Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CCP 11282022
Mayor:Address: Dan Roe2660 Civic Center Dr. Roseville, MN 55113 Councilmembers: Jason Etten Phone: City Council Agenda Wayne Groff651-792-7000 Julie Strahan Website: Robert Willmus 6:00 p.m. www.cityofroseville.com Members of the public who wish speak during public comment or an agenda item during this meeting can do so virtually by registering at: www.cityofroseville.com/attendmeeting 1. 6:00 P.M.Roll Call Voting & Seating Order: Groff, Willmus, Strahan, Etten and Roe 2. 6:01 P.M.Pledge of Allegiance 3. 6:02 P.M.Approve Agenda 4. 6:03 P.M.Public Comment 5. Recognitions and Donations 6. 6:10 P.M.Items Removed from Consent Agenda 7. Business Items 7.A. 6:15 P.M.Hearing to Solicit Public Comment on the 2023 Budget and Tax Levy Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 7.B. 7:00 P.M.Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Approving Liquor License Renewals for 2023 Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENT.PDF 7.C. 7:10 P.M.Public Hearing to Consider the Approval of an Off Sale Liquor License and Cigarette/Tobacco Products License for Kong Mong Liquor, Inc. dba Chuchao Liquor located at 700 County Road B West Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENT.PDF 7.D. 7:15 P.M.Hold a public hearing and consider the proposed Wheaton Woods 2nd AdditionMinor Plat and Subdivision Variance creating a residential lot from an outlot and an abutting residential lot Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 7.E. 7:25 P.M.Consider a resolution approving a Conditional Use request to allow residential density greater than 24 dwelling units per acre in support of a proposed apartment project Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 7.F. 7:55 P.M.No Mow/Less Mow May Discussion Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 7.G. 8:25 P.M.Discuss Rosevilles 2023 Legislative Priorities Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENT.PDF 7.H. 8:55 P.M.Award Contract for City Attorney to Provide Civil and Prosecution Legal Services Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION.PDF 8. Council Direction on Councilmember Initiated Agenda Items 8.A. 9:05 P.M.Councilmember Strahan -Discussion about establishing a $15 per hour minimum wage in Roseville Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 9. 9:10 P.M.Approval of City Council Minutes 10. 9:15 P.M.Approve Consent Agenda 10.A. Approve Payments Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENT.PDF 10.B. Approval of a Temporary Gambling Permit Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENT.PDF 10.C. Approval of 2023 Business Licenses Renewals Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 10.D. Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items in Excess of $10,000 Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 10.E. Approve a Resolution designating 2023 Polling Locations Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENT.PDF 10.F. Approve extension of contract with TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. for Recording Secretary Services Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 10.G. Approve Resolution to Enter into Agreement with Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment related to the Marion Street Greenway Connection Phase 2 Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 10.H. Approve Professional Service Agreement for Water System Analysis Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 10.I. Approve Resolution Approving Quit Claim Deed for MnDOT Parcel 403D Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 10.J. Approve Roseville Firefighters Relief Association Benefit Increase Documents: REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AND ATTACHMENTS.PDF 11. 9:20 P.M.Future Agenda Review, Communications, Reports, and Announcements- Council and City Manager 12. 9:25 P.M.Adjourn REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 Item No.: 7.a Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval Item Description:Hearing to Solicit Public Comment on the2023Budgetand Tax Levy 1 B ACKGROUND 2 At the April 18, 2022City Council meeting, the Council establisheda general timeline for the 2023 3 budget process including the following key dates: 4 5 6 7 The City Council is now asked to hold the final budget hearing.The purpose of the hearing is to provide 8 citizens with an opportunity to provide input on city programs and the Budget and to gauge their 9 willingness to pay additionalproperty taxes and fees in order to maintainprograms at current service 10 levels. The City Council can then use this input to help guide the setting of a final tax levy and budget. 11 12 At the September 26, 2022City Council meeting, the Council adopted a 2023preliminary, not-to-exceed 13 tax levy and a preliminary budget. A summary is presented below. 14 15 16 Page 1of 3 17 2023 Preliminary Tax Levy & Budget 18 The 2023 Preliminary Budget & Tax Levy approved September 26, 2022 called for a city tax levy of 19 $26,515,884, an increase of $1,650,340 or 6.64% over last year. 20 21 Since September 26, the City Manager has made revisions to decrease the tax levy for the final adoption 22 on December 5, 2022. These revisions have included the following: 23 Removed $30,000 for Recreation Assessment (will be deferred until 2024) 24 Increased State Aid Intergovernmental Revenues by $20,000 25 Removed $10,000 increase in Finance Equipment Fund 26 Reduced $4,000 in Fire Department (Telephone and Emergency Management Training) 27 Reduced $5,000 in Administration Miscellaneous expenses 28 Reduced $10,000 in Attorney professional services costs 29 Reduced $25,500 in Public Works Administration (reduced intern and adjusted for new PW 30 Director) 31 32 The city tax levy is now at $26,411,384, an increase of $1,545,840 or 6.22% over last year. 33 34 A median-valued single-family home of $335,400 will pay approximately $1,211 annuallyin property 35 taxesor $100.90 per month. This is an increase of $108 annually ($9.00 per month). In exchange, 36 residents receive; 24 x 7 x 365 police and fire protection, well-maintained streets and parks, street lighting, 37 and other services. 38 39 The following table describes the different factors resulting in the increase in the 2023 city tax levy: 40 41 Investment to Maintain City Programs and Workforce New Tax Levy Support Personnel Cost Impacts on Tax Levy 7 positions reclassified based on job duties$ 116,622 New Police & Fire Department Cadet positions$ 66,660 New Sustainability Specialist $ 33,443 Employee Steps & COLA compensation adjustments$ 846,679 Park and Rec Seasonal Pay & Police Intern adjustments$ 161,472 FD Advanced Life Support adjustments$ 70,141 Tax levy impact from personnel adjustments$ 1,295,017 Inflationary Costs for Supplies, Operations, and Contracts $ 250,823 Total New City Tax Levy Support$ 1,545,840 42 43 44 Property owners of a median-valued home willsee a decrease inproperty taxes through the EDA levy. 45 There will also be increases in utility fees to cover increased costs. The combined impact on a median- 46 valued single family home is depicted in the table below. 47 Page 2 of 3 2023 ESTIMATED Budget Impact on Median-Valued Home (monthly) 20222023$ Chg.% Chg. Property Tax Levy: City$ 91.90$ 100.90$ 9.009.8% Property Tax Levy: EDA 1.79 1.71 (0.09)-5.1% Utility Rates 59.10 63.64 4.547.7% Combined Total$ 152.79$ 166.25$ 13.458.8% 48 49 50 As shown in the table, a median-valued home that has average household water usage will see an increase 51 of $13.45 per month in 2023 for both property taxes and utility costs. This represents 8.8% increase. 52 53 A PowerPoint presentation outlining the 2023 Proposed Budget, Tax Levy, and Utility Rateswill be 54 presented at the Council meeting and is included as Attachment A. Comments received from the public 55 regarding the 2023 City Manager Budget are included as Attachment C. 56 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 57 The public hearing provides an opportunity for Roseville taxpayers to directly comment on priorities and 58 costs contained in the proposed 2023 City Budget. 59 F INANCIAL I MPACTS 60 See information above and attached information. 61 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 62 No action needed at this time. Final consideration of the City and EDA budget and levy and 2023 63 Utility Rates will be at the December 5 City Council meeting. 64 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 65 For information purposes only. 66 Prepared by: Michelle Pietrick, Finance Director Attachments: A: 2023 Budget & Tax Levy PowerPoint Presentation B: Projected 2022 year end fund balances C: Public Comments received regarding 2023 City Manager Budget Page 3 of 3 Attachment B Memo To: Roseville City Council Pat Trudgeon, City Manager From: Michelle Pietrick, Finance Director Date: November 28, 2022 Re: Projected 2022 Budget Surplus/Deficit for Unrestricted Operating Funds Background The City Council is expected to adopt the final 2023 Budget and Tax Levy at the December 5, 2022 meeting. The City Council has adopted an Operating Fund Cash Reserve Policy and implemented a Cash Reserve Fund. To assist the City Council in making a final levy decision, staff has prepared projected year-end financial results for the CityÓs unrestricted operating funds. Cash Reserve Levels: Operating Funds Unrestricted ProjectedProjectedProjected 12/31/2021202212/31/202212/31/202212/31/202212/31/2022 CashSurplusCashReservesVariance fromVariance from Reserves(Deficit)ReservesLevelLow TargetHigh Target Operating Fund General: Primary *8,919,263$ 451,069$ 9,370,332$ 45.14%2,105,125$ (1,008,536)$ General: Cash Reserve Fund -706,946 706,946 Parks & Recreation1,600,688 301,922 1,902,610 33.69%773,083$ 208,318 Communications 94,607 (20,326) 74,281 12.91%16,742$ (98,336) Information Technology35,369 (78,020) (42,651) -4.70%(133,305)$ (178,632) License Center 245,624 (96,886) 148,738 6.78%(70,745)$ (180,487) Cash Reserve Target Levels TargetTarget Operating FundLowHigh General (unrestricted portion)35%50% Parks & Recreation20%30% Communications10%30% Information Technology10%15% License Center10%15% * $200,000 of fund balance is applied in the 2023 budget for the Parks & Rec Vehicle & Equipment Fund and $126,500 is designated to cover increased fuel costs (reserve level would be 43% if these funds are used) 1 Attachment B It should be noted that these projections are based on preliminary financial results through October 31, 2022 along with estimated financial activity for the remainder of the year. For the General Fund, the margin of error is +/- 3% ($400,000) that can be expected given these assumptions. The License Center has seen some recovery from the past two years. This fund will likely end 2022 with a positive fund balance, but it will be under the low target reserve level. In all likelihood, a transfer in will be needed at year end to achieve the low target reserve. The Information Technology fund is projected to end the year in a deficit position. In 2021, $360,160 was swept out of this fund into the excess cash reserve fund. In 2022, we have the option of folding this fund into the general fund, since we are now contracting with Metro-INET, or we can transfer dollars into the fund to maintain the low target reserve level. The Parks & Recreation fund is projected to end the year with a reserve level of 33.69% which is over the maximum level of reserves for this fund. If the projection holds to year end, $208,318 could potentially be swept to the excess cash reserve fund. Final projections will go to the City Council in March 2023. In 2019 the council approved the establishment of a Cash Reserve (cash carryforward) Fund using reserves that exceed the HIGH target level as measured at the end of the fiscal year. The following chart shows the activity within the Cash Reserve Fund since it was created. Funding Sources ( Uses) InformationParks & LicenseCommuni-Use of Excess Cash YearGeneralTechnologyRecreationCentercationsFundsReserve Fund Cash Balance: January 12018-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Contribution2018- 170,000 635,000 81,000 - - 886,000 Cash Balance December 312018- 170,000 635,000 81,000 - - 886,000 Contribution 2019- 234,924 169,985 249,140 124,947 - 778,996 Interest Revenue201910,084 - - - - - 10,084 Tranfer to Gen Fd-min. balance2019- - - - - (918,583) (918,583) Cash Balance December 31201910,084 404,924 804,985 330,140 124,947 (918,583) 756,497 Contribution 2020- 193,990 - - - - 193,990 Interest Revenue20206,323 - - - - - 6,323 Equity Consultant2020- - - - - (100,000) (100,000) Trf to Parks & Recreation2020- - - - - (235,798) (235,798) Trf to License Center2020- - - - - (354,958) (354,958) Cash Balance December 31202016,407 598,914 804,985 330,140 124,947 (1,609,339) 266,054 Contribution 2021- 360,160 79,662 - - - 439,822 Interest Revenue20211,070 - - - - - 1,070 Cash Balance December 31202117,477 959,074 884,647 330,140 124,947 (1,609,339) 706,946 2023 Budgeted uses: Fuel Increase(126,500)(126,500) Parks & Rec Vehicle & Equip Fund(200,000)(200,000) Estimated Balance **380,446 ** License Center & IT fund currently projected to be $204,050 below LOW target level The City is committed to maintaining a strong financial condition which has helped mitigate the impact of the pandemic and its effects on the CityÓs operations. 2 Attachment B Final Comments As noted above, the amounts shown in the tables represent an estimate of what may be available for future use. ItÓs recommended that the Council wait until the final year-end figures are available before rendering any decision on whether to repurpose funds. 3 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:*RVCouncil; Pat Trudgeon; Corey A. Yunke; Rebecca Toews Subject:Online Form Submittal: 2023 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Date:Sunday, September 18, 2022 2:29:57 PM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. 2023 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities The City of Roseville believes that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. in this spirit, City staff and City Council encourage residents to provide feedback and to ask questions throughout the budget process and in advance of the adoption of the 2023 budget. Contact Information Richard First Name Cloutier Last Name 637 TRANSIT AVE W Address 1 Field not completed. Address 2 Roseville City MN State 55113 Zip Code Home or Cell Phone Number Email Address Field not completed. 1. In what ways does the preliminary budget align with your priorities for Roseville? Full time Environmental Sustainability Specialist. 2. In what ways does Renaming parks. the preliminary budget Dance Studio in the Master Plan. not align with your priorities for Roseville? Field not completed. What changes would you suggest for the 2023 City Budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Form included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 2 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:*RVCouncil; Pat Trudgeon; Corey A. Yunke; Rebecca Toews Subject:Online Form Submittal: 2023 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Date:Saturday, September 3, 2022 5:43:41 PM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. 2023 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities The City of Roseville believes that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. in this spirit, City staff and City Council encourage residents to provide feedback and to ask questions throughout the budget process and in advance of the adoption of the 2023 budget. Contact Information Emmit First Name G Last Name 2194 Irene Address 1 Field not completed. Address 2 Field not completed. City Field not completed. State Field not completed. Zip Code Field not completed. Home or Cell Phone Number Email Address I love the strong investment into parks and recreation. Roseville 1. In what ways does has the parks parks out of any city I’ve ever lived in and it makes the preliminary budget sense why. align with your priorities for Roseville? Police being given 18% of the budget and being the second 2. In what ways does highly funded section feels a little disrespectful considering the preliminary budget Roseville is below average in crime not only in Minnesota, but not align with your nationwide. priorities for Roseville? I don’t see a scenario where the Police funding was cut by 33% What changes would that Roseville would become some crime haven. It would also you suggest for the allow Roseville to fund a non armed community peace force that 2023 City Budget? can deal with non violent crimes. Roseville could also further fund parks, schools, and other ESSENTIAL services other than police. There have been many major US cities to significantly cut the police budget and I think a city like Roseville with its older population and low crime can afford to be a leader for the rest of the twin cities. NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Form included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. From:noreply@civicplus.com To:*RVCouncil; Pat Trudgeon; Corey A. Yunke; Rebecca Toews Subject:Online Form Submittal: 2023 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Date:Friday, August 26, 2022 10:05:01 AM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. 2023 Roseville Resident Budget Priorities The City of Roseville believes that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process. in this spirit, City staff and City Council encourage residents to provide feedback and to ask questions throughout the budget process and in advance of the adoption of the 2023 budget. Contact Information Carol First Name Marchel Last Name 2976 Highcourte Address 1 Field not completed. Address 2 Roseville City MN State 55113 Zip Code Home or Cell Phone Number Email Address Park and Rec have a sizeable presence in the budget 1. In what ways does the preliminary budget align with your priorities for Roseville? More $$ needed to go to climate/sustainability efforts. 2. In what ways does the preliminary budget not align with your priorities for Roseville? City should budget for a staff position for sustainability manager What changes would you suggest for the 2023 City Budget? NOTE: If you submit this form, please DO NOT mail the Roseville Resident Budget Priorities Form included in the September/October City News. Thank you! Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. How would you prefer to No Reply Necessary be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Please Share Your councilmember, Comment, Question or Concern is it legal for you to change the status of the Street Infrastructure Replacement Fund? wasn't this fund created with money from voter approved bonds? i thought $10 million was suppose to stay in this fund and the interest used for street maintenance? can the council/staff ask the voters to authorize bonds for a fire station, but then spend the money on a waterpark? it would be different if these funds came from general property taxes but voters were told how these funds would be used and they should continue to be used in that manner. it does not seem ethical to tell the voters that voter approved bond funds will be spent one way and then spend it another way. also, doesn't having this fund help the city maintain an excellent credit rating? will this affect the city's credit rating? have a great day! roger roger hess jr Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 2 How would you prefer to Email be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Please Share Your I have been paying attention to the budget for nearly two Comment, Question or decades. I just reviewed a few old email threads between Chris Concern Miller and myself on property taxes, CIP, sustainability and metrics used (or not) to track Departmental budget and spending. I remember when the City was not on a sustainable path in terms of spending. It is not place to which to aspire. I disagree with the Finance Commission recommendation to reduce the levy to 5 or 6 percent from the recommended (and already decreased from the most desired plan). I strongly object to tapping reserves. We are living in an uncertain time, including financially. Now is not the time to take a risk on drawing down our reserves .... we may indeed need them. And, I am very concerned about our ability to attract talent and retain them. We all know that this will require very competitive salaries and benefits, which may involve even more money than currently foreseen. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 2 From:noreply@civicplus.com To:*RVCouncil; Rebecca Olson; Pat Trudgeon Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date:Tuesday, August 23, 2022 11:42:32 AM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. 2023 Budget Subject Contact Information Cynthia White Name: 2489 Churchill St. Address: Roseville City: Minnesota State: 55113 Zip: This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. Email How would you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: I appreciated the presentation last night on the 2023 budget. Please Share Your Comment, Question or I appreciate the sensitivity to citizen's budgets and the increase Concern in property tax. As much as I appreciate the Parks, I wonder if they need more budget than the Police and Fire Departments at this time. I had reason to learn about, and then contact, the Housing Navigator. I was favorably impressed and though I wish our society did not need this kind of help, I am glad someone is there helping our community. I am concerned that the increases in salary will not be enough to retain our staff, and that we will lose not only staff but their knowledge. It is such a competitive environment. I am confident that the management has studied this subject, but I'd sure encourage a second look ... including being sure our City Manager's salary is competitive. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 Item No.: 7.b Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Approving Liquor License Renewalsfor 2023 1 B ACKGROUND 2 Under City Code, a public hearing is required to consider approving liquor license renewals for the 3 following calendar year. The City has received the following completed renewal applications for 2023: 4 5 7 Off Sale Intoxicating liquor licenses (maximum of 10 permitted under City Code) 6 9 Off Sale 3.2 Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses 7 20 On Sale Intoxicating liquor licenses 8 26 On Sale 3.2 Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor licenses 9 22 On Sale Wine licenses 10 4 Club liquor licenses 11 5 Brewery Liquor Licenses 12 1 Micro Distillery Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor 13 14 A detailed list of allliquor license renewals is included in Attachment A. 15 16 The following liquor establishments had liquor compliance failures during the previous 5 years: 17 Establishment Date Baldamar 9/12/2022 Chili’s Grill & Bar9/12/2022 Khan’s Mongolian Barbeque 9/12/2022 Red Lobster9/12/2022 Szechuan 9/12/2022 Big Bowl 2/14/2022 India Palace 2/14/2022 Keys Café & Bakery 2/14/2022 Kyoto Sushi 2/14/2022 Portillo’s Hot Dogs 8/19/2020 Famous Dave’s7/30/2019 Khan’s Mongolian Barbeque 7/31/2019 Chipotle Mexican Grill #1081 6/4/2018 18 19 The Council has discretion to factor in these compliance failures in considering whether to renew a liquor 20 license. 21 22 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 23 The regulation of establishments that sell alcoholic beverages has been a long-standing practice by the 24 State and the City. 25 F INANCIAL I MPACTS 26 The revenue that is generated from the license fees is used to offset the cost of police compliance checks, 27 background investigations, enforcement of liquor laws, and license administration. 28 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 29 All liquor license renewal applications have met Statutory and City Code requirements. Motion to 30 approve the liquor licenses upon receipt of all outstanding applications materials and payments. 31 32 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 33 Motion to approve/deny the renewal of the requested liquor licenses for 2023, upon receipt of all 34 outstanding applications materials and payments. 35 Prepared by: Katie Bruno, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: A: List of requested liquor license renewals for 2023 36 37 Off-Sale Attachment A 38 Chuchao Liquor 39 Cub Liquor 40 Cub Wine & Spirits 41 MGM Wine & Spirits 42 Target Store T-2101 43 Top Ten Liquors 44 Total Wine & More 45 46 Off-Sale 3.2 Non-Intoxicating 47 Cub Foods – 1201 Larpenteur Ave 48 Cub Foods – Har Mar 49 Grab N Go 50 Roseville Winner 51 Speedway #4115 52 Speedway #4210 53 Speedway #4502 54 Speedway #4520 55 Speedway #7030 56 57 On-Sale & Special Sunday Liquor Sales 58 Applebee’s Neighborhood Grill & Bar 59 Baldamar 60 Big Bowl 61 Buffalo Wild Wings Grill & Bar #355 62 Burger Dive 63 Cedarholm Golf Course 64 Chianti Grill 65 Chili’s Grill & Bar 66 Courtyard by Marriott 67 Crave 68 Double Tree by Hilton 69 Granite City 70 Khan’s Mongolian Barbeque 71 LaCasita 72 Lucky’s 13 Pub 73 Old Chicago 74 Olive Garden #1245 75 OSAKA Roseville 76 Pizza Luce 77 Red Lobster #154 78 79 On-Sale 3.2 Non-Intoxicating 80 Amira Choice Roseville at Lexington 81 Bonchon 82 Chipotle Mexican Grill #1081 83 D’Amico & Sons 84 Davanni’s Pizza & Hot Hoagies 85 Famous Dave’s BBQ Shack 86 Gamezenter 87 Good Earth Restaurant & Bakery 88 Hampton Inn 89 Hidden Puzzle Rooms 90 Ichiddo Ramen 91 India Palace 92 Karta Thai 93 Keys Café & Bakery 94 Kyoto Sushi 95 La Tapatia 96 Lisu Thai Taste 97 Mavericks 98 Pagoda 99 Parkway Pizza 100 Portillo’s 101 Punch Pizza 102 Residence Inn 103 Shake Shack 104 Starcade 105 Szechuan 106 107 Wine 108 Amira Choice Roseville at Lexington 109 Bonchon 110 Chipotle Mexican Grill #1081 111 D’Amico & Sons 112 Davanni’s Pizza & Hot Hoagies 113 Famous Dave’s 114 Gamezenter 115 Good Earth Restaurant & Bakery 116 Ichiddo Ramen 117 India Palace 118 Karta Thai 119 Keys Café & Bakery 120 Kyoto Sushi 121 La Tapatia 122 Lisu Thai Taste 123 Pagoda 124 Parkway Pizza 125 Portillo’s 126 Punch Pizza 127 Shake Shack 128 Starcade 129 Szechuan 130 131 On-Sale Club & Special Sunday Liquor Sales 132 B-Dale Club 133 Midland Hills Country Club 134 Rosetown American Legion 135 VFW 7555 136 137 On-Sale Brewer’s Taproom w/ Sunday 138 Bent Brewstillery 139 High Pines Brewing 140 141 Micro/Small Brewer Off Sale Malt Liquor 142 Bent Brewstillery 143 Granite City 144 High Pines Brewing 145 146 Micro Distillery Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor 147 Bent Brewstillery REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 Item No.:7.c Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Public Hearing to Consider the Approval of an Off Sale Liquor License and Cigarette/Tobacco Products Licensefor Kong Mong Liquor, Inc. dba Chuchao Liquor located at 700 County Road B West 1 B ACKGROUND 2 City Code permits a maximum of 10 Off-Sale Liquor Licenses within the city and no limit to the number 3 of Cigarette/Tobacco Products License. Currently, there are 7 Off-Sale Licenses issued. If approved, this 4 license would replace the current license held by Five Stars Power Inc. 5 6 Kong Mong Liquor, Inc. have submitted application materials to operate the store located at 700 County 7 Road B West currently operated by Five Stars Power Inc. 8 9 Kong Mong Liquor, Inc. have completed all the application materials for an Off-Sale License and 10 Cigarette/Tobacco Products License within the city. 11 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 12 Required by City Code. 13 F INANCIAL I MPACTS 14 Not applicable. 15 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION th 16 City Staff recommends that the City Council approve the transfer of the 7Off-Sale Liquor Licenseand 17 Cigartette/Tobacco Products License, pending a successful backgeorund check. 18 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION th 19 Motion to approve the issuance of the 7 Off-Sale Liquor License and a Cigarette/Tobacco License to 20 Kong Mong Liquor, Inc. pending a successful background check. 21 Prepared by: Katie Bruno, Deputy City Clerk Attachment: A: Applications from Kong Mong Liquor, Inc. Page 1 of 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 ItemNo.: 7.d Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval nd Item Description:Hold a public hearing and considerthe proposed ‘Wheaton Woods 2Addition’ Minor Platand Subdivision Variance creatinga residential lot from an outlotand an abuttingresidentiallot(PF22-011) 1 B ACKGROUND Applicant:Civil Site Group Location:2687 Dale Street|Outlot A, Wheaton Woods Property Owner:Paul Houck|Golden Valley Land Company Community Engagement:n/a Application Submittal:Initial receipt9/2/2022; Considered complete 9/29/2022 City Action Deadline:1/27/2023, per Minn. Stat. 462.358 subd. 3b General Site Information Land Use Context Existing Land UseGuidingZoning One-family residential, detachedLRLDR Site One-family residential, detachedLRLDR North One-family residential, detachedLRLDR West One-family residential, attachedMRMDR East Multifamily residentialHRHDR LDR One-family residential, detachedLR South LMDR Notable Natural Features:the site contains severalmature trees Planning FileHistory:2016Outlot A created by Resolution No. 11316approvingWheaton Woodsplat (PF16-003) Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making:quasi-judicial 7d RCA.docx Page 1of 5 1 Proposal Summary 2 The applicant proposes to combine Outlot A, Wheaton Woods with 2687 Dale Street and subdivide 3 them into two lots, Lot 2 to preserve the improvements at 2687 Dale Street and Lot 1, another nd 4 developable lot, to be known as Wheaton Woods 2 Addition. Outlot A had been set aside during the 5 platting of Wheaton Woods in 2016 for future combination with parts of one or both of the abutting Dale 6 Street parcels to create another residential lot as currently proposed. Because the proposed Lot 1 would 7 be less than 85 feet wide, approval of the proposed plat requires approval of the requested Subdivision 8 Variance. Illustrations and other information about the proposed plat are included with this RCA in 9 Attachment C. 10 When exercising the “quasi-judicial” authority on subdivision requests, the role of the City is to 11 determine the facts associated with a particular proposal and apply those facts to the legal standards 12 contained in the ordinance and relevant state law. In general, if the facts indicate the application meets 13 the relevant legal standards and will not harmthe public health, safety, and general welfare, then the 14 applicant is likely entitled to the approval. The City is, however, able to add conditions to all such 15 approvals to ensure that potential impacts to parks, schools, roads, storm sewers, other public 16 infrastructure, and the surrounding community are adequately addressed. Subdivisions may also be 17 modified to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to provide for the orderly, 18 economic, and safe development of land, and to promote housing affordability for all levels. 19 Minor Plat 20 Roseville’s Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed the proposal, which conforms to the 21 pertinent City Code provisions but for the proposed substandard width of the newly created lot. 22 Comments and feedback based on the DRC’s review of the revised application are included in the 23 analysis below, and the full comments offered in memos prepared by DRC members are included with 24 this RCA in Attachment D. 25 Proposed Lots 26 Lots in the LDR district are required to be at least 85 feet wide and 9,350 square feet in area. Lot 2 27 would exceed the minimum dimensional standards and Lot 1 would be about 9,900 square feet, but only 28 76 feet in width. Given the location of the existing garage at 2687 Dale Street the applicant has two 29 basic options for the location and configuration of the new shared property boundary, and both options 30 present certain compromises. One option represented in the current proposal would allow Lot 1 to 31 conform to the 85-foot minimum width requirement according to the zoning code’s definition of how lot 32 width is measured, but the boundary would need to deflect 9 feet westward to account for the minimum 33 setback required for the detached garage. While this option would technically conform to the 34 dimensional requirements of the zoning code, it would flout the preference for straight property 35 boundaries expressed in the subdivision code. The other option, represented as the primary proposal, 36 preserves a straight property boundary at the rear of 2687 Dale Street at the cost of Lot 1 conforming to 37 the minimum width requirement. It bears mention here that the applicant is treating the location of the 38 detached garage as a given because the additional cost to relocate or remove the garage would 39 compromise the “naturally occurring” affordability of this home. The home on Lot 2, 2687 Dale Street, 40 does not contain an attached garage and is considered affordable given its estimated market value 41 (according to Ramsey County) is $236,900. 42 Whether the garage is removed to allow for a boundary that satisfies both the preference for straightness 43 and the requirement for 85 feet of width in Lot 1, or one of the compromise options noted above is 44 considered, there is more than enough area for a new home in this location as contemplated in 2016. 45 Moreover, because Planning Division staff supports the preservation of the affordability of the existing 46 housing, staff is amenable to compromising either the lot width or the straightness of the lot boundary in 7d RCA.docx Page 2 of 5 47 order to leave the garage in place. If the City Council agrees that it is reasonable to allow a deviation 48 from the zoning or subdivision code standards to maintain the affordability of an existing home and 49 accommodate a new home, Planning Division staff suggests the proposed straight lot boundary is 50 preferable to the alternative even though the new Lot 1 would only be 76 feet wide. It bears noting the 51 City, according to a 2018 Housing Needs Assessment, remains in need of for-sale housing units even 52 after accounting for all new for-sale housing units created since the study was commissioned. 53 Setbacks and Impervious Coverage 54 Although building setbacks are not specifically reviewed and approved as part of a plat application, the 55 generalized building location represented in the preliminary development plans appears to conform to 56 the minimum property line setbacks of the LDR district of the City Code. 57 Likewise, the impervious coverage limits established in the zoning code are not strictly regulated in the 58 plat review process, but the impervious surfaces representedin plat application materials are withinthe 59 30% limit on these parcels. 60 Storm Water Management 61 A storm water management plan is a required component of a plat application. In this case, however, the 62 storm water management practices implemented in the surrounding Wheaton Woods development have 63 capacity to accommodate more than this one additional home. Therefore, while a grading plan is 64 included as part of Attachment C no storm water management plan is needed for this proposal. 65 Additional information from Public Works Department staff is included with this RCA as part of 66 Attachment D. 67 Tree Preservation 68 The tree preservation and replacement requirements in §1011.04 of the City Code provide a way to 69 quantify the amount of tree material being removed for a given project and to calculate the resulting tree 70 replacement obligation. Unlike the storm water management plan, a tree preservation plan for the 71 proposed new lot is necessary in this case because there was not a surplus of tree material remaining 72 from the earlier Wheaton Woods development. The applicant has provided the inventory of trees and the 73 associated calculation, which are included in Attachment C. Preliminary calculations based on the 74 proposed development would elicit no replacement obligation. 75 Park Dedication 76 The subdivision proposal was reviewed on November 1, 2022, by Roseville’s Parks and Recreation 77 Commission, which recommended a dedication of cash in lieu of park land. Additional information from 78 Parks and Recreation Department staff is included with this RCA as part of Attachment D. 79 3´¡£¨µ¨²¨® 6 ±¨ ¢¤ 80 The proposed plat includes a lot that is 76 feet in width. Because this less than the 85-foot minimum 81 established in Table 1004-3 (LDR Dimensional Standards) of the City Code, the proposed plat relies on 82 the approval of a subdivision variance as noted earlier in this RCA. Section 1102.02.C of the City Code 83 establishes a mandate that the City make four specific findings about a subdivision variance request as a 84 prerequisite for approving the variance pertaining to the nonconforming width of Lot 1. Planning 85 Division staff has reviewed the application and offers the following draft findings. 86 1. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is generally consistent with the 87 Comprehensive Plan because it represents the Comprehensive Plan’s goals of providing a variety of low 88 density housing options in the community. 89 2. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. 90 The basic purposes and intent of the zoning and subdivision ordinances as they apply to this situation are 7d RCA.docx Page 3 of 5 91 to ensure new lots have enough space for new residential development and intuitively simply 92 boundaries. The proposal is in harmony with these purposes of the zoning and subdivision ordinances 93 because the new boundary between Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be straight and orthogonal to the Wheaton 94 Avenue right-of-way while providing a building pad for a new home on Lot 1 that is no different than if 95 Lot 2 was made to conform technically to the minimum required lot width at the front setback line and 96 narrowed to enable the existing garage on Lot 2 to meet the minimum setback from its new rear 97 boundary. 98 3. An unusual hardship on the land exists.Requiring theexisting garage on Lot 2 to be removed to 99 enable Lot 1 to meet the 85-foot minimum width requirement and have a straight eastern boundary will 100 increase the cost of the naturally occurring affordable home at 2687 Dale Street. This obstacle to 101 designing Lot 1 to achieve the minimum width standard while using a straight boundary and preserving 102 the affordability of the existing house at 2687 Dale Street constitutes an unusual hardship, which the 103 subdivision variance process is intended to relieve. 104 4. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If the requested 105 subdivision variance is approved, the approval will not alter the essential character of the locality 106 because a new home would be built within essentially the same footprint as proposed whether the 107 requested subdivision variance is approved or not. 108 Public Comment 109 The City Council is responsible for holding a public hearing, which becomes an essential part of the 110 public record, prior to taking action on the subdivision application. At the time this RCA was drafted, 111 Planning Division staff had not yet received any comments from members of the public regarding this 112 proposal. 113 P OLICY O BJECTIVES 114 Ensure all sudbivisions of land lying within the incorporated limits of the City fully comply with the 115 regulations set forth in the Subdivision Code or Subdivision Variances are granted where necessary. 116 Regulations and requirements for the subdivision of land are necessary to preserve the health, safety, 117 general welfare, convenience, and good order of the community. 118 Preserve high quality naturally occuring affordable housing. 119 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS 120 Park dedication receipts of $4,250. 121 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 122 Adopt a resolution approving the requested Subdivision Variance and the proposed Wheaton nd 123 Woods 2 Addition plat based on the content of this RCA, public input,and City Council deliberation, 124 subject to the condition that the applicant shall submit $4,250 as payment of park dedication before staff 125 will release the signed plat to be recorded at Ramsey County. 126 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 127 Adopt a resolution approving the requested Subdivision Variance and the proposed Wheaton nd 128 Woods 2 Addition plat based on the content of this RCA, public input, and City Council deliberation, 129 subject to the condition that the applicant shall submit $4,250 as payment of park dedication before staff 130 will release the signed plat to be recorded at Ramsey County. 7d RCA.docx Page 4 of 5 131 A LTERNATIVE A CTIONS nd 132 A.Direct staff to preparea resolution approving the proposed Wheaton Woods 2Addition plat 133 based on the content of this RCA, public input, and City Council deliberation, subject to the 134 following conditions: 135 1. The proposed new shared lot boundary shall be revised to achieve a minimum of 85 feet of width 136 for Lot 1 and maintain a 5-foot setback for the existing detached garage on Lot 2 as illustrated in 137 the plan reviewed with this proposal. 138 2.The applicant shall submit $4,250 as payment of park dedication before staff will release the 139 signed plat to be recorded at Ramsey County 140 B.Pass a motion to table the item for future action. An action to table must be tied to the need for 141 clarity, analysis, and/or information to make a decision on the request. Tabling beyond January 23, 142 2023, may require extension of the action timeline mandated in Minn. Stat. 462.358 subd. 3b. 143 C. Direct staff to prepare a denial resolution for adoption at the next City Council meeting based 144 on the proposed plat’s noncompliance with the LDR lot width standards and the lot standards in the 145 Subdivision Code related to irregularly shaped parcels (Section 1103.05). 146 Prepared by Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd Attachments: A: Area map D: Comments from DRC B: Aerial photo E: Draft resolution C: Proposed plans 7d RCA.docx Page 5 of 5 GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 6001 GLENWOOD AVENUE 1133 ROSELAWN AVENUE W GV LAND COMPANY PAUL AND MARY HAUCK ROSEVILLE, MN WHEATON WOODS 2ND ADDN. PROJECT PCR "21 PCR "42 Sec. 2, Twp. 29, Rng. 23 Sec. 2, Twp. 29, Rng. 23 SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of E Line of the SE 1/4 of E Line of the SE 1/4 of the PIC " 21PIC "21 PIC "21 )65.876 deeD( 45.876 34'72°00S 35.874 E" °00N 00.001 W"34'72 E"34'72°00S 37.3091 2°00S 00.001 E"34'7 )W/R cilbuP A( TS ELAD N \]01\[ 01 PCV " PCV "01PCV "01 "01 PCV PCR "21 llaW enotsyeK S 00.001 E"34'72°00 10.76 E"34'72°00S MW aniarD \]11\[ HW rep tnemesaE ytilitU dna eg SDOOW NOTAE "6 70'72°00N 41.461 W" GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 6001 GLENWOOD AVENUE 1133 ROSELAWN AVENUE W GV LAND COMPANY PAUL AND MARY HAUCK ROSEVILLE, MN WHEATON WOODS 2ND ADDN. PROJECT 45.876 34'72°00S 35.874 E" °00N 00.001 W"34'72 E"34'72°00S 37.3091 °00S 00.001 E"34'72 S 00.001 E"34'72°00 10.76 E"34'72°00S 70'72°00N 41.461 W" GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 6001 GLENWOOD AVENUE 1133 ROSELAWN AVENUE W GV LAND COMPANY PAUL AND MARY HAUCK ROSEVILLE, MN WHEATON WOODS 2ND ADDN. PROJECT PCR "21 PCR "42 Sec. 2, Twp. 29, Rng. 23 Sec. 2, Twp. 29, Rng. 23 SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of E Line of the SE 1/4 of E Line of the SE 1/4 of the PIC " 21PIC "21 PIC "21 )65.876 deeD( 45.876 34'72°00S 35.874 E" °00N 00.001 W"34'72 E"34'72°00S 37.3091 °00S 00.001 E"34'72 )W/R cilbuP A( S ELAD N T \]01\[ 01 PCV " PCV "01PCV "01 "01 PCV PCR "21 llaW enotsyeK llaW dooW S 00.001 E"34'72°00 10.76 E"34'72°00S MW aniarD \]11\[ HW rep tnemesaE ytilitU dna eg SDOOW NOTAE "6 70'72°00N 41.461 W" RCA Attachment D I NTEROFFICE M EMORANDUM Date: November 14, 2022 To: Bryan Lloyd, Senior Planner From: Matthew Johnson, Parks and Recreation Director RE: Wheaton Ave and Dale St. Development This replat triggers park dedication. The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) reviewed this proposed project regarding park dedication on November 1, 2022. The PRC recommended park dedication satisfied in the form of cash. This development qualifies for one-unit fee or $4,250. Please contact me if there are any questions or concerns regarding any of the information contained herein. Page 1 of 3 RCA Attachment D I NTEROFFICE M EMORANDUM Date:November 14, 2022 To: Bryan Lloyd, Senior Planner From: Jesse Freihammer, Interim Public Works Director - Roseville Public Works nd Addition RE: Wheaton Woods 2 The Public Works Department reviewed the proposed plans for the project noted above and offer the following comments with regard to the project’s impact on City services and/or infrastructure: 1.Site Plan o The original plat created an outlot which was assumed to be a lot in the future. The roadway can accommodate this addition with no impacts. o The plat meets the city’s easement requirements. 2.Utilities o Water Watermain is available for connections o Sanitary Sanitary sewer main is available for connections. o Storm Sewer The 2016 Wheaton Woods Development was required to install stormwater treatment to accommodate the 2.3 acres of new proposed impervious. As built documentation shows that there was 1.98 acres of impervious installed in this development since 2016. The 1.98 acres includes the extension of Wheaton Ave., residential driveways, sidewalks, structures, and also includes residential improvements like sheds and patios. The required treatment was completed through the installation of four large infiltration basins. The basins were accepted and approved for being built per plan, and Public Works has been maintaining them since 2018. The proposed plat will add 0.08 acres of impervious to the larger development area. This increase is still well under the originalproposed impervious acreage for the development, and staff considers this new impervious from the plat to be treated by the regional basins the city currently owns and operates. Page 2 of 3 RCA Attachment D Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and on this project at this time. As the project advances, Public Works Department staff will continue to review any forthcoming plans and provide additional reviews and feedback as necessary. Please contact me should there be questions or concerns regarding any of the information contained herein. Page 3 of 3 RCA Attachment E EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 2 Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 28th day of November 2022 at 6:00 p.m. 3 The following Council Members were present: _________; 4 and _____ were absent. 5 Council Member _____ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 6 RESOLUTION NO. ___ 7 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED ÒWHEATON WOODS 2ND ADDITIONÓ 8 PLAT (PF22-011) 9 WHEREAS Civil Site Group has submitted a valid application for approval of the proposed nd 10 Wheaton Woods 2 Addition plat on behalf of Golden Valley Land Company, owner of the property 11 described as Outlot A, Wheaton Woods, and Paul Houck, owner of 2687 Dale Street; and 12 WHEREAS the proposed subdivision conforms to all of the applicable standards of the City of 13 Roseville zoning and subdivision codes except that the width of the proposed Lot 1 is narrower than the 14 minimum required width established in §1004.09 of the City Code; and 15 WHEREAS the Roseville City Council held the duly noticed public hearing for this application 16 on November 28, 2022; 17 WHEREAS the Roseville City has made the following findings pertaining to the nonconforming 18 length of the cul-de-sac street pursuant to §1102.02.C of the City Code, which mandates that the City 19 make four specific findings as a prerequisite for approving a subdivision variance: 20 1. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is generally consistent with 21 the Comprehensive Plan because it represents the Comprehensive PlanÓs goals of providing a variety 22 of low density housing options in the community. 23 2. The proposal is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the zoning and subdivision ordinances. 24 The basic purposes and intent of the zoning and subdivision ordinances as they apply to this situation 25 are to ensure new lots have enough space for new residential development and intuitively simply 26 boundaries. The proposal is in harmony with these purposes of the zoning and subdivision 27 ordinances because the new boundary between Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be straight and orthogonal to 28 the Wheaton Avenue right-of-way while providing a building pad for a new home on Lot 1 that is no 29 different than if Lot 2 was made to conform technically to the minimum required lot width at the 30 front setback line and narrowed to enable the existing garage on Lot 2 to meet the minimum setback 31 from its new rear boundary. 32 3. An unusual hardship on the land exists. Requiring the existing garage on Lot 2 to be removed to 33 enable Lot 1 to meet the 85-foot minimum width requirement and have a straight eastern boundary 34 will increase the cost of the naturally occurring affordable home at 2687 Dale Street. This obstacle to 35 designing Lot 1 to achieve the minimum width standard while using a straight boundary and Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2 RCA Attachment E 36 preserving the affordability of the existing house at 2687 Dale Street constitutes an unusual hardship, 37 which the subdivision variance process is intended to relieve. 38 4. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. If the requested 39 subdivision variance is approved, the approval will not alter the essential character of the locality 40 because a new home would be built within essentially the same footprint as proposed whether the 41 requested subdivision variance is approved or not. 42 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to approve the nd 43 requested subdivision variance and the proposed Wheaton Woods 2 Addition plat, based on the public 44 record and City Council deliberation, subject to the condition that the applicant shall submit $4,250 as 45 payment of park dedication before staff will release the signed plat to be recorded at Ramsey County 46 WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 ItemNo.: 7.e Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval Item Description:Consider a resolution approving a Conditional Userequestto allow residential density greater than 24 dwelling units per acre in support of a proposed apartment project (PF22-012) 1 B ACKGROUND Applicant:Firm Ground Architects Location:1415 County Road B Property Owner:Brick by Brick, LLC Community Engagement:n/a Application Submittal:Received 10/7/2022; Considered complete 10/10/2022 City Action Deadline:12/9/2022, per Minn. Stat. 15.99 General Site Information Land Use Context Existing Land UseGuidingZoning undevelopedHRHDR Site Multifamily residentialHRHDR North CommercialMU-3MU-3 West One-family residential, detachedLRLDR East One-family residential, detachedLRLDR South Notable Natural Features:none Land UseHistory:Planning File 1611 (1985): approval of a variance to the minimum parking area setback from the eastern property line Planning File 2668 (1994): denial of a variance to the minimum building setback from the eastern property line for a proposed building addition Planning File 2778 (1995): approval of a variance to the minimum building setback from the eastern property line for a proposed building addition Planning File 16-006 (2016): denial of rezoning to HDR-2 Level of City Discretion in Decision-Making:quasi-judicial 7e RCA.docx Page 1of 5 1 0±®¯®² « 3´¬¬ ±¸ 2 The site was originally developed in 1958 as a nursing home facility that was ultimately demolished in 3 2010. Since that time the site has remained vacant. The applicant proposes to develop a new apartment 4 facility at a residential density greater than 24 dwelling units per acre under a provision adopted among 5 the Phase 1 zoning code updates in November 2021 allowing residential density up to 36 dwelling units 6 per acre to be reviewed and approved as a conditional usein the HDR district. Illustrations and other 7 information about the proposed development are included with this RCA in Attachment C. 8 Prior to the November 2021 zoning update, the Zoning Code and Zoning Map included an HDR-1 9 district (permitting up to 24 units per acre) and an HDR-2 district (with no established density limit). 10 While all parcels guided in the comprehensive plan for high-density residential development were 11 initially zoned HDR-1, the HDR-2 district was intended to provide an opportunity for the City to 12 facilitate residential developments greater than 24 units per acre through rezoning requests. In practice, 13 however, no such rezoning requests were ever approved. The primary reasons for denial were centered 14 in concerns the site could be developed in any way permitted in the HDR-2 district because the rezoning 15 action could not include conditions that the proposed development be implemented. Therefore, among 16 other changes, the November 2021 zoning update consolidated the HDR-1 and HDR-2 districts into a 17 single HDR district and allowed greater density as a conditional use, so as to ensure ability to secure 18 approval of densities up to 36 units per acre as permitted by the Comprehensive Plan. In this way, the 19 standard permitted density would still be limited to 24 units per acre but the City Council could facilitate 20 developments with greater density on a case-by-case basis with the greater certainty and control 21 provided by the conditional use review and approval process. 22 The conditional use process can facilitate up to 36 dwelling units per acre, which would yield 72 units 23 on the two acre subject site, and the narrow scope of the present application is approval of this 24 maximum standard density of 36 dwelling units per acre. Given approval of the 36 units per acre 25 density, the applicant proposes to develop 86 dwellings in accordance with the provisions of Zoning 26 Code §1019.10 (Bonuses). This section incentivizes the use of structured parking instead of unsheltered, 27 surface parking stalls by providing a density bonus; if a proposed development provides structured 28 parking for at least half of the required stalls, the development can earn a bonus of up to 20% greater 29 density than otherwise allowed on the site. The density bonus has been part of Roseville’s zoning code 30 since December 2010 and it has been achieved on other permitted developments over the past dozen 31 years, but this is the first time the density bonus for structured parking would be utilized in conjunction 32 with the conditional use provisions and revised setback requirements of the consolidated HDR district. 33 With the necessary amount of structured parking, the two-acre subject parcel would inherently permit 34 the development of up to 57 units on this site (i.e., at a density exceeding the nominal density limit of 24 35 units per acre) without the need for a conditional use approval. Because the applicant has put alot of 36 effort in developing highly refined plans, they have been able to demonstrate their ability to achieve the 37 density bonus. Therefore, the proposed 86-unit development represents up to 29 dwelling units beyond 38 what could be developed by right on the property if the conditional use request is approved. 39 When exercising the “quasi-judicial” authority on conditional use requests the role of the City is to 40 determine the facts associated with a particular proposal and apply those facts to the legal standards 41 contained in the ordinance and relevant state law. In general, if the facts indicate the application meets 42 the relevant legal standards and will not compromise the public health, safety,and general welfare, then 43 the applicant is likely entitled to the approval. The City is, however, able to add conditions to 44 conditional useapprovals to ensure that potentialimpacts to parks, schools, roads, storm sewers, and 45 other public infrastructure on and around the subject property are adequately addressed. 7e RCA.docx Page 2 of 5 46 #®£¨³¨® « 5²¤ ! «¸²¨² 47 Roseville’s Development Review Committee (DRC) met on several occasions to review the proposed 48 subdivision plans. Some of the comments and feedback based on the DRC’s review of the application 49 are included in the analysis below, and the full comments offered in memos prepared by DRC members 50 are included with this RCA in Attachment D. 51 Floor plans, exterior elevations, and other details are included with the materials in Attachment C; 52 helping to illustrate the proposal in greater detail. While the plans submitted have allowed Planning 53 Division staff to confirm the proposed project can be made to satisfy all of the pertinent zoning 54 requirements, some specific details may not be germane to the City’s consideration of the request for 55 conditional use approval. For example, the particular mix of unit sizes illustrated in the floor plans and 56 the exterior design details are useful for demonstrating the ability to conform to various zoning 57 standards, but theconditional use process might not speak directly to all such details. Additionally, the 58 Fire Marshal has noted that the new units will inevitably increase the number of annual inspections 59 under the multifamily licensing program and other calls for service. Because Fire Department staff 60 inspects 30% of such multifamily units each year, the additional 29 units facilitated by an approval of 61 the conditional use request represents a marginal increase of nine licensing inspections per year. 62 The Zoning Code does not establish any specific conditional use approval criteria to review when 63 considering a residential development at greater densities, but the conditional use process is nevertheless 64 an opportunity to analyze the potential impacts of the proposal on the area surrounding the subject 65 property. To that end, §1009.02.C of the City Code establishes a mandate that the Citymake five 66 general findings pertaining all proposed conditional uses. Planning Division staff has reviewed the 67 application and offers the following draft findings. 68 1. The proposed use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan 69 specifically identifies this site for high-density residential development “…with a density greater 70 than 12 units per acre.” 71 2. The proposed use is not in conflict with any Regulating Maps or other adopted plans. The proposed 72 development is not subject to a regulating plan map or other adopted plan. 73 It should be noted here the City’s Economic Development Authority commissioned a Housing 74 Needs Assessment in October 2018, which identified housing needs for the City through 2030. That 75 assessment revealed a need for 354 units of “rental units – market rate”. Since the assessment was 76 completed, only 117 units of such housing (i.e., The Isaac apartments)have been approved and 77 developed. In light of this, the results of this assessment suggest the City is still in need of 237 units 78 of the type of housing proposed by this project. Even if this proposed conditional use for increased 79 density is approved and other potential market rate apartment projects in the pipeline (e.g., Sands 80 Phase III) are considered, a citywide demand will remain for market rate rental housing units. Lastly, 81 all 117 units at The Isaac were absorbed quickly, suggesting the unit count identified in the Housing 82 Needs Assessment matches current market demands. 83 Additionally, being within a half mile of the A Line BRT stations on Snelling Avenue the 84 development siteis subject to the raised minimum residential density requirement of the BRT 85 Overlay District. Although the proposed development is practically unaffected by the overlay 86 district’s required minimum density of 15 units per acre, the greater density represented in the 87 request for conditional use approval is in line with overlay district’s mandate to maximize residential 88 densities with the half mile walk-shed surrounding the transit stops. 89 3. The proposed use is not in conflict with any City Code requirements. Based on the plans that have 90 been received and reviewed thus far, staff has found that revisions to the front façade along County 7e RCA.docx Page 3 of 5 91 Road B may be necessary to comply with requirements pertaining to building design. Staff believes 92 that compliance can be achieved, however, and a conditional use approval can be rescinded if the 93 approved use fails to comply with all applicable City Code requirements or any conditions of the 94 approval. 95 4. The proposed use will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets, and other public facilities. 96 The City conducted a traffic study in 2016, evaluating theimpacts of a development concept with 97 much greater density than the current proposal. Therefore, because the annual daily traffic volumes 98 in the study area have not increased since 2016, the study demonstrates that the proposed 99 multifamily development on the subject property will have minimal impacts on the roadway 100 network, and indicatesthat all studiedintersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of 101 service. Moreover, a multifamily development in this location would be well positioned to take 102 advantage of the robust service provided by Metro Transit’s bus route 65 on County Road B and the 103 A Line BRT along Snelling Avenue, as well as many walkable destinations. 104 Because Sector 1 of the parks and recreation system is already overtaxed and approval of the 105 conditional use application would represent more dwelling units than the 57 units that could be 106 permitted by right in this location, an approval should be conditioned on the applicant paying a park 107 impact fee of $4,250 for each dwelling unit beyond 57. The current proposal represents 29 units 108 more than what could be permitted by right, which would equate to a park impact fee of $123,250. 109 5. The proposed use will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood, will not negatively impact 110 traffic or property values, and will not otherwise harm the public health, safety, and general welfare. 111 Consistent with the preceding findings, Planning Division staff believes that the proposed 112 multifamily complex will be a valuable addition to this part of the community, will not create 113 adverse traffic impacts, and will not cause harm to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 114 P UBLIC C OMMENT/P LANNING C OMMISSION R ECOMMENDATION 115 The duly noticed public hearing for this application was held by the Planning Commission on November 116 2, 2022. Seven persons provided testimony, one in favor of the proposal and six in opposition. Concerns 117 included property values, loss of green space, traffic, noise, and loss of access to sunlight. The person 118 who spoke in favor of the proposal indicated the recent traffic improvements at County Road B have 119 been favorable and felt the project was appropriate for the City. The Planning Commission ultimately 120 voted 5-0-1 (McGehee abstained, Schaffhausen was absent) to approve the request consistent with the 121 staff recommended conditions. Outside of the public hearing, City staff has received two phone calls 122 about the proposal, one asking questions about the details of the proposal and one expressing opposition 123 to the proposed development, as well as a handful of emails. These emails, along with the draft minutes 124 of the public hearing, are included with this RCA as part of Attachment E. 125 It’s also worth noting that during the public hearing concerns were raised surrounding the 2016 traffic 126 study the City Engineer used to evaluate traffic impacts of the proposed project. The persons who 127 provided testimony during the public hearing asked for an updated traffic study, believing the base level 128 traffic volumes have increased since 2016 which fact, if true, could change the outcome. City Engineer, 129 Jesse Freihammer, responded to these concerns in an updated memo dated November 8, 2022, provided 130 as an attachment to the RCA. In summary, the City Engineer maintains the proposal will not have 131 significant traffic impacts. 132 P OLICY O BJECTIVES 133 sing throughout the City that attracts 134 and retains a diverse mix of people, family types, economic statuses,ages,and so on. 7e RCA.docx Page 4 of 5 135 Ensure provision of market rate rental units according to the need identified in the 2018 Housing 136 Needs Assessment. 137 Facilitate greater residential densities within the BRT Overlay District. 138 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS 139 Receipt of $4,250 park impact fee for each dwelling unit beyond the 57 units that could be developed by 140 right. Refer to DRC comments in Attachment D. 141 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 142 Adopt a resolution approving the proposed residential density of 36 units per acre based on the 143 content of this RCA, public input, the recommendation and findings of the Planning Commission, and 144 City Council deliberation, with the following conditions. 145 1. Pursuant to the memo from Public Works staff in Attachment D of this RCA, the applicant shall 146 enter into a Public Improvement Contract regarding the improvement on Albert Street and pathway 147 improvements. 148 2. Pursuant to the memo from Parks and Recreation staff in Attachment D of this RCA, the applicant 149 shall pay a park impact fee equal to $4,250 for each dwelling unit developed beyond the 57 units that 150 could be permitted by right under the requirements and incentives of the Zoning Code. 151 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 152 Adopt a resolution approving the proposed residential density of 36 units per acre based on the 153 content of this RCA, public input, the recommendation and findings of the Planning Commission, and 154 City Council deliberation, with the following conditions. 155 1. Pursuant to the memo from Public Works staff in Attachment D of this RCA, the applicant shall 156 enter into a Public Improvement Contract regarding the improvement on Albert Street and pathway 157 improvements. 158 2. Pursuant to the memo from Parks and Recreation staff in Attachment D of this RCA, the applicant 159 shall pay a park impact fee equal to $4,250 for each dwelling unit developed beyond the 57 units that 160 could be permitted by right under the requirements and incentives of the Zoning Code. 161 A LTERNATIVE A CTIONS 162 Pass a motion to table the request for future action. An action to table consideration of the request 163 must be based on the need for additional information or further analysis to make a decision. Tabling 164 beyond December 6, requires an extension of the action deadlines mandated in Minnesota Statuteto 165 avoid statutory approval. 166 Adopt a resolution to deny the request. Denial should be supported by specific findings of fact based 167 on the City Council’s review of the application, applicable zoning regulations, and the public record. 168 Prepared by Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd Attachments: A: Area map D: Comments from DRC B: Aerial photo E: Public comment and 11/2/2022 draft Planning C: Proposed plans and applicant Commission meeting minutes narrative F: Draft resolution 7e RCA.docx Page 5 of 5 RCA Attachment C th October 7, 2022PID: 102923340006 City of RosevilleCommunity Development Attn: Janice Gundlach CC: Bryan Lloyd 2660 Civic Center Dr. Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Janice, attached ConditionalUse Application form. Property: 1415 County Rd B West Roseville, MN 55113 Owner of record: Brick by Brick, LLC 900 American Blvd. E. #300 Bloomington, MN 55420 Phone: 651-206-4087 Email: vishal@venturemortgage.com : Firm Ground Architects Tom Wasmoen 275 Market Street, Suite 368 Minneapolis, MN 55405 Phone: 612-819-1835 Email: twasmoen@firmgroundae.com Civil Engineer & Surveyor: Civil Site Group Rob Binder 5000 Glenwood Ave Minneapolis, MN 55422 Phone: 612-615-0060 Email: rbinder@civilsitegroup.com Firm Ground Architects ŹŴŵȌŻŴżȌŴŻŶŸ ŵźŸɎ,§¸±«ºɎ2º¸««ºȍɎ2»¯º«ɎŶŹŻɎ¯´¬µȰ¬¯¸³¸µ»´ª§«Ȍ©µ³Ɏ ,¯´´«§¶µ²¯¹ȍɎ,¯´´«¹µº§ɎŸŸŷųŸɎ½½½Ȍ¬¯¸³¸µ»´ª§«Ȍ©µ³ ɎɎ Ɏ Page 1 of 8 RCA Attachment C Written Narrative: The written narrative should thoroughly address the following general items in addition to any specific requirements pertaining to the proposed use, which Section 1009.02 (Conditional Uses) of the City Code directs the City Council to evaluate during consideration of conditional use applications: The proposed use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan The land use map for the 2040 Comprehensive Planshowsthat the current zoning destination of HDR remains consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is not in conflict with any Regulating Maps or other adopted plans The proposed use of the site and plans do not conflict with any regulating maps or other adopted plans. The site is within the Rice Creek watershed district, and all necessarymeans will be taken to comply with developing within this watershed. The proposed use is not in conflict with any City Code requirements The proposed site is not in conflict with any City Code requirements. The applicant is seeking a density ratio over 24 units/acre that requires a conditional use application. The proposed use will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets and other public facilities The proposed use will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets, and otherpublic facilities.The proposed use will help promote use of public transportation and bicycling along Count Road B West. The proposed use will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood, will not negatively impact traffic or property values, and will not otherwise harm the public health, safety, and general welfare Thenarrative providedbelowwill reinforce that the proposed use will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood, will not negatively impact traffic or property values, and will not otherwise harm the public health, safety, and general welfare The applicant seeks to build an86-unit apartment building that offers a modern, comfortable and convenient lifestyle for renters in Roseville.We believe that amultifamilydevelopment of this scale would be a benefit to the community as another distinctive living option. We are proposing a mix of studios, 1 bedroom, 2-bedroom,and 2-bedroom with denunits. Most units will either be 1 bedroom or 2 bedrooms. The building will situate towards the southwest corner of the property, with wings running north and east.There will be two accesspoints to the buildingamain pedestrianentrance at the south(addressed) side of the building,and an entrance accessed from the parking lot that is nested at the inner corner of the building.The pedestrian entranceis accessed from a walkway that branches off from the existing boulevard alongCounty Road B West.Landscaping will enhance this paved walkway leading upto the entrance that will also act to enhance the unique Firm Ground Architects ŹŴŵȌŻŴżȌŴŻŶŸ ŵźŸɎ,§¸±«ºɎ2º¸««ºȍɎ2»¯º«ɎŶŹŻɎ¯´¬µȰ¬¯¸³¸µ»´ª§«Ȍ©µ³Ɏ ,¯´´«§¶µ²¯¹ȍɎ,¯´´«¹µº§ɎŸŸŷųŸɎ½½½Ȍ¬¯¸³¸µ»´ª§«Ȍ©µ³ Ɏ Ɏ Page 2 of 8 RCA Attachment C architectural features of the southwest corner of the building.Thisfeatureand pathway will promote pedestrian traffictowards the commercialareas along Snelling as well as ease of access for the Route 65 Metro Transit bus.Vehicularaccess will be located at the existing curb cut on Albert Street N. Ramp access to the below grade parking level is located onthenorthernend of the buildingwhile surface parking will be providedtowards the center of the property. Pedestrian pathways will be provided across the site to connect all the entrances as well as outdoor amenity space.This site design will facilitate a distinguished and attractive living destination while also accommodating and strengthening thenearbybusinesses.Aspaciousbike storage room located near the southern entrance will help promote residents to use alternate means of transportation when navigating around the neighborhood. The design intent of the new building is to apply the latest technology, materials and trends in lifestyle housing in an appealing combination that will capture a certain timelessness and be fresh and attractive for years to come. Materials will be selected for their durability, constructability and textural appeal. A combination of stone, glass, fiber cement siding, and MCM panelsystemswill create an interesting façade and low maintenance exterior finishes. The proposed material palette is both contemporary and dignified. Smooth off-white fiber cementand rhythmic dark grey metalpaneling are accented by areas ofwarmer textured limestoneveneerand sleek cedar-tonedvertical ribbed cladding. It is important to create a dynamic and balanced façade with the way in which the materials accent each other. The proposed site plan aims to create a sense of arrival and entry.The walkway up to the mainentrance, along with the landscaping,varied exterior depth, and walkout balconies of the second and thirdfloors carrythe potential of establishing an attractive and dignified arrival to the development.We believe this layout reinforces the destination of an attractive, modern building while also proving practical and responsible. The main pedestrian entrance and parking lot entrance arelocated across from each other within the L shape of thebuildingallowing for the majority of publicspaces to be centralized between the two points of entry. The centralized locale of amenities, such as theloungeand game room, along with high traffic zones of the mailbox/package roomsand conference/workspaces,will helpcreate opportunities for Firm Ground Architects ŹŴŵȌŻŴżȌŴŻŶŸ ŵźŸɎ,§¸±«ºɎ2º¸««ºȍɎ2»¯º«ɎŶŹŻɎ¯´¬µȰ¬¯¸³¸µ»´ª§«Ȍ©µ³Ɏ ,¯´´«§¶µ²¯¹ȍɎ,¯´´«¹µº§ɎŸŸŷųŸɎ½½½Ȍ¬¯¸³¸µ»´ª§«Ȍ©µ³ Ɏ Ɏ Page 3 of 8 RCA Attachment C spontaneous social interactions while tables, chairs and a coffee server will be located in this area to give people a reason to tarry in the space a bit longer and enjoy the company of their neighbors. th Exterior space will include a 4floor terraceon the southwest cornerwith built in BBQ grills, trellis or other space defining elements that make the patio both attractive and useful. Acommunity room adjacent to the spacious terrace will allow residents to gather for various sized eventsand have convenient access to the terrace allowingthe use of both spaces simultaneouslyif desired. The th location on the 4floor will promoteattractive views of bothdowntown skylines of Minneapolis and St. Paul.This space is envisioned as another bustling social gathering space for residents and friends to unwind and relax with one another. Aspacious fenced-indog exercise area in the northeast corner of the sitewill allow for residents with their pets to congregateand be social while their dogs also have time to be social and play. The development teamofBrick By Brickfrom Nath Companiesfor this project carry with them collectively over120 years of experience in developing properties in and around the Twin Cities area, ranging fromlarge franchises, hospitality,andcommercial real estateincluding numerous multifamily projects.With an attractive contemporary building and units design, this proposed project has the potential to be apopular addition to Rosevillesrenter housing market. We believe it will enhance Rosevillesbusinesses by attracting younger renters and families to the community who seek modern housing amenities in a growing and charming community in the heart of the Twin Cities. Firm Ground Architects ŹŴŵȌŻŴżȌŴŻŶŸ ŵźŸɎ,§¸±«ºɎ2º¸««ºȍɎ2»¯º«ɎŶŹŻɎ¯´¬µȰ¬¯¸³¸µ»´ª§«Ȍ©µ³Ɏ ,¯´´«§¶µ²¯¹ȍɎ,¯´´«¹µº§ɎŸŸŷųŸɎ½½½Ȍ¬¯¸³¸µ»´ª§«Ȍ©µ³ Ɏ Ɏ Page 4 of 8 900 AMERICAN BLVD. E., SUITE 300, BLOOMINGTON MN 55420 BRICK BY BRICK DEVELOPMENT, LLC 1415 COUNTY ROAD B W, ROSEVILLE, MN 55113 ROSEVILLE APARTMENTS PROJECT PPCCRR ""4422 PPCCRR ""4422 PPCCRR "" 4422 ))WW//RR cciillbbuuPP AA(( 8811 CCVVPP "" NN TT SS TTRREEBBLLAA .. PP..II..CC ""66 ..PP..II..CC ""66 ..PP..II..CC ""66 4433''2244°°0000NN 0000..775533 WW"" PPCCRR ""1122 kk ll aa ww ee dd ii SS ee tt ee rr cc nn oo CC 2244°°0000SS 0000..993322 EE""4433'' RPCA Attachment D I NTEROFFICE M EMORANDUM Date:October 24, 2022 To: Bryan Lloyd, Senior Planner From: Matthew Johnson, Parks and RecreationDirector RE: 1415 Co. Rd. B West The proposed development is located in Sector I of the Parks and Recreation system, one of the more densely populated sectors in Roseville. This sector includes many existing multi-family units and only 14acres of parkland. It is anticipated that this development will bring 86housing unitsto an already overtaxed portion of our parks system. Because this proposal is not replatting, it appears that this project does not qualify for Park Dedication. However, it is reasonable to assume that the impact of each of the units beyond what would be allowed without a conditional use(57 units) would be similar to that of a new subdivision. As such, the Parks and Recreation department recommends a park impact fee be considered as a condition of approval. One fee that could be considered is $4,250 per unit foreach unit beyond the maximum allowed without a conditional use permit (29 units). This is the standard per-unit fee used for cash in lieu of land when park dedication is assessed, and could be used similarly in this situation to offset the anticipated impact that these additional units will have upon the Parks and Recreation system. In recognition of the specific needs in this area, these funds could be dedicated specifically for use on Capital projects in parks located in sector I, such as Lexington, Keller Mayflower or Bruce Russell parks, to ensure that the residents in this development have access to high quality parks and recreation facilities that Roseville residents have come to expect. Page 1 of 4 RPCA Attachment D I NTEROFFICE M EMORANDUM th Date:October 25, 2022 To: Thomas Paschke, City Planner Bryan Lloyd, Senior Planner From: Neil Sjostrom AssistantFire Chief /Fire Marshal Development 1415 County Road B RE: TheFireDepartment reviewed the proposed plans for the project noted above, this project was reviewed from both an operational perspective, as well as from the perspective of being the Multi-Family Licensing authority within the City of Roseville. Impacts to the fire department include short and long-term impact: 1)Fire inspections and plan-review required for the construction of a large multi-family project.These types of large projects require significant staff time for plan review and the multiple inspections required due to the size of the project. Long-Term impacts of this project on the Fire Department include: 1)Increased annual licensing inspections and potential complaint follow-ups. The Fire Department multi-family licensing program is currently stretched thin and the additionalinspection requirements of a new multi-family project will only increase demand and pressure on the limited resources available. Even new construction projects have an increase in licensing complaints once buildings are occupied. 