well. Thank you. All right. Uh well, we're going to uh forge ahead here. Uh and our next item is no less weighty for us. Uh this is uh to get the update that we had requested uh earlier this year on the uh civic campus master plan and some of the options before us. Um and with that, I think I'm going to be turning it over to to me. Yeah, Mr. Tre off and I I know we're running late. just want to say a few introductory words while actually before I do that I just want to kind of prepare people so we are approaching our 10 o'clock curfew so we may interrupt at that point to do a motion to extend the meeting so just don't be surprised by that uh Mr. tragic. So, um uh as you you've read the report, you see a range of alternatives. Um there's obviously some good news and some bad news with the numbers in particular. I think uh the takeaway is under the original pre-esign plan. Maintenance operations center is a little less than we had estimated. However, the licensed passport center dance studio BFW costs are much uh greater as we don't have funding options for those. That's certainly problematic. Um, and as you will see too that we looked at uh alternatives of using the existing maintenance facility to locate licensed Passport Dance Studio BFW while still keeping the B the uh um maintenance operation center on the north side of Woodill as the pre-esign plan showed. So, as you can see from looking at those, those don't really come back any any cheaper and they have a slew of operational concerns as far as parking and just the fit of the building here. So I do want to make sure I lift up and will be lifted up in the report. Uh we looked at option C that kind of we looked at the whole plan and looked at reusing the existing facilities uh more for maintenance operations and splitting the maintenance operations from uh the storage and operations and personnel uh on the south side but moving the yard where we have our big bins for salt and sand and some other storage buildings and fueling to the north side where Lexington Shops is which would then necessitate relocating the license and passport center as you can see in the plan that that would be on the north side of Wood Hill kind of in that grass strip south of the park. Um unfortunately we were hoping there'd be more cost savings with that but it appears at least by the estimates it it may not but it does give us a lot of flexibility and have some distinct advantages of u really not impacting the park um at all uh and also uh keeping the BFW there. So that's more for consideration. And my last thought is that uh these numbers are really big numbers and they're estimates and uh I would almost say they're the worst case scenario. We rely on our experts to really factor in all these variables that uh we can't um know for certainty today and also factor in risk. So whether it's inflation, whether it's tariffs, whether it's timeline delays, whether it's conditions you find on site once you start digging. So, uh, that not meant to scare um, anybody, but I think I think that's it's helpful. So, we know kind of what our outside exposure would be. Uh, I can't say with any confidence that the in the end the cost would be less, but I think we built enough flexibility in those estimates that we can really work diligently to bring those numbers lower, but we won't know that until we bring the project forward. So, I'll turn it over to Michael and Dustin to uh, do the presentation. They'll introduce themselves and Thanks. Yeah, good evening. I'm Mike Hilly uh with BKV Group. I'm a partner in architect with BKV. Uh mayor, council members, nice to meet you. My name is Dustin Phillips of Krauss Anderson. Uh tonight I'll be speaking against the cost schedule and then the facility condition assessment. Uh for the agenda tonight, uh we're going to go through the facility assessment that Chris Anderson's team completed on the existing facilities. We're going to go through the program confirmation just a highlight of what changed since the pre-esign concept. We'll do a high level overview of the master plan concepts that Pat introduced. Um we'll go through the cost estimates and then talk about the next steps. All right, so jumping right into it. Uh we'll talk briefly on the facility condition assessment before we hop into the programming and master plan options that Mike will be talking about. But the facility condition uh assessment is really a benchmark of your existing facility against what it would cost to do replacement of like and kind. So it doesn't talk about adequacy of what those spaces or how those spaces operate. It's if a door needs replacement, it's replacement of that door and it's replacement of a roof. It's replacement of those existing conditions in place. And an FCI index and those numbers that you see uh in that chart in the upper left is what is that compared to a cost of replacement. So what you can see in these numbers is if you look at the east garage and the north garage which are the two oldest sections of that existing building those rank on the border of fair to poor. Now what's important to note when you look at the summary table in the lower right hand corner of this project is no matter which option you look at uh today that's going to be presented to you, it's not reutilizing your existing spaces like for like they may be transferring the way that they're utilized, the way that they're accessed. So what we focused on as part of the facility condition assessment is what are the things that are going to remain the same no matter what. And that really involves your site work, your building earth work, some of the pieces around that facility, your exterior enclosure. Anything you save is going to need some of that work. And we'll dive into it here briefly in the next couple slides, as well as the biggest cost, which is replacement of the roof. Um, a large portions of your roof were replaced in the early 2000s. Some are replaced after that, small portions of um you usually get 20 to 30 years somewhere in there uh for a useful life of a commercial roof. So you're right on the borderline um of being over uh the useful lifespan of that roof needing replacement. So on the next slide, here's the uh highlights of some of the exterior enclosure pieces, mainly surrounding the tuck pointing and masonry replacement. You can see kind of the damage uh over the course of some of those pictures. As well as the other big cost would be replacement of doors uh that are damaged or at the end of their use for life. And some of the doors that aren't that are still in good condition, they would need new weather stripping or cocking, things like that. Um the next one highlights the conditions of the roofs. Again, you can see on here that uh roofs on the 2003 and north garage are due for replacement. If you look at that 20 year span in the early 2030s, so not too far down the road. Um again, if you're doing major renovations to these spaces and replacement of mechanical systems, you're likely penetrating