e e e thank you all right it's 5:15 we will call the workshop to order roll call please council member nordby here council member Cole here council member swe here council member W is gone and uh mayor mongi here thank you thank you very much can I please have a motion to adopt the agenda so moved so moved council member swe second council member Cole all those in favor say hi hi I I say it wrong again got a lot of smiles all right topics all right we got two topics up tonight first one up is uh the Canabis uh discussion for cannabis ordinance and turn that over to Riley gramp our community development director thank you uh Brian and uh good evening Council so um the state legislature uh recently approved uh legal adult use cannabis consumption in the state of Minnesota and the office of cannabis management uh is expected to begin issuing licenses in early 2025 um even though the uh license and registration process of these products is is going going to be mostly handled by the state uh cities will retain a limited role in dictating um available locations within each mun municipality where cannabis sales Productions Etc can operate uh particularly in land use area uh Jack from the city attorney's office was kind enough to send us a memorandum uh outlining um some things that the city should consider When developing a new uh cannabis ordinance and that is in your packet this evening um we uh we being staff uh recently met together to uh review the uh information and uh develop some recommendations the for the council to consider here this evening the thought would be uh we'll take kind of each one and and uh Garner some uh feedback and then uh using those using that information um the city attorney's office will draft our ordinance and then that'll go to the Planning Commission at their December meeting uh for required public hearing and then um the final approval will happen here uh in the city council um in December so um with that uh I'm going to just kind of shoot through each of these points and and stop at each one and and um I'll look for any discussion in some direction um so first and foremost it's it is important to note that um cities cannot ban or prohibit uh possession Transportation or use of cannabis or hemp products um uh cities are also not allowed to uh ban the operation of business licenses under the Cannabis Act uh we can only enact reasonable and I use that uh kind of as a vague gray term reasonable uh restrictions um and and uh cities will need to ensure that uh we are not effectively Banning these operations through local zoning controls um so first and foremost um when we look at zoning um cities are allowed to control uh the location of cannabis sales through local zoning um and uh cities may also restrict such use uh of op uh and operations uh in certain zoning districts and allow them as conditional uses uh if you want um so when we looked at um all of the available zoning uh in our city um we determined that um our recommendation would be to allow for cannabis operations in the mu2 which is the transitional mixed use and the mu3 which is the uh Corridor mixed use zoning D districts we um would like to prohibit um those uh businesses in the mu1 which is the downtown mixed use again uh this is U generally defined as St North St Paul's Historic downtown Main Street and uh I Know Jack mentioned that we would need to make a a a factual finding can you kind of describe what that what that entails um yeah we just want some uh idea from the council this is a legislative decision so this is where your discretion is at its broadest um but just sort of keeping in mind that you know we do want to have some kind of Rhyme or Reason uh for why we're acting the way that we are it doesn't have to be airtight we don't know exactly how these businesses are going to play out um but we don't want to be U just sort of pulling things out of a hat either so by um uh restricting uh cannabis uses to the mu2 and the mu3 zoning um uh districts allows for uh enough enough properties within the city um where we're not you know effectively creating a ban or a Prohibition uh for these businesses uh and then also the uh staff does recommend requiring a conditional use permit in the mu2 and mu3 zones again just to provid in an additional um review process um you know think of it as uh any other conditional use permit application that would come before the City Planning Commission public hearing that type of thing before finally being uh looked at and approved by the city council so I'm going to stop there is there any questions on the zoning districts that are being um recommended by by City staff seeing none okay I guess uh if I could just say another absolutely jump in here um mayor and council members uh I would just note that um city attorney's office actually would recommend against uh conditional use permits this is not a strong recommendation and you are certainly welcome to go that way I'm not saying it's forbidden or anything um I just I do note that the kinds of conditions that can be imposed on a cup process are fairly limited and fairly restricted um because we are sort of so broadly speaking preempted by state law uh and so our feeling is that uh it potentially creates more uh administrative hassle for the city than it creates meaningful control over these businesses um again though that's that's kind of our um take on this um it's not a legal requirement so you're saying not having any any Zone like you w being able to do that is that uh no sorry um so just not a conditional use permit so it would still be restricted to the mu2 and three um but it would be a permitted use in those two districts rather than a conditional use when you say limited what what scope is that uh I'm not certain I understand when you say it's limited C you had limited we have limited ability to uh yes so um it's a little tricky because a lot of these a lot of the rules a lot of the regulations around these businesses are going to come from the office of cannabis management uh which has not yet finalized or even gotten especially far in its rulem process um we don't have the Draft rules from the state yet that said we know a lot of things um that might be the subject of some kind of conditional use permit um are the kinds of things that are going to be included in a State Licensing application so for example we don't know the contents but we do know that these businesses will be required to submit a security plan um we don't know exactly the contents but they will be required to in their State Licensing process um provide for Access restriction to make sure that miners aren't able to purchase these process or these products we don't know exactly how it will work but they will have to provide for training of Staff in you know ID checking and those sorts of things um so given all of that the types of things that we can impose sort of business specific controls on might be fairly limited to uh you know things like local architectural controls which I don't think North St Paul generally goes for anyway and I might add I I think the original thinking from a staff level is that again there's just so much unknown when it comes to these types of businesses that having an opportunity to step back work with the city attorney's office to say okay does this proposed business meet all of the uh qualifications and and requirements that not only the office man C cannabis management is imposing but also some of those other things that the city can do um and and that's just a recommendation from staff Council does not have to um agree with that that that's