2)Increased 911 emergency response, the increase in population within the newly constructed multi-family building will result in an increase in the need for medical and fire services from residents. Page 2 of 4 RPCA Attachment D I NTEROFFICE M EMORANDUM Date:November 8, 2022 To: Bryan Lloyd, Senior Planner From: Jesse Freihammer, Interim Public Works Director - Roseville Public Works RE: Good Samaritan (1415 Cty Rd. B)Development Review The Public Works Department reviewed the proposed plans for the project noted above and offer the following comments with regard to the project’s impact on City services and/or infrastructure: 1.Site Plan o A traffic study was conducted in 2016. The scenario included 250 units with access to Albert St. Thescenario had no issues with that level of traffic, and no further requirements were required. The current proposal of 86 units will have 1,090 less trips per day than the 250-unit scenario studied in 2016. Current traffic volumes are the same or less. The new site plan will have the same access as the previous studied plan. Staff has determined the new proposal will not have any significant traffic impacts. Based on the existing traffic study, high-density development generates approximately 6.65 trips/day. For the 86 units proposed this equates to 572 new tripsor 1090 less than the peak scenario studied in 2016. Albert Street ADT from 2017 was 1,400 vpd. Latest counts have not returned to pre-covid conditions. County Road B ADTfrom 2018 was 10,500 vpd. In 2015 it was 10,800 vpd. Latest counts have not returned to pre-covid conditions. Since 2016, Albert has been convertedto a three-lane roadway which should help traffic flow and safetyespecially at driveways midblock. The intersection of Albert& Commerce is was converted to an all way stop in the September 2022, which should provide better safety with the increased traffic. o Pathway improvements on the westside of Albert St. and the north side of Cty. Rd B are shown.A public improvement contract will be required for the improvementon Albert St., and an easement will be required for the south end. The County is in the process of acquiring needed easements for the sidewalk on Cty. Rd. B. 2.Utilities o Water Watermain is available for connections Page 3 of 4 RPCA Attachment D o Sanitary Sanitary sewer main is available for connections. o Storm Sewer Storm sewer would be private. Rice Creek Watershed District Permit Required NPDES Permit Required Site plan appears to meet watershed district and city stormwater requirements. There are three proposed stormwater best management practices (BMPs) that are strategically located to minimize the peak stormwater volume and rate leaving the site. 3. Ramsey County o The proposed plans meet the County requirements. 4. General o A public improvement plan will be required for the pathway improvements Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and on this project at this time. As the project advances, Public Works Department staff will continue to review any forthcoming plans and provide additional reviews and feedback as necessary. Please contact me should there be questions or concerns regarding any of the information contained herein. Page 4 of 4 RCA Attachment E wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ aźƓǒƷĻƭΑĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲbƚǝĻƒĬĻƩЋͲЋЉЋЋ tğŭĻЋ 41 a. From the Public: Public comment pertaining to general land use issues not on this 42 agenda, including the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. 43 44 None. 45 46 b. From the Commission or Staff: Information about assorted business not already on 47 this agenda, including a brief update on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update 48 process. 49 50 None. 51 52 53 6. Public Hearing 54 55 a. Request to Allow Residential Density Greater Than 24 Dwelling Units Per Acre 56 As A Conditional Use In Support Of A Proposed Apartment Project At 1415 57 County Road B (PF22-012) 58 Chair Kimble opened the public hearing for PF22-012 at approximately 6:34 p.m. and 59 reported on the purpose and process of a public hearing. She advised this item will be 60 before the City Council on November 28, 2022. 61 62 Senior Planner Lloyd summarized the request as detailed in the staff report dated 63 November 2, 2022. 64 65 Member McGehee inquired on line 32-33, it seems like they are predicating them on 66 a highly refined planned and she wondered how staff defined that and whether that is 67 specific to this or a term staff uses more frequently. 68 69 Mr. Lloyd explained that is only intending to reflect the fact that if 32 units per acre 70 was approved, that would yield a total of 72 units on this site. He was referring to it 71 as being more refined because the applicant has gone beyond that sort of basic plan of 72 strictly speaking of what the applicant is asking for, that addition of density, and 73 showing their ultimate proposed development, utilizing the density bonus that is 74 available through the structure in the parking stalls. It has more details than 75 necessary for reviewing the application and what he was trying to suggest in his 76 language. 77 78 Member McGehee asked what are the design issues staff seems to have. 79 80 Mr. Lloyd reviewed on the map some of the issues that do not meet the Zoning Code 81 requirements. He indicated some of these are design considerations that have not 82 been met. 83 84 Member McGehee thought this is one of the nicer plans she has seen and did not 85 think that making it fit into an exact box is going to enhance it. She thought the 86 architects in this case have a nice-looking building that looks a little different than 87 anything else Roseville has. She wondered how much flexibility the City is willing to Page 1 of 13 RCA Attachment E wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ aźƓǒƷĻƭΑĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲbƚǝĻƒĬĻƩЋͲЋЉЋЋ tğŭĻЌ 88 provide given the architects have a very highly refined plan, which she thought was 89 attractive. 90 91 Mr. Lloyd explained for better or worse, how much flexibility the City is willing to 92 exercise is a different question from how much flexibility or discretion the Zoning 93 Code provides. Staff has discussed the plan internally and he has talked about it a bit 94 with the applicants and there was discussion on some ideas to deal with that. The 95 only alternative so far is to apply for a variance, which still could be done but it is not 96 immediately clear how an application to leave the building the way it is without 97 forcing it into something else meets the test for the hardship or practical difficulty of 98 meeting those requirements that is needed in a variance request. It is not an ideal 99 option but is the only path for additional flexibility since the Zoning Code does not 100 provide sort of built-in discretion on that. 101 102 Member Aspnes asked how much of the parking is underground and how much is 103 surface parking and is there a percentage required for the additional twenty-nine 104 units. She wondered if there is a ratio of underground parking that was increased to 105 accommodate for some percentage of these and is there sufficient parking either 106 within this L or underground so that guest and resident parking does not spill into the 107 neighborhood. 108 109 Mr. Lloyd indicated he did not know the direct answer regarding how many parking 110 stalls are underground and above ground and not something he spent time reviewing 111 as a part of this application. Those are more of the details that would be attended to 112 with a permit application to verify they have structured enough of them to justify the 113 density bonus and number of units that they are proposing. He explained he has 114 worked with the applicants on a previous version of the plan and it is very similar to 115 him. 116 117 Chair Kimble asked if the developer required to hold an open house. 118 119 Mr. Lloyd explained an open house was not required for this application. 120 121 Chair Kimble inquired if staff knew what the density per acre is on the adjacent 122 apartment buildings that are there. 123 124 Mr. Lloyd explained he did not look at that. He noted in the maximum zoning in 125 many of RosevilleÓs Zoning Districts for a long time has been 24 units an acre and he 126 expected it to be close to that. 127 128 Member Kruzel hope there was some good considerations in this plan for crosswalks 129 and fixing that whole area through there for pedestrians and bicyclists. She thought 130 there needed to be a focus on foot traffic. 131 132 Mr. Craig Gottschalk, representing Firm Ground Architects and the Ownership 133 Group, explained there are currently ninety stall slated for the garage and 139 total 134 parking spots. He reviewed the parking plans with the Commission. Page 2 of 13 RCA Attachment E wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ aźƓǒƷĻƭΑĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲbƚǝĻƒĬĻƩЋͲЋЉЋЋ tğŭĻЍ 135 136 Member McGehee asked if there was any consideration for around the building and 137 putting in more natural grasses in light of drought and climate changes. 138 139 Mr. Gottschalk explained the Civil Engineer that is in charge of the project has 140 landscaping requirements that are set forth by the City. The plan does address many 141 of the requirements. Due to sometimes the limitations of the rendering software, the 142 grass may not look as accurate as to what might be native to the area but certainly the 143 grass and anything planted in the area is native to the area. 144 145 Member McGehee asked if there is any possibility of any larger trees. 146 147 Mr. Gottschalk indicated he did not have the civil plans with him but he did know 148 that part of their landscaping plan there is an entire tree and bush and other plants and 149 flower scheme proposed for that site but he did not know the entire details. Whatever 150 trees that can be salvaged onsite will be saved and there is a requirement to plant 151 quite a bit. 152 153 Public Comment 154 155 Chair Kimble noted there was a note from Mr. & Mrs. Graham to the City in support 156 of the development and another email from Mr. & Mrs. Toconita who had a lot of 157 questions to staff regarding the project and felt it would be injurious to their 158 neighborhood. 159 160 Mr. Paul Johnston, Burke Avenue, explained one of the issues brought up was that 161 this development would not have a negative impact on neighboring properties. He 162 indicated he just had a market analysis done on his home and one of the things that 163 was spelled out in there, while determining the value of his property, was the large 164 green space on County Road B. If that is gone it will have a negative impact on his 165 property value. He is concerned with the traffic that this development will bring. 166 Staff brought up a six-year-old traffic study during the presentation which is not a 167 current traffic study and does not show how traffic is around the area today. It 168 appears that the developer would like the residents to live with what is considered to 169 be acceptable traffic levels based upon a six-year-old study, however, the developer 170 would like to have a variance to what is an established parameter. If the 171 neighborhood has to live within whatever parameters are currently established than he 172 would request the developer do the same. Particularly if looking at the intersections 173 of County Road B and Pascal. If a person tries to take a left off of County Road B to 174 Pascal that person will sit there for five to ten minutes and sometimes fifteen to 175 twenty minutes because of the increase in volume of traffic. Also, he noticed there 176 are new temporary stop signs at the north end of Albert which is another disaster 177 intersection. 178 179 Ms. Celeste Moore Hannan, 1398 Sandhurst Drive, indicated her house is directly 180 across from the driveway into and out of the new planned facility. She explained she 181 has many concerns. Her family has lived there for thirty-one years when the senior Page 3 of 13 RCA Attachment E wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ aźƓǒƷĻƭΑĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲbƚǝĻƒĬĻƩЋͲЋЉЋЋ tğŭĻЎ 182 housing was next to her. She noted the building has since been removed leaving the 183 open green space for twelve years. She thought the zoning has changed since the 184 application for that senior housing was done. She was surprised to get the notice in 185 the mail of this planned venture for a four-story apartment. She indicated this will 186 drastically change the neighborhood, her home, the amount of noise they experience 187 and wondered what kind of a sound barrier would be there. She indicated with this 188 tall of a building it will change the light of the house, yard. She noted her major 189 concerns would be the noise, traffic, parking and changes to the neighborhood, 190 evaluation of their home. 191 192 Ms. Mary Erb, 1397 Sandhurst Drive, indicated she has lived in the area for twenty- 193 seven years and raised five children there. She noted she taught her children to ride 194 bikes on Sandhurst but today she would not advise that on her worst enemy. Traffic 195 as it is, is terrible and more will be added with this development. He main concern is 196 going to be noise and traffic. She thought this is pushing way to many people into a 197 small area. 198 199 Mr. Phil Toconita, 1391 West Sandhurst Drive, explained he has lived there for fifty- 200 one years. He indicated the traffic is bad there already and some people do not stop at 201 the four way stop sign. There is a lot of speeding through the area as well. He 202 explained the parking from the current apartment building block the view as well 203 because there is not enough parking there and people park on the street. He agreed 204 that biking is also dangerous. 205 206 Mr. Thomas Masanz, explained he lived across from this development. He noticed 207 that it showed Albert as a three-lane road but one of those lanes is a turn lane. He 208 thought this was too much. He agreed with everything that has been stated so far. 209 210 Ms. Myra Toconita, 1391 West Sandhurst Drive, requested that a new traffic study be 211 conducted after all of the construction is complete in the area because that has altered 212 the number of vehicles that go by. She explained during the State Fair there is also 213 parking issues on the road. 214 215 Mr. Mike Bilski, CEO North American Banking Company, 2230 Albert Street, 216 explained the changes the County has done to the road have eased the speed and the 217 four way stop sign and changing of the lanes have been fantastic. He explained he 218 has been at this location for twenty-three years and the neighborhood has taken great 219 care of their homes. He thought the apartment buildings that exist there already have 220 also done a great job taking care of the property. He thought all in all what is 221 proposed here is good for the City. He did not think it is going to cause adverse 222 consequences with parking. There are a lot of things that go on in the area and the 223 parking is really a minor problem. He thought this is a great development for the 224 corner. 225 226 Chair Kimble closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. and recapped the resident 227 concerns. 228 Page 4 of 13 RCA Attachment E wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ aźƓǒƷĻƭΑĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲbƚǝĻƒĬĻƩЋͲЋЉЋЋ tğŭĻЏ 229 Ms. Lloyd addressed the 2016 traffic study and indicated it was determined this to be 230 an adequate traffic study. He reviewed some of the questions the residents brought 231 up regarding zoning of the previous senior housing building, landscaping, parking, 232 and traffic. 233 234 Commission Deliberation 235 236 Member Schaffhausen wondered with the density bonus, the City is really working 237 with trying to provide what the density bonus is as far as what it means from a 238 residential perspective, would be helpful and what would preclude the Commission 239 from saying this is something the City should do. 240 241 Mr. Lloyd explained the main achievement of this density bonus is that it reduces the 242 amount of surface parking and open lots and will help manage the amount of storm 243 water that is being generated on the site, at least from the flat areas and will also help 244 to reduce the radiant heat that comes from the sun warming up an asphalt parking lot. 245 He thought as much as anything it promotes a more efficient use of a given amount of 246 land by having the parking stalls underneath the building rather than on the surface. 247 He indicated as staff has reviewed this there is nothing that would preclude this 248 development from being built. 249 250 Member Schaffhausen left the meeting at 7:35 p.m. 251 252 Member McGehee thought that even though this is a lovely building it does not mean 253 that she agrees with the density of it. She thought the traffic was terrible along with 254 the intersection in the area. She also noted there were not any solar or electric 255 charging stations incorporated into the design or any environmental items. She 256 indicated she was not willing to support the additional units based on the 257 documentation in the packet. 258 259 MOTION 260 Member McGehee moved, seconded by Member Kruzel, to recommend to the 261 City Council approval of the increased residential density with the added 262 condition that the development be limited to a total of 72 units, based on the Fire 263 Departments findings. 264 265 Chair Kimble explained in regard to covered stations and electric charging stations in 266 the proposed development, the City does not have those incentives in place yet and is 267 pretty hard for a developer to respond to something this City does not have. 268 269 Member Kruzel asked if there was a possibility to get another traffic study done 270 before a decision was made. She wondered what the expiration was of a traffic study. 271 272 Mr. Lloyd was not sure if there is an expiration date for a traffic study. He thought it 273 had to do with the conditions and how the surrounding conditions have changed and 274 what is being proposed. One of the challenges he is seeing with having a new traffic 275 study done so it is available for the Planning Commission before action is taken is Page 5 of 13 RCA Attachment E wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ aźƓǒƷĻƭΑĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲbƚǝĻƒĬĻƩЋͲЋЉЋЋ tğŭĻА th 276 that the sixty-day timeline for the CityÓs action expires December 9 and there would 277 not be time to get the traffic study done and through the to the City Council in time. 278 The timeline would have to be extended with the developerÓs approval. 279 280 Member Pribyl thought another issue with a new traffic study is there is still a lot of 281 construction in the area so she imagined it would be awhile before a new traffic study 282 would be an accurate reflection on the area. 283 284 Chair Kimble indicated she would like to hear from the applicant on this to see if 285 there is any impact on the project before a vote. 286 287 Mr. Josh McKinney, Measure Crew, consultant for the applicant, explained the 288 difference between eighty-six units and seventy-two units is absolutely massive on a 289 project of this scale. He noted seventy-two units is not something that they could 290 feasibly construct and are really seeking eighty-six to make the project work on a site 291 that is this tight of two acres. Regarding traffic, the previous study, as noted in the 292 City EngineerÓs report had stated that it studied two hundred fifty-unit options and 293 this proposed project is approximately a third of the total units of that two hundred 294 fifty-unit option. If things are up and down or in flux, ultimately he felt they would 295 be well within the current traffic study in terms of the amount of trips generated from 296 this site. He noted there will be significant buffering for headlights along the parking 297 lot and more screening can be done if needed. 298 299 Chair Kimball thanked Mr. McKinney for the information. She noted she was willing 300 to trust staffÓs judgement on the traffic and if the engineers did not think a new study 301 was warranted she personally would trust their judgement on that. 302 303 Mr. McKinney explained what they are asking per the CUP request is not zero units 304 or eighty-six it is an increase of fifty-six to eighty-six. He noted regarding a traffic 305 study would thirty new units necessitate a new traffic study. He indicated he would 306 struggle to see it creating enough of a difference when they are already talking about 307 a significant reduction in units compared to the previous study. 308 309 Mr. Gottschalk explained from a development standpoint, a development like this 310 increases the tax base significantly and more money will be coming into the City 311 could help offset some of those costs. In speaking about the parking being a critical 312 point in a project like this and to maximize the site to pay for the units, they also look 313 at this from an amenity standpoint as well. They have taken great care within the site 314 plan, as far as the exterior amenities go as well as with some of the interior amenities, 315 which is not a part of the conditional use. There are a lot of good high valued market 316 rate amenities that are a part of this project such as a club room, community room and 317 a fourth-floor terrace and upper floor community room to encourage community 318 gathering. 319 320 The Commission discussed with staff the conditional use requirements in the staff 321 report. 322 Page 6 of 13 RCA Attachment E wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ aźƓǒƷĻƭΑĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲbƚǝĻƒĬĻƩЋͲЋЉЋЋ tğŭĻБ 323 Member McGehee asked if she could amend her motion. 324 325 Member Kruzel indicated when explained differently it changes this because her 326 assumption was this was going automatically to the higher number of units but it is 327 not, there is a cap. 328 329 Member McGehee explained the Commission can make a cap by including it in the 330 motion. In this particular case one of the conditions is that the number of units does 331 not exceed seventy-two. 332 333 Mr. Lloyd indicated that was correct. He was contemplating the prospect of having a 334 condition of approval that prevents somebody from doing a thing that the Zoning 335 Code allows them to do by right and that is a little less than comfortable for him. 336 337 Member Kruzel agreed and did not think that would work. 338 339 Mr. Lloyd explained Ms. Gundlach did some quick math and came up with thirty 340 units an acre with the ability to use the density bonus can get to the seventy-two units. 341 342 Member McGee thought the motion could be amended to state thirty units per acre. 343 344 Member Aspnes thought if they were going to seventy-two because they thought the 345 City services can support seventy-two, the jump to eighty-six is not huge in her mind, 346 it is marginal. Once it gets to seventy-two, how much bigger is the impact to it. The 347 site as it stands would support fifty-seven without any approval needed. 348 349 Mr. Lloyd indicated that was correct and affirmed that at a certain point requiring 350 fewer units the project goes away entirely. Of the projects that have come to staffÓs 351 attention for this site over the last few years, this is far and away the smallest and the 352 least number of units. That is testament to the fact that there is a minimum number of 353 units that need to be built in order to have a project that can function and be built in 354 the first place. 355 356 Chair Kimble noted the amount in the staff report states thirty-six units per acre and 357 she wondered if that should be thirty units per acre. 358 359 Mr. Paschke indicated it is what is shown in the staff report, thirty-six units per acre. 360 361 Chair Kimble wanted to make sure everyone was clear about the motion in order to 362 make a motion. 363 364 Member Kruzel felt she understood what the developer was saying that it was not 365 feasible to not have it larger and the Commission talked about trusting the reports 366 about the traffic study but her biggest concern was the traffic and the pedestrians. If 367 that all can work then increasing the number works for her after more clarification. 368 She indicated she would withdraw her second to the motion. 369 Page 7 of 13 RCA Attachment E wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ aźƓǒƷĻƭΑĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲbƚǝĻƒĬĻƩЋͲЋЉЋЋ tğŭĻВ 370 Member McGehee withdrew her motion. 371 372 Member Aspnes asked if the City is aware that this neighborhood has traffic issues. 373 374 Mr. Paschke knew the City as well as the County was aware of the issues at County 375 Road B and Snelling Avenue. He reviewed some other issues within the area that are 376 not functioning as the County would like to see but he was not sure if the City was as 377 aware of issues on local streets in the area. 378 379 Member Pribyl moved, seconded by Member Bjorum, to recommend to the City 380 Council approval of the proposed residential density of 36 units per acre, based 381 on the content of the RPCA, public input, and Planning Commission 382 deliberation with the two conditions listed. (PF22-020). 383 384 Member Pribyl indicated she sympathized with the residents in the neighborhood and 385 hears the neighborhoodÓs concerns but felt that going from the fifty-seven that they 386 would be allowed to by right to the eighty-six that the developer is asking for is going 387 to make a significant difference and she sympathized with the developers concerns as 388 well and what is needed to make this development work. She also agreed with the 389 Fire Departments comments on this development as well. 390 391 Member Bjorum agreed and felt this is a quality development in a vacant lot. The 392 area is busy and he lives close to this intersection but he did not think the change to 393 the density allowed to what the developer is asking for is significant enough, 394 especially given that the traffic study was expecting more than double what is being 395 asked here. He thought this is a quality project which makes sense and worth moving 396 ahead. 397 398 Ayes: 5 399 Nays: 0 400 Abstain: 1 (McGehee) 401 Motion carried. 402 403 7. Other Business 404 a. Discussion Regarding the Table of Uses (Table 1007-2) For The Institutional 405 District Of The Roseville Zoning Code And The Need For Potential 406 Amendments (PROJ0044-Amdt 1) 407 City Planner Paschke reviewed the Table of Uses for the Institutional District of the 408 Roseville Zoning Code and the need for potential amendments with the Commission. 409 410 Chair Kimble thought it was a lot to read. She indicated as she looked at the research 411 the White Bear Lake looked good, but the Shoreview did not. She liked that 412 Roseville has the Institutional District, but she understood staff issue that it is not 413 defined enough. She also liked the idea of having the zoning or district that is public 414 or institutional and to Mr. PaschkeÓs point, maybe it is a use, not whether it is public 415 or private necessarily because there could be some things. She liked the way 416 Roseville is doing it but with more definition of uses. She noted the only use she did Page 8 of 13 RCA Attachment E Page 9 of 13 RCA Attachment E Page 10 of 13 RCA Attachment E Bryan Lloyd From:Bryan Lloyd Sent:Monday, October 31, 2022 10:51 AM To:'PHIL TOCONITA' Subject:RE: Request for clarification PCA Nov. 2, Item No. 6A Hi,Mr.andMrs.Toconita. Thankyouforyourcommentsandinsightfulquestions.Wecancertainlydiscussanyofthetopicsinfurtherdetailona phonecallifyou'dlike,butI'llbeginbyansweringyourquestionsinthisemail. \[ğƓķ ƭĻIźƭƷƚƩǤʹ Sincethesitehasbeenvacantforsometimeandtheproposedredevelopmentissubstantiallydifferentfromwhathad beenthereinthepast,thepreviousvarianceapprovalsnotedinthestaffreportdon'treallyhaveanybearingonthe futuredevelopmentofthesite.Thisisastandardpartofthesereportsandtheinformationisonlyprovidedforthesake tepicture,ifyouwill,ofwhattheCityhasbeenaskedtoconsiderinthepast. ofpaintingamorecomple I5w5źƭƷƩźĭƷƭʹ First,HDRissimplyanabbreviationof"highdentisyresidential",andIseenowthatneglectedtowriteoutthedistrict namesinthereportbeforeabbreviatingthem.TheHDR1and2districtswerecreatedunderapreviousversionofthe zoningcode;asthereportindicates,theyallowedhighdensityresidentialdevelopmentattwolevelsofdensity:HDR1 permitteduptoadensityof24dwellingunitsperacreandHDR2permittedmorethan24dwellingunitsperacre. Underthispreviousversionofthezoningcode,theHDR2districtwasavailableasatoolwithwhichtheCityCouncil couldapproveresidentialdevelopmentswithgreaterdensitythantheHDR1district.Forratheresotericreasonsthatwe cantalkaboutifyoulike,theCityCouncilneverusedtheHDR2district,whichsuggeststherewasn'tmuchvaluein havingthosetwoHDRzoningdistrictsinthezoningcode.Inlastfall'szoningupdate,therefore,thosetwoformer districtswerereplacedwithasingleHDRdistrictthatallowedtheCityCounciltoconsiderapprovingresidential developmentproposalswithgreaterdensityinaway(i.e.,withconditionaluses)thatgivestheCitymorecontrolover theoutcomes. /ƚƓķźƷźƚƓğƌ ƭĻƭʹ Thebasicpurposeofthezoningcodeistospecifywhatlanduses(e.g.,houses,apartments,retailstores,restaurants, offices,schools,placesofworship,factories,warehouses,etc.)areallowedinagivenlocationandregulatehowthose thingsarebuilt(e.g.,theirminimumsetbacks,maximumheight,etc.).Inagivenzoningdistrict,landuseswilleitherbe permitted(whichmeansthattheownerofthepropertydoesn'tneedCityCouncilapprovaltodoit),prohibited,or "conditional"inazoningdistrict,itessentiallymeanstheuseisgenerallyfinebut conditional.Ifalanduseisidentifiedas theCityhastheopportunitytoreviewaspecificproposaltoevaluatewhetheritcouldbeexpectedtohavesignificant adverseimpactsinitsparticularlocationand,ifso,toeitherdenytheproposalorapproveitwithsomecarefullychosen conditionstomitigatethepotentialadverseimpacts.Inthiscase,aresidentialdevelopmentatadensityabove24units peracreandupto36dwellingunitsperacreisaconditionaluseintheHDRzoningdistrict.ThereforetheCityisableto reviewtheapplicant'sproposalforitspotentialtohaveadverseimpactsintheparticularlocationwhereit'sproposed andestablishrequirementstomitigateanysuchimpactsor,iftheanticipatedimpactsarefoundtobetooseveretobe mitigated,torefusetoapprovetheapplication. 5ĻƓƭźƷǤ.ƚƓǒƭʹ Anotherpartofthezoningcodeattemptstoencouragedeveloperstoprovidemoreoftheirrequiredparkingstalls withinstructures(e.g.,ingaragesunderneathanapartment)ratherthaninlargesurfaceparkinglots.Onewayof encouragingthisistoallowthedeveloperstoearntherighttobuildmoreapartmentunitsthanthezoningstandards indicateinexchangeforbuildingenoughstructuredparking.It'simportanttonotedeveloperscan'tbuildinfinitelymany 1 Page 11 of 13 RCA Attachment E unitsonapropertyiftheybuildmoreandmoreoftheparkingstallsinstructuredgarages;rather,evenifadeveloper buildsstructuresforalloftherequiredparking,thedensitybonusislimitedto20%moredwellingunitsthanisallowed bythestandarddensitylimitoftheapplicablezoningdistrict.Inthiscase,forexample,theHDRdistrictstandardspermit sto48unitsonthistwoacreparcel.Ifthedeveloperstructures anapartmentofupto24unitsperacre,whichequate enoughparking,theycanearntheabilitytodevelopupto20%morethanthat,orupto57units,withouttheneedfor specialapprovalsfromtheCityCouncil. ağƩƉĻƷwğƷĻʹ ThisjustmeanstherentsfortheseapartmentswouldbeͻƭĻƷbythemarkĻƷͼandnotsubsidizedbythepublictobe "affordable". Ithinkthatcoversthedirectquestionsyouasked.Whatfollowswillcombinesomeofthethingsdiscussedabovein responseothersofyourcomments. Withanynewdevelopmenttrafficwillincreaseonnearbystreets,andthetrafficstudymentionedinthestaffreport doesnotsuggestanewapartmentǞƚƓƷbringadditionalcars.Instead,thetrafficstudyshowsthattheexistingroadway networkhasthecapacitytoaccommodatethenewvehicletripsofevenanapartmentwithmorethantwicethe proposedunitsinthislocation.Sothereportisnottryingtosuggestthattrafficwillremainunchangediftheproposed apartmentisbuilt.Rather,thereportisindicatingtheresultingamountoftrafficwillremainwithinwhattheroadways aredesignedtohandleandtheroadwayswillcontinuetooperateatanacceptablelevelofservice.LƷƭalsoworth pointingoutherethatevenifthetrafficstudyindicatedtheapartmentwouldcausespecificproblemsonsurrounding roadsorintersections,theremedywouldlikelybetorequirethedevelopertomitigatetheimpact(maybebyaddinga turnlanetoacertainintersection)ratherthanbydenyingtheprojectoutright. AsthereporttriestoexplainandasImentionedabove,theHDRzoningandthedensitybonusgivesadeveloperthe cularpropertyiftheycanmeetallofthepertinentrequirementsof righttobuildupto57apartmentunitsonthisparti thezoningcode.IftheķĻǝĻƌƚƦĻƩƭapplicationforapprovaloftheconditionaluseisapprovedandƷŷĻǤƩĻabletoearn thefulldensitybonusforbuildingenoughstructuredparking,theycouldbuildupto86apartmentunits.Withthesetwo facts,itisimportanttokeepinmindthedeveloperźƭƓƷaskingtheCityforapprovalofthewhole86unitapartment building,butƷŷĻǤƩĻreallyonlyaskingforapprovalofthe29additionalunitstheycouldbuildbeyondthe57unitsthey alreadyhavetherighttobuild.Forthisreason,whentheCityisreviewingtheconditionaluseapplicationforthis apartmentinthislocation,weneedtobefocusingonthepotentialimpactsoftheadditional29unitsmightreasonably haveinthisparticularlocation. Ihopethisishelpfulinformation,butpleasedogivemeacallifǤƚǒķliketotalkaboutanyofitfurther. Bryan _________________________________________________________________________ Bryan Lloyd, AICP (he/him/his) | Senior Planner | City of Roseville 2660CivicCenterDrive|Roseville,MN55113 6517927073 Facebook|Twitter|YouTube OriginalMessage From:PHILTOCONITA> Sent:Sunday,October30,20225:52PM To:RVPlanning<planning@cityofroseville.com> Subject:Re:RequestforclarificationPCANov.2,ItemNo.6A Caution:Thisemailoriginatedoutsideourorganization;pleaseusecaution. 2 Page 12 of 13 RCA Attachment E Hello,Mr.BrianLloyd,CityPlanner, WearePhil&MyraTOCONITA,51yearresidentsof1391SandhurstDr.,Roseville.AfterprintingandreadingRPCAn14 (approx.18pages)andstudyingthedrawings,somethingsaremystifying: LandUseHistory:howarethevariancesdeterminedforparkingareasetback,buildingsetback,etc. trictHDR Page2of4(Line8&9)DefineHDR1andHDR2ANDthesingledis (Line24)Definedensitybonus (Line)WhatisameantĬǤͻĭƚƓķźƷźƚƓğƌuse? Page3of4(Line72)Whatdoyoumeanbyrentalunitmarketrates? Page40f4(Lines100104)WefeelthislargesiteWOULDBEINJURIOUStoourneighborhood.Withapproximately 200vehiclesonthatproperty,certainlywillbemorecongestion.Astogeneralpublicsafety,yourguessisasgoodas ours.WerememberhowmuchtraffictheDept.ofEducationBldg.onCommercegenerated.Itwillbethesame. OnRPCAttachmentC(page20f8)FirmGroundmakesthesamestatementaboutbeingnoninjurioustothe neighborhood,etc.,etc.,etc.Besidesallelse,wehavebussesonourstreetsandschoolchildrenwalkingourstreets. Howcantheymakethestatementthatthereisnoissuewiththeleveloftraffic?DuringMNStateFairourblockis parkedsolidly;whenparkinglotsofexistingbuildingsarecleaned,theircarsarealloverhere. 86Units?Wehavereallyenjoyedthegreenspaceovertheyears. is Ifyouwishtocalltohelpmeunderstandtheseissues,mycell Thankyouverymuch. Phil&MyraToconita 3 Page 13 of 13 RCA Attachment F EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of th 2 Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 28 day of November 2022 at 6:00 p.m. 3 The following Council Members were present: _________; 4 and _____ were absent. 5 Council Member _____ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 6 RESOLUTION NO. ___ 7 A RESOLUTION APPROVING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY GREATER THAN 24 DWELLING 8 UNITS PER ACRE IN SUPPORT OF A PROPOSED APARTMENT PROJECT (PF22-012) 9 WHEREAS, Firm Ground Architects, has submitted a valid application for approval of 10 residential density up to 36 dwelling units per acre as a conditional use on behalf of the property owner, 11 Brick by Brick, LLC; and 12 WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as 13 That part of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of 14 Section 10, Township 29, Range 23, Ramsey County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning 15 at the intersection of the South line of said quarter quarter quarter Section with a line parallel 16 with and 60 feet West of the East line of said quarter quarter quarter Section; thence north along 17 said 60 foot line, a distance of 357.0 feet to an iron monument and the beginning of a curve 18 bearing Northwesterly; thence Northwesterly along a curve with its tangent parallel to County 19 Road B and a radius of 357.20 feet, a distance of 185.0 feet; thence Southwesterly 194.80 feet to the 20 intersection of a line 340.0 feet West of and parallel with the East line of said quarter quarter 21 quarter Section at a point 239.0 feet North of the South line of said quarter quarter quarter 22 Section; thence South along said parallel line 239.0 feet; thence East 280 feet to the point of 23 beginning. Subject to County Road B. 24 WHEREAS City Code §1009.02.C establishes general standards and criteria that pertain to all 25 conditional uses; and 26 WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing for the 27 request on November 2, 2022, and having closed said public hearing, voted to recommend approval of 28 the additional residential density based on the public record and the Planning Commission’s 29 deliberation; and 30 WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council has made the following findings regarding the general 31 standards and criteria established in §1009.02.C: 32 1. The proposed use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan 33 specifically identifies this site for high-density residential development “…with a density greater 34 than 12 units per acre.” 35 2. The proposed use is not in conflict with any Regulating Maps or other adopted plans. The proposed 36 development is not subject to a regulating plan map or other adopted plan, the proposed market rate 37 rental units will help to fill a current need identified in the Housing Needs Assessment Page 1 of 2 Page 1 of 2 RCA Attachment F 38 commissioned in 2018 by the Roseville Economic Development Authority, and the requested greater 39 residential density is in line with requirements of the BRT Overlay District, which encompasses the 40 development site. 41 3. The proposed use is not in conflict with any City Code requirements. The proposed development 42 must comply with all applicable City Code requirements, and a conditional use approval can be 43 rescinded if the approved use fails to comply with all applicable City Code requirements or any 44 conditions of the approval. 