Here is the transcription with speaker names added based on the context of the meeting. **Transcript:** **[0:29] Mayor:** The pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. **[0:48] Mayor:** All right, let's jump in. Item two, approval of the minutes of the regular city council meeting from July 8th, 2025. I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes. **Council Member:** So moved. **Council Member:** Second. **Mayor:** Motion a second. All those in favor say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor:** Any opposed? **Council Member Edberg:** I should abstain. I was not here so I don't know. **[1:03] Mayor:** Very good. **Council Member:** The minutes reflected the meeting. **Mayor:** Motion carries. The minutes are approved. Item three, adoption of the agenda. Are there any changes or corrections to the agenda? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. **Council Member:** So move. **Mayor:** Motion second. All those in favor say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor:** Any opposed? We have an agenda item four, consent agenda. I'd entertain a motion to adopt the and approve the consent agenda. **[1:24] Council Member:** Second. **Mayor:** Motion a second. All those in favor say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor:** Any oppose? Motion carries. The consent agenda is approved. Item five, visitors and presentations. We have the quarterly finance department report. Miss Kinser, when you're ready. **[1:35] Miss Kinser:** Good evening, mayor, members of the city council. Tonight's presentation is on data through April 30th of 2025. And as I reviewed the information to prepare for this um our revenues and expenditures continue to track um to the 2025 budget where I would expect it at that point in the year. Um some key points as I was going through the data. The general fund license and permits accounts are trending in line with budget estimates. This is different than it's been for a couple of years. These last couple years as the school district was working through their um renovation and expansion project, the timing of when the permits came in um were often um had a spike above budgets. So this is the first time since 2021 we've been tracking exactly online with our budget estimates. Um, so as I look at this and have been talking with the building department, I anticipate the 2025 revenues will remain close to the budget this year. I'm not anticipating there to be any surplus um, like we've had in the last couple of years. The other thing that I noted in my review was the Excel Energy franchise fee. um we received that in 2025 is 5% less than what we received in 2024. We received a total of $346,661. The city's franchise agreement calculates the fee that is paid to us on a percentage of use for the previous year. Though I don't know the explanation of the usage reduction, possible causes could be users seeking to lower their monthly bills and using less or um as we've seen in the news, there are many employers that are transitioning their employees back to in-person operations um either in a hybrid model or fully back. So having them away from their home, that could have been why our usage um has dropped. Um though the decrease in that franchise fee is important to monitor. U when we look at the budget for the franchise fee accounts, we will be um overbudget uh at the end of the year as the Ramsey Washington Cable Commission franchise fee that was previously budgeted for in the equipment acquisition fund in 2025. We move that to the general fund and that um the amount we received is higher than we were we estimated when we prepared the budget. Um in the miscellaneous revenues the primary receipts are for park and mooring skid kayak and canoe rentals at Mataska Park, Lions Park and Lake View parks. Um our that's all tracking. We are down um overall when we look at those miscellaneous revenues. We're higher than we were in 24 at this point of the year. Um our park rental fees are down a little, but as part of those miscellaneous revenues, we do have donations that have come in. We received that um 2500 don donation from the Lions for the drone purchase. And um so that is help helping that stay above where we were last year. Um interest revenues are always a really popular topic and just so just as a reminder when we look at the funds there's no interest revenues that are recorded in any of the funds throughout the year. We allocate that at the end of the year based on the cash an averaged cash balance for each fund throughout the year. I did take a look at the interest revenues that we've received in total so far this year and they are higher. Um, as of April 30th, we have $397,000 of interest that we've received. If we look in 2024, it was 339,000 and in 2023 we had $187,000. So, um, the interest revenues are looking really good. Um and then as I continue my report looking at the license bureau operations, the data we discuss for the license bureau will be through June. Um our department saw a substantial increase in the driver's license customers and transactions in March um April and the very beginning of May with the um arrival of the real and enhanced ID um due date deadline. And so our line was very long as we had customers coming to visit. When we look at those transactions, we had 21% higher transactions in those driver's license ID um categories than we did in 2024. So significant increase um which was evident. And there's still I was thinking that once we hit the May 7th that the line would go down and we wouldn't have as many customers that were coming in for those types of transactions. But we've still seen significant customer activity with people stopping in to get their um driver's license or their ID updated. Um in contrast to that significant um increase, there's been a significant decrease in the number of tab renewal transactions that we've processed in 2025 as we compare that to 2024. Um that is down 25%. So the percentage changes are close. Uh my inclination with that is that customers chose to complete that quick um transaction either online or at one of the local kiosks just because of the line we had if they stopped by and saw that there was a significant line. Um one thing our office does do is we have a tab only line um on the really busy times. So when we do have a long line, if customers come in, um our staff will step out and pull the people who have those quicker transactions out of line, bring them up to the front and help them at a separate register so that they can get in and out and don't have to wait through the line when the um the people are waiting for the driver's license transactions that are a little bit longer. Um the fee revenue from those quick transactions uh that we can process in our department frequently offset the fee revenues where there um if a transaction some transactions have um fees that we receive that are lower that are set by the state for the amount of work that is done for that transaction. So these quick little transactions when we can get people in and out um that really helps us kind of balance the revenues that we have. And so that's why we're trying to do everything we can to have customers come in and see our staff. Our staff loves to help um everybody who comes in and if they can see them get out of the door fast, they're excited to have that happen. um though the dealer electronic um title transactions those are the EBTR um transactions. So that's when an individual is buying a vehicle from a dealer there is a um way that how that title transaction is handled through the system. Um those counts are higher so than they were last year. So there are more people that are buying um vehicles through a dealership. um the effect of the additional revenues from more transactions in that category is lower because we have a reduction in the title transactions where people are coming into the office to um do a title transfer. Though we don't understand the shift. Um, our staff did note that they are seeing fewer people stop in to get a duplicate title because that t duplicate title transaction would fall into that title transactions category. And they've also noted that um, used vehicles have a higher value as they're going through the paperwork. So maybe there are fewer um, people who are buying a used vehicle and coming in to do their transactions. So, in general, the transaction counts for some of these service types may be lower in 2025 just because of that extended wait time um in our customer line, especially in that March through May rush before the real and enhanced deadline on May 7th. Um it was interesting our department averaged over a hundred of the real enhanced ID transactions a day and that is significant when you compare that to many other um offices. We just we have a lot of people who come to visit us. So, um the staff that we have works hard to process everything um as fast as they can and but are very detail oriented to make sure that they're getting it done correctly. Um we do have a new seasonal employee who started this past week um that is helping us be able to provide that tab renewal line when that tab um only that I was talking about. And so we have that service every day from open until close. And in that line they they can handle the vehicle tab renewals, duplicate titles, disability certificates, and um DNR transactions. So we just want to get the word out to everybody. Tell your friends to come visit us versus going online or to a kiosk because we'd like to help everybody in the office. So with that, I'll take any questions that you have. **[11:45] Mayor:** Thank you, Miss Kinser. Council, do we have any questions? Council member Edberg. **[11:51] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Miss Kinser, thank you for the really detailed report. Um, thinking about our kind of competitive position as a service provider, particularly around license fees, um, that type of activity. We have historically had some advantages because of our proximity to the um auto dealers on Highway 61 and we have cultivated that rel those relationships. Um Maplewood closed their center. Um are there others that are opening up or changing that would that might be future competition that we should be thinking about or planning for? Did I hear that Roseville is planning on opening a uh a license bureau? **[12:32] Miss Kinser:** Mr. Mayor, Council Member Edberg, um Roseville has a license bureau that has been open. Okay. Um when we look at the state, the three busiest license bureaus in the state um are Roseville, the St. Paul location, and our office. So, I don't know if they are planning to move to a new location, but they do have offices that are operating there. Um, I would say there's not any other offices that are planning to open, but there are other um offices that are trying to figure out ways to um get in and work with the dealerships in our area because not everybody has as many dealerships as we have. We have a good relationship, but there are ones that are um working to kind of take that business from us. **[13:29] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you. **[13:30] Mayor:** Any other questions? Very good. Thank you again for the detailed report. We appreciate it. **[13:41] Miss Kinser:** Thank you. **[13:42] Mayor:** All right. Item six, first reading of an ordinance amending the municipal code replacing chapter 603 parking. Mr. Anderson, when you're ready. **[13:53] Mr. Anderson (City Attorney):** Thank you, mayor and council. So, we're here tonight to have a first reading and a public hearing on a proposed parking ordinance. Uh, I know the city, including uh staff and department heads who we have with us tonight, have been eager to update the the parking ordinance for for quite a long time. There's some language in there that was antiquated and needs to be updated to sort of come into uh consistency with uh the way things are done and some of the uh goals and expectations of of public works and snow removal and other things. Staff asked me to help facilitate the the rewrite which included uh a review of the existing code language by department heads uh incorporating their changes and recommendations into this document. um staff had multiple meetings about sort of what works, what doesn't work, what kinds of things we want to see in our parking ordinance uh moving forward. And then uh we of course had some changes with the new uh high school campus and some of the desires to to clean up the language and make sure we're we're well suited to handle the uh parking restrictions and the permit only parking. that was a goal for that area just given the um changes that have happened in that in that location. So, um a lot of the what I'm about to summarize quickly is is provided in the memorandum that I uh had submitted and is in your packet, but the update really includes both substantive changes and then some of course non-substantive or what I would consider housekeeping uh type changes. Uh first we cleaned up uh the definitions and tried to delete either outdated or unnecessary definitions. Uh we removed any outdated or unnecessary code language from the perspective of law enforcement or other department heads. Uh we clarify the city council's ability to both uh restrict parking throughout the city, but also to establish permit only areas for um nearby residents that would be affected by parking restrictions uh including short-term permits for for guests. Uh we also cleaned up the permitting process and made it um a little bit easier to interpret in terms of what what has to happen in order for uh residents and others to apply for uh city permits and those kind of the special permissions that we're talking about and more importantly how that would work mechanically. Um, one of the big, what I would say substantive changes deals with winter parking and the rules that are proposed in this, uh, ordinance amendment would, uh, from staff's perspective, allow our public works team to more effectively and efficiently remove snow in the wintertime. Um, and so one of the changes includes prohibiting overnight parking between November through March on city streets, and that's uh currently proposed through uh the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m. Uh, and then also to prohibit parking in municipal parking lots after any amount of snowfall. There's currently a prohibition that is triggered by, I think, a 3-in snowfall. And that gets difficult to enforce and interpret. You know, people aren't standing out there with their rulers. And um the bottom line is that whenever any snow falls um staff feels the need to obviously remove it, clean it up from the parking lot to avoid um you know slippery conditions, ice um and just you know snow sort of piling up or getting um uh compacted by vehicles and those kinds of things. Um, another new l uh provision in here would prohibit parking in any manner that obstructs or blocks access to either driveways and also pedestrian ways, sidewalks or uh trail entrances that are um you know adjacent to city streets. And another provision in here would uh prohibit trailer parking for more than 30 minutes. And that would just be standalone trailers um or other recreational type trailers except in any council designated areas, maybe areas near lakes or or lake access that um we feel the need to allow trailer parking uh in for for whatever reason that might be. Uh and then finally, uh there's uh some language in here establishing or clarifying more importantly that parking violations are petty misdemeanors. Uh, in other words, they'd be noncriminal violations, still subject to citations and fines. Um, but, um, you know, they're not going to require mandatory court dates necessarily. And, uh, of course, you still are subject to towing or removing uh, of vehicles if there are violations. Uh, which, you know, I understand staff um, and and, uh, the chief might have some more um, information about our practices in doing that. I think it's it's occasionally used when necessary, but you know, typically the city would ticket it before towing unless there's some public safety component or need to do that um from from staff standpoint. Um so we're not changing the ability to tow or remove vehicles, but um that is still in here. I just wanted to clarify that. Um, so as I mentioned in the report, um, the last thing it's worth mentioning before we open it up to the public hearing and council discussion and questions is that staff's working to compile a list of the different areas in the city that are subject to existing parking restrictions. Um, you know, where we have no street parking or permit only parking or trailer only parking, things like that. um just to have sort of that inventory available to the council and to the public as sort of a clean slate um as part of this new parking ordinance. I think that would be helpful. Um and I think staff is interested to see sort of you know when all these uh restrictions were put into place and just to have an idea of of maybe um why that happened. And then we also intend to at the time at least of second reading when we can hone in on a on a final ordinance product um bring another resolution to the council with just a couple new uh special parking restrictions at staff's recommendation particularly related to the new um locations around the high school that we've talked about and that council has given direction to move forward with that. Um the goal was sort of to get things in place ahead of this fall, ahead of the school year and um once you know more events start ramping up in that area. And so again, we would intend to bring