those roofs um in new locations. It's just generally a good time to replace them if you're doing a lot of heavy renovation work. Um then you can see the site replacement. Uh the recommendation was a full lift replacement on all the asphalt parking lots. And you have that security uh wall around that site as well. um that's in pretty rough condition right now that would need a lot of tuck pointing or replacement. So, that's the highlights of the FCA. Certainly, if you have uh more detailed questions into how those cost proposals came up, I'm happy to answer them, but otherwise, I'll turn it over to Mike and he can run through programming and master plans. So, we met with uh staff from uh park and wreck and uh the license center to go through and just make sure there wasn't any changes between when we met with them a few years ago and the pre-esigned process. License center passport uh grew a little bit um with some additional staff changes and some of their operational needs. So, that in this current concept is shown as around 10,400 square ft. In the pre-esigned phase, it was around 8,700 ft². Um, dance studio did not change in size for their need. That stays around 8,500 square feet and there is no change to any of the planning for the tenant space or VFW. So, master planning concepts, uh, existing site, you're all familiar with that. We'll skip over that. Pre-esign, I apologize, the dashed box here is off a little bit on both these two slides, but pre-esign we, these are just for reference. Nothing changed on these, but uh the original pre-esigned concept was to put all of maintenance operations north of Woodhill and then uh south and their existing location uh that' be demolition and recreating uh twotory building for license center, parking rack or license center and passport, sorry, and uh the VFW area with some additional parking green space um that was supposed to be around the license center and VFW area. Uh so jumping into the additional concepts that we were tasked with looking at this is a concept looking at the existing maintenance facility site. Um the entire buildings on that portion of site would be demolished for this concept and be constructing a new one-story building for the dance studio and a one-story building for the licensed passport center. This could all be one uh continuous building, but looking at that as a potential development and then a potential tenant space for VFW on the top left side of the page there. Um this concept here was also trying to bring in some of the positive characteristics of the pre-esign design that had some additional green space and park area between city hall and this development. Um, and also trying to maximize parking on site as much as possible, deal with these uh these goals. We're still a little short on parking as it compares to city zoning requirements. Um, and that's something that's kind of a common thread through a lot of these just with the large uh occupancy of the assembly spaces for uh restaurants and dance and so forth like that. This concept here was looking at reusing a portion of the existing facilities. This looks at kind of that center larger garage space that's at the maintenance facility and then demolishing the southern portion of the building, the southern garage, the office spaces, the locker space. Uh and then demolishing the northern building which is in the worst condition. Um, so repurposing those buildings to be a flexible space of the tenant space for VFW, dance studio, and licensed passport center. Um, everything fits into that building pretty good. Uh, and with this, there's still a little shortage of parking, but with this option, we were able to kind of connect the parking lot, uh, the new parking lot to the city hall parking lot, which allows some flexibility and overflow parking, um, and create kind of a outdoor activity green space on the north side that the uh, BFW could utilize. with the new concept uh for the maintenance operations center. We looked at splitting some of the operations on the north side of Woodhill and maintaining majority of the operations on the south side and infilling the existing parking yard area to expand the fleet garage space, expand the expanded create new maintenance bays, wash bays, new shop spaces. Um, there'd probably be a little bit of demolition of the southern part of the existing building right now, which would then be uh added on to to expand the office spaces and locker and staff support spaces. Um, and then on the far left side, there's a brown box uh south of the ballpark area there. That would be a two-story facility for the dance uh studio and license passport center. and trying to maximize amount of parking around that space and around BFW and to support both the the park BFW and dance studio. That allows us to put approximately 180 stalls in that area. Um which would achieve the the zoning goals um and that could be massaged a little bit to improve a little bit more green space and break up some of that parking. But um gets us pretty close to where we need to be. So on the north side of Woodhill, the maintenance operations that would be there would be relocating and constructing a new fuel island. This would be the yard space, uh granular storage bins, the salt shed. Um then there'd be additional fleet storage buildings showing that orange block. And this is very similar concept, just kind of moving a few pieces around on that north site for public works operations. This one shows uh more of a pass through yard area where you can connect through to the the north uh roadway um and kind of a longer drive through garage storage facility. Um everything else stays the same and we'll dive into costs here. So, mayor, city council members, up on the screen, you have kind of an alloc cart option uh for each of the the um plans that Mike just went through. Starting off, you can see on the far left, the way that we break this spreadsheet out is across the top, you'll see the original concept study um in 20 from 2022. And then you'll see the maintenance operations center. All the different options that Mike walked through from keeping the original VFW license center um option from the 2022 study and then all the different variations thereof that we went through this time as well as the option C for the maintenance operation center trying to reuse as much of the existing facility south of Woodhill. Um combined with that option then of just the licenses dance and leaving the VFW alone. um you need to combine the maintenance operations center with any one of those options when comparing back to the original study. Um when you look at how we break it out, there's construction costs and soft costs and I believe in the report to kind of give a summary of what those items are, but construction costs are really inclusive of every the bricks and mortar of what you'll see on a typical bid day for a construction project along with the associated contingencies to build it. I know that was something else that was