fine we don't have to go through a c process but it just it we just thought maybe it might be a good opportunity at least initially to sort of give ourselves a little a step back and say okay is this is this meeting everything and I think that's a totally fair read and this is not we we can always we can always discontinue that process yeah again in the future and this is not um staff and the city attorney's office are not having a a particular fight about this or anything it's just just two different perspectives um and and again from our perspective we also worry that um you know a conditional use permit must be granted if the applicant can show that they can that they have met all of the preset criteria for it and so because we have so few criteria we can impose it just sort of ends up being another hurdle for the businesses and um another point where the city council has to be involved and then potentially has to you know if these businesses end up being unpopular you know potentially has to approve because we can't say no we don't have any real discretion on it but it sort of forces the council to be involved in the process again and and one other thing too with with the requirement of a cup having a public hearing notice uh or a public hearing um and Jack correct me if I'm wrong but I if if we require a conditional use permit process all of those properties you know within I think it's 350 ft if I'm not mistaken would be notified whereas if we did require a cup process Ian it's not going to pop up overnight but essentially if you're not paying attention to some of the properties around your home um it it might show up there and all of a sudden you're like what what's going on how did this show up so there there is that kind of angle as well it gives a very specific localized area around that property an opportunity to be no just make it known and heard that they're they're moving in there but they really can't do anything about it though essentially probably not so is just a mandate from above sure can I gain some clarity on our zoning map MH if I look at this correctly mu3 um along 7th Avenue would start at the corner of 7th and 1st and work its way south west to mcnight so that encompasses the m& housing um is in the mu3 area um as well as the anchor Apartments um and what is what's right here um it's it's a part it's a senior living but I can't think of the name of them Polar Ridge polar yeah um I don't know how granular we need to be but I don't think that that's residential in my book well so anybody in the m& housing that wants to buy a lot across the street from m& where the city owns Five Lots we couldn't stop them and that's right in the middle of a neighborhood provided it's in that zoning District yeah that's why we're having these conversation right that's that's my I mean that's my only thing is to me that's residential neighborhood sure um and same with Polar Ridge MH gu it's an excellent supplement to your retirement program but but I don't know if they would appreciate that either sure so just again just gaining just for clarity purposes and and one other thing when when we get to the next item which is uh sort of the minimum distances around specific types of properties um you start if you restrict it to specific zones and then start placing some of those bubbles which is part of the maps that you have in your packet this evening it further restricts it and and defines where these businesses can operate to so it's it it continues to shrink as you add more layers onto it which could be challengeable uh if you make it too restrictive yeah that that was the only little pocket that I had concerns or questions on the community center Falls in a mu3 Zone yes it does there you go any other questions on the zoning aspect or um I can I can continue to move through some of these items and we can Circle back to it um on the topic of Min minimum distances from schools and Parks uh the canab Cannabis act uh uh allows cities to prohibit cannabis operations within 1,000 feet or fewer of schools and 500 feet or less from any dayare residential treatment or uh attraction within a par public park that is regularly used by miners which is really interesting because as Jack noted in in his uh memorandum uh we're not looking at just specifically Park Properties it is uh and Jack maybe you can you know elaborate a little bit but it's uh you know things like ballparks uh playground equipment water features if if there are any um those types of items and it's going to be a little bit difficult to try to draw some of those boundaries but it's possible so our our recommendation and and I understand maybe there was some discussion about this some time ago at the council but would be to impose um a 750t minimum distance from schools and then the 500 ft from uh so all of those other uses daycares res residential treatment facilities and the Park attractions Etc so again this is where I mentioned earlier that if you look at the zoning map and then all sudden you start placing these bubbles you're you're further restricting um where these businesses can operate do do Residential Treatment Centers need a special license from the city I believe they uh from the city uh that's a good question I I guess I don't know I don't I don't believe so I don't think so I think that's all yeah licensed by the St state do we City then so we know to go them we do yeah we we know where they are so which is one of the maps here um where at the top it says 500 Park amenities and daycare group homes Etc that's see all the circles that's all the yeah as far as the distance away is that from the state or is that what we chose well the the the Cannabis act allows for 1,000 ft or fewer from schools we're recommending 750 and F and then the ACT allows for 500 or fewer from those other uses and we're recommending staying at the 500 okay that's what I thought I thought this just mandate but we can shrink a little bit we could shrink if we wanted to or go the full width yeah you can go it's it's a cap from the state um you're not required to have any um buff from these spe specified uses it's a a power to the city to enact this if you want to but without so without City action on this there would be no buffers and then the city has the option to impose um up to those distances all right um moving on to hours of operation uh state law allows for cannabis operations to operate between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and businesses cannot operate between 2: a.m. and 8:00 a.m. or uh 10: a.m. starting on Sundays um we may pass ordinances restricting ordin uh operations during hours hours not specifically listed so that would be between 9:00 p.m. and 2: a.m. and then 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. um a lot of cities uh we know uh do mirror uh liquor store operations and after um some some discussion among staff and then conferring with Jack in the city attorney's office uh we are recommending to allow operations Monday through Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. and Sunday 10: a.m. to 9:00 p.m. that fits within the what the Cannabis act allows but also tries to mirror what our liquor store operations in the city can do again with within those defined time uh of in the Canabis act are those the times can be approved now and amended later or once they're established they're established I I think you can it would just be a simple change to your ordinance so you can you can oppose them now and then change them at any time as long as they're not in conflict with what the canas ACT requires um in terms of the