This transcript features the Bayport City Council meeting from November 13, 2023. Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the recording, here is the attributed transcript. Note: Although the provided list includes Carl Bliss and Orin Kipp, the transcript explicitly identifies "John" and "Councilmember Dahl" (phonetically "d i" in the roll call) as a present member. I have used **Councilmember John Dahl** for this speaker to maintain consistency with the spoken names. Additionally, while the prompt lists Joe Hansen as Public Works Director, the transcript identifies the Director as **Simon Worth**, which I have used for accuracy. *** **[0:28]** (Silence/Ambient Noise) **[1:53] Mayor Michele Hansen:** I call to order the November 13, 2023, Bayport City Council meeting. Let's all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (All recite the Pledge of Allegiance) **[1:53] Mayor Michele Hansen:** All right, thanks. Call the roll, Matt. **[1:53] City Administrator Matt Kline:** Councilmember Dahl? **[1:53] Councilmember John Dahl:** Aye. **[1:53] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Gilmore? **[1:53] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** Here. **[1:53] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Hill? **[1:53] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Here. **[1:53] Matt Kline:** Mayor Hansen? **[1:53] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Here. **[1:53] Matt Kline:** And Connie is not here. Yeah, Connie is absent tonight. **[2:39] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Okay. All right. Um, I'll make a motion to approve tonight's agenda. **[2:39] Councilmember Katie Hill:** A second. **[2:39] Mayor Michele Hansen:** All right, thanks, Katie. All those in favor? **[2:39] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[2:39] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Anyone opposed? All right, so then we're on to proclamations, accommodations, petitions, and announcements. The October recycling award recipient is Michael Lindholm at 228 Periwinkle Place. And then now we will have the Open Forum. This is a portion of the meeting to address the City Council on subjects that are not part of the agenda. City Council may take action or reply at the time of the statement or may give direction to staff regarding investigation of comments expressed. A total of 15 minutes is allotted for public comment during the Open Forum. Anybody here that would like to speak with us? Just want to listen? Okay. **[3:24] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Consent agenda. Let's consider a resolution adopting items 1 through 10: October 2, 2023, City Council Workshop minutes; the October 2, 2023, City Council regular meeting minutes; October payables and receipts; October building, plumbing, mechanical, and zoning permits report; reappointment of Carl Bliss to the Planning Commission; final pay application number five to Pioneer Power for the 2022 Booster Station Improvement project; acknowledgement of Washington County All-Hazard Mitigation Plan adoption; contract extension with Tennis Sanitation for residential waste recycling services; and a contract extension with Eckberg Lammers for civil and prosecution legal services; special event application for Inspiration Thanksgiving 5K walk/run on November 23, 2023. All right, do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? **[4:10] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** I'll move to adopt a resolution approving the consent agenda. **[4:10] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Thanks, Ethan. Second? **[4:10] Councilmember John Dahl:** I'll second. **[4:10] Mayor Michele Hansen:** All right, John second. I'll take a roll call vote, Matt. **[4:57] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Gilmore? **[4:57] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** Aye. **[4:57] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Dahl? **[4:57] Councilmember John Dahl:** Aye. **[4:57] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Hill? **[4:57] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Aye. **[4:57] Matt Kline:** Mayor Hansen? **[4:57] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Aye. All ayes. All right, so now we have a public hearing about the certification of past due solid waste/recycling charges and vacant building registration fees to the property taxes. So Matt's going to present this item. **[4:57] Matt Kline:** Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, as you indicated, this is for certification of past due um fees uh pursuant to Chapter 443 of the Minnesota State Statutes and Bayport Municipal Code. Property owners who have delinquent garbage collection and disposal charges are afforded the process of going through a public hearing to identify why they were late or past due on their charges and to negotiate a possible reduction or payment plan. **[5:44] Matt Kline:** All delinquent property owners were notified that they could appeal their past due waste collection amounts at this meeting by mail. This actually occurred twice. Originally, 52 homes were sent notices, and then more recently another 24 homes were sent notices. We're currently at 24 delinquent accounts, which is down from previous years. So this year we actually sent two notices; in years past we've only sent one. **[6:30] Matt Kline:** The delinquency notices that were sent to customers and collection efforts—they'll continue over the next month. So if somebody comes in and pays their delinquent amount, it still doesn't get processed or sent to Washington County until November 30, 2023. So even after this meeting, they still have three weeks to pay in full. **[6:30] Mayor Michele Hansen:** So if they happen to hear this meeting and want to come in, we welcome the payment because then they'll save the admin fee? **[6:30] Matt Kline:** Absolutely, and the 10% penalty charge. So, additionally, under Minnesota Statute Chapter 429 and Bayport Municipal Code, the City can also charge for municipal vacant building registration charges that have not been paid to date. There is one property at 143 3rd Street North that has not complied with this requirement, and these unpaid charges, unless paid in full, will be certified to Washington County also on November 30, 2023. So at this time, staff recommends that the public hearing occur, and then after that, the charges be accepted for certification to Washington County. **[7:16] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Okay, I'll open the public hearing. Anyone here wants to address the Council on this matter? Didn't think so. All right, motion to close the public hearing? **[8:01] Councilmember John Dahl:** So moved. **[8:01] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Thanks, John. Do I have a second? **[8:01] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** Second. **[8:01] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Thanks, Ethan. All those in favor? **[8:01] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[8:01] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Okay, so now we need—unless there's discussion—do you have any questions or discussion about this? We can make a motion to certify the past due bills. **[8:01] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** I'll move to approve the certification of past due and solid waste recycling charges and vacant building registration fees to property taxes as presented. **[8:01] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Anyone—a second? **[8:01] Councilmember Katie Hill:** I second. **[8:01] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Thanks, Katie. All those in favor? **[8:01] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[8:47] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Anyone opposed? All right, go ahead and certify those. Hopefully people will pay before all that has to happen; they still have a chance. And thank you, Mary Goulette, for sending out two notices. I think that's helpful to make that change. All right, we do not have any unfinished business, so we're on to new business. Number one: Consider an interim use permit for a period of approximately one year to conduct auto sales with outdoor storage and display at 397 5th Avenue North. So Sara's going to present this item. **[8:47] City Planner Sara Taylor:** Thank you, Madam Mayor. The property is zoned B2 Central Business and is surrounded by a mixture of commercial businesses on the north, east, and west, and residential on the south. The property formerly operated as JR Transmission, which offered auto restoration and repair services. Applicant Brennan Swanson recently purchased the property with the intent of offering auto repair as well as auto sales and display, with a primary focus of online advertising and sales by appointment only. **[10:20] Sara Taylor:** Auto repair is a permitted use in the B2 zoning district, but auto sales and display requires a special use permit. The City's current ordinance regulating auto sales was adopted many years ago and is clearly meant to regulate a more traditional type dealership with on-site advertising and display, as well as an unanticipated volume of drop-in customers during business hours. The ordinance also requires distinct design and dimensional standards to prevent the potential for nuisance operations or impacts to adjacent properties. Currently, the property is deficient in meeting many of these standards, as summarized on pages two and three of the staff report. **[10:20] Sara Taylor:** In an effort to be more inventive in how the City could potentially allow and regulate the applicant's proposal for online auto sales, the City Council held a workshop on September 11th and October 2nd to discuss the potential for an interim use permit. The interim permit would allow online auto sales for a one-year trial basis under certain conditions to evaluate whether the use is appropriate for the site long-term. If so, the City could then consider issuance of a permanent conditional use permit for the use upon expiration of the interim permit. **[11:06] Sara Taylor:** In general, the applicant is proposing to make minimal improvements to the property during the one-year interim use. General hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. by appointment only. Surfacing, lighting, signage, and exterior finishes on the building will remain as is. Fencing will be repaired as needed and existing outdoor storage will be removed. The applicant has been made aware that additional improvements, such as mitigation of excess impervious and gravel surfaces and enhanced landscaping, will likely be conditions of approval if the City were to consider a permanent conditional use permit following the interim period. **[11:53] Sara Taylor:** The proposed site plan designates parking stalls 1 through 15 and 18 for auto sales and display and employees, which are indicated in yellow on the site map. Orange-colored stalls 16 and 17 are designated for auto sales customers, and stalls 19 through 21 for auto repair, which are located inside the repair building. The site currently exceeds the maximum impervious coverage of 80%. In an effort to mitigate some impervious surface, staff is recommending restoration of a side landscape buffer strip along the south property line, which is indicated in green. **[12:40] Sara Taylor:** The existing fence and gates are outlined in blue on the site plan. Sections of fence that are 4 feet in height will be increased to 5 feet to comply with City code and provide an enhanced buffer for the neighboring residential property. This lot and the buildings are similar to many properties in Bayport in that they both existed prior to adoption of the City Zoning Code. In such cases, code recognizes that the property may not be able to meet current design and performance standards and allows for some flexibility as long as improvements do not increase non-conformity with current code. **[12:40] Sara Taylor:** The applicant has already made a concerted effort to remove outdoor storage of mechanical equipment and dismantled vehicles and debris from the rear portion of the property, which is a significant improvement over the previous conditions. During the interim, enhanced landscaping will reduce the impervious lot coverage, and conducting auto repair and sales by appointment will also minimize the volume of in-person customers on site. Based on the suggested findings of fact, staff has outlined specific conditions of approval in the staff report. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on October 30th and no public comments were heard. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 in support of the interim use permit. At this time, staff and the City Attorney would be happy to take any questions from the City Council. The applicant, Brennan Swanson, is also present and available for questions. **[13:26] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Great, thank you. Um, a couple of things on the dates of when all this stuff needs to be done. It said November 30th, but that's not... I mean, that's like two weeks from now to do all the fencing. Was that something that was going to be able to be done in the spring? **[14:14] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** "Therefore be resolved, existing four-foot fence along the north—or along the south rear property line should be increased to 5 feet no later than November 30, 2023. Existing fence panels and gates which are in a status of disrepair, no later than November 30th." I mean, that's like 17 days from now. Is that something that we are doing, or are we extending that a little bit just because it took longer? **[14:14] Sara Taylor:** Councilmember Gilmore, I had discussed some of those timelines with the property owner. I think we're still on the same page for those dates. If weather prevents him from complying with that or he needs an extension, I think we could work with him on that administratively. **[15:00] Councilmember Katie Hill:** I wanted to start off by thanking staff for coming up with this option. I know we've had a couple workshops where we've thanked you, but I wanted to publicly say that I think this is great that we're trying to be flexible and come up with a solution for him to have the business that he wants in a space that maybe wasn't necessarily set up for that. So I hope this works out and I hope both parties are happy in the end, because we want businesses to be in Bayport and we want everything to work out. So thank you for coming up with the idea of at least just trying it. I think that's great. **[15:00] Councilmember Katie Hill:** I had a question about the fence height, only because at one of the workshops or somewhere along the line—I talk to Matt a lot too so I never know where I get the information—but I believe the neighbor requested for the fence height not to increase in that one part that's closest to 5th Street. It's on 5th on both sides, isn't it? And so, we still have an ordinance that says it needs to be 5 feet high, but the neighbor is wanting it not to be 5 feet high? Is that my understanding? **[15:49] Sara Taylor:** Madam Mayor, we did not receive any public comments or requests to modify any of the suggested conditions as part of this application. We did do a mailing to properties within 350 feet of the property, notice of the public hearing to come and voice an opinion or to submit written comments or email. I did not hear from any members of the public. **[16:35] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Oh, okay. I thought we did. So anyway, and I'm sure that foot probably isn't going to make or break because I think it's 4 feet now, right? Okay. Um, I am horrible at writing my notes because I'm trying to figure out what I meant. I wrote "one auto per 300 square feet calculate." Was that the minimum that the state says? Where would I have gotten the one for 300 feet? I shouldn't read my packet so far ahead of time either. Oh, I think I was trying to figure out because it seems like what he thinks he's going to get inside that fence just doesn't seem realistic. But I don't know if it's important to know if he can fit that many cars in there or not. I mean, it's up to him to figure that out, I guess, and then getting them in and out. I'm just having a hard time envisioning how they're all going to fit. But I guess if we're saying that's the maximum we're okay with, then he just works under that. **[17:22] Councilmember Katie Hill:** I was a little... so since we had a workshop, I think that green stripe was added down the side? I don't remember that being there before, where there's going to be some pervious surface like grass going along the... would that be the south side? Yeah. And that seemed to kind of mess up where he has his... like number seven is now cut in half basically. So I just wanted to talk a little bit about that and how does that affect the gate opening and him being able to get cars through there if that's now going to be pervious? **[18:09] Sara Taylor:** Madam Mayor, thanks for the question. City Administrator Klein and I did do a site visit with Brennan, and the gate... this isn't exactly drawn to scale, it's just a general photo here. There's about a 7 to 10-foot buffer between the property line and where we're suggesting this green strip end, which wouldn't interfere with the gate. So, in order to get closer to that 80% impervious coverage, we thought this would be a good opportunity because the gate is offset from the property line to just create a landscape buffer there, and then the cars can pull in right from the gate into the rear property. **[18:54] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Okay, I mean, I realized it was just a sketch but I just wanted to make sure that all of that was thought through. Oh, and then he did... I made a note about the signage, but I did then read his overview and it said that he is going to update the sign so it's not going to... because I think the JR Transmission got ripped off and it just looks kind of... but you're planning to put a sign in there, it said. Number eight in the findings of fact... where is that? It says that it's going to be signed and striped. Why can't I find it? Findings of fact... where are they? **[19:40] City Administrator Matt Kline:** I'm working on it here. It's the fourth one from the bottom, and I believe you're referring to the sentence that says, "Stalls located in the front and side yard shall be signed and striped according to the site plan." **[19:40] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Yeah, and I'm wondering how he's going to do that with the kind of surface that... how do you stripe that gravel? **[20:25] Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, the majority of the site that is located along 5th Street North is concrete, so he would be able to stripe that and sign it accordingly. **[20:25] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Oh, okay. So just those few stalls that are outside of the fence are going to be signed. Okay, that makes more sense. Thank you. Um, what else did I have? Oh, this was just me thinking if I were Brennan, how it would maybe be difficult to... so he's going to update the fence. Maybe not... I don't know if it's a replacement or if it's just an upgrade to the... like trying to fix here and there where it doesn't look so pretty. And then if we come back and say he needs to have more green space or more whatever, is it going to be difficult because he's already invested in this fence? I don't know, I was just trying to think about are we going to do anything to make him fix the... because I know we don't really care for what the impervious surface is like on both sides of that fence. You know what I mean? Like if he replaces the part that separates what you can see on the outside from what you can't, and then we say oh now you gotta fix the ground under there, does it cost him money to have to redo that? Am I making any sense? **[21:12] Sara Taylor:** Yeah, the plan right now is not to replace a majority of the six-foot fence. There's just a couple of sections that needed to be tacked back up, and he does not have plans to replace any of that fence, so that shouldn't be affected. The portion of the fence indicated in the site plan here that's forward of the gate—that is raising from 4 feet to 5 feet, so that would need to be installed new. **[21:57] Councilmember Katie Hill:** That's the only new part? **[21:57] Sara Taylor:** Correct, but that would not affect any type of mitigation of other impervious surface. **[21:57] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Okay, I think those were all the questions I had as I was reading through it. Anyone else have any comments or questions? **[22:45] Mayor Michele Hansen:** I always think this is a good time just to let the public know that we've discussed this—we've had two other workshops about this, we've gone over this stuff, and so I'm fine with this. When's your birthday? What's your favorite color? Okay. Um, yeah, does anyone have any questions for Brennan? Okay, so... **[22:45] Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, there is a draft resolution included in your materials. **[22:45] Mayor Michele Hansen:** And oh yeah, that was the other question. So all the wording was "approximately a year." Why? **[22:45] Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, it's not a full year entirely. We—yeah, that was the suggestion of the City Attorney to be a little bit loose there so we could meet certain deadlines for Planning Commission and Council meetings, because it'll need to go back through that process for the conditional use permit. **[23:33] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Okay. And that's okay to not have it very clear? According to the Attorney, he wants it that way? Okay. Seems unusual. **[23:33] Matt Kline:** It does seem unusual. I talked to Eric Larson about that issue, and the idea was that, not knowing the length of time it will take to process the application for it to become a permanent or more permanent permit, he wanted to leave it open. I asked him that same exact question when I read it, and he said this shouldn't go beyond... you'll know because they'll be in the application process before that one year expires whether or not it's needed to be extended. So that's why it's "approximately." **[24:18] Mayor Michele Hansen:** And we're okay without setting a "up to a certain date" or something to make sure that it all happens? **[24:18] Matt Kline:** He is steadfast in his position on that. **[24:18] Mayor Michele Hansen:** All right. City staff's good with that. All right. We just have to change the Mayor's name on the paperwork—it still has the previous Mayor. Oh yeah, look at that. **[24:18] Matt Kline:** Oh, Madam Mayor, I'm sorry. **[24:18] Mayor Michele Hansen:** That's all right. It was 12 years. 12 years of the same Mayor and only almost one. **[24:18] Councilmember John Dahl:** I'm prepared to make a motion, if you guys are ready. Go for it. Um, I move to adopt a resolution approving an interim use permit for a period of approximately one year to conduct auto sales with outdoor storage and display at 397 5th Avenue North, subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. **[25:05] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Do we have a second? **[25:05] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** I second. **[25:05] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Thanks, Ethan. All right, roll call vote. **[25:05] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Gilmore? **[25:05] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** Aye. **[25:05] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Dahl? **[25:05] Councilmember John Dahl:** Aye. **[25:05] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Hill? **[25:05] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Aye. **[25:05] Matt Kline:** Mayor Hansen? **[25:05] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Aye. All ayes. Awesome. Yay. Finally give it a go. All right, so number two under new business: Consider awarding a proposal to complete a financial management plan and utility analysis. **[25:52] Matt Kline:** Thank you, Madam Mayor. As the Mayor indicated, this is a proposal for a financial management plan and utility analysis. The City solicited proposals for this plan and analysis from specific three firms in the Twin Cities area and all responded with a proposal. The plan and analysis are to prepare for future funding and improvement projects by verifying that the current budget and funding allocations are making that possible. **[25:52] Matt Kline:** The primary components are a budget analysis, rate study, and a financial management model. The budget analysis will assess current and future expenditures and revenues and evaluate funding for capital improvements, building maintenance, and a multitude of City priorities. That scope will also review the assessment policy and potential impacts, whether positive or negative, on the City budget. The second component is a rate study that will look at the water and sewer utility enterprise funds to make sure that receivables are covering expenditures and that we're also saving for future capital improvements. The rate study will also evaluate the potential to add a storm sewer and street lighting fee as revenue sources. **[27:26] Matt Kline:** Finally, a financial management model will be created by the firm—essentially a computer model that will help us plan for the future from a fiscal perspective. Currently, I want to point out that the City is in good financial position and that this plan and analysis will provide a framework to not only retain that position but also allow us to complete capital improvement work as needed. All three firms did submit a qualifying proposal, but Northland Public Finance submitted