noted in the report is just right now because of the stage you're at, there are design contingencies built into these to allow for some variation of what happens within the market and also what happens as design develops as you get into the uh the next steps um of the project. Um we're including right now and we'll talk schedule a little bit later, but we have construction escalation built in to a middle of construction of 2027. to some variation. You're looking between a two and three-year project depending upon how it's phased. Um if that right now the way that the budgets are based is on a fall start in 2026, work going through 2027 and hopefully wrapping up towards the end of 2028 or beginning of 2029. Soft costs are also included and broken out here. And sometimes uh those dollars can move from soft cost to construction costs. But those typically are things like testing and inspections, design fees, um furniture, um basically if you think about tipping a building upside down and shaking anything that falls out of a building um is really considered a soft cost piece. You can choose at the time you get into design if you want some of those pieces to be designed and bid out with the rest of the project or the city has the option to purchase things off a state contract if there's certain pieces that are a must need uh or pieces of equipment for the facility. So those things can be worked out but one way or the other we try to look at projects holistically of what is a total project budget to construct these facilities and that is the combination between construction costs and soft costs. So, I know it's a high level overview and um we could talk specifics on any options that you might want to review or how we go about putting these pricings together. I know we talked about that back when we did the 2022 study. The way we look at these facilities is we don't just look at them holistically and say public works facilities are X dollars a square foot. We actually go through and break down the individual components of each of these facilities to say what are the maintenance bays away from vehicle storage, away from office administration, away from shop space, away from yard space, fuel islands and such, all the specialty equipment. We break all that out specific to your project needs based on those studies and follow-ups. And then we track all those individual pieces against how are your neighbors fairing? What did Oakdale look at when their project bid out a year ago? um what did the city of Rosemont pay for theirs? So, we look at projects across the metro and try to compare those individual pieces um back to it. So, put a lot of time and effort into making sure that uh there's a confidence level in these budgets as you continue forward. I believe the next slide is kind of running through next steps. Yeah, I can talk. Um, so one of the first steps is going to be deciding the best approach for the license center passport studio so we can move that function out of the way for maintenance operations to expand north of Woodhill. Um, obviously city needs to work through and figure out funding sources for the license passport and studio relocation u to support the maintenance operations uh expansion. And then we need to uh work with you guys to confirm the schedule and phasing for the maintenance operations center buildout and uh construction process. And then as we talked about when we walked through the overall budget, the overall budget ultimately ties to a schedule just to make sure you're properly accounting for inflation, cost of materials, things like that. So all the budgeting that we've presented on is based on a con construction start of next fall. Um, the way that that shakes out in the rest of these bullet points, I'll actually just refer to the chart with the start and finish dates. If the council was to pick an action in June and July to say, "Here's the option we want to pursue and give authorization to go out to obtain an a design firm and a construction management firm." That process typically is about two months. You'd want to do those simultaneously. If you had both of those teams on in August, you would be able to go through the pre-construction phase. That would be basically from August until the following April. Now, there's a lot that's going to happen in that timeline. Um, one of the things in order to start uh construction work next fall is you will be looking at multiple bid packages, which is not untypical. That's pretty typical out there in the industry. That's that you can get those long lead time items like switch gears or mechanical equipment or in the cases of a maintenance operation center where you have a lot of pre-cast. Um, that comes with a typical four to six month lead time. So, you want to start procuring those materials early so they arrive on time when you want to start. Um, but that will require multiple bid packages to achieve a fall start to allow for that submitt. And again, depending upon which option you choose, the next step would be going through and phasing that out to see where you land. But no matter the options, we've looked at it and you range somewhere in a two to threeyear timeline for construction and about three phases total. And then you have a post construction which is closing things out and going through you know equipment startups and making sure that all punch list items are taken care of all those sorts of things. So all in all that's where you see that fall of 28 um on there for a for a project close out if everything goes as planned. Right. I'm going to pause you right there because we are at our 10:00 curfew. Uh council would need a motion if we want to extend the meeting past our curfew. Um my suggestion to the council is to extend the meeting for the completion of all the remaining items on the agenda. Um I'll look for the council for a motion. So moved. Second. Second. All right. Motion by council member Grath. Second by council member Stron to extend the meeting to complete the items on the agenda that remain. Uh discussion on the motion hearing. None. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously and we are we can go as long as we want now. So, uh don't don't take that as any encouragement. Uh feel free to continue with your presentation. No. Thank you, mayor, council members. We've reached the end of the presentation. Just like that. Perfect timing. All right. Um I did want to check in one of the things and I had sent a note I think to city manager Trean at some point about that. Uh, one of the things I was not as confident or sure of in in the C options because they're new to us was how the phasing works and I don't need to go down to like dates and but just understanding how the parts move and how we maintain operations during that concept if you could spend some time on that or I don't know who who is most appropriate to answer that. Yeah, unfortunately our public works expert wasn't able to join tonight, but I can I can try to talk through a little bit and Jesse, I don't know if you have any comments you want to add to it, but um so part of the discussion there's going to be some hiccups, you know, during construction and and pains, but uh it's going to be worth it in the end. Um there's there's ways to phase things and we think we could construct the new like maintenance bays uh ahead of time before we decommission the existing ones and we'll work through that with the construction manager for how to best phase things and it might extend construction a little bit. The more you phase things, the more complexity there are, things like that. But um there's also opportunities to partner with your other local municipalities or county uh areas that can support maintenance for a short period of time and kind of move some of those operations off site which would would aid construction process a little bit. Um but these buildings are pretty easy to to phase. Um they're all kind of their own little components and we'll work to figure out what the critical pieces are to construct those with minimal impact on the operations. Although I I think it's fair to say I mean there is a sequence, right? So um the first touch would have to probably be the Lexington shops in the north side to start building the things we need to have plus the building because we'll need to when we do the south side of Woodhill move some of the operations across the street, right? which would then mean that we would need to deal with the licensed passport center dance studio um almost first or right at the beginning here and whatever we're doing with that. Um and obviously if it's not on the site that's a different conversation versus being on the site but you could in theory see you would want to build the license pass dance studio first almost move those folks over there tear down the shops start working on the north side with the yard put up the buildings and all that stuff. Once that's done, then we would have to temporarily move operations across the street, tear down um or not tear down, but we're keeping some of the building, but tear down what we need to and add on on there. So, I think that's a rough concept. Um and um certainly that can be tweaked some more and bought up, but that's kind of a rough rough approach. Okay. So, that that would mean also that we need to have all the financing for the exact the license passport studio fairly well have planned and set up to be able to do that early. Okay, I appreciate that. That's what I wanted to understand because um you know I could conceive of well you could move half a yard but you know I don't think that works. So I appreciate that. Thank you for that. Uh council member Schroeder. So, what if we actually took the license center and moved it into, let's say, like a place and rented a spot like Karma or something and moved it over there and so it wouldn't even be part of this construction project because especially in C, it's a standalone building anyways. So, if we actually decided to just rent a spot and we could do that for however long we wanted, that would then free up that whole one parking space issue. And then also this timeline crunch thing that we're talking about, we could get right into the maintenance center then. So, I mean, how what that that might be a concept for us to think about. Did you possibly think about that as a possibility? No, not not council member maybe will answer it. Um um no we haven't but that yes that's certainly a possibility to permanently move it off site to temporarily move it off site certainly um sooner we find a home for it one way or another then sooner we can start on on on the north side. I think we initially with this initial plan given um previous council's directions to keep everything on the site we kept it on the site but that's I think we need to have some conversation about that right um that was before the residents decided to not to fund it through the the unders once originally if they would have both been funded that was the one thing but since now that funding source is not there um so the resident says nope we don't want to do that and so it may make sense to um pause on actually spending the money on it. You're right. It's a conversation I think we need to have. Well, if I just may add, I think that the the the qu the one of the factors that council will have to consider in that is weighing the potential advantage of having a building we own and control for whatever long-term purpose it might ultimately being used for versus, you know, going back to sort of the the leasing of space and some of the challenges that were associated with that at the time that made us purchase the uh the the the strip center at the time. So certainly one of the things we can do that that can help maybe is is you know have a plan in place either a short-term or a long-term plan you know whether that involves building first or moving off site first or whatever. I mean, it sounds like the license center, you know, can't be there in its current location if we go with the C approach, right? Yeah. I am concerned about I am concerned about the long term about that building given the cost that we're seeing here. The licensed passport center generates us approximately $200,000 to offset property tax uh taxes. And here we're, you know, in option C listed including soft cost and hard cost. And this is worst case number 14. But even if it's better bonds, I mean, we bas we may end up upside down on that deal and actually, you know, licensed passport center actually costing us uh on our taxes rather than uh alleviating our taxes. And I think considering what, you know, the foot traffic that licensed passport center brings and uh the fact that we're sitting a good tenant and we can commit to a longerterm lease, we could get a buildout. I think we should definitely investigate having this at some other location and renting that space instead. It will obviously, you know, cost us some money, but uh it would still be profitable to the $200,000 that we have now, but I would much rather have some profit from that rather than it being a cost center. Certainly. I mean, I I think it's fair to say that um building a building and financing a building is not intended to be paid for by revenue necessarily from the uh the center. And so that's that's obviously a consideration for sure. Well, and it also includes the uh dance studio and the uh what other there were four items. Anyway, it's not just the passport. And I guess if we do decide that going forward with the dance studio, I would like to see some numbers about how popular the dance studio and how much it is because if we find out building this dance studio for a number of people is actually, you know, a few thousand dollars every year per dancer, uh we may have to re-evaluate that. That may not be fiscally responsible. other questions. So, some of the direction we're looking and I know it's late and we we're going to need more conversation obviously. Um if if there's any sense of direction