number of registrations um cities have the ability to cap uh at one per 12,500 residents um there's no rounding down so if you have 12,51 residents in your town you have to allow to again that's if you want to place a cap on it um the state demographer uh demographer data shows that uh North St Paul has 13,15 residents at the last check so if you want to uh cap the number of registrations it would be at two otherwise you could have no cap and you could have as you know as many of it fits within the criteria you set forth in the ordinance and you could set a cap at more than two but still some number that you pick you just can't go less than two and um as well it gets a little confusing as well so there are six types of so there's a whole bunch of different license types everything from cultivation manufacturing wholesaling all the way through to retail there are six types of business that have to register with the city before they can operate and that is generally speaking everything that makes retail sales to customers and then there are three types of business that we can limit the number of um which is the adult use retail so sort of the dispensaries and then micro business and Meto business are kind of a a brewery type of model where it's production through to retail um medical cannabis is the other businesses that have to register but we aren't able to limit the number of uh and um the lower potency hemp Edibles as well which is I'm not a huge fan of how they've done this but that's the new name for edible cannabinoid products which are the THC seltzers that are currently available today so anyone who's selling those THC products whenever ocm gets their act together will have to be licensed through the state and will have to register with the city um but we do not have authority to cap the number of those uh licenses so the cap is just for um cannabis dispensaries so stupid question maybe I don't know I'm running this through my head no such thing it's all very complicated yes to say the least our smoke shops here in North St Paul they choose to sell would that be considered part of our if we decide oh we're going to only have two people or two excuse me two businesses would that be speak to that please uh yes so that would depend on what kind of license they sought from the state uh most likely not if they continue to sell tobacco products and the lower potency hemp products that's basically selers and gummies okay which is what they're currently selling if they wanted to become a full board dispensary and sell sort of the high potency full strength cannabis then they would have to get a cannabis retailer license okay that would count towards the cap of um no more than two at that point okay so they could sell the lower dosage yes and not be considered one of these two yep we're talking specifically and I'm just throwing out a number as in two or just whatever whatever if if there's a cap imposed yeah I mean we have a couple of those places here in North St Paul so uh and also if a smoke shop were to get a cannabis retail license they would um then have to stop selling tobacco products because okay the products that can be sold from these sort of full strength dispensary businesses are extremely limited it's basically it's cannabis um they can also sell the lower potency hemp but it's it's THC products um memorabilia and bags for your products basically and that's that's all they can sell so they cannot sell um you know no alcohol no tobacco uh I think they can sell like uhe pre-bagged snacks like a bag of chips or something but they they could not you know why not catch them there why not um but won't be able to for example serve like hot food okay thank you and for reference we've kept the licenses on smoke shops in the city of North St Paul I believe at four or five whatever our existing number is okay thank you for the clarity and then finally there are a couple other um other considerations that the that the city should uh consider uh I outlined them in the packet those being um adopting some more specific definitions for enclosed locked and public view uh for zoning controls uh in residential districts as it relates to home uh hom grow requirements um the second one is adopting a minimum distance of 500t between two cannabis operations within the city so if you got one in one location then a second one if you capped it would have to be more than 500 ft away you can't have two side by side um and then the third uh prohibiting uh outdoor seating and smoking areas in uh in those cannabis businesses as well so you know think of it as a sort of like a back patio at a bar you can't purchase cannabis at a dispensary go into their back patio and consume it so those are our recommendations for you this evening uh um looking for hopefully clear Direction on all of those points so that I can work with Jack and and develop the the draft ordinance I have a question about the hours um did the chief weigh in on those hours and did he agree with he did yep thank you yep we have Ryan and and I met with uh members of the of the police department including the chief on all these recommendations really as that narrative that you just went over can we just break it down specifically by question and then just ask for the feedback that way absolutely so we'll uh we'll go back to the zoning question thank you um so our recommendation is to allow for um cannabis uh uh businesses in the mu2 and mu3 Zone and not in the mu1 zone noting that the mu1 zone is what we consider kind of our historic downtown core so I'll start right there like three has the the mall over by um Riley I'm sorry can I is there a chance you can put it up on the screen I can only because we're with our laptops I'm not a team player don't me to interrupt it's just easier to see it that's I agree I'm looking at the yellow this color blind mayor thing is kind of difficult here I can see the yellow there but the rest of these things are all look alike particular map is showing this particular map is showing the um the 750 fot buffer around schools but you'll note um if you can kind of zoom into kind of the downtown core I guess uh that the darker red is the mu2 and mu3 the um that kind of like lighter pink is the mu1 just work so what colors are you saying we allow it for for we would allow it for everything that's in the dark shade uh of pink mhm and then the uh you you can see at the bottom if you want to scroll that's that is that's the Legend um showing the different zoning districts so all of the kind of yellow beige brown colors those are all residential zoning districts all of the pink and and reddish colors those are the commercial districts and the mu1 zone is traditionally thought of as our historic downtown uh basically starts at what is that first and um continues all the way to Division Street to Century a little bit up and a little bit up a little bit up markr too to the bridge up to the bridge correct so it would not be allowed basically on Main Street from first to Century Y and then from on Margaret from uh uh Main Street to the bridge over 36 but all other commercial spaces then in the in the city would be allowed provided that of course if you when you impose the buffer zone you know you restrict it from those areas yeah interesting well if you had to pass it cut it down even further I mean I would assume you have to go by zones as opposed to slicing out parts of zones yeah okay yeah otherwise you're discriminating yeah you do that or whatever this is crazy you guys okay with that so what are we going to do about this section the housing that runs