the lowest responsible bid. Jessica Green is here tonight if you happen to have any questions. They have actually helped the City of Bayport out in the past by securing General Obligation utility revenue bonds for a Highway 95 project, and the past City Administrator was very impressed by their staff. So City staff recommends City Council adopt a motion awarding the proposal from Northland Public Finance for a not-to-exceed amount of $32,500. **[28:13] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Thank you, Matt. I can't express how excited I am that we're finally doing this. It's been years we've been talking about this, and I think this is going to be money well spent so that we can do a much better job of planning and understanding what needs to be done and how it's all going to work. So this is an exciting day, I think, for the City of Bayport, even though it doesn't probably feel like it. So thank you for all... I appreciated the details that were in the RFP and I really appreciated the proposals that came back. I only saw yours, but yeah, very detailed and very exciting to get this information finally. So thank you. Does anyone have any questions or comments about the plan? **[29:44] Councilmember John Dahl:** What do we use to pay for this or what? **[29:44] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Dahl, we didn't specifically allocate any money in the Capital Improvement Plan this year for this, nor have we ever. It's just kind of been a rolling thing that we've talked about, and the fact that we didn't necessarily know an actual cost for it, it was kind of hard to budget for. So it's likely that it will come out of multiple City service budgets. **[29:44] Councilmember John Dahl:** Percentage out of each based... **[29:44] Matt Kline:** Yes. **[29:44] Councilmember John Dahl:** Well, when I read things like "they have a proven track record of making complex financial issues understandable"—got a best friend, good luck with that. Seems like a great idea. Yeah. **[30:31] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** Any other thoughts? I guess is this going to be something that you guys will work closely with them and then present to us, or would you be involved in any of that with workshops and things like that? I'm just curious. **[30:31] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Gilmore, ultimately what will happen is we will work very closely with Northland. We'll get all them their information, talk over assessment policy, and street lighting and different things like that. It's likely that over multiple workshops, it will get presented—most likely all three of those items will be presented over a workshop each themselves. **[31:17] Mayor Michele Hansen:** And my understanding is that in the end, you also get like a model that you can work with, that you can input "well what if we decided to change this to that, well how does that affect the overall picture," right? **[31:17] Matt Kline:** Yeah, so that's super exciting. **[31:17] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Any other... want to hear from Miss Green or does anyone... do you have anything you'd like to say? If you came all the way here, we might as well at least introduce myself. **[31:17] Jessica Green (Northland Public Finance):** Madam Mayor, Council, on behalf of Northland, we appreciate the opportunity to work with the City. Some of you will recognize my colleague Tammy Omdal when we go through some of the workshops that Matt was just talking about. I think most of those are planned in March or April. So you will get to know us very well and we will try to keep it as simple as possible, even though we are dealing with some complex stuff. But being that the City has a lot of infrastructure needs coming up, just wanting to sort of get a plan in place for some of that, providing an understanding of what the financial impact will be for the City. But I'm happy to take any questions, but otherwise, again, thank you for the opportunity. **[32:02] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Oh, thank you for coming. Thanks for joining us, appreciate it. All right, do we want to... anyone want to make a motion? **[32:02] Councilmember John Dahl:** I can make a motion. I'll move to award a proposal from Northland Public Finance to perform the financial management plan and utility analysis for a not-to-exceed amount of $32,500. **[32:02] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** I'll second it. **[32:02] Mayor Michele Hansen:** How's that? Good one, Michelle. Roll call vote. **[32:47] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Gilmore? **[32:47] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** Aye. I'm so excited. **[32:47] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Dahl? **[32:47] Councilmember John Dahl:** Aye. **[32:47] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Hill? **[32:47] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Aye. **[32:47] Matt Kline:** Mayor Hansen? **[32:47] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Aye. He shakes his head at me. All right. Number three: Consider a petition from Nathan Jesperson at 317 Lake Street contesting charges to process his variance appeal. And this is Matt and the City Attorney. **[32:47] Matt Kline:** Thank you, Mayor Hansen. As you had indicated, this is a petition from Nathan Jesperson contesting charges to his variance appeal process. As you all know, Mr. Jesperson submitted a variance application to the City back in 2022 for additions to the north and east side of his home. When submitting a zoning application, the property owner/applicant agrees and acknowledges that all expenses incurred by the City for processing this application are the responsibility of the applicant and property owner, whether the application is approved or denied. **[33:35] Matt Kline:** Expenses incurred for City consultants and other organizations are directly related to the land and zoning use application. They are essentially put into an initial escrow account, and then any additional expenses beyond that initial escrow are billed to the property owner. This may include printing and publishing for a public hearing, engineering, legal services, and WMO review. City staff time beyond the initial application fee is not billed to the property owner. **[34:22] Matt Kline:** A detailed tabulation of the expenditures is listed on the memo. Essentially, the initial escrow submitted by the applicant was $1,500. The outstanding balance as of 11/6 is $14,726.66. There was additional Middle St. Croix WMO review expense of $744.50, so the current outstanding balance is $13,971.26. On October 31st, Mr. Jesperson submitted a request to address the City Council at the November 13th meeting to contest these outstanding fees. **[35:07] Matt Kline:** A majority of his fees in there are related to the appeal of allowing the boathouse to remain. If you recall, the original variance required him to remove the boathouse. He appealed to keep the boathouse, which was granted after the appeal. I would say about, if I was guessing, roughly about 80% of the fees are related to that appeal. Sara and I also went through the billing for the City Attorney. We did find some relevant fee reductions that weren't necessarily related to the appeal process, but were related to process work that the City was working through rather than directly related to Mr. Jesperson's appeal. So the reduction down to a current balance of $12,197.26 was calculated. Those fee reductions can be seen highlighted in blue in the attorney invoices. So at this point, the current balance would be due. Mr. Jesperson is here tonight to plead his case, and so I would open it up to him to address the Council. **[37:27] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Thanks, Matt. I don't have questions. I do... I can see the shock that would have happened when the Jespersons saw what their final bill was, because it is quite a bit. And you and I have talked about how we do need to have a better process for alerting people that are going through this process of how that bill is growing, because they don't find out until much later. **[37:27] Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, this was a kind of unusual one where it went on for an extended period of time. I would consider that most of our variance requests end after that first variance; we bill the person and they pay and it's not an extended thing. **[38:14] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Yeah. I also appreciate that the staff went back through and tried to find ways to dial it back a little bit and found some things that probably could be taken out. I can also see that it was a difficult... the whole situation, as we all remember, went on for... this whole thing has been going on for a long time and it was very kind of confusing because of the boathouse part. And I think that the language that was quoted here from the April 4th letter from Mr. Jesperson's attorney says, "If the city council determines that the condition will remain and the boathouse must be removed, then to the extent required by city code, this letter shall also serve as notice of appeal of the condition." And I think that from their perspective, they thought the City Council could determine that without having this appeal meeting, but we needed to go through that appeal process in order to determine that. And so I think that was a little confusing. **[39:01] Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, ultimately it was the City staff and City Attorney determination that there was no historical significance that was provided, nor is it a legal non-conforming structure. The issue becomes just because it's a legal non-conforming structure doesn't mean that we couldn't include that on the variance request to have it be removed. It was definitely tied to decreasing the impervious surface of the lot and also to reduce blight of the properties in that general area. From City staff and City Attorney perspective, the fact that it was a legal non-conforming structure still allowed it to be removed per the variance process. **[40:32] Councilmember John Dahl:** Does anyone else want to comment or ask questions before we have Nathan talk to us about his thoughts? So that bill isn't going to go away, right? I mean, so the bill just gets absorbed by us? If the applicant does not pay for that, someone will have to pay for that? Yes? **[40:32] Matt Kline:** Correct, because it's legal fees mostly, right? That's what it ended up being the gist of it, yes, Madam Mayor. And the legal fees started happening when we started getting letters from his attorney, then our attorney got involved. Approximately—if you go back through the timeline here—approximately April 4th is when the significant portion of what is currently owed occurred, essentially from April 4th through when the variance appeal was heard by the City Council on June 5th. **[41:19] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Okay. I mean, I don't know if anyone even feels... do we feel the need to have him explain anything more? I mean, I don't want to drag this out either. So I'm happy to have him come to the podium and explain his side if you guys would like to hear that. Assuming that's probably why he's here. All right, you want to come on up? State your name and address... no, I'm just kidding. I think we recognize you. **[42:05] Nathan Jesperson (Applicant):** Well, Madam Mayor and Council, appreciate having me here again. Um, you guys read the letter, so I don't really... I'm not going to take a lot of your time on this. You guys can kind of delineate. It was clearly a surprise, didn't expect it. John, I think you said it really well: the money was spent, you know, and I didn't know it was going to be spent that much, and I don't know that you guys knew that. I think it was just shock. And so I'm... I don't envy your decision on that. I just... it was a surprise for me and it was an unexpected expense. **[42:05] Nathan Jesperson:** For... I should say it was an unexpected procedure that we went through, the whole process to go through the boathouse thing to begin with. So money was spent already on my end. This is the most expensive boathouse that I still haven't done anything with. And to this point, the only the only other issue that that will come up later is that I still don't have an actual... you know, there's still another part to this, which is I now need to have a variance for the boathouse. I don't know if you guys are aware of that, but there's still another... you know, I'll be here again, right? And I don't know if this is a continuation of more legal and expenses for that yet. So yeah, I don't really have anything else to add beyond that unless you guys have questions specifically for me. **[43:39] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Don't think so. Okay, thank you. All right. Discussion among Council. I mean, if you look in