45 4. The proposed use will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets, and other public facilities. 46 The City conducted a traffic study in 2016, evaluating the impacts of a development concept with 47 much greater density than the current proposal. Therefore, because the annual daily traffic volumes 48 in the study area have not increased since 2016, the study demonstrates that the proposed 49 multifamily development on the subject property will have minimal impacts on the roadway 50 network, and indicates that all studied intersections will continue to operate at an acceptable level of 51 service. Moreover, a multifamily development in this location would be well positioned to take 52 advantage of the robust service provided by Metro Transit’s bus route 65 on County Road B and the 53 A Line BRT along Snelling Avenue, as well as many walkable destinations. 54 Because Sector 1 of the parks and recreation system is already overtaxed and approval of the 55 conditional use application would represent more dwelling units than the 57 units that could be 56 permitted by right in this location, an approval should be conditioned on the applicant paying a park 57 impact fee of $4,250 for each dwelling unit beyond 57. The current proposal represents 29 units 58 more than what could be permitted by right, which would equate to a park impact fee of $123,250. 59 5. The proposed use will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood, will not negatively impact 60 traffic or property values, and will not otherwise harm the public health, safety, and general welfare. 61 Consistent with the preceding findings, Planning Division staff believes that the proposed 62 multifamily complex will be a valuable addition to this part of the community, will not create 63 adverse traffic impacts, and will not cause harm to the public health, safety, and general welfare. 64 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roseville City Council, to approve the 65 proposed residential density of 36 units per acre, based on the public record and City Council 66 deliberation, with the following conditions: 67 1. Pursuant to the memo from Public Works staff, the applicant shall enter into a Public Improvement 68 Contract regarding the improvement on Albert Street and pathway improvements. 69 2.Pursuant to the memo from Parks and Recreation staff, the applicant shall pay a park impact fee 70 equal to $4,250 for each dwelling unit developed beyond the 57 units that could be permitted by 71 right under the requirements and incentives of the Zoning Code. 72 WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Page 2 of 2 Page 2 of 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 Item No.: 7.f Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval Item Description:No Mow/Less Mow May Discussion 1 B ACKGROUND 2 On April 25, 2022, City Council supported a council member-initiated item to support residents who 3 wish to participate in No Mow May. Local ordinances pertaining to lawn maintenance were 4 temporarily suspended until June 1, 2022. City Council also approved a resolution declaring 5 Roseville as a Pollinator-Friendly Community on June 19, 2017. 6 No Mow May is a conservation initiative first popularized by Plantlife, an organization based in the 7 United Kingdom, but which is gaining traction across North America. The goal of No Mow May is 8 to allow grass to grow unmown for the month of May, creating habitat and forage for early season 9 pollinators. 10 Benefits of not mowing in May: 11 Allows early spring wildflowerstobloom whichprovide food for emerging and migrating 12 pollinators. Most wildflower seed mixes don’t flower early enough to provide early season 13 nectar and pollen resources. 14 Yards not treated by herbicides are more likely to foster “spontaneous growth” of common 15 flowers like dandelion and white clover. 16 Reduces usage and emissions of gas lawn care equipment. 17 Turf grass grows deeper roots and becomes more drought-resistant when mowed less 18 frequently. 19 With the environmental benefits of not mowing in May, Community Development staff saw an 20 increase in lawn driven complaints. A few of the issues they faced from No Mow May 2022: 21 Complaints about yards not being mowed, and weeds spreading to neighboring properties. 22 Increased costs tomow properties in late June that were non-responsive after the end of No 23 Mow May. 24 Staff presented this topic to the Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission on 25 October 25, 2022, and requested that the commission recommend actions for No Mow May 2023. 26 Their recommendations and comments are: 27 Commission supports the program and would like to see it implemented again in 2023. 28 Members liked the inclusion of “Less” Mow May. This provides some options for property 29 owners to do minimal mowing to maintain yards while still providing habitat. Page 1of 3 30 Increase Education & Outreach: 31 o Promote No Mow/Less Mow May through March/April Newsletter, Social Media, 32 News Updates, Sustainability Newsletter, website, etc. 33 o Provide signs 34 City should look at non-active turf areas to incorporate into program. 35 Code relaxed for April to mid-June which would allow properties to slowly move back into a 36 mowing routine. 37 Commission would like to review the 2023 program and provide additional comments and 38 recommendations to improve the program for the following year. 39 Commission would like to review the mowing ordinance, and look to see if there are benefits 40 to relax the ordinance year round. 41 Public Works staff currently maintains several miles of right-of-way across the city, most of 42 which is a mowed strip next to the curb to maintain a mowed edge. There are very few sites in 43 the city that are large mowed areas that are maintained by Public Works staff. With recent 44 construction projects, native restorations have been utilized to create pollinator-friendly habitat. 45 One of our first restorations is around City Hall, and several others have been installed over the 46 past few years at Corpus Christi Church, Ramsey County Ditch 4 and Twin Lakes Parkway. 47 Staff will continue to incorporate native restoration areas where feasible. 48 Parks and Recreation staff maintains vegetation throughout all City parks. A significant amount 49 of park land is maintained for active use. During the month of May, the Parks and Recreation 50 Department attempts to mow these areas less than other seasons, but cannot allow the grass to 51 grow too high due to limitations caused by commercial equipment and logistics related to 52 reducing the grass to an acceptable height in June. Parks and Recreation continues to prioritize 53 the provision of pollinator habitat through the use of year-round unmaintained areas, native 54 restoration throughout the park system and pollinator-friendly plants and grasses where 55 appropriate. 56 F INANCIAL I MPACTS 57 There is no financial impact to the City of Roseville to administer and promote the program. The 58 costs associated with this would be limited to staff time. 59 Depending on the level of promotion, there could be a minimal cost for printing handouts and/or 60 signage. There currently isn’t a sustainability budget, so any costs would come out of the Public 61 Works Administration Supplies and Materials budget. 62 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 63 Staff recommends the City Council receive the presentation and provide direction for any program 64 changes to No Mow May 2023. Page 2 of 3 65 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 66 Motion to adopt a resolution for No Mow May or No Mow/Less Mow May. Prepared by: Ryan Johnson, Environmental Manager Attachments: A: Resolution B: Presentation C: Public Works Mowing Map and Restoration Areas D: PWETC Draft minutes from October 25, 2022 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A 1 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING 2 OF THE 3 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 4* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 6 Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 28thday of November, 2022, at 7 6:00 p.m. 8 The following members were present: , , , , and Mayor . 9 and the following were absent: . 10 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 11 RESOLUTION No. 12 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A TEMPORARY EXCECPTION TO SECTION 407 OF 13 CITY CODE, NUISANCE, IN SUPPORT OF ‘NO MOW MAY’ 14 WHEREAS, the City of Roseville is supportive of a temporary exception to City Code, 15 Section 407.02, NUISANCES AFFECTING PUBLIC COMFORT OR REPOSE, allowing 16 homeowners to grow grass in their yards taller than 8 inches during the month of May; and 17 WHEREAS, insects, especially bees, serve a significant and critical role as pollinators of plants 18 including agricultural plants; and 19 WHEREAS, the City passed Resolution 11422 DECLARING THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE AS 20 POLLINATOR-FRIENDLY COMMUNITY; and 21 WHEREAS, the ideal pollinator-friendly habitat is one comprised of mostly native wild flowers, 22 grasses, vines, shrubs, and trees blooming in succession throughout the growing season; and 23 WHEREAS, the formative period for establishment of pollinator and other insect species and the 24 many songbirds and other urban wildlife species that depend upon them occurs in late spring and 25 early summer as they emerge from dormancy and require flowering plants as crucial foraging 26 habitat; and 27 WHEREAS, ""No Mow May" is a community science initiative that encourages property 28 owners to limit lawn mowing practices during the month of May to provide early season 29 foraging resources for pollinators that emerge in the spring, especially in urban landscapes 30 when few floral resources are available; and 31 WHEREAS, the City of Roseville would like to increase pollinator-friendly habitat by 32 encouraging pollinator-friendly lawn care practices on their own properties for the month of 33 May during this formative period. 34 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Roseville recognizes No Mow May 35 to actively promote and educate the community about the critical period of pollinator 36 emergence, generation of crucial pollinator-supporting habitat and early spring foraging 37 opportunities. 38 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for the duration of the month of May, the City of Roseville 39 shall suspend the enforcement of City Code, Section 407.02, NUISANCES AFFECTING 40 PUBLIC COMFORT OR REPOSE, and voluntarily delay homeowner lawn care practices until 41 June, allowing pollinator species to emerge and early flowering grasses and forbs to establish, 42 which may result in ground-cover exceeding established ordinance height restrictions; 43 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that during the month of May, the City of Roseville shall 44 not issue citations or abatement actions for excess grass height. 45 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , 46 and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: , , , 47 , and Mayor . 48 and the following voted against the same: . 49 WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. No Mow May or No Mow/Less Mow May. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 28th day of November, 2022, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 28th day of November, 2022. _______________________________ Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 25, 2022, at 6:30p.m. City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, Minnesota 55113 1 2 1.No Mow, Less Mow May Discussion 3 Environmental ManagerRyan Johnsonintroduced Mr. Russ Henry, owner of 4 Minnehaha Falls Landscaping, who made a presentationon the No Mow/Less Mow 5 May conservation initiative. 6 7 Mr. Johnson acknowledged the City received a comment from Mr. Fester, who was 8 in support of No Mow May. 9 10 Mr. Johnsonasked the Commission to discuss this and consider options for No 11 Mow/Less Mow May and provide recommendations to the City Council. 12 13 Building Official David Englund summarized the complaints the City received in 14 May of 2022 regarding No Mow May. 15 16 Member Collins asked what a food forest is. 17 18 Mr. Henry explained the definition of food forest to the Commission. He noted this 19 includes berries and an entire world of edible plants. He explained he will send 20 links to the City regarding starting a food forest. He noted there is also a seventh 21 step in the trajectory, the love forest, a term utilized to add some of the Minnesota 22 peak ecosystems succession trees onto the property allowing them to grow up 23 which stays as the underlayer. 24 25 Chair Ficek inquired about the cutting and general rule of never cutting more than 26 one third. He asked if someone does participate in the No Mow May and their grass 27 grows ten to fifteen inches, whatever to get back down to the five inches, assumed 28 this is done in layers, what is the proper way to do this if the person wanted to get 29 down to the five inches. 30 31 Mr. Henry thought most people will mow it all down at once but the proper way 32 would be to mow a third at a time over a period of time. He indicated a person does 33 not want to mow more than twice a week because of compaction and overgrazing Page 1 of 5 34 of the plants. If it has gone No Mow for all of April and May the person would 35 want to mow once at the tallest setting of the mower the first or second week of 36 June and then maybe go to every other week mowing. He explained there are 37 municipalities that have adopted managed natural landscapes. 38 39 Chair Ficek asked if “good time Charlie” and dandelions were badfor bees. He 40 noted this is what Mr. Fester indicated in his comment to the City. 41 42 Mr. Henry begged to differ with Mr. Fester, in fact, food is important so if an animal 43 chooses to eat from something, and animals have an innate wisdom and know when 44 and where to get their food and if that is the only food that is available, at least it is 45 available. 46 47 Member Cicha asked if Mr. Henry could talk about the how to prep flower beds in 48 the fall to make safe haven for pollinators and the purpose of not clearing the leaves 49 off of them in the spring and not cutting old flower stems. 50 51 Mr. Henry explained he believes in leaving the leaves because different species of 52 moths and butterflies lay their cocoons in the fall on the leaves. He encouraged 53 people to leave someleaves in the flower bed but not on the lawn because leaves 54 will smother a lawn. Leaving stalks up for bees is very important as well. 55 56 Chair Ficek thanked Mr. Henry for the presentation. 57 58 Mr. Johnson continued with a quick presentation on No Mow/Less Mow May. 59 60 Mr. Englund highlighted for the Commission the 2022 No Mow May complaints 61 that occurred in June. 62 63 Chair Ficek asked what the Ordinance states regarding lawn maintenance. 64 65 Mr. Englundreviewed the City Ordinance with the Commission. 66 67 Member Collins asked if there is a reason why the Ordinance has a height set at 68 eight inches. 69 70 Mr. Englund explained that is what the City Council decided on for the Ordinance. 71 He was not sure what it is based on. He noted this is similar to other cities but there 72 is a range out there for other heights. 73 74 Member Cicha asked if there were people that did not consider their lawn a lawn 75 but rather a planet area, a garden space, instead of growing vegetables there would 76 be an area within a parameter where a lawn would be grown up like a flower bed. 77 78 Mr. Englund indicated there are several properties in the City where in a front yard 79 there is a lawn planting area. Ordinance is pretty specific on this. He reviewed the Page 2of 5 80 restrictions around sight lines and noted the front yard is not required to be grass 81 but is yard cover to prevent soil erosion and things like that. 82 83 Member Collins asked if the front yard is yard cover it still needs to be maintained 84 at eight inches or less, no matter what type of plant it is. 85 86 Mr. Englund indicated that was correct unless it is an ornamental plant or a specific 87 exception in the Ordinance. There are several garden areas that people have. 88 89 Member Luongo asked if the City ever enforces anything in the backyard or is the 90 enforcement for the front yard only. 91 92 Mr. Englund explained the Ordinance reads forty feet from the property line or forty 93 feet from an occupied structure that has to be maintained at eight inches or less. 94 95 Chair Ficek inquiredif someone were to mow the parameter of their lawn the 96 middle would still need to be under eight inches according to the Ordinance. 97 98 Mr. Englund explained that was correct or the person would be in violation of the 99 Ordinance. 100 101 Chair Ficek indicated he was in favor of this and would like to recommend 102 something to the City Council but was not sure what a recommendation would 103 consist of. 104 105 Mr. Freihammer indicated the Councildid not have a discussion on this last year 106 before No Mow May so the recommendation could be as simple as asking the City 107 Council to do something similar for next year as was done in 2022, to relax the 108 rules through May. Maybe there is a recommendation out of what type of no mow 109 or modified No Mow May and could it extend longer or exceptions to the rules in 110 the future. 111 112 Chair Ficek did like the No Mow or Less Mow because that could get more people 113 on board. He would also like to include something like allocating staff time to get 114 the education notice out there and really do this correctly to reduce some of the 115 complaints that come in. 116 117 Member Collins explained he would like to get this out as soon as possible in the 118 newsletter. 119 120 Mr. Freihammer explained that if this gets approved by the City Council in 121 November, it could go out in the January/February and/or the March/April 122 newsletters. 123 124 Member Collins thought changing the Ordinance to follow what the City is trying 125 to promote. He thought they needed to look at the plan No Mow May, Less Mow Page 3of 5 126 May. He did not think a lot ofpeople understood No Mow May last year. He 127 thought less mow is good but he thought the City needed to look at the bigger 128 picture. It is not just one month;it needs to carry on and maybe relax the Code 129 violations all the way to July to allow people to catch up mowing their longer lawns 130 without ruining them. He also thought the City could look at islands on the property 131 that would not be in violation of the Ordinance. 132 133 Chair Ficek asked what the Roseville parks did for No Mow May in 2022. 134 135 Mr. Englund indicated the parks still mowed in active areas. 136 137 Chair Ficek wondered if there were any City areas that could lead by example. 138 139 Mr. Freihammer explained that could be something looked at independently from 140 this. 141 142 Member Hodder explained he liked the idea ofless mow because it is a balance 143 through the summer. 144 145 Member Luongo indicated she was in favor of this. 146 147 Member Cicha thought the Commission should recommend to the City Council to 148 extend the moratoriums on Code Enforcement in April and May for 2023. He also 149 liked the idea of mowing the edge of the lawn and leave the inside growing all year. 150 He was in favor of making a recommendation to include that kind of relaxation of 151 the Code. 152 153 Member Cicha indicated he would also be in favor of the City providing a source 154 where residents could purchase seed for pollinator areas to plant. 155 156 Chair Ficek asked if last year there were yard signs indicating No Mow May. 157 158 Mr. Johnson explained signs were not used, but this year yard signs could be used 159 and the City does havesome money set aside for yard signs or window clings to 160 promote No Mow/Less Mow May. 161 162 Motion 163 Member Collinsmoved, Member Hodderseconded, to recommend the City 164 Council take a look at the City Ordinance regarding No Mow/Less Mow May 165 and to relax the Code violation period before and after the event. 166 167 Ayes: 5 168 Nays: 0 169 Motion carried. 170 171 Motion Page 4of 5 172 Member Cichamoved, Member Collinsseconded, to recommend the City 173 Council to relax the Code enforcement for April, May,and mid-June 2023 174 along with staff time to properly promote and educated along with yard signs 175 for residents to promote what is being done and have the City look at non- 176 active areas to lead by example. 177 178 Ayes: 5 179 Nays: 0 180 Motion carried. Page 5of 5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 28, 2022 Item No.: 7.g Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Discuss Roseville’s 2023 Legislative Priorities 1 B ACKGROUND 2 At the October 25, 2021 meeting, the City Council adopted Legislative Priorities in anticipation of 3 the 2022 Legislative Session of the Minnesota Legislature. Below is a summary list of the 4 legislative priorities: 5 6 High Priority Items 7 The following legislative priorities are ones that the City of Roseville directly supports and will 8 directly engage the Minnesota Legislature to ensure passage of legislation that implement these 9 priorities. 10 • Seek financial support for capital improvements for the state and regional asset of the 11 Guidant John Rose Minnesota OVAL and support facilities through the State Bonding Bill 12 • Allow Municipal Hotel Licensing 13 • Regulate the sale of catalytic convertors 14 • Increase funding to local governments to address emerald ash borer 15 • Allowing a Taproom and Cocktail Room on the same premise 16 • Enact statewide licensing of Massage Therapists 17 • Enact Local Option Sales Tax for Roseville 18 19 Other Priorities 20 The following legislative priorities are ones that the City of Roseville supports but will let other 21 organizations and advocates directly engage the Minnesota Legislature regarding passage of 22 legislation to implement these priorities. 23 • Amend state law to provide for the opportunity for city officials to participate virtually at city 24 meetings from a remote location without having to open the remote location to the public as 25 long as at least one publically accessible location is offered when not in a pandemic 26 emergency 27 • Approve statewide conversion therapy ban 28 • Increase fees allocated to local Deputy Registrars 29 • Funding for Mental Health Voluntary Engagement 30 • Increase funding for mental health services and resources for public safety 31 • Implement Police Officer arbitration reform 32 • Increase funding for the creation and preservation of affordable housing, including rental and 33 ownership units 34 • Advocate for an increase in Transportation Funding Page 1 of 3 35 • Amend State Building Code Chapter 1306 to Allow Municipalities to Require Sprinkler 36 Systems in R-2 (Multi-Family) Occupancy Groups. 37 • Continue to fund the DEED Redevelopment Grant Program and the Demolition Loan 38 Program 39 • Create presumptive coverage for Firefighters diagnosed with cancer 40 • Improve transparency of information property tax notices sent by counties 41 • Allow for the use of city website or other technology-based methods for official notices 42 In order to be ready for the 2023 Legislative Session, which begins on January 3, 2023, staff is 43 bringing forward a discussion about Roseville’s Legislative Priorities in order to be better prepared 44 to advocate for the issues that are important for the City of Roseville. 45 46 To create Roseville’s 2023 Legislative Priorities, staff would like the City Council to review the 47 2022 Legislative Priorities and make a determination if any of them should be changed or removed. 48 Additionally, the City Council should identify other topics that should be added to Roseville’s 49 Legislative Priorities. 50 Staff is recommending that the following items should be discussed for possible inclusion to the 51 2021 Legislative Priorities: 52 53 Review the effectiveness of state law with the regulation of emergency medical services 54 In the late 1970s, Minnesota created Primary Service Area (PSAs) that created exclusive 55 operating territories for emergency medical and ambulance providers without local control. 56 As a result, there is very little ability for a city to dictate service levels and response time 57 these companies provide. In Roseville’s case, while we are able now to provide advanced 58 life support treatment, we have to rely on our PSA provider (Allina) to provide transport for 59 the patient. Under the current law, there is not a meaningful ability for the city to set 60 standards for level of care and response time. In addition, it is extremely difficult to have a 61 PSA provider changed under state law. Staff believes it is in Roseville’s interest, along with 62 other cities, to have the Legislature create a working group to study the current PSA law and 63 consider changes to provide for more opportunities for local control over the PSA providers. 64 Police Officer Recruitment and Retention 65 As the City Council is well aware, recruiting and retaining police officers remain a huge 66 issue for Roseville and other law enforcement agencies. So far in 2022, the City has hired 67 eight new officers and still have three vacancies. Since 2020, we have hired 27 new officers. 68 Previously, the City would typically hire 3-4 police officers a year. (In 2017, the City did not 69 have any new police officer hires). Since 2020, the City has had had 21 officers leave. Many 70 of those who have left said the stress/demands of the job contributed to their decision to 71 leave. Some left for small agencies that are not as busy (less risk/liability), some were early 72 retirements from policing, and many left law enforcement all together. Half of the City’s 73 patrol officers have less than five years’ experience. The City offers incentives such as hiring 74 bonuses in recruiting police officers. While this helped in the short-term, more and more 75 agencies are also using hiring bonuses to attract officers. In the last legislative session, there 76 were efforts to pass legislation that would, among other things, expedite training programs, 77 provide signing and retention bonuses, and provide tuition resources. Staff believes the City 78 should support legislation that will provide resources to help build new and support existing 79 pathways in becoming a become a police officer. 80 81 Page 2 of 3 82 Racial Equity 83 The Minnesota Legislature should provide resources to collect and provide data 84 disaggregated by race for cities, counties, and the state to use to make informed policy 85 decisionsthat address racial disparities. 86 Regulation of cannabinoid products 87 The Minnesota Legislature should develop a state regulatory framework for cannabinoids 88 with clear licensing, inspection, and enforcement tools. 89 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 90 Advocating for Roseville’s Legislative Prioritieswill provide a voice to the Minnesota Legislature 91 and Governor on items and issues that are important to the community and city operations. 92 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS 93 Not directly applicable to the Legislative Priorities. However individual items may have a cost 94 impact to the City, either negatively or positively, depending on the topic and outcome. 95 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 96 Staff recommends the City Council should review 2022 Legislative Priorities and discuss what 97 should be included as part of the 2023Legislative Priorities 98 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 99 The City Council should discuss and provide direction on Roseville’s 2023 Legislative Priorities for 100 staff to bring back for further discussion and consideration. Prepared by: Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager (651) 792-7021 Attachments: A: 2022 Roseville Legislative Priorities Page 3 of 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 Item No.:7.h Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval Item Description: Award Contract for City Attorney to Provide Civil and Prosecution Legal Services 1 B ACKGROUND 2 The City of Roseville issued request for proposals (RFP) in October, 2022 for both civil and 3 prosecution legal services. Given the distinct nature of the work between civil municipal legal 4 services and prosecution services, the city issued separate RFPs for each service. 5 6 Three proposals were submitted for the civil legal services and two submitted for Prosecution 7 services. 8 Proposals Received - Civil Proposals Received – Prosecution Eckberg Lammers Eckberg Lammers Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn Kennedy & Graven 9 10 An evaluation team comprised of the City Manager and Department Heads evaluated each proposal. 11 Interviews with each firm were then conducted and the interview panel for civil legal services 12 included representatives from City Council. Proposals were weighted based on the criteria outlined 13 in the RFP and listed below. 14 Criteria Weight Fees30% Background / Qualifications20% Firm Profile / Capability 15% Commitment to Equity 10% Interviews 25% Total100% 15 16 Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 412.651, Subd. 3, the City Manager shall appoint the City 17 Attorney(s). The appointment is subject to the approval of the Council. 18 19 The evaluation team considered a variety of factors including: Page 1 of 2 20 Experience and practice in the field of municipal law 21 Expertise in specialty areas such as labor relations, land use, and other areas 22 Ability to handle workload 23 Cost (Costs were also broken down by monthly retainer, and included those items not 24 covered under a retainer). 25 Firm’s response to equity considerations 26 Communication and response time 27 28 Based on these factors, the evaluation team is recommending the appointment of Kennedy & Graven 29 to serve as City Attorney for civil legal services. Although all firms provided responses that met the 30 requirements of the RFP, Kennedy & Graven’s demonstrated knowledge, depth of experience in 31 specialty areas of law, the firm’s strong reputation, as well as their cost proposal led to their 32 selection as the top firm. 33 34 A similar process was undertaken for the prosecution legal services RFP proposals that were 35 submitted. Based on the evaluation criteria and interviews, the evaluation team is recommending 36 Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn as the top firm for prosecution services. They have a depth of 37 experience in Ramsey County prosecuting cases, including serving as the city’s prosecuting attorney 38 for many years. They have been responsive and provided good service, and represented the city on 39 may cases. In addition to the quality service they provide, the evaluation team was also cognizant of 40 cost. 41 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS 42 Kennedy & Graven proposed monthly retainer for municipal civil legal services is $16,000 for 2023. 43 44 Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn proposed monthly retainer for prosecution legal services is 45 $14,239 for 2023. 46 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 47 Based on the evaluation criteria and interview process, the City Manager is seeking to appoint 48 Kennedy & Graven to serve as City Attorney for civil municipal legal services. 49 50 Based on the evaluation criteria and interview process, the City Manager is seeking to appoint 51 Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn to serve as City Attorney for prosecution legal services. 52 53 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 54 By motion, approve the City Manager’s appointment of Kennedy & Graven as the City of Roseville 55 City Attorney for civil legal services and authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract. 56 57 By motion, approve the City Manager’s appointment of Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn as the 58 City of Roseville City Attorney for prosecution services and authorize the City Manager to enter into 59 a contract. 60 Prepared by: Rebecca Olson, Assistant City Manager Page 2 of 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 28, 2022 Item No.: 8.a Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Council Direction on Councilmember Initiated Agenda Item 1 B ACKGROUND 2 Under Rule 9 of the Roseville City Council and Commissions Rules of Procedures, when a 3 Councilmember request that an item be placed on a future City Council agenda, that itemis placed on the 4 next meeting agenda for the City Council to provide direction as to whether, how, and when the item will 5 be taken up at a future meeting. 6 7 In an email to the City Manager on November 18, 2022, Councilmember Strahan requested the following 8 item be considered by the City Council: 9 10 1. Discussion about creating a $15 per hour minimum wage in Roseville. 11 12 For the discussion, the following attachment is included: 13 Attachment A – Email from Mr. Andrew Willey requesting the City of Roseville consider 14 establishing a $15 per hour minimum wage in Roseville. 15 Attachment B – Information about the City of Minneapolis minimum wage requirement 16 Attachment C – Information about the City of St. Paul minimum wage requirement 17 Attachment D –Information about Minnesota Supreme Court decision about the Minneapolis 18 minimum wage requirement. 19 20 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 21 Not applicable at this time. 22 F INANCIAL I MPACTS 23 Not applicable at this time. 24 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 25 Discuss the item brought forward by Councilmember Strahan and provide direction to staff. 26 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 27 Discuss the item brought forward by Councilmember Strahanand provide direction to staff. 28 Prepared by: Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager (651) 792-7021 29 Attachments: A: Email from Mr. Andrew Willey dated November 18, 2022 30 B: Information about the City of Minneapolis minimum wage requirement 31 C: Information about the City of St. Paul minimum wage requirement Page 1 of 2 32 D: Information about Minnesota Supreme Court decision about the Minneapolis minimum wage 33 requirement. 34 Page 2 of 2 Attachment A From:noreply@civicplus.com To:*RVCouncil; Rebecca Olson; Pat Trudgeon Subject:Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council Date:Friday, November 18, 2022 7:28:50 AM Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Contact City Council Please complete this online form and submit. Fair $15 wage Subject Contact Information Andrew Willey Name: 400 Dewey St Address: St Paul City: MN State: 55104 Zip: This form goes to the Mayor, all Councilmembers and certain City Staff. Due to the volume of emails submitted, a personal reply is not always possible. Email How would you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact information. Email Address: Phone Number: Why doesn't Roseville have a fair $15/hour minimum wage? Please Share Your Comment, Question or I work at Burlington Coat Factory in Har Mar Mall. I started in Oct Concern 2021 during COVID. I started out in the receiving depart making $12.50 per hour. I now greet people at the door and help provide security for customers and report shoplifting. I only make $12.75/hour. In Minneapolis and St Paul, the wage is $15 per hour. Why does Roseville not fallow in this path especially after COVID. Many co- Attachment A workers are immigrants from Somalia and Latin America. I feel not paying these hardworking people the right wage is a form of labor exploitation. Please start passing legislation to address this issue. Unless restricted by law, all correspondence to and from Roseville City government offices, including information submitted through electronic forms such as this one, may be public data subject to the Minnesota Data Practices Act and/or may be disclosed to third parties. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Department of Civil Rights 350 S. Fifth St. - Room 239 Minneapolis, MN 55415 TEL: 311 or 612.673.3012 MINNEAPOLIS DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS MUNICIPAL MINIMUM WAGE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS This document constitutes guidance on general rights and responsibilities of employers and employees and related issues pursuant to Minneapolis Code of Ordinances Title 2, Chapter 40, Article IV (Municipal Minimum Wage Ordinance). This document is intended to provide the public with information about how The Minneapolis may guide its personnel in processing and investigating charges and interpreting the Municipal Minimum Wage Ordinance. Effective Date: The Municipal Minimum Wage Ordinance takes effect Jan. 1, 2018. Frequently Asked Questions were most recently revised December 1, 2017. Scope: This document provides general information and guidance on the implementation and e. Employers and employees may have additional rights under other local, state, or federal laws. This guidance does not address employer or employee rights or obligations with respect to these other laws. 1.)Q: What is the minimum wage ordinance? A: The minimum wage ordinance sets a new hourly minimum wage standard for work performed in Minneapolis. Find the City of Minneapolis geographical boundaries here: http://cityoflakes.