as far as an option to pursue knowing that there's additional conversation with license passport, dance studio and all the things that were talked about is is there any option you're leaning towards? And I I would suggest that we come back at a future meeting to talk about the license passport center and talk about the financing talk about everything we talked about and provide some information. I think that'd be good before we can't we can't go to the next step until that's sorted out. Um and so having a dedicated conversation around that. Um unfortunately our next scheduled meeting is July 7th. So it's a little bit of ways. um we can always have a special meeting um consideration if you like in that in interim period. Uh or if we just want to make sure we do uh our due diligence and just make sure it's done right and we knowing that it could impact the schedule a little bit as as laid out here. Um that's also a good decision too because we want to make sure we do it right. So just toss it to you for kind of what you want to think of the next steps. Right. Uh Council Strong, did you have a comment? Um, well, I just wanted to mention that I I appreciate concept C2. Um, and its variance. Um, it seems like that provides some of the potential alleviation of uh space concerns that we are addressing here in city hall, which has long been my concern that we would only address uh a portion of what we really needed long term. So, if in that space on the south part of Woodhill, there was an opportunity for some of our staffing to go there and potentially to add additional space in the police department and other areas that we've been told require additional space. Um, it seemed like the C21 maybe would be really useful for um kind of how the drive-thru of the um on the north side, but you know, I'm not entirely sure what that all means. But in looking at that versus C22, which it looks like it would have to come off of off of Lexington to actually be useful to have the parking the direction it is. But I'm not really sure and I'm not an engineer. But just kind of I do think it it's really nice for the neighborhood to consider that that ball field gets to stay there. We don't have to find a new place to replicate that. That the playground gets to stay. that the adjacent homeowners to the um west who've been long concerned about um sound and additional noise. I would think that a passport center and a license center will passport would just be during the business day. Um there wouldn't be late night things. There wouldn't be 2 a.m. plowing. Um there's not going to be the additional sounds. And I do think that one of the C options seems to explore some of our staff or I mean our building shortages. I think you know perhaps the tonight if we can work towards one of the concepts and then we can have the follow-up discussion on some of the details if that makes sense. So I'm hearing some thoughts about concept C. Uh council member Bower. Uh um I guess we can continue discussing that if you prefer. I had a question for Oh no absolutely you can have a question too. uh you know these new concepts we test you with looking at alternative options when you looked at these alternative options AB and C and variations of C do they still meet the original uh space goals and needs that we had or were you did you have to compromise on some of the original asks? Yeah, these were all uh developed based off of the space needs and and the updated space needs that we had for the licensed passport center and so each of these will meet what we originally asked. Yep. Even if with the option here we're presenting tonight for the maintenance center south of Woodhill, it still grows and provides the operational space that you need for a 30-year facility. And then conversely, did we end up with additional space or something beyond what we originally asked by doing it this way? Uh in this option, I would say no. Uh there's nothing additional that I'm aware of. Um unless uh Pat or Jesse has anything. um the the uh options that we looked at for the concept B here. There's some variations of this where you could have some additional space that's not programmed. Um but uh those have other complications and things with them. So, thank you, Mr. Fry. I'll I'll just add that uh concept C um is probably a little short on yard space, but I know from the the uh building space, the building footprints are pretty much match with the in the report. So, but I just want to comment that option C compared to the original campus master plan um is a little smaller on footprint. Um but it is more is is laid out well. It's it's it's an improvement over the yard certainly that we currently have, but it's not um I don't want to say it's the it's not the footprint is certainly smaller than what the pre-esigned project has. And just to clarify too, so it's it's a larger size than the current yard. It's larger than the current yard laid out over the current yard, but it is smaller than the pre-esigned project. So more efficient. Correct. more efficient. We you know there will be some you know this concept is not um we we laid out that uh concept report kind of scoring just a little bit just to give a kind of a pendulum where where things lay. Obviously it'll be a slightly less efficient because we have to cross Woodill for some operations. It's not to say it's completely inefficient. It's certainly um an improvement on a lot of things that we're not driving all the way to the west end of Roseville to go pick up equipment that's stored in a storage facility. So, but it's not right outside the gate. So, just like I said, just from a scale of operational, there's a slight drop, but not terrible or anything. So, so for C1 and C2, what does what is your opinion between those two? What would would your um for operations in your department, which one would you prefer? You know, I I I don't know if I've made my mind up on C1 or C2. They're so close. The the costs are are similar. So I I in my mind we'd have to study it a little more and lay it out more detailed, but um they they both would function. They they both have the same equipment there. It's literally just layout and how how staff would orientate and what what specific equipment we would put over there. Um because it would kind of be sim the the theory behind the scenes was we would keep all where the staff is on the south side. So the the north side would be more overflow and storage where you don't have to have a staff. this it's a non-staffed facility, but certainly we have we're equipment you got to go pick up before you head out, stuff like that, but I I guess I don't have a thought. Um, and Matt might have a different thought than I do. Uh, certainly his staff's at that at at uh in this facility as well. So, I would say one if the city does decide to move the lesson center and passport dance studio to a different site, that does provide more opportunities on this site to provide additional yard space or kind of reconfigure what we're