our packets, some of this is tied up in kind of some legal situations here. That's where we have an attorney present. Maybe could you give us like a quick overview from a legal standpoint how you see this? **[44:26] Tom (City Attorney/Eckberg Lammers):** Certainly. The April 4, 2023, letter was sent by the attorney representing Mr. Jesperson, and it makes two very serious allegations. One legal allegation: that the structure is legally non-conforming and therefore should stay there. The second is a "taking." Both of those are significant issues raised by the applicant's attorney about the appeal. Both take significant time to research and defend. Making allegations is easy; researching and defending allegations is more expensive. To protect the City and work with staff to ensure that neither of those—it was Eric's opinion neither of those were valid reasons and legal arguments—but unfortunately it took a lot of time, energy, and expense to defend that for the City. There's no indication there that they're unreasonable bills; they're actually charged at a very reduced rate for normal fees in the legal market. So there's no allegation they're unreasonable, and I think all the time expended by my firm was reasonable and to protect the City on those two relatively serious allegations. **[45:59] Nathan Jesperson:** I have a question. You want to come up here though so it's on the... the things I'm just curious from you guys is the... or from the legal team... is the wording important in this decision? Because there was absolute confusion on this whole appeal process thing. I was under the impression at the meeting—and I think you guys were too, tell me if I'm wrong—that the two items that we needed to provide to keep the boathouse needed to be provided and the decision seemed to be in the letter from my legal was on the Council and not on the City staff. The City staff made the decision to appeal along with Eric Lammers. I was pretty adamant when it first happened that I did not... that I was not appealing and I wasn't asking for an appeal. I already had spent my money with my lawyer to get my two reasons, and I provided those reasons, and then the Council actually wasn't allowed to discuss those reasons. So my question to you is: is the verbiage important in who made that appeal, that decision for the appeal? I didn't sign for it, I didn't ask for it, and according to the letter, it doesn't necessarily trigger an appeal unless the Council meets. **[47:31] Tom (City Attorney):** If I may respond? Thank you. The wording is from your own attorney's letter, that "if the city council determines the condition will remain and the boathouse must be removed... let this letter shall serve as notice of appeal of the condition." So it seems fairly... I don't know what impression you started with or when you left, I can't speak to that, but it seemed pretty clear from a legal perspective that that is notice of an appeal. As for the wording being "city council" versus "city staff," the wording "let this serve as notice of appeal" is the most important. **[48:17] Nathan Jesperson:** Okay, so the "city council" part doesn't matter? **[48:17] Tom (City Attorney):** I mean, if you're saying does the use of the term "if the city council determines"... it doesn't matter in my mind. **[49:04] Mayor Michele Hansen:** I understand where Mr. Jesperson is coming from because in the end, actually the City Council removed the condition. So it was City staff that brought it as the appeal in his mind. I understand why he's wondering if that language makes a difference. But what it comes down to is that fees were incurred because of this... I'm just going to call it a nudge. I mean, lawyers would consider it a "gentle nudge." I guess I don't know how... I don't think the other taxpayers should have to pay those fees for this specific instance because of that confusion. And I feel for you, I totally get it, and I was trying to figure out a way that how can charges get that large, is there a way that it isn't the burden of the person? But really there is no way around it, unfortunately. **[50:37] Councilmember John Dahl:** It is... the property owner has been very cooperative and nice to work with for the most part and polite and all that stuff counts and is appreciated. But it's a surprise for me, it's really a surprise for the balance of the citizens of Bayport to have to suck that up and I have a hard time eating that. It kind of goes back to your attorney, unfortunately, that they put that in there. Probably shouldn't have done that at that point. **[51:23] Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, I will go back to a letter that was sent on May 4th by the City essentially that does indicate that if he's not moving forward with this appeal, he's given a chance to withdraw the variance appeal. So he did have an opportunity to indicate that the appeal was no longer moving forward. And at that point, most costs had not been incurred prior to May 4th; some cost had, but a fair amount of them had not. **[51:23] Mayor Michele Hansen:** I mean, we talked about it as an appeal all the way through the process is how I remember it. **[51:23] Councilmember John Dahl:** The appeal that we didn't bring up... I felt like it was like his attorney brought it up to us that they're attacking, not attacking but accusing us of these things. So then we just did what we had to do and put up the defense mode where we made sure what we did was correct, and then yes, it was correct. So here you go. Because I guess you don't know that you're correct until you study it and you get all the information. **[52:56] Mayor Michele Hansen:** I think from a property owner's perspective you think, "Oh, well can't the City Council just look at it and go, well yeah we might consider that before it has to go through that whole process?" But that's not how it works. We all have to go through the steps of having the attorneys review it, having the meeting, having the whole appeal process. Anything else anyone wants to add? We just need a... I guess there's no motion to be made or anything other... I think we just... you can tell that we haven't like decided anything other than it will move forward. **[52:56] Matt Kline:** Direction, Madam Mayor—we'll use the reduced amount based on our review of the legal fees. **[52:56] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Okay, yeah. Sounds good. **[52:56] Nathan Jesperson:** Thank you. **[53:43] Mayor Michele Hansen:** All right. Number four: Consider an amendment to Appendix B, Zoning, of the Bayport City Code of Ordinances related to the regulation of short-term rentals and summary for publication. Sara. **[53:43] Sara Taylor:** Madam Mayor, members of the Council. In 2019, the City adopted an ordinance to regulate and license short-term rentals (STRs) for any period less than 30 days. Since adoption, the City has only issued two licenses. In reviewing the ordinance in response to the most recent license application, staff identified areas of the ordinance that need to be clarified to ensure consistent administration. Staff also recognized that the existing ordinance could benefit from some reorganization. **[54:29] Sara Taylor:** On October 2nd, the City Council held a workshop to discuss the ordinance and provide direction to staff. Substantial revisions include the following: licenses must be approved initially by the City Council as opposed to administratively by staff; site plan and floor plan requirements as well as items to be inspected will be included in the license application packet instead of listed in the ordinance; notification to adjacent properties will occur following license approval as opposed to prior to issuance; density requirements have been removed to simplify license eligibility; licenses are not transferable; no off-street parking is required for license eligibility; hosting of events or parties is allowed on the premises but must be conducted indoors; and renewal of a license that has been suspended or revoked within the preceding 12 months shall be subject to City Council approval. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on October 30th and no public comments were heard. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 in support of the ordinance amendments. **[56:03] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Thanks, Sara. Again, this is something that when we first wrote this years ago, it was a very long process, and I just wanted to clarify that a lot of these changes are clarifying some of the things that were decided on but didn't actually make it into the ordinance as the Council had intended. I went back and watched that whole meeting. And yeah, there was just some things that there was inconsistencies and confusion, but it was very clear what the intention was from the Council and that's what we're trying to incorporate here. Also some things, I think like we learned something like you said about the County has like their own process now. Did you want to explain a little bit more about their own rules? **[56:49] Sara Taylor:** Madam Mayor, we were informed that they do have two different kinds of lodging licenses and depending upon the occupancy and duration, they may qualify for one of those licenses. We also have been notified that they regulate swimming pools and spas that are associated with short-term rental units. Because of the commercial nature of running a business of a short-term rental, the pools and spas have to meet certain criteria almost like a commercial hotel or motel type situation. So as part of the update of the application packet and the inspection checklist, those items will be noted as an additional step that the applicant needs to work through the County. **[57:34] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Okay, I just wanted the Council to be aware of that additional process now. Oversight is happening. Exactly. And then I still have one issue with the new proposal—nothing's highlighted there, nothing's changed in it, but for some reason, it's on page two of four of the proposed amendments, and then there's item number one and then A, B, and C on the next page. We have all these like minimum square footage for the lot and minimum size for the building area and that they have to have a minimum number of bedrooms. I thought we kind of talked about that at the workshop about why is that written into this STR thing? It just didn't make sense to me like why can't you have a short-term rental if you don't have that big of a lot? **[59:09] Sara Taylor:** Madam Mayor, I can respond. Typically, the zoning ordinance tries to identify certain standards in order to prevent nuisance conditions. Most lots in Bayport are roughly around 7,500 square feet, so almost every property would qualify for this. This is meant to set sort of a base threshold so that the property isn't used more intensively than it should be. The minimum of 1,200 square feet residential building area—a single-family home right now by the zoning ordinance is required to be 960 square feet. But this ordinance doesn't say the property owner can't be living there and rent out a portion of the property. When you add those two together at the time when the ordinance was adopted, we thought 1,200 square feet for both STR and the property owner was sufficient. And the two bedrooms again—the ordinance doesn't say that the property owner can't also be residing within the unit. I think to make sure there's some separation there, or again making sure that enough bedrooms exist so that the guests have adequate space. **[1:00:41] Mayor Michele Hansen:** I think I understand why we would try to do that, but I'm not sure that we need it. My opinion is I feel like we're being more restrictive and making more work for you guys to check on all these things that I'm not... who's going to rent a short-term rental from someone where you have to share the bedroom with the owner? No one's going to do that, right? I mean, would you ever sign up for that? So a minimum of two bedrooms just like—well, duh. No comment. I don't know, it just seems like overkill to me. **[1:01:28] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** I want to be pretty permissive with the stuff and I've been that way all the way along on this STR stuff. I don't really... I have a hard time getting behind these really strict—maybe strict isn't the right word—but we've had two in what, how many years now since we've had the ordinance? Five? A couple, yeah. So I don't know... I mean, yeah, if you guys don't have an issue with it I'm fine with leaving it in, but I thought at least we could discuss like, does anyone else see that this is just a little bit overkill? And I know how you feel—you don't even want a whole STR ordinance at all. **[1:02:15] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Well, I know that the internet is not what it says it is, so you could think that you're renting this beautiful place but it's really like