along seventh cuz it's still an mu3 um and it would I mean otherwise I'm comfortable with the way it's broken out and thank you for taking the time energy and effort to figure all that out um that's the only piece just because it's a residential neighborhood in my opinion it's defined as residential yeah and I I don't know I don't know the history of that property when that project was built I assume it was in that zone and and the city never rezoned it into you know like an mu or R3 zone or something like that high density um and we do have quite a bit of residential in our downtown now too yeah so I mean we got 84 plus 90 whatever it's going to be MH yeah and those buildings are protected it's basically Polar Ridge to mcnight on Seventh on the south side that is mixed have something happen M so that's good we have homeowners associations there too that could restrict any kind of commercial in there I would imagine as well they are the property owner so they could cool effectively decline if they wanted to I think you made the best the best out of a bad situation okay about all you can say uh on the topic of requiring a conditional use permit yay nay say it again requiring cup that's where you you guys got different opinions here Jack and you I mean I I'll just let me say this I'm not I'm not like advocating hard for it but it it just yeah just because there's so much unknown that that was kind of our thought I can see it initially I don't necessarily think that it would be worth with Jack administr it sounds like an administrative nightmare however to be sure that we're compliant and we're following proper protocol especially with us all being brand new as of next year I can't see why we can't do it for a short period of time and and my assumption is initially if we if we get a request um for a business to move in I mean I'm going to be reaching out to to Jack to make sure that you know all the te's are cross and all the eyes are dotted on something like this too that's what we you know you guys do well together so we assume that yeah I I'm in favor of having it but I also like a detailed memo that can go to the Planning Commission on what we can they or what they can ask and what they can't ask um for a cup around this business this um to make sure they're staying within whatever guard rails the state puts up for this business as well understood we we can provide that for the council or for the Ling commission perfect and and for me I'm of I'm of the mindset of you know Crow before you walk walk before you run um so a few a few guard rails to me aren't the worst things in the world they can always be removed M um or reduced or yep yep we we're at the two right we we gotone that that's another question I'll jump to that one since you brought it up you want to cap it at two or allow for as many as can fit I I'd like to cap at two same here yeah agreed okay now um when the city opens up one it doesn't count towards the two does it that was does not count towards the two that was sort of a sort of a trade-off it used to be that the city was just one among the pool of applicants uh now there changed it so that we are guaranteed a license if we apply for one but it doesn't count towards the cap perfect y um on the question of the minimum distance schools and and I I call them Parks but Park amenities we recommend the 750 from schools and the 500 from I'm calling it everything else is that why did you go from a th000 down to 750 in actuality when we brought it up before last time we brought out to council it was 750 was discussed at that point by Council didn't and that was kind of a somewhere somewhere at 500 and I think we just at that point in time said let's call it 750 and we know we'll resurrect the conversation again at a later time so you still good with that a later time here I feel comfortable with that okay okay I'll be honest with you though I don't feel comfortable at the two if the city can still have one I feel like that's an awful lot that point I'd like to reconsider that if we're looking at if the city is exercising that piece um and when we if we do it's been thrown out there as a revenue resource I don't think we should have any more than one if the city's going to do that they won't allow us not an option can't restrict has to be two that's that population plus we're about 500 residents over a kicker unfortunately just barely over the threshold but we are over the threshold y whose idea was it for the apartments just kidding you going to call article seven anybody that's watching I'm gonna have a whole lot of hate mail uh on the hours of operation uh again is that uh we were pretty pretty restricted there on what we can restrict on our own so this was kind of the best we could do okay in terms of what we proposed sound good yep the best we can do um walk before you run it's to close it at 8:00 I'm fine with to begin you can always extend the hours but that's just my of my opinion I agree liquor STS used to be 8 o' 9 o' depends on what city furong used to be open later I remember that they're in Oakdale uh and then finally um the last set of recommendations again was um more specific definitions as related to Homegrown uh requirements um adopting a minimum distance of 500 ft between two cannbis operations and then prohibiting outdoor seating and smoking areas are we okay with those yeah if I could just um mayor and council members just with those definitions just to kind of provide the context on that so the statute allows um individuals to grow their own plants at home uh the requirement in the statute is that all of that home growth has to be in a uh locked enclosed space that is out of public view uh none of those words are defined within the statue uh and so the the thought is to kind of get out ahead um and toine ourselves Define them a little more clearly um so that we have uh an enforceable ordinance if there are problems down the line so no groan in the bay window where the light comes in um I mean depend depending on how you define public view uh but probably not all right I'm comfortable with that talk about going all in you can grow it you can sell it you can I don't know that I'm in favor of having the 500 foot distance between the two to me there might be value of having them next to each other um I I I I don't know to to me that just seems capricious to make them be 500 feet apart I thought we had to if we no no you don't have to it's just a consideration and and truthfully when you when you look when you think of uh commercial spaces and properties 500 ft really isn't all that much I mean it really isn't when you think about it next site down usually yeah a couple or a couple sweets down you I I'm I mean I think from a staff level I don't think we're married to one one or the other it's I think it's up to the council what's your want to expound on yours please I I if someone finds a good location for it and wants to drive competition to I mean it's like putting up one bar next to another bar that's successful it it's not a bad business strategy um I I just I don't see it as an ordinance that helps the city in any way shape or form we get two so that means if there's two that's it right next to each other and we're done true I'm indifferent I have no I'm yeah I'm indifferent I mean when you're comparing bars how many do we have downtown so it's but I would bet they're 500 feet apart not all of them Newman you don't think that's 500 fet no field trip let's do it yeah first round uh I I would also note a potential setback between businesses could also be made to apply um to more than just the