This transcript features the White Bear Lake City Council and staff discussing several key items including the Century Avenue reconstruction, the quarterly financial report, and amendments to the city’s tree ordinance. **[1:20] Mayor:** Clerk, please note those in attendance. **[1:22] Clerk:** All will be noted. **[1:24] Mayor:** Will you please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. **[1:43] Mayor:** All right, we'll move into item 2B, minutes of the regular city council meeting from October 14th. I'd entertain a motion to approve those minutes. **[1:47] Council Member Walsh:** So move. **[1:48] Council Member West:** Second. **[1:49] Mayor:** Have a motion to second. All those in favor say I. **[1:52] Council Members:** I. **[1:53] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 2B, minutes of the city council work session on October 21st. I'd entertain a motion to approve those minutes. **[2:01] Council Member Walsh:** So move. **[2:02] Mayor:** Do I have a second? [snorts] Do I have a second? **[2:05] Council Member Walsh:** There's only two other people here. **[2:07] Mayor:** Bill and Heidi, that's you guys. **[2:09] Council Member West:** Sorry, I wasn't I'm not caught up yet. Sorry. **[2:11] Mayor:** Item 2B, minutes of the city council work session from October 21st, 2025. **[2:17] Council Member Walsh:** I was there, so I need to second. Second that. Yes, I was there. The minutes are great. I've reviewed them extensively. **[2:23] Mayor:** All right. And I didn't—all those in favor say I. **[2:25] Council Members:** I. **[2:26] Mayor:** Any opposed? **[2:28] Council Member Edberg:** I think we need to abstain. Right. **[2:30] Mayor:** The two—two abstentions. **[2:32] Mayor:** All right. Item three, adoption of the agenda. Does anybody have any changes or corrections to the agenda? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. **[2:40] Council Member Walsh:** Second. **[2:42] Mayor:** All those in favor say I. **[2:43] Council Members:** I. **[2:44] Mayor:** Any opposed? We have an agenda. Item four, consent agenda to entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. **[2:50] Council Member West:** So move. **[2:51] Council Member Walsh:** Second. **[2:52] Mayor:** The motion and a second. All those in favor say I. **[2:54] Council Members:** I. **[2:55] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 5A, Century Avenue reconstruction resolution of support. And who's taking this? Mr. Kelpy. **[3:06] Paul Kelpy (City Engineer):** All right. Thank you, mayor, members of the council. So, tonight we have before you the Central Avenue North reconstruction project. So, that's Central Avenue from 694 up to County Road E. Um, it's going to be a joint project between Washington and Ramsey County as it follows that county border. Um, in addition, the city of White Bear Lake and city of Mahtomedi are the two city partners in the project. Um, it is now moving into final design now that the jurisdictional transfer from MnDOT to Ramsey and Washington counties is now complete. So all the kind of the preliminary design—it had been September 24th that the county had presented some draft layouts and project update. So tonight, um, we will do that once again, kind of give you an update before we move into final design and right-of-way acquisition, kind of the next two big steps in the project. Um, so Washington County is acting as the lead on the project over Ramsey County. Uh, it's easier to do one. Not that Ramsey County is not involved. They're extensively involved, but um, Washington County elected to take the lead on this one. Um, so tonight, um, in addition to the update, the counties are asking for two resolutions of support. Uh, the first one is a resolution of support for the overall project. Um, that just says we agree with the process and the preliminary layout that has been completed to date and that the city feels comfortable enough to move into final design and right-of-way acquisition. Um, there is a cost component to that. I will note that this isn't binding those final costs. We don't know what right-of-way acquisition is based on the county's cost participation policy until we get in and actually get that acquisition done. Um, there will be a future cooperative agreement that the city will enter into with Ramsey County that will outline such things as cost participation, future maintenance obligations, and then accepting that final design. **[5:23] Paul Kelpy:** Um, the other resolution that is being requested tonight is a resolution of support for the counties to submit application for additional funding through MnDOT’s LRP program or local road improvement program. So just looking for some additional monies. **[5:39] Paul Kelpy:** Um, just kind of note that we have $500,000 in the 2026. This is looking like it's going to be a 2027 project. So, we'll kind of regroup as we go through final design to kind of tweak those numbers. Um, the overall cost participation for the typical roadway improvement project or components, the trails, curb, other improvements have come way down. Right now, they're estimated at 79,000, which is way lower, but we still have that unknown right-of-way. Right now, it's estimated between 500 and a million dollars, not knowing what and how negotiations and things like that will go with the property owners. Um, so that is yet to be determined, but that's the best estimate. Kind of the high and low end of those estimates. So, we're pretty close, but before we go into the CIP process this spring, we will—early I shouldn't say spring, early in 2026—we'll refine that number to get us closer to where we'll have for a 2027 cost participation number. So, we'll start out with the county presentation and then we'll move into council consideration of those resolutions of support. So, tonight we have Maddie Dolimer and Aaron Bllelock here from Washington County that will give a presentation and update on the project. So... **[7:08] Aaron Bllelock (Washington County):** Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Aaron Bllelock and I'm a civil engineer with Washington County. As Paul mentioned, Maddie Dowheimer is joining me this evening representing Washington County as well. So, as Paul mentioned, we are here to present a project update since you saw us the last time last fall for the State Highway 120 Century North reconstruction project. **[7:36] Aaron Bllelock:** So, as noted, our team was here last fall with a project introductory presentation. To refresh your memories, State Highway 120, which is Century Avenue North and East County Line Road in this area between Interstate 694 and Ramsey County's County Road E, County Highway 12, which is also known as Wildwood Road in White Bear Lake and Mahtomedi, is in the process of being transferred from state ownership to county ownership. Because Century Avenue is a border road between Ramsey and Washington County, each county will receive their respective half of the road. [snorts] And so the project area is shown in orange on the slide. **[8:19] Aaron Bllelock:** As of August, as city engineer Kelpy mentioned, the counties have received jurisdiction of the road segment and are currently working through the paperwork to catch up to formalize that. This process includes designating this roadway segment as a county state highway, transferring the road right-of-way ownership from state to counties, indicating maintenance responsibilities for activities such as snow plowing, street sweeping, etc. **[8:49] Aaron Bllelock:** So, both counties recognized that this segment of Century Avenue and East County Line Road is in need of further repair than a simple pavement resurfacing project, which was a key discussion point for our turnback funds negotiation with MDOT as a part of that jurisdictional transfer process. **[9:06] Aaron Bllelock:** Washington County also applied for federal funding through the regional solicitation program, and we were able to secure $7 million in project funding for construction. With funding in hand between those turnback funds and the federal funds for a reconstruction project, our team of agency partners determined the considerations you see on the screen as opportunities for improvement along this corridor. **[9:39] Aaron Bllelock:** Since October of 2023, we've been meeting regularly with those agency partners, including representatives from Ramsey and Washington counties, the cities of White Bear Lake and Mahtomedi, and MnDOT. Other stakeholders that have been engaged have been Metro Transit, Century College, FedEx, and the public. **[9:58] Aaron Bllelock:** On this slide is a summary of the public engagement activities the project team has facilitated thus far. Before transitioning to our proposed project improvements, I just want to note that now north is on the right side of this graphic, as is the case for the remaining graphics in the presentation. **[10:21] Aaron Bllelock:** So our last presentation had occurred at the time that our team had developed two technically vetted alternatives for the scope of the project improvements. And through the comprehensive engagement activities that we just reviewed on the last slide, our team arrived at the preferred alternative layout as shown on the screen. The noteworthy improvements include a full pavement reconstruction, new multi-use asphalt trails along both sides of the new county highway, upgrading the side street stop control at Century College's southern access to east campus that's just north of the residential area, and upgrading the current traffic signal at Ramsey County's County Road E and Washington County's County Highway 12 Wildwood Road, to roundabouts. The current traffic signals at White Bear Lakes County Road D and Mahtomedi's Long Lake Road, as well as Century College's northern two access points—the northernmost being Mahtomedi’s Woodland Drive on the Washington County side—will remain traffic signal controlled but will receive new traffic signal equipment. **[11:40] Aaron Bllelock:** So the counties have access to $17 million of external funding. Both counties have opted to utilize their entire turnback funds from MnDOT to proportionally buy down the construction cost for our agency partners, aka the cities, instead of just using those funds as county money. Our estimated construction cost is just shy of $20 million with, as city engineer Kelpy mentioned, White Bear Lake’s funding share being approximately $80,000 after applying that share the pie approach and Ramsey County's cost participation policy to that remainder that isn't covered by the federal turnback funds. Knowing that that estimated project construction cost is not fully funded, aka it isn't fully covered by the federal turnback funds, Washington County is pursuing the LRIP funding as another funding source for construction. That also could be proportionally shared if we get awarded. Please note that the numbers that we just talked through do not include right-of-way costs, which similar to construction will also be paid for in accordance with each county's respective cost participation policy. **[12:58] Aaron Bllelock:** As city engineer Kelpy mentioned, the right-of-way process is just getting underway. There are certainly many steps to work through. Our current team—or excuse me, our team's current estimate for the city of White Bear Lake’s cost share for property acquisition—is estimated conservatively between $500,000 and a million dollars. The actual amount will vary based on the appraisal interpretation, how negotiations with property owners go etc. We have worked with the Ramsey County right-of-way team to provide this conservative update—to excuse me, this conservative estimate—to council based on Ramsey County's past projects and their knowledge of the process. **[13:45] Aaron Bllelock:** So, city engineer Kelpy asked us to provide extra detail regarding the project team's recommendation regarding street parking along the residential section of the corridor that would be just south of Century College's east campus. The current configuration in today's condition in the residential section