showing here for the maintenance facility a little bit. Um, so because some of that parking demand goes away, right? Yep. Okay. Right. I did want to clarify one thing that uh I thought I heard from council member Stron was in in one or both of these C options that helps with um space needs in within city hall. Is that different than any of the prior conversations or is that a a misunderstanding of these proposals or there's nothing in uh Mayor Row uh in these plans of doing anything here in this building. The the idea is that red space uh there the office space could be expanded from what is currently in existence um and on the site across the park on the site yeah on the site across the parking lot whether that's for public works and parks uh staff u or other things and I think I think what we want to do if if we created more space and an opportunity to move some staff maybe from this building over there as a possibility free up some space in city hall for whether it's PD or anybody else there's great space needs here and Both C1 and C2 or both of the C options have that. Yes. Okay. That's Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate it. Uh Council Member Bower, uh in the C options in your cost breakdown, but from this picture, it looks like there we acquire the parking that is currently owned by the BFW. Is that correct? And if so, is that number then reflected in the uh LPCDS uh cost number? Because I don't see any numbers for the BFW cost. Yes, that that'd be factored into that and and once again we're going worst case. You know, there might be some other opportunities to swap to lease. Um I'm just making sure that we've taken into account if one I just wanted clarification. Are we this assumes acquisition of parking from the VFW? And if so, is that number that acquisition price somehow factored into these cost breakdowns? I believe that's in the site conditions. It's in the so in the soft cost portion of it there just like there is in construction there's a design contingency. There's also a soft cost contingency, not knowing how much you'd need to purchase, but all the construction that's noted on these plans is accounted for in those costs. And you have contingencies that we've talked about what are the potential costs that you did acquire. And we feel that those would be included in that soft cost budget. Yes. So 3.4 here is Got it. Yep. Mhm. Yep. And I would note probably the the the parking counts take into account some ability to share parking and so there's some value to the VFW associated with that as well. Yep. I do note uh our parks rec director uh Matt Johnson coming up uh perhaps has some insight to add to our conversation. Um there's just a couple comments that were made that I do want to make sure are touched upon. Um so we have the full full picture in front of us. Um, number one, it was mentioned that the ball field would be preserved and that the playground would be preserved. There would need to be some adjustment made. Um, but it would actually be more suiting of the current use, which is youth softball. Um, so I just wanted to clarify that that there would still be some work done on the park, but largely the park would be preserved. Uh, secondarily, uh, the VFW and the city actually co-own a small building that is where that north parking lot is. that would have to be figured out in some way, but we feel like that fits into the kind of contingency piece that has already been spoken about here. And then I don't want to uh I do have the dance numbers. We'd be happy to get those to you. I don't know if you want that now or want that at another time, but um certainly am able to speak to that as well. If you have numbers now, you can let us know unless it's 50 pages of numbers. Uh my 99 page report. Uh I I think one uh first the key dimension is that this is not something where uh parks and recreation came forward and said out of whole cloth we need a new dance studio. What is happening is that it is currently housed in the shops at Lexington and there is not a suitable alternative because of the volume because of the soft floor needs because of the mirrors and posts that are and and rails that are needed. So that was one component of it. But there are currently uh over 600 program registrants um that utilize the dance studio year round. That amounts to um 219 dancers that did the program uh last year. So from fall uh that's youth dancers of which about 70% were Roseville residents. Um there are about 50 um in our older adult older adult dance classes. Another 50 in our Hulu hula classes. Um we also do have uh we would have the ability to essentially do more. Um we're functionally unable to use the current space um when the license center is operating because it turns out dance is very very loud and um we uh those don't coexist real well. So, we pretty much operate right now from 5:00 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. 6 nights a week in the dance. Wouldn't it make sense to uh separate those two then to make sure they're not built together? Well, you can acoustically do it if a building that's constructed to be that way. We we have talked about that and that can be fairly easily accommodated if we knew that's the route we're going to go. So, thank you for that. That's helpful. I I do want to uh check in and see we do have some members of the public here this evening and if there was uh some feedback that members of the public that are here wanted to provide uh this would be an opportunity to do that. Uh and so maybe if I can ask the consultants just to have a seat off to the side for a moment and um keep track of your phones and everything. I'll make it quick. Hello and welcome. Roger has some Wagner Place. I hate the idea of continuing to use the current public works building for anything. The difference in price between all new and then reusing part of it is like hardly any money at all. So why wouldn't you have the land, you have the money. I really think you need to build the public works building the way it was originally planned because they there doesn't make sense for them to be separated. I if you're starting to spending $60 million, it should be built as efficiently as possible for them. Maybe and I would leave the VFW where it is and maybe they'll have to redesign their outdoor storage a bit or maybe use some on the south side, but public works needs a new building. You need to do it right. And then uh actually to make the dance studio more I don't know more justifiable you didn't replace the building at Acorn when you uh built all the new all the new parks buildings. So, I suggest building a dance studio and park building at Acorn because then it would be out of the way from the city hall here, but that would help justify it more because ACORN could use a large, you know, park building. And then uh the license center for sure should be moved into rental space because it just the way if it the way the with the interest and everything over 15 or 20 years you're going to