capped businesses because there are again there are certain businesses that we can cap the number on and then the rest of the license types um the more industrial and the medical cannabis side we cannot cap but could still impose a setback you know between those business typ again um whether you want to or not is a policy decision that I leave to your discretion but that is an option and for the lighter stuff it's people can already sell that like with you said in liquor stores and different things like that and even the okay you know and I to me I look at the shopping center to the north of Target you know if that had some vacancies and two shops wanted to go in there I I don't see that as us you know saying no only one can go in there is is worthwhile scratch that yeah he's got a good point and like I said if it's if it comes in they're right next to each other it's easier to sounds good for everybody I believe unless Jack you have anything else that's sort of all of the considerations we need this evening um just for your own uh information Council we I did reach out to our neighboring cities and and requested just a kind of idea of course they haven't gone through and improved all of these things but just to give you some sort of an idea of what they're doing um so you can that in your considerations this evening that's in your packet can we answer everything for you I'm good all right appreciate your time thank you thank you very much that's appreciate you move on to next discussion yep and that is a discussion of Revenue options for the city I'm turn that over to Dan our finance director mayor council members uh as we were talking about the budget uh there's two sides of the budget the expenditure side and revenue side um and we've extensively gone through our expenditure side and concluding last week um with the capital Improvement um plan where you had made some suggestions and you'll be seeing those uh uh what the impact of some of those changes and pushing things out to 2026 uh we'll see that next week in uh in a discussion um where we try to uh finalize where where we want to be for the tax levy after the truth and Taxation hearing um but for Revenue options um this this isn't all exhaustive um it's just a number of items that have kind of been thrown up by staff and uh some that city council has mentioned in the past um there are attachments that I could find from the league of Minnesota cities that are in the back part of this um document um not saying that uh staff is for or against any of these items they're just more or less for you to look at and give us some direction um if you want us to start Gathering some more information um on these if they um are something that's uh appealing to uh city council um the items that we've uh included are uh Central Business bus District sidewalk snow removal fee um there's a sales tax Municipal liquor store special assessments uh Municipal cannabis store and then some other fees and so I'm going to try to go quickly through this um hopefully Bri had an opportunity to look at this in some of the backup documentation uh the city did have a sidewalk s removal fee for the downtown um business district um from the financial records um it looked like it's uh started in 1998 to 99 and ended in um 2018 to 2019 um snow season um from what you could see the last methodology in which uh businesses were charged was that uh we have a vendor that provides the snow removal in the downtown area and then we added 50% to that and then that was distributed based upon um their Frontage uh footage uh for the properties and there were some properties that were given just a flat fee um what it appeared from the documentation that it could come up with from our vendor perspective in a calendar year the highest we had paid was in 2023 we paid 37,000 um the lowest we paid in 2015 for the past 10 years was about 7500 the average is about 177 um and um then you can see where the the revenue were in those 10 years um So based upon the average if you to basically charge it one 150% there's a potential revenue of about uh $26,500 if you were to start to look at that snow removal fee and what it appeared from from documentation is that it was charged after the snow season where we had the actual do uh actual costs and then it was allocated to um the businesses um businesses U obviously if they didn't pay for it um then it was something that could be put onto uh their property taxes through the delinquent utility process which are all aware of that we certify that you know in September and have a public hearing and so forth we usually do it with our utilities this is applicable to that we could that's how that's how non-payment of those fees would end up going out onto the property taxes so there's that item um I'm going to kind of quickly go through them and then go back and and try to get some you know uh take from the city council on what you're look what you would like or disagree or or don't want to pursue or or you do want to pursue um there's a sales tax again during the 2023 legislative session the state imposed a motorum on new local option sales taxes at this point they will not consider requests during the 2024 and 2025 legislative sessions a task force um well actually was convened in July of 2023 and will issue recommendations in early 2024 of how to treat future requests full recommendations haven't been made at this point in time I did attach um a a senate um proposal that they have it it really appears that they're looking at more Regional significant capital projects um so there there's more to come on this as far as the steps that would need to be taken or for eligibility um the statutory process um does talk about the steps of adopting a resolution submitting a resolution and supporting material to state sales tax committees and so forth um and then the notification requirements um the Senate uh taxes committee um was seeking input on the local property taxes they're looking at a bill that would limit the authority to Regional projects such as community centers athletic complexes convention centers parks and trails um located outside the Metro that meets specific requirements um certain criminal um Justice facilities and then also a maximum rate of uh half a per sales tax um would be the max um there is the option and and and many um jurisdictions have utilized it through the University of Minnesota extension um Services they will provide um a sales tax um analysis I do not know if there's a cost or not associated with that I know that the city of Oakdale um utilize them and there's a report um that's out there for them um I just went out and grabbed um some sales tax information that's out there through the department of um Revenue um and just kind of um showing you uh the most current that they had out there was 2022 and then I looked up the past nine years so we had to give a full 10 years and just showing if you if if all was eligible of their taxable sales at that half a percent um what you would have for potential income onto that um again an analysis would would tell you what would be included and what wouldn't be included um and they would give you kind of a better um true estimate of what you could really anticipate from a revenue Source if you were to do a a sales tax but again the sales tax would have to be utilized for an acceptable purpose and once that purpose is done um the sales tax is is also Sunset and if you collected more it's returned back so um it it can't be used for other purposes um another idea or thought that was out there that we've kind of discussed this