is a parking lane on the White Bear Lake western side of the road. Our team facilitated a specific meeting with these White Bear Lake residents to understand when and how the current parking was being used. We actually ended up finding out that all of the residents on the White Bear Lake side have multiple outdoor uncovered parking spaces and every property has a garage with at least one parking stall. It seemed as though the only time that the existing on-street parking is being used is when residents are hosting large gatherings. And we actually heard from one resident who attended our meeting that during these events a lot of times the neighbors will actually share parking spaces or make other arrangements for parking off-site. So, our project team took this feedback into consideration for the proposed design, which needs to weigh permanent property impacts versus dedicated street space for parking. Our team's recommendation was ultimately to remove the dedicated street parking lane to minimize permanent private property acquisitions. **[15:18] Aaron Bllelock:** So, where does that leave us with the design phase for the project? With our preferred alternative concept in hand, as city engineer Kelpy mentioned, we transitioned to final design earlier this fall. Both counties will acquire their respective right-of-way on each side of the border. So, those teams are getting their ducks in a row, which includes hiring independent third-party appraisers, drawing parcel sketches for residents, and preparing offers for the affected property owners. **[15:49] Aaron Bllelock:** Although we are currently planning for a 2027 construction year, as city engineer Kelpy mentioned, we want to be very transparent that new concerns have been brought to the project team regarding the construction season for this project. The feedback received revolves around conflicting schedules with other major community improvements. And so we would just like to assure council that a delay to, for example, a 2028 construction year would not affect any of the funding sources that we have committed to share with other agencies that have been committed to the project thus far. **[16:30] Aaron Bllelock:** With that, our project team has presented a resolution of support for municipal consent for consideration in your packet this evening. And as city engineer Kelpy mentioned, we're also requesting a letter of support from council regarding our LRIP application for additional construction funds that could be shared if awarded. With that, mayor, we will now take any questions. **[16:55] Mayor:** Uh, thank you. One quick question. You said Metro Transit was one of the entities that was engaged. So, I’ve seen the plans, it's just pedestrians, cars driving. There was [snorts] no discussion about any kind of bus lane or anything regarding bus transit as part of this design. [snorts] **[17:15] Aaron Bllelock:** Mayor, council members, thank you for the question. Um, yes, we absolutely—there was talks early on about bus rapid transit being a part of this line actually terminating on this portion of Century Avenue. Um, it became clear throughout that coordination that that project timeline was on a different project timeline than ours and was not as fully funded as ours was. Um, and so we continued to coordinate with that team but shared that we would continue to move forward with our project without precluding the option of bus rapid transit. And so you don't see any elements of bus rapid transit in our design today. With that being said, we did have multiple meetings with Metro Transit and that's more so referring to the local bus interaction component. And so the local 219 is running along this corridor and it's actually one of Metro Transit's most popular routes for both local usage and commuter usage. And so a big consideration for our project team was to ensure that local bus stops were enhanced as a part of this project. As you drive down the corridor today, there's some bus stops that are simply a sign next to grass. Um, they may be next to an inaccessible sidewalk. And so the project team is very committed to ensuring that all of the local stops are improved. And a part of that gives Metro Transit the opportunity to re-evaluate the location of those stops. **[18:47] Aaron Bllelock:** And so on our concept, it's the red T’s that we've initially got feedback from Metro Transit of, okay, we want to keep this stop in this location or maybe we'd actually like to push it a block one way based on ridership usage, etc. Um, so it has been comprehensive coordination that has occurred. **[19:05] Mayor:** Okay. So the current plan, as you said, contemplates enhanced, meaning the current bus line that's there, a better improvement than what's currently there, but nothing on the scale of rapid transit or anything. That is the—the purple line discussion that has been going on for I don't know three decades or so. **[19:22] Aaron Bllelock:** Correct, mayor. Yes. **[19:24] Mayor:** Thank you. Appreciate it. **[19:25] Aaron Bllelock:** Yes. The one thing I did not note is that um adjacent to the west campus and east campus—thank you, city engineer Kelpy—the west campus and east campus, what we've called the middle century college access. That's the one that kind of has the swooping driveway on the west side, the White Bear Lake side. In our concept, Metro Transit actually asked for um more space to accommodate a bus driver pull-off or resting portion. Um, so that basically, you know, when the local bus line is running and they're either running behind, they're running ahead and they need to pull off or maybe the driver needs their break, something like that—we actually are accommodating that. It's difficult to see because it's so zoomed out. Um, but it's adjacent to the Century College driveway on the west side there, which is why we're showing so much reconstruction of the driveway there. **[20:21] Mayor:** Thank you, council. Any questions? **[20:25] Council Member West:** Please. Thank you. Um, I’m hoping that you might be able to um go back a little bit to help explain: when the county is taking over roadway from the state, how is it exactly that cities get involved or are responsible for it? I know you mentioned something about the county cost participation policy, but could you dig into that a little bit and explain for people who are wondering? **[20:58] Aaron Bllelock:** Mayor, council member West. Yes, absolutely. So, there is basically two different processes that are happening here. There's the jurisdictional transfer that's happening outside of this project. Um, that is: MnDOT had approached the counties and said, you know, it is mutually beneficial for this no longer to be a trunk highway, we would like to initiate the process. Are the counties willing to accept this roadway? Both counties said yes. And so we started a negotiation process to figure out—typically for Washington County that looks like figuring out what the cost for the next 10 years is for us to take on that new portion of roadway. And we'd like to be compensated for that. And so we engaged in a discussion with MnDOT. That number that Ramsey County, Washington County, and MnDOT came to was a $10.5 million number for the counties to feel comfortable taking on that roadway. And so we arrived at that number that's sitting in the county's—it's called a turnback fund—that we're only eligible to use on corridors that essentially have been received from MnDOT. **[22:04] Aaron Bllelock:** Um, and then both counties recognized that was a big attraction of taking this portion of Century Avenue from MnDOT is both counties recognized the regional significance of this corridor and that just another pavement resurfacing project wasn't what the communities really needed. They needed a deeper dive. And so once it became known that the jurisdictional transfer was happening, Washington County started soliciting funds for a construction project. And so that's a totally separate effort that, you know, the timelines ended up kind of being overlapped, but it then made sense for: okay, we're taking on this roadway, um, we would like to do more than what MnDOT considered to be needed here, we would like to start soliciting funds, we would like to start engaging the public to figure out what the opportunities are here. Um, getting our city partners on board. And so that's when the county cost participation policy gets introduced is any capital project. Um, on the Washington County side it's being applied to Mahtomedi and then on the Ramsey County side it's being applied to White Bear Lake. Um, and basically any of those capital improvements are being applied in association with that policy. **[23:25] Paul Kelpy:** Um, maybe I can, council member West, elaborate a little bit. So there's a lot of things that cities request or want above and beyond what a minimum road that the county would typically build. We requested based on council input. We wanted pedestrian trails. Um, we have obligation for such as—I'll bring in for example—county road D intersection control. We have one leg of that intersection. So there are certain elements of the project where we are responsible for or we participate in because we want them above and beyond that minimum roadway that moves traffic. Um, so we, you know, like trails—we split 50/50 with Ramsey County. We pay our share of that intersection control at County Road D. So things like that that we would participate in because they are ours or they are elements of that design that we want. **[24:13] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you. Council, any other questions? Thank you, Mayor. Um, I think I've got three questions. Um, so you noted that the current implementation schedule, the construction schedule, uh, might stretch into 2028. On the good side, you noted that, um, any delay in the project would not compromise the existing funds that have been dedicated to the project. Do we have control over expenses created by delay? In other words, if the project is delayed—inflation, other um budget issues—what are we looking at? What have you done the contingency thinking about what that looks like and what that does to our budgets and costs? **[25:06] Aaron Bllelock:** Mayor, council member Edberg, great question. Yes. Um, this is a very real component of changing the construction year. And so I—to be frank—the project team is on track to deliver a 2027 construction project and one very full construction season due to the magnitude of the project improvements. Um, it has become known that one of our agency partners has a lot of their own capital improvements happening that season as well. And so there's concerns kind of twofold just from their portion of the pie that they'll have to fund for this project as well as just multiple major community construction projects happening in the same year. And so they've asked us to reconsider or to consider pushing from 2027 to 2028. Um, we are not taking that decision lightly and it is for the exact reason that you brought up, council member, is changing one year in today's economy for a $20 million project absolutely is real dollars that we need to make sure we're accounting for if the team decides to recommend going in that direction. **[26:26] Council Member Edberg:** And will that decision—if okay one way or the other—does that decision come back to us for ratification for the... "oh yeah, we've got extra nickels in our couch cushion, we can fund that," or do we have the option of saying 2027 or no go, or what's the autonomy conversation there? **[26:48] Aaron Bllelock:** Mayor, council member. Yes, the resolution of support in front of you this evening is not specific to a construction season. We absolutely um will continue to keep Paul in the loop. He is a major decision maker of that project team who will inherently keep you guys in the loop on the direction and the dollar amount that could potentially change for the city's cost share. **[27:14] Council Member Edberg:** Okay. So, switching gears, talking about the portions of private property being acquired to um make the proposed