that with uh the ordinance uh at the second reading as sort of a companion document or a separate action that the council would take at that time depending on um sort of how things move along. So um again, that's kind of a summary of the changes. Um pretty high level summary. there's, you know, a lot of red ink on the red line, but again, a lot of that was cleanup. Um, we're happy to answer any questions. I can certainly do my best to answer them, but like I said, we have a lot of department heads here tonight, too, that had input and, um, you know, we want to ultimately get to a end policy product that the council is in favor of, and that makes sense for the city. So, that's our goal. **[21:02] Mayor:** Very good. Thank you. Uh, council, unless there's any pressing question that you have for city attorney, I'm going to open up the public hearing first and then we can offer comment. All right, I will open the public hearing. I have a list with a name that once was on and is now crossed out. So, I have nobody on the list. If you'd like to speak specifically to the first reading of the ordinance amending uh replacing chapter 603 of the parking code, please step up, state your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. All right, we'll bring it back to the council. I just have one clarifying question on the the snow related parking restrictions. I'm reading it. I understand in practice the the 3-in kind of trigger was unworkable. We don't expect someone to go out there with a tape measure. And I'm sure staff will do a good job without being heavy-handed with this, but I guess I'd like to hear from staff on how you see this actually playing out in practice. So read the specific provision. No person shall park or permit to be parked a vehicle in a municipal parking lot immediately following an accumulation of snow until the snow has been fully removed from the entire lot. I'm just envisioning a snow ends and it's 3:00 in the afternoon on a Saturday and someone needs to park. So how does that actually work in practice? **[22:25] Mr. Copy (Public Works/Engineering):** um mayor, members of the council. So, in practice um the uh typical uh operations are um before typical business hours. So, we're typically coming in 2, 3, 4 in the morning, depending on the uh amount of snow, so that we can react and have that uh those municipal lots, the adjacent sidewalks in the downtown area clean and clear by typically 8 a.m. Um, as far as um subsequent um uh typically if uh snow continues to fall um typically with normal business operations, we can't get in and and uh plow or blow or broom snow off. So, uh we would return the next morning and and uh redo that those areas. On the parking lots falling that same realm of the sidewalks. Uh we typically try to get those down to typically bare pavement. People are walking in them. Um so we um again the 3 in has been very problematic. Um um even similar to your question on you know any accumulation. So if at you know the existing ordinance language if at noon we got 3 in we're not coming in um as soon as that 3 in falls or that last flake of snow falls to come in and plow. Practical side of it, um, we are really coming in very early in the morning and being done by typically in the downtown by 8:00 a.m. **[24:21] Mayor:** Okay, I'm following you. So, for all intents and purposes, during normal business hours, we're not even going to try. This really is a in practice. If we just didn't quite get to it and there's six inches of snow on the ground and it's 8 am and we didn't get to it, you're not supposed to park there or 7 am, but operationally we're staffed up to be able to hit that early in the morning. **[24:34] Mr. Copy:** Correct. **[24:35] Mayor:** Okay. I appreciate the clarification. Well, this is just a first reading, so we don't have to offer comment, but if anybody sees anything that's that's major that they might want to see brought for the second reading. Council member West. **[24:42] Council Member West:** Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I was looking at the prohibition the prohibition of the overnight parking between 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. um, street parking November 1st to April 1st. And I'm just thinking about my neighborhood um, kind of by White Bear and County Road F and how that actually works. Um, and that would shove a lot of people um from the side roads uh because I don't think everybody has driveways or driveways enough because a lot of people park on um the side streets like basically onto County Road F um which is already pretty busy with parking. So, I'm I'm trying to figure out like what where are people supposed to park between 12 and 6 if they can't if they don't have a driveway and they can't park on a city street. **[25:31] Mr. Copy:** Mayor, members of the council, the the the true intent of the uh time within there, and I was trying to find the uh the old language. Uh the true um intent was to move that I believe the old language is 2 am. Um typically we're in there starting at 2 or 3:00 a.m. to completely remove snow um before traffic gets on the roads about 6:00 a.m. So we get the majority of the uh our primary routes done by 6 a.m. and then we start doing some side streets after that. Cul-de-sacs, sidewalks, things like that. So really, um, the old language, like I said, I I believe it's 2:00 a.m. Um, by the time we're out there and we find problem areas where people are parked on the streets, um, it's impossible for us to react. So um, typically at that time we're um, calling um, Chief Hagar or his staff and and having cars towed if needed. Um, by that time we've already got plows on the street. So that midnight gives us that opportunity, the couple extra hours to go out pre-drive. Um, our public works superintendent will review areas that are problematic, allows our officers to see areas that are problematic, get those taken care of before that we before the majority of our snowplow operators get out there at 2 at typically 2 to 3:00 a.m. **[26:55] Council Member West:** So, can I just follow up? **[26:57] Mayor:** Go ahead. **[26:58] Council Member West:** So, um, thank you. Thank you for um that explanation. I I would encourage what the intention is to be actually in language instead of kind of like a broad because if you know if I didn't have a driveway, I'd be looking at this to figure out when and where I can park. And if I didn't know I I could like if I knew that I I would think that I couldn't park between 12 and 6 in the middle of the night, I'd have to be like, "Hey neighbor that has a driveway, can I park in your..." I mean I just People won't know. I don't think what to do unless there's more specific language. **[27:41] Mr. Anderson:** Thanks, Mayor. I just was wanted to clarify what the current language says. So, there's sort of two provisions in the code today that regulate uh winter parking. One of them is sort of a simple prohibition on parking uh on any city street or in the municipal parking lot for more than 24 consecutive hours between November and and through March. So that's one thing. You you can't leave a vehicle in in any location for longer than a a 24-hour span. But then secondary, you also can't park uh on any city street if there's that 3 inch trigger again that that amount of snowfall happens. So, um it was the uh I think input from from Paul and his team that um you know this it's created a lot of concerns and issues especially with overnight parking. The 24-hour thing doesn't really help. I mean 400 cars could go park somewhere at any point of the day on any city street at any point in the day. It could snow throughout the day and they could theoretically leave their vehicles there. Even if you get two inches of snow because you're not at that three three inch threshold, they could leave their vehicles on those streets and in those locations through the next morning into the next day. Um, and that assumes that the city knows when they first parked there and obviously that's tricky to to enforce as well. And so having sort of the bright line 12 to 6 prohibition at least from staff's perspective um would be very um conducive to effective and efficient u snow removal. Now um I understand that um you know and having worked through winter parking ordinances with different cities. Obviously every neighborhood is different, every home and their parking situation is different. some uh restrictions may not work perfectly for one city and may work for other cities or may not work perfectly for one neighborhood and and could work for 99% of the rest of the neighborhoods. But um generally it was the understanding of of staff or the goal of staff to try to get something and and recommend something that um they knew could um could accommodate kind of the goals that we've been talking about. So, um, but that's a little summary of what what currently is allowed and why the changes were, at least from my understanding, implemented or requested to be implemented. **[30:10] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you, Mayor. So, I'm going to continue with uh uh Council Member West's concerns because I echo them. This the proposed language and I'm going to address specifically winter parking and trailer parking. I do not have an issue. We've discussed at this table a number of times the parking around North Campus uh and parking in the area near the lake uh with trailers during the summer etc. Um we we have some settled policy on that. So I I don't know exactly whom I to whom I should direct these four questions but I'm going to ask them and then I'll ask them all at once and you can respond in any order you want. So my understanding is that staff generated the input that became the basis for the revision and the revised language. What public input was solicited in the drafting process or in the consideration of alternatives process? How did our how did we inform our community and engage them to find out what are the impacts on you as individuals who have to live with the ordinances that we pass? That's question number one. How did we engage? Number two, what policy alternatives did we consider? What were the other things and what data was used to assess whether what the significance and issues are, what rises to a level of action, etc. Number three, now that we have a policy, what outreach has been done to the community to solicit response to the stated language? We had a public hearing. Nobody spoke. I've been a licensed driver in this community 50 years. I get that we have an issue that that it's not ideal. Things happen. People park on the street sometimes, freak snowstorms, blah blah blah. It it's an issue. So, I'm not saying that we are wrong to try and update it. But I think government solicits and obtains the benefits of its citizenry when it communicates, engages and interacts. And I don't see anything close to enough with this process that we are using. I will note staff is using the exact same process that their predecessors used. I think we need to change our communications to community about changes in ordinance and the opportunities for hearings. So, um, I'll stop with those. Um, where are we getting our input? Where is the community getting involved? Because I my sense is we're going to act on August 28th. That's the proposal for a new ordinance and a whole new system that will start two months 64 days later, November 1. And I'm trying to figure out how people have a reasonable time to adjust when they have the kinds of situations that council member West is identifying. Folks that you have homes with multiple drivers, multiple vehicles, they may or may not have all of the access to parking in their driveways. Uh and so they're going to have to figure out something in the area of trailer parking. Those are people's livelihoods. and to have 60 days to figure out okay now what do I have to do? So I'm saying that those two issues we are seeking enforcement and change too rapidly I think we ought to hold off on the enforcement and the implementation of those for at least a year educate communicate and engage and then see what we can what what issues we have but let me stop **[33:51] City Manager Crawford:** mayor council member you may have to remind me of some of the questions that you've asked um so bear with me but um this as you said this is the first step in our typical process of the city council as a as a group wants a different process then I need to be told that and then we can implement that going forward um this is our our typical process we have had public hearings at first readings or second readings um both have have worked fine um but we are not required to have public hearings it's a good practice that we have Um, so we automatically publish for a public hearing just because that's what we've always done. Um, the process is entirely left up to the city council and how you want to handle it. We've not solicited public feedback at this point. Um, we're not required to. It's a good idea. We can hit pause and do that if you'd like to. Um, this was brought back because of the um, resolutions that were previously passed for kind of W 2 parking, if you will. and then the the school parking. So, um it's not a surprise that we're talking about the parking ordinance. We've taken uh several months to thoughtfully work on it and solicited feedback from administration, police, and public works. And the overnight parking is directly from um work inefficiencies for for the public works department to clear our roads to keep them safe and passable and get snow out of out of the way before it uh you know, refreezes. And then we have ice issues on our public streets. So that is the only reason why we are um proposing uh to change the overnight parking during the winter months. There are many many cities that um do not allow parking overnight um year round even. We're not proposing that. Um or they propose or they have uh no parking during those winter months, 24 hours a day. We're not proposing that. We're proposing just a small amount of time. Um I don't have data to show you um you know that because uh again it was staff driven and sometimes ordinances are staff driven um for the discussion of city council to consider. It's ultimately the city council's decision. Um so if you'd like to see something different we can u propose that for the second reading. Uh you can tell us to hit pause and and do a fellow public engagement. I would like feedback on what you'd like to see for that cuz um you're not going to get one answer. You're not going to get um everyone's going not going to like one thing or another about any type of ordinance. Um so I'll maybe hit pause there and see if I answered all your questions or if anyone else other department heads want to weigh in. **[36:28] Council Member Edberg:** you advanced the conversation. Thank you. So I think the council does need to take up a conversation about even if we are not required to hold public hearings, even if we are not required to do certain things, the acceptance of our citizenry of our decisions rests on their trust in our judgment ability and our reasonableness. And I don't think our notification process is working. So, I'm going to suggest that as a matter of process that is and mayor, I'll take your direction on how we initiate that conversation. I don't think it's it's an immediate issue. It's been a growing concern of mine over some time. And so, I think it's time for us to pierce that bubble and let's let's get on that. The I have great empathy for our public works staff. I would not want to be a snowplow driver in the city of uh White Bear Lake. We have homes where people park on the street for whatever reason they're in violation and it makes that process really difficult. I get it. But to gain compliance, we need to provide options and reasonable alternatives. And I don't think the winter parking or the trailer parking conversation meets that criteria. I do not object to the discussion about parking in the W 2 trailers around the lake etc or around uh um around North Campus. You are correct. We have had that conversation. There has been thoughtful consideration, discussion, etc. I'm fine with that. But these two are massive cultural changes and I think we're trying to rush it too fast for this year. We've lived it with it for 50 years. we can probably manage one more and do a better job of communication and implementation for 2026. **[38:28] Mayor:** So, I've got a couple comments on that. Uh first if we want to engage the public, I I don't care. I think more discussion is good. I defer to the council and how many people actually want that. I'm not troubled by the process at all with this. Um, and it sounds like you're not necessarily either troubled by the process, but for a couple things that maybe are a little bit more broadreaching. As you said, the permitted restrictions around North Campus, we've had some discussions about that. the winter parking. I also think that nothing's irreversible and I think the intent of this is good and we have been doing it like this for 50 years and it's been operationally difficult and this is a chance to make improvement and if it doesn't advance the operations of the city, we can always change it. But I think the notion of saying during the winter months for six hours you can't park on the street, folks will figure it out. I'm also confident that our city staff, police, isn't going to be heavy-handed because that's just not the White Bear way. We don't come in and pass a new ordinance and then say, "All right, the next day everybody's getting a ticket." That's just not our community. So, we try it. And I also