one I kind of talked about um a municipal liquor store um right now uh the statute says that you have to have your Minnesota city with a population of 10,000 or less it would require a legislative change um if you were to if legislation were to take action and change that population threshold from 10,000 to 15,000 um it would impact approximately 34 cities um I think think you do have some precedents being set that you would have a good chance to get that changed the reason why I say that is because of just what you've just heard about the cannabis bill uh cannabis bill didn't limit um uh municipality run um Cannabis stores matter of fact um if you apply you get a license um so maybe there's some some appetite there at the legislative Le uh legislative level um to be able to change that um type of piece to it um I also in one of the attachments um back there I think it's from 20 uh it's a 2023 report I think it shows the financials as of the year end of uh December 31st 2021 for all of the state Municipal Liquor Stores um and so it has some very good information to see how they perform um and so that can kind of give you an idea obviously if you were to to look at this option Andor a a cannabis uh run a municipal cannabis uh run store uh you would end up having to to develop a a business plan and and really look at a lot of other detail before you would ever um go into um you know pursuing that because there would have to be you know the financial considerations as far as your Capital One Time your operational cost and everything else um but some of the results of the municipal liquor store um that were in there uh and I'll just read this one piece to it here on the very line during 20 22 Municipal uh Minnesota Municipal liquor stores had net transfers transfers out minus transfers in of 22.9 million so you can obviously see that um you know running a municipal liquor store did benefit cities um you know in various cities to lesser to more and lesser degrees but you can see that it it is utilized to um help offset um the tax impact that they have on on residents um but there's a full report that's in the documentation that I have uh provided um the other item that has been talked about on on a few occasions um special assessments um statute is pretty um specific on the whole process of running special assessments and what you would do right now the city I believe is at the end of 2019 passed a resolution to do away with special assessments so that's what we've been doing at this point in time um it would take resolution to bring that back into into play um you know uh so you know what do special assessments pay for really is is more of our our street type of projects um so our infrastructural components as far as streets Water waste water um surface water um uh it's it's key to remember that um a special assessment and this is really where the legal challenge comes out is that it needs to to meet the special benefit test and and that is where the that the land um needs to be receiving the special benefit from the Improvement and that the assessment does not exceed the special benefit measured by the increase in market value due to the Improvement um and the assessment is uniform as applied to the same class of property in the assessed area and that would be a part of your policy that you would end up having to adopt so that's where the from um looking at some of the case law in in the legal challenges and that's where really where it comes down to um is saying that let's say you come out with a special assessment you say it's you know you've calculated it out you're treating that class of property um equally and it's $110,000 um but yet I'm a property owner and I can prove that the value of my property has only gone up um $3,000 you know they have the right to appeal that um to the courts um which is going to cost um the city in litigation fees and so forth to defend um that special assessment component to it um that's where you're you know I think spoke earlier that's where you know I pointed out a couple of cities that are actually moving away from special assessments just because of the pure cost impact that um Street work is costing nowadays um and if you're looking at trying to achieve a 30 to 40% of the costs um coming through special assessments the overall cost impact to the resident is so high that it's getting harder and harder to um prove that benefit um that has gone to that that property um so that's something for you to be aware of um you know in looking at the special assessment um it was asked um so I did just kind of some rough estimates of of running it at if we were to be shooting for a 10 20 30 40% of the cost so the projects that are currently in our CP from 2025 to 2034 um we have three years of 25 27 to 29 with major reconstruction projects um and then the rest um is under under the pavement rehabilitation program these all have an impact on four of our funds um the street fund which is is more uh funded through the general fund um through uh debt um and then there's uh Water waste water and surface water um so as you can see total all 10 years if you were to do a 10% um of the cost it would be um you know it could generate or or save um the city having to um to raise um Revenue in other sort in other manners and and P primarily through the property tax of 3.6 million and then you can see 20% that's 7.2 and and so forth um the impact that it would have um on the four separate funds um so I broke it down there on underneath the same for scenarios for streets Water waste water and surface water um so you can see that so at the end of the day if none of this was challenged and you were to take let's say the 10% um over the 10 years um you're saving $2 million on uh what is paid through by general fund Levy dollars versus the other components of water 305 which is paid through the rate um and same thing with waste water and surface water um those are all paid through the rate um and as you can see as you can remember when we looked at the Enterprise funds um pretty much across the board we have rate increases to one level or another that are going to be needed over the next 10 years especially with with all of the um infrastructural needs um that the city has um and then we heard a lot about the municipal uh Cannabis stores and I think think the the biggest thing that we heard is it's it's a work in progress um they're defining the rules um and so we don't know all of uh the nuances at this point in time um but throwing it out there as uh definitely is is an opportunity for um the city um to generate some Revenue um some other fees that kind of just kind of quickly um there's been some discussion about um is that maybe there's um you know we've had more apartments and rental units coming into the city um that um if you know we have approximately um and and this data is coming from our um Utility Billing um depart um section um that we have approximately 1,300 rental units in the city of nurse St Paul and that if you were to charge each one $5 per month per unit they know that would be able to generate $78,000 part of some of the questions that you would need to ask related to this is how does the city justify a rental unit fee um do rental units require more city services that's really kind of your if if you can answer yes to those pieces of that they require more city services then um the fee would probably be more of a justifiable fee that you would be charging to the the rental unit um uh staff is gathering um some information on a proposal to change um uh charge businesses a fee to conduct um their