plan workable. Ballpark, if we had to—if I were to eyeball and looking at the white bear side of the stretch from D down to E. Um, how many feet of—well it's not right-of-way—of private property are we thinking might be the typical amount to be acquired in that process? Mayor, you're talking 10 feet, 50 feet? Get my head in the right place. **[27:56] Aaron Bllelock:** Mayor, council member. Um, it's really going to change. The corridor is surprisingly different in elevation and just different in land use. There's, you know, pretty urban mixed land use, um, mixed commercial as well, you know, residential, educational institutions. Um, and so each property we are looking at differently. Some may only need a small temporary construction easement for us to build our improvements adjacent to that property. Others, um, we may be 50 feet into. Um, I wouldn't say our pencils are sharp enough at this stage in the game to be able to give you an average, but I will share that the conservative estimate that we have come up to is varying a lot due to the different land uses and how the city and county codes are being applied to potential appraisal values. **[28:56] Council Member Edberg:** Okay. So, I can appreciate the differences in land use and ownership. Um, you've got the shopping mall down at E. Um, you come up, you've got um the college. Um, and then we've got a stretch—it's not god awful long, but a reasonable stretch—of private homes, individual homes. Um, what are those folks looking at? **[29:24] Aaron Bllelock:** Mayor, council member, um, the residential or private property acquisition in the residential section has certainly been a hot topic with our project team. Um, on the Mahtomedi side of the road, Mahtomedi, their future land use is looking at future change of land use from residential to potential commercial. And so our project team actually had come to the decision through significant coordination to initially—we started by shifting the road to basically be more on the Mahtomedi side, since 2016 those residents have known the long-term plan is to go to commercial in the residential area. Um, and so maybe now is the time to do that. Um, and then there—I would say there was a significant response from the residents. Um, and just, you know, those are real costs as you alluded to for private property acquisition that the city would certainly have to participate. Washington County's cost policy on the Mahtomedi side is the same as White Bear Lake’s would be with Ramsey County. And so it's 50/50 um that we're sharing those costs. And so we started very aggressively and then we got basically back to where the roadway is now and that's down the center line of the county border in this case. And so it's really an equal share. Um, it is not—you would be surprised—it is not much property acquisition in terms of the measurement that you're talking about, the actual distance. But it's more than just the physical space. What we're looking at is their parking being taken away. You know, trees have a set value that they're appraised at—excuse me, I don't want to use the word assessed. Um, landscaping features, etc. Things like that. Um, and so, you know, even teeny little strips of even temporary acquisition when applying a conservative estimate can get to be that number that you're seeing. **[31:34] Council Member Edberg:** And if there's—if a homeowner, any land owner—is not conducively inclined to participate. Are—is the county prepared to use eminent domain or is it looking at constructing around that non-participating land owner or how do we think about that? **[31:59] Aaron Bllelock:** Mayor, council member, obviously best case scenario is that we have a willing participant in a landowner that acknowledges that our appraised value that comes from an independent third party is the value of what we're asking for. That isn't always the case. Um, if we were to have to go down the path of eminent domain, I mean there are—it doesn't just go from "we've given you this offer" to "now we are enacting the forces that be." Um, there are a lot of steps and like you said a lot of it that you can work through of okay maybe we can grade a little bit further or, you know, pull different triggers um to try to offset the sensitivity. Ultimately it will be a project team decision if we want to enact eminent domain for this project. On Washington County projects, it isn't necessarily always the case. There's a lot of factors that go into that. We are hopeful that our independent third-party offers will be received. **[32:55] Council Member Edberg:** Well, last question. Um, can you speak to the roundabout at E and—sorry, Century and County Road E. Um, I’ve grown up next to that for a long time. Um, it strikes me as a tight intersection for making that work. Uh, and there is far more traffic at that intersection than at most other roundabouts that I'm familiar with. Am I wrong in my assessment on both of those topics? **[33:32] Aaron Bllelock:** Mayor, council member Edberg, yes, absolutely. It is a busy intersection. Three of the four legs have significant traffic volumes that are traveling on a daily basis. Um, a part of our whole technically vetting process—outside of the public engagement process that informs our improvements—is very technical traffic modeling of what is the intersection, how is it operating today and then how will it operate into the future. And so we look at community growth in the area, what upcoming developments are planned, how stable, you know, different kinds of redevelopment, things like that to be able to make those projections. And then ultimately, we run our traffic modeling in a future year condition. And so for roundabouts, the state standard practice is to look 10 years out. Our project team actually decided to look 20 years out to make sure that we were making a responsible decision here. Um, I would say I understand where you're coming from about it being busy and there's a potential concern for it to be bogged down. I think what can bog down roundabouts is more if there's imbalance between legs—and so if there's always, you know, one leg that's constant and the other three have no traffic, you're never going to be able to get in, things like that. And so we're actually in a really attractive scenario for a roundabout technically with the similar traffic volumes on E, County Highway 12 formerly 244, and Century. **[35:14] Council Member Edberg:** So the engineering estimates are that it'll work, that we have enough space, that traffic will not get bogged down and we have the right traffic ingrass to make the circle go round and round? **[35:25] Aaron Bllelock:** Mayor, council member. Yes. Um, extensive discussion has been specifically on this intersection. I believe the last time we were here, um, we were still really tooth and nail between maintaining the existing traffic signal and a roundabout concept. A large component of that discussion, not only is the operation piece, but can we build it um in one construction season and what does that look like for the adjacent properties, the businesses? And so significant effort has gone in on that engineering side to make sure there is enough space. The one thing I will share, Ramsey County is certainly um more familiar with what I would call an urban roundabout. I don't want to call it a mini roundabout because generally the industry is moving away from those—mini roundabouts are what's down on 316 in Hastings. Um, but the urban roundabout is a tighter circle that trucks can still make it around but it isn't like the Washington County roundabouts in rural Cottage Grove where you have, you know, farm fields on all sides. Um, and so we're really excited about their expertise and using some of their strategies that have been successful on past projects to inform our project design. **[36:40] Mayor:** Follow up on the roundabout. This is a single lane roundabout. These are the smaller ones? **[36:44] Aaron Bllelock:** Mayor, Council Member Edberg—excuse me, just Mayor as well as all council members. [laughter] We're all curious. Um, yes, we are planning for a single lane roundabout in general. Uh, Washington County, I would say, um, we are leaning as well as I think the entire state industry is leaning away from full multi-lane roundabouts. Um, just from an operations and a driver behavior perspective. Um, the one thing we are still considering is the northbound—so, it would be on the screen to the right—to the eastbound direction is the heaviest traffic movement that we're seeing in the future community growth projection. And so, as a project team, we need to see what that year is that we're seeing some level of delay and if it makes sense for us to capture—essentially add that kind of dedicated right turn now at this time versus plan for it in the future to not preclude it. So, at this time, we are planning for the single lane. Um, but full transparency, um, you may see the northbound to eastbound dedicated turn lane added to the design. **[38:00] Mayor:** Okay. And just to be clear, when you say driver behavior, you mean: do people know how to use the roundabout? **[38:06] Aaron Bllelock:** Yes. **[38:07] Mayor:** Okay. Thank you for clarifying. I think they're great when people use them correctly. Um, so I just want to make that comment. I share Council Member Edberg's concerns. Um, that is a lot of volume that goes through there and a roundabout that's functioning properly is pretty slick until some guy stops at it with no other cars coming and treats it like a four-way stop. So there's an educational component to it. **[38:34] Council Member West:** Mayor, I think an additional piece of that. So north to east makes sense because the population growth is more likely to be on the Mahtomedi side. Um, there is some plans in Mahtomedi to be developing um up closer as you go up toward FedEx and up on that side. There's room for increased density there, but um the additional developable space is in Mahtomedi. So I was also curious, do we have to worry about the eastbound to southbound? Uh, you would be traveling past the Dairy Queen, enter the roundabout, and you're going up to 694, but that's going to have a lot of traffic, too. And um, do we need to think about that or is that not something that worries the traffic planners? **[39:28] Aaron Bllelock:** Mayor, council member, we absolutely need to think about it. Um, this is our opportunity especially with the funding allocation that we have is to make sure that our community growth projections are correct and we are, you know, being real about what those estimates are indicating at this time. The one that I indicated is the one that's on our radar. Um, but we're certainly tracking all movements. **[39:53] Council Member Walsh:** Uh, thank you. Uh, you may have covered this or maybe in the earlier presentation—I’ve just forgotten. The pedestrian crossing at Century College. Is that surviving? Are we redoing that? How are people going to get across the street? **[40:07] Aaron Bllelock:** Mayor, Council Member Walsh. Um, as far as we know, Century College does plan to maintain the current um overhead pedestrian structure. It has been challenging um because that is technically a private structure. So, we as the counties and as the cities need to make sure that we're accommodating the traveling public, which isn't necessarily, you know, private folks going from private property to private property. And so, um, as far as we know, yes, they are planning on keeping it there in that capacity. Um, we are trying not to touch it with construction, and make sure that we're tying down next to it. Um, and then we are providing at-grade crossings. So basically at the roadway at that traffic signal for the traveling public. There are a lot of folks that are using the bus stops there for example at that what we've been calling the middle Century College access that aren't related to the college and they need to be able to access Century Avenue. **[41:11] Mayor:** Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you for the presentation. Appreciate it. **[41:15] Aaron Bllelock:** Thank