am pretty confident that this the 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. if we get a stretch of 50° weather and someone's parking on the street and it's not an active snowstorm, we're not going to be heavy-handed about writing tickets. But we do need to have it on the books because when we do get those snowstorms and there are cars parked on the street, that's when we get those those big horseshoes all over the city when you've got these massive snow storms. That also doesn't serve the the vehicle owner very well either. If you have 18 in of snow and it just barricades the vehicle in either. So it it actually is in the public's best interest at times for a large snowfall. So I think we try this. I'm not troubled by it. If you want to go back to the well and have greater conversations, I'm happy to do it. I don't think it's necessary. I also am not concerned. I shouldn't say I'm not concerned. Yes, there will always be a few people that this will disrupt this will change their processes. That's how it goes. And we'll deal with those uh if we we truly have issues. You're we we have u a community with residential homes that typically have driveways. I I don't know of any that that don't have any driveway or place that they can pull in. Um but we don't set broad policy for city operations based on those individual things, but it will inconvenience people. If you're used to parking on the street, yeah, you do have to move around. For a guy that has lived in my house for 13 years with a single lane driveway, I never park on the street. And it's a pain in the butt depending on whether my wife pulls in last or I do it. And I am constantly jockeying cars around whether it's January or July. people will change because we have an operational need for the city to make sure that our streets are clear of cars so that we can make sure the city staff can plow the streets. And again, we try it. If we have issues, we come back and and and make tweaks to it. That's what we do as elected officials. So process, I'm fine with it. What's written before us, I think we'll manage through it. Maybe we'll learn a little bit from it, can make improvements. But again, if if members of the council want to engage the public more on this, you just let me know and we'll make sure we facilitate it. So, does anyone else feel like they need to hear more from the public? Council member Hughes **[41:56] Council Member Hughes:** wasn't going to speak to that, but um I guess I could see a little tightening of the language to see um I don't have a problem with 12 to 6 when there's going to be a snow event. I mean, I think you're making excellent points that you need to be able to get the car off the road before you plow, but I've got plenty of people in my neighborhood who park overnight. And um as a as a general practice, and so for six months out of the year, that is that is an inconvenience. Um, I think that for the most part, most of them get off the road when there is a snowfall coming. So, I guess I'm just curious if we can go back and just try one more time. I don't mind the 12 to 6. I don't even mind 1000 p.m. to 6. Um, but if we could try to add some language on there that you think might be enforcable about impending snow or, you know, even if the snow doesn't come, that's not five nights worth of it's dry and I can't park there. Um, again, that that may not be enforceable, but I I guess I would when it it would I would love to see a a one last stab on trying to narrow down—widen those hours. that's fine, but narrow down the dates that are affected during those times. Um, and to Mr. Edberg's um, other point about trailers, I I don't I don't guess I don't really know what the real problem is with it, but maybe we just put a six-month, you know, this goes into effect in six months and everything that comes out of our licensing bureau, you know, that licenses a truck gets a one pager in it that says, by the way, you can't—a truck license the trailer that, you know, by the way, you've got to move this thing. You can't have your trailer sitting out there. I don't see it all that often. So, I guess I don't know where it is. For the most part, the trailers that are in our neighborhood are, you know, they're still attached to the truck, but some people do leave and go to lunch and come back and I would hate for them to have a problem because of that. I don't think they probably would but So, maybe that actually extends to two hours because everybody loves a two-hour lunch. **[44:07] Mayor:** Any other thoughts? This is just a first reading. We're hopefully folks maybe actually listen to this meeting and if you have some concerns, we all have email addresses and by all means uh let us know. Otherwise, we're just going to continue to wait to see what how how and if the public responds and this will be coming back before us for consideration. Does staff need anything else at this time by way of preparing for when it's currently scheduled to come back before the council for a second reading and ultimate potential adoption? **[44:43] City Manager Crawford:** Um, mayor, uh, thank you for the question. We, if there is any consensus around, you know, a snow emergency, I think that would be technically maybe what that would be called, what council member Hughes would be suggesting. Um, we could take a look at that if there's a consensus. If not, we wouldn't be making any changes for the second reading. The second reading is scheduled for August 26th, uh, since the next council meeting is a little wonky. So, uh, I would be looking for feedback regarding, you know, snow emergency. Um, the public works director would have to call a snow emergency or I would or whatever, but so something around that if there's interest. **[45:22] Council Member West:** uh, I'd be supportive in um making it as narrow as possible. Also, a snow emergency would be my suggestion. **[45:34] Mayor:** Would anyone else like to see that? Some language on a snow emergency. **[45:39] Council Member Hughes:** I would like to see some language on a snow emergency. **[45:43] Council Member Edberg:** I think that's a viable option to uh to consider. It addresses uh it makes it liveable and delaying—to council member Hughes's suggestion about delaying enforcement on the trailers for x number of months maybe start of next year, next spring, whatever. Uh that also strikes me as a reasonable suggestion. **[46:11] Mayor:** So if I'm I'm hearing the feedback from the council, maybe some language on what a snow emergency would look like. Beyond that, there's not a lot of major things that we can't handle on the fly at a second reading once folks have had a chance to think think this through a little bit more. Maybe hear from the public or not. Uh that's up to the public and then we'll dig into it in August. Sound like a plan. All right. Very good. Thank you. Good discussion. Item 7A, under unfinished business, a second reading of an ordinance amending the zoning code. Mr. Lindall, when you're ready. **[46:48] Mr. Lindall (Community Development/Planning):** Uh, mayor, members of the council, as you uh mentioned, this is a second reading of uh an ordinance to amend uh to actually repeal uh uh amend and replace the city's uh development regulations. Um just by way of some quick background and review here from the first uh reading um we're really focused on in this in this update on implementing the project goals which included implementing the comprehensive plan standards uh protecting and strategically growing uh White Bear Lake. Um supporting economic development within the community. um increasing housing choices um transitioning to more of a placed-based zoning again protecting uh what's unique about White Bear Lake and then uh creating a modern user-friendly and well-illustrated code. Um just again to remind um everyone who's listening, the scope of the project again is to repeal, amend, and replace certain sections of the code, including uh 1202 signs, article 13 zoning, and article 14 subdivision. Um and those are reworked uh for the most part. Um and uh just just a small note there, there are shoreland flood plane and wetland regulations that are currently embedded within the zoning code and we're pulling those out into their own section uh and a new article 15 natural resources protections. And then the most notable changes are within the article 13 zoning and our uh we went into detail of these really 11 uh items in more detail during the first reading. Um part of the new text that goes along with the zoning code is a new map that includes um uh mixed use zones, residential zones, and special purpose zones. Again, we went into a lot more detail about these during the first reading and the uh planning commission public hearing. Um we also covered the project phases. You may remember uh this is you know about 22 month long project here was divided into four phases. Discovery and direction. Initial draft of the code was really the biggest middle section of the code. Public review and then now we're in uh phase four here adoption. Um and uh the bullet points below uh highlight the the meetings and um public engagement that happened throughout those four stages. So really uh the review process again that we're just highlighting here is that during that um initial draft section that I just said this or phase two um the community advisory committee had eight meetings to review really you know roll up their sleeves really review each section of the code and uh provide comments back to staff then to adjust the code as we were drafting it. The planning commission just last month on June 30th held the required public hearing um recommended approval 6 to 1 with uh one recommended amendment uh to have an an ownership requirement for accessory dwelling units. And then uh just at your last city council meeting uh you held the first reading for this back on July 8th. Um and during that staff heard direction uh from the council to follow the lead of the planning commission and put an ownership requirement in for ADUs. Um also uh you directed staff to look at the time uh notification period for administrative adjustment and uh adjust that to from just a general 10 days to 10 business days. And then we also talked about removing the administrative site plan review process. Um text reflecting uh those proposed changes is included in your packet. So that brings us to the second reading at tonight's meeting. Um again just to highlight um some slides you may remember seeing uh directed or related to um the sections of the code where uh the council had conversation and made some directions to staff. Um the previous version of the slide you saw last time that last bullet point said or occupancy and then said not required. Again, in this point, we're crossing that out. And so, that language now is included uh that there is a requirement for either the principal use or the accessory unit. Um the administrative adjustment, again, the cloud here on the right side of the screen, second bullet point down again highlights that we've changed this to 10 business days for administrative adjustment notification. And then the procedure section as well. Uh this slide used to contain um further information below this that uh distinguished between um a major site plan that would reviewed by the planning commission and council um with an administrative site plan that just could be reviewed by staff and now you'll note in that box the procedure is reviewed by planning commission and city council final decision on all site plans. Um there was um significant discussion in the first meeting about short-term rentals and um whether they're permitted or conditional uses in various zones and some of the um licensing requirements that may go along with that. So um while there was no uh consensus or direction to staff, staff again has the slide here and is prepared to um give feedback on that discussion. Um again uh there was conversation regarding electric vehicle charging requirements. Um and uh we can go into um the recommended uh uh standards within the code here if the council wishes to discuss that also. So really the discussion items um that staff took note of during the first reading were again that's accessory dwelling units and that ownership requirement which has already been incorporated um into the draft language included in your packet. The procedural changes again related to administrative adjustments and notification of business days and the administrative site plan being removed. And then uh other discussion that the council had but didn't have uh uh consensus direction on short-term rentals and EV charging. And then of course any other discussion items that the council should uh want to uh uh go over with staff here. Um and then I would just like to mention u kind of one last time the planning commission I think did a good job this. The council did a good job of this during the first reading. But just as the lead staff person, I would like to give one more acknowledgement uh to thank all of the members of the community advisory committee who gave uh you know their time um and really you know rolled up their sleeves and went into the details with staff um you know and those members include uh council members Edberg and Walsh who are here tonight, planning commissioners uh Jim Barry and uh Ken Ballzer um and then uh EDC member and county road corridor study uh member Jan Johnson. Uh Sarah Marco Hansen of the White Bear Lake Historical Society, Chris F, the environmental advisory board and also served in the housing task force. Uh Shannon Hannifeld Lee from the performing arts center and also served on the arts cultural and education uh study area for that um the arts district area of town. Mike Greenbaum from New Tracks who helped us uh and brought transportation expertise uh to the conversation and then Norah Slavic uh who uh represented uh interests of the Century College area of town. So, so um and then also the community development staff who um spent a lot of time um working with our consultant and and all the members of this uh advisory committee and um um really coming up with what we feel is a really great document. um and has will um um you know move significantly moves forward the the planning and zoning process in White Bear. So with that, um staff has two recommended uh actions for the council after conducting the first reading. Motion to adopt an ordinance to repeal, amend, and replace the development regulations for the city. And then after adoption of the ordinance, motion to adopt a resolution approving publication of the ordinance by title and summary. And with that, staff would stand for questions. **[55:43] Mayor:** Very good. Thank you, Mr. Lindall. I'll echo the thank yous that that you mentioned for many many people from various parts of the community uh business and and residents u council members. I also want to thank you Mr. Lindall uh who worked very hard on this. I know this is a huge project and you had help with your department but uh you were leading the effort. So thank you. I think we arrived at a product that we're pretty close. We're going to fine-tune a couple of things but thank you again for all your efforts. All right. So, with that, um, if there are any clarifying questions, we can ask them at some point. We can do it now or you can ask questions. I think we've got a couple that Mr. Lindall noted. The EV charging, short-term rentals. If there are any other specific items that members of the council want to address just so we have some order to this, um, I think we should generate that list, take them one at a time. I had those two noted as well. Short-term rentals, EV charging, um, bike racks came up at at one point. I didn't have that specifically on my list. Are there any others right now that we just want to throw out to compile a list? Council member Edberg. **[56:45] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, just yesterday, I received a communication from a business owner in town who owns a cannabis manufacturing uh facility. It's not it's not retail. It's not public use. It's manufacturing. I didn't understand all of his concerns. I forwarded it to Mr. Lindall. I don't know if you've had time to understand it. That to the best of my knowledge that um he has a an existing location that is eligible and and licensed under the current under his current site, but it puts him at a disadvantage because another part of the regulation prohibits him from doing some manufacturing on that site and that puts him at a competitive. So, I'll flag that. I don't know that we need to do anything because I don't under I didn't understand it. He's not my constituent. Um, so I don't know what to do with that, but I want to flag it and say this popped up and it's worthy of mentioning and if we can come back and deal with it later, fine. As an amendment to the amended code or something um or at least a discussion about whether we might amend the amended code, I don't know. But I just— **[57:57] Mayor:** Sure. Sure. And we can add it to the list. I I don't know anything about it and I don't have any concerns. I think we thoughtfully went through that. Admittedly, as a council, we focused on retail, and there are lots of other um points within that stream of commerce outside of retail. Um I'll I'll put it on my list and we can we can circle back. Uh thank you if needed. Uh Council Member Walsh. **[58:21] Council Member Walsh:** Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have some comments on building height. I don't know that we need to make a—I don't know that it's a discussion point for everybody else, but uh I haven't been involved in that discussion. I missed a work session and a meeting twice where that was uh discussed. So I have some comments on that. I don't think it qualifies for topic. **[58:41] Mayor:** All right. Short-term rentals, EV charging, cannabis manufacturing, building height. Anything else anyone would like to add? All right, let's jump into short-term rentals because I think that's a big one. Um I'll tee it up as best I can. I thought we had a good discussion. I don't think anybody had a a great solution except to say that we we do need to as best we can get this right. That there was some legitimate concerns about what unintended consequences could be given that we are a lake community with desirable real estate along the lake and it's ripe for Airbnbs and VRBOs. Uh so we had—Mr. Lindall, you can give a little a little more color, but we were talking about is it a permitted use versus a conditional use. What are some of the tools and instruments that we have as a council or as staff to regulate that or police bad behavior? Um, so maybe I think a primer for all of us kind of where we stand right now, where we could go, help steer us a little bit. **[59:50] Mr. Lindall:** Yeah. Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. So, I guess I would start off with just two kind of context uh statements. Um first of all, um short-term rentals are relatively speaking a new use. So, our current code doesn't address them. Okay? So part of the modernization standpoint or project goal that we had was to include new things that have popped up in the economy that didn't exist before. And so that's really the emphasis—the reason that we addressed uh or brought in or are s recommending bringing in short-term rentals as new use. Um the second thing is um we don't have any data related to short-term rentals um to share with you about their presence within the community. And I think part of that a big part of that reflects the fact that they don't seem to be an issue in White Bear Lake currently. Um, we do not—I can't point to any complaints specifically related to a short-term rental use within the community. Um, and so just with that context, we presented or or are recommending a series of standards for short-term rentals. Um that includes establishing the use as either a permitted use as you can see on the screen here um the lowest line on this chart on this slide um as a conditional use in uh the—which is the clear circle in this chart—in the GXN neighborhood, the R1 and then the R2. The R1 which is—excuse me—the island neighborhood and then the R2 to A, B, and C which are the—the R2 are all the lakeside zones within the community. Okay. Um and then in the balance of the mixed use zones um the MX GX um um zones that you see there in the left side of the chart you'll see that there are either a solid bubble which indicates it's a permitted use or a bubble that has uh you know the half—the top half of it full—which indicates it's a permitted use on upper floors not lower floors. And so, um, and then you'll see that in the R3, R4, and R5, it's simply a, uh, permitted use. And so, uh, just as kind of a a a little bit again of context to how we came upon a recommendation for either a permitted use or a conditional use, we started from the context of looking at um really trying to establish minimum regulations, establishing the term um what that is, you know, less than 30 days um and uh the standards that go along with them that are here listed on this slide. Um and treating them really similarly to um how the city has uh regulated um traditional rental uses. So predominantly throughout the city uh that was the approach that was used. Um, now taking a closer look at the lakeside neighborhoods or the area, you know, the GX neighborhood, which would be, you know, allow some mix of uses and some higher densities on the edges of residential areas. um um were we recommended that they be considered as a conditional use primarily because of their um really adjacency to um the lake within the community. We anticipated that they would be um more common in those areas because that's an important draw we think to this kind of use and that they then because they would be more frequent in those areas, we think that they would actually also probably be more intense than a typical—a typical um short-term rental use that may just be in a neighborhood. So the frequency and and intensity of those activities and and we looked at it from the perspective of the lake being a signature feature within White Bear Lake from both an economic development uh standpoint and an environmental standpoint. and you know coming to the conclusion that based on those factors there could there could be a need for additional regulation related to those um areas of the community. Um and so that really gets—that's really the background and context of how we set up the standards the way we have. Um, and you know, I guess with that point, I'd stand for questions and try to maybe fill in any comments that the council may have. **[1:05:18] Mayor:** Well, I'll just offer a couple comments. I I grappled with this—it came up at the planning commission meeting. A member of the public kind of question why there's a distinction between the R2 and R1, but really R2 and everybody else. And I kind of went back and forth and had to think about it. I I think I've landed on there is a need and here's how I view that. There is the possibility or maybe even the current reality—we just don't know fully about it—that there are inroads being made by investors to lakefront property because there is an opportunity to make some significant money um renting out your lakefront property a week at a time during the prime season months for a lot of money each week. And as a community do we think that's something we don't want to encourage—we want to regulate—we want to make sure we don't turn into—I said at the last meeting—Gull Lake or Crosslake where that is ripe with VRBOs and Airbnbs. And I think we do. And I approach it and look at it through the lens of we are a community, not a resort town, not up north. We want people to be long-term owners. There's a certain level of pride of ownership and maintenance and connection to the community that we historically have had and I think want to maintain. So I I guess I'm ultimately okay with that distinction for that reason for fear of lake properties turning into an investment opportunity and vehicle which only drives the price of already expensive lake properties for folks that maybe want to live there, raise a family, all those good things. And I don't think we have that that risk for just any other single family home in White Bear. There could be some because I think it there's probably opportunities for people that want to just be in the downtown area. But from a public policy standpoint, I don't think we have that same concern. Therefore, I am okay with having that distinction. What it looks like, I'm open to, you know, further conversation from the council. I will say this because we don't know—whatever we pass tonight, it's to a certain degree going to be somewhat of an experiment. We pass it, we wait and see. Are there problems? How do we react? And when it comes to land use issues and and sometimes being stuck in being grandfathered in and having problems with that, I I would err on the side of caution and say, "Let's walk before we run." Um, and air on the side of being wanting to regulate this more and then we can always let a little steam out of the pot and and deregulate if we don't think there's going to be as much of an issue. But I think the overarching concern for how this can fundamentally change a community, particularly the lakeshore properties, we need to we need to treat it carefully. So—any other—Council member West? **[1:08:12] Council Member West:** Um yeah, I still have um questions about what this can look like and I'm wondering um if you can talk a little bit about conditional use permits. um what kind of permanence they have, legal permanence they have, and what if anything we can do as far as making licensing stricter or not to to kind of manage sort of, you know, the concerns that we have about this happening. **[1:08:46] Mr. Lindall:** Mayor, members of the council, I'll start off by kind of talking about the licensing requirement. I'm glad uh that you brought that up because I don't feel like I highlighted that enough kind of in my context remarks. Um so what staff does anticipate and is noted on the slide here kind of in that last bullet point is should the council choose to adopt these standards, the next step would be to establish a licensing process. Um we would look, you know, kind of as to start with a model with our current rental licensing process and then, you know, do some um research with other communities and what's been working for them and other uh issues that may arise—their licensing process—and then bring that information back to the council uh for a public hearing and review and then consideration before the council. Um, I I'll defer to the city attorney maybe to give you a little bit more context about the conditional use permit process and its relationship related to um entitlement of a permitted use and that kind of thing if I understand your question correctly. **[1:10:00] Mr. Anderson:** Yeah. So, well, I mean, it it would be interesting to me, and I'm not sure necessary, to require both a conditional use permit and a license. Um, keep in mind, conditional use permits—that's a zoning tool. You have to come go through the planning commission, the public hearing, and the council in order to get a conditional use permit. But when the council is reviewing and potentially approving that type of permit, it's a quasi-judicial review, which means if you apply the standards in your code and the property owner shows that they meet those standards, you can't really say no. Um some of the standards there's some gray area about public health safety, those kinds of things. But generally speaking, you're supposed to sort of apply the rules to the permit or to the conditional use permit application and approve it if if they, you know, fit within those rules. Um but those run with the property and a conditional use permit in the sense of short-term rentals doesn't to me make a lot of sense because maybe the owner of a property today wants to do that. But you record a conditional use permit when they sell that single family home. The predecessor—then—excuse me—the person who purchases the property will have the right to continue doing that but they might have no interest in that. And so, you know, to me, if the council is interested in allowing short-term rentals, um, you know, I think the way to do it would be, you know, to Jason's point of sort of modernizing the code, you add a definition of what that is to your city code, which we're proposing to do. You make it permitted in whatever districts you think it should be permitted in and then you impose whatever restrictions you want to include as part of the licensing scheme and program. If somebody violates the licensing requirements, you yank their license just like you would a rental license. Um, and then they don't have the right to continue using it for a short-term rental. Um, I understand sort of the difference between certain neighborhoods and wanting to be protective around the lake, but I think you can achieve that protection um through licensing just as well as you can through a conditional use permit. And to do—to require both seems a little um, you know, redundant or it's almost like you're layering approvals or permits onto a use that might not necessarily require it. And then keep in mind um with zoning things like CUPs is uh you get the you get the whole grandfathering issue. You can always change licensing and rules around licensing because that's more of a police power, a public health safety welfare power that the city has. That's not in your zoning code. Um when it comes to zoning, you have less ability to change the rules on people and say, "Well, now you need a CUP. Now you don't. Now, we have additional requirements or conditions for a CUP, but if they were able to get in under the deadline, they don't have to comply with those things." And so, um I I don't think what what's proposed here is wrong. I think it just could be redundant and may not be necessary to accomplish the city's goals. Um, the good news, and I promise everyone this is really good news, we're not having this discussion because we have people in here pissed off about short-term rentals and, you know, slamming their hands on the... I mean, I've seen that happen and it's not fun. We're having this discussion proactively, which is really good. Um, so, you know, if we can get it right the first time, great. But if not, to the mayor's point, we can always make changes and tweaks and come back and and do things. But um I guess that's my my thoughts on this the whole CUP versus licensing. I think licensing is important. Um I'll leave it at that. **[1:13:53] Mayor:** All right. So let me unpack that a little bit because I I think that's helpful. Help helps clarify it in my mind. What what I want to do is have as much operational flexibility for staff and as a city to pivot if things get out of hand. And as I'm hearing this, it sounds like we, unless we're prepared to say we're going to outright prohibit it through the zoning code, we just simply don't address it, we adopt a licensing structure to put whatever restrictions on it we'd like. And that can be a very fluid thing and therefore it's never going to run with the land. Because as you're talking that through, I'm thinking a CUP... All right. So someone for whatever reason decides they live on the lake—they get a CUP—that incentivizes investors to come in. You already have it. You can you can take it over by right. Versus a permit is—well ownership changes, you need to reapply. And as long as we can twist the dial in either direction for our licensing structure which is very fluid, that's how we that's how we control it. And I think that gives us the ability to address any concerns as we wait and see whether or not there is a thing here to be concerned about. I know there's a potential and I have I have received emails for people that are concerned and there are people that live on the lake that don't want it to turn into uh you know a stretch of hotels, short-term hotels, which I can understand because these are their homes. These are where they raise their children. This is where they cut their own grass. That's our community. So I'm I'm leaning towards that. Um, and then we very quickly and in short order get to work on what that licensing structure looks like. Perhaps it's a work session, but we really get some more research on what does that look like to fulfill this policy intent of let's walk before we run. And we can put anything we want. We can we can define short-term rental is 30 days, two weeks. I mean, we have that flexibility to decide what we want to do. **[1:16:00] Mr. Anderson:** Generally, yes. Um, you know, I I'd point out that there there is litigation ongoing right now. There are two cities, Apple Valley and Bloomington. Both are being sued for prohibiting short-term rentals, and that's rentals of a period of less than 30 days. Um, I don't necessarily agree with that lawsuit, but I guess I say that to just point out that these are under a microscope right now, and there'll be some answers that we learn over the course of the next few months or years about um these prohibitions. But generally speaking, I mean, if the city wants to prohibit short-term rentals, I take the position that it can. Um, I also take the position that technically because they're not listed as a permitted use right now, they're not permitted in the city, although they're unregulated. Um, and the reason that's an important distinction to make is because if we were to implement rules right now prohibiting them, I wouldn't want someone to say, "Well, I've been doing this and I'm grandfathered in and it's illegal non-conforming use." Well, I would say that's not true because it's not defined in the code. It's not allowed anywhere and by default, if it's not expressly permitted, it is a prohibited use from a zoning perspective. Um, and this is not a single family use. This is different from someone who wants to live in the home with their family or as a single family use or someone who wants to rent their home to somebody who wants to do the same thing or a family who wants to do the same thing. From a land use and a zoning perspective, short-term rentals is a different—has a different impact on the neighbors, the community. Um, and that's why I think it's important to point that out. uh just from a overarching um what our code says today and what it doesn't say today. It's important to draw that line in the sand. Um but generally speaking, mayor, yes, I mean, I think there are ways to define that. There are cities who prohibit it outright. There are cities who limit it. There are cities that say you have to do it for at least five days because they don't want the the weekend warriors or the bachelor parties or you know those kinds of things coming in for two nights and um being disruptive and then and then taking off. But um you know I I want to say that the best way to do it would be to package something together for the council in terms of a zoning and a licensing ordinance at the same time just so there's not some weird overlap. you know, you say they're permitted and then later we get licensing in place and we're kind of pulling the sheet out from underneath people or changing the