fire certificate of compliance inspection um and they're Gathering some information from other jurisdictions for some comparability for that'll be brought back at a later date um there also um there's a a number of areas in the city where um we get a number of repeat nuisance calls um in the city could then um definitely um pass an ordinance um where they set up a fee um for the ordinance again those two probably would bring in very little um you know in comparison um but again those are some ideas that are thrown out there um and uh there's attachments um that are um available I'm going to go back through and I'm done talking and I'm going to see where city council is as far as do you want staff to kind of pursue um any or or none of these options and then also you may have some other options that you want us to look at and bring um additional data back to you at a later date um so kind of looking at that Central Business sidebox no removal fee um thoughts I see I see a nod over here by council member Cole yeah it's it's a it's a fee that used to be shared with the business owners yes um and why it went away I'm not sure um it's not a ton of money but as I guess I'll jump on my Soap Box real quick and I'll get off of it um you know in 2018 uh the city of North St Paul was a mid tier tax community in the county of Ramsay we are now one of if not the top in the top two um a lot of that has been driven by the way that we've um managed special assessments the way that we've walked away from some of our fees um we've shifted that burden 100% onto the residents um three and a half points of our Levy now is roads um so um again that was a big chunk of that was covered off off of Assessments um I just think it's it's unfortunate that the council members elect aren't here um I hope you go through this with them when they come on board but um it's unfortunate but think it's time the city take a long hard look at at um some of some of the things that the city has been paying for for for several years um that may need to be reversed and I um when I remember looking through the cost of snow removal wasn't horrible um but the city has to rent a big giant tractor thing to haul it away and find a place to store it and and everything else and I don't know if that burden needs to rest on all the residents other council members thoughts comments that's no removal where does it start does it start down at um basically first want you come up I got a couple questions for you hello hello I usually don't make it out of here on scav so no I keep saying bring Randy that's right um so it starts basically from first First Street and seventh to basically Charles and seventh right where the history or the Boy Scout is that where it is not down that far okay well that I take that back I mean that get sidewalk gets plowed we take care of that sidewalk but we don't haul any snow or anything out of there that just gets plowed okay you take care of that side walk down to the bo scouts or history on History yes that that gets P that gets P right rainy yep let's run a double check yes so that's part of the even though we're not hauling but we're taking City resources to Y all all the snow from first to Charles pretty much all that snow ends up getting hauled out cuz we don't leave any to walk over everything gets ploted off the sidewalks pushed out and either push in a pile or hauled depending on how much snow eventually that snow gets hollow out question my initial thought on it is I'm not in favor of because we have a hard enough time attracting businesses to the downtown area however [Music] I if if it was just me up here giving staff Direction my direction would be put it before the Eda and I would want a recommendation from the Eda on what way they want us to go before I would want to make a move um on this is this going to help attract businesses or how much is it going to hurt attracting businesses or is it going to be a non-starter so like say if it was just me I would put it before the Eda to have a good thorough recommendation from them and which way they would want us to go and everybody's in so when it comes to you know that if they don't pay it goes on their assess it goes on to their taxes is that what I just heard is that correct correct so it's not like I can take care of my little five feet in front of the place that's not an option City my my thought on that would it would have to be all or nothing I don't know I don't know how it would make any sense if you know one business do that's why 20 ft and the next one had 50 and we started and we stopped because they' have to do something with their Snow either way so so it's almost like we have an association for the business Community almost is what we're thinking that's what it would be yeah business district yep so to me you know because right now you mow down in front of re reflex is it or reflex yep we we basically we mow from first to Helen is what we mow down there all the boulevards down there that's all irrigated um mowed and we take K Landscaping so it's almost an association for downtown is what we're talking about we're not much just plowing too it's an association type of thing but some don't lot them don't have lawn in front of it of course because there's not there we've only charged for the snow removal in the past correct and then we're doing the sidewalk all the way down to the the um the the historical hry yeah down to Henry I'm not against both sides like Jason yes both sides so we're pretty much even though we're not hauling away we're taking care of snow for the we don't go down as far as the bank then National they don't do it no the the bank does their own okay and the legion does their own too okay I'm not against again I'm not against it but I like Jason's idea of bringing in front of the Eda just understand what all is entail with it because it's it's mandatory just like an association when you sign up you read the bons and you sign up do we have a a mandatory thing can you do that just put snow removal on somebody's taxes I would view it as a cam charge a common are maintenance charge for the downtown business and I believe that is legal because I know other cities have it um especially if you word it as a cam charge yeah and and we have some specific Authority in the statutes for um snow and ice removal as well I want to make sure it's fair as far as what they're what they're getting and it's understandable where you know what benefit they're getting out of it if they have to have it that's why there's associations and rules and bylaws and things like that so they know exactly if you buy a building there you know that you're going to be you know included in that but as residents of nor St Paul is a affair that we're paying for their snow removal to be hauled out of downtown into another location no I that's just the are we clear about that as far as like an association is where I was you know understanding that that's part of the rules when they when they have that some people probably have bought since then they have no idea they're going to be charged I would imagine this has been turnover for the buildings yeah I I never was part of a discussion for for when it started and when it ended so I have no idea what what the you know the what was behind that I I I I don't know and right now we're just charging for the hallway downtown we're not charging for the sidewalks no we get a bill not and that and Bill's doubled in the last couple years yep can you repeat that I'm sorry the contract cost that we have for the contractor that we we put it out for bid um the price