you. **[41:16] Mayor:** We have questions for staff or comments? Council member Edberg. **[41:18] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you. So, Mr. Kelpy, um, you alluded to a portion of our future um capital budgets. We've got a number that we have set aside for this project. We don't have firm numbers yet on our total obligations. Certainly, it was good news to me when the one piece of those numbers—the 79,000—strikes me as reasonable, but the 500 to a million bucks and a half-million swing in there for property acquisition, right-of-way acquisition and related stuff is a—that's a big number. Um, can you tell us about all of the resources that we have budgeted and how we would anticipate being able to honor our commitments under the cost sharing agreements as currently understood and proposed? **[42:19] Paul Kelpy:** Um, [clears throat] uh, mayor, members of the council, good question. Um, so each year we try to balance our payment management. So this would come out of the pavement management fund. Um, so each year we balance and look at what projects we have coming up. We obviously have a number of our own residential roadway projects um that we have planned for. We adjust, shift, to kind of make them all work. Work very closely with Miss Kinser as we go through this capital improvement program to make sure that kind of that long range financial plan works. Um, the—again as we even budgeted for the half a million dollars that was the best guess, you know, two years ago when we first put it in the capital improvement plan, maybe even longer than that. Um, we just recently in the last month got those newer numbers so we haven't even started looking at this next piece of—been a month, maybe a couple weeks ago. So um, we continually update and adjust as needed. Um, uh, so when we come into our next round of capital improvement planning come early 2026, we'll um put it all back in the bucket and see how it goes. Um, as Miss Bllelock said, right-of-way acquisition is the hardest thing to project, not only on—even if we had our own project where we had acquisition—it is an unknown until you actually get the the document signed. So, we'll do our best to continue to monitor it through their final design process as they go through the acquisition process, their appraisal process. We'll continue to refine that number, but um, we have a better number to go by as we go into the next round of capital improvement planning. **[44:13] Council Member Edberg:** So what's going through my brain is: we know that we're going to have at least 79, call it 80,000 um in reasonably estimated cost. Nothing is for sure, nothing is final until we actually get to that point. But uh—and we've set aside 500,000—if I’m hearing you correctly that wouldn't cover that 80 and go toward our portion of the um property acquisition, but that number is a million. 500,000 bucks out of our pavement management plan is a big—is that not a super big number? **[44:59] Paul Kelpy:** Um, mayor, members of the council, of course, a half a million dollars is a big number. Um, it's decisions we'll have to make as we go forward. Um, again, as Miss Bllelock said, you know, whether it's design tweaks to keep that number down, um, a lot of the acquisition is—if you look at the kind of the square footage numbers, the majority of the acquisition is temporary. Um, so those temporary easements where it's grading, it's um, um, to get yards to match in nice. You know, we do it all the time on our own construction projects. Most of the time, we're very lucky to be able to work with our own residents to um kind of say, "Hey, we can make the project fit in real nice with a yard" and they sign waivers of trespass that we go in and we do that work at typically at no cost because they know it's going to be assessed or they're going to be paying for it from a city standpoint. It's not always the case on on larger county, state highway type projects. Um, but yeah, it's a big number and we'll have to kind of, again, we cross our fingers. We hope it's closer to the half a million dollars and we're only $80,000 off. Um, worst case scenario—a big portion of at least our side of it is Century College. So hopefully those negotiations go very well and you know, we're at no cost or low cost. So, um, again, this is the worst case scenario. So, we're hoping it falls on the better case. So, we're in in that grand scheme of things, we're pretty close. **[46:25] Council Member Edberg:** And okay, so I don't want to be chicken little and worrying about the sky falling in, but I'm looking at—we've got two, three miles of city streets that have been waiting for construction for pushing 20-something years now. Um, and um, I was hoping to see those completed by the time I die. Now, I haven't scheduled that yet, but it's like—if we run into cash issues on this thing, that will force us to have make some hard decisions about where do we allocate resources? Am I incorrect in thinking that we may end up having to make choices around this county road and our share of that and our own streets, or am I making that up? **[47:20] Paul Kelpy:** Uh, mayor, members of the council, no, you're not making that up. Um, those are decisions that council will have to make. Um, you know, some of the costs obviously or some of the desire to have, you know, say a big part of acquisition is we asked to have a a trail along our the west side of the road. That obviously adds a lot of that easement acquisition, temporary acquisition. So maybe it's a decision we say we don't want to trail. **[47:49] Council Member Edberg:** Well, [snorts] that's where I wanted to go. So there's—there's those types of technical decisions that can be made by council to say as we start with, you know, whether it be easement acquisition or final design, and say we want to take these elements out. **[48:02] Mayor:** So I do not want to cast aspersions on the engineers in the room. Everything that I see you have done is reasonable, thoughtful. You've asked public input. You've asked for council input. You’ve received and designed based on the things that you have heard. Now, perhaps like kids and Christmas catalogues, sometimes we ask for more than there is money in the cookie jar to pay for. When do we need to make decisions or when can we legitimately and reasonably make decisions to pare back the project to keep costs contained to a number that we can afford so that we aren't putting at jeopardy our own—I am not trying to say that this is not part of our responsibility, it is. It's the county’s and we have our obligations as well, but we have our own streets and I don't think the state is helping us pay for those. So, it's like I need to figure out how do we balance all of these and if we can't get everything we want, what is the—what's less that we can do? How do we approach that conversation? **[49:15] Paul Kelpy:** Uh, mayor, members of the council, um, it would be as we continue with final design and tweak those final easement um acquisition areas um and kind of—and again, oftentimes you don't know until you start into that acquisition process how things go, what the appraisals come back at. We don't know what that is yet, you know. So, until the appraisers come back and and say, "Here's what we think the the land value is and what the acquisitions are going to be and what the right offer to make to each of those property owners to know that kind of number." That would be a check-in point to say, here's where we're at. Does council feel comfortable? Um, from our standpoint, the only true thing really to remove would be the trail. There might be some minor areas that we can tweak to bring construction limits in a little bit. But having gone through this process, not a lot. So really, it's if you want to make a wholesale change, it's losing the trail. **[50:18] Council Member Edberg:** So I guess for council colleagues, it's like that's a conversation to come. Do you have any sense when we'll have the estimates on acquisition costs? Is that next spring, next summer? **[50:27] Aaron Bllelock:** Um, it's not December. [laughter] Mayor, Council Member Edberg, um, as mentioned, both Washington and Ramsey County teams are certainly getting their ducks in a row. Um, that includes hiring our appraisers and then once the contracting is through with the appraisers then they actually schedule the work, go out, look at what the project is proposing, and what the potential value of that could be. As city engineer Kelpy mentioned, you know, that can certainly be a check-in point. Um, we are anticipating that process to happen early this upcoming spring. **[51:09] Mayor:** Yeah. Okay. So we can look forward to the information that make our choices in that. Thank you. And just to clarify on and a follow-up to that on what the process is. So for example, we have a [snorts] an independent appraisal done and they say, "Hey, Century College, you're entitled to $200,000 in compensation" and it's a negotiation, right? We can say, "Hey, Century College, we're not inclined to pay $200,000, but we need the money to put in this trail, which you're a direct beneficiary of. Let's [snorts] negotiate a way that we all benefit from that." That's how these things proceed. Correct. Okay. So, to your point, I mean, I agree. It's it needs to be looked at holistically and not just "this is good, let's do it and pay for it." It's "how do we accomplish the goal with our partners that also benefit maybe a disproportionately higher than your average taxpaying resident?" And I think it sounds like those conversations will be had. **[52:09] Aaron Bllelock:** Please, mayor, I am inviting myself up to the podium again. **[52:13] Mayor:** You're always welcome at the podium. **[52:14] Aaron Bllelock:** Thank you. I would like to note um that's absolutely an anticipated process. Century College is actually a cost participation partner just like both White Bear Lake and Mahtomedi are. So the—city engineer Kelpy, could we go back to the layout please? Thank you. So, um, the southern east campus access, the leftmost Century College access, um, as well as the middle Century College access, both of or all three of those legs off of Century Avenue will be funded by Century College as well as for the northernmost access, um, the western the White Bear Lake side. Those are being treated since they are private driveway accesses to the college. Um, those are being treated basically—the Ramsey County and Washington County cost policies are being applied to those respectively. So, they are receiving similar information in terms of construction dollars as well as what their property acquisition probability could look like. As city engineer Kelpy mentioned, when we're looking at the project corridor, it's like 60% on the west side is Century College frontage and 70% is Century College frontage on the east side. And so I do foresee it potentially becoming a numbers game of: is there a way that you know we can negotiate with Century College on what that land value is that ultimately ends up helping all other partners agency-wise involved? **[53:50] Mayor:** All right. All good discussions for another day as the project moves forward. So right now we've got a resolution before us. The first one approving municipal support for the reconstruction project. I'd entertain a motion to approve that resolution. **[54:10] Council Member West:** I'll move approval. **[54:12] Council Member Walsh:** Second. **[54:13] Mayor:** Second. Motion a second. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. **[54:17] Council Members:** I. **[54:18] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. That resolution is passed. We have a second resolution supporting submittal of an application to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for funding under the local road improvement program. I would entertain a motion to approve that resolution. **[54:31] Council Member Walsh:** Second. **[54:32] Mayor:** A motion, a second. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. **[54:35] Council Members:** I. **[54:36] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. The resolution is approved. Thank you both again. Appreciate it. **[54:40] Mayor:** All right. Item 5B, quarterly finance department report. Miss Kinser, whenever you're ready. **[54:43] Kim Kinser (Finance Director):** Um, mayor and council, I'm here to report on the third quarter operations for the finance department and license bureau. Um, in general, the revenues and expenditures continue to track with the 2025 budget to this point of the year. There are some accounts where we're starting to see a little bit of variance. Um, some might be a little higher, some might be a little lower than anticipated. Um, some of those variations will be that the revenues come in in the fourth quarter or the expenditures come in in the fourth quarter. So, when I look at those accounts, it's all looking good in the revised budget. So each year the council adopts the budget for the coming year in December. And then when that's adopted, we also adopt a revised budget and kind of um take into account any fluctuations we have in some of the accounts because there are some revenue accounts that come in higher throughout our activity that we didn't anticipate. Some expenditures are lower. So, we're kind of preparing those changes for the revised budget. **[55:53] Kim Kinser:** Um, some planned changes that I see in the revised budget—our building permit and our building plan revenue. Um, those I anticipate will decrease. The estimate that we originally used for 2025 is a little higher than where our actual is. [clears throat] So, we'll be reducing those. Um, there are some minor adjustments to the electrical and HVAC permits. Um, accounts that will be having increases in their budget is the state police aid. We had budgeted 338,000 for 2025 and we received 381,000. So that—you know, everything's kind of balancing out. Our park rentals are also up. We had budgeted um 29,000 for park rental revenues and the facilities are very popular. Uh, we're adjusting those up to 35,000 for our activities are higher with people reserving those facilities. **[57:12] Kim Kinser:** Um, and our interest revenues. I don't have any numbers on the interest revenues right now, but just as a reminder, we allocate those based on the annualized cash balance at the end of the year once we've had a chance to adjust all of our investments to market as of the last day of the year and then we can figure out our interest and allocate it to the different funds. **[57:42] Kim Kinser:** Um, one fund we talk about routinely is the recycling fund. Um, you know, the recycling markets go up and down and for a long time last year the recycling markets were very high and so with our agreement that we have for our recycling processing, if the recycling sales are above what it costs to process the recycling, then the city receives funds. If the recycling market is low and we do not generate enough sales, then the city has to pay for recycling. So, as of May this year, the recycling market has gone down and we've started paying for recycling processing again. Um, so there's no—currently no recycling processing fee in 2025, but there will be a slight amount added for 2026 to kind of account for what we're paying out right now. Our processing fees are more reactive. We take them off when we can and only add them back when we're needed and we're paying costs for recycling. **[58:54] Kim Kinser:** Um, so then when we look at the license bureau—so the financial status of the license bureau seems to be holding relatively steady. You know, we've had some ups and downs over the years. Um, the fee changes that were approved during the 2023 legislative session, some internal staffing adjustments that we've made by adding some part-time positions to the department, and the closing of the Maplewood DMV office in May of 2023 have really assisted in kind of stabilizing the department. **[59:36] Kim Kinser:** Um, I have a list of a couple of things I think we need to monitor at this point. Um, so we've noticed that, you know, through the beginning of this year, up until May, when we had the the deadline for the real and enhanced IDs, our lines were longer and customers who had short transactions for tabs were choosing to do them online or in the kiosks that are located in the Cub Foods just to avoid waiting in line. I know our staff worked hard during that time to have someone available and try to pull people out of line for those simple transactions so we could get them in and out faster. Um, sometimes that was difficult. So our driver's license transactions for this year up until September 30th are up 19% when we look at what was compared to processing in 2024. The tab renewal transactions are down 22% when you look at the two. So, it's really those easy transactions that people were opting to get their tabs elsewhere. And really with those transactions, they're quick, easy transactions. And so when we can process them fast, getting those transaction fees, they can add up and be significant revenue to us. **[1:01:16] Kim Kinser:** Um, the state is continuing to promote the online tab renewal processes. Um, when someone does process their tab renewals online, then the state is the agency that receives those transaction fees. Um, if someone uses a kiosk—depending on which kiosk they use—if it's the kiosk that's at the Cub at White Bear Township, we are the lead on that. So, we receive 10% of the transaction fees plus an additional seventh of the remaining 90. There are seven offices that are around that fall into the perimeter for the calculation of that. So, we get some revenues when people use kiosk, but it's really not the same as if they come into our office. So, our staff really appreciate when people come in. I know our lines have not been as long since going through the driver's license change in May. So hoping that people choose to come back to city hall and to get their tab renewals with us. **[1:02:18] Kim Kinser:** Um, another thing to continue to watch is the state continues to develop online solutions for the different routine transactions so that they can capture revenue for their operations and offer ease for customers. One thing the state is currently working on is an online program for the DNR transactions and it's close to implementation. They were going to implement it earlier this year; there were some challenges with it. So, I know that they're reworking it. I have not heard a date of when that will go live, but there will be some ease for customer use on that online and that could affect some of the levels of the DNR transactions that we process in our offices. **[1:03:09] Kim Kinser:** Um, our customer levels have been lower in September than previous years. And so to be conservative in the revised budget for 2025 and 2026, we did reduce the revenues a little bit. We'll be monitoring that to see how that—you know, we're just making estimate of what's going to happen for the rest of the year. So we're monitoring that up until the time that we have that budget presented to you to see if we can have a better estimate. Um, so just really watching to see if that's a short-term event or if there's kind of a greater change in customer activity. **[1:03:52] Kim Kinser:** Um, the dealer transactions—when we look at that EVTR, that's the electronic title transfers that we work with the dealerships with. Um, if you look at the quarterly report, you'll see that the 2025 count has decreased from the transactions that we process in 2024. Um, we've heard from some dealers that there's some slowing in the vehicle sales. So that would be some of it. And also some of the dealerships are consolidating. So if a dealership has multiple locations where in the past they would have their dealership work with the DMV that is closest to that dealership—some of the dealerships are kind of combining and if they have multiple locations they take all their transactions and go to the dealership or the DMV that's closest to one of them. So, there are a couple of dealerships that have done that and are having their transactions processed at another location. Some of them we've been a gain on and having them consolidate to us. Some of them we've been a loser on and they're going to another location. So, the license bureau, as I said, it's remaining relatively steady, but I just think that those are some topics we need to kind of monitor as we go forward. Um, I know that staff is going to be meeting in the next month to kind of think about if there are legislative agenda items that we can have on our 2026 legislative agenda to really focus on what we need for license bureau for things that could help us. So with that, I can take any questions. **[1:05:44] Mayor:** Thank you. [clears throat] On the license bureau front, is the transaction fee charged to the customer less using the kiosk or online versus coming in? I think it's like 11 bucks for tabs. Is that the same whether you use a kiosk or in person? **[1:05:59] Kim Kinser:** Mr. Mayor, that's a great question. No, there are actually more fees that are on the kiosk if you use it. So, you have to pay a kiosk user fee. So, if people do go to the kiosk, they're paying more than if they were to come in to our offices. **[1:06:17] Mayor:** So to clarify for a customer, it costs more money to use the state's pop can machine at a grocery store to get your tabs, or they can come in, see our wonderful license bureau staff, make sure it's done right, get the white glove treatment and save a little bit of money to boot. **[1:06:38] Kim Kinser:** Exactly. **[1:06:39] Mayor:** Understood. I appreciate you clarifying that. Thank you. Council, any questions for Miss Kinser? [clears throat] Council member Edberg. **[1:06:58] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you, Mayor. Miss Kinser, staying with the license bureau for the moment. Um, does that same analysis apply for online tab processing? Do they pay the same online as they would in our office? **[1:07:11] Kim Kinser:** Um, Mayor, Council Member Edberg, that is different. Um, online they pay $1 less than if they were to pay in our office. So the state is trying to have people process their tabs online. However, in that case, what frequently happens is someone might process their transaction online and then not receive their tabs in the mail. And so the customers will come in because they're unable to reach someone at the state to help them. So they'll come into our office and seek help. And we considered those for a long time to be no-fee transactions. Um, because since the transaction fee was part of the original transaction online, the state received the transaction fee and the city provided help to the customer and was not reimbursed. In the most recent legislative session, they have now added a reimbursement for no-fee transactions. So on a quarterly basis there will be a calculation that comes out where they can monitor what transactions each license bureau handled that were no-fee to us and then we will be getting the fees for those. **[1:08:43] Council Member Edberg:** Okay. So what occurs to me is in the near term we have a marketing challenge. We make sure our service and all of the benefits that go with that are workable, friendly, and relatively quick. We've not been able to do that because of our own facility decisions, a variety of other things, the volume of the real IDs and all that kind of good stuff. In the medium and long term, the state is not going to stop using technology to try and get that business. So we are in competition with the state more so than with other DMVs mostly. Um, and at what point have you done the scenario thinking about when—what are the conditions under which we might say there's no margin here for us? Um, and people are going to go online. They can do their tabs from their bedroom and laptop whatever. Um, you note and I’ve been listening to this for many years and you're saying we're kind of holding our own. That's not terribly encouraging. I mean, it doesn't say it's not bullish on what the future looks like. And I'm still remembering years when our license bureau threw off six digits