spend $20 million. That's like a hundred years of rent somewhere. Why would you spend that kind of money? A hundred years of rent just to own your own building. You can go to Best Buy where they're at. They have like 13,000 square feet there, but you can go in there right today. And uh then you would not have to do all this phase building either if you move the the license center somewhere else. And if you don't like it after three or five years, then you can build your own building, but why not at least try it for three or five years, see how it works. Plus, with all the exposure you'll get there, revenue should go way up and then it should at least break even or make a little bit of money. It's an enterprise that's not supposed to lose a million dollars a year. You shouldn't have to take a million a year out of the general fund to pay the bonds for it. So anyway, as I saying, it doesn't make sense to reuse the public built works building you have now because the thing parts are 60 years old and 50 years from now they'll be well over 100 years old whereas starting new 50 years from now the new one will be just 50 years old. Thank you. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak this evening? Hello, welcome. Good evening. Um, you all probably know my name is Matt Draw. I'm at 2736 Griggs. I'll fall due respect to the previous gentleman. It's not being built in his backyard. So, it's pretty easy for him to say whatever might be more efficient. But as residents who this directly impacts, we would very much prefer something like option C because that preserves our park in our backyard where we take our dog, where my fellow neighbors take their children. You know, that's something that we could be on board with and that and we don't want to be at odds with the city that we live in that we have been I've been here for over 10 years and I really like being a resident of Roseville. I think it's a great community and I think preserving the VFW which is a huge part of this community along with that park and our property values as well at the same time makes a huge difference in this and being able to repurpose some of the existing structures actually seems more economical than just demolishing everything. So, you know, I really do um appreciate uh Council Member Julie's uh point of view and support on some of this. But um you know I I I just think as residents that are really directly impacted by this, it'd be a lot easier for us to be behind option C. Thank you. Appreciate your comments. I I do have a couple other questions here. So Sure. Um with the what's being proposed there. So the just to be clear, the the city does not own any of the current parking lot at the VFW. Correct. Uh we have have some shared ownership just one row of that parking uh I believe and then all that green strip. Um so where the proposed like license center dance city property that's correct and then one row of I think one row of parking or so. Okay. Is that right? Or I think a little west. Yes. Give or take. Yeah. It's it's been a cooperative agreement all the time. Okay. So that is a bit contradictory to the frequently asked questions that were proposed going into the vote where that it was said that the city owned all of that and no the whole area that that may be the case. However, the vote happened last fall. So we're kind of past that at this point. So but still a little misleading though, right? But and you had other questions, too. I think that takes care of it. Okay. Look at all right. Yeah. No, I wanted to make sure I didn't miss any. Right. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. I'm I'm not sure that there's anyone else from the public who wishes to speak. All right. Uh with that then we'll return to to council consideration. And I you know I would note that I think from my perspective option C or the either of the C options seems to be right preferred from my perspective for a number of the reasons that have been brought forward. So, I'm not going to be shy about saying that. Um, I I think that, uh, you know, certainly there is a way forward with, you know, relocating the VFW. Um, not having to do that certainly has some benefit or Okay. Were you talking about the license center or the VFW? I'm sorry. That's why I said VFW because part of the plan all along has been to put them in a different facility. it wasn't for them to go away as an entity. So, I wanted to make that clear. Um, but not having to move them has a lot of benefit. I think there's probably ways to work out arrangements on parking um if we do decide to look at rental space for the license center, potentially that that building as a as a dance studio and maybe other park needs might not be a bad idea. um and we can look at at a little bit smaller scale and less requirements than than perhaps a license center would have and that would impact the parking need uh hopefully in a positive way and maybe reduce the impacts on park site and other parts of the site and jointly owned building on the north side of the VFW. So, you know, I think that's something to to take a look at. Um, I think I'd like to before our next discussion is maybe have staff do some outreach to local real estate folks and try to get some understanding of the marketplace and and you know what we'd be looking at in terms of leasing some space. We might as well know more the next time we talk about this rather than continuing to sort of speculate. Have to know the buildout costs. These are the Well, that's the thing, right? That's that's the thing. Yep. Absolutely. So I think having a better understanding of that would be helpful for our next discussion. Um other thoughts from council? I got a lot of nod head nods in terms of C. I would agree with the the the what you were staying about the BFW. That's a big plus for me that we don't have to deal with moving them or purchasing or dealing with that. And I appreciate the resident's comment. I I think that's really important to to me anyway as a council member because that has always bothered me the way that was being done. But I also know that for the greater good, sometimes we have to do things as a council and as a city. But this is an option that would work better for you and I I feel good about that. I'm fine with looking at options on the license center, but um in the end we need a space that works better because I was at the license center a month ago renewing my tabs and my driver's license and I had to wait over an hour because and people came and looked in the door and turned around and walked away and then they went to other license centers. So, we're losing money by having it the way it is. And if we have it in another location, you have to remember people know that this is in this location now. They're not going to know it's in Harmar or they're not going to know it's over in Best Buy building or wherever we located to very easily. I mean, we can put a note on the door as long as it's there, but once it's torn down, it's gone. So, um I