uh doubled probably what two three years ago two yeah probably two or three years ago we actually had put it out um put the contract out there um for bid and at at that time basically why you see the cost double is that the the fee that we were getting charged was um way under what going rate was it was probably half of what going rate was out there so when we got bid for doing downtown it's per hour um so for a machine and a operator and that's where you see that that that big jumping Cost Plus that was the year that it snowed you know normally we have 14 snow events 14 on average 1415 I think that year we went out 28 times and that is even more down there because that gets pre-done before we do the initial plow down there like if we that person comes in does it before the bar is let out um they might just clear a quick path so they're down there multiple times so uh till work down there so I guess what I'm I was getting to is the people get their sidewalk plowed all the way down but they're not being charge it's just the people in the in the the business it's not for the the houses that are on or that does a library get charged for I mean not the library I'm sorry the old um Scout Museum Bo Scout Museum that's why I'm asking who's who who's who's involved in paying for this does it do people pay all the way down to this I don't know I don't know that again that be before I started had anything to do with this I'm not trying to shrug responsibility I get it but I think we just need to find out I think this is this is a topic that needs to be Revisited we have other options to discuss um so so what I'm what I'm hearing is that that there seems to be interest on this but more information needs to be gathered um and that this probably is a very good idea that it would start at the Eda with some of the information so basically we can grab some information um um give estimates of what different properties would end up paying based upon some sort of assumption so that it goes longer than we're talking about that's what's confusing me yep so we can we can definitely do that and take a look at that the sales tax um I'd like to explore that you'd like to explore the sales tax um I think we should all speak up on what we want to I'm for exploring it but I think we pause it until the state legislature comes back with their res recommendations or restrictions for what the the new one is going to be I think it's too early for us to yep and and I and just trying to get moving this moving this along a little bit I I agree with that um but would it be um allowable that we kind of reach out to the University of Minnesota extension and um see if um what it would cost for them to do kind of an analysis just so we have a better idea of potentially what we would end up generating um for that um you know thought just a thought out there um so we have more of a yeah dialogue no there's a huge cost associated with it but yeah probably would definitely post bringing the cost before the council I think is and we understand what we're getting into the Municipal liquor store go for it take a look at it I I think sending a a letter to all the cities to see if they're interested in form a coalition all the ones between 10 and 15 would be a great place to start okay um special assessments I'm in favor of continuing to explore it 10% might be steep M even at even at 5% it's more it's 5% more more than we had I think year 2026 was $375,000 of generated income at 10% right even even half of that is 2% of a levy I'm in favor of it I'm personally very against we've gone away from I'm a little concerned about it but I'm I'm not really for it either um we definitely can can give you uh information on what the 5% I mean you think you just did the math quicker than anybody else one of the and again all of these items I think will bring back kind of a not as much but have more of a discussion onto it but special assessments one of the key things that we have to remember is we can't go on and off and on and off and on and off because that creates an inequity for property owners across the city has um and so uh I'll just kind of preface it and leave it at that but we'll kind of come back with some more information so um on that so so far four at least interest in pursuing and looking at a little bit again no decision to move forward or against a municipal cannabis store I'm for it yes and then we had a couple of other uh fees there was uh the rental uh unit fee yep thoughts I right now I'm looking at focusing on the larger ones I guess that's that's a levy point though at five bucks a month that's a full that's a full Levy Point that's that's what I looked at that that is a correct statement yeah rental units is that um Homes apartments everything y yeah I was for the rental but for the two lower ones I was against just the amount of staff work I don't think they'll re money and again they they really would result in very little so so what I'm hearing is uh no to uh uh charging businesses for fire certificate of compliance inspection and nuisance service calls but um P to look at the rental unit uh charge fee I'm I'm still on board with the fire certificates we used to charge for that as well and we went away from that so used to again I think we need to be consistent and I think that one stop due to the pandemic yeah yep um so again I would I would take gather more information on that and kind of show you show it back okay I'll go with what the council has I have a rental here in North St Paul so I'm just going to let that one be whatever they decide and so the only one we're eliminating from this group is a nuisance nuisance call okay and then are there any other thoughts or anything that you want staff to pursue I had one other on my list it has to do with storm water utility funds um and it has to do with a fee based upon the square footage of your parking lots because I think one of the only utilities that we increased was storm water wasn't it I think there is something is that is how we're doing it today and um Morgan can speak to that more but there is that WSB has has a formula that's utilized in each one of those commercial properties yes okay I didn't I didn't realize we were doing that okay cool that's good yep I think that was the only one I had on my list that we didn't cover that wasn't up there okay can I ask for some not Direction may I ask you guys to look into what have we done taken away done again taken away because as we're going through consistencies I mean if we've done something taken away and we're going to do it again then we should probably keep in mind for consistencies that we just continue doing this forward I mean it just looks really bad 18 and now for all these streets of ab absolutely absolutely yep we certainly will all right um I thank you very much for your input onto that thank you um and we'll schedule additional meetings on to that they won't happen this year we're pretty much booked from a budgetary standpoint we'll again next uh meeting uh during the regular city council after we've had the TNT we'll kind of finalize the the levy and then obviously the last meeting in December we have to certify um our levies for 2025 and then so we'll begin these um next year and you certainly can come back and sit in the audience and tell us what sit down with John John I'll buddy up thank you very much thank you Dan all right if nothing else let's call for adjournment some mov move council member s second second council member Norby all those in favor say I I thank you we'll give ourselves three four minutes how's that five minutes