I hereby call to order the Roseville City Council meeting for Monday, December 8th, 2025. Mr. City Man, would you call the role, please? >> Council member Stron, >> here. >> Council member Schroeder >> here. >> Council member Grath >> here. >> Council member Bower. >> Mayor Row >> here. Uh and council member Bower indicated prior to the meeting that he was not able to attend this evening. Uh and so we will try to carry on without him. Uh wanted to uh make a couple of introductions uh at the beginning of the meeting here now that we've done our roll call and that is uh for our city attorney Rachel Tierney who's on my right at the very end of the day and will be helping us in legal matters. Uh we also have our city manager Pat Trean who's on my left uh and will be helping out with a lot of matters over the course of the evening this evening. [clears throat] Uh we'll also have other staff members uh and uh uh other presenters this evening that we'll introduce as agenda items come up. I do want to note to begin with since we have a fairly good attendance this evening uh that we want to make sure if you have a cell phone uh that you either silence it or otherwise assure that it doesn't disrupt the meeting this evening. Uh, and then I want to note uh for members of the public uh who are in attendance this evening that we do have extra copies of the meeting agenda on the back table under the clock by the back door and those are available to you to help follow along with the agenda. Uh we also do have a single copy of all of the meeting materials that the council will be considering this evening uh in a a large three- ring binder on the same table. Uh and that is one copy for everyone to share. Uh so you'll have to work it out amongst yourselves to do that. Uh but I wanted to make you aware that that is available to you. Uh also want to note for folks who are attending the meeting this evening for the uh tax uh discussion or tax hearing uh that is one of the first items on our agenda and we'll talk more about uh what's involved in that when we get to that point. Uh so be prepared for that. Uh we also do earlier in the meeting before that have an opportunity for general public comment and I'll talk more about that when we get to that but different uh we will have an opportunity specifically to talk about the tax and budget matters uh as part of that part of the agenda. That is actually item 7A on the agenda this evening. So as you're following uh that would be the time for that item. I believe that brings us through the um uh various uh housekeeping announcements. Oh, the only other thing I should note is that we do have with us this evening some, uh, some special guests, which is the local Cub Scout Pack 634, uh, based out of EMTT Williams. Uh, and I just learned at the start of the meeting that this pack has been around for 70 years. Uh, which is a pretty pretty impressive feat in the community. Uh, although I would note I don't think any of the scouts are that old. [laughter] So, uh, but it was a pleasure to visit with them a little bit before the meeting. uh and they are actually going to be leading us in the next item on the agenda which is the pledge of allegiance. So I'll ask folk ask folks to stand if you're able for the pledge of >> allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. And thanks again to the scouts for being here. Uh and um we promise that they don't have to say the whole meeting. Uh but we we encourage you to because it's really fun and exciting stuff that we deal with here. Uh with that then our first item on the agenda as far as business is to approve tonight's agenda. And as always, I'll check with our city manager, Mr. Trean. Are there any changes from a staff perspective to our agenda this evening? >> Mr. Mayor, staff has no changes to the agenda. >> All right. Uh on the council, are there any council member uh initiated changes to the agenda this evening or items that council members may want removed from our Do we have a consent agenda? We do. Okay. From our consent agenda for separate consideration. All right. Uh and at the start of each meeting, we do check in with members of the audience. We do only have four items on our consent agenda, which is section 10 towards the end of the agenda. Uh that's approval of our payments uh for the past period of time. Uh approval of some uh reclassified and new positions uh as well as approving a resolution ratifying labor agreements uh as well as a state aid allocation agreement for the fire relief association. These are all typically fairly administrative items and are taken up at the end of the meeting uh as a single motion with limited opportunity for public input. But if somebody was here this evening uh for one of those items to make a comment or ask a question, this would be the opportunity to let us know. Uh and we'll move that item earlier into the meeting so that you don't have to stay to the very end. So we'll just check if anyone is here for one of those items in section 10 of our agenda this evening, the consent agenda, items A through D. >> All right, it doesn't appear to be the case. Uh with that then a motion to approve tonight's agenda would be in order. >> Second. All right, it's been moved by council member Schroeder, second by council member Grath. Uh, any discussion on that motion? Uh, hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero. We have our agenda this evening. That then brings us to our first opportunity for public comment, which I alluded to at the beginning of the meeting. This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak to items that are not on this evening's agenda, but may be of interest to people in the community, such as upcoming events, uh, or may be related to city business in other ways, but once again, aren't matters that we're taking up this evening. So, we always do check at the beginning of the meeting if anyone is here to speak about anything related to city business or of interest to the community that is not on tonight's agenda for discussion or action. Right. Does not appear to be the case. Uh that being the case, then uh we'll move on to um uh recognitions and donations section of the agenda. Uh and in that section, we do have uh a proclamation. Uh this is a proclamation as relates to human trafficking awareness in the community uh and prevention. And I will read that proclamation and then a uh motion from the council would be in order. The proclamation reads as follows. Whereas human trafficking is a nationwide public health and civil rights crisis, its victims and survivors are everywhere with Roseville being no exception. And whereas human trafficking includes both labor and sex trafficking with both international and domestic victims. And whereas anyone can become a victim of trafficking while women and girls are the primary victims. Victims and survivors come from every background, race, gender, sexual orientation, and economic status. Traffickers target individuals who for any reason are vulnerable. And whereas young people are particularly vulnerable to trafficking and exploitation, but face many barriers in reporting what has happened to them, Minnesota's safe harbor law recognizes uh that any youth under the age of 18 who comes forward will no longer face criminal prosecution and will instead receive comprehensive and trauma-informed services as a result of coming forward. Safe Harbor also seeks to provide communities across Minnesota with knowledge, skills, and resources to effectively identify and work with sexually exploited and at risk youth. And whereas all communities must seek to prevent human trafficking before it can occur by promoting safe, healthy, and supportive environments for people in the community. And whereas the city of Roseville is striving to become a place where human trafficking does not exist, where people have opportunities available to them, and where all people are treated as fully human and worthy of a supportive community and freedom. Now, therefore, be resolved. The city of Roseville declares January of 2026 as human trafficking awareness and prevention month in the city. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Stron, second by council member Schroeder to approve that proclamation about human trafficking awareness and prevention. Uh discussion on the motion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously four to zero. That proclamation is approved. I did want to take a moment uh uh with some indulgement uh from the council and public uh for a point of personal privilege. Uh I did receive some communication uh over this past weekend from members of our uh community uh who are uh from the Somali community and uh raising concern about uh some of the uh news items related to comments and policies out there uh that have been expressed at at a national level and even even uh more locally here in Minnesota. And so I did want to just uh provide a brief statement in regard to that. And it reads as follows. uh recent statements and policies from national leaders and others about our Somali friends and neighbors has caused great fear and anxiety in that community. A community which has long-standing roots in our state and in our city. Our Somali friends and neighbors are very much a part of the strong fabric of our city. Like most everyone here, Somali Americans work hard, value their families, contribute where they can to the betterment of their community, and want to succeed in life in any number of ways that we can all identify with. They and so many others who have been targeted by these hateful and uninformed comments and policies should be able to pursue happiness just like everyone else in the community. Those who make such comments should either learn more about the real situation and the real people harmed by the comments or they should speak less. People in Roseville stand with everyone in our community against discrimination and the real threat of harm that can come from hateful language and policies. And with that, we will then move to our business items this evening. Our first item uh is, as was noted, our uh budget and tax hearing continued from our last meeting. Uh we had uh scheduled the hearing to be on the 1st. Uh and then some of our information publicizing the hearing, including the tax notices, listed it as the 8th, and so we began the process on the 1st, but we continued the hearing uh to tonight. Uh and uh in the in the light of probably a lot of interest in attendance this evening in that regard, uh we're going to do a fairly substantial presentation about sort [clears throat] of how we've gotten to the decision-m or through the decision-m process to this evening and what the options available to the council are that we've been discussing. Uh and then we will have the opportunity for the public hearing. Uh so stay tuned for that and I'll provide more instruction as to what the rules of the road are for public hearings. Uh but with no further ado, I'll turn it over to our city manager uh Pat Trean and finance director Michelle Petri uh for the presentation part of the budget and tax hearing. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. Good to see you. Um thank you for finance director Petri uh joining me. Do want to walk through um the budget and levy impact. I know there's a lot of interest in the community. Uh this is um the culmination of uh nearly eight months of work uh by staff and the city council throughout the year. So, some of this from the council may seem uh redundant, but it's important that we do talk about these things and uh and uh lift it up so everybody knows what's part of the budget here. So, starting off just real quickly, real briefly, uh tonight, we want to provide information about the next year's budget tax levy. Um and uh we'll also talk about the utility rate impact later uh tonight as well. It's also a great opportunity for citizens to express uh their views on these impacts and what that budget means to them and their bottom line. Before I get into the specifics of the budget and levy, I just want to talk a little bit about uh factors that affects the property taxes. Obviously, the levy uh that we uh would institute along with the school district, the county um and some other uh taxing districts does impact uh what people pay for taxes. And as that goes up, people will pay more. But there's also a couple other things that uh do affect um what you pay for taxes. One is the assessed valuation of your property. Not all the properties u rise or or or get lowered at the same rate. Overall in the city we saw a 3% u market increase but uh results will vary and as I'm sure you all can attest. Uh everybody's got a little bit different result based on their specific factors uh guiding their value of their house and property. There's also a program under state uh law that's a market value exclusion where a certain portion of that assessed value is um not factored in as part of the tax kind of exempted from that. It's a sliding scale as the house value goes up it goes down to zero at $517,000. So if your value goes up you're going to see probably less market value exclusion. That also affects what the taxable value is and therefore what you pay. Also, there's shifts in the city overall, commercial versus uh or residential versus non-residential that can affect things. And uh the tax notice that folks received is more than just the city taxes. It includes the county and the school as I mentioned and some other taxing districts. So, uh those that's all important factors. We're here tonight specifically to talk about the city portion of the tax levy. uh just to know about the valuation because I think this is something that sneaks up on all of us. Uh we get the uh valuation for the next year in the spring. Um so what you see is represented as values for your properties uh were sent to you in March and April and often times uh folks miss it and don't really pay attention to it uh until they see the the property tax bill. Unfortunately that is kind of locked in stone by the county and that can't be changed. there is an appeal process that can happen in the spring. Um, but unfortunately that moment has passed. However, if you see a drastic change or any change for that matter, uh, in your valuation, you have questions on it, it would still worth a call, uh, to the county assessor's office, which number is listed there, uh, to ask for some of the reasons and, uh, maybe as they approach next year uh, they can visit your property or you can have more conversations and and and do that. So, that is something that the city does not set. That is something the county sets and so that is something that we all have to as taxpayers um abide by as we go into the 26 budget. I would also mention that the median valued home last year is $360,000 uh dollar and that was raised to $378,000. So that represents that value increase. Um I thought it might be helpful a little bit just to talk about how um the increase in property valuations do impact property taxes. As I mentioned, there's several factors that go into it, but let's just take for an example, and as noted uh on the tax notice, there was a proposed preliminary 12% city tax levy increase. So, if you take a property that's valued at $445,000 25 and experiences a 10.8% increase in the property's assessed value, uh that value would be $493,000 or an increase of 48,500. Now, that's pretty substantial increase due to the rise in value. the amount of the market value that can be excluded from the taxes decrease. If you remember, as the house value goes up, you have a less exclusion. And in this case, it works out to be $3,672 less. So now you're getting more um uh of your property uh being taxable. So that goes from $48,500 to 52,000. Um so you can see how that that rises up there. uh as a result uh of in this uh example here uh that homeowner would see an increase of $370 total annually uh in city property taxes. Of that increase about $123 can be directly attributable to the value increase while the $247 is to the city's increase in the property tax levy. Once again this is using the 12% levy example. So about onethird uh uh in this example uh is due to the valuation that even if the city kept uh the levy the same here you would still experience that that increase due to the valuation increase. So just example hopefully that's helpful for folks to understand and everybody's uh situation will vary depending on what happens there. But I think it's important to point out that there's more factors than just the the city tax levy that's impacting what people will pay for the city tax levy. Uh as I mentioned we did have uh uh many months of conversations about the bud budget process. I won't go through all these but um the city council did receive city manager re budget recommended budget in August. Uh the finance commission also reviewed that and made a recommendation on September 15th. The city council then adopted the preliminary budget and tax levy and that was that 12% levy increase and that is what represented um the tax statements that everybody has received. We've also uh reviewed the utility rate and fee schedule and held our uh first public hearing last week. We've also received comments from residents via budget comment cards and regular email. So, we thank everybody for that. So, I want to walk through kind of how