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicGallery/map.html?appid=4172cd1ed97749a6a4623dd7a a5a246f&webmap=0e9be43abc834e85bc6ad003d9358c76 Find out if an address is inside or outside of Minneapolis here: https://gis.hennepin.us/Property/Map/Default.aspx 1 Attachment B 2.)Q: What are wages? A: Wages include salary, hourly pay, piece rate pay, commissions, and non-discretionary performance bonuses. Tips and employer payments toward medical benefits plans are ƓƚƷ wages. The costs of the following items are not considered wages: 1) uniforms or specially designed clothing required by an employer which is not appropriate for use except in that employment; 2) equipment used in the course of employment, except tools of a trade, a motor vehicle, or other equipment which may be used outside the employment; 3) consumable supplies required in the course of the employment; or 4) or travel expenses in the course of employment, except for aycheck if those deductions s below minimum wage. Employers found to have implemented a system of excessive payroll deductions for the purpose of circumventing the minimum wage law may be found to be in violation of the ordinance. 3.)Q: What is an hour for purposes of the minimum wage law? A: Employees must be paid for all time for which the employee performed work for the 4.)Q: Do tips count toward the minimum wage? A: Tips and gratuities do not affect the new minimum wage owed to employees. No employer may directly or indirectly credit, apply, or utilize gratuities towards payment of the minimum wage. Scenario: Tina is a server at a restaurant in Minneapolis. On average, she receives about $8 an hour in tips. Does that count towards the minimum wage her employer must pay her? No, it does not. The employer must pay her at least the minimum wage--not counting tips or gratuities. https://www.dli.mn.gov/business/employment- practices/tips-tip-credit ƚƩ ĭƚƓƷğĭƷ ƷŷĻ aźƓƓĻƭƚƷğ 5ĻƦğƩƷƒĻƓƷ ƚŅ \[ğĬƚƩ ğƓķ LƓķǒƭƷƩǤ ŅƚƩ źƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ƚƓ ĭƚƒƦƌźğƓĭĻ ǞźƷŷ {ƷğƷĻ ƌğǞ͵ 2 Attachment B 5.)Q: Who is considered an employee subject to the minimum wage ordinance? A: An employee is any person who performs work for an employer for compensation, unless otherwise excluded by the ordinance. Persons who are exempt from the state minimum wage under Minnesota Statute Section 177.23 (the state minimum wage law) are also exempt from the Minneapolis minimum wage. Additionally, a) independent contractors and b) certain workers participating in a Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development program for persons with disabilities are also exempt from the minimum wage ordinance. bƚƷĻʹ ŷĻ ķĻŅźƓźƷźƚƓ ƚŅ ĻƒƦƌƚǤĻĻ źƓ ƷŷĻ aźƓƓĻğƦƚƌźƭ aźƓźƒǒƒ ğŭĻ hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ źƭ ƓƚƷ ƷŷĻ ƭğƒĻ ğƭ ƷŷĻ ķĻŅźƓźƷźƚƓ ƚŅ ĻƒƦƌƚǤĻĻ źƓ ƷŷĻ aźƓƓĻğƦƚƌźƭ {źĭƉ ğƓķ {ğŅĻ źƒĻ hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ. 6.)Q: Do part-time, seasonal, or temporary personnel count as employees? A: Yes. Full-time, part-time, seasonal, and temporary staff, and persons who are jointly employed by one or more employers (e.g. employees hired through the services of a staffing agency or similar entity) can all be employees, if they fall into the definition above. 7.)Q: What is an independent contractor? A: Simply labeling someone an independent contractor does not make it so. Whether a person a case-by-case basis based upon a variety of facts, including but not limited to, the extent to which the independent contractor retains supervision, direction, and control over the work and the means to complete it. For more State of Minnesota Administrative Rules part 5200.0221, available here: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=5200.0221. 8.)Q: What if employees based outside of Minneapolis pass through Minneapolis as part of their job? A: The minimum wage does not apply to workers who pass through Minneapolis without making any work-related stops. 9.)Q: What if an employee based outside of Minneapolis works within Minneapolis on an occasional basis? A: If an employee works two or more hours within the City in a particular week, the employee must be paid at least the minimum wage for the time worked within the City. Employees who work less than two hours in a particular week within the City are not covered by the ordinance. 3 Attachment B 10.) Q: employee performing work in Minneapolis? A: Regardless of where an employer is located, it must pay at least the Minneapolis minimum wage rate, for time worked in the City of Minneapolis, to any employee who performs at least two hours of work in a calendar week within the City of Minneapolis. For purposes of this rule, a calendar week runs from Monday to Sunday. 11.) Q: How does an employer know how much time an employee spends working within the City limits? A: City for purposes of determining if any employee has performed at least two hours of work in a calendar week within the City. Documentation of how the reasonable estimate was derived may include, but is not limited to, dispatch logs, delivery addresses and standard estimated travel times, or historical averages. Smart phone apps also exist for the purpose of GPS location and payroll time tracking. 12.) Q: How much is the Minneapolis minimum wage? A: Until July 1, 2024, the minimum wage rate depends total number of workers. See questions 13, 14, and 15 below. The required minimum wage rate will increase until reaching $15 and then continue increasing yearly to account for inflation. Here is a schedule of the initial increases: Large business Small business Jan. 1, 2018 $10 July 1, 2018 $11.25 $10.25 July 1, 2019 $12.25 $11 July 1, 2020 $13.25 $11.75 July 1, 2021 $14.25 $12.50 July 1, 2022 $15 $13.50 Jan. 1, 2023 Increase indexed to inflation July 1, 2023 $14.50 Jan. 1, 2024 Increase indexed to inflation July 1, 2024 Equal to large business 13.) Q: minimum wage ordinance? A: more than one hundred (100) persons performing work for compensation in the previous calendar year. To calculate the size of a business, please see question 15. 4 Attachment B 14.) Q: A: one hundred (100) or fewer persons performing work for compensation in the previous calendar year. To calculate the size of a business, please see question 15. 15.) Q: How do I determine my business size under the minimum wage ordinance? A: ount the total number of persons performing work for compensation. Add each person per week for each week of the previous calendar year and divide by 52. Include full-time, part-time, jointly-employed, paid interns, seasonal, and temporary workers, no matter where they are located. This calculation determines whether an employer is for purposes of the ordinance (see questions 13 and 14). If an employer is a franchise or a full-service restaurant, see questions 18 and 19 below. Scenario (a): Robot World, a business in Minneapolis, employed 30 full-time workers, 22 part-time workers, and two temp workers each week last year. Robot World averaged a total of 54 (30 + 22 + 2) workers minimum wage ordinance because 54 is less than 100. (See also, question 14.) Scenario (b): Tree World is a business in Minneapolis. It is open all year round, but there is a lot of variation in the number of persons working during the year. For 12 weeks of the year, it employs 150 full-time workers. During the slowest 10 weeks, it only employs 25. For the remaining 30 weeks, it employs 50 workers. Tree World has to do some math. It looks like this: 12 weeks x 150 workers = 1,800 10 weeks x 25 workers = 250 30 weeks x 50 workers = 1,500 1,800 + 250 + 1,500 = 3,550 Divide 3,550 by 52 (weeks in a year) to get the average number of employees, like this: 3,550 / 52 = 68.27 employees (weekly average for one year) Because 68.27 ordinance. (See also, question 14.) 5 Attachment B 16.) Q: For purposes of determining business size, do owners or members of boards count? A: In most circumstances, individuals who are proprietors, partners, officers, members of boards of directors, or major shareholders are not counted. However masking a worker with one of these titles does not prevent them from qualifying as workers, and the following factors can be considered: Whether and, if so, to what extent the organization supervises the individual's work Whether the individual reports to someone higher in the organization To what extent the individual is able to influence the organization Whether the parties intended that the individual be an employee, as expressed in written agreements or contracts Whether the individual shares in the profits, losses, and liabilities of the organization 17.) Q: What if I have a new business that has been open less than a year? A: To determine the size of a new business, count the average number of workers per week during the first 90 days after the new business began operation. Then determine if it is considered questions 13 and 14.) 18.) Q: How do I calculate business size if it is a franchise? A: If you operate your business pursuant to Minnesota's franchise law, Minn. Stat. 80C.01, and the franchisor and all franchisees own or operate an aggregate of more than ten (10) locations nationally, then you are a large business under the new Minimum Wage ordinance. You do not need to count the total number of employees. 19.) Q: Are there any special rules for restaurants? A: If your business is a full service restaurant in Minneapolis which is ƓƚƷ operated pursuant to fewer than ten (10) locations nationally, each restaurant location is treated as a single, unique employer solely for the purposes of determining business size. So, you will need to count the number of employees in each restaurant location to 13, 14 and 15. For purposes of this rule, a full-service restaurant is an establishment in which food and beverage are served and which provides table service to customers to facilitate the ordering and delivery of food and beverage. 6 Attachment B Scenario: -service restaurant which is not franchised Burgers restaurants in Minneapolis, two in Fargo, and two in Omaha. Since there fewer counts as its own unique business for the purpose of determining the business size under number of employees working there per week during the previous calendar year. bƚƷĻʹ źƷ źƭ Ʀƚƭ . 20.) Q: I am part of a city-approved training or apprenticeship program. Does the minimum wage apply to me, too? A: Yes it does apply, but there are some special considerations. For city-approved training and apprenticeship programs, employers must pay employees under the age of twenty (20) not less than eighty-five (85) percent of the minimum wage rate, rounded up to the nearest nickel, for the first 90 days of employment. After the first 90 days, the employer must pay no less than the applicable minimum wage rate. Scenario: Jade, age 18, just started work at a city-approved training program at a large business in Minneapolis. What is the minimum wage the employer must pay Jade? On Jan. first 90 days at the training program, the employer must pay her at least $8.50 an hour (or 85 percent of the applicable minimum wage). After 90 days, the employer must pay her at least $10 an hour (the applicable minimum wage rate for large employers in 2018). 21.) Q: How does an employer become a city-approved training or apprenticeship program (for the purposes of the Minneapolis Minimum Wage Ordinance)? A: Applications are available to download at http://minimumwage.minneapolismn.gov/employer-resources.html. Any employer may apply to become a city-approved training or apprenticeship program (for purposes of the Minneapolis Minimum Wage Ordinance) by completing an application and emailing it to minwage@minneapolismn.gov. Applicants will receive confirmation of their submission and directions regarding any next steps within several business days. Applications are evaluated by the Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED). 7 Attachment B Criteria for approved youth training programs is developed by CPED and approved by the city's Workforce Investment Board with input from current service providers. A complete listing of the criteria is available online at http://minimumwage.minneapolismn.gov/employer- resources.html. The criteria should be reviewed by applicants before submitting an application. bƚƷĻʹ ğ ƌźƭƷźƓŭ ƚŅ ğƌƌ ĭźƷǤΏğƦƦƩƚǝĻķ ƷƩğźƓźƓŭ ƚƩ ğƦƦƩĻƓƷźĭĻƭŷźƦ ƦƩƚŭƩğƒƭ źƭ ğƌƭƚ ğǝğźƌğĬƌĻ ŅƚƩ ķƚǞƓƌƚğķ ğƷ http://minimumwage.minneapolismn.gov/employer-resources.html. 22.) Q: Immigration status? A: Employees are covered under the minimum wage ordinance regardless of their immigration status. The Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights will process an employee's report of suspected violation without regard to his or her immigration status. An employee filing a report will not be questioned about his or her immigration status. Additionally, if an employer were to suggest to a person that, if they file a wage claim or complaint, the employer will report suspected citizenship or immigration status of an employee or a family member to a government agency, this would be considered retaliation, which is also a violation of the ordinance. 23.) Q: Can minimum wage requirements be waived by an employee or her representative? A: No. 24.) Q: Are collective bargaining agreements exempt? A: No. Employers operating under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) must pay all employees at least the minimum hourly wage. 25.) Q: Are employers required to post notices for employees? A: Yes. Employers must display a workplace notice poster within each of their facilities in Minneapolis in a visible and accessible location. The poster should be displayed where employees can easily read it. Employers must display the poster in English and in each of the primary language(s) spoken by employees at the particular workplace, if published by the Department. Please find notice posters in a variety of languages here: http://minimumwage.minneapolismn.gov/employer-resources.html. 26.) Q: What documents are employers required to keep? A: Employers are required to keep records showing the wages paid to each employee and the number of hours worked by each employee for at least three years. Employers must allow employees to see these records on request. Employers must also allow the Civil Rights 8 Attachment B Department to inspect these records on request to monitor compliance with the law. 27.) Q: If an employee believes an employer failed to pay at least the minimum wage rate, may the employee file a report? A: Any employee or person may report an alleged violation of the Ordinance, using the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights Labor Standards Enforcement Division online at minimumwage.minneapolismn.gov or in person at Minneapolis City Hall room 239. forms may also be requested and returned by U.S. mail or email. For more information (or to report anonymously), call 311 or email minwage@minneapolismn.gov. 28.) Q: How will the minimum wage ordinance be enforced by the City? A: Enforcement of the ordinance is the responsibility of the Director of the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights. Enforcement is complaint based; however the Department also has broad authority to proactively investigate possible violations and issue fines as necessary to gain compliance. As in other types of labor law enforcement, compliance reviews and investigations may be utilized to identify all affected employees and protect the anonymity of complainants. Damages and civil penalties will be imposed to make employees whole. Administrative fines may also be imposed. Repeat or intentional violators will receive harsher penalties. Violations of the ordinance may also result in license sanctions, up to and including revocation of a business license by the City of Minneapolis. All legal options and penalties to gain compliance, including enforcement in a court of law, will be considered. 29.) Q: I want to repor A: Retaliation against an employee for exercising or attempting to exercise any rights available under the Municipal Minimum Wage Ordinance is strictly prohibited. Material changes in job duties or hours, formal disciplinary action such as documented warnings, or employment will be pursued by the Department in these types of cases. 30.) Q: Where can I get more information? A: Online: minimumwage.minneapolismn.gov Phone: (612) 673-3000 (311) or (612) 673-2157 (TTY) 9 Attachment B Email: minwage@minneapolismn.gov Labor Standards Enforcement Division staff in the Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights will promptly respond to concerns, provide technical assistance, or answer questions from anyone. *** ŷźƭ ķƚĭǒƒĻƓƷ źƭ źƓƷĻƓķĻķ ğƭ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌ źƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ƚƓƌǤ ğƓķ ķƚĻƭ ƓƚƷ ĭğƩƩǤ ƷŷĻ ŅƚƩĭĻ ğƓķ ĻŅŅĻĭƷ ƚŅ ƌğǞ͵ ŷĻ 5ĻƦğƩƷƒĻƓƷ ƦƩƚǝźķĻƭ Ʒŷźƭ źƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ğƭ ğ ĭƚǒƩƷĻƭǤ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ ƦǒĬƌźĭ͵ ŷźƭ źƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ğƓķ ƩĻƌğƷĻķ ƒğƷĻƩźğƌƭ ğƩĻ źƓƷĻƓķĻķ Ʒƚ źƓĭƩĻğƭĻ ƷƩğƓƭƦğƩĻƓĭǤ ƩĻƌğƷĻķ Ʒƚ ƷŷĻ aźƓƓĻğƦƚƌźƭ ƒźƓźƒǒƒ ǞğŭĻ ƚƩķźƓğƓĭĻ ğƓķ źƷƭ ĻƓŅƚƩĭĻƒĻƓƷ͵ tƌĻğƭĻ ĬĻ ğǞğƩĻ ƷŷğƷ ǞŷźƌĻ ƷŷĻ 5ĻƦğƩƷƒĻƓƷ ƷƩźĻƭ Ʒƚ ƉĻĻƦ ƷŷĻ źƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ƷźƒĻƌǤ ğƓķ ğĭĭǒƩğƷĻƌǤͲ ƷŷĻƩĻ ƒğǤ ĬĻ ğ ķĻƌğǤ ĬĻƷǞĻĻƓ ƚŅŅźĭźğƌ ƦǒĬƌźĭğƷźƚƓƭ ƚŅ ƷŷĻ ƒğƷĻƩźğƌƭ ğƓķ ƷŷĻ ƒƚķźŅźĭğƷźƚƓ ƚŅ ƷŷĻƭĻ ƦğŭĻƭ͵ ŷĻƩĻŅƚƩĻͲ ƷŷĻ 5ĻƦğƩƷƒĻƓƷ ķƚĻƭ ƓƚƷ ƒğƉĻͲ ĻǣƦƩĻƭƭͲ ƚƩ źƒƦƌǤ ŭǒğƩğƓƷĻĻƭ͵ ŷĻ 5ĻƦğƩƷƒĻƓƷ Ǟźƌƌ ƒğƉĻ ĻǝĻƩǤ ĻŅŅƚƩƷ Ʒƚ ĭƚƩƩĻĭƷ ĻƩƩƚƩƭ ĬƩƚǒŭŷƷ Ʒƚ ƚǒƩ ğƷƷĻƓƷźƚƓ͵ ŷĻ /źƷǤ ƚŅ aźƓƓĻğƦƚƌźƭ ĭğƓ ƚƓƌǤ ğķǝźƭĻ 9ƒƦƌƚǤĻƩƭ ŷƚǞ Ʒƚ ĭƚƒƦƌǤ ǞźƷŷ ƷŷĻ aźƓƓĻğƦƚƌźƭ aźƓźƒǒƒ ğŭĻ hƩķźƓğƓĭĻ͵ LƷ ĭğƓƓƚƷ ğķǝźƭĻ ğƓ 9ƒƦƌƚǤĻƩ ŷƚǞ Ʒƚ ĭƚƒƦƌǤ ǞźƷŷ {ƷğƷĻ ƌğǞ͵ tƌĻğƭĻ ĭƚƓƷğĭƷ ƷŷĻ aźƓƓĻƭƚƷğ 5ĻƦğƩƷƒĻƓƷ ƚŅ \[ğĬƚƩ ğƓķ LƓķǒƭƷƩǤ ŅƚƩ źƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓ ƚƓ ĭƚƒƦƌźğƓĭĻ ǞźƷŷ {ƷğƷĻ ƌğǞ͵ 10 C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment C Attachment Attachment REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: Item No.: Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval Item Description:Approval of Payments B ACKGROUND 1 2 StateStatuterequirestheCityCounciltoapproveallpaymentofclaims.Thefollowingsummaryof 3 claims has been submitted to the City for payment. 4 Check Series #Amount ACH Payments$1,047,846.03 105073-105250$1,141,591.07 Total$2,189,437.10 5 6 Adetailedreportoftheclaimsisattached.CityStaffhasreviewedtheclaimsandconsidersthemtobe 7 appropriate for the goods and services received. P OLICY O BJECTIVE 8 9 UnderMnState Statute, all claims are required to be paid within 35 days of receipt. F INANCIAL I MPACTS 10 11 Allexpenditureslistedabovehavebeenfundedbythecurrentbudget,fromdonatedmonies,orfrom 12 cash reserves. S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 13 14 Staff recommends approval of all payment of claims. R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 15 16 Motion to approve the payment of claims as submitted 17 18 Prepared by:Joshua Kent,AssistantFinance Director 19 Attachments:A:Checks for Approval 20 Page1 of 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 Item No.:10.b Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approval ofa Temporary Gambling Permit 1 B ACKGROUND 2 Chapter 301 of the City Code requires all applications for business and other licenses to be submitted to the 3 City Council for approval. The following application is submitted for consideration: 4 5 Temporary Gambling Permit 6 Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church 7 1725 Kennard St 8 Maplewood, MN 55109 9 10 Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church is a religiousgroup, which is holding a raffle at the 11 Doubletree Hotel located at 2540 North Cleveland Ave. on February 4, 2023. 12 13 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 14 Required by City Code 15 F INANCIAL I MPACTS 16 The correct fees were paid to the City at the time the application(s) were made. 17 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 18 Staff has reviewed the application(s) and has determined that the applicant(s) meet all City requirements. 19 Staff recommends approval of the license(s). 20 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 21 Motion to approve the Temporary Gambling Permit for Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church 22 Prepared by: Katie Bruno, Deputy City Clerk 23 Attachments: A: Application, Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary Church 24 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 Item No.: 10.c Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approval of 2023 Business Licenses Renewals 1 B ACKGROUND 2 Chapter 301 of the City Code requires all applications for business licenses to be submitted to the City Council 3 for approval. The following renewal applications are submitted for consideration: 4 5 Recycling Hauler License 6 Ace Solid Waste Inc. 7 DBA Ace Solid Waste 8 6601 McKinley St NW 9 Ramsey, MN 55303 10 11 Republic Services 12 DBA Allied Waste Services of the Twin Cities th 13 4325 E 66 St 14 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 15 16 Aspen Waste Systems 17 2951 Weeks Avenue SE 18 Minneapolis, MN 55414 19 20 Curbside Waste th 21 4025 85 Ave N 22 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 23 24 Neighborhood Recycling Corp 25 DBA Eureka Recycling 26 2828 Kennedy St NE 27 Minneapolis, MN 55413 28 29 Gene’s Disposal Service, Inc. nd 30 5661 152 Street N 31 Hugo, MN 55038 32 33 Highland Sanitation & Recycling Services 34 PO Box 10 35 Vermillion, MN 55085 36 37 38 Page 1 of 3 39 International Paper 40 2425 Terminal Road 41 Roseville, MN 55113 42 43 Nitti Sanitation Inc. 44 10730 Briggs Drive, Suite B 45 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 46 47 Waste Management 48 10500 Naples St NE 49 Blaine, MN 55449 50 51 Solid Waste Hauler License 52 Ace Solid Waste Inc. 53 DBA Ace Solid Waste 54 6601 McKinley St NW 55 Ramsey, MN 55303 56 57 Republic Services 58 DBA Allied Waste Services of the Twin Cities th 59 4325 E 66 St 60 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 61 62 Anderson’s Dumpster Box Services 63 930 Duluth St 64 St. Paul, MN 55106 65 66 Aspen Waste Systems 67 2951 Weeks Avenue SE 68 Minneapolis, MN 55414 69 70 Curbside Waste th 71 4025 85 Ave N 72 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 73 74 Gene’s Disposal Service, Inc. nd 75 5661 152 Street N 76 Hugo, MN 55038 77 78 Gorilla Dumpster Bag, LLC 79 2809 E Hamilton Ave #107 80 Eau Claire, WI 54701 81 82 Highland Sanitation & Recycling Services 83 PO Box 10 84 Vermillion, MN 55085 85 86 Keith Krupenny & Son Disposal Service Inc. 87 1214 Hall Avenue 88 West St. Paul, MN 55118 89 Page 2 of 3 90 Lightning Disposal 91 1725 Meadow View Rd 92 Eagan, MN 55121 93 94 Nitti Sanitation Inc. 95 10730 Briggs Drive, Suite B 96 Inver Grove Heights, MN 55077 97 98 Waste Management 99 10500 Naples St NE 100 Blaine, MN 55449 101 102 The following haulers have not yet returned the renewal materials but are expected to do so prior to the end 103 of the year. 104 105 Advanced Disposal Services 106 DBA Advanced Disposal 107 309 Como Ave 108 St. Paul, MN 55103 109 110 Walter’s Recycling and Refuse 111 2830 101st Ave 112 Blaine, MN 55449 113 114 Pawn Shop and Precious Metals Dealer License 115 Pawn America Minnesota, LLC, DBA Pawn America 116 1715 N Rice Street 117 Roseville, MN 55113 118 119 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 120 Required by City Code 121 F INANCIAL I MPACTS 122 The correct fees were paid to the City at the time the application(s) were made. 123 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 124 Staff has reviewed the applications and has determined that the applicant(s) meet all City requirements, with 125 the exceptions noted above. Staff recommends approval of the licenses upon receipt of all outstanding 126 applications materials and payments. 127 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 128 Motion to approve the business licenses upon receipt of all outstanding applications materials and payments. 129 Prepared by: Katie Bruno, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: A: Recycling Hauler Applications B: Solid Waste Hauler Applications Page 3 of 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: Item No.: Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval Item Description:Approve General Purchases Exceeding $10,000 or Sale of Surplus Items B ACKGROUND 1 2 CityCodesection103.05establishestherequirementthatallgeneralpurchasesorcontractsinexcessof 3$10,000beseparatelyapprovedbytheCityCouncil,independentofthebudgetprocessorother 4 statutorypurchasingrequirements.Inaddition,StateStatutesgenerallyrequiretheCounciltoauthorize 5 thesaleofsurplusvehiclesandequipment.AttachmentA-1includesalistofitemssubmittedforCouncil 6 review and approval. 7 8 Staffwillnotethatunlessnotedotherwise,allitemscontainedinthisreportwerepreviouslyidentified 9 andincludedintheadoptedbudgetorCapitalImprovementPlan(CIP)submittedforCouncilreview 10 duringthemostrecentbudgetcycle.ThisinformationpackageincludedaCIPProject/Initiative 11 summarywhichidentifiedthetypeofpurchase,estimatedcost,fundingsource,andothersupporting 12 narrative. Where applicable, these project/initiative summaries are included with Attachment A-2. 13 14 Attachment B includes a summary-to-date of the CIP purchases for 2022. 15 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 16 17 Required under City Code 103.05. F INANCIAL I MPACTS 18 19 Funding for all items is provided for in the current budget or through pre-funded capital replacement funds. S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 20 21 StaffrecommendstheCityCouncilapprovethesubmittedpurchasesorcontractsforserviceandwhere 22 applicable; authorize the sale/trade-in of surplus items. R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 23 24 Motiontoapprovethesubmittedpurchasesorcontractsforservicesandwhereapplicable;thesale/trade- 25 in of surplus items. 26 27 Prepared by:Joshua Kent, AssistantFinance Director Attachments:A1:Over $10,000 Items for Purchase or Sale/Trade-in A2:CIP Project/Initiative summary (if applicable) B:2022 CIP Purchase Summary Page1 of 2 Attachment A-1 General Purchases or Contracts BudgetP.O.Budget / DivisionVendorDescriptionKeyAmountAmountCIP Parks - Skating CenterFloors by BeckersPart of the Renovation of Banquet Facility(a)$217,000$43,9782023 CIP Key This was originally planned as part of the possible bonding bill, but the state had us remove it because they are technically (a)"furnishings" so they are not eligible to be included in the bonding bill. This is included in the 2023 CIP. The expense will occur in 2023, but the intent is to move forward to lock down pricing and scheduling. Page2 of 2 City of Roseville Attachment B 2022 Summary of Scheduled CIP Items OriginalRevised CouncilP.O.BudgetBudgetYTD Approval AmountAmountAmountActualDifference Administration Voting Equipment$ 19,55515,000$ (4,555)$ HR Software Upgrade5,000 -$ 5,000 Council Tablets -3,000$ 3,000 Central Services Copier & Postage Machine Lease84,400 41,146 43,254 Police Marked squad cars (4 / yr)1/10/2022135,877$ 136,000 175,770 (39,770) Unmarked vehicles (1 / yr)1/10/202230,388 24,000 30,588 (6,588) Squad conversion,seats, control box79,000 92,331 (13,331) Radar Units -6,200 6,200 Stop Sticks -1,030 1,030 Computer Equipment8,800 - 8,800 RMS Migration/replacement1/10/2022135,134 205,000 - 205,000 Speed notification unit10,000 - 10,000 Non-lethal weapons -8,000 8,000 Long guns replacement14,420 - 14,420 Sidearm parts (officers)2,060 - 2,060 Tactical gear -6,500 6,500 Crime scene equipment3,000 - 3,000 Body Worn Camera Equipment1/10/202275,000 77,000 3,334 73,666 Digital Interview Room Equipment15,450 - 15,450 Investigation Conf. Room2,500 - 2,500 Defibrillators -1,575 1,575 Shredder -5,150 5,150 Radio Equipment1/10/202226,890 27,000 25,100 1,900 Office furniture -8,400 8,400 Dishwasher -2,060 2,060 Fire Records Management System (RMS)29,000 - 29,000 Cardiac Monitoring and Response Equipment60,000 15,391 44,609 Portable and mobile radios20,000 13,609 6,391 Fire admin- office furniture2,500 - 2,500 Training room tables & chairs15,000 - 15,000 Day room chairs -8,000 8,000 Public Works #106 3-ton dump w/ plo230,000 212,058 17,942 #133 - Walk behind saw10,000 - 10,000 #111 Bobcat 78" grapple bucket5,000 - 5,000 Street Signs -10,000 10,000 Hydraulic Press 19955,000 5,470 (470) Parks & Recreation #517 Ford F350 SD (2013)40,000 - 40,000 #515 Ford 350 w. plow (2018)40,000 - 40,000 #516 Ford with plow (2013)40,000 - 40,000 Skating Center Plow Truck (2002)20,000 - 20,000 #504 Kubota Drag Tractor (2011)35,000 35,000 General Facility Improvements Police & PW garage Co2/No2 detectors10,000 - 10,000 workstation replacement city hall1/10/202287,830 350,000 90,040 259,960 Maintenance Facility Pressure Washer5,000 - 5,000 7,000 COMM Council Control/Sound System7,000 - COMM Council Furniture15,000 - 15,000 Commons: South Entry RTU (2007)20,000 - 20,000 Arena: Roof (2004)10,000 - 10,000 OVAL Renovate Banquet Facilitiy/Rooftops217,000 - 217,000 OVAL Lobby Mechanical/Banquet Roof (1993)300,000 - 300,000 OVAL Bathroom Remodel (Upper)101,000 - 101,000 OVAL: Contingency and Soft costs (35%)126,000 - 126,000 Hallway wall paper -5,000 5,000 Training room paint -2,000 2,000 Exercise room-flooring3,000 - 3,000 Bay painting -25,000 25,000 Fire: Security system3,000 - 3,000 Fire: Heat pumps (24)10,000 - 10,000 Concrete Exterior -10,000 10,000 Exterior Lighting -3,000 3,000 Interior Lighting -3,000 3,000 Parking Lot -50,000 50,000 Information Technology Computers (Notebooks, Desktop)35,000 31,394 3,606 Monitor/Display -5,175 5,175 Network Printers/Copiers/Scanners (13)17,000 - 17,000 Network Switches/Routers/Wireless (Roseville)25,000 - 25,000 Power/UPS - Closets (11)400 - 400 Surveillance Cameras (58)7,890 - 7,890 Agenda Software -6,200 6,200 Website redesign -17,000 17,000 Park Improvements Tennis & Basketball Courts50,000 - 50,000 Playground Areas2/14/202245,000 550,000 800,000 46,950 503,050 Playground Areas3/21/2022250,000 Natural Resources -220,000 220,000 PIP/CIP Category 200,000 - 200,000 Street Improvements Mill & overlay - local streets1,200,000 - 1,200,000 Former Seal Coat Dollars Spent as Mill and Overlay250,000 - 250,000 Cty Rd B, Snelling-Lexington105,000 - 105,000 Cty Rd B2/Lexington100,000 - 100,000 2022 PMP -362,000 362,000 Cleveland, Iona-Colder60,000 - 60,000 Lexington Pedestrian50,000 - 50,000 Hamline&TH 36 Signals78,600 - 78,600 Rice, Larpentuer - Cty B250,000 - 250,000 Street Lighting Pedestrian light @ Lexington Central Prk20,000 - 20,000 Signal Pole Painting (3 every other year)20,000 - 20,000 Pathways & Parking Lots Pathway maintenance150,000 23,006 126,994 Lexington Pk off Cty B(1999)20,000 - 20,000 License Center General office equipment (minor)1,000 - 1,000 Office chair replacement1,200 - 1,200 Community Development Computers/monitors -600 600 Office Furniture 3,2001,000 (2,200) Water Replace Water Tower Fence30,000 - 30,000 Water main replacement *800,000 - 800,000 Sanitary Sewer #202 1-ton with dump box/plow70,000 - 70,000 LS repairs/upgrades20,000 - 20,000 Dale/Owasso LS Rehab45,000 - 45,000 Long Lake Lift Station380,000 - 380,000 Sewer main repairs900,000 - 900,000 Storm Sewer #139 Vacall1/10/2022305,367 280,000 305,367 (25,367) Field Computer Add/Replacements5,000 - 5,000 General Lift Station Repairs20,000 - 20,000 Pond improvements/infiltration400,000 - 400,000 Storm sewer replacement/rehabilitationPMP3/21/202248,750 500,000 - 500,000 Golf Course Golf Shared with RSC Ford F150 Truck (2012)20,000 - 20,000 Golf: 1994 Cushman Utilities Cart Replacement8/22/20229,443 30,000 - 30,000 Golf: 2002 Greens Mower Replacement8/22/202241,122 37,000 - 37,000 Golf: Gas Pump / Tank: Replacement - 196716,000 - 16,000 Golf: Course Safety Netting Replacement 199710,000 - 10,000 Total - All Items9,961,110$ 1,134,308$ 8,826,802$ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 Item No.:10.e Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve a Resolution designating 2023 polling locations 1 B ACKGROUND 2 Laws of Minnesota 2017, Chapter 92, requires the governing body of each municipality to designate 3 the locations of its polling places for the following election year. 4 5 Precinct 1: Centennial United Methodist Church, 1524 County Road C2 West 6 Precinct 2: Roseville Covenant Church, 2865 Hamline Avenue North 7 Precinct 3: Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Dr. 8 Precinct 4: North Heights Lutheran Church, 2701 Rice Street North 9 Precinct 5: St. Christopher’s Episcopal Church, 2300 Hamline Avenue North 10 Precinct 6: Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, 2561 Victoria Street North 11 Precinct 7: Central Park Elementary, 535 County Road B2 West 12 Precinct 8: 1910 County Road B West 13 Precinct 9: Ramsey County Library, 2180 Hamline Avenue North 14 Precinct 10: Roseville Lutheran Church, 1215 Roselawn Avenue West 15 Precinct 11: Galilee Evangelical Lutheran Church, 145 North McCarrons BoulevardNorth 16 17 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 18 Ensure that voters know their polling locations well in advance of election day. 19 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS 20 None 21 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 22 Approve the attached resolution designating polling places for the 2022 elections 23 Prepared by: Katie Bruno, Deputy City Clerk Attachment: A: Resolution designating polling locations for 2023 Page 1 of 1 Attachment A 1 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING 2 OF THE 3 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 4 5 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 7 th day of November Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota was duly held on the 28 8 2022 at 6:00 p.m. 10 11 The following memberswere present: ,,, ,and Mayor . 12 and the following were absent: . 13 14 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 15 16 17 RESOLUTION No. 18 19 Resolution Designating Polling Places for 2023 Elections 22 23 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 204B.16, subd 1 requires the City Council, by ordinance or 24 resolution, to designate polling places for the upcoming year; and 24 25 WHEREAS, changes to the polling places locations may be made at least 90 days before the next 26 election if one or more of the authorized polling places becomes unavailable for use; and 27 28 WHEREAS, changes to the polling place locations may be made in the case of an emergency 29 when it is necessary to ensure a safe and secure location for voting; and 30 31 WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council designates the following polling places for any elections 32 conducted in the city of Roseville in 2023: 33 34 Precinct 1: Centennial United Methodist Church, 1524 County Road C2 West 35 Precinct 2: Roseville Covenant Church, 2865 Hamline Avenue North 36 Precinct 3: Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Dr. 37 Precinct 4: North Heights Lutheran Church, 2701 Rice Street North 38 Precinct 5: St. Christopher’s Episcopal Church, 2300 Hamline Avenue North 39 Precinct 6: Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, 2561 Victoria Street North 40 Precinct 7: Central Park Elementary, 535 County Road B2 West 41 Precinct 8: , 1910 County Road B West 42 Precinct 9: Ramsey County Library, 2180 Hamline Avenue North 43 Precinct 10: Roseville Lutheran Church, 1215 Roselawn Avenue West 44 Precinct 11: Galilee Evangelical Lutheran Church, 145 North McCarrons Boulevard North 45 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the city clerk is hereby authorized to designatea 46 replacement meeting the requirements of the Minnesota Election Law for any polling place 47 designated in this Resolution that becomes unavailable for use by the City; 48 49 Attachment A 50 49AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk is hereby authorized to designatean 50 emergency replacement polling place meeting the requirements of the Minnesota Election Law 51 for any polling place designated in this Resolution when necessary to ensure a safe and secure 52 location for voting; 53 54AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk is directed to send a copy ofthis 55 resolution and any subsequent polling place designations to the Ramsey County Elections Office. 56 57 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , 58 and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: , , , 59 , and Mayor . 60 and the following voted against the same: . 61 61 WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Attachment A STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing th extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 28dayofNovember, 2022,with the original thereof on file in my office. th WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 28 day of November, 2022 ______________________________ Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager (SEAL) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 Item No.:10.f Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve extension of contract with TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. for Recording Secretary Services 1 B ACKGROUND 2 In November, 2017 Council approved a contract with TimeSaver Offsite Secretarial Service (TOSS) 3 for recording secretary services for the City Council and Commissions.An amendment was 4 approved in November, 2020; extending the contract to December 31, 2021. Another amendment 5 was approved in November 2021; extending the contract to December 31, 2022. The proposed 6 amendment extends the contract through December 31, 2023 and includes a rate increase of less than 7 3.5%. 8 9 2022rates (2023 rates in red): 10 11 Base Rate:$154 ($159)for any meeting up to 1 hour plus $36.50($37.75) for each 30 minutes 12 following the first hour 13 or 14 Unit Rate: $48 ($49.50) for the first hour of meeting time and $32($33.00) for every hour after the 15 first hour plus $15.25 ( $15.75) for each page of draft minutes for submission to the City of 16 Roseville for their preparation of final minutes. 17 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 18 To provide accurate and timely information for citizens regarding government action. 19 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS 20 There are sufficient funds in the proposed 2023 budget to cover the rate increase. 21 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 22 Approve the Addendum to the Professional Services Agreement extending the contract with 23 TimeSaver Offsite Secretarial Services through December 31, 2023. 24 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 25 Motion to approve the Addendum to the Professional Services Agreement with TimeSaver Offsite 26 Secretarial Services extending the contract through December 31, 2023. Prepared by: Katie Bruno, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: A: Addendum to Recording Secretary Service Agreement B: Professional Services Agreement Page 1 of 1 Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B Attachment B REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 Item No.: 10.g Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval Item Description:Approve Resolution to Enter into Agreement with Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment related to the Marion Street GreenwayConnection – Phase 2 1 B ACKGROUND 2 On January24, 2022, the City Council approved a resolution to apply for CDBG funds for Marion 3 Street Pathway Phase 2. This segment is included in the Pathway Master Plan and would connect 4 the pathway on LarpenteurAvenue to the end of the Marion Street cul-de-sac. It would also provide 5 better walking access to Unity Park. The phase 1 Marion Street pathway was constructed in 2021 6 and runs from the cul-de-sac up to South McCarrons Boulevard. 