rules. Not to say that doesn't work or we can't do it. I just think it sort of is messier and maybe sends kind of a confusing message to those who want to do this. Um, just kind of thinking through this now in what I'm hearing, that's one thought. um whether the council has an interest in in, you know, taking out everything with respect to short-term rentals just for now and then bringing back kind of a more complete package um as an ordinance amending both the zoning code and the licensing provisions. Maybe that's the way to do it. Um, I realize that's kind of a pivot from where we were all at going into the evening, but um, you know, I want to I want to preserve our ability to enforce this stuff. And that might be the best, now that I think about it, one of the best ways to to move forward and not, you know, ignore the fact that we're trying to update our comprehensive zoning code tonight. Right. That's all. **[1:19:29] Council Member Edberg:** this has been a a fine conversation. Mayor, city attorney, I appreciate both of your comments. Um, let me regurgitate that back to make sure I've captured it because I've tried to spend a lot of time thinking about this. I've had—not a lot, but a couple—of citizens who have had modestly long conversations on on this topic. So, if I'm interpreting the conversation correctly, we would not address as conditional use. I came into this meeting saying I think we ought to have higher levels of regulation and that that would be a conditional use. But listening to this discussion, I'm hearing no, we might not want to use a conditional use because that goes with the land and it's permanent. we may want to go with a licensing approach only. Um, and to achieve that, we would strip the short-term rental conditional use language out of the code and make one comprehensive change because right now it is it's not a permitted use. it's not—I believe it's because it's unregulated—and so the new regulations would accomplish that and our job then would focus on crafting regulations in the licensing code to address—to to address whatever end results that we we think we agree that we want. Am I capturing that correctly? **[1:21:14] Mr. Anderson:** Generally, yes. I think—I don't know if this is what what you intended to say, but I mean I would say don't just take out the CUP. I would say take out all references to short-term rentals from this zoning amendment so that there's no suggestion indication or right expressive expressed right in the code to do this until we sort of bring back that more comprehensive ordinance. **[1:21:43] Council Member Edberg:** And the option that that creates for us then is that that gives us the strongest set of tool durable tools to create whatever um behavioral and regulatory structures that we expectations that we have for those that might seek to have a short-term rental property in the city. it's the most powerful approach. **[1:22:06] Mayor:** So, let's just pause there for a second and clarify. If we scrape out all mention of short-term rentals within the the new zoning code that we would like to adopt tonight, we scrape it out. Is the legal position—legal status—of short-term rentals then just as it was as if we hadn't passed the new zoning ordinance? It is still unregulated, so we have no issues of conferring special rights. and then we can we can take up um a licensing structure with that. So I want to get the nomenclature right with permitted use versus licensing. So how do those interact? We have a license but—do we even need to address that within the zoning code? **[1:22:52] Mr. Anderson:** I would say yes because eventually we'll want to specifically say in the zoning code this is this is what short-term rentals are and they are either permitted or not permitted. U and the reason for that goes back to my original point of if you just leave it alone, it's sort of in this middle area or unknown area of well, we don't say anything about it. So, is it permitted? Is it is it okay for people to do this? And by sort of planting our flag in the ground at some point and defining it in the zoning code and saying it's permitted subject to licensing in a different chapter or code, you're then saying effectively yes, you can do this. It's subject to licensing, but if you weren't doing this before, we didn't ever tell you you could do it. And it it kind of again draws that line in the sand or creates a an expectation that um it's not that we told you you could do it or you had the right to do it. It's just you were doing it and we didn't have anything addressing it. Because again, I think if we don't say anything in our zoning code, there's always an ability for us to say, not only in the short-term rental case, but with any use that isn't expressly defined or mentioned in the code, we always want to be able to say, well, if it's not in there, it's not permitted. That's always a nice fallback to have from a planning perspective. Um, I hope that makes sense, but it does. Yeah. Um, it's hard to articulate. **[1:24:15] Mayor:** No, that's helpful. I mean, I just I just want to make sure procedurally we're getting this right. I I don't want to unnecessarily rush it because whether it takes a couple couple extra weeks or another month, who cares? Um, but I do want I would like to move this forward tonight if we have a way a way to do it and it sounds like we do if that's the desire of the council is to take this up. So, as we're thinking this through before before we have any further discussion or vote whether we want to do this to the current proposal, how long do we think it would take to get um a proposed license structure before the council to adopt? **[1:24:53] Mr. Lindall:** Um well, um mayor, members of the council, I I guess to answer your question first, um I would say, you know, the end of the year at the outset—90 days maybe on the inside track—um to to come up with research licensing standards and have a new package for you with with both land use—similar standards that we have here—but um more specific licensing standards. Um and then I I guess what I would just say is I I certainly understand the the kind of direction it seems like we're going here right now and um I was just going to offer as a context that the plan that the council may be more familiar with. This would be really more analogous to how we the city addressed tobacco shops when we didn't define that use and we came through with standards for those related to land use and licensing and um cannabis quite honestly when we looked at that as a specific use that we didn't have before because it didn't exist and we brought forward to you a land use package and a licensing package at the same time. So um I would just say it would it would operate almost identical to that process coming through planning commission initially for land use and then to the council for both land use and licensing. **[1:26:08] Council Member Walsh:** Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm I'm a little confused. The what's in front of us now—there's a bullet point list of what look like conditions, regulations, suggestions for for short-term rentals. Is that in this—that's in front of us now? And then the last one says short-term rental license required. So what was the assumption before this conversation—that if we pass this that they would go put together a short-term license—rental license structure? **[1:26:53] Mayor:** Yes. **[1:26:54] Council Member Walsh:** So what—I'm missing something. What—now you're talking about doing that plus the license? **[1:26:59] Mayor:** What's different is if we put that in there and confer certain rights that you can have a short-term rental by way of a conditional use permit... Well, hold on a second. Help me out. That's that's the structure that's in the proposal by conditional use permit, right? **[1:27:12] Mr. Lindall:** For for some—it's— **[1:27:12] Council Member Walsh:** Wait, can can you tell me where that is? I'm in 1305, but I can't find it. Is it not in 1305? **[1:27:18] Mr. Lindall:** So, um, mayor, members of the council, so the the the chart you see 1305-1 is really an excerpt or just a small portion of the overall land use permitted uses table. Okay. Um, and so on that list, there are numerous uses. I've got it in front of me. And then and then we just carved out lodging and then short-term rentals under— **[1:27:46] Council Member Walsh:** Where's the language? Where's— **[1:27:47] Mr. Lindall:** So the language is then in the supplemental regulations um that are part of of 1305 or chapter 5 within article 13. And you notice on the far side of the chart that's up in front of you where it says use specific regulations 1305.04.7. And those uses... So, this table is designed for a user to be able to use that as a hot link that takes them to that section of the ordinance or any user to just know they can refer to that section. **[1:28:15] Council Member Walsh:** Thank you. **[1:28:15] Mr. Lindall:** And the standards that are, you know, basically bullet-pointed and and shortened are listed more in more detail in that 1305.04 0.7. **[1:28:30] Council Member Walsh:** But the assumption is this is a conditional use. That's how we came in here today for a few different zones. Only for a few different zones. Majority of those zones would be on the lakeside property. **[1:28:42] Mr. Lindall:** The council's been saying tonight that perhaps that isn't the best idea and perhaps it would be best to pull out this completely from this draft. re—take a breath, revisit this, and bring back short-term rental zoning and a licensing structure at the same time in the near future. And just maybe just as one more point of clarification, if I can paraphrase what I think the main point from the city attorney was, and I'll let him correct me if I get this wrong, is his suggestion is that the most effective regulating tool for short-term rentals is really the licensing component. Because we're really looking at addressing concerns that are more related to the operation of these uses. We'll still need to define from the council's perspective what zones you want to allow this within and whether there are permitted or conditional use. Um but we would focus on—the primary regulatory tool would really be that licensing component and addressing those potential operational concerns. And I completely understand that from a staff's perspective. That makes a lot of sense to me. **[1:30:19] Mayor:** All right, let's just keep going down the rabbit hole because I got a clarifying question on the permitted use. Can we have a bifurcated permitted use? Meaning there's not two different—we don't stratify it with different zoning—but you have a permitted use for a certain permit for R1, R2, and a different permit for R3, R4, or R5. Can we do that? **[1:30:41] Mr. Anderson:** Permitted as in—So permitted use just means of right. If I own property, I can use my property for that specific use. That's what the idea of a permitted use is, right? Subject to a license, though, in this case. **[1:31:00] Mayor:** So, let me rephrase it differently. You can have a different license criteria and structure based on different areas in your zoning code. **[1:31:06] Mr. Anderson:** I think you can. I mean generally the license—if you can come up with provisions in your licensing that aren't you know arbitrary, capricious, problematic and you have some rational basis and public health safety welfare concern and rationale for it, then I think you can do it. Um, so you know, if you see a, for example, you want any lakeside or certain districts that are maybe closer to or on the lake to be subject to different licensing conditions and you can articulate why that is. Um, then I think that's fair game. You can certainly do that. Um, you know, I still think if if we do it this way, so the goal then would be we adopt a whole new zoning code still tonight, but from the short-term rental perspective, the status quo would not change. We're not going to be if we move ahead in the way we're talking about now, we would it would be the same tomorrow or when this gets published as it as it is now, which I think is fine. And it would give staff the ability to sort of walk through what I think is a pretty important sub part or set of provisions in your code here that it would allow the council to sort of think about this not necessarily in the context of the entire zoning code which is a lot—but rather you can focus on it. It's going to require another public hearing. Um, I would encourage, highly encourage the city to run the public hearing, run both licensing and zoning together, just out of an abundance of caution. And why not? I mean, I think we get more feedback and that would be helpful for everybody. If we're already having a public hearing for the zoning piece, why not bring the licensing in, too? Um, and you know, then it would really allow I think everybody to sort of sharpen your pencils and decide what what you want to allow, what you don't want to allow, and and do it in a more—I don't know—appropriate way, I guess. I don't know because because again, I don't want to say this was just thrown into the zoning code as part of a huge change, but this zoning code is a lot to bite off and chew for the council, and that's an understatement. And so, incorporating these new kind of global changes is difficult to to do as part of that process, although everyone's been doing a really good job and I commend staff and the committees for it. **[1:33:31] Council Member Walsh:** Yeah. And in fairness, I just don't think we've ever really aired out this topic. We've talked more broadly about the zoning code. Now, we've drilled down. We're at the finish line and we're saying, "Hey, this particular discreet part of the zoning code is not quite ripe yet. We have some concerns." Um, so it makes sense. I support that. That's fine. We can pull it out, take more time, bring it back later. I have no problem with that. I'm just—Can someone just help me understand how to read this new document then because I even sat on the committee to put it together? And you're saying that—it looks to me when I look at that 1305.040.7 lodging, you know, examples of something short-term rental, you know, that... and it's this what's repeated on the screen. It looks to me like it's a permitted use. where—how do I know that that requires a conditional use permit or process? It doesn't say here anywhere that you you can do this, but you have to go through a process. **[1:34:39] Mr. Lindall:** mayor, members of the council, that's really a great question. I think that's an important clarifying one to even people who may be watching in this at home. Um, so the way the zoning ordinance is structured is the use table that you see the excerpt of on this page details whether or not it's a permitted use, a conditional use and whether or not—and so I'm sorry, solid dots indicate a permitted use. Open dots indicate um a conditional use. the dot in this table that has the upper half of it filled indicates a permitted use but only allowed on the upper floors. And unfortunately again—you know—staff didn't include the description of what I just told you about what the bubbles mean is included as a footnote in the bottom of the table in the overall code. So it's very clear at the bottom of the table in the full code and just apologies from staff's perspective, we didn't include that information on the slide that's before you. So apologies for that. **[1:35:36] Council Member Walsh:** But if it's—but if it's a solid dot, there's several solid dots for different zones. It's permitted use. So where does the conditional use come in? **[1:35:50] Mr. Lindall:** So, the conditional use then comes in on that short-term rental line that you're looking at on this table in the GX zones, the R1 zone, and the R2, A, B, and C zone. **[1:35:58] Council Member Walsh:** So, it's not necessarily a conditional use. Sometimes it's a permitted use or use under these circumstances with the license we're going to put together. Sometimes it's conditional. Okay. So, I'm not—I'm just trying to understand why is it—Good question. I hope that's clarifying for—it's not a conditional use for for many of these zones. It's just permitted. Just—it's allowed follow the regulations. But having all said all that, thank you for helping me re-understand how to read this document because we're going to be living in it for years. Uh but I—if you want to pull this out, I fully support that. That's that's—we can take more time on. **[1:36:52] Mayor:** So I think what we're talking about is—we call for and we can have more discussion—I'd entertain a motion to amend the proposal before us to remove any mention of short-term rentals such that it maintains the status quo as an unregulated portion of the zoning code as it has prior to tonight. **[1:37:11] Council Member Edberg:** So moved. **[1:37:13] Council Member:** Second. **[1:37:14] Mayor:** All right. Any further discussion on that? Council member Edberg. **[1:37:18] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to probe and make sure I understand distinctions around our ability to prohibit in one or all or some uh zones um and understand the impact if any of uh existing short-term rental operators and the concept of grandfathering. Mr. City attorney, if I understood you correctly, your counsel to us is it's possible if we desired, we have the option to prohibit. There is current cases being adjudicated that may affect that decision. Uh but at least for now, if we wanted to—that's—and I'm not saying I want to go there, but I want to know the the kind of the breadth of the tools that we have. We could prohibit