of net income and the first number was not one or two. So, it's like—I’d like to have those dates back again. How are you thinking about how we plan for the future? **[1:10:18] Kim Kinser:** Mayor and Council Member Edberg, um, that is something in our mind to be looking at, but really figuring out. I think we had to get through the driver's license implementation first before and then see what the landscape looks like with customer levels to really be able to analyze that. When we were so busy with the driver's license, we didn't really have the opportunity to get the people through—we were getting the customers through the line, but it was those quick little transactions that sometimes got lost. So, I think that's something that we begin looking at now and really analyzing. We've gotten past that. **[1:11:15] Council Member Edberg:** Okay, fair enough. We'll keep monitoring. Um, shifting gears, interest rates. Our interest earnings—looking at the two pages of awards—we have interest rates that vary all the way from 0.55% to 4.x. Um, and I'm not sure I understand why our offerings receive such different interest. Is it because they were issued in different years under different interest rate regimes? Do we have a sense of what the most recent—the last year—my sense is interest rates have uniformly gone up and we should be benefiting. How should we be interpreting our interest rate income? **[1:11:52] Kim Kinser:** Um, Mayor and Council Member Edberg, our interest rates that we've been getting are close to that 4%. So, we have a ladder structure of how we do our investments. So, some of the investments where you might be seeing low interest would have been items that we purchased before, but we plan out to when we'll need our funds and to make sure that we have funds to pay our debt service or our construction projects. So, those lower interest ones will be coming off, but we've been getting the 4% so I would say that that's closer to... **[1:12:35] Council Member Edberg:** And do you have enough data to project whether the 2025 interest earnings will be about the same as 2024 or slightly above, or what's your crystal ball? **[1:12:38] Kim Kinser:** Um, mayor and council member Edberg, I think our interest rates are going to be higher. Um, so our interest revenues are coming in higher, but really that key is when we have to make that market adjustment. There were a couple of years ago where we had gotten really good interest through relatively good interest, but on that last day of the year, the market was bad and so then we had to show a loss on our interest. So to date, the market value has been growing and we kind of track that on a monthly basis and I see the market value going up. So, I don't anticipate a problem for our interest revenues and anticipate that it will be higher. Um, just didn't want to speak to exact numbers at this point knowing that that's a fluctuation that happens. **[1:13:40] Council Member Edberg:** Completely fair. Thank you. **[1:13:45] Mayor:** Council, any other questions? Council member Walsh. **[1:13:46] Council Member Walsh:** Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Weigh in on this license bureau discussion. I think there's some friction between the people we represent—the citizens who pay fees to get their licenses renewed—and the business of the city of White Bear Lake who happens to be in the business of providing this service. And I think we're getting close to where that's sort of in my mind overlapping. And it might not be in the interest of the citizens of White Bear Lake for us to have a business that does tabs. It might be better if the state did move further down the line of using technology, getting things done online. Many states do it all online. Super easy, super fast, cheaper, saves money. Or even we should be advocating for, you know, do we need to do this every year? Can we do this once every other year? There doesn't have to be this model that we're in now. **[1:14:40] Council Member Walsh:** So, I just want to—I’m getting comfortable with not having a license bureau in the city of White Bear Lake, not providing the service. It's a convenient thing we do for our citizens, but we're sort of having this discussion of... well, we get—and I’ve said before, I think it's ridiculous that we get 10% of a transaction that happens down at Cub because we're close to Cub and they pay us off basically because we're close to Cub and they're taking our business. I mean, if you go to Cub to the kiosk, why would we get money from that? So, I'm saying that on behalf of the residents in Ward One, not necessarily on the board of the business that we run here. So, I think there's friction there and I'm getting more and more comfortable. **[1:15:14] Council Member Walsh:** And I appreciate—I don't know if it was this report or earlier report we saw for next year's budget about capital needs. You know, we're at a point where if we really were going to be in this business, we would have to do some renovations, get a waiting room, get a "grab a number." It’d be a lot better if we could do that. We've held off on that. I felt some restraint on the staff saying, "Don't know if we want to do that." And I think we're going the other direction. I think the state should go the other direction. It's good for the citizens—pay less, have it more convenient. We don't have to be in that business. The one issue there though is the car dealerships. A big part of that office serves big businesses in our city—some not in our city, but a lot in our city up and down Highway 61 there. So, that's something I'd have to figure out, you know, whether that's valuable for those businesses in this city to conveniently provide that back-end service for them and what kind of revenue we get from that. And maybe there's a hybrid or something, but I just want to add to that discussion. **[1:16:06] Mayor:** Very good. Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Miss Kinser, for the report. Appreciate it. All right. Item 6A, certification of delinquent utility and miscellaneous private assessments. I guess that's you again, Miss Kinser. **[1:16:25] Kim Kinser (Finance Director):** Mr. Mayor and Council, tonight we are here to consider the special assessments for the delinquent utility bill assessments and the miscellaneous private property assessments. Um, there are two resolutions that will go with this. So I'll go over each item and then have you consider the resolutions that are there for your approval. **[1:16:47] Kim Kinser:** So, the city bills property owners on a quarterly basis for their utility bills with payments due 35 days later. We conduct an annual review of accounts to find all accounts with delinquent charges beyond 30 days as of June 1st for active accounts and July 1st for final accounts. So when we do that, we look at any bill that was due before June 1st of this year. We send out the letters in the end of August. We alert the property owners that they have a potential assessment of amounts due for collection through next year's property taxes. We provide information on payment options so that they can avoid the certification. We share information about the public hearing to be held tonight if they would like to speak to the council regarding their account. **[1:17:48] Kim Kinser:** So at the end of August this year, we sent out 836 notices to property owners that they have a potential delinquent utility bill. During the time in September and October up until last Friday, half of these accounts receiving notices made payments to bring their accounts current. So there were 417 accounts that received payments. The remaining accounts that are delinquent are potential certifications as a special assessment to the 2026 tax roles. Um, we don't send the tax roles right away. So the—we're approving this resolution tonight, but the information doesn't go to the county until the end of November. So we will still be accepting payments if people are making payments on their delinquent bills and anything that we receive a payment on then would be taken off the list that is sent to the county. The assessments would have an interest rate of 5.62%. That's 2% higher than the rate the city received on its last bond sale and is consistent with other special assessments. And this 2% rate then is what we collect for administration of this assessment process. **[1:19:07] Kim Kinser:** Staff does refer residents calling about their delinquent accounts to Ramsey County to seek available help through their programs or any federal aid funding. Um, as I mentioned, we will accept payments up until the time that we send the certification list to Ramsey County. Um, we're having a public hearing tonight if anybody would like to speak about their accounts. We did have four residents that requested to have their accounts not included on the certification process. In my memo, I gave a brief overview of each request, a listing of the account history, and my recommendations regarding the certification. **[1:19:43] Kim Kinser:** So with those requests, people ask that we not include their account in the certification process. As I go through and look at those and come up with a recommendation, I take into account what's in the letter and explaining their circumstances and then look at the account because when we do this certification process, it brings the accounts current. So, if we take someone off of the certification list and they don't have a plan on how they're going to make payments on the account to bring it current, then next year they would be assessed for the current assessments that got removed from this. So, when we assess it, we don't take their assessment away. They still owe the amount. Um, so then if we take it off the list, then that assessment—they'd have possibly two years of assessments if they are not—if they can't get current for next year. So really by including the assessments on the certification list, it gives them a longer period to pay their delinquent account back because they have through next year to pay it. **[1:21:05] Kim Kinser:** Um, so when I reviewed all four of those accounts, all four of them had a history of being certified every year and there was not a solid plan. Um, they each had a financial hardship, but there was not a plan how to bring that account current in the relatively near future that it could have just compounded their delinquent balance. So for all four, I'm recommending that the council include those accounts on the certification to Ramsey County. So I'm asking you to review those four property requests and my recommendations. If the council concurs with the recommendations that I have, staff asked the council to approve the attached resolution certifying the delinquent accounts as of the end of November 2025 to the appropriate county for assessment, because we do have some properties that are in Washington County and the majority are in Ramsey County. So the resolution that you see includes the delinquent amounts from those four properties because I had recommended not to remove them from the list. **[1:22:21] Kim Kinser:** Um, so that's our first resolution that we're going to look at. The second resolution is on miscellaneous private property assessments. So during the year the city provided services to several property owners that require reimbursement from the property owner to cover the cost of the service provided. So, there's three types of services that are in this year's assessment listing: lawn care, tree removal, property maintenance or property cleanup expenditures. There's police response to false security alarms. If no valid reason is found, the police department tracks the responses and notifies the property owners that a fee will begin being charged for the fourth response and any future responses during the year. And then the third type is repairs to damaged fire hydrants. The city has billed all of the property owners for these services provided for their properties. Um, there are a number of invoices throughout the year and most of them have been paid in full; it's just these few that have not