7 Ramsey County recently let the City know they were awarded $292,400 for this project. To accept 8 the grant, an agreement needs to be entered into with Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment. 9 Once approved, the City will have until the end of June 2023 to construct the new sidewalk. 10 The City has already completed construction plans for this project and plans to bid this project in 11 January and to bring this to the City Council for award in early February. 12 F INANCIAL I MPACTS 13 The estimated the cost of Marion Street Pathway –Phase 2 is $292,400. All costs related to the new 14 pathway will be covered by the grant. 15 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 16 Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution toenter into an Agreement with Ramsey 17 County Housing and Redevelopment related to the Marion Street Greenway Connection –Phase 2. 18 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 19 Motion to adopt the resolution to enter into an Agreement with Ramsey County Housing and 20 Redevelopment related to the Marion Street Greenway Connection –Phase 2 Prepared by:Jesse Freihammer, Public Works Director Attachments:A:Resolution B:Agreement C:Project Map Page 1of 1 Attachment A EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City th 2 of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was duly held on the 28 day of November, 3 2022, at 6:00 p.m. 4 The following members were present: and the following members were 5 absent: . 6 Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 7 RESOLUTION No. 8 RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH RAMSEY COUNTY 9 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT RELATED TO THE MARION STREET 10 GREENWAY CONNECTION – PHASE 2 11 WHEREAS, the Marion Street Greenway Connection Phase 2 is located on Marion Street, 12 between Larpenteur Avenue and the cul-de-sac; and 13 WHEREAS, this segment is on the City of Roseville’s Pathway Master Plan; and 14 WHEREAS, on January 24, 2022, the City Council of the City of Rosevilleapproved a 15 resolution authorizing the application for Ramsey County Community Development Block 16 Grant (CDBG)/Home Investment Partnership Funds for the Development of Marion Street 17 Greenway Connection, Phase 2; and 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville, 19 Minnesota, that the City shall enter into an agreement with Ramsey County Housing and 20 Redevelopment for the Marion Street Greenway Connection –Phase 2. 21 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by 22 Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in 23 favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: . 24 WHEAREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Marion Street Pathway Phase 2 – CDBG Agreement STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council th held on the 28day of November, 2022, with the original thereof on file in my office. th WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 28 day of November, 2022 Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager (SEAL) Attachment B COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RAMSEY COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE This COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM th AGREEMENT (“Grant Agreement”) is effective this 28 day of November,2022, between the Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (“Authority”), and the City of Roseville, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Grantee”). RECITALS 1. The Authority is an urban county applicant for block grant funds under the Housing and Community Development Act, 42 USC 5301-5321 (“Act”), and will receive block grant funds for the purpose of carrying out eligible community development and housing activities under the Act and under regulations promulgated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) at 24 CFR Part 570; 2. An Urban County Consortium has been established by a Joint Cooperation Agreement between the Authority and municipal corporations within Ramsey County, the terms of which specify allocation of block grant funds to those participating jurisdictions for use in accordance with the County Housing Assistance and Community Development Plans accepted by participating jurisdictions and reviewed by HUD; 3. The Authority desires to have certain work or services performed by Grantee as described within this Grant Agreement, and as authorized by Resolutions of the Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority Board for the purpose of implementing eligible activities under the Act and HUD regulations; 4. It is appropriate and mutually desirable that Grantee be designated by the Authority to undertake such eligible activities, so long as the requirements of the Act, HUD regulations, state law, and local law are adhered to, as provided for in this Grant Agreement; 5. The purpose of this Grant Agreement is to provide for cooperation between the Authority and Grantee, as the parties in this Grant Agreement, in implementing such eligible activities in the manner described in these Recitals and as provided below; 6. The Authority and Grantee desire to enter into this Grant Agreement based on Grantee’s application, which is on file with the Authority (“Grantee’s Application”), by which Grantee will receive a Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) in the amount of $292,400.00 (the “CDBG Funds”); 1 Attachment B 7. The Authority approved Grantee’s Application and the CDBG funds on May 10, 2022, by Resolution H-2022-007; 8. The parties are authorized and empowered to enter into this Grant Agreement by the Laws of the State of Minnesota. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants and undertakings set forth in this Grant Agreement, the Authority and Grantee agree as follows: PART 1 GENERAL CONDITIONS Section 1.1 Term. This Grant Agreement and activities authorized by it is effective for the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2022 (“Effective Date”), and will be in force and in effect through June 30, 2023 (“Termination Date”). The Term includes any period of time after the Termination Datethat the Grantee has control over CDBG Funds, or property purchased in whole or in part with CDBG Funds, all in accordance with the provisions of this Grant Agreement. This Grant Agreement may be amended by written agreement consented to and signed by both parties. Section 1.2 Scope of Work or Services. Grantee is required to perform and carry out in a satisfactory and proper manner the work or services set forth in Grantee’s Application. This Grant Agreement may be amended from time to time, in accordance with these General Conditions, for the purpose of adding new projects, amending the scope of work, or for any other lawful purpose. Section 1.3 Use of CDBG Funds. Grantee agrees to use the CDBG Funds exclusively for the purposes permitted under the Act. Grantee will perform all activities set forth in the Statement of Work/Scope of Services as set forth inGrantee’s Application, and will undertake these activities in accordance with the terms of this Grant Agreement and with any statutory or regulatory provisions governing the CDBG Program, including but not limited to the CDBG Program Entitlement Grant Regulations (24 CFR Part 570), as applicable. Grantee may not use the CDBG Funds for any other purpose, unless Grantee obtains the prior written consent of the Authority. Section 1.4 Commencement and Completion of Projects.Upon release of project related funds by HUD pursuant to federal regulations, the Authority will furnish Grantee with written notice to proceed. No work on the project is allowed to occur prior to the notice to proceed without written approval from the Authority. Unless otherwise set forth in this Grant Agreement or any amendment to this Grant Agreement, a project is expected to be substantially completed within 24 months from the date which this Grant Agreement is executed. Projects which do not show substantial progress toward substantial completion within the timespan specified in Grantee’s Application may be terminated at the sole discretion of the Authority, upon 30 days’ written notice to Grantee. 2 Attachment B Section 1.5 Administration. A. Grantee is required to appoint a liaison person who will be responsible for the overall administration of block grant funded project(s) and coordination with the Authority. Grantee is also required to designate one or more representatives who will be authorized to sign the monthly Beneficiary Reporting and Reimbursement Forms. The names of the liaison persons and representatives must be specified in the exhibits. B. For all agencies which are presently parties to Joint Cooperation Agreements with the Authority covering planning, distribution of funds, and program execution under the Act, Grantee remains subject to the provisions of such agreement. Section 1.6 Compensation and Method of Payment. A. The Authority will reimburse Grantee for the work or services specified in the exhibits in an amount not to exceed $292,400.00.Reimbursement will be based on a Beneficiary Reporting and Reimbursement Forms submitted with supporting documents and signed by Grantee’s authorized representative. B. Grantee is required to submit a properly executed Beneficiary Reporting and Reimbursement Forms no later than fifteen (15) business days after the close of each billing period. The Authority will make payment to Grantee not more than twenty-one (21) business days after said invoice is received and approved by the Authority. The Authority will issue a statement of correction voucher in the event that the Beneficiary Reporting and Reimbursement Forms is erroneous. Payment does not constitute absolute approval. Section 1.7 Operating Budget.Grantee is required to apply the funds received from the Authority under this Grant Agreement in accordance with the financial information provided in the Grant Application. Section 1.8 Funding Alternatives and Future Support. A. Grantee is required to report all Program Income generated under this Grant Agreement or generated through the project(s) funded under this Granted Agreement. In the event Grantee receives any Program Income it must, in the sole discretion of, and at the direction of at the Authority, either utilize it solely for the purposes set forth in this Grant Agreement or return it to the Authority. At the end of the program year the Authority may require remittance of all or part of any program income balances (including investments of such program income balances) held by Grantee (except those needed for immediate cash needs, cash balances of a revolving loan fund, or cash balances from a lump sum drawdown.). B. The Authority makes no commitment to future support and assumes no obligation for future support of the activities contracted for in this Grant Agreement, except as expressly set forth in this Grant Agreement. 3 Attachment B C.Should anticipated sources of revenue not become available to the Authority for use in the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Authority will immediately notify Grantee in writing and the Authority will be released from all contracted liability for that portion of this Grant Agreement covered by funds not received by the Authority. Section 1.9 Amendments. Either party may request modifications in the scope of work or services, terms, or conditions of this Grant Agreement. Proposed modifications which are mutually agreed upon will be incorporated by written amendment to this Grant Agreement. A written amendment may affect a project or projects authorized by this Grant Agreement or may be of general application. Section 1.10 Assignment and Subcontracting. A. Grantee is prohibited from assigning any portion of this Grant Agreement without the written consent of the Authority. Such a consent must be sought by Grantee not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the date of any proposed assignment. B. Any work or services assigned or subcontracted under this Grant Agreement will be subject to each provision of this Grant Agreement. Grantee agrees that it is as fully responsible to the Authority for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors and of their employees as agents, as it is for the acts and omissions of its own employees and agents. Section 1.11 Hold Harmless And Indemnification. A. Grantee agrees that it is financially responsible (liable) for any audit exception which occurs due to its negligence or failure to comply with the terms of this Grant Agreement. B.Grantee and Authority mutually agree to hold harmless and defend each other, their officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, customers, or invitees against any and all claims, lawsuits, damages, or lawsuits for damages arising from or allegedly arising from or related to the project, including but not limited to Grantee’s or the Authority’s acts, failure to act, or failure to perform its obligations hereunder. Grantee and Authority further agree to pay the costs of and/or reimburse each other, their officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives, customers, or invitees for any and all liability, costs, and expenses (including without limitation reasonable attorney’s fees and costs) incurred in connection with such acts or failures. Each party is required to promptly notify the other of any claim made for any such damage or loss and afford that party and its counsel the opportunity to contest, compromise, or settle such claim. C. Nothing in this Grant Agreement will constitute a waiver by Grantee or Authority of any statutory limits or exceptions on liability. Section 1.12 Insurance. A. Grantee is required to purchase and maintain such insurance as will protect it from claims which may arise out of, or result from, its operations related to this Grant Agreement, 4 Attachment B whether such operations be by Grantee or by any subcontractor, or by anyone directly employed by them, or by anyone for whose acts any one of them may be liable. B. Grantee is required to secure the following coverages and comply with all provisions noted. Certificates of Insurance mustbe issued evidencing such coverage to the Authority throughout the term of this Grant Agreement. 1. Commercial General Liability Insurance: $ 500,000 per claim $1,000,000 per occurrence $2,000,000 general aggregate $2,000,000 products/completed operations total limit $1,500,000 personal injury and advertising liability This policy must be written on an occurrence basis using ISO form CG 00 01 or its equivalent. Coverage shall include contractual liability and XCU. Grantee will be required to provide proof of completed operations coverage for three years after substantial completion. Grantee is required to add the Authority, Ramsey County, their officials, employees, volunteers, and agents as Additional Insured to Grantee’s Commercial General Liability and Umbrella policies with respect to liabilities caused in whole or part by Grantee’s acts or omissions, or the acts or omissions of those acting on Grantee’s behalf in the performance of the ongoing operations, services, and completed operations of Grantee under this Grant Agreement. The coverage provided must be primary and non- contributory. 2. Automobile Insurance: Coverage shall be provided for hired, non-owned and owned auto. Minimum limits of $1,000,000 combined single limit 3. Workers’ Compensation and Employers’ Liability: Workers’ Compensation as required by Minnesota Statutes; Employers’ Liability Limits: $500,000/$500,000/$500,000 4. Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions Coverage (if applicable): Per Claim Limit: $ 500,000 Per Occurrence Limit: $1,500,000 Aggregate Limit: $2,000,000 This policy is to be written as acceptable to the Authority. Certificates of Insurance must indicate if the policy is issued on a claims-made or occurrence basis. If coverage is carried on a claims-made basis, then: 1) the retroactive date must be noted on the Certificate and must be prior to or the day of the inception 5 Attachment B of the Grant Agreement; and 2) evidence of coverage must be provided for three years beyond expiration of the Grant Agreement. C.Grantee is required to provide Authority with prior notice of any lapse in the insurance required under this Grant Agreementincluding cancellation, and/or non-renewal or material change in coverage. Grantee who is providing services on behalf of the Authority must notify its insurer that the Authority is requiring third party notice of midterm cancellation per Minnesota Statutes § 60A.36, subd. 2a. D. The above sub-paragraphs establish minimum insurance requirements, and it is the sole responsibility of Grantee to purchase and maintain additional coverages as it may deem necessary in connection with this Grant Agreement. E. Certificates of Insurance must indicate if the policy is issued pursuant to these requirements. Grantee shall not commence work until Grantee has obtained the required insurance and filed an acceptable Certificate of Insurance with Authority. Copies of insurance policies must be submitted to the Authority upon request. F. Nothing in this Grant Agreement will constitute a waiver by the Authority or Ramsey County of any statutory or common law immunities, limits, or exceptions on liability. G. Certificates must specifically indicate if the policy is written with an admitted or non- admitted carrier. Best’s Rating for the insurer shall be noted on the Certificate, and shall not be less than an A-. Section 1.13 Conflict of Interest. A. Interest of Officers, Employees, or Agents. No officer, employee, or agent of Grantee who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning and carrying out of any HUD CDBG program, or any other person who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the Program, shall have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Grant Agreement, and Grantee shalltake appropriate steps to assure compliance. B. Interest of Subcontractor and Their Employees. Grantee agrees that it will incorporate into every subcontract required to be in writing and made pursuant to this Grant Agreement the following provisions: The contractor covenants that no person who presently exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with any HUD CDBG program, has any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this contract. The contractor further covenants that the contractor presently has no interest and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the contractor’s work or services hereunder. The contractor further covenants that in the performance of this contract no person having any 6 Attachment B conflicting interest will be employed. Any interest on the part of the contractor or contractor’s employees must be disclosed to Grantee and the Authority. Section 1.14 Debarment Certification. Grantee is required to submitcertification regarding debarment, suspension, ineligibility, and voluntary exclusion – lower tier covered transactions as set forth in Exhibit A. Section 1.15 Termination. A. This Grant Agreement is subject to termination upon thirty (30) days written notice by the Authority if: 1. Grantee mismanages or makes improper or unlawful use of Grant Agreement funds; 2. Grantee fails to comply with the terms and conditions expressed in this Grant Agreement or the applicable federal, state, or county regulations and directives; 3. Grantee fails to provide work or services expressed by this Grant Agreement; or 4. Grantee fails to submit reports or submits incomplete or inaccurate reports in any material respect. B. This Grant Agreement may be terminated by the Authority immediately upon the receipt by the Authority of notice of the loss of federal funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program or any project of Grantee. C.This Grant Agreement is subject to termination upon thirty (30) days’ written notice by Grantee if: 1. The Authority fails in its commitment under this Grant Agreement to provide funding for work or services rendered, as provided in this Grant Agreement; or 2. Block Grant Funds become no longer available from the federal government or through the Authority. D. This Grant Agreement may be terminated by the parties, in whole or in part, under such terms and conditions as they may agree, subject to the provisions of paragraphs A, B, and C of this section of the Grant Agreement. E. Otherwise, this Grant Agreement will terminate on the latest substantial completion date specified on Grantee’s Application, and will be subject to extension only by mutual agreement and amendment in accordance with the General Conditions of this Grant Agreement. F. Upon termination of this Grant Agreement, any unexpended balance of Grant Agreement funds shall remain in the Authority’s Block Grant Fund. G. In the event that termination occurs under paragraph 1.15.A.1. of this Section, Grantee is required to return to the Authority all CDBG Funds that were expended in violation of the terms of this Grant Agreement. 7 Attachment B PART 2 FEDERAL AND LOCAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS Section 2.1.Program Administration. Grantee is required to comply with the applicable uniform administrative requirements set forth at 24 CFR 570.502. Section 2.2. Procurement Standards. A. General. In awarding contracts pursuant to this Grant Agreement, Granteeis required to comply with all applicable requirements of local and state law for awarding contracts, including, but not limited to, procedures for competitive bidding, contractor’s bonds, and retained percentages. In addition, Grantee is required to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102, relating to bonding, insurance, and procurement standards; and with Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375, and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations, 41 CFR Chapter 60, regarding nondiscrimination bid conditions for projects over $10,000. Where federal standards differ from local or state standards, the stricter standards will apply. The federal standard of $10,000 for competitive bidding shall apply only if the applicable state or local standard for competitive bidding is less strict than $10,000. B. Construction. All contracts and subgrants for construction or repair must include a provision for compliance with the Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act, 18 USC 874, as amended, and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations, 29 CFR Part 3. Section 2.3 Environmental Review. A. National Environmental Policy Act. The Authority retains environmental review responsibility for purposes of fulfilling requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act as implemented by HUD Environmental Review Procedures, 24 CFR Part 58 (“NEPA”). The Authority may require Grantee to furnish data, information, and assistance for the Authority’s review and assessment in determining whether an Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared. B. Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. Agencies which are branches of government under Minnesota law retain responsibility for fulfilling the requirements of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116D and Minnesota Rules, 4410.0200 through 4410.6500 (“MEPA”)regarding environmental policy and conservation, and regulations and ordinances adopted pursuant to MEPA. If Grantee is not a branch of government under Minnesota law, the Authority may require Grantee to furnish data, information, and assistance as necessary to enable the Authority to comply with the MEPA. 8 Attachment B C.Satisfaction of Environmental Requirements. Project execution under this Grant Agreement by either the Authority or Grantee shall not proceed until all applicable requirements of NEPA and MEPA have been satisfied. The Authority will not issue a written notice to proceed until all such requirements are met. Section 2.4 Non-Discrimination; Employment; Section 3 Compliance; Contracting. A. General. Grantee is required tocomply with all federal, state, and local laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age, sex, marital status, race, creed, color, national origin or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, or any other basis. B.Program Benefit. Grantee shall not discriminate against any resident of the project service area by denying benefit from or participation in any block grant funded activity on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. C.Fair Housing. Grantee is required to take necessary and appropriate actions to prevent discrimination in federal assisted housing and lending practices related to loans insured or guaranteed by the federal government. D. Employment. 1. In all solicitations under this Grant Agreement, Grantee is required to state that all qualified applicants will be considered for employment. The words “equal opportunity employer” in advertisements satisfies the requirements of this section. 2. Grantee is prohibited from discriminating against an employee or applicant for employment in connection with this Grant Agreement because of age, marital status, race, creed, color, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap, except when there is a bona fide occupational limitation. Such action must include, but not be limited to, the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training. E. Section 3 Compliance. 1. Compliance; goals; reporting. Grantee will comply with and to cause its covered contractors and covered subcontractors to comply with the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701u; the regulations at Title 24 CFR Subtitle A Part 75; the Ramsey County HRASection 3 Action Plan and the terms of this Grant Agreement. Definitions for this section are pursuant to 24 CFR 75.5. The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that economic opportunities, most importantly employment, generated by certainHUD financial assistance will be directed to low- and very low-income persons, particularly those who are recipients of government assistance for housing or residents of the community in which the Federal assistance is 9 Attachment B spent. The hiring goals of 20% Section 3 Workers and 5% Section 3 Targeted Workers apply to thisGrant Agreement. Grantee agrees to report to the Authority, as requested by Authority, its compliance with these Section 3 requirements on the form(s) supplied by the Authority. The Section 3 requirements set forth in this section apply to any and all contracts that Grantee enters into with another party and must be included in all bid and proposal instructions, notices, specifications, and solicitations for work that are distributed. Any reference to contractor within the Section 3 requirements also includes subcontractors (including any second or third tier subcontractors). 2. Requirements. Grantee agrees that the following requirements apply to this Grant Agreement: a. Employment & Training: Actions to facilitate participation by Section 3 residents. i.To the greatest extent feasible, and consistent with existing Federal, state, and local laws and regulations, Grantee willensure that employment and training opportunities arising in connection with Section 3 projects are provided to Section 3 Workers within the metropolitan area (or nonmetropolitan county) in which the project is located. ii. Where feasible, priority for opportunities and training described in paragraph E.2.a.i. of this section should be given to: A. Section 3 Workers residing within the service area or the neighborhood of the project, and B. Participants in YouthBuild programs. b. Contracting: Actions to facilitate participation by Section 3 businesses. i.To the greatest extent feasible, and consistent with existing Federal, state, and local laws and regulations, Grantee will ensure contracts for work awarded in connection with Section 3 projects are provided to business concerns that provide economic opportunities to Section 3 Workers residing within the metropolitan area (or nonmetropolitan county) in which the project is located. ii.Where feasible, priority for contracting opportunities described in paragraph E.2.b.i. of this section should be given to: A. Section 3 Business Concerns that provide economic opportunities to Section 3 Workers residing within the service area or the neighborhood of the project, and B. YouthBuild programs. 10 Attachment B c. Grantee further acknowledges and agrees to utilize the Ramsey County Section 3 Action Planto achieve compliance with the requirements of HUD Section 3, and will assist the Authority with compliance as it pertains to this project, in accordance with the Section 3 regulations in 24 CFR 75. 3. Targeted Section 3 Workers. Grantee agrees to prioritize and report on efforts to employ and train Targeted Section 3 workers on this project in accordance with the following definitions and acknowledges a 5% goal for inclusion of Targeted Section 3 workers. A Targeted Section 3 Worker for housing and community development financial assistance means a Section 3 worker who is: a. A worker employed by a Section 3 Business concern; or b. A worker who currently fits or when hired fit at least one of the following categories, as documented within the past five years: i.Living within the service area or the neighborhood of the project, as defined by 24 CFR 75.5; or ii.A YouthBuild participant. 4. Reporting. Grantee agrees to report to the Authority in a manner consistent with federal regulations outlined at 24 CFR 75.25, and in accordance with forms provided by the Authority pursuant to the Authority’s Section 3 Action Plan to demonstrate efforts to satisfy HUD Section 3 Requirements outlined in this Grant Agreement and in federal regulations at 24 CFR 75. 5. Section 3 Safe Harbor. a. Grantee will certify its compliance with HUD Section 3 by submitting forms provided by the Authorityto document that the prioritization requirements for employment and contracting outlined in Paragraph B above have been followed. b. Upon supplying the certification, Grantee willbe deemed to have complied with the requirements of HUD Section 3 by meeting or exceeding the benchmarks outlined in this Grant Agreement for inclusion of Section 3 workers, as reported on forms provided by the Authority, absent evidence to the contrary. c. If Grantee has not met the benchmarks outlined in this Article, Grantee will report in a form prescribed by HUD on the qualitative nature of its activities and those of its contractors and subcontractors pursued. Such qualitative efforts may, for example, include but are not limited to the following: i. Engaged in outreach efforts to generate job applicants who are Targeted Section 3 workers. 11 Attachment B ii. Provided training or apprenticeship opportunities. iii.Provided technical assistance to help Section 3 workers compete for jobs (e.g., resume assistance, coaching). iv. Provided or connected Section 3 Workers with assistance in seeking employment including: drafting resumes, preparing for interviews, and finding job opportunities connecting residents to job placement services. v. Held one or more job fairs. vi. Provided or referred Section 3 Workers to services supporting work readiness and retention (e.g., work readiness activities, interview clothing, test fees, transportation, child care). vii. Provided assistance to apply for/or attend community college, a four- year educational institution, or vocational/technical training. viii. Assisted Section 3 Workers to obtain financial literacy training and/or coaching. ix. Engaged in outreach efforts to identify and secure bids from Section 3 Business Concerns. x. Provided technical assistance to help Section 3 Business Concerns understand and bid on contracts. xi. Divided contracts into smaller jobs to facilitate participation by Section 3 Business Concerns. xii. Provided bonding assistance, guaranties, or other efforts to support viable bids from Section 3 Business Concerns. xiii.Promoted use of business registries designed to create opportunities for disadvantaged and small businesses. xiv. Outreach, engagement, or referrals with the state one-stop system as defined in Section 121(e)(2) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. 6. Multiple Funding Sources. If this project is subject to Section 3 requirements pursuant to both 24 CFR 75.3(a)(1) and (2), the provisions of 24 CFR 75.29 apply to this project. 7. Record Keeping. Grantee agrees to comply with the applicable record keeping requirements pursuant to 24 CFR 75.31. 12 Attachment B 8. Remedies for default. Upon a failure to comply with any of the requirements described in this Grant Agreement, the Authority may elect to enforce the terms of this Grant Agreementas afforded by law or equity. F. Contractors and Suppliers. 1. Any contractor, subcontractor, union, or vendor engaged in any activity under this Grant Agreement is prohibited from discriminating in the sale of materials, equipment, or labor on the basis of age, sex, marital status, race, creed, color, national origin, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. Such practices include upgrading, demotion, recruiting, transfer, layoff, termination, pay rate, and advertisement for employment. 2. All firms and organizations described above must be required to submit to Grantee certificates of compliance demonstrating that they have, in fact, complied with the foregoing provisions; provided, that certificates of compliance will not be required from firms and organizations on contracts and/or yearly sales of less than $10,000. 3. To the greatest extent feasible, Grantee is required to purchase supplies and services for activities under this Grant Agreement from vendors and contractors whose businesses are located in the area served by block grant funded activities or owned in substantial part by project area residents. G. Notice. 1. As applicable, Grantee is required to include the provisions of subsections 2.4.A, B, C, D, E, and F in every contract or purchase order for goods and services under this Grant Agreement, and is required to send to each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding a notice advising the said labor union or worker’s representative of the commitments made in these subsections. 2. In advertising for employees, goods, or services for activities under this Grant Agreement, Grantee is required to utilize minority publications in addition to publications of general circulation. Section 2.5 Labor Standards. If applicable, Grantee is required comply with all federal, state, and local laws that apply to the construction or rehabilitation of the property, specifically the Ramsey County Prevailing Wage Ordinance No. 2013-329. Grantee mustrequire that project construction contractors and subcontractors pay their laborers and mechanics at wage rates in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 USC 3141-44 and40 USC 3146-3147; provided that this section shall not apply to rehabilitation of residential property designed for residential use by fewer than eight families.A copy of the current Davis-Bacon wage rate must be included in all construction bid specifications and contracts over $2,000. 13 Attachment B Section 2.6 Property Management. A. Grantee agrees that any nonexpendable personal property, purchased wholly or in part with agreement funds at a cost of $300 Dollars or more per item, is, upon its purchase or receipt, the property of the Authority and/or federal government. Final ownership and disposition of such property will be determined under the provisions of U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-102. B. Grantee will be responsible for all such property, including its care and maintenance. C. Grantee is required to admit the Authority’s property management officer to Grantee’s premises for the purpose of marking such property, as appropriate, with Authority property tags. D. Grantee is required to meet the following procedural requirements for all such property: 1. Property records must be maintained accurately and provide for: a description of the property; manufacturer’s serial number or other identification number; acquisition date and cost; source of the property; percentage of block grant funds used in the purchase of property; and location, use and condition of the property. 2. A physical inventory of property shall be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two (2) years to verify the existence, current utilization, and continued need for the property. 3. A control system shall be in effect to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft to the property. Any loss, damage, or theft of the property shall be investigated and fully documented. 