short-term rentals entirely when we redo the zoning and licensing categories. Is that correct? **[1:38:08] Mr. Anderson:** As of today, yes, there is an ability to do that. Um but like I said, there's it's kind of a a changing landscape and we're sort of keeping our eye on things. You could certainly do that if that was the council's desire. **[1:38:26] Council Member Edberg:** Okay. Thank you. Tool in the toolkit. Second one, for those individuals who have stepped into the unregulated zone, what is the impact? How should—what would you counsel us to be thinking about as it pertains to those businesses, those individuals, those properties, etc. Uh, we don't know where they are. We don't have a—we could go online and find a few of them but it's like we don't have much data much specific knowledge. I'm hearing there is no grandfathering. There's no right to continue that business unless we create that right in our licensing. **[1:39:13] Mr. Anderson:** That's my legal opinion. Yeah. I mean, I I I'm not aware of of any particular properties causing concerns or um you know, we're generally a complaint-based city when it comes to enforcement. Um, so I I don't think anything necessarily needs to change right now other than as we proceed down this path um to come up with more concrete rules and regulations moving forward and then communicate to everybody, not just people who might be doing this, but people who might want to do this or sell their property to people who might want to do it. Um, I I I think most importantly, it should not be communicated that they have the lawful right to do this. I think it I think if anything it should be known that this is currently not permitted. It's not expressly permitted by the code. Um and beyond rental licensing which the city does for all rentals whether short or long term—but we don't you know I don't think there's a distinction on an application form about whether they're doing it for 5 days or whether they're doing it for five months or five years um to maintain the status quo and not misinform people. But there's nothing I don't think that we proactively need to be doing about things unless and until they become a problem and there's an enforcement issue. **[1:40:20] Council Member Edberg:** So I like that and I appreciate the guidance and the the conversation that's taking us here. Um it appeals to me when it comes time for us to have the conversation about what restrictions do we wish to take. The thing I would note is that as we've applied these to the new R2 zone that the the way the houses and the properties sit and interact with their neighbors are different in different parts of the R2 of the R2 zone. Um in some places lakeshore areas and backyards are very narrow and they're operated in common. you know there there's by understanding by mutual agreement they they are treated differently than some other areas in the R2 where the nature of the lake—the size—the size of the lake shore on the lot etc. are different and they create perhaps different ways of thinking about um what's good for that neighborhood and so we can address that when we come to that. And then just as a procedural question. So we have a motion—is it sufficient—is the motion that we pass sufficient to strike out all of the or make it clear that we are eliminating or our intent to eliminate all reference to the legitimacy of short-term rentals in this draft code? because that's important to me. two things that—one—that's how I heard it. So I think that's going to let us dispose of this issue and move on to the ultimate goal of I think adopting an ordinance. I I would also like the motion to adopt the ordinance eventually to clarify that we're incorporating the prior discussion and decisions from the city council so that when Exhibit A, this 300-400 page zoning code gets actually finalized and incorporated into your ordinance that they know what to take out and it's very clear that that's not in there. Hopefully that answers that question. **[1:42:47] Council Member Edberg:** Yes. Thank you. **[1:42:48] Mayor:** Okay. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. The proposal is amended. Subject to ultimate adoption if the council so chooses to do so. All right. Couple more items on the list. Let's jump into the EV charging requirements. Um I think Mr. Lindall kind of teed that up. I'll just recap. I know others have thoughts, but here's here's my position on that. I really don't care whether you think EVs are the greatest thing since sliced bread or you hate them. This is a role of city government and whether or not we need to encourage EV charging in buildings where there's going to be 30 parking spaces or more. I think any smart developer that came in is going to put probably more EV chargers in and we don't need to tell them to do so. And if 10 years from now or 15 years from now, the the market shifts and EVs go away or they're 50% of the the mix of vehicles, then our mandate's going to fall by the wayside and they're going to have to go well beyond that. So, this is just a fundamental role of government and what what we should be putting in our zoning code. I frankly take no position on EVs whatsoever really within the context of the zoning code. I don't like the mandate. I think it's unnecessary. I think it's bad public policy and for that reason I would encourage the council to remove the EV mandate as proposed and I assume there's some opinions on that. So, Council Member West. **[1:44:28] Council Member West:** You assume correctly. Um, so it's interesting to me that you're saying that we shouldn't mandate the EV chargers. um when it's bad policy when we were just talking about the ability to change our policies if needed. So I just kind of think of this... So to me EV chargers are a good idea. we, you know, there are folks that are going to have likely um electric vehicles or needing to be plugged in um who are moving into these places and they have—I mean we literally um removed the ability to have even one in front of the city hall here not too long ago. Um so there's like very few places for them to go to plug in. So if you want to do that, you would do that in your home. And if they're living in an apartment building, then it would be a developer that would be putting that in who puts together that apartment building. So, I think it's really important that we do that um and make sure that that is available because it's much more expensive to do it after the fact and you know, literally have talked to people who own um EVs that are really encouraging um this in the apartments, the multi-family housing. Um and I think again if it if it becomes an issue where oh it's not needed and all of that then the developers can just tell us—like—that is not something that is um that is needed right now. Um there aren't as many EVs now—like—can you change this and and then we can take another look at it. But I think right now um you know uh there was a comment about where well we're not requiring gas stations um to be in the apartment buildings either and and that's pretty much because we have them on almost every corner. Um but we don't have the chargers there. So I would suggest that we keep it in. **[1:46:21] Council Member Walsh:** Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. don't have much to add to what you said, but it's it's sort of this—it's like they're awesome. They're going to be everywhere, but we have to mandate all these things. And that's that's been the history of a lot of this technology is that it's going to be great. It's going to be cheaper. It's going to be—the market's going to take off, but government has to supplement, mandate, uh do tax credits, you know, to encourage it, encourage it, encourage it. Well, both both aren't true. If they're going to be awesome, the market will come in. We'll sell millions of them. Um, apartment buildings will put them in because they're awesome and everybody has them and their their residents will require them. They'll ask for them. I live in an apartment building. There's a few of them in my apartment building. We didn't tell them they had to do that. They just did that. So, uh, I think you're right. It's like—why would we tell why would we restrict it? Um, and I also really think people need to look carefully at this particular technology. Um, I think there's this assumption that they're going to be everywhere and and there there are huge problems with the growth in this industry as it exists right now and it's in minerals. Um, and we don't have the minerals worldwide, globally or certainly not in the state of Minnesota to have everybody driving uh electric vehicles anytime soon. So, this is going to peak if it hasn't already peaked soon. Whether whether demand is there or not, it's going to be very difficult to sustain or or produce the minerals necessary not only for the cars but for the the transmission system needed for all these electric vehicle charging stations because that requires minerals too, mostly copper. So, it's just it's—if it's awesome and it's great and the market's going to do it, then then the market will also do the apartment things. If it requires a subsidy or a mandate, then you have to question whether it's that awesome in the first place. So there's—I think there's no need to do this as a requirement. The market's going to take care of it. **[1:48:24] Council Member West:** I'd just like to point out that one of your neighbors in your apartment building actually had to retrofit and pay out of her own pocket to get the EV charger put in there for thousands of dollars. So it wasn't the market that did it, it was her. **[1:48:48] Mayor:** I want to clarify one thing because I feel like the assumption is that by advocating for removing the mandate that somehow we're telling developers don't put EV charging stations in. Quite the opposite. We're just saying remove the mandate. I I think I think developers probably will. They might even put more of them in. So let's not let's not couch this in terms of well we have to do this otherwise you know we're not going to advance EVs or we're going to disrupt the market. What we're saying is—we're not saying anything—by way of requiring it. Developers go do what you do best which is develop properties that will cater to the market. Period. And I think they probably will next year for the next 5 years maybe for the next 10 years. And then we'll wait and see whether it's whether they really take off, whether the grid can support it, whether we have the minerals and infrastructure to continue the output um to produce enough vehicles to justify this. But we just don't know yet. And I don't want to make it more expensive for a developer. We've got a cap here saying, well, as long as it doesn't exceed 3.5% of the total building cost. 3.5% is a lot. You're talking about developers that are figuring out widths of walls and different materials for a half a percent, a quarter percent of the overall building cost. So, we can't cavalierly say 3.5%. Well, it's capped at 3.5%. That's a big deal. And until the market sorts out what needs to happen, I want to I want to defer to the developers to spend their dollars wisely to to build projects in White Bear. And if they decide in their infinite wisdom, hey, we're going to go and put, you know, two EV stations in for every five parking spots, I don't care. Do what you want. But the the market will decide—private developers will decide—how they spend their dollars and their investment into their building. And it's as simple as that. So from my perspective, so with that, I would entertain a motion to remove the—Council member Edberg. **[1:50:55] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you. So the conversation at the table is interesting, but to me, we're missing the bigger point. It's not the market that will decide. It's science. We are way too dependent on carbon-based fuels. And we have p—we are pumping way too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It's getting dissolved in the oceans. It's changing the entire pH, the acidity of the oceans. And so human change is required to even make it slightly more tolerable and—and that's required. How we get there is where we're—is where we're messing up. We think that these are all private decisions and the scale of this issue is so great that it cannot be left at some point. But in this—in our current system, we leave it to markets. The better solution would be actually to put a tax on carbon dioxide because that's what's driving the issue and that would have an impact on whether we're u uh providing our energy with coal or natural gas or gasoline—whatever it happens to be. That's not—none of that is relevant to this specific conversation. I'm the impact of our decision to require or not require EV charging is at a much lower level. The impact if a developer underinvests in EV charging is that they will forego certain kinds of renters who will say that I'm not going to live there—the cost of car—of charging my car there is too great. I'll go find—I'll go live somewhere else. And they will if necessary absorb that cost of compliance of of meeting their need. And the developer may then say oh they have—those are the kind of folks I really want. Um and so maybe I will need to make additional investments in the future. And those kinds of market-based conversations are going to go back and forth. But the existential question for the planet doesn't revolve around our conversations around EVs. I'm inclined to support the mayor's opinion on this particular policy question, but the bigger issue is for us to be far more conscious about where are we getting energy and how much carbon are we putting into—or at some point able to pull out of—our planet. **[1:53:39] Mayor:** So um I appreciate that you—you support that. I I agree with you to the extent that the the reasoning that you're supporting what I propose—to remove it—is because this right here is not the forum to have a conversation about our dependence on fossil fuels and global warming or any of those issues. But it really is in the context of this narrow issue within a zoning mandate within the zoning code. And I'm I'm glad you kind of couch it that way because I have a feeling they're very very divergent views on that issue and we can have them outside of this zoning code context. But in this particular discussion we're having right now, a narrow zoning code update... Um, I appreciate that you're keeping it narrow to the the central issue at hand, which is a building mandate or not. Council Member Hughes. **[1:54:39] Council Member Hughes:** thank you. I was actually just going to say that, but with fewer words and less eloquence. **[1:54:50] Mayor:** Appreciate that. All right. Now, I will call for a motion uh to remove the EV mandates from the zoning code as proposed. **[1:54:57] Council Member:** So moved. **[1:54:58] Council Member:** Second. **[1:54:59] Mayor:** I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on this issue? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor:** Any opposed? **Council Member West:** I. **Mayor:** By a vote of 4 to 1, the motion carries. The EV mandates will be removed from the zoning code as proposed. **[1:55:25] Mr. Lindall:** Uh, mayor, could I ask a point of clarification? So, um, when, uh, Council Member Walsh, um, you know, provided his email first time around, he cited specific a specific portion of the EV standards to be removed. So, um, if I can try to paraphrase what I think council member Walsh was trying to do was, as the mayor just said, he would like the council—would like the provisions that are within the ordinance that require EVs um, within certain land uses—to be removed. The balance of the section that relates to EVs just establishes their relationship as either a permitted or accessory use and how they're maintained—how they're—that they're required to, you know, the equipment that's involved. Um any usage fee is that there's a notice on any EV chargers that are out there that says, you know, this is who owns it and operates it and who you contact if you have questions. Um, I completely understand the direction from the council that says we should remove the the the mandate or the requirement that they be included in the ordinance. Um, I'm just asking for clarification if we can retain the section that just designates their kind of use because as we talked about uh just with the city attorney a moment ago, um, right now our current ordinance is just silent to it as a use. **[1:57:04] Mayor:** I think your understanding is correct. It is only with regard to the mandates. **[1:57:08] Mr. Lindall:** Okay. I'm happy to get specific about the numbers. **[1:57:12] Council Member Walsh:** The motion—I would agree with that and I think—I think it's just those few paragraphs that I had. If I make sure I have it right, I guess would be my advice, my council to you. Just—it looks like it's just those three or four sections that I outlined. **[1:57:25] Mr. Lindall:** Well, uh, Council Member Walsh, um, I would say that, uh, your note originally included just the general citation for this section, which was 1309, 1110. **[1:57:38] Council Member Walsh:** Yeah. **[1:57:39] Mr. Lindall:** Which would strike everything. **[1:57:40] Council Member Walsh:** Well, no, I—I was specific. 