someone's garage. And I don't want like Bayport to be put up for that, you know? Like "oh, every place in Bayport that you rent is a garage" because that's also not good. There's other things that would say you can't do that. **[1:03:01] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** And beyond the fact that regardless—this is what I've gone over a million times—regardless of if a City has all these rules against it, it's going to be two reviews that say, "Oh, I rented this place and it was actually a guy's couch in his garage." No one's ever going to rent it again. That takes care of it itself. "I had to share my bedroom with the owner" or "it was a shanty in the backyard." Those places aren't going to exist because no one will ever rent them if one person gets burnt on it. First off, it's not the City's fault that they went on Airbnb and rented a cot in a guy's garage. So to me, the whole thing could just be eliminated, but I know we're not going to do that. But if you want to get rid of a few things, fine. I don't see that it's necessary. Like you guys said, we've had two in the last five years. I'm all for not making rules for something that *might* happen; it'd be easier just to make a rule later if something *does* happen. **[1:03:48] Mayor Michele Hansen:** I'm okay with the "no separate structures" part, leaving that in. You can't even do that for your own family. I had an experience—I've used Airbnbs pretty often—where it was a situation where I just needed a place to lay my head. I found a cheap Airbnb; it turned out it was a college student that only was able to get a two-bedroom apartment at the time. So they're like, "all right, I'm going to make the best of it and I'm going to Airbnb out." I literally had a tiny little bedroom the size of a closet and I knew what I was getting into. It worked well for me, it worked well for them, it solved a problem. So that's... I like the flexibility of it finding its own level. To Ethan's point, you know, what if somebody went there expecting a grandiose room with coffee machines and all the extra amenities, then they were taken. But I knew what I was getting into and it worked out perfectly for me. I would hate to deny somebody that's in an unusual situation that they could kind of make lemonade out of lemons. Is there anything legally we need to be thinking about, Tom? Or did you fall asleep? **[1:04:35] Tom (City Attorney):** No, this is all policy. This is what you want to do. **[1:04:35] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Well, I would like to see us remove A, B, and the first sentence in C—the minimum of two bedrooms—and just keep the rest of that bedroom stuff. **[1:05:23] Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, can I comment? At a minimum, I think we should indicate one bedroom, because obviously we don't want people going to sleep on couches and different stuff like that. **[1:06:08] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Well, yeah, because we have apartments here that aren't... that's the lot site. Because you couldn't like rent if you had a small or even a townhome that's smaller—you couldn't rent a second room and live there as well if it's not... So what about our townhomes? Waterford would qualify, right? Because of the lot size probably? You know what I mean? Like, it just it feels too restrictive. So that's a good point, that with the college student or... you never even know, or it's a lady and her husband passed away and she wants some more money so she's going to rent her other bedroom. I feel like we all agree that A and B can be removed, and then adding one bedroom... minimum of a one bedroom, and then all bedrooms will be located... I mean, the title of Airbnb is "Air Bed and Breakfast." I get Matt's point, it's just hard to imagine somebody renting a space that didn't have a bedroom, but quite frankly I don't really care if somebody wants to sleep on a pull-out couch. Knock yourself out. I would like to strike AB and the first sentence. Does anyone disagree? **[1:07:40] Sara Taylor:** Madam Mayor, if I could just maybe make a suggestion. I know there are certain requirements for bedrooms: they have to meet certain egress, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. If it's a legal bedroom—if it's just more of a studio area and space, I'm not sure if those types of units would have to meet some of those safety requirements. It might be a good idea to check with our building official and fire department to see if there would be any negative impacts without requiring a certain amount of bedrooms. There's certain things like egress. **[1:08:25] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Okay, I'm good with that. "Compliant bedroom"—like it has to meet the standards of being a bedroom, like you have to have a closet and an egress window if it's in the basement or whatever and fire protection. Okay, I'll buy that. So A and B go, and then C we just say they have to have one at least. Legally. Perfect. But wait, there's more from the Mayor! One more thing I'd like to get rid of... page three of four, 74.8.04, Occupancy. Number of transient guests is limited to two per bedroom. Why do we care if they have a bedroom that has bunk beds and a queen bed and a whole family can stay in it? Why do we care? That was the way... I don't know, I just thought it seemed kind of restrictive again. They can only have two people in each bedroom, but I have seen rentals out there that have that scenario that I just explained. You've got three sets of bunk beds and whatever. But I mean here is not that. So I mean why would... who knows what people might want? Could be here for a wedding, you got a bunch of kids you're trying to find... it just seemed too restrictive again to me. I'm fine with changing that. **[1:09:11] Sara Taylor:** Madam Mayor, if I may, I just want to remind the Council that this ordinance is crafted to protect the adjacent neighborhood. It's not necessarily to promote a business for the property owner or the potential guest. I think this provision is specific to overcrowding and not bringing 12 people and squishing into a one or two-bedroom unit and potentially that would overflow and have negative impacts to the neighborhood. I think just to look at it from that lens as well when you're thinking about making some of these revisions. **[1:10:43] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** I've said this before: these people come and say you have one bad group that brings 10 people and they're a little loud, they're a little noisy, so we try to regulate that. But then I could buy a house and I could move 16 people into my house and there's zero regulation on if I rent to them for 365 days. It's like... I just don't understand. It's like you're going to... you might have a few bad guests, but I could rent to the biggest dirtbags on the planet—I don't care who they live next to. But I just don't think people are going to do that, and I think we have too many rules about it worrying about something that probably is never going to happen anyways, especially with one Airbnb in the City right now. **[1:11:29] Councilmember Katie Hill:** I like it, to tell you the truth. I think it should... I mean, I'm only one person so it doesn't really matter, but I would not want... I wouldn't care if my neighbor had a short-term rental, but I would definitely want them to have not... I mean if you have a teeny house, first of all you just think about fire hazards and then I'm just always worrying about what they're going to... I mean, I'm a worrier so that's probably my own fault. But I just don't know why... I mean, like you said, we only have two, so why are we so concerned? Wouldn't you want to protect your residents from having a party? Yeah, it says no parties, but you exactly you don't... it doesn't have to be a party when it's more people and you're just loud and annoying. But you can be loud and annoying in a house you own. And then if you're that neighbor you would probably want to move from that annoying person. I just feel like it might make more problems taking that out than keeping it in. **[1:12:15] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** But you'd be okay as that neighbor? Sure, it's for two days, three days... and could be for a week could be, or every other week if they're visiting. I'm guessing it's probably not going to be 12 people in a two-bedroom house every week. Exactly, no one's going to want to live like that. I feel like there's also the other side of this, and people have a right to have a short-term rental and they have a right to have... if they have a large bedroom, to have two queen beds in it and four people sleeping in it just like a hotel room or whatever. There's two sides to this. We have a lot of things that are helping the neighbors—we're restricting how many people you know, you can't have them next to each other, can't have noise and you can't have anything basically outside. No special events allowed, parties, camping, fireworks, discharge of firearms... God I hope not. You know, I just feel like we have other things that cover that and where it's not necessary. And I can't believe we're still discussing this. **[1:14:38] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Yeah, we seem like we've given it... yeah I don't and I don't want to just give up because I think it's a little ridiculous that we're being that limiting. And I know I could say maybe that's why we don't have as many short-term rentals as we could, because people see things like that. But I doubt it, they probably haven't read all the... I mean, the Airbnb owner is probably not reading through all this. That's what I mean, they're just putting it out there—"oh I got a two-bedroom place and you can sleep a reasonable amount of people in there." That's probably what most people are doing. But if we need to have a rule about it, I guess have a rule. So where are we falling on this? You don't want any rules so you're probably okay with taking it out. I would like to take out the first part of that clause... and Katie wants to keep it and I don't know how... **[1:15:25] Councilmember John Dahl:** I think based on my prior history on this, I've been wanting to be more inclusive for the property owners rather than less inclusive, so I would strike it. **[1:15:25] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Okay, so let's... that makes three of us then that would like to leave it as "in no case shall there be more than 12 transient guests per premises" and take the rest of it out of there, that they can't have a party. So they're going to have to play... 12 people playing Monopoly. Yeah, exactly. Well, that might be a party though! God forbid somebody has a party. Not outside. They can't have loud parties outside. I think they can inside, maybe I don't even know. Do you guys want... I know Joe's not happy, but I think sometimes you're clueless about what's happening in the neighborhood. Sorry I disagree. Well you guys have every right to run for Council or Mayor! That's why we're here. I'm just saying you could... I don't know, are we supposed... is it okay to open it up? I suppose I can do whatever I want, what they say. Would one of the renters or both like to have something to say? Come on over, Joe. State your name and address, please. You're the one that's got me going. **[1:16:10] Joe Ritzer (Resident):** Joe Ritzer, I live at 171 5th Street North. 