4. Adequate maintenance procedures shall be implemented to keep the property in good condition. Section 2.7 Acquisition and Relocation. A. Any acquisition of real property for any activity assisted under this Grant Agreement which occurs on or after the date of the Authority’s submission of its Block Grant application to HUD shall comply with Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Title III, 42 USC 4601-4655 (“Uniform Act”) and the Regulations at 49 CFR Part 24. B. Any displacement of persons, business, non-profit organizations, or farms occurring on or after the date of the Authority’s submission of its Block Grant application as the result of acquisition of real property assisted under this Grant Agreement must comply with Title II of the Uniform Act and the Regulations at 49 CFR Part 24. Grantee is required to comply with the regulations pertaining to costs of relocation and written policies, as specified by 24 CFR 570.606. Section 2.8 Historic Preservation. Grantee is required to meet the historic preservation requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 USC 470-470x-6; the Archaeological 14 Attachment B and Historic Preservation Act, 16 USC 469-469c-1; and Executive Order 11593, including the procedures prescribed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 2.9 Architectural Barriers. Any facility constructed pursuant to this Grant Agreement must comply with design requirements of the Architectural Barriers Act, 42 USC 4151-4157, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12101-12213. Section 2.10 Activities for Which Other Federal Funds Must be Sought.Granteemay use CDBG funds for the provision of public services as described by 24 CFR 570.201(e), provided that Grantee meets the requirements of and follows the procedures outlined in 24 CFR 570.607. Section 2.11 Non-Participation in Political Activities. Grantee is required to comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act, 5 USC 7321-7326. Section 2.12. Conditions for Religious Organizations.Where applicable, the conditions prescribed by HUDfor the use of CDBG funds by religious organizations must be followed, and, if applicable, included in agreements between Grantee and contractors or sub-contractors. Section 2.13 National Flood Insurance. Grantee may not receive CDBG funding for acquisition or construction in any area that has been identified as having special flood hazards and is not participating in the National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Disaster Protection Act, Section 3(a), 42 USC 4001-4003, and the Regulations thereunder. Granteeis required to comply with the Regulations at 24 CFR 570.605. Section 2.14 Air and Water Pollution. Grantee is required to comply with the provisions of the Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7401-7642, and the Federal Water Pollution Act, 33 USC 1251- 1274, and the Regulations issued thereunder. Section 2.15 Lead-Based Paint Poisoning. Grantee is required to comply with the regulations at 24 CFR Part 35, issued pursuant to the Lead-Based Poisoning Prevention Act, 42 USC 4831, relating to the use of lead-based paint. Section 2.16 Non-Substitution For Local Funding. The Block Grant funding made available under this Grant Agreement shallnot be utilized by Granteeto reduce substantially the amount of local financial support for community development activities below the level of such support prior to the availability of funds under this Grant Agreement. Section 2.17 Public Ownership. For agencies that are not municipal corporations organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, it may become necessary to grant the Authority a property interest where the subject project calls for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or installation of publicly owned facilities and improvements. Section 2.18 Public Information. If requested by the Authority, Grantee is required to comply with the following: 15 Attachment B A. In all news releases and other public notices related to projects funded under this Grant Agreement, Grantee shall include information identifying the source of funds as the Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority Community Development Block Grant Program. B.For all construction projects, Grantee is required to erect a sign to Authority specifications at the construction site, identifying the source of funds. Section 2.19 Reversion of Assets. Grantee is required to transfer to the Authority any CDBG funds, including but not limited to project income, on hand at the time of expiration of this Grant Agreement, or received thereafter, and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds. Any real property under Grantee’s control that was acquired or improved in whole or in part with CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 is either: A. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR Part 570, until five years after expiration of this Grant Agreement, or such longer period of time as determined appropriate by the Authority; or B. Is disposed of in a manner which results in the Authority being reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of the property at the time of disposal, less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. Such reimbursement is not required after the period of time specified in accordance with subsection 2.19.A. above. Section 2.20 Prohibited Use of Excessive Force; Nonviolent Civil Rights Demonstrations. Grantee, if a unit of government, certifies by the execution of this Grant Agreement that it has adopted and is enforcing a policy A. prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights demonstrations, pursuant to 24 CFR 91.225(b)(5)(i); and B. enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from, a facility or location that is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction, pursuant to 24 CFR 91.225(b)(5)(ii). Section 2.21 Lobbying Prohibition. By the execution of this Grant Agreement, Grantee certifies that it has adopted and is enforcing the following as required by 24 CFR Part 87: A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid by, or on behalf of, the undersigned to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress, in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 16 Attachment B B.If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, Grantee is required to complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions. C. Grantee must require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements), and that all subrecipients are required to certify and disclose accordingly. PART 3 EVALUATION AND RECORDKEEPING Section 3.1 Evaluation. Grantee agrees to participate with the Authority in any evaluation project or performance report, as designed by the Authority or the appropriate federal agency, and to make available all information required by any such evaluation process. Section 3.2 Audits and Inspections. A. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Grant Agreement shall be subject at all times to inspection, review, or audit by the Authority, and federal or state officials authorized by law during the performance of this Grant Agreement during the period of retention specified in this Part III. B. Grantee, regardless of the amount of funds received from the Authority, is required to obtain at its own expense an annual certified financial and compliance audit. C. All audits must be submitted to the Authority within six months of the close of Grantee’s fiscal year and must be prepared by an independent auditor who meets the independence standards specified in the United States General Accounting Office’s yellow book, “Government Auditing Standards.” D. Grantee is required to submit a copy of the annual financial audited statements with the management compliance letter and the recipient’s response to the management letter, to the Director of Community Development within six months of the end of Grantee’s fiscal year. Section 3.3 Records. As required by HUD Regulations, 24 CFR Part 570, Grantee is required to compile and maintain the following: A. Financial Management. Financial management records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for activities within this Grant Agreement, in accordance with the provisions of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-102. These records 17 Attachment B must contain information pertaining to grant awards and authorizations, obligations, unobligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays, and income. B.Citizen Participation. Narrative and other documentation that describe the process used to inform citizens concerning the amount of funds available, the ranges of project activities undertaken, and opportunities to participate in funded block grant projects. C. Relocation. Records that are sufficiently detailed to demonstrate compliance with 24 CFR 570.606 related to displacement, relocation, acquisition, and replacement of housing, including records that demonstrate that Grantee has taken all reasonable steps to minimize the displacement of persons (families, individuals, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and farms) as a result of activities undertaken with CDBG Funds. Grantee must maintain a separate record for each displaced person, family, individual, business, nonprofit organization, and farm. Such records must indicate the overall status of the relocation workload. D. Property Acquisition. Where applicable, records related to property acquisition, including the following: 1. Invitation to owner to accompany appraiser during inspection; 2. At least one property appraisal; 3. Statement of basis for determination of just compensation; 4. Written offer of just compensation; 5. All documents involving conveyance; 6. Settlement cost reporting statement; and 7. Notice to surrender possession premises. E. Equal Opportunity. Records documenting the racial, ethnic, and gender data showing the extent to which these categories of persons have participated in, or benefited from, the activities carried out under this Grant Agreement. Grantee also is required to maintain data that records its affirmative action in equal opportunity employment, and its good faith efforts to identify, train, and/or hire lower income residents of the project area and to utilize business concerns that are located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the area of the project. F. Labor Standards. Records documenting compliance of all contractors performing construction work under this Grant Agreement with the labor standards madeapplicable by the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 USC 3141-3148). G. Other. Such other records as may be required by the Authority and/or HUD. Section 3.4 Retention of Records. Required records must be retained for a period of six (6) years after termination of this Grant Agreement, except as follows: A. Records that are the subject of audit findings must be retained for six (6) years after such findings have been resolved; and 18 Attachment B B.Records for nonexpendable property must be retained for six (6) years after its final disposition. Section 3.5 Reports. Grantee is required to submit reports as required by the Authority on a monthly and annual basis, and also prior to project execution. Section 3.6 Data Privacy.All data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for any purpose in the course of Grantee’s performance of this Grant Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (“MGDPA”), or any other applicable state statutes, any state rules adopted to implement the MGDPA and statutes, as well as federal statutes and regulations on data privacy. PART 4 MISCELLANEOUS Section 4.1 Entire Agreement. This Grant Agreement represents the entire agreement by and between the parties to this Grant Agreement for the matter specified in this Grant Agreement. All changes, amendments, modifications, or revisions to this Grant Agreement will be binding only when in writing and signed by both parties to this Grant Agreement, by their respective authorized officers, agents, or representatives. Section 4.2 Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits. The Recitals made at the beginning of this Grant Agreement, and Exhibit A that is mentioned in and attached to this Grant Agreement, are true and correct and, by this reference, are incorporated into and made a part of this Grant Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Grant Agreement to be effective as of the Effective Date set forth above. \[Signature pages follow\] 19 Attachment B GRANTEE SIGNATURE PAGE FOR CDBG GRANT AGREEMENT THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a Minnesota municipal corporation By: Patrick Trudgeon Roseville City Manager Date: By: Dan Roe Roseville Mayor Date: 20 Attachment B AUTHORITY SIGNATURE PAGE FOR CDBG GRANT AGREEMENT RAMSEY COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota By: Ryan T. O’Connor Ramsey County Manager Date: Approval recommended: Community and Economic Development Approved as to form: Assistant County Attorney This Agreement drafted by: Ramsey County Attorney’s Office th 121 7 Place East, Suite 4500 St. Paul, MN 55101 21 Attachment B EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATION REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION, INELIGIBILITY AND VOLUNTARY EXCLUSION - LOWER TIER COVERED TRANSACTIONS As required by the Ramsey County Contract Compliance and Debarment Ordinance, and by 2 CFR part 2424, 24 CFR 5.105(b), and Executive Orders12549 and 12689, the City of Roseville, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Grantee”), certifies that neither it, nor its principals, is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded, by any Federal department or agency, or the State of Minnesota or Ramsey County, from participation in the transaction made by the Grant Agreement dated evenly with it(“Grant Agreement”) between the Ramsey County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (“Authority”) and Grantee. As a lower tier participant, Grantee agrees that by submitting this certification, it will not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the Authority. Grantee agrees to provide a list of its contractors hired for the project to the Authority prior to any disbursement of funds under the Grant Agreement and update when needed throughout the project. The terms of the Grant Agreement are incorporated into this certification and all capitalized terms in this certification which are defined in the Grant Agreement will have the meanings set forth in the Grant Agreement. THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE, a Minnesota municipal corporation By: Print Name Its: Dated: ________________, 2022 22 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 Item No.: 10.h Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval Item Description:Approve Professional Service Agreement for Water System Analysis 1 B ACKGROUND 2 The City of Roseville purchases its water from Saint Paul Regional Water System (SPRWS). The 3 current agreement expires at the end of 2024. The City of Roseville supplies water to the City of 4 Arden Hills. This agreement also expires at the end of 2024. In order to prepare to re-negotiateboth 5 of these expiring agreements, the City looked to hire a consultant to complete two major tasks: 6 Task 1 –Review of SPRWS Water System Study 7 Task 2 –Service to Arden Hills –Cost of Service and Rate Design 8 For Task 1, every few years SPRWS performs a “cost of services study” for wholesale customers, 9 which includes Little Canada and Roseville. They last did studies in 2017 and 2019. Their 10 consultant completed a draft report in September 2022 for cities to review. The City’s consultant 11 would review the report to make sure the analysis is fair to the City. If issues are found with the 12 analysis, the City will work with SPRWS to revise the rates accordingly. 13 For Task 2, the City currently has a spreadsheet that tries to capture the fixed costs of the water 14 system that are associated with providing water to the City of Arden Hills. The spreadsheet has been 15 updated every few years as costs have changed, but an overall analysis of the structure of the base 16 rate and the assumptions into the spreadsheet have not been completedin at least 10 years. AE2S 17 completed a water model study in 2017 so they are familiar with our water system and howit 18 interacts with the Arden Hills system. They will be able to review the systems and better establish 19 the costs properly that can be applied to Arden Hills based on industry standards. It is anticipated, 20 based on this analysis, that a new base rate structure for Arden Hills will be determined. This will 21 likely be incorporated into the new agreement starting in 2025. 22 Based on the agreement, Task 1 work will be completed this yearand Task 2 work will be 23 completed by May 30, 2023. Costs to perform thisanalysis are estimated to be $22,400. 24 F INANCIAL I MPACTS 25 The estimated cost of this agreement is $22,400. All costs for the study would be paid by the water 26 fund. 27 The analysis completed under this contractshould allow the City to better capture fixed costs on the 28 water system from Arden Hills. 29 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 30 Staff recommends the City Council approve the professional service agreement with AE2S Nexus. Page 1of 2 31 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 32 Motion to approve the professional service agreement with AE2S Nexus. Prepared by: Jesse Freihammer, PE, Public Works Director Attachments: A: Professional Service Agreement B: AE2S Nexus Proposal Page 2 of 2 Attachment A Standard Agreement for Professional Services th This Agreement (“Agreement”) is made on the 28day of November, 2022, between the City of Roseville, a municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”), and AE2S, a domestic corporation (hereinafter “Consultant”). Preliminary Statement The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that persons, firms or corporations providing such services enter into written agreements with the City. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions for the performance of professional services by the Consultant. The City and Consultant agree as follows: 1.Scope of Work Proposal. The Consultant agrees to provide the professional services shownin Exhibit “A” attached hereto (“Work”) in consideration for the compensation set forth in Provision 3 below. The terms of this Agreement shall take precedence over and supersede any provisions and/or conditions in any proposal submitted by the Consultant. 2.Term.The termof this Agreement shallbefrom November 28, 2022, the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding. 3.Compensation for Services. The City agrees to pay the Consultant a not-to-exceed amount of $22,400 as compensation as described in Exhibit A attached hereto for the Work, subject to the following: A. Any changes in the Work which may result in an increase to the compensation due the Consultant shall require prior written approval of the City. The City will not pay additional compensation for Work that does not have such prior written approval. B.Third party independent contractors and/or subcontractors may be retained by the Consultant when required by the complex or specialized nature of the Work when authorized in writing by the City. The Consultant shall be responsible for and shall pay all costs and expenses payable to such third party contractors unless otherwise agreed to by the parties inwriting. 4.City Representative and Special Requirements: A. The PublicWorksDirector shall actasthe City’s representative withrespectto theWork tobe performed under this Agreement. Such representative shall have authority to transmit instructions, receive informationand interpret and define the City’s policies and decisions with respect to the Work to be performed under this Agreement, but shall not have the right to enter into contracts or make binding agreements on behalf of the City with respect to the Work or this Agreement. The City may change the City’s representative at any time by notifying the Consultant of such change inwriting. B.In the event that the City requires any special conditions or requirements relating to the Work and/or this Agreement, such special conditions and requirements are stated in Exhibit C attached hereto. The parties agree that such special conditions and requirements are incorporated into and made a binding part of this Agreement and the Consultant agrees to perform the Work in accordance with, and that this Agreement shall be subject to, the conditions and requirements set forth in Exhibit C. Attachment A 5.Method of Payment. The Consultant shall submit tothe City, on a monthly basis,an itemized invoice for Work performed under this Agreement. Invoices submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City. Invoices shall contain the following: A. For Work reimbursed on an hourly basis, the Consultant shall indicate for each employee, his or her name, job title, the number of hours worked, rate of pay for each employee,a computation of amounts due for each employee, and the total amountdue for eachprojecttask. For all other Work, the Consultant shall provide a description of the Work performed and the period to which the invoice applies. For reimbursable expenses, if provided for in Exhibit A, the Consultant shall provide an itemized listing and such documentation of such expenses as is reasonably required by the City. In addition to the foregoing, all invoices shall contain, if requested by the City, the City’s project number, a progress summary showing the original (or amended) amount of the Agreement, the current billing, past payments, the unexpended balance due under the Agreement, and such other information as the City may from time to time reasonably require. B.To receive any payment pursuant to this Agreement, the invoice must include the following statement dated and signed by the Consultant: “I declare under penalty of perjury that this account, claim, or demand is just and correct and that no part of it has been paid.” The payment of invoices shall be subject to the following provisions: A. The City shall have therightto suspend the Work to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement when it deems necessary to protect the City, residents of the City or others who are affected by the Work. If any Work to be performed by the Consultant is suspended in whole or in part by the City, the Consultant shall be paid for any services performed prior to the delivery upon the Consultant of the written notice from the City of such suspension. B.The Consultant shall be reimbursed for services performed by any third party independent contractors and/or subcontractors only if the City has authorized the retention of and has agreed to pay such persons or entities pursuant to Section 3B above. 6.Project Manager and Staffing. The Consultant has designated Jacob D. Strombeck (“Project Contacts”) to perform and/or supervise the Work, and as the persons for the City to contact and communicate with regarding the performance of the Work. The Project Contacts shall be assisted by other employees of the Consultant as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Work in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Consultant may not remove or replace the Project Contacts without the prior approval of the City. 7.Standard of Care. AllWork performedby theConsultant under this Agreement shall be in accordance with the normal standard of care in Ramsey County, Minnesota, for professional services of like kind. 8.Audit Disclosure. Any reports, information, data and other written documents given to, or prepared or assembled by the Consultant under this Agreement which the City requests to be kept confidential shall not be made availablebytheConsultant to any individual or organization without the City’s prior written approval. The books, records, documents and accounting procedures and practices of the Consultant or other parties relevant to this Agreement are subject to examination by the City and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor for a period of six (6) years after the effective date of this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times abide by Minn. Stat. § 13.01 et seq. and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, to the extent the Act is applicable to data, documents, and other information in the possession of theConsultant. Page 2 Attachment A 9.Termination. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by the City, with or without cause, by delivering to the Consultantat the addressof the Consultant set forth inProvision 26 below, awritten notice at least ten (10) days prior to the date of such termination. The date of termination shall be stated in the notice. Upon termination the Consultant shall be paid for services rendered (and reimbursable expenses incurred if required to be paid by the City under this Agreement) by the Consultant through and until the date of termination so long as the Consultant is not in default under this Agreement. If the City terminates this Agreement because the Consultant is in default of its obligations under this Agreement, no further payment shall be payable or due to the Consultant following the delivery of the termination notice, and the City may, in addition to any other rights or remedies it may have at law or in equity, retain another consultant to undertake or complete the Work to be performed hereunder. 10. Subcontractor. The Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. The Consultant shall promptly pay any subcontractor involved in the performance of this Agreement as required by the State Prompt Payment Act. 11. Independent Consultant. At all times and for all purposes herein, the Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Consultant an employee of the City. 12. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any person, contractor, vendor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, sexual orientation or age. The Consultant shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provision of this non- discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Consultant shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this Provision 12 in all of its subcontracts for Work done under this Agreement, and will require all of its subcontractors performing such Work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for the performance of the Work. The Consultant further agrees to comply with all aspects of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes 363.01, et. seq., Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 13.Assignment. The Consultant shall not assign this Agreement, nor its rights and/or obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of the City. 14. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the Consultant not specifically provided for herein shall be paid by theCity. 15. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The Consultant shall abide with all federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances,rules and regulations in the performance of the Work. The Consultant and City, together with their respective agents and employees, agree to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 13, as amended, and Minnesota Rules promulgated pursuant to Chapter 13. Any violation by the Consultant of statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the Work to be performed shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the City to immediately terminate this Agreement. 16. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement or either parties ability to enforce a subsequentbreach. Page 3 Attachment A 17. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City, and its mayor, council members, officers, agents, employees and representatives harmless from and against all liability, claims, damages, costs, judgments, losses and expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees, arising out of or resulting from any act or omission of the Consultant, its officers, agents, employees, contractors and/or subcontractors pertaining to the execution, performance or failure to adequately perform the Work and/or its obligations under this Agreement. 18.Insurance. A. General Liability. Prior to starting the Work and during the full term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall procure, maintain and pay for such insurance as will protect against claims for bodily injury or death, and for damage to property, including loss of use, which may arise out of operations by the Consultant or by any subcontractor of the Consultant, or by anyone employed by any of them, or by anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. Such insurance shall include, but not be limited to, minimum coverages and limits of liability specified in this Provision 18 or such greater coverages and amounts as are required by law. Except as otherwise stated below, the policies shall name the City as an additional insured for the Work provided under thisAgreement and shall provide that the Consultant’s coverage shall be primary and noncontributory in the event of aloss. B.The Consultant shall procure and maintain the following minimum insurance coverages and limits of liability with respect to the Work: Worker’s Compensation: Statutory Limits Commercial General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence $1,000,000 general aggregate $1,000,000 products – completed operations aggregate $5,000 medical expense Comprehensive Automobile Liability:$1,000,000 combined single limit (shall include coverage for all owned, hired and non-owed vehicles. C.The Commercial GeneralLiability policy(ies) shall be equivalent in coverage toISO form CG 0001, and shall include the following: (i) Personal injury with Employment Exclusion (if any) deleted; (ii) Broad Form Contractual Liability coverage;and (iii)Broad Form Property Damage coverage, including Completed Operations. D. During the entire term of thisAgreement, and for such period of time thereafter asisnecessary to provide coverage until all relevant statutes of limitations pertaining to the Work have expired, the Consultant shall procure, maintain and pay for professional liability insurance, satisfactory to the City, which insures the payment of damages for liability arising out of the performance of professional services for the City, in the insured’s capacity as the Consultant, if such liabilityis caused by an error, omission, or negligent act of the insured or any person or organization for whom the insured is liable. Said policy shall provide an aggregate limit of at least$2,000,000.00. Page 4 Attachment A E.The Consultant shall maintain in effect all insurance coverages required under this Provision 18 at Consultant’s sole expense and with insurance companies licensed to do business in the state in Minnesota and having a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A-, unless otherwise agreed to by the City in writing. In addition to the requirements stated above, the following applies to the insurance policies required under this Provision: (i) All policies, except the Professional Liability Insurance Policy, shall be written on an “occurrence” form (“claims made” and “modified occurrence” forms are not acceptable); (ii)All policies, except the Professional Liability Insurance Policy and the Worker’s Compensation Policy, shall name “the City of Roseville” as an additional insured; (iii) All policies, except the Professional Liability Insurance Policy and the Worker’s Compensation Policy, shall insure the defense and indemnify obligations assumed by Consultant under this Agreement; and (iv) All policies shall contain a provision that coverages afforded thereunder shall not be canceled or non-renewed or restrictive modifications added, without thirty (30) days prior written notice to theCity. A copy of: (i) a certification of insurance satisfactory to the City, and (ii) if requested, the Consultant’s insurance declaration page, riders and/or endorsements, as applicable, which evidences the compliance with this Paragraph 18, must be filed with the City prior to the start of Consultant’s Work. Such documents evidencing insurance shall be in a form acceptable to the City and shall provide satisfactory evidence that the Consultant has complied with all insurance requirements. Renewal certificates shall be provided to the City prior to the expiration date of any of the required policies. The City will not be obligated, however, to review such declaration page, riders, endorsements or certificates or other evidence of insurance, or to advise Consultant of any deficiencies in such documents, and receipt thereof shall not relieve the Consultant from, nor be deemed a waiver of, the City’s right to enforce the terms of the Consultant’s obligations hereunder. The City reserves the right to examine any policy provided for under this Provision 18. 19. Ownership of Documents. All plans, diagrams, analysis, reports and information generated in connection with the performance of this Agreement (“Information”) shall become the property of the City,butthe Consultant may retain copies of such documents as records of the services provided. The City may use the Information for any reasons it deems appropriate without being liable to the Consultant for such use. The Consultant shall not use or disclose the Information for purposes other than performing the Work contemplated by this Agreement without the prior consent of the City. 20. Annual Review. Prior to January 1 of each year of this Agreement, the City shall have the right to conduct a review of the performance ofthe Workperformed by the Consultant under this Agreement. The Consultant agrees to cooperate in such review and to provide such information as the City may reasonably request. Following each performance review the parties shall, if requested by the City, meet and discuss the performance of the Consultant relative to the remaining Work to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. 21. Conflicts. No salaried officer or employee of the City and no member of the City Council of the City shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement. The violation of this provision shall render this Agreement void. 22. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Page 5 Attachment A 23. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be considered an original. 24. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement. 25. Notices. Any notice to be given by either party upon the other under this Agreement shall be properly given: a) if delivered personally to the City Manager if such notice is to be given to the City, or if delivered personally to an officer of the Consultant if such notice is to be given to the Consultant, b) if mailed to the other party by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed in the manner set forth below, or c) if given to a nationally, recognized, reputable overnight courier for overnight delivery to the other party addressed as follows: If toCity:City of Roseville Roseville City Hall 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Attn: City Manager If to Consultant: AE2S Nexus 6901 East Fish Lake Road, Suite 184 Water Tower Place Business Center Maple Grove, MN 55369 Attn: Jacob Strombeck Notices shall be deemed effective on the date of receipt if given personally, on the date of deposit in the U.S. mails if mailed, or on the date of delivery to an overnight courier if so delivered; provided, however, if notice is given by deposit in the U.S. mails or delivery to an overnight courier, the time for response to any notice by the other party shall commence to run one business day after the dateof mailing or delivery to the courier. Any party may change its address for the service of notice by giving written notice of such change to the other party, in any manner above specified, 10 days prior to the effective date of such change. 26. Entire Agreement. Unless stated otherwise in this Provision 27, the entire agreement of the parties is contained in this Agreement and its exhibits. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. The following agreements supplement and are a part of this Agreement: none. Page 6 Attachment A IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have entered into this Agreement as of the date set forth above. CITY OF ROSEVILLE By: _ Mayor By: _ City Manager AE2S Nexus By: Jacob D. Strombeck Its: Nexus Practice Leader Page 7 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date:November 28, 2022 Item No.: 10.i Department ApprovalCity Manager Approval Item Description:Approve Resolution Approving Quit Claim Deed for MnDOT Parcel 403D 1 B ACKGROUND 2 As part of the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) project next summer at the 3 TH36/Fairview ramps, MnDOT needs to acquire some additional right-of-way for gradingrelated to 4 the new ramp design. One of the parcels they need right-of-way from is owned by the City of 5 Roseville. This remnantparcel (Attachment D) is located betweenthe TH 36 Service Road and the 6 eastbound TH 36 ramp. MnDOT is requesting to purchase22,834 square feet of this parcel. 9,399 7 square feet of the parcel would remain. 8 The existing parcel serves as excess right-of-way for the service road and serves no direct purpose. 9 Selling this parcel to MnDOT will not affect any City utilities or the functionof the service road. 10 City staff would recommend the requested portion of this remnant parcel be sold to MnDOT at the 11 appraised purchase price. MnDOT performed an appraisal and determined the parcel is worth 12$22,650.00. 13 MnDOT prepared the deed andthe Offer to Sell and Memorandum of Conditions. The City 14 Attorney has reviewed the documents. 15 F INANCIAL I MPACTS 16 Upon completion of the sale of the parcel, the City will be paid $22,650.00 for the transaction. 17 These funds will be deposited into the General Fund. 18 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 19 Staff recommends the City Council approve the resolution approving Quit Claim Deed for MnDOT 20 Parcel 403D. 21 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 22 Motion to approve the resolution approving Quit Claim Deed for MnDOT Parcel 403D. Prepared by:Jesse Freihammer, PE, Public Works Director Attachments:A:Resolution B:Quit Claim Deed C:Offer to Sell and Memorandum of Conditions D:Parcel Location Map E:Right of Way Parcel Layout Page 1of 1 Attachment A 1 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING 2 OF THE 3 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 4* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of th 6 Roseville, Minnesota was duly held on the 28day ofNovember 2022, at 6:00 p.m. 7 The following members were present: , , , , and Mayor , and the 8 following were absent: . 9 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 10 RESOLUTIONNo. 11 RESOLUTION APPROVING QUIT CLAIM DEED FOR MNDOT PARCEL 403D 12 WHEREAS, the portion of the land is legally described as follows: 13 That part of Outlot A, LA BELLE’s SUBDIVISION, shown as Parcel 403B on 14 Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat Numbered 62-88 as the same 15 is on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Ramsey County, 16 Minnesota (the “Property”); 17 WHEREAS, The Minnesota Department of Transportation has offered to buy this parcel for right- 18 of-way purposes in the amount of $22,650.00; and 19 WHEREAS, The Minnesota Department of Transportation has requested a quit claim deed from 20 the City for the purchase of this Property; and 21 WHEREAS, the City has no use for the Property; and 22 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute § 462.356, Subd. 2, provides that the City shall not dispose of an 23 interest in real property until the Planning Agency has reviewed the proposed disposal and reported 24 in writing to the City Council its findings as to the compliance of the proposed disposal with the 25 Comprehensive Plan; and 26 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute § 462.356, Subd. 2 further provides that the City Council may, by 27 resolution adopted by two-thirds vote, dispense with the requirements of Minnesota Statute 28 § 462.356, Subd. 2, when in its judgment it finds that the proposed disposal of real property has no 29 relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. 30 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Roseville, 31 Minnesota as follows: The City hereby approves the attached Quit Claim Deed, and authorizes 32 the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Quit Claim Deed, and authorizes the City Manager 33 to perform all other actions and execute all other documents necessary sell this parcel to the 34 Minnesota Department of Transportation. Attachment A 35 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member , 36 and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: , , , 37 , and Mayor , 38 and the following voted against the same:. 