been. **[1:24:00] Kim Kinser:** So as with the utility billing accounts, we sent notices to the property owners alerting them to the potential assessment amounts due for the collection through their next year's property taxes. We provide information on the payment options so that they can avoid certification and sharing information about the public hearing tonight if they would like to speak to the council regarding the account. Uh, we did not receive any letters from anyone regarding that. So, there's a total of 14 invoices that are for 10 properties that remain unpaid for this year for a total of $4,519.72. Um, the 10 assessments will be for just a one-year period. The interest rate for the special assessment is 5.62%. So, it's the same that we just talked about for the utility billing assessment. Um, we will accept payments on these accounts through the end of November just like the utility bills so that if one of the invoices is paid before we submit it to Ramsey County then it will be removed from that list. So, we're asking the city council to approve the attached resolution to certify any delinquent accounts as of the end of November 2025 to the appropriate county for the 2026 property tax statements. **[1:25:11] Mayor:** Thank you, Miss Kinser. Um, at this time, I will open up the public hearing to anyone who wants to speak to this. I don't have any names on my list, but if any of you four out there would like to comment on this, please step up to the podium, state your name and address, and you shall be heard. **[1:25:35] Resident:** I'm not on the same topic as this. I have a totally separate thing. I was just coming to snoop and find out where money's going. [laughter] **[1:25:48] Mayor:** Okay. Very good to hear other things. Nope. We just have a public hearing limited only to the agenda item before us. Yes. The delinquency of the utility and miscellaneous private assessments. Seeing no one that would like to speak to that, I will close the public hearing, bring it back to the council. Council, we have two resolutions before us. What would we like to do? I'll start with entertain a motion to approve the first resolution. **[1:26:09] Council Member West:** Move to approve. **[1:26:10] Council Member Walsh:** Second. **[1:26:11] Mayor:** Motion to second. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. **[1:26:14] Council Members:** I. **[1:26:15] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. The resolution passes. We have a second resolution before us certifying the delinquency for the other municipal utility system assessments. I'd entertain a motion to approve that resolution. **[1:26:33] Council Member West:** Move to approve. **[1:26:34] Council Member Walsh:** Second. **[1:26:35] Mayor:** Motion a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. **[1:26:40] Council Members:** I. **[1:26:41] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. That resolution is approved as well. Thank you. Item seven, unfinished business. We have nothing scheduled. Item 8A, first reading of an ordinance amending chapter 706 of the municipal code regarding trees. Mr. Kelpy. **[1:26:57] Paul Kelpy (City Engineer):** Uh, mayor, members of the council, I'll start this one off and let Mr. Anderson jump in if needed. Um, so tonight we'll have the first reading of an ordinance amending chapter 706 of the municipal code regarding trees. So, really what kicked this off was in the review of this ordinance that began in the fall of 2024 following council's acceptance of the shade tree bonding grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in the spring of ‘24. Um, this was to remove and replace ash trees affected by emerald ash borer. So, the acceptance of the grant required that the replacement trees be on restricted property and encumbered over the 30-year life of the grant—actually 125% of—so for 37 and a half years is what the DNR grant acceptance requires. **[1:28:04] Paul Kelpy:** So um, as the ordinance is currently written—as was discussed at the time of the grant acceptance—is the right-of-way trees. Property owners adjacent to those trees are responsible for them. If anything—if they die, if they need to be removed or trimmed—it is their responsibility. Um, so that's really what triggered the overall review of the ordinance—to bring the ordinance in compliance to accept the grant and move forward with the tree removal and replacement. Um, staff along with the city attorney reviewed the ordinance and just found a lot of it to be outdated. 1970s-80s era language in here. Um, a lot of it very specific to, you know, certain diseases, things like that, that don't really apply today—or they do apply but in a much broader sense. **[1:28:57] Paul Kelpy:** Um, one thing I'll kind of jump back and note is: assuming that we get through the amendment process for the ordinance, staff will bring back at a future date the EAB management plan also required under that shade tree grant as well as authorization to go out for bids under that grant as well. So, we'll get through the tree ordinance process here first and then we'll move into the next steps so that we can get those trees removed. **[1:29:28] Paul Kelpy:** Um, going into the ordinance, um, like I said, the majority of it was to get the ordinance language modified to put the trees within the city's right-of-way—which we own and maintain under our control—so that we can, for a number of reasons. One is obviously to move forward with the grant, but to also better maintain our urban forestry canopy. That's the—you look at land area—that's the biggest piece of land that the city owns. **[1:30:11] Paul Kelpy:** Um, kind of jumping into the ordinance itself, the first thing that was added within the ordinance is a definition section. There's a lot of nuances with terminology that was confusing to residents, to staff and others who had to interpret the ordinance. So, it really clarifies a lot of the specific language within the ordinance—just what different terms mean: what is a hazard tree, what is a diseased or dying tree. So, those were clarified within the definitions. Um, it—like I said—really defines the control and prevention of those hazard trees. Um, a lot of it had to do with again going back to the Dutch elm disease and certain other very specific diseases that the ordinance called out. So this is much broader in the sense that it uses newer language that kind of encompasses all pests and diseases that might affect trees. **[1:31:19] Paul Kelpy:** Um, it clarifies the process for inspection, abatement and assessment of those hazardous trees. A lot of these trees might be on private property as well. Um, so in that review it clarifies how we go on the private property and get permission and the order of operations to do so. Um, it clarifies what the emergency abatement processes would be for a hazard tree that poses an immediate risk to life, limb or property. So a tree is split down the middle and going to fall on somebody's house, we have that ability to go and immediately abate that tree if needed. Um, it clarifies our ability—this is where we're really getting back into the acceptance of the tree grant—to maintain trees within the city's right-of-way. Um, so there's over the years been a lot of confusion over who owns the trees. Staff spends a lot of time looking at and working with property owners to—oddly enough the current ordinance language says the owner of the adjacent property is the owner and responsible party for that tree. However, if you don't abate it and take care of it, the city will split that 50/50 with you. So, kind of a weird nuance within the ordinance. **[1:33:04] Paul Kelpy:** This clarifies it and says it's our tree. We own the property; we will take care of it. Um, it allows us the ability to trim, dictate where trees are planted within that right-of-way for traffic control purposes. Uh, sight distances at intersections allows us to trim trees without getting an argument of whose tree it is. Uh, we need our trash trucks, our snow plows to be able to pass down the streets without hitting tree branches and causing damage to our equipment or other people traveling down the roadway. And then finally, it deletes a lot of just outdated language within the ordinance, brings it up to more legal code. City attorney reviewed it for kind of current legal processes. Um, so that kind of is a brief summary of what changes were made within the ordinance. Um, so at this point staff would recommend that city council conduct the first reading of the ordinance tonight. Council has the ability to discuss, ask questions and provide staff direction to make any changes before a second reading. Um, a public hearing was requested be done at the second reading of the ordinance along with any potential action and that would be scheduled for November 12th. Um, at this point we'd answer any questions you might have. **[1:34:38] Mayor:** Thank you, Mr. Kelpy. One clarifying hypothetical, I guess. So, under the current code, a boulevard tree, if a private property owner just for whatever reason didn't want to have that tree up in their yard anymore—or our yard or the shared space in the public right-of-way—can they just cut that down or would they have to seek city permission to do so? **[1:35:04] Paul Kelpy:** Um, there's some city permission nuances within—I would have to find that language and city attorney's probably got that in front of him. I see him frantically looking but... **[1:35:21] Soren Anderson (City Attorney):** No. Uh, mayor and council. So, I mean, generally speaking, um, I think a tree within the boulevard is the city's to do with what it wants to do with, but it's technically the property owner's tree. So, they have the right to do things. It's just they they they need to understand that if there's boulevard in their front yard, that boulevard is controlled by the city. Um, the city doesn't own that land in fee. It's owned by the property owner and fee. We have what's called right-of-way or easement to maintain our boulevard, our streetscapes to make sure that there's—consistent with health and safety issues—that have to do with sidewalks or streets or vehicles. So, we have every right to go into the boulevard. Um, really what what this code change is doing is clarifying an ambiguity which I think existed in your previous code because it wasn't entirely clear that cities have that authority but the law makes it very clear that we do. Um, so, um, I think generally speaking, people can do what they want on their property, but they need to understand that if they're planting trees and the city doesn't want a tree there, we have every right to go take it down at some point if it's in the boulevard or the right-of-way. **[1:36:47] Mayor:** Right. If it's causing interference, if it's diseased, and I’m all for that. I just want to make sure there still is autonomy of the homeowner who doesn't want a tree for whatever reason is what I'm getting at. I mean, this is a construct of solving public safety issues and services of the city to go in and do it for those specific purposes, but it's not changing anything if someone says, "Hey, I'm sick of raking the leaves every fall and I want to take that tree down." **[1:37:08] Soren Anderson:** That they can do that now. They can do that after this code change as proposed. Correct. Thank you for clarifying that. **[1:37:34] Council Member Edberg:** This conversation seems at odds—but I might not be reading it correctly—with section 706.090 where the city in its sole discretion has the authority to plant any species in any place that it chooses to do, which does not imply a whole lot of homeowner ownership or involvement. It's: if the city wanted to plant a whole solid roll of arborvitae or Lombardi poplar that will grow 20 feet and block all streetscapes and everything else, that seems to be permitted. How am I not understanding 706.090? **[1:38:10] Soren Anderson:** I think the city would have to work with the property owners to make sure they're okay with that. I mean, again... **[1:38:13] Council Member Edberg:** Without the language—it says "in its