12 is what you're looking at, that's what it's currently at. We're not changing that. **[1:16:10] Mayor Michele Hansen:** In a two-bedroom house? **[1:16:10] Joe Ritzer:** No, just any bedroom size. I think the thing is is I'm kind of on the side of the administration that, you know, concerns for the property owners. Right now we have full-time tenants that live near us—we don't know how many families are living there any given night. We can have either three cars or six cars. We have no idea who's living there, they come and go all night. **[1:16:56] Mayor Michele Hansen:** That's not short-term rent, that's a long-term... which is what I've said over and over and over again. We're regulating this and we're not regulating long-term rentals. And I'm not saying we need to regulate long-term rentals more, but if we're going to regulate this to such an extent, maybe there should be something on long-term rent. But you know, these what you're talking about here is more transient people—people that don't belong in our town. They're for a short time and then they leave. **[1:17:43] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Doesn't mean they don't belong here. Anyone can come and visit that wants to, and saying they don't belong here is not very welcome. **[1:17:43] Joe Ritzer:** It's just limiting the amount of people in the house and how many visitors. I mean, a 7,500 square foot lot has two parking spaces in front. Right now we see six cars taking up two, two and a half lots. **[1:17:43] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** I feel like this complaint has nothing to do with short-term rentals though. This is actually someone who owns a home, right? Talking about congestion of people coming and going in our neighborhoods? **[1:17:43] Joe Ritzer:** I'm standing up for our neighborhoods. **[1:17:43] Mayor Michele Hansen:** And we have a limit of 10 short-term rentals in the entire City, okay? And none of they can't be next to each other, across the street from each other, any of that. And we currently have one or two. 10 is the maximum. So we have other things that are helping to make them feel better about all of this. But I don't... I feel like we also have to be open and accepting of people who want to do short-term rentals because that is... we don't have a hotel for them to stay in. There isn't any of that. So short-term rentals are the only way you can stay in our town. When you stay in a hotel, isn't there an occupancy rating? Two adults to a hotel room inside, three, whatever. I mean I would think it would drive you... **[1:19:17] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Four, depends on how many beds. Exactly. But that's what I'm trying to get at. We're saying you can't even have... you can only have two people in a bedroom. But what if you have multiple beds in that bedroom? That just doesn't seem fair to them. We don't know what size bedrooms... I mean we're all thinking well maybe it's a tiny house, but maybe it's not. Maybe it's a huge house. Maybe it's on Point Road and they've got... exactly. But I don't know if you've read the entire ordinance and all the other restrictions, but I feel like we do a pretty good job of making sure that there isn't going to be any issues. **[1:19:17] Joe Ritzer:** It's just a large transient issue that I have. The people come and go within a day or two. I mean it's bad enough we have renters that are overloading their, you know, three-bedroom homes, but now we have transient people. I see this in Palm Springs a lot when I go see my mom. There's a house down the street—one weekend there's three cars, next weekend there's 10, next weekend there's parties. You know, and these people are not neighborhood people, they're people that come and go. **[1:20:04] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Neighborhood what's the bad part about it? If they're not hurting anybody in the process, why can't they come and stay in our town? As long as they're following the noise ordinances that it's written into here. **[1:20:51] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** I get some of the things Mr. Ritzer is talking about and it's more about for me it's about... Bayport proper was... most of the homes were built in a much different way obviously than if you go to Inspiration. These people don't have three-car garages, they don't have way for off-street parking. And I've seen it in many neighborhoods where there's four cars whether they're renters or whomever. I think it's maybe a bigger City issue, but people parking on the street. We're going to talk about it later with clogging up the streets for plowing and things like that. That stuff becomes bothersome as a neighbor in those neighborhoods because to his point, what if everybody does that? What if everybody parks four cars per house out on the street? Now it's gridlock, we can't plow any streets and things like that. So I do get his point as it pertains to... but out of all of the whole entire City, it's not going to cause... that's what I'm saying. It pertains to the housing in general in Bayport for me, not necessarily just STRs. **[1:22:23] Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor? If Sarah and I just had a short discussion... what if we increase the number per bedroom to three or potentially four to allow for, say, two queen-sized beds? But not the potential to have six people in there, that does seem excessive. I mean, as indicated, that can happen in ski chalets and different things like that where that's kind of perceived as a norm, rather than here where I don't believe anybody's bringing their kids to ski down Barker's Alps or anything like that. Yeah, um, it just may be it seems reasonable to limit it to four per bedroom rather than the potential to... if you strike that and only have 12 transient guests per premises, you could conceivably have 12 people in one bedroom. **[1:23:09] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Yeah. Or then and the opposite of that is then we're limiting them to three bedrooms if 12 is the maximum. That's true also, yes. All right, thank you. Thank you, Joe. Thanks, Joe. I guess I guess I could live with limited to four per bedroom, but I still don't know why we're doing that because it's going to just... the market is going to take force them to. So if you have a four-bedroom house, do you get 16 people then? Is that where do you... no, then it's... I still think it should be 12. 12 seems like a plenty high number to... again I think the reason for 12 is the potential as indicated, and even John reiterated, right? You could have four vehicles parked, the need to park four vehicles. And the fact that we are not limiting their parking to somewhere off-street because we don't want to, that could very well cause problems. Ultimately that is our concern, is how many people in the entire home. So why do we care how many they're going to cram into a bedroom? Whatever they can do that's still safe and comfortable that they can get people to rent, I don't understand why. **[1:23:56] Matt Kline:** Again, from staff standpoint, I guess we don't. But from a reasonableness and a safety standpoint again, we don't know what the size of the rooms are, so we don't know what's safe or reasonable. **[1:23:56] Mayor Michele Hansen:** That's why it's frustrating—everyone's assuming these bedrooms are tiny. We don't know. So I just feels like... because if we change it to four, then we're limiting it to three bedrooms, and I'm not sure that... I guess you could have four bedrooms and not all of them have four in it. So compromise and say limited to four per bedroom and be done? Okay, perfect. Sounds good. Let's do that unless anyone objects. Okay, I'm done with my comments on the short-term rental. Hallelujah! So where anyone else have anything they want to talk about on it or is someone ready to make a motion? **[1:24:45] Councilmember Katie Hill:** I'll move to adopt amendments to Appendix B, Zoning, of the City of Bayport City Code of Ordinances related to the regulation of short-term rentals and summary for publication with the additions discussed. **[1:24:45] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** I'll second. **[1:24:45] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Thanks, Ethan. All right, roll call. **[1:24:45] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Gilmore? **[1:24:45] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** Aye. **[1:24:45] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Dahl? **[1:24:45] Councilmember John Dahl:** Aye. **[1:24:45] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Hill? **[1:24:45] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Aye. **[1:24:45] Matt Kline:** Mayor Hansen? **[1:24:45] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Aye. All ayes. Thank you all for helping me come to a good resolution there. All right, consider an amendment to Chapter 54, Traffic and Vehicles, of the Bayport City Code of Ordinances related to winter on-street parking regulations. Matt. **[1:26:19] Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Obviously this was already brought up tonight, but this is related to winter on-street parking regulations. The City has actually discussed this and considered it a number of times over the years. In the past, during winter, residents usually made a concerted effort to refrain from parking on the street or actually moving their vehicles when snow events occurred. They had been very good about it for a number of years, and it seems to have gone away from that. In fact, now, essentially City plow passes and they leave—we don't make it back out to pass—and they park in the same exact spot where the plow hasn't gone through. **[1:27:07] Matt Kline:** And so what the City is considering... last year was especially difficult because of the volume and the frequency of the snow. So what happens is on some of the very narrow streets, we are not able to plow curb-to-curb, which narrows the road. We definitely do have some of those streets in the City. Surrounding communities such as Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Hudson, and Lakeland have varying degrees of winter parking restrictions. Lakeland does not allow anybody to park on the City streets from November 1st through April 1st. Hudson, I believe, has the same rule. A couple of other cities do odd-even, and then obviously some other cities do by snow emergency. **[1:27:52] Matt Kline:** In Bayport, I believe it would be nearly difficult or very difficult or likely impossible to do no City parking from November 1st through April 1st, so staff didn't even consider that, given that there's a fair amount of houses with very small garages, the alley situation that occurs... so what staff is proposing at this time is an odd-even parking restriction. So nothing to do with when it snows or anything, but on odd days you can park on the odd side of the street, on even days you would park on the even side of the street. This would be roughly from 1:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. At this time, I believe that those hours would give us enough time to make at least one pass in most of the difficult areas so that the cars could get moved to the other side of the street. **[1:28:39] Matt Kline:** City staff would promote the new restrictions in the newsletter, social media, and City site. Police staff would essentially do a direct community outreach for some of the more difficult areas. There's probably four or five spots that this definitely applies to where people park on both sides of the road. And then for the first few snow events, staff would talk to residents so they get acclimated. Implementation would be as soon as possible. This would also definitely help out street sweeping. Where we have areas that have significant tree cover, if people are parked there on a permanent basis when they're not supposed to be, we do have a difficult time sweeping those City streets also. The recommendation from November 1st through April 1st would be recommended. **[1:29:25] Mayor Michele Hansen:** And thank you, Matt. And this would not apply in Inspiration because they already have parking on only one side? **[1:29:25] Matt Kline:** That is correct. **[1:29:25] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Okay, so anywhere where there's special street parking requirements already, it would not apply. So how does it work then for plowing if they can park on that one side all the time? Is it going to be a problem? **[1:29:25] Matt Kline:** The good thing about Inspiration, there's minimal parking on the street. **[1:30:59] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** And then there are also places like in front of my house where there already signs that say you can't park there during school hours on the one side of the street. Potentially that will get reassessed. I think it's not going to apply on that street because of that restriction, or we remove those signs. At this point, now, if we remove those signs, it's likely the teachers are going to go back to parking there. It's tight. **[1:30:59] Mayor Michele Hansen:** That's good in two years obviously we won't have that issue. **[1:30:59] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** True, a couple years maybe. Depending on what goes in there, we may still have people parking on the street. That's true. So again it's not just to clarify—people that... I've lived in St. Paul and Minneapolis and different areas of Metro... this is not a snow emergency situation. This is a matter of every single day. And why is that? Why wouldn't we do it as a snow emergency instead? **[1:32:30] Matt Kline:** Well, so essentially a snow emergency would be that you can't park on the City streets at all during a snow emergency. Trying to coordinate the odd-even snow emergency I think would be more confusing for people than actually having a routine. **[1:32:30] Mayor Michele Hansen:** It is confusing for like St. Paul isn't it? Or they get used to it? My daughter lives in St. Paul and I think they figure it out. So do they require odd-even or do they require snow emergency you can't park at all? **[1:32:30] Matt Kline:** No. Well she only has street parking, so they have to let her park on the street somewhere. I don't know how it works, but anyways I'm glad we're trying to do something because it has gotten I think bad. I notice it with street sweepers too. I just think the people that are used to parking in front of their house on their house