39 WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Resolution - Approving Quit Claim Deed for MnDOT Parcel 403D STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF RAMSEY ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified City Manager of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 28th day of November, 2022, with the original thereof on file in my office. WITNESS MY HAND officially as such Manager this 28th day of November, 2022. SEAL ___________________________________ Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager Office of Land Management (2-98) RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Supervisor of Direct Purchase APPROVED OFFER TO SELL AND MEMORANDUM OF CONDITIONS By C.S.:6212 (36=118) 214 Parcel: 403B County: Ramsey Owners and addresses: City of Roseville, Mayor, City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville, Minnesota, 55113; For a valuable consideration, on this day of , , the undersigned owners hereby offer to sell and convey to the State of Minnesota for a total consideration of Twenty two thousand six hundred and fifty Dollars ($22,650.00) a fee simple title to the real estate or an interest therein situated in Ramsey County, Minnesota, described in the copy of the instrument of conveyance hereto attached. The undersigned parties have this day executed an instrument for the conveyance of the aforesaid real estate or an interest therein to the State of Minnesota, and have conditionally delivered the same to the State of Minnesota, which instrument shall have no effect until and unless this offer to sell and convey is accepted in writing by the Office of Land Management of the Minnesota Department of Transportation within 90 days from the date of this offer. Such notice of acceptance shall be by certified mail directed to the address appearing after our signatures hereto. If this offer is not so accepted within the time limited herein such conveyance shall be of no effect, and said instrument shall forthwith be returned to the undersigned owners. If this offer is accepted it is mutually agreed by and between the owners and the State as follows: (1)Possession of the real estate shall transfer to the State on the date of acceptance. The owners shall have the right to continue to occupy the property or to rent same to the present occupants or others until the date of transfer of possession. Any change in occupancy shall be subject to approval and concurrence by the State. On or before the date for transfer or possession the owners will vacate the real estate and the improvements (if any) located thereon, or cause same to be vacated, remove all personal effects therefrom and have all utilities (if any) shut off by the supplier of same. No buildings appurtenances or other non- personal items or fixtures will be removed from the premises by the owners or renters, including plumbing and heating fixtures, etc. The owners shall notify the Department of Transportation as soon as the improvements are vacated. The owners will maintain the improvements during their period of occupancy and will make all necessary repairs at their own expense. The State's prospective bidders for the purchase or demolition of the improvements on the property shall have the right of entry for inspection purposes during the last 10 days of possession by the owners. (2)Title to said real estate shall pass to the State of Minnesota as of the date of said acceptance subject to conditions hereinafter stated. (3)Buildings (if any) on said real estate shall be insured by the owners against loss by fire and windstorm in the amount of present coverage or if none in force then in an amount not less than the current market value during the entire period of the owners' occupancy of the buildings on the real estate, such policy or policies of insurance to be endorsed to show the State's interest. (4)If the State of Minnesota is acquiring all or a major portion of the property, mortgages (if any) on the property shall be satisfied in full by the State of Minnesota. The amount paid by the State of Minnesota to satisfy said mortgage(s) shall be deducted from the amount to be paid to the owners under the terms of this agreement. The amount paid by the State of Minnesota to satisfy the mortgage(s) shall include interest on the mortgage(s) to date that payment is made to the mortgage holder. (5) If the State of Minnesota is acquiring only a minor portion of the property, and the property is encumbered by a mortgage, it shall be the responsibility of the owners to furnish a partial release of mortgage. The mortgage holder will be included as a payee along with the owners on the check drawn in payment for the property. Any fee charged by the mortgage holder for the partial release of mortgage must be paid for by the owners. (6) The owners will pay all delinquent (if any) and all current real estate taxes, whether deferred or not, which are a lien against the property. Current taxes shall include those payable in the calendar year in which this document is dated. The owners will also pay in full any special assessments, whether deferred or not, which are a lien against the property. The owners will also be responsible for and will pay in full any pending special assessments. The owners’ obligation to pay deferred and pending taxes and assessments shall continue after the sale and shall not merge with the delivery and acceptance of the deed. (7) If encumbrances, mechanics liens or other items intervene before the date the instrument of conveyance is presented for recording and same are not satisfied or acknowledged by the owners as to validity and amount and payment thereof authorized by the owners, said instrument of conveyance shall be returned to the owners. (8) Payment to the owners shall be made in the due course of the State's business after payment of taxes, assessments, mortgages and all other liens or encumbrances against said real estate. The owners will not be required to vacate the property until the owners have received payment. (9) No payments shall be made of any part of the consideration for said sale until marketable title is found to be in the owners and until said instrument of conveyance has been recorded. (10) The owners hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of the instrument of conveyance executed by them on this date, and a copy of this offer and memorandum. (11) It is understood that unless otherwise hereinafter stated the State acquires all appurtenances belonging to the premises including: OWNERS CITY OF ROSEVILLE By_________________________________ Its ____________________________ And________________________________ Its ____________________________ (Address of Owner where acceptance is to be mailed.) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 28, 2022 Item No.: 10.j Department Approval City Manager Approval Item Description: Approve Roseville Firefighters Relief Association Benefit Increase 1 B ACKGROUND 2 On October 28, 2006, the City Council approved Resolution 10442 (Attachment A).The 3 resolution included a clause that provided a simplified, long-term solution for the Roseville 4 FirefighterReliefAssociationwithrespecttograntingbenefitincreasestotheretireesofthe 5 RosevilleFire Department covered by the Relief Association. 6 7 Thisclause stated: "Beginning January 1, 2008 and each year thereafter, increases in the monthly 8 and lump sum benefits shall equate to the same cost of living adjustment provided to Social 9 Securityrecipients." 10 11 Currentlythe Relief Association Pensionerbenefit is set at $39.79 per month, per year of service 12 or a lump sum payment of $3,979.00 per year of servicefor any Association Member who 13 completes 20years or more of service tothe city. 14 15 Last year, the City Council approved a raise that brought the benefit level in to compliance with 16 Resolution 10442. 17 18 Furthermore, the City, effective January 1, 2022, entered into an Aid Allocation Agreement with 19 the Relief Association, where it reinforced their commitment to approve raises in accordance with 20 Resolution 10442 in exchange for the City to retain the Fire State Aid 2% money – this agreement 21 is ineffect for thenext three years, set to expire and to be reviewed on December 31, 2025. 22 23 Thisyear, the Social Security CostofLiving Adjustment (which becomes effective January 1, 24 2022) has beenset at8.7%. Based uponcalculations withrespect to Resolution 10442 and the 25 2023 Social Security COLA, the 2023 benefit level should be increased by $3.46 per month, per 26 year of serviceand a lump sum paymentof $346.00 per year for any Association Memberwho 27 completes 20years or more of service tothe city. 28 29 Thiswould result in the benefit being set at$43.25 per month, per year of service and a lump sum 30 paymentof$4,325.00 per year for any AssociationMember whocompletes20 yearsor more of 31 serviceto thecity (Attachment B). 32 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 33 To continueto comply with Resolution 10442 Page 1 of 2 34 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS 35 None. Currently, without the increase, thefinancials show that the fund is 118% funded with 36 respectto benefitobligations and this CostofLivingAdjustmentwould have little effect on the 37 fundingpercentage.(SeeAttachmentC) 38 S TAFF R ECOMMENDATION 39 Staff recommends the granting of the 8.7%benefitincrease tomembersoftheRoseville Fire 40 Relief Association inaccordance withResolution 10442. 41 R EQUESTED C OUNCIL A CTION 42 A motion to approvea benefit increasebeginning on January 1, 2023 of $3.46 per month, per year 43 of service, for RFRA pensioners selecting themonthly benefit option and an increase of $346.00 44 per year of servicefor those pensioners selecting the lumpsumpaymentbenefit. 45 46 Thisaction wouldincrease the benefitlevels to: 47 48 - Monthly: $43.25 per month, per year of service 49-Lumpsum:$4,325.00peryearofservice 50 51 Prepared by: Scott D. Wemyss, Roseville Fire Relief Association Secretary 52 Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager Attachments: A. City Council Resolution #10442 B. Social Security COLA's and resulting benefit increase 53 C. Relief Association actuarial January 1, 2022 Page 2 of 2 Attachment A Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation of Statutory Funding Requirements February 28, 2022 V AN I WAARDEN A SSOCIATES O NE H UNDRED S OUTH F IFTH S TREET, S UITE 1900M INNEAPOLIS, MN55402 612.596.5960 toll free:888.596.5960 WWW.VANIWAARDEN.COM Attachment C ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Table of Contents Page Introduction and summary Introduction and Actuarial Certification...............................1 Valuation of the Current Plan....................................3 Funding basis results Reconciliation of Plan Assets....................................4 Changes in the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability.........................5 Determination of Amortization Period................................6 Average Available Financing....................................7 Valuation data Summary of Changes in Membership.................................8 Summary of Participant Data....................................9 Supplementary information Summary of Plan Provisions.....................................10 Summary of Actuarial Methods....................................11 Summary of Actuarial Assumptions.................................12 Selection of Economic Assumptions.................................14 Selection of Non-Economic Assumptions...............................15 Projected Cost of Benefit Increases.................................16 Assessment and Disclosure of Risk..................................17 Attachment C 1 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Introduction and Actuarial Certification Purposes of the valuation ThisreportpresentstheresultsoftheJanuary1,2022statutoryfundingvaluationfortheRosevilleFirefighter's ReliefAssociation.Itssolepurposeistodeterminetheannualmunicipalobligationtotheplanandshouldnotbe usedforanyotherpurpose.Computationsforotherpurposes,suchasplanaccounting,maydiffersignificantlyfrom the results shown in this report. Thisreportmaynotbeusedforanyotherpurpose,andVanIwaardenAssociatesisnotresponsibleforthe consequencesofanyunauthorizeduse.Itscontentmaynotbemodified,incorporatedintoorusedinothermaterial, or otherwise provided, in whole or in part, to any other person or entity, without our permission. Sources of data TheReliefAssociationsuppliedtheJanuary1,2022dataforallactive,terminated,andretiredmembers,andasset data for the special fund. We have relied on that data in preparing this report. Changes from the previous valuation TheprioractuarialvaluationoftheplanwaspreparedasofJanuary1,2021.Changestotheplanprovisionsand actuarialassumptionsreflectedinthisvaluationaredescribedattheendofeachofthosesectionsinthisreport. These changes include: Theannuitymultiplierwasincreasedfrom$37.57to$39.79permonthofservice.Thelumpsumbenefit multiplier was increased from $3,757 to $3,979 per year of service. Mortality,termination,anddisabilityrateswerechangedtothoseusedinthemostrecentMinnesotaPERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation. Summary of valuation results Theactuarialaccruedliabilityusedfordeterminingtheminimumrequiredcontributionincreasedfrom$10,648,307 asofJanuary1,2021to$10,915,383asofJanuary1,2022.Thiswasprimarilyduetoincreasesinthebenefit multipliers.SpecialFundassetsincreasedfrom$14,850,239asofJanuary1,2021to$16,896,050asofDecember31, 2021 returning 17.7% for the year. As a result, the plan's funded status increased from 139.46% to 154.79%. TheannualstatutorycontributionbasedontheresultsofthisreportbeforeanyoffsetforStateAidis$0,unchanged from the 2021 valuation. TheStateAidamountisnotyetknown,butiftheamountstaysatthelevelpaidin2021($264,259),theremaining municipal obligation would be $0 for the fiscal year ending 2023. Attachment C 2 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Introduction and Actuarial Certification (continued) Actuarial certification Tothebestofourknowledge,thisreportiscompleteandaccurateandallReliefAssociationliabilitieswere determinedinaccordancewithgenerallyacceptedactuarialprinciplesandpractices.Uponreceiptofthereport,the ReliefAssociationshouldnotifyusifyoudisagreewithanyinformationcontainedinthereportorifyouareawareof anyinformationthatwouldaffecttheresultsthathasnotbeencommunicatedtous.Thereportwillbedeemedfinal and acceptable to the City and the Relief Association unless you notify us otherwise. Chapter356.216ofMinnesotaStatuesrequiresthatanactuarialvaluationofthefundbeconductedperiodically.The StateAuditorhasdeterminedthatavaluationmustbeconductedatleasteverytwoyears.Anactuarialvaluationis acalculationtodeterminethenormalcostandaccruedliabilityofthefundandincludesadeterminationofthe payment necessary to amortize the unfunded liability over the stated period. Theactuarialassumptionsandmethodsaretheresponsibilityoftheplansponsorwiththeexceptionofthediscount ratewhichissetbystatuteandisonlyappropriatetocomplywithstatutoryfunding.Wehavereviewedtheother assumptionsandbelievethattheyarereasonableestimatesoffutureplanexperience,bothindividuallyandinthe aggregate. Weareavailabletoanswerquestionsonthematerialcontainedinthisreportortoprovideexplanationsorfurther detailsontheresults.TheundersignedcredentialedactuaryisaconsultingactuaryforVanIwaardenAssociatesand meetstheQualificationsStandardsoftheAmericanAcademyofActuariestorendertheactuarialopinioncontained herein.Inaddition,theundersignedactuarymeetstherequirementsofanunderMinnesota statutes,Section356.215,Subdivision1,Paragraph(c).Wearenotawareofanydirectormaterialindirectfinancial interest or relationship that could create a conflict of interest or impair the objectivity of our work. Respectfully submitted, Scott Striegel, FSA, EA, MAAA Consulting Actuary February 28, 2022 L/D/C/R: 4/mjc/ses/emk v.06/24/2021 Attachment C 3 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Valuation of the Current Plan 20222021 A.Actuarial accrued liability (AAL) 1.Active members$761,287$902,770 2.Vested terminated members676,090965,007 3.Retired members8,400,6767,589,096 4.Spouses receiving benefits1,077,3301,191,434 5.Disabled members receiving benefits00 6.Total actuarial accrued liability$10,915,383$10,648,307 B.Special fund assets$16,896,050$14,850,239 C.Unfunded actuarial accrued liability $(5,980,667)$(4,201,932) D.Credit for surplus$(598,067)$(420,193) E.Amortization payment 1.Amortization periodN/A N/A 2.Payment$0$0 F.Normal cost$26,002$31,629 G.Annual contribution payable:2023, 20242022 1.Preliminary contribution (D. + E. + F.)$(572,065)$(388,564) 2.Administrative expense (previous year x 1.035)31,10823,095 3.Annual contribution (1. + 2., not less than $0)$0$0 4.Estimated State Aid(264,259)(236,755) 5.Estimated municipal contribution (3. + 4., not less than zero)$0$0 H.Funded Status 154.79%139.46% Attachment C 4 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Reconciliation of Plan Assets 20212020 Additions Contributions State aid$264,259$250,948 Municipal contributions00 Outside donations and other income00 Member contributions00 Total contributions 264,259250,948 Investment income Net appreciation in fair value of investments2,566,9322,410,011 Interest and dividends5340 Less investment expense00 Net investment income2,566,9852,410,051 Other additions (e.g. receivables)00 Total additions 2,831,2442,660,999 Deductions Benefits paid during the year(755,377)(704,524) Administrative Expense(30,056)(22,314) Other deductions (e.g. payables)00 Total deductions (785,433)(726,838) Net increase in net position 2,045,8111,934,161 Net position restricted for pensions Beginning of year 14,850,23912,916,078 End of year $16,896,050$14,850,239 Investment return for the measurement year By year17.7%19.0% Two year period18.4% Attachment C 5 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Changes in the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability A.Liability gain or loss 1. Expected actuarial accrued liability (AAL) a.AAL as of January 1, 2021$10,648,307 b.Normal cost 202131,629 c.Benefit payments 2021(755,377) d.Interest to December 31, 2021 on a. through c.515,342 e.Expected AAL on December 31, 2021 (sum of a. through d.)10,439,901 2.Actual AAL on January 1, 2022 a.Before any assumption, method or plan changes10,359,744 b.After assumption and method changes, but before plan changes10,319,600 c.After assumption, method and plan changes10,915,383 3.Difference from the expected AAL a.(Gain) or loss due to plan experience diff from that expected (2.a. - 1.e.)(80,157) b.Due to changes in actuarial assumptions and methods (2.b. - 2.a.)(40,144) c.Due to plan changes (2.c. - 2.b.)595,783 d.Total (a. + b. + c.)475,482 B.Asset gain or loss 1.Expected value of assets a.Value of assets on January 1, 202114,850,239 b.Benefit payments(755,377) c.Contributions264,259 d.Interest to December 31, 2021 on a., b. and c.727,018 e.Expected assets on December 31, 2021 (sum of a. through d.)15,086,139 2.Actual assets as of December 31, 202116,896,050 3.(Gain) or loss due to plan experience different from expected (1.e. - 2.)(1,809,911) C.Changes in the unfunded actuarial accrued liability 1.Unfunded AAL on January 1, 2021 (A.1.a. - B.1.a.)(4,201,932) 2.Expected unfunded AAL on December 31, 2021 (A.1.g. - B.1.e.)(4,646,238) 3.Changes a.Actuarial (gain) or loss (A.3.a. + B.3.)(1,890,068) b.Changes in actuarial methods and assumptions (A.3.b.)(40,144) c.Changes in plan provisions (A.3.c.)595,783 d.Total change(1,334,429) 4.Unfunded AAL on December 31, 2021(5,980,667) Attachment C 6 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Determination of Amortization Period TheamortizationperiodsshownarerequiredbyMinnesotaStatutes§424A.093Subd4.PerSubd4.(d)(3)(i)actuarial lossesareamortizedover10years.PerSubd4.(d)(3)(v)increasesintheUALduetoplanchangesareamortizedover 20 years. No amortizations are required when the plan's unfunded liability is $0. A.Amortization of prior UAL 1.UAL before any change (not less than zero)0 2.Prior amortization years (updated to valuation date)N/A 3.Payment to amortize UAL over prior period0 B.Amortization of actuarial losses 1.Unfunded AAL due to actuarial losses0 2.Payment to amortize loss over 10 years0 C.Amortization of plan and assumption changes 1.Unfunded AAL due to plan changes0 2.Payment to amortize over 20 years0 D.Total amortization payments 0 E.Current UAL 0 F.Period to amortize UAL based on payments in D.N/A Attachment C 7 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Average Available Financing StateCityCredit forActiveAverage AidContribSurplusTotalMembersFinancing 2019$238,755$0$251,357$490,11210$49,011 2020250,9480420,193671,141974,571 2021264,2590598,067862,3267123,189 Average available financing for 2022:$82,257 Minimum Average Available Financing required for $39.79 monthly benefit:3,240 Maximum monthly benefit permitted:100.00 Minimum Average Available Financing required for $3,979 lump sum multiplier:2,158 Maximum lump sum multiplier permitted:15,000 Notes: The State Aid and City Contributions shown are those made during the calendar year indicated. ThenumberofactivemembersisfromtheStateReportingFormfortheyearindicated,thatis,thenumberas of December 31. Theaverageavailablefinancingfor2022istheaverageforthethreeyearspreceeding2022(2019to2021).See Minnesota Statutes §424A.02. Attachment C 8 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Summary of Changes in Membership Terminated ActiveVestedRetiredBeneficiariesDisabledTotal A.Members on January 1, 2021 9185313093 B.Changes in the member group 1.New active members0 2.Retirements(3)30 3.Separation, deferred lump sum(2)20 4.Separation, not vested0 5.Separation, disability benefit0 6.Deaths(1)(1) 7.Lump sum distributions(2)(2) 8.Rehire0 9.Total changes(2)(3)3(1)0(3) C.Members on January 1, 2022 7155612090 Attachment C 9 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Summary of Participant Data January 1, 2022January 1, 2021 A.Active Members 1. Number79 2. Average Age44.843.5 3. Average years of service16.716.6 B.Vested terminated members 1. With deferred benefits a. Number1518 b. Total annual deferred benefits$28,093$41,928 c. Average annual benefit9,36410,482 d. Total lump sum benefits345,701367,651 e. Average lump sum benefit28,80826,261 C.Retirees and beneficiaries 1. Number a. Retirees5653 b. Beneficiaries1213 c. Disabled retirements00 d. Total6866 2. Total annual benefits being paid$785,932$720,442 3. Average annual benefit being paid11,55810,916 D.Total number of participants (A.1. + B.1. + C.1.)9093 Attachment C 10 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Summary of Plan Provisions A.Eligibility ActiveorprobationarymemberoftheReliefAssociation,excluding participantshiredafterOctober1,2006thatparticipateinthe Minnesota PERA Police and FIRE Plan. B.Service Completed months. C.Pension The later of age 50 or after completion of 20 years of service. Thepensionisbasedoncompletedmonthsofservice.Thecurrent monthlyservicepensionisbasedon$39.79permonthofservice.A membermaychoosetoreceivealumpsumbenefitequalto$3,979 peryearofserviceplusaSupplementalBenefitof10%oftheregular lump sum distribution, but not more than $1,000. Ifamemberisbothage50andhascompleted10yearsofservice, butnot20yearsofservice,thelumpsumpensionwillbereducedby 4% for each year of service less than 20 years. D.Deferred Pension Termination prior to age 50 with at least 10 years of service. Thedeferredlumpsumpensionpayableatage50isbasedonthe lumpsumpensionformulaandserviceatdateoftermination reduced for less than 20 years of service. Onlymembersage50with20yearsofservicecanelectanannuity form of payment. Ifamemberdiesbeforepayment,thebenefitwillbepaidtothe participant's beneficiary. E.Disability Pension Amemberwhoisunabletoperformthedutiesofemploymentdue toaccidentorsicknessincurredwhileactuallyengagedin performingthedutiesofaRosevillefirefighteriseligibletoreceive abenefitequalto1/30thofthemonthly20-yearpension,perday, forupto26weeks.Amemberwhosufferstotalpermanent disabilityiseligibletoreceivethemonthlypensionbenefitwithout regard to vesting. F.Survivor Benefit Ifamemberdiesbeforeretirement,thesurvivorbenefitpayableto thespouseequalsthemonthlypensionbenefitwithregardto vesting.Ifthereisnosurvivingspouse,thebenefitwillbepaidto themember'ssurvivingchildren.Ifthereisnosurvivingspouseand therearenosurvivingchildren,thebenefitwillbepaidtothe member'sdesignatedbeneficiary.Onthedeathofamemberafter retirement,andafterhavingchosenamonthlyannuityformof benefit,thesurvivingspousebenefitequalsthebenefitamountpaid to the member. G.Plan Changes Since Prior Theannuitymultiplierwasincreasedfrom$37.57to$39.79per Valuation monthofservice.Thelumpsumbenefitmultiplierwasincreased from $3,757 to $3,979 per year of service. Attachment C 11 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Summary of Actuarial Methods A.Actuarial Cost Method TheEntryAgeNormalleveldollaramountcostmethod.Underthismethod,the servicecostforanindividualparticipantistheleveldollaramountrequiredto accumulatethefundsneededtopaytheparticipant'sprojectedbenefitsbytheir assumedretirementage,beginningonthedateofentryandendingatlastage with any future benefits. B.Actuarial Value of Assets The actuarial value of assets is equal to the market value of assets. C.Benefits Valued Allbenefitssummarizedintheplanprovisionssectionofthisreportwiththe exceptionofthesupplementallumpsumbenefits.TheStatereimbursesthe SpecialFundforthosebenefits,sothesepaymentsandreimbursementswillbe recognized in plan assets as they occur. D.Data Methods TheReliefAssociationprovidedcensusandfinancialinformationforthe valuationandwehavereliedonthisdatainpreparingtheresultsinthisreport. Thedatawasreviewedforreasonablenessandconsistency,butwehavenot performed a complete audit. TotheextentthatcensusdatawascollectedasofadatelaterthanJanuary1, 2022,wehaveassumedthatitisreasonablyrepresentativeoftheplancensuson the valuation date and used it with only minor adjustments. E.Models Used Theresultsinthisreportarebasedonanactuarialvaluationmodelwiththree componentsasoutlinedinActuarialStandardofPracticeNo.56-Modeling(ASOP 56): 1.Informationinputsincludingthedata,assumptions,methods,andplan provisions outlined in this report, 2.ProcessingbytheProVal®softwaredevelopedbyWinklevossTechnologies, and 3.OurreporttemplatewhichtranslatestheProVal®outputintovaluation results. Themodelisintendedtoconverttheinformationinputabovetousableactuarial valuationresults.WehavereviewedtheProVal®software'soutputfor reasonableness,andhaveindependentlycheckedsampleone-personoutput where appropriate, but have otherwise relied on it. Attachment C 12 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Summary of Actuarial Assumptions A.Discount Rate 5% as required by Minnesota statutes B.Mortality RatesusedintheJuly1,2021MinnesotaPERAPolice&FirePlanactuarial valuation as described below. HealthyPre-retirement:Pub-2010PublicSafetyEmployeemortalitytableswith projected mortality improvements based on scale MP-2020. HealthyPost-retirement:Pub-2010HealthyRetiredPublicSafetymortalitytables withprojectedmortalityimprovementsbasedonscaleMP-2020.Maleratesare adjusted by a factor of 0.98. Disabled:Pub-2010PublicSafetyDisabledRetireemortalitytableswith projectedmortalityimprovementsbasedonscaleMP-2020.Maleratesare adjusted by a factor of 1.05. C.Withdrawal SelectandultimateratesusedintheJuly1,2021MinnesotaPERAPolice&Fire Plan actuarial valuation. Select rates are as follows: ServiceRates 06.00% 14.00% 22.75% 3-42.50% 5-62.25% 7-92.00% 101.75% 11-161.50% 17-191.25% 20+1.00% D.Disability Age-relatedratesusedintheJuly1,2021MinnesotaPERAPolice&FirePlan actuarialvaluation.Allincidencesareassumedtobeduty-related.SelectRates are as follows: AgeRate 200.11% 250.14% 300.21% 350.34% 400.54% 450.62% 500.95% 551.30% 601.30% Attachment C 13 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Summary of Actuarial Assumptions (continued) E.Retirement Active membersWehaveassumed50%ofactivememberswillretirewhenreachingretirement eligibility(laterofage50and20yearsofservice);then50%retireeach subsequentyearuntil100%retirementattheearlierofage65or30yearsof service. Less than 20 years With 20-29 years With 30 years of of serviceof serviceservice Age 50-64 0%50%100% 65 100%100%100% Vested terminatedThe later of current age and age 50. F.Beneficiary information 100%ofmembersareassumedtohaveabeneficiarywhowillreceivesurvivor benefits. G.Spouse age difference Wives are assumed to be 3 years younger than husbands. H.Form of payment All future retirees eligible for an annuity are assumed to elect a 100% joint and survivor annuity; otherwise, future retirees are assumed to elect a lump sum payment. I.Supplemental benefits Wehavenotvaluedtheliabilityassociatedwithsupplementallumpsumbenefits inthisfundingvaluationsincetheStatereimbursestheSpecialFundforthose benefits.Thesepaymentsandreimbursementswillberecognizedinplanassets as they occur. J.Changes since prior Mortality,termination,anddisabilityrateswerechangedtothoseusedinthe valuation most recent Minnesota PERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation. Attachment C 14 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Selection of Economic Assumptions TheActuarialStandardsBoard(ASB)providescoordinatedguidanceformeasuringpensionandretireegroupbenefit obligationsthroughaseriesofActuarialStandardsofPractice(ASOPs).ASOPNo.27,SelectionofEconomic AssumptionsforMeasuringPensionObligations,requiresthattheactuarydisclosetherationaleusedinselecting each non-prescribed economic assumption and any changes to non-prescribed economic assumptions. Therearenonon-prescribedeconomicassumptionsusedinthisvaluation.Thediscountrateistheonlyeconomic assumptionanditisprescribedbyStatestatute.Itisonlyappropriateforcomplyingwithstatutoryfunding requirements. Attachment C 15 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Selection of Non-Economic Assumptions TheActuarialStandardsBoard(ASB)providescoordinatedguidanceformeasuringpensionandretireegroupbenefit obligationsthroughaseriesofActuarialStandardsofPractice(ASOPs).ASOPNo.35,SelectionofDemographicand OtherNoneconomicAssumptionsforMeasuringPensionObligations,requiresthattheactuarydisclosetherationale usedinselectingeachnon-prescribednon-economicassumptionandanychangestonon-prescribednon-economic assumptions. Thetablebelowsummarizestherationaleforselectingthenon-prescribednon-economicassumptions.Therationale forassumptionchanges,alongwithadescriptionoftheassumptionsthemselves,isincludedintheActuarial Assumption and Methods section of the report. Non-Economic Assumptions (non-prescribed) AssumptionRationale for Selecting Assumption Mortality Rates used in the most recent Minnesota PERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation. RetirementDue to limited plan-specific data, based on plan's earliest retirement age with allowance for some delayed retirement. Termination of EmploymentRates used in the most recent Minnesota PERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation. DisabilityRates used in the most recent Minnesota PERA Police & Fire Plan actuarial valuation. Optional Form of BenefitBased on recent plan experience and plan design expectations. Percentage Married and Spouse Based on standard pension plan assumptions. These assumptions have an Agesinsignificant impact on plan costs. Attachment C 16 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Projected Cost of Benefit Increases Monthly benefit multiplier for active, terminated vested members:$39.79$39.79$39.79 Monthly benefit multiplier for retirees, spouses currently receiving:$39.79$80.00$100.00 Lump sum benefit multiplier:$3,979$3,979$3,979 Benefit effective January 1:202220222022 Liability measurement date of January 1, 2022 A.Actuarial accrued liability (AAL) 1.Active members$761,287$761,287$761,287 2.Vested terminated members676,090676,090676,090 3.Retired members8,400,67616,890,02521,112,531 4.Spouses receiving benefits1,077,3302,166,0312,707,539 5.Disabled members receiving 000 benefits 6.Total actuarial accrued liability10,915,38320,493,43325,257,447 7.AAL change from current benefit rate9,578,05014,342,064 B.Special fund assets 16,896,05016,896,05016,896,050 C.Unfunded actuarial accrued (5,980,667)3,597,3838,361,397 liability (A.6. - B.) D.Credit for surplus(598,067)00 E.Amortization payment 1.Amortization periodN/A 2020 2.Payment0274,917638,991 F.Normal cost 26,00226,00226,002 G.Annual contribution payable:2023, 20242023, 20242023, 2024 1.Preliminary contribution (D.+E.+F.)(572,065)300,919664,993 2.Admin expense (prior year x 1.035)31,10831,10831,108 3.Annual contribution (1.+2., not less than $0)0332,027696,101 4.Estimated State Aid(264,259)(264,259)(264,259) 5.Estimated City contribution (3.+4., not less 067,768431,842 than $0) 6.Estimated change in City contribtuion67,768431,842 H.Funded ratio 155%82%67% Otherthanthepotentialbenefitincreasesshownabove,allresultsinthisexhibitarebasedonthecensusdata,assets,assumptions,methods, planprovisionsandadditionalriskassessmentdisclosedinthe1/1/2022actuarialvaluationreport.Allliabilityresultsandestimated contributionsarepresentedasof1/1/2022.Pleasenotethatresultscalculatedusingupdatedassetsandliabilitiesmaybesubstantially different. Additional pension risk information is included in the 2022 actuarial funding report. Attachment C 17 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Assessment and Disclosure of Risk ActuarialStandardofPracticeNumber51,AssessmentandDisclosureofRiskAssociatedwithMeasuringPension ObligationsandDeterminingPensionPlanContributions(ASOP51),requiresactuariestoidentifyandassesscertain risksthatmayaffectafuturefinancialcondition.Someoftheprimaryrisksaresummarizedanddefinedin the table below. RiskIdentification/Definition Investment risk The potential that investment returns will be different than expected Asset/liability mismatch risk Thepotentialthatchangesinassetvaluesarenotmatchedbychangesin liability values Interest rate risk The potential that interest rates will be different than expected Longevity and other demographic Thepotentialthatmortalityorotherdemographicexperiencewillbe risks different than expected Contribution risk Thepotentialthatstateaidormunicipalcontributionratesaredifferent than what is ultimately required to fund plan benefits ASOP51requiresthatactuariesqualitativelyorquantitativelyassessthepotentialeffectoftheserisksonthe futurefinancialcondition.Methodstoassesstherisksincludescenariotests,sensitivitytests,stresstests,and calculationofactuarialliabilitiesusingadiscountratebasedonminimal-riskinvestments.Practicalconsiderations include the usefulness, reliability, timeliness, and cost efficiency of the risk assessment measurements. Inadditiontotheriskassessmentparametersabove,ASOP51requiresthatactuaries(1)calculatevariousplan maturity measures and (2) disclose relevant historical information that are significant to understanding plan risks. ThisreportcontainsbasicriskassessmentinformationfortheplaninaccordancewithASOP51.However,we recommendthatemployersconsideradditionalpensionriskanalysestobetterunderstandretirementplanvolatility andthepotentialimpactontheorganization.Wewouldbegladtodiscusspotentialadditionalanalysesupon request. tƌğƓ ağƷǒƩźƷǤ aĻğƭǒƩĻƭ Maturitymeasuresdescribehowmuchplanliabilityisattributabletocurrentemployeesvs.formeremployees(e.g., retirees) and the size of plan assets and liabilities relative to overall payroll. These measures include: Participant Maturity Ratio (PMR)Number of retirees divided by total participants Liability Maturity Ratio (LMR)Retiree liability divided by total plan liability Attachment C 18 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Assessment and Disclosure of Risk (continued) Arecenthistoryofmaturitymeasuresisshownbelow.Someoftheprimaryrisksaresummarizedanddefinedinthe table below. tğƩƷźĭźƦğƓƷ ağƷǒƩźƷǤ wğƷźƚƭ 100% 8% 10% 11% 16% 22% 26% 17% 36% 80%19% 18% 16% 16% 13% Active participants 60% 8% Vested terminated 40% 76% 71%71% 68% 63% 61% 56% Receiving payments 20% 0% 2015201720182019202020212022 \[źğĬźƌźƷǤ ağƷǒƩźƷǤ wğƷźƚƭ 100% 7% 8% 9% 15% 19% 6% 24% 7% 9% 27% 6% 80% 7% 3% 2% Active participants 60% Vested terminated 87% 84% 82% 40% 79% 74% 72% 71% Receiving payments 20% 0% 2015201720182019202020212022 Observations: Theinactivemembercountsandliabilitiesaresteadilyincreasingasapercentofthetotals.Thisisdueto new hires going into the State retirement plan. Attachment C 19 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Assessment and Disclosure of Risk (continued) Historical Plan Information Historicalplaninformationcanprovideinsightaboutevolvingpensionrisks,especiallyasplansmature.Beloware historical values for some relevant plan results. Historical Funded Status Information Actual Assumed Actuarial Accrued Market Value of Funded Investment Investment LiabilityAssetsPercentReturnReturn 2022$ 10,915,383$ 16,896,050154.79%17.69%5.00% 2021 10,648,307 14,850,239 139.46%19.01%5.00% 2020 10,402,511 12,916,078 124.16%24.97%0.00% 2019 10,237,646 10,749,649 105.00%-3.96%5.00% 2018 10,474,461 11,681,497 111.52%17.57%5.00% 2017 9,314,796 10,302,168 110.60%8.80%5.00% 2016 9,709,587 10,171,186 104.75%9.40%5.00% Observations Plan investment returns have averaged 13.35% over the time period shown above. This is higher than the assumed return of 5.00%. Attachment C 20 ROSEVILLE FIREFIGHTER'S RELIEF ASSOCIATION January 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation and Benefit Study Assessment and Disclosure of Risk (continued) Definedbenefitplanslikethisonearesubjecttostatutoryminimumfundingrules.Theseimposestringent requirementsonwhenandhowmuchmoneymustbecontributedtotheplantrust.Thismeansthatmanypension risks are less applicable to Relief Association defined benefit plans. Thetablebelowprovidesanalysisofsomepotentialplanrisks.Pleasenotethatthelistofrisksandtherisk assessments shown are not exhaustive. We would be glad to provide a more detailed risk assessment upon request. RiskAssessment Investment risk Iffutureinvestmentreturnsarehigherorlowerthanassumed,thenfuture contributionsmayneedtobeincreasedordecreasedtocompensate.The plancurrentlyusesaninvestmentreturnassumptionbasedonstatutory requirements of 5%. Asset/liability mismatch risk Perstatestatues,planfundingliabilitiesaredeterminedusinga5%interest rate.Sinceplanassetsareinvestedinamixofequityandfixedincome securities,thereisariskthatchangesinassetsvaluesarenotmatchedby changes in liability values. Interest rate risk Thereisariskthatinterestratescouldbedifferentthanexpectedunder current statutory minimum funding rules. Statutory funding interest rates are Longevity and other demographic Theplandemographicassumptionsreflectbestestimatesoffutureplan risks experience.However,retireesreceivingmonthlypaymentsmaylivelonger than expected which would change plan liabilities. Contribution risk Statutoryminimumfundingrulesarerelativelyconservativeandstatutorily- mandated,sothereislessriskthattheplansponsorwillnotmakethe necessary contributions than in other types of plans.