1309 110 strikes everything. **[1:57:45] Mr. Lindall:** Yes. And if you strike 110.2 and 110.3 maybe are the ones that need to go. **[1:57:49] Council Member Walsh:** Correct. That's what I—those are the specific sections that mention any word of a—of a standard for a minimum number of stalls. **[1:58:00] Mayor:** Yeah. You—you—you understand it the way I—I would understand it. **[1:58:03] Mr. Lindall:** In touch. Thank you. **[1:58:06] Mayor:** Thank you. Very good. Thank you. [**1:58:07] Mayor:** All right. We have cannabis and OEM. Council member Edberg, you raised this. I—happy to go into it. I don't have any concerns or any suggested amendments based on what—what little factual background you had, but I'll I'll defer to you if this is something you want to raise or for good as proposed. **[1:58:26] Council Member Edberg:** I—if I could ask um Mr. Lindall, did you understand the issue that he was raising or if not how the process uh to address that? **[1:58:36] Mr. Lindall:** Uh, mayor, members of the council, uh, to answer your specific question, I have reviewed the email. I do understand the distinction that this particular property owner is trying to make. Um, in a nutshell, I want to stress that the zoning standards reflect and maintain the original, um, standards that the council put into place. So, uh, with the noted exceptions about some dispensary locations that we talked about last time, and I'm happy to talk about those again if the council would like to, but the really—that's not part of this particular email that council member Edberg is—is mentioning. Um, the gist of the email is the owner of the property that wrote to Council Member Edberg um has an existing location that does testing of of cannabis. Um, and I believe, but I'm not sure, I believe some associated production of low potency hemp products and those were—the low potency hemp products were established as an allowed use in the first year of the legislation from the state. So they were—they predated all the changes we made last year that then last year we addressed more globally the issue of of cannabis. So what this property owner is is now coming to understand is that his current location allows what he was doing currently as a conditional use which is the council's direction. and they are attempting to go through the process to get a license from the state and and go through the zoning verification process with the city. At that same time, they are asking about the ability of expanding that use to include cannabis manufacturing. And in the way that the city originally set up these uses, we limited cannabis manufacturing to the industrial zones. So in this case, he's in a business park zone that's a lighter manufacturing zone and we limited cannabis manufacturing—to which we identified as a heavier process—into the industrial zones. So either under the current—either under the current zoning as we have right now or the proposed zoning code that's before you tonight should you choose to adopt it. Um this particular property owner would like to expand the use from what they have now into and in a way that isn't allowed in the current zone they're located. And I guess I would say that they—I think it would have been—I would have—had this property owner contacted us to begin with, we could have detailed that description to them, talked about a process to address that—and either bringing forward an amendment to the planning commission and council—or trying to find a property within the community that better suited their needs. **[2:02:08] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Lindall. With that said, can you envision a future process that might allow the the business owner to seek a change, an amendment to achieve? I don't expect you to uh tell us what that is right now, but um is there a future option available that could be pursued under appropriate uh discussions? **[2:02:30] Mr. Lindall:** Um, uh, mayor, uh, members of the council, I think this is a good example of what I think the council expected to have happen. We wanted to have some pretty, um, stringent requirements for cannabis to begin with, and then when things come before us, they—the council could consider um um whether or not to adjust those standards. So this would that and the process that I would talk about with this property owner would be the same as if we were talking about any other zoning standard—that they can come forward with a request to amend the standards. Um, and then we'd talk to the council and, you know, have a more in-depth discussion about the specifics of, you know, a cannabis edible low potency edible hemp product production facility versus a cannabis manufacturing facility and what the appropriate zones are for those. **[2:03:53] Council Member Edberg:** Okay. I'm content, mayor, to leave it at that if the individual chooses to take that up with uh u Mr. Lindall after it, but I don't feel the need for us to further make changes tonight. Let that happen. Let that play out as it will. **[2:04:11] Mayor:** Very good. I I do want to address this because I think this example serves to make a broader comment about the process and unintended consequences or potential unintended consequences. This is a great big update to the zoning code. And we had a two-year process with lots and lots of touch points. This gentleman, probably others, things will come up where they say, "Whoa, hang on a second. I—I didn't know this." And we can't stop that. What we can do is facilitate a process where people have had lots and lots of opportunities to say, "hm, my business, my home, my whatever operations, this might affect me. I should jump in on one of those meetings." And I don't mean to to poo-poo anyone who didn't avail themselves of that, but at some point we just say we've got a good product and then we'll deal with it like we would in any other kind of situation. So we we have the the need to move on. This gentleman can avail himself of various processes and that's a comment less for this gentleman but more just generally as we go forward. Things like that I'm sure will pop up and we just simply can't address all of the—well I was going to do this and I didn't know the zoning code was going to change. That—that's just part of the game. So, I I just I mention that because I'm proud of the transparent and long and thoughtful process that we've had. Um, and this doesn't detract from what that process was. Um, so as things come up, that's what city staff is here for. Not going to guarantee that you'll like the answer. Um, but we have processes for that. Council member Walsh. **[2:05:41] Council Member Walsh:** Thank you. Mr.—you didn't use the word variance. Is that not an option in this kind of thing? you—you're going to changing the code, going through planning and— **[2:05:51] Mr. Lindall:** uh mayor, members of the council, um in this case, because we're talking about the use of activity on a particular parcel, um that's—that's not eligible for a variance in the state of Minnesota. Variances are strictly related to um um dimensional standards and and those kinds of things. **[2:06:09] Council Member Walsh:** Thank you. **[2:06:10] Mayor:** Very good. Okay. There was one other thing I had in my list. I don't know if it was necessarily an action item, but Council Member Walsh, you wanted to at least address building. **[2:06:21] Council Member Walsh:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for indulging and I I apologize because I was—I missed a meeting. Um the height discussion, I just wanted to weigh in on the height discussion. Um I'm not going to make an amendment. Uh but I think I think we are limiting the height too much to the—the what's in this—what's in the proposal tonight. And I think I think I was on the uh the subcommittee there, the community committee that put this together. And I thought—I thought staff did a good job. I think the consultants did a good job. I think that group blessed that—this plan. I think you're going to see it now. There were just a few sites, very specific sites that the—the staff found in the cities that said we could go higher uh height-wise. And I thought that was a really good way to do it. I'm not proposing six-story buildings all over the place and making that the norm, but I think there were—there are certain places in the city and maybe you can pick this up, Mr. Lindall, because I think—and I, you know, I'm not—again I'm not going to do an amendment and there is an allowance, you know, through a a PUD or through another process to go higher. If we decide to do that, it's fine. We can—we'll probably want to discuss those in this—in this body because it's—because it's a you know, it's a big deal to go a little bit higher. But I just think that the where we were when we left that first committee was pretty good spot. And you—am I wrong? There was a few spots, right? Just a few—the six or so that around the city. **[2:07:41] Mr. Lindall:** So, mayor, members of the council, um you may recall um that the original draft included um some additional height, five stories by right or up to six stories through the PUD process in limited areas of the community. Um and in subsequent discussion with um the council as we prepared for the final draft during the um review process. Um the general direction that we got from the planning commission and council in those joint meetings was to bring the height back down to no more than 4.5 stories um in certain areas. So, um those certain areas um are in the portion—the zones that have a C extension or for corridor. So, um for example, I'll just run through a few slides here that show you quickly. MXD is what we thought—think—of as our downtown. It's three stories with the possibility of of a fourth story as long as it's stepped back. Um and then if you look under that you'll see GXD which is the general mix downtown adjacent to the downtown area. Again basically 3.5 is the max going down here GXA or general mix arts district area 3.5 as well. Um and then looking in the suburban and neighborhood areas, uh really maintaining the status quo of no more than three stories. Um and then moving on to—as I mentioned—the portions of the city that are in the MX or mixed use corridor, GX general mix corridor or RXC residential mix corridor. um that had the potential of some higher heights. They currently in the draft that's before you um those top out at 4.5. Um originally they were five by right and up to six through um that discretionary PUD process. And um then just again to maybe show you um in the balance of the—of where it was provided along the corridors in that 35 and 96 area again where we would—it's topped out at 4.5 um um but was five or by right or up to up to six and um the—the—so it really was focused along the higher capacity corridors within town. Um, just going back one slide, um, I would note that part of the conversation that the happened with the CAC, um, talked about, um, portions of County Road E, um, specifically um, County Road E, um, closer to 61 and the railroad tracks where the Lockchner apartment building is, or county road E at the intersection of Century as—as—as possible se locations in town where we would also consider higher height. That ultimately didn't come through in the original recommendation, but so basically you're looking at the higher capacity corridors in limited areas along 61, 96, and 35 was the original proposal. **[2:11:46] Council Member Walsh:** So now—now—you—I'm getting a little bit confused. So we're we're doing 4.5 across the board pretty much maximum in in in these different spots. We still have the ability to go higher through the PUD process or not? **[2:12:03] Mr. Lindall:** Yes, that—that—always remains. A developer can ask pretty much for whatever they want during the PUD process. We're just not specifically calling it out. **[2:12:12] Council Member Walsh:** So my only thing is—if I was—if—I'm not going to do an amendment. I—I don't think—I think the planning commission was not—I think they were in agreement with most of the council um on this. So it's—but I just—it's a messaging thing. It's a communication thing. You know I don't want to communicate to developers—to potential buyers—to people want to come in that we're we're saying no to any kind of a height thing. So this does communicate a little more stricter than I would communicate. But I can only speak for myself and I'm not going to be on this council forever. So, I'm I'm willing to go higher if it—if it looks right. Um, and I just want to communicate that in this process today. Thank you. **[2:12:31] Mayor:** No, I think those are fair comments. I'll I'll echo that and say—I mean I—I've been fairly vocal—at least in—in work sessions—that I'm a tough sell on higher higher buildings, but bring us a plan. What does it look like? Does it fit in with the overall context? So all this this recent change is saying yes by right it—it's going to be a little lower but I don't think anybody in the council said outright—I won't—I think there's a a great willingness to be open to in the right area with the right overall design in a big space to exceed that somewhat. I don't think White Bear's ever going to have, at least not anytime soon, eight stories or seven stories. But there's some wiggle room there as part of a PUD process. But as a matter of policy, what we say you have a land use right to do is going to stay with kind of what we've always had, but there's willingness to exceed that under the right circumstances. At least that's how I look at it. All right, that's all I have on my list. So with that, I would entertain a motion to approve the zoning code ordinance that incorporates the two amendments that we had. One regarding the removal of short-term rentals to be taken up at another time and the removal of EV charging requirements within the zoning code. and what's been brought back and proposed already makes the ADU correction and the the 10 business days. Correct. All right. **[2:14:15] Council Member:** So moved. **[2:14:17] Mayor:** I have a motion. Do I have a second? **[2:14:19] Council Member:** Second. **[2:14:20] Mayor:** Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. We have the ordinance. I would now entertain a motion to approve the accompanying resolution publishing it. **[2:14:37] Council Member:** So moved. **[2:14:38] Council Member:** Second. **[2:14:39] Mayor:** Motion to second. Any further discussion on the resolution? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. The resolution is passed. All right. Item 8B, a liquor license review of Doc's Landing. Chief, whenever you're ready. You're finally up. Thanks for sticking with us. **[2:15:01] Chief Hagar:** mayor, members of the council. Um, tonight, uh, I'm here to ask you to consider adopting a resolution to impose some conditions on the on sale liquor license held by Doc's Landing. I give you a little context and background. Over the past uh few years, our officers and fire department has responded to a variety of incidents in Doc—in Doc's Landing's parking lot or in their establishment itself. Um that has um had a tendency to be fairly violent and um and disruptive. Um they've impacted our public safety response. We think they've impacted the quality of life for our surrounding residents, for people at the establishment and uh for visitors to the city. Uh we started to city manager Crawford and I started to examine um their practices as it relates to their liquor license. So uh we um sent a letter, which I believe you all have a copy of, to uh Mr. Gearan, who goes by Doc, and I—I suspect he would prefer if we referred to him as Doc. uh from here on out. Um we sent a letter to Doc explaining um some recommendations that we have that we feel um could um could impact his liquor license. We outlined a few recommendations which I'll read below uh in another minute or so here. Um, following that letter, uh, Doc made an appointment with the city manager Crawford and myself to, uh, discuss his perspective and to bring in, um, the evidence from his perspective that he's already been implementing a lot of the recommendations that that I requested he put into place. Um, he showed us some some evidence of some of those and we had a really good discussion. It was very constructive and he was very cooperative with us. uh we advised him that we'll be discussing this matter tonight. He was unable to make it and so he sent a letter which I also believe uh the council has um instead of being here. Some of the recommendations that we um thought uh to implement um on Doc's Landing is the establishment of a security personnel that we believe should be a licensed security personnel at their business. We also believe that all staff should be um subjected to um mandated training that we think would create a safer environment down there to include de-escalation, ID verification, and um training related to alcohol service. We also believe that um we—we—would implement or ask Doc to implement—that he has external and internal cameras that are um capable of capturing some of the incidents that happen down there. I will say that um he does have very good cameras down there, probably some of the best in the city in establishments. And so we just part of our um recommendations to him would be that he maintains that in good—good—order and that he um avails us—the police department—to review those—that footage when we needed to. We also believe that um an ID scanner would help us would both help him run his business better by not allowing underage drinkers to enter his establishment as well as it would capture the identification of people that were inside his bar as well for the last 30 days. Uh we also think that um we would put a recommendation—uh—we're asking to get—put a recommendation on Doc's Landing—that um require them to act in good faith with the city to include the police department in our investigations and our working with that business. And then lastly, we think that a formalized agreement between