we got uh to where we are tonight here. So, as I mentioned on August 25th, uh I did present uh city manager recommended budget and uh this year I really characterize the main part of the budget as the base budget which really reflects our existing programs and services uh and the uh the increased costs that uh we needed to add uh to continue to providing those services. So, the base budget proposed in in August was $81 million with a tax levy of $33 million and an increase of 7.55% over the 2025 tax levy. And I'll get into this a little bit more, but this is just to keep the continuing services that we have and just to reflect the rising cost for all those services. I think one thing I want to make sure it's very clear that that $81 million budget number is not all tax levy. only $33 million of that is uh from uh local property taxes. Uh we have a large chunk of our budget that is uh paid through by charges for services. These also come from the residents more or less uh uh through utility uh fees. So for sewer and water and recycling, but they're not just all uh property taxes. So about 44% of our budget is funded through the tax levy and 43% uh charges for services and then some smaller items as you can see in the pie chart. So the [clears throat] budget that was presented once again this is the total budget. Um uh the main categories that is really driving uh the cost um expenditures for that budget our personnel at 40%. Our capital projects, it's 18%. Our capital projects are our infrastructure, our roads, our pipes, our parks, things like that uh that uh need to be invested in and improved and repaired and replaced. The other um large uh expenditure is utilities and this is primarily our costs to purchase water from St. Paul Water and to purchase sewer sanitary sewer services from Metropolitan Council. Those costs are things that we uh incur that are then charged back uh to the residents as part of your utility bill. I would note that the budget number does fluctuate uh obviously with the increases that do occur on a year-to-year basis, but one big variable uh often is our capital outlay. You can see we have $18 million of capital outlay. This is part of a 20 20 year capital improvement plan where we look at our infrastructure and plan for replacements and repairs uh of needed infrastructure uh over the years here. That does change on a year-to-year basis. For instance, last year we spent about $14 million of uh in capital funds. So every year that will go up and down. And those funds are primarily not exclusively but primarily uh paid through by fund balance which is um savings that we've had collected over the years through a variety of means mostly tax levy and some other uh um charges through utilities to help pay for that. So it's kind of money we have in the bank that we're reusing. We do not need to go back and ask for tax levy directly to support that those capital improvements. In regards to the taxes uh that were presented as part of the base budget, um I look to um ask the council for $2.4 million more in tax levy and that's broken down by these categories. Our largest um expenditure um as mentioned before is personnel. So 1.2 million of that is for personnel cost changes. Uh we also added some debt service uh this year for the first time in quite a while actually for the electric fire engine. So that's 300,000. You'll see contractual services also uh reflects the costs for uh higher costs to hire consultants and uh other specialists to help um do our services. And then uh another big chunk half million dollars uh is our revenue and fund balance use changes. And I'll just talk a little bit about what's driving all those. So for the personnel costs, uh we're not really asking for really uh any new employees as part of the base budget, but uh given our employee base, we do need to make adjustments. So we have uh a progressive wage step uh process where people uh uh go through different steps and uh in their grade for years of service and satisfactory performance. So we need to account for that. That's $383,000 as well as some u insurance costs that have risen. A cost of living adjustment of 3% uh was included in there. So that's almost $600,000. Paid family medical leave um is something that is new uh coming to the state starting January 1st and that represents the employer portion of that payment. So if anybody is uh an owner of a business, they're probably well aware of the uh payroll tax that they will have to submit to the state. So that's our contribution to that. We also have some overtime increases in the police department and police intern wages. And then the HR manager uh which is only funded for half the year last year um uh that u 73,000 represents the remaining half for that position. So once again $1.2 million for personnel costs. The fund balancing grant use changes um as a result of COVID there was a lot of grant dollars that were um sent to the city for a variety of uses. Um that money has now dried up. We also receive public safety aid from the state to help uh with our law enforcement and uh fire services. So, uh we have used those in the past to help offset any necessary levy increases, but uh we do now to need to put those back on the tax ro. So, that includes uh fire cadet half uh funding for police department commander, settled union contracts, our services with Tubman. We also used uh public safety aid and some uh um co money. the ARPA funds and the opioid funds do pay for embedded social workers and the police department. Uh once again, that funding has been depleted, so we need to put that in the levy. Last year, in order to try to keep that levy low, we used some existing uh fund balance in the park park and recreation fund. Uh while we could do that at one time, it's not sustainable over a period of time. So, we have to add that back into the levy. Uh, fortunately, we were able to offset some of those increases and impacts by receiving other state aid and grant revenue, but you can see that's only $150,000. So, it nets out to about $580,000 we have to add back to the levy. And once again, this is part of the base budget and um trying to keep doing what we're already doing on into 2026. And then just uh briefly here, here are the other uh factors for the tax levy. uh the debt service is is the large one uh that uh doesn't happen that often but this will be an ongoing basis uh moving forward for a number of years for the debt service and then our contractual services uh reflects the increased cost for the contracts. So that was the base budget uh that kind of just kept everything status quo and uh continue the services throughout the year. where the city council uh has been in discussions with staff about some very critical public safety uh staffing needs. That base budget did not include any additional personnel for that. So I just want to be very clear. So that 7 and 12% levy increase did not include any additional funding for staffing. Uh throughout the budget process, we've been looking at how to fund that and how to best do that and whether we should do that. So, the fire department identified the need for 15 additional firefighters due to increasing call volumes and the police department identified the need for seven new employees uh six officers and one civilian employee. We were uh intentional about pursuing grants to help offset the initial cost of these staff additions because we know they were a large cost and if we could get some um other uh funding uh non- tax revenue funding um from u the federal non local tax revenue uh from the federal and state governments. We wanted to pursue that. A little bit more about this public safety sta uh staffing needs. The fire department approached the council in January and talked about uh the need for additional staffing. Uh as can be seen um on this slide here. Uh there have been an amount incredible amount of increased calls from 4,700 in 2017 to $7,500. We have a lot of instances about 60% uh uh of uh overlapping calls where not do we have one we have two or three four and even five sometimes calls at the same time that our firefighters must uh respond to and that impacts not only our level of service uh but it also takes a toll on our firefighters that are on duty at the time. So each call, additional calls as they increase over the years do take a toll on the health and well-being of the firefighters and additional staffing will help um for the uh community to see a a more robust response for uh fire services as we become busier and busier over time. There was a a full load of information on uh January 7, 2025 city council meeting if people are interested in looking at that little bit more. for the police department. The reactive police calls rose from 22,000 in 2017 to 25,000 in 2024. The reactive uh police calls are the calls that are being called in for something that's active. Does not take into account any proactive calls, any community events. These are just our officers responding to somebody uh that's have an emergency or has a need. In addition to just all those calls, we are seeing um uh our staff, our officers, detectives, and record staff uh processing more police reports, 2,000 more in uh uh just in a three-year period uh from 24 to 21. There's not has not been a significant increase in patrol staffing in over two decades. And even with the rising calls as we add more development into our community and population changes as you know uh the growing complexity of incidents uh we have not really grown to address those things. So increasing the patrol staffing does support employee wellness morale and the professional development. And once again the uh city council had a couple times where it was this item was discussed and most recently it's the the July 7th 2025 council meeting. There's information in that packet if people are interested in looking at that. So, understanding that need and trying to sort out how best to address um that, the council on September 22nd adopted a 12% uh levy increase and that was done in order to provide the maximum flexibility for the public safety staffing. The city council, I believe, at the time wanted to keep that still um very relevant and seeing if we could pull that off. However, there were some unknowns. One was grants. Uh we had grants, a safer grant for the firefighters and a cops grant for the police department. Um but at that time when we set that tax levy, it was unknown whether we we would receive those awards. We also have been discussing as a council the creation of a gas and electric utility franchise uh with Excel and um resulting from that franchise fees that could help offset um some of the increases in the levy and also provide more capital funding to our infrastructure funds. However, that discussion was an ongoing discussion and uh we're going to make that decision here I think tonight uh on whether we do that or not. So, at the time, September 22nd, those were the two big unknowns, uh, unknowing if we're going to have the grants and if we were going to do franchise fees to help offset the levy increase. So, uh, just as a comparison, the 12% preliminary tax levy increase compares to the 7 12% that was part of the base budget, but the 12% was what is what is on every tax statement and uh is what is shown that impact is the 12%. Fortunately, uh soon after we set that, uh preliminary tax levy, uh the city was awarded both the safer grant and the uh from FEMA in the amount of $3.9 million will help defay the cost of the firefighters over three years. We're also awarded the cops grant, which will provide half a million dollars to help fund the new uh police patrol positions over the next three years. So, all those do help the bottom line um and provide um some needed relief uh to the city uh for the next few years. However, uh that uh only lowers uh the expected levy if we just use those grants and did not undertake any franchise fees to 11 and a half%. We'd hoped that it would be a little bit lower about 10 and a half% but due to the timing of the safer grant, we needed to start our firefighters in April versus September. So, uh that's uh ate up some of that cost savings. So, as I mentioned, the city council several times have been uh had on their agenda uh on your agenda, electric and gas utility fees. So, on November 25th, just pretty recently, the city council did approve franchise ordinances that uh with Excel Energy that allows them to use the city rights away for electric and gas utilities. As part of that franchise ordinance, it does uh permit the city to impose franchise fees to customers of gas uh for customers of gas and electric. Uh this would apply to all uh customers, including tax exempt properties. Roseville has not had a franchise fee in the in place previously, uh but many cities in the state do, including 12 of the 15 Ramsey County communities. And you can see them here. Just Lauderdale, Roseville, and Whiteird Township uh don't have franchise fees. All the other cities have both. Uh there's a couple uh or most of them have both. A couple just have one uh either electric or gas on there. Now, I mention this not to state that fact that just because everybody else is doing it, we should do it. But it's really um something that the council and the community should be aware as a tool that we can use that's commonly used uh elsewhere to help offset um tax increases that can really under uh pin our capital investments uh in our case or put towards um expenses that um city determines as is necessary. So, it's not just because everybody else is doing it. It's a strategy that I think is worth considering, especially in light of our budget um uh and levy increases that we're looking at this year. So, how the franchise fee would work um would be a monthly charge on uh each customer uh whether it's residential or commercial. Once again, this does take in uh into account tax exempt properties. So, the proposed fees for consideration uh for residential will be $3 per month for electric and $3 per month for gas. A total of $6 a month or $72 per year for the U residential customer. This is not on the taxes. This is a separate bill. Um but we recognize this is still a cost coming out of out of the wallet of the uh property owner. Uh with those fees in place, the city would be able to generate $2.4 $4 million of additional revenue to put towards our budget to help offset the levy increase as well as increase our capital spending. >> Funding, I'm sorry, capital funding. There's a difference between funding and spending. [laughter] So, with the addition of the $2.44 $4 million. Uh we can reallocate $2.1 million of existing levy funds that's currently going towards capital um funding uh and repurpose to help lower the tax levy increase. There are three different scenarios that we've been discussing the last couple of meetings uh that uh we will be considering tonight. Scenario one uh does not implement franchise fees and will result in 11.5% levy increase and that's assuming the funding for the public safety positions. Scenario two implements franchise fees and reallocates existing tax levy to the capital and operational funds and represents uh will result in a 7.59% levy increase. And scenario three implements the franchise fees and reallocates all that uh tax levy, that $2.1 million towards the operating funds and lowers that to 6.22%. Just a little bit more about each of those scenarios just to make sure it's clear. So scenario one uh includes all the base budget expenditures that I talked about previously. It adds the public safety personnel. Uh that includes the use of the safer and copper uh cops grant. Uh the firefighters will start April 15th. There be no franchise fees implemented and no additional capital spending. So once again, that's 11.54%. Or $15 to >> clarify. No additional capital funding. >> Funding. Yes. I I I Yes. Thank you. >> In other words, no additional dollars going to our capital savings accounts. So >> that's correct. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry I keep mixing that up. Uh so that leads to uh for the median valued home of $378,15.71 more per month with that 11.5 12% um uh tax increase levy uh increase for the median valued home. Scenario two is a little bit more complicated. So once again like scenario one, it does uh include the base budget expenditures and adds the public safety personnel along with the use of the grants. Uh as four as $2.4 4 million of franchise fees are imp are um raised as part of the implementation of the franchise fees. We would uh look to replace uh $1.6 million of um uh existing levy dollars uh that are going to the street fund, street light fund, pathway parking lot fund, and public works equipment fund. And also supplement the vehicle equipment fund for the police department and engineering services fund. We would also reallocate some parts of that uh existing levy to other uh vehicle and equipment funds that are listed there to help strengthen those funds. And we would put $1.2 million of that existing levy. This is not new levy, existing levy towards uh to uh the the levy that we have uh proposed to offset that levy increase. And once again, that would get us down to 7.59% levy increase. And that uh average taxpayer, the median value taxpayer would see $10.61 more per month with that levy uh increase. If you include the franchise fees, which we can't forget about, um that's another $6 per month. So overall, the uh homeowner would see $16.61 more per month. Scenario three, very similar to scenario two. The big difference is that we would use all that $1.6 $6 million uh of ex that's currently in the capital funds towards the operation budget and not uh supplement some of those vehicle and equipment funds that we were doing in scenario two. And that would lead to a 6.2 per 2% increase with a $883 month impact for the median valued home. If you include the franchise fees on top of that, that's $14.83. So just uh in brief here, here's the different scenarios the council will be considering. Uh 11.54%, 7.59% or 6.22 uh%. And you can see the monthly impact for the median value at home. And obviously there's probably a thousand other scenarios uh you could look at, but these are the ones we have been talking about uh for the last couple months. And just more graphically to put this into perspective here, uh the this bar chart on the far left represents what the median valued home paid in 2025, $117.95 or 95 um per month. Under scenario one, that uh median valued homeowner would pay $15.71 and that is all additional tax levy. Under scenario two, uh they would pay $16.61 more with $10.61 new tax levy and $6 per month for uh the utility fees. And then for scenario three, they'd paying $8.83 and $6 more $8.83 I should say in tax levy and $6 more in franchise fees. The uh bar on the far right is represents the finance commission's recommendation of no more than a 10% levy increase which um um works out to be $13.72 cents more per month. It just gives you some perspective on the ver uh various options and scenarios that's under consideration tonight. Couple uh final slides here. Just want to uh point out um our property tax dollars and what is the uh levy actually paying for. As you can see as we break down the uses here, 56% of our uh levy funds are paid for public safety, police, and fire. That's followed up by parks and recreation and public works and facilities. All pretty uh core services for the community uh that uh u services and programs that the city um routinely um um provides the city here. So really important core activities here. So any change to um our levy does affect all four of those uh functions uh very seriously. So it's something I just want to make sure people understand a little bit more about where their dollars are going towards. This is a very busy chart so I won't uh spend too much time on it but this is showing the overall impact for the uh median value single family home. this factors in the city levy, the EDA levy, which is a fairly small amount, franchise fees if they're um adopted, and then also the utility rates that will be coming up later in the night. So, as you can see um in 2025, uh folks uh were would pay $187.74 for all those things combined. Uh once again with the utilities, they haven't been adopted. Uh but as we looked to uh what's being proposed, we ran them through the scenarios and this is assumes about a 4,000 gallons per month of water usage. Uh just to benchmark that a little bit. Scenario one, uh they'd pay $25.84 or $1810 more per month. With scenario two, $26.75 or $191 more. And then with scenario three, $24.98 or $1724 more. So once again, just trying to put them in relative numbers so people can understand the impact because there's a lot of numbers as part of this. Uh a little bit of a miscellaneous conversation. I just want to bring this up. This is kind of one loose end that uh we haven't sorted out. Uh as you know uh in August, new tracks uh came forward. They're currently providing a circulator loop uh through the community uh for uh primarily seniors uh to hop on a smaller uh busiz vehicle to go to a variety of places around Roseville in the area mostly shopping but also institutional things like the library. Uh they have been uh operating that since I believe May and a few years ago they also operated that precoid. Uh they're looking for some financial support to to help um underwrite um their operation. They do receive donations and grant dollars and are asking for the city to provide $7,000 annually to help fund that. Uh the map that's up there, it's probably hard to read in the audience, but stops at a variety of senior uh uh facilities and uh drops people off at a variety of spots around the around the community. This is something that has been uh growing in the east metro and wiper lake, Venice Heights, Modern Midi and Forest Lake all have a service in operation and uh they do um all those cities do uh provide some assistance to new track. So something for the city council to consider. If we were to adopt any if you were to consider that and approve that, we would have to change our resolution numbers that in there because the the resolution numbers with the budget and levy do not include uh that $7,000. So we would have to pause if that's something you want to do and just do that uh quick number change and then uh we can go from there. So one last thing um we talked a lot about the increases so that impacts all of us. Uh this is something that um uh we want to make sure we have people aware of variety of options they can do to help find some relief. On the slide is a listing of a variety of programs that the state uh has for um helping um um dealing with rising property taxes through tax rebate program. There's a variety of programs um based on incomes if you're a senior citizen, disabled veteran uh or just uh permanently or disabled uh uh citizen. There's information on the Department of Revenues website and the Ramsey County Property Tax website that I would urge people to take a look at. people have any questions and don't know where to look um they can certainly reach out to our finance department and we can um show them the right direction uh to go to. So that's the extent of my uh presentation. Uh I think the next steps here tonight is uh if you have any questions for me or Miss Petri, we'd be happy to answer them. Uh after that uh the council should conduct the public hearing. Uh after the public hearing is concluded, uh city council and staff can respond to any questions that are raised and then the council will have discussion. uh in deliberation on what they want to do with the budget and there's a series of actions we need to take uh tonight uh budget resolution, city tax levy resolution, EDA tax levy resolution, and then possible consideration of the franchise fees. So with that, I will pause and see if there's any questions. Be happy to answer them. >> All right. Uh thank you, Mr. Treasur, Miss Petri. Uh count questions from the council. Council member Strong. >> Thank you. Um Mr. Treasure, can you please um remind us what the percentage of the franchise fee is paid by the resident versus the businesses? >> So, yep. Let me just make sure I get this right here. Under the proposed fees, uh residents would pay 40% of uh the franchise fees and and the um non-residential will pay 60%. And just just as a way to uh compare that right um in Roseville residential uh user I'm sorry got the wrong stat here. So uh residential customers comprise 88% of the accounts and will pay 40% of the fees and the non-residential customers represent 12% of the total accounts and will pay 60% of those franchise fees. >> Thank you. >> Other questions? Uh, excuse me. For staff, >> I just, this isn't a question, but a comment in relation to some of the things that I've seen online was a question about um some of the staffing issues. And um, I think it wasn't something that Mr. Trean mentioned in this and this is something we've talked about since January when the firefighters brought this forward and we've had discussions throughout the year, but I think it's really important to note that paid family medical leave is not optional. Um, most companies have to pay a point44% um, contribution based on gross wages. The city was able to negotiate a contract where we only pay 3.375.375 instead of 044. So, we've lowered our overall cost in that, but it's not an option. Every employee in the state of Minnesota has access to paid family leave. And this one of the reasons this is so important for our uh firefighters and for our cops is that this provides up to 20 weeks of paid leave for our staff, many of whom are in the childbearing child having ages. Um we have a very young force in public safety. Currently they receive eight hours 80 hours a year. And if you rece you're working 12-hour shifts, that's 6 and a half days a year vacation. So now if you have access to 20 weeks of vacation regardless of how many hours you work in that week, suddenly you have staffing issues like crazy. You suddenly have all these people who are out having children and it's not that they get to choose. They have the right to participate in this. This is every employee in the state of Minnesota. So this is something that's going to deeply impact. We've had a lot of leaves already, but the expected is that 30 to 50% increase in leave participation next year based on this new law. And so you can't underestimate, oh, I'm fine. But you have to understand that 15 more or however many more public safety people are needed in order to just make sure these these um items can go out onto the street because we will have people who have the right and the opportunity to be at home with their new families. And that is something that is going to happen whether or not we staff them with more people. And so I just saw a lot of this online over the weekend and I think it's really important for people to see this impact of something that we cannot say no to. It is a law that's going into effect on one and every single person has access to it and will have the ability to take it whether or not we choose to allow them if we stand in their way. We are liable for all these other things. So, we have to provide an opportunity. Otherwise, the the trucks and uh cars we have now won't even have bodies in them if we don't find a way to make sure we are staffing appropriately. And it's not quite that dire, but I want to make sure we're realistic that the people are there and need to be able to um exercise this right that they are given. >> I do want to just correct one thing there. I think you had referred to it as vacation and it's we need to be clear that that it's paid family leave that you have to qualify for. You have to have circumstances that it's not vacation. It's not vacation time, right? >> They currently earn 80 hours of vacation per year, 6.5 days if you're working 12-hour shifts. This is not this is but it doesn't there are many reasons. It's very broad of why you could be away caring for a family member, caring for yourself, caring for your child or bonding with a new child. There are many reasons. It is not vacation. It is paid family leave. Many many of the situations are medical. Sorry if that was >> No, I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. >> Uh and the other thing I I to just on that point, I think it would be fair to say that the situations that were driving the decisions related to personnel and and public safety. Um it's not entirely 100% based on the family medical leave. Certainly there are forms of leave people can take. Now, I think one of the issues we were finding in in both departments was that um especially in the fire department is that um you know, just people being out because they're out sick or those types of things, you know, we were we would have situations as Mr. Trean mentioned where multiple calls would come in at about the same time and we couldn't fully staff the vehicles going out to all those calls. And what that results in is a decreased level of service and they start to have to triage calls sort of on the fly uh and move people around uh to hopefully uh address the the medical situations that people are facing. Uh and so the decision and the recommendation was uh to try to make sure we staff adequately to deal with some of those outages that just normally occur with human employees uh and make sure that we're able to address those. Certainly the paid f paid family medical leave doesn't help the situation. and it makes it more challenging. Uh but certainly I I don't want to >> underestimate that the impacts of just the existing status quo prior to that going into effect uh as to how it impacts the the the delivery of public safety to members of the community. So to round out that thought, were there other questions or thoughts from council members? Just to follow up on that, mayor, um we did have two studies done for the police department and for the fire department >> and those were in-depth studies that looked at when calls were coming in, what type of calls were coming in and that information is available, I believe, Mr. Tudgeon, on the city website. Is that correct? >> Yeah, and I mentioned it in the the slides on the January 27th, 2025 meeting for the fire department and July 7th meeting uh 2025 for the police department. Thank you. >> Right. All right. Well, now enough of us talking. Uh we want to hear from members of the public. Uh and so we'll kind of just go through what the uh rules of the road for that is. Um and the first uh part of it is is that uh we want to make sure we do hear from people in the public. And so this is this is an important part of the process. Um what we do is we have uh two microphones at the table. uh we can have one person waiting to speak while the previous person is finishing up their comments. So don't be shy about uh having a seat in the second chair uh to be ready to go when the previous person is finished. Um we also do have uh the ability for if you want to be the next person uh to we've got some empty seats in the front rows uh on each side that you could certainly kind of queue up in uh to be ready to go uh to speak just to keep the process moving. Uh it's probably important to note uh by council rule for any public comment uh we do uh set a three-minute time limit per speaker uh which I try to enforce gently and uh as generously as I can uh but uh you can say a lot in three minutes and certainly you don't have to use the whole three minutes either. Uh but if you're if you're continuing past that time and uh need to kind of wrap up your thoughts I'll give you a reminder of that. Um, the other piece of it is to uh introduce yourself at the beginning of your comments with your name uh and either your street address or your uh street itself uh to help identify you for the public record. This is a public hearing. Um, if your name is a name that uh, you know that I wouldn't be able to spell by guessing uh, very successfully, uh, we do have the clipboard there and you can just once you're finished with your uh, comments or questions, you can step off to the side, let the next person start speaking and just write your name so that we've got the spelling for the record. Uh, we would appreciate that because we want to make sure we're respectful to you and and your name. Um, direct questions and comments to the city council. Um, we will make a note of questions that might be raised as part of people's uh, speaking to us this evening. Uh, and once everybody has had a chance to speak, we'll go back and review those questions as part of our process. If it's a technical question that we can provide an answer on fairly straightforward, you know, you know, why is this this amount or something like that, certainly we'll make sure and attempt to do that as part of that process. If it's more of a philosophical question as to why are we thinking about doing it this way or that way, uh I think the council will have to address that as part of our deliberation on the budget and the tax levy questions. Uh so you'll have to hear it through that process. Um but once again, don't hesitate to ask questions. We're happy to as I said make a note of those and provide responses as especially on the technical type questions as best we can. Um also I would note that you do get one chance uh to speak per this item. So that uh uh you'd have to make sure that you cover what you need to cover. And if you can't finish your comments in um the threeminut time frame, you can certainly write down any thoughts or or finish, you know, your your thoughts or questions, comments, get those to Mr. Trean. Uh he will make sure and get those to the council for our consideration this evening. Um we do have a couple of emails that we received over the last several days, I think since our last hearing, which are part of our information this evening. Uh so we'll have that to uh take into account as we do our deliberation as well. Uh council, was there anything that I missed in the uh the rules of the road? Uh probably the first couple of items which none of us can remember anymore. >> Um but with that uh we would ask that uh uh if you're prepared to speak this evening, feel free to come on up and have a seat at the microphone. Once again, direct your question or comment to the council. Uh and we look forward to hearing from you. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Greg Ryan. I do uh live in the Waso Hills Court area. Um it's just astonishing to me that the cost of living in Roseville has been doing nothing but going up. I've been here for 30 years and my costs have been going up exponentially with the um the cost of living has only gone up 3 or 4%. And I thought there was a rule that you couldn't raise taxes more than the cost of living, the the consumer price index. So that's a failure on your part. Um the uh I want to go into the water utility because I'm a plumbing contractor and I've been a contractor for 40 years with a 75 year company on University Avenue. And uh regional water does not elevate or they don't do price increases for usage. So you guys have your water usage elevate over a certain threshold of use. Regional water does not do that. So I'm not sure if it's legal for you guys to additionally c you know have So if it's one unit it's $1. If it's three units is $6. So, you elevate after a certain unit amount of water, which uh I quit watering the uh common areas on the public areas. I used to do that all the time until I got a $900 water bill. I've got six people living at my home. So, when you list the PE or the amount of water usage on an average, you're not including high occupancy dwellings. um and just we're losing residences because it's becoming nonaffordable. You put a half a percent on the sales tax which is going to drive people last June or something. You put a half a percent sales tax on all sales in Roseville. That's going to thwart any future business ambitions to open up a business or a retail store. And then the people that um actually buy that are usually residents of Roseville who have to pay more elderly who are on a fixed income. You're killing these people. They don't have that extra money to pay for all these extra goodies that you guys propose. Um the uh parks and wreck. We have more public land than we do possibly uh land for residents, commercial, you know, we're two taking two different tiers on the utilities, the gas and electric. And we have to remember that these businesses provide jobs and they provide services to the residences of Roseville. So, we're taking the utilities um gas and electric and we're almost three timesing their cost. They use so much more. So, if you're in a high usage of gas and electric, you should probably get a reduction. Um and and that's about all I got to say because you're making it less u less affordable for kids that want to come in here and have families. It's just it's just not reachable. my son is looking for a house and I said, "Don't look in Roseville because you're going to be killed after about a 10-year period. You can go out a couple more counties and just drive in." So, it's just becoming a place that's become uh too expensive for the younger kids that are just starting out. Um, I guess that's about all I have. And you just have to do a better job of reducing the costs of the consumers, the residences in Roseville. My cost >> four minutes, so I'm going to ask. >> Okay. But my costs have done nothing but gone up. So you just really need to do a better job. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hello. Welcome. >> Hi. Um I'm Steven McLoon. Uh my wife and I live on Glick Lane. I'm here because I'm upset that the city portion of my property tax next year is going up 17.8%. That's with no home improvements. We had no exclusions this year and we have no exclusions next year. I'm upset to see that the city budgets going up 7.5% not counting the uh franchise fee that I just learned about that you're going to charge me. Um, and inflation on the other hand, most economists are estimating it at about 3%. Social Security decided to give us a 2.8% increase in our our social security checks next year. So, I I think your increase in the in the city budget at 7.5% is uncalled for with our current inflation situation. So you guys need to rain down your the increase in your budget every year. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Hi, my name is Dan Young. I live in on Hills Court North on the [clears throat] east side of Roseville. Uh we've been Roseville residents for 42 years. I built two houses in the city. Our two kids went to Roseville schools. We love it here. I volunteer with Rachel Bogs and her team. Um the the reason I'm here is that um our property tax statements came and the first shocking thing was to see that over the last two years our home values increased 20%. That sounds great, but we can't spend that. Called the city, got the assessor out. He reme-measured the house and said, "Yeah, there's probably something we can do." We looked at our we looked at comps in the neighborhood. We looked at on uh real estate sites online and the price they set our house at was way above $50,000 over those numbers. I have no idea how the county is doing that, but I did ask why this is happening. And one answer I got was they're shifting the burden of property taxes from commercial properties to homeowner properties because of the valuations lowering being lowered in commercial properties because of lack of occupancy, especially in the city of St. Paul. The shifting of that from commercial properties to homeowner properties is not fair to us. And as a result of that, our property taxes went up 19% last year. This year, they're going to go up 14%. In Roseville last year, the property taxes went up 22% on our home, and this year, they're going up 17.5%. It's unsustainable, and I'm just hoping something can be done. I I need an answer to the question is why or is uh is the burden of property tax being shifted from commercial properties to homeowner properties? Why is that happening? Why is that fair and why do we have to sustain that? That's all. Thank you. Thank you for your comments and your question. Hello. Welcome. >> Hi, I'm Dan Bergman. I live over on County Road B next to the new uh community center and uh I want to reiterate what the other people have said. Uh I looked at my statements. I'm kind of anal. I keep everything for everything. >> So [clears throat] for the last eight years, I'll just go back eight years. I've got 30 years worth of stuff there. uh my property value has increased 36.06%. In that time frame, the last 8 years, my property taxes have gone up 56.53%. That's 6% a year average. Uh as the other gentleman said, uh I'm I'm lucky enough I don't know how you are. I'm lucky enough I have a state pension. I work for the state of Minnesota. Uh but unfortunately, that only goes up 1% a year and I got a 2.8% 8% increase in my social security. I looked at the cost of living cola for social security for the last 8 years, 22.1%. I looked at the uh consumer price index, 29% over the last 8 years. And yet my property taxes are going up 56%. Uh, and I am surprised that five of you up there aren't outraged yourself as being Roso residents that your taxes have gone up probably double digits. And you're not talking about cutting things and trying to find a way to be more responsible with our money. And I'm thankful that you got the two grants, but I worked in the state and I used to look go for uh crime laboratories to look at their grant monies. And I told him all the time, just beware, your grants are going to run out and all that extra personnel and equipment is going to be on your own budget. So when those things run out in 3 years, this is going to be peanuts jumping up 16%. It is probably going to go up 30, 40, 50% on my taxes because of the additional. Not that we don't need them, but I'm just going to be aware that this is going to jump tremendously. So I I it's just a venting. Uh I don't know if there's anything you can do about it now, but I will certainly be back earlier in next spring to uh reiterate these same concerns and that you control the expenditure somehow. >> Thank you. >> Right. Thank you for your comments. >> Hello and welcome. >> My name is Sharon Sparks. I live on Little Bay Road and [clears throat] I um agree with all the gentlemen that have spoken so far. I appreciate the rearch they've done. I didn't go into that much depth, but um we have been a resident since 2001 and uh our home was built by my parents in um 1971. So, I have a history going back that far. And what is happening with these taxes is just unbelievable. And our home alone, um, our taxes, if if you implemented, and I understand that it's going to probably go down, it would be a 17.82% increase for 2026. >> [snorts] >> My husband and I went and looked at the increase from 2024 to 2026. 51.44%. That's unacceptable. Um I don't know. I If you can prove that you're trying to cut costs, is there I'd like that answered. And I'd also like to know how I can find out like some of the positions. It seems like the personnel expense is really high. Um what the positions all are and what they make. I could only find the three top paying positions. And then I also to end I'd like to you talk about this utility fee. Why aren't you calling it a tax? It seems to me it's another tax. Um I'm done. So thank you. Great. >> Thank you for your comments. Good evening. Pardon my pardon my nervousness, but my name is Eric Elvin Lexington. I've been here. >> I think you're nervous. >> Oh, anyway. [laughter] >> Oh, don't worry. I I can add to that. Don't worry. Um, >> sorry to interrupt you. >> That's okay. I'm I'm the youngest. I'm used to it. [laughter] Uh, I'm new to Roseville, not new to the Twin Cities. Grew up around here. Went to Roseville for all that kind of stuff. Love I love Roseville. I'm so happy to say that through every possible problem I did or I encountered, I still managed to buy a property in Roseville. And I love it. I love it. I like mowing my lawn. I like being happy. I like saying hi to the neighbors, fixing their bike. I hate my other neighbors because it's an apartment building that all of you know about and is making my life incredibly challenging. And on that note, what I'm here to vent about is I find it funny that my home value has now gone down like I think it was like 20 or $25,000, but my taxes went up 18%. So, I'm either really stupid and I don't understand, which could be, but what am I getting out of this? What's the ROI for me? because I get the letters from the uh uh what's it called? Neighborhood improvement program because the neighbors damaged my fence and it fell before I even moved in. I got those letters. I'm in almost constant contact with engineers here because they're putting a sidewalk pathway walkway something in front of my house and apparently you have to keep sunflowers a certain distance from the right of way in the curb. I know that that is a uh what do you call it? County issue, but I'm still in the city of Roseville. For the lay man, it's when you're threatened $500 a day for sunflowers that if you do not dispatch them, kill. So, I'm I'm just venting here to you about that where I'm trying to be the good citizen. I'm mowing my lawn. I'm saying hi to the neighbors. I take care of the drain in front of my house cuz, you know, it's just the right thing to do. and to come back and be told, "Well, you've done zero improvements on your house, but it's worthless, and now we're going to tax the hell out of you." That's what I get kind of really upset about. And I just kind of, you know what? So, there you go. That's all I really have to say. Thank you for your time. >> No, thank you for being here this evening. Thanks for your comments. >> Hello. >> Hi, my name is Kate Libra. I live on Merrill Street in Roseville. um lived in our house for 41 years. Um my taxes uh proposed uh are going up 25 and a half%. And my question is, is there no upper limit as to how much they can increase every year? >> That's it. >> All right. Thank you. Your question is noted. We'll see if we can answer that. Hello, my name is Diane. I live off of Stone Avenue and I'm listening to people having complain about the taxes going up. Mine's going up 37.88%. How can that be? 37.88% 88% higher taxes for my property. Over $2,000. I can't afford it. >> That's we can do. >> Thank you for being here and letting us know. >> Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to speak at the public hearing about the uh budget and tax levy and fees? >> My name is Dean. I live on Shrier Avenue and I've listened to all the people say that stuff about other increases and I totally agree with that and I'm like we want to come up with a solution to get our property taxes down. Some of the stuff that bothers me that I've grown up or been here a long time is the fact that when I first moved in the police presence in my neighborhood, and I was working at the time, I'd see a car come through my neighborhood uh on a daily basis, which I liked. You know, now I don't rarely see them. And what I'm seeing happening is people things are getting out of hand and it's snowballing with issues that are minor issues and I think but now I'm told is we're not going to do these minor issues because we don't have the the uh people to enforce these things like the plowing they used to do if it's over 3 in on the streets you had to get your cars off the street and you get a ticket. Well, they're not doing that stuff and all that stuff. I'm saying the these minor things note when tabs are expired and you're not pulling cars over for expired tabs. That's money that goes back to the city, can take care of our roads, which I think would hopefully reduce our property taxes and kind of help us out that way. But when you're not doing those things, and I just see it snowballing in my neighborhood, you get people parking the wrong way on the streets, you know? I mean, some they sound petty, but those things, they add up and they snowball. And those things, if they take care of some of those things, I think would bring our property could bring our property taxes down. 37% for somebody's property tax to go up is unreal. Mine didn't go up quite as much, but it still went up four times as much from last year to this year, which is is is not real. I mean, how anybody can afford the houses in Roseville as a young family at that price. You're talking 378 is a medium family house. I don't Where's a $378,000 house in Roseville? There really isn't that many of them that way. So, that's really all I got to say. I would like to just find other opportunities to bring money back to the city to bring our property taxes down. And some of those things I think involves enforcing things a little more. M. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for your comments. >> Other members of the public who wish to speak uh to the uh proposed 2026 budget and tax levy and utility fees, etc. One more opportunity. All right, we thank everybody for being here and we'll go ahead and close the public hearing then and we'll move to the council consideration. Uh, we did have a number of questions that were asked and so I do want to make sure I provide answers to those and you may or may not want to stick around for those, but all right, we'll answer them anyway. Um, I did want to note a couple things and and I may have to look to staff for a couple of them as well. Um, so, uh, as to a rule to limit tax increases to the cost of living, uh, that is not something that's that's in effect in the state of Minnesota. Um, I know sometimes in the past, uh, sort of at the at the whim of the legislature because it changes from legislature to legislature. Uh, such types of limits have been imposed on cities on sort of a short-term basis, but it's been probably >> at least 10 or more years since the last time that was in place. Um, and generally speaking, I think what those uh have had associated with them is a is a bunch of exceptions uh that are part of that law. And a lot of times cities are able to to use the exceptions because they are uh allowed to cities to do that. And so it's it's it's not as hard and fast of a limit as uh as it might have seemed to have been. I I think the biggest challenge uh that that uh cities and other entities face is is the disproportionality of some of the costs we see to uh cost of living indexes and things like that. And so it's a challenge to try to work through that. U so but that's starting to get off of the subject of answering the question. So I'll I'll move uh beyond that. Um on the uh water rates in this city. So uh the uh only thing that we do in terms of usage is is that uh it's recommended by um and I'm trying to remember exactly which entity it is but cities are recommended to impo impose what's known as uh conservation rates where higher usage uh leads to higher rates. We still charge for I believe it's it's uh uh it's a what's the word I'm looking for? Like if you for the first portion of the usage it's at the lower rate and then for each incremental increase in usage that increased portion of your usage is then at a higher rate and so it's to try to incentivize households to um be do more conservation of water uh as their usage goes. But uh I think at the time when the council uh looked at and has made adjustments over the years to those rates uh we've tried to be very conscious of uh larger households uh because that can dis you know they can have disproportionately higher uh you know usage just because there's more people in the household. And so we've tried to to balance those impacts as part of considering what the ultimate rates are at the different tiers. Um, and that's not to say that we're we're perfect in where we are now, but we're not at this point anyway proposing to make any changes to that. Um, and it is correct that uh while St. Paul Water doesn't charge a different rate based on usage um by individual households because they're not tracking that, they're just charging how much goes through the meter for the city. Um