side of the street are really going to be ticked too. **[1:33:16] Councilmember John Dahl:** I don't disagree with you. Crossing snow-filled streets, kids and everything else... I mean I think some of the safety things could be an issue there too. **[1:33:16] Matt Kline:** Well I think the intent with this is that the ability to actually clear the streets better would make the streets better for walking on essentially. And again this is going to be very isolated. I mean we have probably about five blocks maybe that this becomes an issue. A real issue where people are parked on both sides of the road right across from each other. But it's happening everywhere. **[1:33:16] Councilmember John Dahl:** Now I have seen it where it's restricted to certain areas of the City and you essentially have a map that requires it to be there. That would be an option also. **[1:34:49] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Do you another question... we're not going to be like... if there's no snow at all, it's not like they're going to get in trouble? "I parked on the odd side but it's an even day"—it's not like they're going to get in trouble? Correct? It's only like "hey guess what, it snowed out so I should go move my side my car to the odd side during the night." **[1:34:49] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Combo of the two? **[1:35:36] Councilmember John Dahl:** What about the 2-hour parking by Anderson? Would that be still odd-even? I know the one on 5th Avenue they can't park on that one side. Again, where there's special parking restrictions, it doesn't... across from the school? **[1:35:36] Matt Kline:** All those people that live across from the school, they would have to be exempt in that location essentially. The hope is in those locations like across from the school, there's not too many... well there is a fair amount of people but a lot of those are teachers that we can get through there before... in two years they won't even be there. **[1:36:23] Mayor Michele Hansen:** I'm glad we're talking about it because it's a nightmare. Yeah, when they're... I mean I think probably my street's one of them. I mean people park on both sides and it's like this and piles up... it's like you can't even hardly get a plow through there, can't get two cars when they're going this way. It's almost impossible. It's a nightmare. I like the idea of doing something, but I don't like the idea of it being Citywide all the time. I feel like we should be able to come to a better... like something more specific, whether it's we name the streets that it happens on or we do... I don't know. If it doesn't snow all week, like what's the point? Just feels like it's being making it too much of a pain for some of the people that rely on parking right outside of their house. But I don't know what's the best solution right now. I like what you kind of said: if it snows at all, then you got to get to the right odd-even. But if it hasn't snowed in three days and the streets are clear... what if there's no snow in March and we're sitting here going on... I mean I don't think officers have better stuff to do than go around ticketing people for that. Do you think that's clear enough and people will know what that's...? That's just it, the more... I don't want it to be... we make it for the residents the more convoluted it's going to be in some ways. Right, so that's tricky. **[1:37:55] Simon Worth (Public Works Director):** Sarah brought up a good point: if you go to bed at 9:00, 10:00 and it snows overnight? You're not going to get up and move your car. **[1:37:55] Mayor Michele Hansen:** At 1:00 a.m. I got to go move my car! I did that. **[1:38:41] Simon Worth:** If I may... similar to Mr. Swanson the car dealer, we're allowing him to try it for a year. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to try it. Maybe don't put the hours... the thing that confused even me was 1:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. So you would essentially have to park on the odd side of the street on the even day to be in compliance for the next day. I thought it was confusing too. So if you just did odd-even through the winter and we just piloted this, I think it would be helpful to see if people would react to it. Our plows go out at 3:00 in the morning. There is call-ins if there is up to or under about an inch of snow to do the hills, the mains, the curves. It would be extremely beneficial to have, if everybody complied, to have them on one side of the street so that the plow could make one fail swoop down. The following day they go to the other side and make one fail swoop. I think the streets, if in a perfect world people complied with this and they understood simply that they parked on the odds side of the street on an odd day, even side of the street on an even day... there aren't that many cars, it's a small town, it wouldn't be that hard to get the message out. I really don't think that it would be a bad idea to just not necessarily put this ordinance into place, but to try it. It would be worth trying something. **[1:40:14] Mayor Michele Hansen:** So a test run of odd-even without a timeframe? November 1st through April? Simple enough. We could make signs on the entrances of 95 that just say... **[1:40:14] Simon Worth:** On the speed limit sign, correct. It would say odd-even and I mean it wouldn't be that much of an investment on the City's part to introduce this. But it would certainly make I believe everybody's lives easier. I don't park on the street, so I have no idea how it feels to those people. **[1:40:14] Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, without putting a time restriction on, then all of a sudden you're also changing days while you're parked on one side and then it moves the next day and you're on the wrong side of the street then at midnight. **[1:41:47] Tom (City Attorney):** Madam Mayor. Um, we prosecute for 23 cities all over and they have all different ordinances and each and every one of them are very difficult to enforce. And I think if either suggestion is correct that as long as there is uniformity in the approach. Nothing's perfect but... as far as my only suggestion is that you not put signs up as a suggestion, that you adopt an ordinance to... and if you find it doesn't work, change your ordinance. But there needs to be some effect of the law behind it so you can enforce this. If it's not an ordinance, you can't enforce it, and people can do whatever they want. So I would suggest... I understand the temporary nature of testing it, but I think if you're asking law enforcement to enforce these at some point and issue tickets to encourage compliance, you should make it in the form of an ordinance. What we have seen, the City of Crystal has a similar ordinance, but it's about education and people will fall into that pattern and that behavior will become a pattern and not a nuisance. It's when you adopt the ordinance, it is a nuisance to the residents, and then they just slowly start conforming and complying because it's not that difficult to deal with. **[1:43:20] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Thank you. So I guess the way it's written is actually kind of where I'm landing, like so it has the hours and it has the odd-even. I worry a little bit just cause you were wondering about the hours and if it was wide enough—is that typical to have that in the ordinance or would you say "between the hours as posted" or as... you know what I mean? So that you can change the hours if you wanted to later, or is it easier to just change the ordinance? **[1:44:07] Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, based on the couple cities surrounding us, if they have hours, it's set in stone, yes. And yeah, I mean it it it's hard cause then it gets into it snowed but it didn't stick and you know it's just... well what is our rule about plowing? It's an inch. Yeah. Rethinking that requirement of you having to park on one side or the other if it snows, I would say it would be a minimum 2 inches, but then again it becomes a discretionary thing, right? Because what'll happen is if it snows one inch and then snows one inch the next day, we're usually going out, but you could make the argument at that point in time "well it only snowed one inch again." **[1:45:40] Interim Police Chief Jay Jackson:** Sure. Do you want to come over here so it's on the... thank you. I know you're not dressed up fancy tonight. I would say I definitely feel that there is a need, like with what Simon addressed. Ultimately my officers all have discretion on enforcing things. Special circumstances can often be dictating how the officers will respond, and I can certainly give some direction to that. But as the City Attorney mentioned, if we don't have it set in stone in an ordinance, then we can't go ahead with enforcement or it opens it up for challenges. I have discussed it with the City administration that my officers will make a real effort at setting up a plan for issuing warnings and talking to people as needed. Often times these are you know a couple problem vehicles and you'll see them because they're plowed in. Because now they're plowed in with potentially 3 feet of snow around them and then having to have the plows come out for one special pass just for that one special house. I do understand the concerns of the Public Works Director, and that's I guess how I would go about it: spend a lot of time on educating people, putting warnings on cars for whatever the Council decides, and then you know once we get into it, obviously snow events would be where we would pursue more stringent enforcement action. **[1:47:57] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** One question is some of these roads I go east and west don't have a lot of addresses on them. Yeah, I was actually thought of that too—is there any part... like there's no address, like how does that work? Would you go north-south then or something? **[1:47:57] Matt Kline:** I actually don't think there's a severe parking problem on what would be the east avenues versus the streets. It does seem that the streets because they front all the houses and that's where people park... usually what'll happen is the avenues that end house usually doesn't come off the alley and they have a nice garage coming off the street where they can park. **[1:47:57] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** But how does it work if you park on an avenue and there isn't technically... cause aren't you going to have an even and an odd next to each other on some of those short blocks? You know what I mean? Like on the north is even and west is even... north and west are even or northeast side of street and south side... so if you want to come up with a fun jingle for the Facebook page or something like that! That's what I was asking because my address is an avenue and it's odd cause I'm on the south side. Correct, along with all of the houses on my block we're all on the avenue and we all are on the south side. **[1:49:30] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Houses on the other side... I think there's two where their address is the avenue and then maybe the other one is the street. Okay, it'll be a little... as long as I trust you guys that it would all work out. We're not saying that there will be issues, but I was just confused about avenues and streets. Okay, so and we also will have an issue with the McManus's parking at the very end of my alley but we'll figure that out too. Just a good... we don't have many cul-de-sacs that could really confuse people. Okay to think about that if we annex anything. So do we feel like we want to make any kind of a motion? I feel like we should at the next meeting say that we're going... like oh wait, was this sent out saying we were changing an ordinance on this? **[1:50:17] Matt Kline:** Yeah. So we don't have to have another step. No, and it doesn't have to go to Planning Commission, it's not in the zoning. So we could do this and then starting when? Since we're already in November? **[1:50:17] Matt Kline:** Immediately. Again, Madam Mayor, the plan would be to obviously not like totally implement it right away. **[1:51:51] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Right, okay. So are we going with it as it's been presented with us? I kind of feel like that's where we ended up and which is probably why the staff came up with that after thinking through it all. All right, I'll just make the motion to adopt amendments to Chapter 54, Traffic and Vehicles, of the Bayport City Code of Ordinances related to winter on-street parking regulations as presented. And we'll see you next fall if we need to tweak it! Do we have a second? **[1:52:36] Councilmember Katie Hill:** I second. **[1:52:36] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Thanks, Katie. All right, roll