Doc's Landing and the city of White Bear Lake is necessary to just hold both of us accountable to um um trying to maintain a um a safe environment down there um 3200 White Bear Avenue. So, we'll continue to uh monitor that activity. We're hoping tonight that we're we're recommending the city council adopt the attached resolution imposing conditions on the on sale liquor license held by Doc's Landing. And uh with that, I'm available for any questions if you'd like. **[2:19:32] Mayor:** Thank you, Chief. Um I have a couple comments, couple questions, too. Um, I'll first say as as the mayor—and I know the council members get similar communications—it's been many and frequent over the last few years of getting these updates of significant crime that has happened at that one location. So, I applaud you and city staff for being proactive and saying we need—the time has come—that we need to get serious about this because it is a public safety threat. So, from my standpoint, I support this. I think it's great. I think businesses need to be held accountable for this kind of very very dangerous activity that they um are either outright allowing to have or sort of negligently failing to to keep—keep—the order at their establishment. So I think this is great. There's there's one suggestion I would make and—and chief I'd be looking for s—for some feedback for you—whether or not you think you need this from an enforcement standpoint. But all these conditions, one thing I don't see is a specific timeline or deadline for the deliverables. And I would be open to—if you think it would help you enforce this—a deadline for the formalized written safety plan or implementation outright of all these conditions. It sounds like the letter we have from the owner, he's already started or implemented some of them, but I think something with some teeth to it saying 30 days, 45 days, 60 days, whatever we think is reasonable, but is also um necessary to to keep this moving. Do you have any sense for whether or not that would—that would—be a constructive thing to to put in the resolution? **[2:21:41] Chief Hagar:** Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I think that of course that is something that we are hoping to—maybe—would would happen as a result of this conversation today. Um, I think that the city of White Bear Lake is nothing but—uh—if not reasonable with their businesses and and citizens of our city. So, I definitely would want to give the owner plenty of time to work through some of these issues. know—the some of the more maybe expensive um recommendations that we're making sounds like he's already done and so I think that implementing this plan wouldn't take as much time as we originally thought. Um you know I originally thought you know 60 to 90 days would be appropriate. Um I don't know. Like I said the ID scanner Mr. Gearan brought in that day uh brought in proof that he had purchased one and and showed us the you know the invoice and showed us the type and the and the kind. So it's just working through some of these practices that they have at the establishment that um we would maybe need a little time especially if we're requiring their staff to go through some training. You know we—we—certainly would feel a little bit of obligation to help them procure that training and and maybe even put on some of that training for them. So, you know, that that might take some time. And so, we just want to kind of be reasonable about that. **[2:22:35] Mayor:** And the concern I want to address is—this isn't—anything. It's—all right. We're we're cracking down. We're we're going to take it seriously. And then drift happens and it's 60 days, it's 90 days, it's 120 days, and it's—no, no, we were serious. But something in the resolution that says, hey, it's been 90 days. You haven't done this. Now, we have a problem. Um, so I'll throw that out there. I don't know. The training sounds like it's the more squishy thing, but you know, I think a reasonable time period, yes. Plenty of time, no. Um, reasonable. If it's 60 days, great. If they think—we—you think 30 days, they can do it. I mean, it shouldn't take 120 days. I don't think it should take 90 days, especially if you've already purchased and implemented some of this expensive stuff. Seems like he can calendar some—some—training within 30 days, maybe 45 days. It's not like he's got a staff of 300. Um, rotate it through. Couple this week, couple next week, couple the next week. After a month, you've got it all checked off. So, I've got the appetite to be a little more forceful with a more aggressive timeline. And whether that's for the formalized plan and or implementation, I'm open to what that looks like. The ultimate implementation is what I care most about. But I also think there's some value in having a tight checkpoint, maybe even 14 days where it's—you need to submit the plan, something in writing that says you need to engage with the chief and his staff to make sure we're making forward progress and then a few weeks thereafter it needs to be done. So, how does that strike you? **[2:23:40] Chief Hagar:** Yeah, I think that seems Mr. Mayor, I think that seems fair to um put a kind of a timeline on this and it it feels like somewhere in that 45 to 60 day range seems appropriate. **[2:23:55] Mayor:** Okay. And I think it's worth noting—I've got every confidence that that you have good judgment to know whether or not someone's giving you the runaround or they're making an honest effort. And if they're making an honest effort, we're reasonable. But if they're not making an honest effort, we really mean it. I think that's the message that that we need to convey. **[2:24:13] Chief Hagar:** Mr. Mayor, I—I—believe that uh members of the council, I believe uh Mr. Gearan arrived here with our meeting with city manager Crawford and I in good faith and um very receptive. He too seemed very uh weary of the activity that's occurring down there. And I think that um the action um done here tonight would only help him. And I think he sees that as well to um to—um—kind of force him into making better decisions with his business. And um I think that as um I already stated, I think he's already started that. I think that I won't have a hard time um working with him at all. I think it it should go pretty well. **[2:25:25] Mayor:** Very good. Um, one clarifying question in—in—the owner's letter is he said that the security personnel that he's recently hired have various training and among that training was cuff training. that stood out to me and I thought it'd be a good opportunity to have a little bit of a touch point about what expectations are for this business owner or any business owner when they have private security bouncers, what have you. Knowing that we did have an issue with their—I'm using air quotes now for those listening—not seeing their "security" from the past that actually had assault charges brought against him because maybe he went a little bit cowboy. So that to me is critical to this too. Um, do you have any concerns about that? How do you see that going? What does a non-licensed peace officer conducting private security have by way of authority to police secure and then eventually just need to call the real police? **[2:26:11] Chief Hagar:** Yeah, Mr. Mayor, um, members of the council, you know, that was one of the sticking points that we had with each other quite honestly is um the security personnel that he would hire. um we will insist that the person is licensed by the state of Minnesota to perform security functions and if they're licensed by the state of Minnesota then they are also trained appropriately to the same extent as police officers are in cuffing and some other use of force—not—not—all use of force options but the use of force um items they carry with them they have to be trained to the state level um on how to use those. So, uh, we're—we're—never going to ask, uh, private security personnel to do our handcuffing for us or do anything for us. However, they are under 609.06. They are authorized to use force on people if they're acting accordingly and they're acting to protect their business or their employer's business. So, they do have that right to do that. We'll never ask somebody to do that. But, I could certainly see a time when it would be necessary for private security to use force. And I mean that's up to them, but I mean I certainly can see those times. Speaking—as—at—one point in time I was a person in that capacity a thousand years ago. But um you know private security does have um the obligation to protect others just as we do as well. So, um, again, we we won't ask them to do that, but when they call us, if we show up and the person's in handcuffs, we'll we'll a deal with the person at hand, but we'll also make sure that the person acted accordingly when they use force against another citizen. **[2:28:03] Mayor:** Thank you for clarifying that. All right, council. Any thoughts, questions generally or on my proposal to set some timelines and deadlines on this resolution? **[2:28:18] Council Member West:** Uh, Mr. I'd like to make a deadline of November 1st. **[2:28:23] Mayor:** November 1st for outright implementation. **[2:28:26] Council Member West:** Outright. **[2:28:27] Mayor:** Seems reasonable. Something on paper that we can point to. I don't know if you want to add a penalty if he doesn't have it by then, like a suspension of 30 days or what the city wants to do with that part of it. **[2:28:40] Mayor:** I I'll look to our city attorney to maybe clarify, but we have some pretty broad discretion if they're not following um the reasonable rules and restrictions that we're putting in place to then follow our steps with suspension or revocation depending on the circumstances. You can add a little a little more color to that for us. **[2:28:51] Mr. Anderson:** Sure. Thanks, Mayor and Council. Yeah, I think um you know any adverse license action like a suspension or revocation would require notice and an opportunity for him for a hearing in front of the council. Um but if he's not in compliance by these deadlines, we would absolutely have those, you know, more extreme, I would say, remedies um at our disposal. So, I wouldn't want to necessarily proactively incorporate some kind of a suspension, but I'd rather want to say, you know, let's put the deadline in place, get these conditions in place, which um we've done appropriately and and we've notified him as we're supposed to do that. And if he doesn't comply, um, then we're talking more serious, um, actions against his license because he's not... this isn't a property right. If he's not following the city's rules, we have the right to, um, to crack down and and try to, you know, get more serious if we need to. So hopefully he continues to do what he's supposed to do and um, we get to the place where we feel better about the safety of his patrons and other people in the area and residents of White Bear Lake. But if not, we'd have to come back for additional sanctions. **[2:29:56] Mayor:** So—you need that as a motion first. **[2:30:04] Council Member West:** Yes, sir. November 1st. **[2:30:06] Council Member:** Second. **[2:30:07] Mayor:** November. So the motion is for a November 1st deadline for implementation of all criteria as set forth in the resolution as written. **[2:30:10] Council Member:** I'll second. **[2:30:11] Mayor:** Have a motion to second. Any further discussion on that? **[2:30:13] Chief Hagar:** Mr. Mayor, may I u—? **[2:30:16] Mayor:** Yes. **[2:30:17] Chief Hagar:** Only because you had mentioned originally 30 to 45 days or something. I think now we're pushing out a new 100 days to November 1st. So, I mean, I I'm not disagreeing that that's what it should be. I just kind of wanted to make reference to that that that is um definitely a lot of time to to implement some of these decisions. So— **[2:30:41] Mayor:** yeah, I mean, I tend to agree. I I'd like it to be shorter, but I'm not going to stand in the way. I think it's more important to have a deadline. He's been forthright with us. So, Let me throw this out there. Yes, he has. But that basically gets us all the way through the rest of the summer season, the warm month, the the more active party months. You know, I'm not trying to be, you know, punitive. It's not about being punitive. It's about being reasonable. **[2:31:07] Council Member West:** But he is actually more busy during football season and the holidays. **[2:31:13] Mayor:** Okay. **[2:31:14] Council Member West:** As far as what I've seen over that day. **[2:31:16] Mayor:** Yeah. It's up to the council. I think it could be shorter. I I—that—would make sense to me, but it's up to someone else if they... It's been motioned and seconded. If someone wants to move to amend to a shorter timeline, they're welcome to do so. All right. Seeing not we've—any further discussion on the amendment to add a a deadline of November 1st. Seeing none, all those in favor say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor:** Any opposed? The motion carries. We have now an amended resolution before us. If there's no further discussion or questions for the chief, I'd entertain a motion to adopt the resolution before us as amended. **[2:31:54] Council Member:** So moved. **[2:31:55] Council Member:** Second. **[2:31:56] Mayor:** I have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor:** Any oppose? Motion carries as amended. Thanks, Chief. **[2:32:05] Chief Hagar:** Thank you. **[2:32:06] Mayor:** All right. Item 8B, 2025 downtown parking lot reconstruction project. Accepting bids and awarding contracts. Mr. Copy. **[2:32:13] Mr. Copy (Public Works/Engineering):** mayor, members of the council. So, at our May 27th meeting, council had authorized staff or approved plans and specifications for the project and authorized staff to go out for and solicit bids for this project. So, based on that, uh staff um advertised the bids as required um and then on July 10th, we received five bids for the project as outlined in the resolution. uh the low bid uh being received by Winberg companies out of Schaefer, Minnesota. They have not previously done work in the city of White Bear Lake, but we check references. Uh they've done work for a number of other cities as well as other government agencies and done satisfactory work. Um their um low bid was basically right at the engineers estimate. So um based on that and the budgeted amount um leaves us extra for some overhead that we have and will incur for consulting services, testing, inspection, and as well as a little bit for contingency for any kind of unknowns that we might encounter in the project. So that being said, um if the council awards the project tonight, the schedule would be that we would begin the project or the contractor could begin the project as early as the first week of August. That would be following the final market fest on July 31st. So um based on that we would within the plans and specifications we require the contractor to be completed by basically winter—so the end of November. Um we have already started communication—we have started in continued communications with business owners and property owners in the downtown area and have had a number of discussions. We've sent out a number of notifications to them. Uh we have additional meetings set up for the upcoming week. So um that is moving along. Um so based on what I've told you tonight, staff would recommend that council adopt the attached resolution awarding the contract to Winberg Companies in the amount of $1,293,444.74. There you go. Um, so that's staff's recommendation and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. **[2:34:40] Mayor:** Boy, you're regretting trying to talk through the exact number with all the details in Yeah. All right. Um, I'd entertain a motion to approve the resolution before us. **[2:34:53] Council Member:** So moved. **[2:34:54] Council Member:** Second. **[2:34:55] Mayor:** Motion to second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor:** Any opposed? The motion carries. The resolution is passed. Thank you, Mr. Copy. Item nine, discussion. Nothing scheduled. Item 10, communications from the city manager. Miss Crawford, do you have anything? **[2:35:18] City Manager Crawford:** I do not. **[2:35:18] Mayor:** Very good. Item 10, closed session. I will now read something. We now need to go into closed session pursuant to Minnesota statute section 13D.05 subdivision 3B, which authorizes the council to hold an attorney client privilege closed session under certain circumstances. Our attorneys at Greene Espel are present to discuss recent developments in the matter of the amendments to the various water appropriation permit permits which result from the lake level litigation, White Bear Lake Restoration Association et al. v Minnesota Department of Natural Resources et al, which is active litigation. The need for confidentiality in discussing this matter with our attorneys outweighs the purpose of the open meeting law because legal counsel intends to candidly discuss recent developments, including a proposed settlement agreement, and provide legal advice for how to proceed, allowing these discussions to happen in an open session would jeopardize the city's legal position. Therefore, I request a motion to go into closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 13D.05, subdivision 3B, to discuss the above described matter. I'd entertain a motion to close the meeting. **[2:36:03] Council Member:** So moved. **[2:36:04] Council Member:** Second. **[2:36:05] Mayor:** All those in favor say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor:** The meeting is now closed.