there is that provision that cities are encouraged to have that conservation rate structure. Uh the other thing I'll say is that Staple Water just did a pretty major capital project uh at their facility off of Rice Street. Uh and so they had a pretty significant increase or increases over several years on their uh what they charge the city uh that comes through the meter. And so that's part of what the city's trying to reflect in our changes to our water rates as well. That's water rates. Uh the sales tax um actually certainly residents do pay a portion of the sales tax. uh not necessarily directly related to our our sales t or our property tax levy discussion this evening but certainly it's acknowledged I think if I remember from the information we had gotten from the University of Minnesota analysis that was 40% or less of the residents >> 64% of non-residents will be paying the sales tax purchases in Roseville essentially 64% of purchases subject to tax in Roseville are non-residents uh which when you think about it we are a fairly major retail hub for the region so that that it's not to say there isn't impact certainly on Roseville residents. Um I just wanted to provide the ratio. Uh let's see. So oh the shift on uh property or shift on property tax burden from uh commercial to residential, it is not a specific decision that was made by anybody. uh it was simply a a state of the assessed values as they came out of the county from year to year. Uh it can shift both directions depending on which classes of property are increasing faster or increasing less. And in this particular year um I can't remember what the the it's very difficult to to gauge for commercial properties unless you look at it overall uh because there's so many different property values and types of commercial properties. But in general, I think there was, as was noted, a bit of a shift from residential to commercial uh overall. But it's strictly just based on working within the state's system of assigning classes to properties and then using the uh levy that each entity certifies to the county to divide the total dollars that the city say asks for by all the different class types and that determines the rates that are paid by those class types. And so that's really where that all comes from. it that shift is really primarily driven by assessed values of the properties. And so that from year to year can change. It can go either direction. Uh and this year it sounds like it's been a bit of a shift to uh from commercial to residential. And I just want to confirm that that's that is actually the case. Yeah. Okay. Um so that hopefully helps answer that. Oh, as to um is there any kind of limit on the increase? Actually, I believe under state law there is there is a rebate program or refund program for property tax uh uh payers if their increase is more than a certain amount per year or at least there has been. I don't know if that's still in effect. Seems to be still in effect. Um so you have to and it may or may not be income based but I thought it was just strictly based on the value income based. >> Okay. It's income based. All right. >> No. >> Oh, it's not. There are some there. Okay. I was going to say yeah, our finance director is saying no. I think you're saying no. So, but we can get confirmation on that. There are other programs that are income based. Uh, but I believe that the rebate based on just your increase from year to year um is not necessarily income based, but it may also be subject to some of your value changes on your house and things like that. >> That's correct. There is one that is income based, but there also is one um which previously if your taxes increased by 10% or more, you could qualify regardless of your income. the state actually reduced that. So if your taxes increased by 6% or more, you could qualify for that rebate. >> And that is something that I believe you file at the time you file your your state income. >> Y >> yeah, Department of Revenue has >> PR or whatever it is. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. >> All right. As to the situation, I don't believe the gentleman's still here. With the value going down and the tax going up, I [clears throat] think I would talk to the county about that to find out if there was some kind of problem with the calculation because generally speaking, especially if the value went down as much as he was indicating, I mean, you know, just on that basis, the tax should have should have gone down. I can't I mean, it may not have gone down as much as the property value went down just based on the differential between the two. But that's just really surprising to me to hear and and that's all I know about it. So, I just would encourage folks if you have that same situation to check with the county and check the calculations. Um, I think that was the questions I had noted. Were there others that other council members had noted that we need to make sure and address? >> Um, just how we're looking at cutting costs maybe. >> Right. I think that may be something we have to work through in our in our discussion more. I may but maybe the um city manager can talk about how they keep looking at ways of when you're presenting the budget that you're really taking a look at um how to reduce things if you can and better ways of doing it. So there in other words there is an effort to >> Yes. Uh council member Sharter every year we do look as we um set up the budget for the next year uh about our cost and where we can reduce and save um costs if we are budgeting too much. We certainly want to get to more realistic numbers. If we can find better ways to do things for uh less dollars, we will do that. And often times we do find a lot of cuts. However, the increases that um we also have to also have to factor in and nets out as an increase. So we do what we can. I know uh that might sound uh that we should be doing more, but we do every year on a regular basis do look at all of our budgets and uh look to see where we can reduce without impacting services. Um and uh but oftentimes it's overrun by the amount of increases that we need to just to do the continued services and programs that we're doing. And that's what I was talking about with the base budget. We did make some cuts in there, but the overall increase was still enough to raise the levy by 7 and a half uh%. So, that's just the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in. >> Mr. Treasur, can you also speak um we are an employer and so we also have had um healthc care increases and other things that we have for our employees. Can you speak to some maybe some of those things? >> Yeah, this year it depends on the year, but this year our health uh insurance increases went up 12%. Uh we tried to budget 5%. Um so uh that's all we have in the budget here and the rest of that is on the employees. The remaining increases on the um cost of the employee as well as some of the plan changes that happen just naturally every year. Um so um that is borne by the employees. that we do have increased healthcare costs every single year just like most of us almost everybody in this room has to face that unfortunately >> we did >> mayor >> can I just mention the tooth and taxation for the county is still this week yet um and just remember that the property tax is a composite of all the different parts so to um you know you certainly are welcome yet to go to this county meeting on Thursday and And but I think making sure you're involved as early in the year as possible um is really helpful when you have an opportunity to go and ask for some um your home to be evaluated and such. I think it really helps um because obviously we've been talking about this for nine months so far this year. So, >> well, and I think that's a good point is to uh when you get your value or when you get your home evaluation notice or home value notice from the county in I think it's March or April time frame, um definitely make a note of how to contact the county and uh and you know appeal or contest the value. Uh and the reason is is that you can imagine that all of the commercial property owners in Roseville when they get their notices, they have an army of people in many cases who are going right to the county. Uh for instance, one of our largest retail taxpayers in Roseville, property taxpayers, uh don't even have to name names. Um pretty much on a routine basis goes to the county to contest their value. And certainly they are benefiting from that in terms of their total tax bill at the uh end of the year. And I and just once again as to how the mechanics of the system works, the city goes through a budgeting process. We determine what all of our costs are. We try to make adjustments and reductions wherever we can. Uh ultimately we come up with the total amount. We subtract out the amount that's paid by utility fees fe fees and what those are proposed to be. The amount that's paid by any other sources. Whatever's left is the amount that we certify to the county as the total tax levy for the city of Roseville. Then the county goes through a process of dividing that amount by all of the property values essentially proportionally based on the types of properties they are. Uh and that ultimately is what your tax is. So we have very little ability to control what any individual properties tax is. Uh all we can do is determine how much uh we we can and should spend and how much of that is not covered by non-levy sources. Whatever is left is essentially what then we certify to the county uh just to help understand sort of the big picture of the process. So uh your valuation as as it relates to other people's is important because that can shift the burden. We talked about shifting burdens earlier. uh it can shift the burden even between individual uh uh residential properties. If your value goes up faster than a neighbor does, you know, the burden is going to shift more to you. Um we could get into a debate about the fairness of the property tax system and I think I'd be on a lot of your sides as far as the fairness of it. Uh I think that we probably could have a better way of funding local government. Um we don't have that. That's what we've been uh given by the state legislature. cities are created by and are very much beholden to the structure that is put in place by the state. Uh and so we have to work with the tools that we have. Um I believe that kind of gets to most of the the technical questions. We do have some of our discussion about uh funding levels and things like that. Uh did you just have a clarification? >> I just want a clarification either you or judge. Do you have a dollar figure that the half percent tax when it went into effect? How much you generated so far? >> Okay. So, we do have a question about just the sales tax, which once again isn't part of what we're talking about here. But to answer the question, Mr. Trean, I think we've got some fresh information from the state on that actually. >> Yeah. So, we do get it on a monthly basis. Um, I think we've only had two months of collection and we've got about a million dollars of sales tax revenue. We estimate between five to $6 million per year we generated through the sales tax. And just to point out that sales tax is very specific use. We can only use it for a maintenance operation center. We can't use it for operations and property tax. So that was a special legislative bill that was passed to allow us to have the referendum and so on and so forth. So it's about5 to $6 million a year, but that unfortunately can't impact any of the property taxes. >> Yep. >> All right. And thanks for that question. I believe now we as a council have some uh decisions to make and some discussions to have. Um and the way we've kind of structured it is first to talk about the budget and the spending side of it. Uh because those decisions can drive then what uh ultimately we decide in in relation to the um to the uh funding of those expenditures. And I do want to note just to start off the conversation uh you know t the discussion about uh cutting expenditures as a service providing organization the city is extremely heavily uh into personnel costs. That's one of the biggest chunks of of what we do. Um and so when we talk about reducing costs oftentimes it is a reduction in personnel. Uh and then that translates to reductions in services to the community. Um and we've we've actually seen Andrew Trean and I were talking about that earlier today. We had uh an exercise a few years ago now probably more than 10 years ago where we prioritized you know we attempted to prioritize all the city services uh and some of the the lowest priority although not zero priority services were things like uh public skating rinks in our parks and things like that. and the city manager at that time had proposed to uh eliminate some number of the ranks if not more so the program. Um and um there was a council chambers full of residents who are very uh disappointed that the city was going to make that change. Uh so it just kind of shows how difficult it is. It doesn't mean that those kinds of questions shouldn't be asked and shouldn't be discussed and we shouldn't be looking at how we can change how we do business. I think one of the things that the city has been very good about is uh looking at efficiency and uh using you know computerization using programs using things like that that are available uh to try to limit the the need to have more people doing the work. I I think the other thing just as an editorial comment on my part and I've said it at previous budget discussions I think the city of Roseville has been a very lean organization for for many many many years. Um I think that where some of the debate might happen in the public is uh for instance how much should we do in terms of parks and recreation programs? How much should we do in terms of uh other things that the city does perhaps assistance to to building projects or or development things like that and we can have those conversations but ultimately a lot of what drives our our expenses as I mentioned before is the personnel side of it. It's because we're a service entity and so um um to to to do a lot of significant cutting starts to really have an impact on on the services that we provide to people. Once again, it doesn't mean we shouldn't have conversations about how to do things better. But I think we've really been working uh as a pretty lean organization already and and that doesn't necessarily make it feel better when you get a tax bill that looks like it does. Um hopefully we can um can continue to be good stewards of the city's money and the the dollars that we do collect from our taxpayers and ultimately the public is the judge of that. Uh so that kicks off the conversation on the budget itself. Um I think probably the maybe the first item to talk about is do we want to address the the new tracks request? Um and and if so, how? And so I'll kind of open it up for the council feedback on that. Council member Strong. >> Um, as many people know, we also had a presentation from Peter Lindström at the Met Council a couple weeks ago. And while I think it's great that we have this opportunity with new tracks, I have a hard time um when it is a duplication of services that are already provided to our residents in the city, especially since seniors can participate um having door-todoor transit within Roseville at their own time frame and in their own leisure for a dollar. Um and off service where new tracks is um pretty specific about when they can go and when they can't. Um I think if we didn't have that opportunity and in the past it was a wonderful asset but I do I do struggle with adding it to our budget when we are already concerned about budget impacts and it has a lot of duplication of um resources and availability. >> Right. Uh, council member Schroeder, >> you know, especially, you know, all the emails and calls and listening to everyone tonight and how people are concerned about and wanting us to dig deep and cut, it doesn't feel right to add another item like this in at this point. So, I would not be in supportive of adding it to the budget at this point. It's just it's not one of those musthaves. And I think trying to be as as very aware and I'm not saying the service isn't a good service at this point. I don't think it's it's um wise to put another burden on the residents. That's just my thought. >> All right. Other thoughts? Council member Grath? >> I would totally agree with what's been said. Uh there are other options. There's Metro Mobility. There are other and the Met Council is has a new program just this year if I remember correctly. Uh and people can get door-to-door service. they can get taken to their medical appointments. So, I think that's a better uh better source of uh that type of service. Um the system we're talking about that's proposed is only one day a week and it's on a Tuesday and I think it's in place right now. It's just that they're asking us to support it. I think we can leave that up to the other entities to do that. >> Great. Um, and I I you know, I I completely understand that it's it's it's a bit of a different model. And so I'm not sure that that it's 100% overlap with the Metro Micro Service, which is much like a you know, an app on your phone that you call for a ride from wherever you are. And it's provided