I mean, there are things we have to consider when we look at that that aspect of that would be good topics for our conversation at that next discussion if if we're ready to move to that point. Council Strong, I concur with that and I just would like to say if we're moving the passport facility to an or license center somewhere else, I would like to make sure it's on a it's on a um easily reachable bus line so that people who um may seem counterintuitive. They need a driver's license. They're riding the bus, but maybe they just need an ID card or they um are need handicap accessibility in order to meet other needs or passport. You don't need a car to get a passport. No, you don't. Um, should we motion to accept C or forward that? I think it would be appropriate to to uh Is there a motion? I don't think we need I don't believe there's a No, I think the staff is looking for direction from for direction. So whether that's an emotion or just I think I can say is there any objection to proceeding with with one of the C options or pursuing the C options and then looking further at how we handle the license center and having some more information about that as we've discussed this evening. I would be in favor of looking at the C options. I would also like to put forward that while we could have the meeting here as a council meeting, I'm also okay with entertaining the option of having as a work session um to help expedite, you know, these decision process since we are starting to start slipping a little bit. Do you mean as a special meeting? As a special meeting in the upcoming weeks prior to Well, we can I think staff can take a look and see how important that is to to to do it at a different time than just our next scheduled meeting. I think we don't have to have an answer for that this evening. Yeah. My only my only thought is it may take a little time to gather the information. I want to make sure we have the time to get what we need to have a chance. You can let us know at the parade what your thoughts are. Although as as we should note, we can't make any decisions at the parade. In fact, we should even be talking about some business at the parade. It's been around. Although it may it may be posted the meeting anyway. But uh but I'm in favor of moving forward with uh concept C and having staff uh do the additional investigation of uh subsequent options for future discussion. Agreed. Okay. Hearing no objections. That's a direction for staff. All right. Very good. I think we've gotten to our through the end of our business items this evening. We are only who knows how long behind now at this point. Uh two hours. Two hours. All right. Well, let's uh wrap up. We did extend for all the discussions so or all the items. So we'll move right to consideration of city council minutes. We have the council minutes from our May 19th and June 2nd meetings. Uh are there any changes or corrections uh council members would like to note or make uh or a motion to approve as presented. Move approval as presented for both. Can we? You may. Second to both. You may. All right. It's been moved by council GR. Seconded by council member Bower to approve both sets of minutes as presented. Uh is there any discussion of the motion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. That passes unanimously. Uh those minutes are approved. That brings us to the consent agenda. Mr. Treasure, can you give us a brief summary uh on the consent items? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item 10A approves payments in the amount of $863,822.95. Item 10B approves temporary gambling permit for the Roseville BFFW auxiliary for a raffle to be held on August 2nd. Agenda item 10 C approves awarding contract with TAL Blue LLC to complete the climate equity action plan in the amount of $64,000. The city has received a grant from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency which will cover half that cost or 32,000. The city will pay the other half 32,000 from our professional services budget for the department. Um, item 10D approves contracting with All Energy Solar for the rooftop solar system uh, installation at the city's booster station at 706 Trier Avenue in the amount of $12,898. This will be paid uh, for with a $61,379 grant from the Department of Commerce in the state of Minnesota, a tax credit in the amount of $30,870 and $10,289 from the city uh, CIP. Agenda item 10E approves entering into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Pollution uh control agency to receive $213,000 in grant funds to uh utilize as part of the park improvements for Roseburg Park, including the use of a recycling, I'm sorry, recirculating uh water system for the splash pad and more inclusive playground equipment. Agenda item 10F approves a short-term rental license for 1885 Shady Beach Avenue. And item 10G approves a short-term rental license for 1206 Oakrest Avenue. Uh agenda item 10H approves entering into an undated uh joint powers agreement with the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. Roseville has been part of this JPA since 2023 and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension has made some minor changes to the agreement. This new agreement will be in effect until 2030. And finally, agenda item 10 I approves applying for a COPS grant with the US Department of Justice for grant grant funds to cover 75% of entry level officers salary and French benefits. Roseville is requesting funding for for police officers. This is a little bit ahead of some of the chief's conversations, but that was identified in the report. The deadline is July 1st, so we need need to get that in now just for consideration. Obviously, there's choices you will make as we move forward. And that is the consent agenda. All right. Thank you, Mr. is there a motion on the consent items? So move second. It's been moved by council member Schroeder, seconded by council member Stron. Uh any discussion on the consent items? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. Those items are passed and approved. Uh that brings us to the future agenda review. Uh Mr. Trean just mentioned next Monday's the Rosefest parade. Uh the council will be participating. So no council meeting on June 26 is Taste of Rosefest. Uh I do have tickets if you're looking for them. So, um, feel free to reach out to me. And then our next scheduled meeting is in, uh, on July 7th. You can see the items there, but I won't be late. It's late. All right. Thank you. Um, are there any council announcements or future agenda items or questions about the future agenda? Rosefest next week. Right. Right. Indeed. Reiterated. All right. If there's no further business before the council, a motion to adjourn is in order. Second. It's been moved by Council Member Grath, seconded by Council Member Straw, and to adjourn. Uh, no discussion, a motion to adjurnn. All those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. That passes unanimously and we adjourned at 10:36 p.m. Thank you, everyone.