call. **[1:52:36] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Gilmore? **[1:52:36] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** Aye. **[1:52:36] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Dahl? **[1:52:36] Councilmember John Dahl:** Aye. **[1:52:36] Matt Kline:** Councilmember Hill? **[1:52:36] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Aye. **[1:52:36] Matt Kline:** Mayor Hansen? **[1:52:36] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Aye. Is this what we're going to go down in history for? The Council that put the winter parking in? Did you mention the importance of the street sweeping as well? I think we talked about that too, thank you. All right, now on to City Council liaison reports. Katie, I know you couldn't go to... **[1:53:21] Councilmember Katie Hill:** Well I had the Planning Commission one too that was in October 30th. Um, we went over all of the things that we approved today with the interim use of 397 5th Avenue North and the short-term rental use. They went over and all of that got approved to obviously bring to us to get approved. And then BPA, I was out of town so I was not able to go there. Santa's coming the day after Thanksgiving, so don't forget that. Sirens bright and early. And they got a donation... since the bakery closed they normally get cookies from there for the lighting of the Town Green, we're going to have a local catering company make them instead. The Village Green lighting is the first Wednesday of December. **[1:54:07] Mayor Michele Hansen:** December 6th? **[1:54:07] Councilmember Katie Hill:** December 6th, yeah. **[1:54:07] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Whoa yeah, that was way off. Thank you, you're welcome. John, you've got Watershed? **[1:54:07] Councilmember John Dahl:** Middle St. Croix Watershed did not have any business to conduct; there wasn't enough business for us to have a meeting in October. Cable Commission, we have not met. **[1:54:52] Mayor Michele Hansen:** All right, I have the Fire Relief and I also had a bunch of other things, so I'll just give you the lowdown here. On October 3rd, I went to Toast and Topics where the superintendent discussed the school bond before the vote. Also on October 3rd, Matt and I met with a couple of the Baytown board members, just to answer some questions that they had about the sanitary sewer extension to Audubon and potential annexation. On the 4th, I got to meet with Sarah Taylor and we talked a little bit about short-term rentals and the status of the sign ordinance. She's put together a list of all the past mayors and city council members in the last 50 years because we talked about how that would be interesting. Talked a little bit about the website and that it needs some help, the picnic tables for the new Pavilion, and then how we can look at the recycling grant we get from the County. We also talked about a Parks Commission and decided that we're going to have a workshop in the near future to go over everything that's already been done. **[1:56:25] Mayor Michele Hansen:** On the 4th, I went to First State Bank in Oak Park Heights for their 25th-year anniversary. On the 6th, Matt and I met with a builder/developer that's interested in the Anderson property in Baytown to talk about density requirements. Did attend the Fire Relief Association meeting on October 9th. Their investments are beating the benchmarks; they renewed some CDs at 5% and their calendar sales went well. They also discussed improvements to the donation process for that. They were also at Derby Days and they said the food sales were worth the effort. On the 10th of October, I met with Commander Corey Quick from the Legion and we talked about the Pavilion payment process because they are going in on that with us 50/50. And then we're also doing historical markers that are going at the Pavilion—one for the City and one for the Legion. I've been working with Brent Peterson on putting ours together. **[1:58:43] Mayor Michele Hansen:** On the 11th, I met with Public Works Director Worth and we talked a little bit about how we could do a better job of recycling in our parks. Went to another ribbon cutting on the 11th up in Oak Park Heights as a Chamber Ambassador. And then on Halloween, we had the wonderful event with the Police Department over in the old fire station. The Bayport Lakeland Lions and our police got together and brought back the old event where we had free hot dogs and popcorn and candy, and we had hundreds of people come through there. It was really, really fun. We went through over 180-some hot dogs. The new pastor from Bethlehem Lutheran reached out and wanted to meet with me. Similar thing, director of United Way Kristen Croll wanted to learn a little bit more about needs in Bayport. On the 7th, I met the new owners of Royal Auto on the south end of town, Mo and F. Mentioned that they may be getting a visit about the signs—I don't know if you noticed all the feather flags out there—but they were cool with it. **[2:00:59] Mayor Michele Hansen:** The 9th of November, I was on a government panel for the Leadership in the Valley program that the Chamber puts on. Really cool program. And then that night I went to the Valley Community Center Partners meeting. This is a group of people that are trying to get something similar to a YMCA in the valley. They were presenting results from a survey that showed there is support for something like that. This morning I went to the Regional Council of Mayor meeting in Minneapolis. It was only my second one, and very interesting discussing post-pandemic changes. They're also trying to do a survey about multi-family housing and sorts of rules that each city has ordinances that we have about that, so they may reach out to you. And then after that at 2:30 today I talked to the Washington County Community Development Agency to talk a little bit about housing needs in our area as this potential housing development might be coming. So that was it. That was a busy month! All right, staff and City Administrator report. Start that off, Matt. **[2:04:03] Matt Kline:** Thank you, Madam Mayor. Fire Chief Eisinger actually has a Fire Relief Association meeting tonight and drill, so he's unable to be here. He did want to reiterate the call volume this year is much greater—definitely greater—than 2022. Current volume year-to-date is 1,028 versus 943 last year. Just to mention anniversaries for this month: Josh Eisinger, 22 years; Jake Eisinger and Kyle Carlson, 19 years; and Adam Stephan, 5 years. With that, we'll move on to Interim Chief Jackson. **[2:04:37] Interim Police Chief Jay Jackson:** Madam Mayor, Council. Not a ton to report here. We did have a wonderful event on Halloween. Mayor, personally, you were instrumental in making that happen, getting the support of the Lions Club. It was just a really, really good event. Also would like to mention Officer Ryan Jones who was instrumental in the planning of this. He also created an after-action report so we can plan a little bit better. It was really good to see the numbers; at one point the line was out the door. We had two officers that we sent up to Inspiration so that we also had a presence up there. Our officers on Highway 95 reported we only had about 10 groups that crossed. As far as our training on November 8th, we did our fit testing for our gas masks which is required under OSHA. We also did our Narcan training. Narcan is a medication given when somebody is suspected of overdosing on an opioid. Upcoming events: Toys for Tots is going to be getting started here shortly. Bank, City Hall, and then looking forward to the Lighting of the Green. We team up with the Department of Corrections and make a nice little convoy down to Golden Valley where we drop off all the toys. **[2:07:45] Simon Worth (Public Works Director):** Madam Mayor, members of the Council. This month, you know, it's that time of year where everything needs to be done at once, so we're busy street sweeping, mulching leaves. We are currently still understaffed—we did lose a member of our staff in September. We have decided to suspend that task for now through the winter, which typically is a slower part of our year. We did lose two temporary seasonal employees at the end of October. The Centennial Pavilion was completed. We will be adding a waterline tomorrow to the house. Based on the TCE contamination, we were unable to actually have potable water in that facility, so we are tapping into the main that has clean water to provide a safety shower for chemical states. We also had irrigation installed at Village Green and Lakeside Park. The grading will be completed as well as the straw and the seeding that will be going down at Village Green to hopefully alleviate some of the muddiness for the Lighting of the Green. **[2:09:16] Simon Worth:** Thanks to everybody who has contributed to that Pavilion, it looks fantastic in my opinion. Tree replacement has been completed—we had approximately 26 trees that were replanted throughout the City along the boulevards. Variety of trees, not just ash trees this time around. The swing set has been postponed until next year at Lakeside Park; it's just too late in the season. Spray patching has been completed throughout the City streets and the sewer cleaning and televising project is wrapping up. That is all I have. **[2:10:51] Sara Taylor:** Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Both the short-term rental ordinance and interim use permit for 397 5th Avenue North were discussed earlier on tonight's agenda. Other items I'm working on include updates to the City's employee Personnel Policy, primarily to be in compliance with new legislation including earned safe and sick time and parental pregnancy leave. Updates are anticipated for the December 4th meeting. Updates to the short-term rental application forms and inspection checklist are also in process. I'm also working on the last edition of the City's print newsletter for 2023. Lastly, just a quick recap on the special election that was held on November 7th. A total of 553 Bayport residents voted in person and 38 voted absentee. Support for the school building bonds was favored overall by the Bayport community. I'd just like to recognize and thank all the residents who helped staff the polling place, especially head election staff Colleen Siegfried, Ray Valley, and Heather Kennedy Bordo. **[2:12:24] Matt Kline:** And finally, Madam Mayor, just a couple of items. The Audubon development, who is potentially looking to have a City sewer connection, has moved forward. The Baytown board approved the creation of the sanitary sewer district, which allows them to acquire bonding that's cheaper. Ultimately it also makes the Baytown Town board responsible for maintenance. I did talk with the HOA president from Audubon; they want to get this process moving along. We'll be meeting with the City Planner and City Attorney working through comp plan changes. The financial management plan that was passed tonight will likely get started immediately with Northland Securities. It likely means a fair amount of work for Mary Goulette and myself. And finally, the Oak Park Heights fire consultant—I was able to meet with the new Oak Park Heights City Administrator, Jacob Re, last week. The consultant had one more township to interview, and then they were going to put together their final presentation. My assumption is that they will give the Bayport City Council and staff a heads up on when that presentation is going to be. **[2:15:27] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Thanks, Matt. Anyone? No? Okay. All right, so now we're on to City Council items and announcements. I just wanted to give my condolences to John Buckley's family. He passed away on the 11th. John Buckley was on the Council with me and was really very valuable in his role, had a lot of expertise because he was also the City's building inspector for I don't even know how many years. Do you know, Sarah, how long John worked with us? **[2:16:13] Sara Taylor:** I want to say 10 or 12. **[2:16:13] Mayor Michele Hansen:** 10 or 12 years probably, yeah. So just very sorry for the family's loss; it's a big loss for our community as well. Does anyone else have any they wanted to announce? **[2:16:13] Deputy Mayor Ethan Gilmore:** Just to reiterate—I overlapped with Mr. Buckley for a couple years at the beginning of my term. Michelle and John and Connie and all the other council members really making me feel welcome on Council. John was great that way and mentored me in some ways. He will be missed and his service to the City is obviously very much appreciated. **[2:16:59] Mayor Michele Hansen:** Yeah, thanks, Ethan. I do remember those days of "thank you, John" and "oh, and thank you, John." All right, so I move we adjourn. Do I have a second? **[2:16:59] Councilmember John Dahl:** I second. **[2:16:59] Mayor Michele Hansen:** All right, thanks, John. All those in favor? **[2:16:59] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[2:16:59] Mayor Michele Hansen:** All right, thank you all. **[2:17:46]** (Ambient noise ends)