by Metrotransit in one of their Metroit small u vehicles that has handicap access and things like that. Um, new track certainly does have the handicap access. also their main point of business or their main function is to provide rides to people uh with disabilities to go to their employment opportunities uh through the programs that are available to to those folks. a very valuable service that they provide. And their idea was that when their buses aren't doing that work two times a day, uh that they could be doing this this circulator loop in these communities um and serving primarily senior housing facilities where often times people may not have the the ability to to take advantage of those apps and things like that. I always hesitate to to ascribe lack of technical cap digital capability to seniors anymore. But uh but I understand that sometimes having that that routine regular service makes sense. But I do agree with the discussion about looking at uh you know adding it if we did add it. I think the only way I could support doing it is if we did not levy support it but rather use reserves. And it's a fairly small amount. Uh, but I think I'd like to see more about how the program sort of establishes over the next, you know, several months to a year and we can revisit that at another time. Um, so I'm I'm with the rest of the council on that. So that I think addresses that portion of the budget um or the budget discussion. Uh, council, >> could we request that it comes back to us with like an update? They had a revision on May 20 of 2025. Could we ask that earlier in the budget process next year they come to us and kind of give us an update and see if there's something that's changed or something significant that is >> that May June time frame makes sense. >> I think it might be nice for us to have a better understanding of what their service is and how it's serving the needs of Roseville residents >> and and how their other uh seeking other sources has gone. [clears throat] >> All right. for the the rest of the budget discussion. Then we do have uh the resolution uh in the packet to approve the budget for 2026. Uh you know, subject to any changes the council wishes to make. That is attachment three. Uh and as Mr. Trean noted, uh that is it's all on the expenditure side, so it doesn't really get into uh the sources of revenue to pay for it. Uh but it does include all of the public safety positions and it does account for receiving the grants. Um and uh I believe it does it well the the capital side of some of the scenarios we've talked about is not capital spending for 2026 but rather uh setting aside dollars into the savings going forward. So there's no actual budget expenditure increase for uh capital other than what's already been proposed the $4 million increase uh which is something that as Mr. treasure noted fluctuates pretty significantly from year to year. Um, council member Sher, >> just for clarification, uh, if the city manager and his presentation, he shows the budget presented, um, as 81,25727 on this and in the resolution it says 82818. >> Yes. >> 47. If >> that's the public safety, >> right? I just want to make sure because we did the presentation like this. I just want people to make sure they understood why the numbers are different. >> Yeah, thank you, Council Member Schroer. So, yeah, the base budget was 81 million. Some change here with the addition of the public safety uh personnel and and such. Uh 82,882,818,474. A lot of numbers there. So, uh so $82 million. So, it's different from what was presented. That was the base budget in August. And since that time, we've advanced to add the >> I know there's a lot of numbers going around. Sometimes it's just nice to clarify. >> Thank you. >> So unless there is discussion or proposals from the council for any reductions to the proposed budget in 2026, uh the next item to consider would be a budget resolution as presented at the $82 million and additional uh level. >> I'll make the motion to approve that budget. >> Second. It's been moved by Council Member Grath, seconded by Council Member Straw to approve the budget uh by resolution attachment three at 82,818,474 uh which once again includes uh the public safety positions uh as has been outlined and in accounts for those being funded at least in the next year uh and subsequent years in many cases with uh the grant funding we're expecting to receive. Discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Grath. Well, first of all, I I do want to thank everyone for coming tonight. I know these these conversations are frustrating because when taxes go up, it's it's real money. Uh we also all pay taxes up here, so believe me, we would like to keep this as low as possible. Um on the other hand, we do discuss this all year long. We try to look at budgets. We try to look at efficiencies. We try to look at expenditures that we can reduce or combine. But people also want services. So whenever I ask people, you know, where should we cut, I don't get much of a they don't want to cut parks, they don't want to cut the police, they don't want to cut the fire department. These are the major expenditures in our budget. So um I guess I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from approving this budget. It isn't something we've taken lightly. I want to I want to clarify that very clearly. And so that's why I'm supporting this budget. But I think we've looked at it carefully and I don't see any places where we can cut it at this time. >> All right. Uh, Council Member Straw has the second of the motion. >> I think I shared enough. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh, Council Member Schroer. >> Um, yes. And I I I did wanted to just also add that um I think we're constantly looking at things and it's and it's difficult because I'll just use an example there. the um staff came forward and said, "Well, if we close the leaf center, you know, where people go to um drop off their leaves in the fall and spring, you know, we could save money." There's a lot of people that were very upset about cutting that service. And so sometimes it's very difficult to try to make that decision on what services should we continue to have and which services should we try to cut. So there is some difficulty in in in that aspect of it too. And I guess um you know what um council member McGrad said, we would love to hear if people have some thoughts too on you know what they what services they'd be willing to maybe not have and that would give us some direction on something to look at. So because yeah so we we aren't opposed to some of that but again there's a there it is it is a difficult thing to do >> right and I'll just add that uh um that's not to say that we're we're easily swayed by uh a few a few you know loud people in the council chambers about issues. I think we try to still weigh the pros and cons of these decisions. In the case of the Leaf Center, I've actually moved from being somebody who was fairly supportive of closing it down uh to somebody who's now looking trying to look at ways to to keep it open, but maybe do it in a do a better job of it. And the primary factor there wasn't even the cost so much. It was that the alternative is for people to take their leaves to Ramsey County, you know, collection sites and the leaves get trucked from Ramsey County sites across the county up to a site in Whitebear Township to get composted. And all that trucking and retrucking and and all of that just didn't seem to be ultimately very environmentally responsible as compared to having a facility right in our community that people can take those leaves to. We still have some financial challenges with that. uh not the least of which is a fairly significant capital uh cost in the near future because we're we're on a something like 30-y old machine that we've been trying to keep running for a long time. Uh and the replacements are very expensive as far as turning the compost. Um and we have very significant sight limitations there. But we're getting off topic a little bit here. [laughter] But anyway, it's just to show that >> these aren't easy decisions at all and and so we try to we try to balance as much as we can and and be as sensible as we can for the residents. Um but with that we do have uh this this proposal before us. I think it is responsible in the sense of uh providing for public safety. Uh I think we get better better public safety from having public safety employees who are not overt taxed on their time uh and are alert and responsive uh and well-managed and supervised as they're serving on a on a shift basis. Uh I think we get better public safety from having better support staff in the uh police department for handling reports and handling evidence and handling uh those various things that will be supported by that that individual that we're looking to add this year. Um and so all of that uh it it still once again it doesn't feel great to have uh you know impacts to the property tax or the to the residents for that. But I I believe that uh in the end with all the discussion we've had that we've really tried to be both a lean organization but also an organization that puts resources uh where they can be especially effective to address needs that are uh clear to us and and present in our community. Uh and so with that we do have the motion before us to adopt the budget for 2026 uh by resolution uh attachment 3 at 82,818474. Again uh all those in favor signify by saying I >> I opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero. That sets the budget. I believe the next resolution >> be for the levy attachment for >> the tax levy. Right. We have three different um resolutions in the packet for your consideration representing scenarios one, two, and three. And just a reminder, scenario one does not have franchise fees. Scenario two and three do, but they use it differently. Right. And I do want to note a couple of things to kick off the discussion here as to the uh the scenarios with the franchise fees. Uh the franchise fees are being proposed in one sense and for one reason because we're actually able to raise a greater amount of funds for the city's purposes with a smaller impact on the individual single family residential properties. Uh that is something that's certainly has been appealing to me in the process because we do have uh we talked about how we pay for a lot of our capital expenditures out of savings. Each year we do an analysis of how those savings accounts are going to look. uh over the next 20 years related to incoming dollars and outgoing expenditures. Uh and we've got some funds that are really, you know, struggling to to keep up. Uh and so I think we, you know, the the advantage of looking at the franchise fees from my perspective has been the ability to help those funds do better uh and not have a significant impact on the uh individual property owners that would be seen if we used property taxes to fund it. So, the scenario one that's being talked about doesn't do any of that shoring up of any of those capital funds. It strictly just is the base budget from uh August and the additional fire and police positions and the grants that pay for part of that. That's all that's in the base budget. There's no additional help for funding our capital needs. That only comes through the franchise fee approaches. And so then it's just a matter of degree and whether we use some of the franchise free fees uh to offset operational expenses or not use that to offset operational expenses. And those are kind of the choices we have. So that's what's before the council. Uh hopefully that's not news to the members of the council that are are looking at it, but that's sort of why we have the three scenarios and what we're talking about. Mr. treasure >> in a in a it's not in the packet, but um under scenario two, the franchise fees, we will increase the amount of dollars going towards capital by $2.8 million. Under scenario three, it' be $2.4 million. As you mentioned, scenario one does not add any additional dollars. And as I uh showed at uh last meeting here and how those scenarios two and three could really impact for the long term positively uh those fund balances that would uh also lead us to not have to add new levy dollars in future years at least in the immediate future. Don't know what 10 plus years out looks like but um so that that's some of the rationale that just some facts and figures behind um some of those decisions. >> All right. Thank you Mr. Tan. So we have uh before us the three scenarios. Uh and if the council wishes to have some discussion about those, we can do that before uh taking a vote or having a motion before us or we can entertain a motion depending on uh what the council's uh desire is in this particular part of the decision-making process. Council member Sher, >> I I did want to uh talk about the um a couple of the proposals, you know, especially and I and I've gotten a lot of calls and emails and we hear tonight too. This what was on the property tax uh proposed property tax that went out was a 12% budget and that >> 12% increase to the levy. >> Right. Right. Right. Sorry. You're right. To the levy. To me, that is um obviously way too high. I and I I hear that loud and clear. I see that in in in my own property tax statement, but everybody else's too. And so looking at um um scenario two and three, the increases are like six and seven, a little little over six, a little over 7%. So I would prefer to see um one of those scenarios because it would cut the property tax percentage by quite a bit. And I think that would help some people with relief what they're talking about tonight. So I I would like to see because the scenario one pretty much keeps it at the 12% or slightly under and and I that just does not feel u like a good spot to be for the residents, >> right? Uh and just important to note too that with the franchise fees, there is an impact to the property owners with the franchise fees. I think the um >> but it's a different [clears throat] percentage. It's a different impact and it's the same impact for every property. No matter what your property value is, it's still $3 for gas and $3 for electric. Uh and so that can be something that can be viewed as beneficial and and something that may not I I think you know we don't propose to like change that every year. I think it's typically it's in place for a number of years before it's adjusted. So that's some predictability for people to just to add to that >> because otherwise your value and the percentage goes in. So you could end up actually being >> right. >> Yeah. [snorts] Uh, I don't know if there's other discussion on the scenarios. Council member Grath, >> I would agree with Council Member Schroeder's comments. I really want to keep this down as low as we can. I'm hearing loud and clearly from the residents and seeing it on my own taxes that we we need to be careful with that. But I do look at scenario two more favorably because the capital funds are really important. We have to keep them healthy. And if those get down too far, there will be a place in the future where we're going to have to add monies into those. And the only way we can do that is from the levy, basically. So, what I'm trying to do is even this out. I know it seems like a huge increase this year, but we don't want to see that keeping on and then even jumping further in three or four years when we have some of those funds coming and needing funds. So, that's my reason for supporting scenario two or preferring that. >> Okay. Right. Other thoughts? Council member Strong. >> Um, I echo Council Member Grath. I feel like I'm a little worried about going to scenario three that we kind of starve some of our funds and that we get a little bit too bare bones on some of really essential pieces. Um, and we'll be in a I don't want to be in a dire situation. I feel like the percentage is smaller and um, but the impact to the capital improvement uh, plan is fairly significant. So I am inclined to lean toward two as well. >> Right. >> Other thoughts from council members? Council member Sher. >> Yes. Well, you know, and I would agree with some of the comments. Um, you know, you know, when I was on the finance commission for many years, one of the main things I was always um pushing is to make sure we put money into um our capital. So that's to replace fire trucks, that's to replace um police cars, that's to make sure that you know everything is functioning. Um and and that so we have to keep up with our capital. And so that is that is really really important. Um and and the difference between the two is not a huge percentage, but it is a good point that um if we can shore up some of these funds, you know, to make sure because people appreciate when you know the the streets are plowed because the plows are working and people appreciate, you know, if you go to the park that the playground equipment is actually functioning and I mean the these things cost money and it's it's like everything else, you know, if you if you buy a car, you know, eventually it's got to be replaced. And that's like with everything we're doing, too. So, we're trying to plan little pieces as we go versus having these giant increases that that can be very painful. So, so yeah, I think it's very important for us to make sure and shore up our our capital. >> I would uh entertain a motion as it relates to then uh setting the tax levy for 2026. It sounds from what we've heard so far that uh the scenario scenario 2 resolution attachment 4 uh which sets the levy at an amount of 32,783 915 uh seems to be the direction that the uh council is going. Is there a motion on the levy resolution uh attachment 4 on one of those uh three scenarios? >> So moved. >> Which one? >> Scenario two. >> All right. Just wanted to be sure. >> I was echoing you. So sorry. I'll second it. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Straw and second by council member Schroeder to adopt the uh tax levy resolution as it relates to scenario 2 uh in the amount of 32,783 9115. Discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Strong, >> I think we each shared our opinions and I think I feel best about not starving the accounts so that we are in a dire situation moving forward. Um, I think it it is kind of the balance. And then I think it's good to remember too that as we um look at a franchise fee in association with two that it's a certain percentage if you're at a $380,000 home, but if you're at a $700,000 home, it's a much, you know, it's half that price. So, it is a fixed cost that is bringing in a consistent um portion of our um CIP funds. And I think it's important that we and it's not forever. If we decide that that's not something that we need to do, we can we can continue to make changes and we uh believe me, Council Member Schroeder is really surprised that I went for franchise fees because I certainly wasn't pro a few months ago. >> Council member Schroer is the secondary motion. >> Yeah. And I think the main thing was it was an education process and I think that's um and if there's questions about this from people out please reach out and ask us about it because you know we have been talking about and looking at these things for for a long time. And of course with the franchise fees too you have a lot of that's also spread across um properties that don't pay property taxes. So it it's spread across everybody. So you do have a percentage that um do not pay property taxes will have to be part of this which I think it's fair that everyone should help uh with with our with our capital on that side of it. So So and then just looking it does and then when you look at the numbers of course I crunch numbers you know for for a living and I think and that um trying to um convey what some of these mean can be a little complicated at times and so it just takes time for people to get educated. Council member Grath, >> the only thing I'd add is that uh we will be I believe because we talked about this last meeting having the finance commission review our capital improvement plans and Yes. and give us a look next year so that we can see if there are any efficiencies because I think it's several years since we've actually done that. Isn't that correct, Mayor? Like >> 10 since we I mean we do it every year, >> right? No, I think I think there were some specific asks that we had as far as uh looking at how we account for increasing costs and looking at uh you know uh some of those other factors as well as specifically the operating cost on the pathways was another piece of it. So that so there are things we're looking >> I just wanted to assure the residents that you know during the year there's a lot of work that goes on into these things and the finance commission helps us with those. Of course, all the other commissions help us also, but there we're talking about finances tonight, so that's why I brought that up. >> And just to point out, the chair of the finance commission is all his fault. [laughter] >> It's all good. >> Thank you. And and it should be pointed out uh not only the finance commission, but all of our commissions are volunteer citizen commissions. Uh so that's individual members of the community uh who have an interest in the subject matter and come forward uh and are involved in typically monthly meetings and on all these these topics and provide input and insight to the council that informs our decision-m uh so that's an important part of our process. Um so uh we have the motion before us on the proposed tax levy for 2026. Once again, uh this is resolution attachment 4 scenario 2. Uh and I've already page passed it, so I don't remember what the total was, but I think we have it in writing somewhere. Uh if there's no further discussion on the motion, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero. That is approved. Uh next, we have uh resolution attachment five to set the EDA or economic development authority levy uh for 2026. Uh there's no scenarios here. This is something that the the council and the EDA have looked at for a number of months as well. Uh and this is proposed in the amount of $264,826, which I believe is a reduction from a prior year. >> Yes. Uh and and we uh from the originally proposed to what we have now, we did lower that levy by $100,000. >> Correct. >> Motion to approve. >> Sorry. It's been moved by council member Stron, seconded by council member Grath to approve the proposed EDA levy at 264826 by resolution attachment 5. Discussion on that motion. Council member Straw as the maker. >> I'm amazed at the work they can the great work they continue to do even as they are continually finding ways to cut because uh we we get a lot of value from the EDA. >> And as uh the secondary council member Grath, >> nothing to add. >> All right. Any other discussion on the motion for the EDA levy? Uh if not, all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Four to zero. Uh and that uh resolution is adopted. That levy is set. So next we have uh because we've set our levy as we have, we pretty much have to take action on these franchise fee ordinances. Um I believe we can probably take both as a single motion to approve both ordinances. Um I don't I think that's kind of how we did it in with the uh the base franchise ordinances last month. Uh so uh is there a motion from the council related to the electricate gas franchise fee ordinances? >> Catchment six and seven. >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by councelor McGrath, second by council member Schroeder to adopt those uh fee ordinances uh for the franchise fees. Uh discussion on the motion as the maker of the motion. Council member Grath. I think we've covered it, but I do want to I know I've done this before, but I want to thank Council Member Schroeder for bringing this forward last year and and educating me and on this subject. And um I think the one one of the pluses is it does spread the cost out among everyone who lives in Roseville, uh even the people who are not taxed at this time. So, I think that's that's a plus to me. >> Right. And council member Schroeder, >> um I just and and I believe um um one of our our residents pointed out it is a tax and that's why we included it in when we um did the scenario look to put the number in there so people did see the number was add we weren't trying to like not have that um obvious but it was really important that we um you know could figure out a way to cover this and make it as fair as possible and and I just felt that this this really seemed to uh spread the the expense around much better. >> So, other discussion on the motion? >> Um and I would just echo the thoughts about uh you know diversifying the source of revenue for the city both away from property taxes but also including uh what are currently taxexempt properties who certainly have users and employees that use our roads and other infrastructure which is supported by the franchise fees. uh as we're looking at and so it does make sense. Um the other thing that's appealing as I noted before was the fact that it's fairly flat uh and is not dependent on your property value and that includes for commercial properties. Uh for commercial properties it simply is a function of your account type. So if you're a large commercial property you'll have a higher amount but it's the same amount every month and it continues that way until we make any kind of change over the years. Um and then likewise for smaller commercial properties uh there are um lower rates for those particular account types. And so all of that uh and once again the fact that we can raise more money to help solve the problems with the uh less impact on the single family property owners uh was was a significant factor in support. I believe at one point and this is probably too low now that I think about it but I was doing an analysis where adding 1.2 2 million of additional capital funding uh not using franchise fees uh because some of it is being shifted away from the levy. So that's why it was a net 1.2 was something like 12 or $13 in property taxes for that median property versus the $6. Uh and and so that's a fairly significant factor once again in in my mind in support of this approach. I agree that it is absolutely you know it's a tax. the state law calls it a franchise fee and so that's why all of our language refers to it as franchise fees as well and that's how it'll show up on your bill. Uh but I don't I don't know that anybody has any doubt when they look at their XL Energy bill as to what all those fees are as far as being taxes. Uh that being said, uh we have the motion before us to uh adopt or excuse me to approve those adopt those uh ordinances, both the gas and electric uh franchise uh in position ordinances. Uh and uh with that, if there's no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes 4 to zero unanimously. Uh and then related to that item uh to help with uh public expenditure of money uh the state does allow cities to publish summaries of ordinances rather than the whole multi-page ordinance in our newspaper of choice uh saving uh on the cost of the publication. Uh but we do have to pass a resolution to approve that and the state does require it to have a supermajority vote. Uh which in our case is 2/3 which I believe even with one council member absent is still four votes if I'm understanding [clears throat] it correctly how it works. Uh so with that we have two resolutions. Is there a motion to approve those two resolutions? >> Both of them. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Sharter, seconded by council member Stron to approve the uh the publication resolutions for both the gas and electric franchise fee ordinances. Uh discussion on that motion hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously meeting the uh four vote requirement for supermajority and those uh publications are authorized. >> Mr. Trean, are there any other budget related items that I have either missed or that we need to take up this evening? I think you have covered it all. Thank you very much, council members, for the um conversation throughout the year and the approvals here tonight. We do appreciate it. >> All right. And and once again, thanks to everyone from the public who came this evening and who has provided feedback uh in other forms through emails to the council or calls that we've received. Um, we do appreciate it all and and this is one of the things as as you may know when we had some scouts here earlier, Cub Scouts and they were learning about local government and one of the things they asked you know what is what is disappointing about the job and I think you know it's probably all of us would agree not being able to make everybody happy is is an aspect of the job that's kind of disappointing. Uh but I hope this has demonstrated to folks that we work hard to consider all perspectives and all points of view and we don't take any of our decisions lightly especially when it comes to uh the money we receive from individuals and businesses in the community to support the work we do on their behalf and we are after all elected representatives and if we're getting it wrong uh people have a way to let us know um multiple ways to let us know. Um so thank you again to everybody who's participated up to this point. Uh, council, we've got a few items left on the agenda, but we're at our 8:00 time frame. Does the council want to plow through or take a break? >> I'd like to take a break. >> All right, we'll take about a fiveminute break then. >> Thank you. >> And by the way, it just takes one person saying it and we'll do the break unless somebody moves not to [laughter] >> and then we'll take a vote and then everybody's going to be >> Oh, Lord. Pretty awesome. All right, we're back from a short break here to continue our discussions on financial matters for 2020 uh6. And the next item, well, we're shifting gears, I guess, a little bit because it's public hearing time early in the meeting. Uh, so we have that to uh to uh uh what's the word I'm looking for? To to do differently or to not be budget related. Uh anyway, we're here now to have a public hearing to consider approving uh any of the remaining uh liquor license renewals for 2026. Uh and with us to bring this item before the council is our assistant city manager, Rebecca Olsen. >> Thank you, mayor, council members. Um, as mayor mentioned, uh, public hearing is required to consider renewals of the liquor licenses for this year. Uh, we have two outstanding liquor licenses that are up for renewal. One is for Red Lobster. Uh, I know that you had a conversation at your last meeting regarding this, but Red Lobster has had four um, compliance failures within the last uh, 30 38 months. My apologies, 38 months. [snorts] Um, so that is one that you can consider this evening. And the last one is for Breakthrough Rosedale. This liquor license was approved initially um when they first uh came before us uh several I think it was a couple months ago. The reason it's up for renewal again is because they are not quite open. We are uh waiting on some final paperwork from the city which I believe our deputy clerk just received today. So this is just a renewal of the liquor license for Breakthrough. They have a a location in Rosedale Mall and um are opening one that is outside of potluck. So um that's the second and final liquor license that is before you this evening. I do believe there might be a representative here from Red Lobster. Um with that, I'll stand for any questions. >> All right. And we do have a representative. Uh questions from the council for staff at this time on these two license renewals. All right. Uh if the uh representative from Red Lobster would like to come up and uh make any comments, uh this would be your opportunity to do that. Uh we just ask that you introduce yourself uh at the start. >> Okay. Hello. My name is Hire. I'm the general manager over at the Roseville Red Lobster. I apologize. I don't have anything prepared to say. They just kind of told me I should come. Didn't give me much else on that. Um but we are aware of all the violations that we have since I've been there. It's been um two of them. Um I started back in January 2024. I think one was shortly after that and then the most recent one um in this fall. Um the last time I mean the big issue with what it was, she was a more tenure or older team member that we had and I think it was the big discrepancy in you know all of our vertical IDs clearly do state that everybody's under 21. she was still doing the math in her head kind of old school and just made a miscalculation from what you know when I had the conversation with her right after and so that was why she did serve that alcoholic beverage to the minor but we've went over it countless times now with the team and it's nice most of the team that we currently have is a little on the younger side so most of them have already had those IDs and so they already know that when I was talking to them about it they were like yeah what what are you talking about they it seems like it's public knowledge problem so it definitely will not be something, you know, that happens again on our end with that. But that was basically it. I don't know. Nobody had any questions. So, >> right. U questions. Uh, Council Member Grath. >> And you do the training every year as required. And have you done that this year? So, >> that's so everybody after a year when they take the course, it'll get re um reassigned to them all and they'll have to redo it within 30 days otherwise um they won't be able to work with. And that's for new hires obviously as well who weren't on last year. >> Yeah, new hires as well within 30 days of them starting and then every other team member after a year it'll get reassigned to them. >> And do new hires uh do any serving before that 30-day period or or as soon as they have the training, they're able to do the the serving at that point? >> No, they'll go through probably about like a month of training. So within like that 30-day time, too. And one thing that um I just went I took from So they'll have to go through like a validation basically. Well then, they'll have to serve, you know, one of our managers. And so, one of the things, too, like we just started [clears throat] ordering an alcoholic beverage from them. And if they don't ask us, you know, for our IDs, just pretending like we're a guest the whole time, then we automatically will fail them for it, too. So, just making sure they know from the start how serious it is. >> All right. Other questions from council members? I think it's important that you are here this evening uh primarily to talk about what you're doing as an organization to uh address this because certainly it is concerning uh you know if it's happening during our compliance checks the the question we always have in the back of our minds is you know is it happening for members of the public who are underage and getting served and that is not uh in the interest of public safety uh or for that matter in the interest of those young people uh and and alcohol and related issues. So, uh, we do appreciate you being here this evening in that regard and and definitely encourage you to think about, um, all of the the things that can be implemented even beyond what you've already done. Uh, because we really, as much as you know, we like seeing you, we really don't want you to be back here for this reason. >> Right. Council member, >> we're working on an ID scanner, too. The old the old vendor that we had, I guess, from >> I guess they weren't responding. So, they're working on getting a different one, though, just like an ID scanner as well, too. So that hopefully >> is that like if you're like part of your point of sale system or separate from that? >> Um they just said up at our bar um at the bar top I know we'll have one. I'm not too sure on the specifics if we could get one. I'm sure you could get another one at one of our uh POS systems as well too though just having two. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Council Strong. >> Well I think the main reason that we are here today is because it's four violations in 38 months. So four violations in 36 months would be a revocation and that would be the end of liquor sales. So I think we just really want to make sure you understand how serious we take it because except for those two months we would be in a revocation situation here and that is um you know kind of this the formula we've set up. So we it's not that we're diverging from what we have but it's actually in our in our city ordinance. So, um, and we know that if we were to fail again in a few months, the first one would fall off and we'd be in the same place. So, I think we're trying to make sure we we don't see you and that we don't have this situation. Um, because obviously the people who like going to Red Lobster have certain expectations of Red Lobster and we want you to be able to provide them, but we also want you to to not serve underage. So, >> Right. >> Right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Uh this this is a public hearing so we do have to open it up for members of the public if there's anyone here from the public to speak to either one of the renewals that are proposed either for uh the Red Lobster location or for the uh breakthrough location at Rosedale. Uh this would be the opportunity. Is there anyone from the public to speak to this item? Doesn't appear to be the case. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing and we have the request before us. Uh and I believe we can do a single motion for uh both licenses if so desire. >> Second. >> All right. All right. It's been moved by Council Member Schroeder, seconded by Council Member Grath to approve those two renewals as outlined. Discussion on the motion as the maker, Council Member Schroeder. >> Um staff recommended um um approving them and also it's within our our um you know, I think everybody said, you know, their concerns, but with that said, it's within our um our rules. So, makes sense. >> Has the uh seconder? >> No. >> All right. Other discussion of the motion? All right. I think we've said a lot already. Uh with that we have the motion before us to approve those two renewals. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That paces unanimously 4 to zero and those licenses are renewed. M >> I just wanted to uh inform the council of one of the changes that staff is making as it relates to receiving the training records. Some things that we've heard from the police department is that it it can be timeconuming to track down those uh training records at the time that there's a violation. So at the time of renewal or application, we're requesting that they submit those training records. It also just emphasizes the fact that that training is important. Obviously throughout the year, people will be trained and we would have to get more training records, but it's an opportunity for the restaurant or the business, not just restaurants, but the business to also understand that those training records are required even though we've told them it's just a good reminder. So I just wanted to share that information. >> No, thank you for implementing that. Great. Uh with that then back to budget and financial matters. Uh we are looking at item uh 7C on our business items this evening which is to consider adopting the 2026 uh utility rates. And we've already had a little bit of information about those as part of our uh budget presentation by Mr. Trean earlier but I'll turn it over to our finance director Miss Petri to uh bring this back before us uh for our actual consideration at this time. >> Good evening. Um, as we discussed in November, um, we utilize, uh, Ellers to conduct a utility rate study for us on our you water, sewer, and storm drainage funds that gets updated every two years. They use the industry standards that generally everybody uses. We do have a tiered system for water consumption and that [clears throat] is based on not only the fact that we purchase water from St. Paul but we have other costs within the water fund the operations the staff utility staff and capital outlay as well St. Paul Regional does institute a conservation rate. They use a summer rate versus winter rate. >> Okay. >> To address the earlier comment on that. Um so what we are proposing is based on the utility rate study. There's a 5 12% increase in water, a 0% increase in storm drainage, a 2% increase in the sanitary sewer fund, and then the recycling fund is not under the um Ellers's utility rate study, but is based on contracts. And we have a 3% increase programmed to cover our increase costs for 2026. As you will see, um, per quarter, these costs will increase by $7.21, which is a total for the year of $28.83. And that's based on an average residential consumption of 12,000 gallons per quarter and an average sewer consumption of 11,000 gallons per quarter. Which is more than 80% of our residential customers. So with that, I'm open for questions. Um the specific rates are in the resolution. I will note um city of Maplewood has not yet approved their utility rates. So in the sewer fund, we do have some residents who are hooked up to Maplewood sewer, not Roseville sewer. So once the city sets their utility rates, that'll be updated. >> Right. Thank you, Miss Petra. questions for staff. And just on those Maplewood customers, are we we are billing those customers, but they they're actually getting their their service from Maplewood. >> They get their water from us. >> Their sewer goes through Maplewood. >> Got it. Okay, great. Are there questions? We've got a resolution. Uh oh, I should open up for public comment. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to the proposed 2026 utility rates as outlined? That does not appear to be the case. Then uh we've got once again the res resolution attachment one setting those rates uh with the note related to Maplewood. Uh is there a motion on that resolution? >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by Council Gra, seconded by Council Member Schroeder to approve the 2026 utility rates as outlined. Uh discussion on the motion. Uh Council Member Grath as the maker. No, thanks to the staff for going through the numbers and it's all necessary and that people expect sewer and water from the city so we have to be funded. >> True enough. Council Schroer is the seconder. Other discussion on the motion. >> All right. Uh and I think uh Miss Petri for clarifying the winter and summer rates from St. Paul. Uh I that means that I had misspoken earlier and I apologize for that. Uh with that, we've got the motion before us to adopt that resolution setting those rates. Uh all those in favor signify by saying I I opposed. That passes unanimously four to zero and those rates are set. >> Uh and I believe this is our last financial matter this evening at least under our business items. Item 7D uh which is to consider adopting the 2026 uh fees and administrative penalties uh for various purposes in the city uh that aren't utility fees. Uh Mr. Trean, I believe this is your item to bring before the council for our final consideration. >> Uh yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just real briefly, uh the council did uh review uh these fees uh on November 10th. I think there is one note for some one adjustment that uh has been made since then. Uh this the um report does have some detailed information. We do have staff here to answer any questions you have. Uh but we are uh looking for you to adopt um the ordinance amending appendix A in the city fee schedule. All right. Uh questions from the council on the proposed fees and administrative penalties. I'm just looking to make sure. So this would be set by ordinance which is uh in attachment two of the packet would be the ordinance to adopt the fee schedule as outlined. Uh are there questions from the council? Right. Hearing none. Uh just double check. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak to this item? Does not appear to be the case. Um, is there a motion from the council related to this resolution or excuse me, this ordinance setting the 2026 fee schedule as noted? >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by council member Stron, second by council member Schroeder. [cough] Discussion on that motion as the maker council member Stron. Secondary council member Schroeder. Other discussion? All right, we've got the motion before us to adopt those uh various administrative fees and administrative penalties as outlined by ordinance. Uh discussion on the motion is closed. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously. That ordinance is adopted. We also do have to pass a summary or pass a resolution approving publication of a summary. >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by council gra. Second by council sharter. Once again, this requires a twothirds majority which in this case would be four votes. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. That passes unanimously. Four to zero meeting the supermajority requirement and we can publish that ordinance summary. With that then that brings us to consideration of city council minutes. We have [snorts] both uh city council minutes as well as economic development authority minutes from our November 24th meetings. Uh is there are there any changes or corrections that need to be made to those minutes? Uh or a motion to approve? >> Can we approve both at the same time? >> You may. >> I will. I'll make that motion. >> Second. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Sharter, second by council member Gra to approve both sets of minutes as presented. Uh discussion, excuse me. Discussion on the motion. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. That passes unanimously 4 to zero. That then brings us to our consent agenda. Uh no items were removed. We've got four items on the consent agenda this evening. Uh Mr. Treon, would you give us an breakdown of those items? >> Yes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item 10 A approves payments in the amount of $325,289.80. Item 10B approves the new or reclassified positions that were just approved in the 2026 budget, which includes the new position of police support services supervisor, the new position of fire captain, the reclassified position for the police chief, and the retitled organizational development manager position. Item 10 C approves ratifying the later labor agreement between the city of Roseville and the International Association of Firefighters Local 5051. The one-year contract calls for a 3% wage adjustment for our firefighters. And finally, attachment 10D approves entering into an agreement with the Roseville Fire Relief Association regarding the retaining of fire state aid funding by the city in exchange for the relief association board having the ability to give it give its members benefit raises as long as the association assets to liabilities funding ratio is above 120%. Uh just for your information, the funding ratio was at 148% at the end of October. This agreement is similar to the uh same agreement we entered into in 2021 and that expires in 2025. So this would extend that same agreement for another three years. That's the consent agenda. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Treasur. Uh are there any questions on the consent items? Is there a motion on the consent items this evening? >> So moved. >> Second. >> It's been moved by Council Gra, second by Council Member Strong to approve those items. Uh any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Opposed. That passes unanimously. Four to zero. Those items are approved. Uh that brings us then to future agenda review. Uh we don't have any more meetings this year, Mr. Trean. >> No, this is the last uh meeting in 2025. How quickly it flew by here. So I don't really have uh uh the slide populated with any topics. Just showing the meeting dates here. Traditionally, that first meeting in January is is somewhat organizational. We do stuff at the beginning of the year, but we'll certainly take up topics as they come. Given the gap in time here, I'm sure we'll have some items uh up uh ready for uh consideration by the council. But you can see uh the schedule there. Um the 12th I label a city council meeting, but uh that is typically what we try to do a work session. So we'll see what we can work around that. Just reminder in February we have two dates uh reserved for commission interviews. Uh we may not use both of those dates, but those are just dates to keep in mind as we go forward. But for the time being, uh we have no more meetings this year, and I appreciate uh all the council's support throughout the year. We got through a lot of u big issues here including tonight the biggest issue. Um but I appreciate working with you and wish you all happy end of the year and happy holidays. >> All right. Thank you Mr. Treasure. Are there any questions on the future agenda review uh or reports announcements? Council member initiated items for future meetings. Hearing none. Uh we do have one more thing we have to do this evening uh which is to consider uh um uh the discussion or have a discussion as it relates to the potential purchase of property. Um and I will note that under state statutes uh section 13D.05 05 subdivision 3C. Uh, and I should note back up. So, Minnesota statutes require cities to hold their meetings in open uh, available to the public, but there are certain exceptions, limited exceptions, this being one of them, which is once again to discuss the purchase or sale of property. Um, and that's in that section as outlined subdivision 3C. We are this evening considering the potential uh purchase of property located at 11:45 Woodhill Drive in Roseville across from the city campus uh or at least a portion of that property. Um and uh as is noted, we can move to a close session to do that. It's advantageous to uh the public as the uh financial support for the city uh that we are able to conduct those negotiations out of the public eye in the sense of not giving away the city's position uh disadvantaging uh the taxpayers uh and their use of funds to purchase property. With that then, unless there's any further uh things I need to do as far as what the attorney uh would say, [laughter] I do want to note from a perspective of viewers uh who may be watching uh this meeting either now or streaming later and for our producers in the uh chambers here tonight uh that as is usual with these closed sessions at the end of a meeting, uh once we move to the close session, we'll be going off camera uh for the remainder of the evening. Uh but we do still have to after our closed session reopen to the public which we will do uh remote from the council chambers here uh and then officially adjourn the meeting but we won't do that on camera. So this is the last you'll see of us. Um so with that is there a motion to move to closed executive session under state statutes. >> All right. It's been moved by council member Grath, seconded by council member Schroeder. Uh and I have a brief comment after the vote. So, uh, with that, all those in favor, if there's no discussion, >> I >> I >> I a three for a loop there. You don't want to leave. Uh, opposed. >> The way you've phrased it was >> Yeah, it was different. I hear no nays. That passes unanimously four to zero. We will move to close executive session, but I just want to echo Mr. Trean's comments. Uh, and wish the public uh, and the people of Roseville a very happy holiday season and a prosperous new year, and we look forward to seeing you in the new year. And I do also want to thank uh city staff for all the work that they do over the course of the year. Uh not the least of which is during this winter time with snow plowing and keeping the the roads and pathways clear. Uh once again, we very much appreciate all the work that our staff does uh and wish our staff a very happy holidays and a pro prosperous new year as well. With that, we will move to closed executive session.