sole discretion." There's no negotiation, no conversation, no... "hey, do you like ash or do you do you want oak or maple?" **[1:38:21] Soren Anderson:** Yeah, I think the—generally speaking, the city is always going to work with homeowners on that. I mean, when I personally—it happened to me and it's happened to a lot of the cities I represent where they're always working with homeowners on trees to plant within the boulevard. Um, and so in in this case, we wanted to clarify that we have that right. It is the city's and it is the city's legal right to maintain its right-of-way and its boulevard. Um, and that would include removing and planting trees. I've always encouraged my cities to work with the property owners because you want to do this together with them. They're going to be the ones looking out their door, out their windows at these trees. They're going to be the ones driving by it and walking by it every day. So, I don't think cities should be heavy-handed about that. Um, but ultimately we have the right to do that. **[1:39:07] Mayor:** Um, well, I mean, I think there's also room for policy and council direction and and staff discretion on things. Um, the code is really intended to make sure that everyone understands that ultimately if it's public right-of-way and boulevard, the city has a lot of authority to do things like this within those areas and we can clean that language up and talk about it as staff before it comes back for second reading. I think I understand the distinction you're making or the issues being raised. Um, but that's the way it is in terms of how Boulevard is maintained. **[1:39:43] Mayor:** Let me jump in on this and I want the city attorney to push back if I have this wrong because I see your concern. In reading this through, I'm not quite as concerned and here's why: There's the draw—the general language of the city may remove or replace regardless of condition. Fine. The sentence that you're referring to says after contemplating a not so expressed right of the city to plant a tree or replace a tree... It's then saying: "the site and species of any replacement tree will be determined by the city in its sole discretion." So, I don't think—I think there's protection in there for "we can't just decide, hey, we're going to put 15 trees up unless we're replacing 15 trees," and I don't know why that would happen. So, by all means, push back, Mr. Anderson, but I'm not reading this as quite the concern that you have. But the concern that you raise, if that were to be interpreted that way, I think is fair. I'm just not reading it that way. **[1:41:00] Soren Anderson:** I generally agree with that. I would also say that the the sentence before it does qualify the primary language in that paragraph with "consistent with the city's authority to manage its public right-of-way." If some—if there's trees in the boulevard and they're blocking sight lines at an intersection, we're going to take them down. If there's trees in the boulevard that we wish were 10 feet east because of that sightline issue, or maybe because it has an ash borer situation going on, or because there's roots coming through the sidewalk and it's creating issues with pedestrian walkways or other things or even the street—we would maybe want to remove that tree and put it in a location that's better. And so, um, that's the authority that all cities have inherently as a right-of-way and road authority. Um, and to your point, mayor, I think that's a good clarification on that last language because that does really talk about replacement trees when we're talking about managing right-of-way and doing things for public safety reasons or just for general right-of-way management reasons. **[1:42:03] Council Member Edberg:** So, I actually don't have an issue with removal for all of the reasons—whether it's safety, egress, ability to move our trucks and so forth up and down the street. If there's a safety issue, I don't have an issue with the city using city funds to remove trees from boulevards. I do have an issue with telling people that they're going to have to have a tree that they may not want that might interfere with where they want and that it's at the sole discretion of the city. So I'm not interested in—we can take away, but the adding the planting and there's no limitation on what—if we happen to say we like a whole lot of this, that or the other. I don't see any limitations on our ability to enforce that and cram it down their throat and I’m not interested as a point of policy of saying the city shall have that unfettered "in its sole discretion" authority. **[1:43:10] Mayor:** I agree with you. I don't think the city should have that unfettered discretion. I also don't think that this says this because it says the sight and species of any replacement tree will be determined in the city's sole discretion. And the qualifier being "it has to be a replacement tree." In order to get to a replacement tree, it has to be that the city decided to remove that tree in the first place, consistent with the city's authority to manage its public right-of-ways. So, one of the things that's not consistent with the city's authority to manage public right-of-ways is tomorrow Paul wakes up and says, "I'm going to plant 30 maple trees wherever I please." That's not consistent. **[1:43:58] Mayor:** One of the things would be we're going to trim that tree because if a fire truck goes down that street, it's going to hit it. So, I think there's probably a pretty narrow universe—in my opinion—of engineering department/public works deciding that tree needs to go, it's blocking the sight line to this intersection. We get to do that. Under that limited circumstance, I think the city would have discretion—sole discretion—to say we're going to replace that and we're going to pick the site and the species, but it's only under that limited situation where we're talking about replacement of a just-removed tree. And as a practical matter, I don't think the city staff's going to not work with the homeowner on that. We’d all hear about it. "Did you hear what the department did? I don't want a tree right there." They didn't completely disregard what I had to say. I mean, we'd work with them. But the point is we can't just go plant trees that never existed in the first place. That's not what this language says. It's limited to replacement trees. So, I think it's good to raise it and I think we can have the city attorney go back and get you or others on the council comfortable if we want to be more explicit with it, but I don't have that concern based on my reading of it. **[1:45:15] Council Member Edberg:** May I switch gears mayor or I'm happy to share if you want to give others the floor. **[1:45:19] Mayor:** No, I think we can keep it—it's just the first reading. So, if there's things that we know, hey, we want to do some spade work between now and the second reading, now's the time to address it. If there's nothing glaring, we can reserve comment for second reading, too. But if you have other comments please. **[1:45:35] Council Member Edberg:** Yeah. So, either Mr. Kelpy or Mr. Anderson: this policy addresses both trees in the boulevard in a public space. It also addresses the ability of city staff to go onto private property. Can you distinguish between those two and how that—that's a police power. How do we exercise that? **[1:46:12] Soren Anderson:** Sure. Good question. Mayor and council. So, it's generally no different than what we would do with other public nuisances. The tree section in our code, like a lot of cities, is kind of uniquely in its own part of the code. And so the goal here was to to clarify the due process that's required when you're going to try to eliminate or abate a public nuisance. Um, the way that works usually is city staff has to first learn about it. The only way city staff can go on private property to inspect a tree is if we either get consent from the property owner—now, this was—this is now beyond the right-of-way, beyond the boulevard. If we get consent from the property owner, or if we get a warrant. Um, and that assumes that you need to actually go on the property; there are some trees you can look at from public vantage points and determine that's a hazard. It's clearly dying. It's clearly dead. There's limbs that are going to fall. They're large. They're dangerous. Um, and that's going to become a problem. **[1:47:18] Soren Anderson:** And so assuming you get that inspection done or you determine that a public nuisance exists, city staff would be in a position then they're going to send the property owner a notice requiring—we actually extended the time period allowed here. I think it used to be 20 days. Staff was thinking that 45 days might be a little more reasonable. I assume that's because of timelines generally how they work with tree removal. You have to find a contractor. That's not always easy to do in two or three weeks, but it's probably easy enough to do in a month or a month and a half. **[1:48:00] Soren Anderson:** Um, and so, we put them on notice that this has been determined to be a public nuisance. You have to abate it. If you don't do it within 45 days and you don't appeal—they have appeal rights to a neutral hearing officer like all public nuisances under the code—then the city would have the authority to do the work. But I tell cities—just like when you're going to go do substantial abatement work—trees are private property. We don't own them. And if you want to go remove them, if it's important enough to the city, you're going to have to get a court order to do it or a warrant from a judge, because the risk is just too significant. So, in order for the city to actually exercise its abatement authority after the property owner chooses not to do it or doesn't do it—this is all assuming it's not an imminent threat to public safety or any you know life or property—then we'd get a court order. There's a relatively—I don't want to say it's super streamlined—but there's a sort of a streamlined process to do that through Ramsey County District Court where you effectively ask for an administrative warrant to go and remove a dangerous tree. Once you get that process complete and a judge signs an order, assuming everything looks good, then the city can hire a contractor or send its own public works team out to remove the tree and all the costs under this ordinance. Again, much like other public nuisances, would be recovered against the property owner. You bill them. If they don't pay, you have the right to specially assess them under chapter 429. **[1:49:30] Soren Anderson:** So, um, that's kind of a long-winded way of just giving you the procedural components of abating public nuisances. More specifically, the trees that we're talking about here. We clarified the definition of hazardous tree to include any tree really that poses a likelihood of property damage or personal injury. That's going to be a staff determination based on their expertise and knowledge in dealing with trees. Um, and it could be a disease tree, could be just a dying tree or for whatever reason another tree that has a condition that makes it dangerous. Maybe there's a a giant limb hanging over a playground or a someone's patio or something and and we don't want something bad to happen. So, I would say, you know, I think that city engineer Kelpy can maybe confirm this, but cities don't—it's not super common where we're relying on the public nuisance process for trees, but it's nice to have in our toolkit, if you will, because every once in a while there's going to be a situation where it does happen and we need to exercise these rights. And so, again, the ordinance was 50 years old. It was drafted in the 70s. It had been modified a couple of times and I just we all felt that it could use some updates with the way that generally courts are viewing these things in today's era as opposed to years ago. **[1:51:00] Council Member Edberg:** So I don't know if that answers your question but... **[1:51:02] Council Member Edberg:** It addresses the ability of public employees to enter private property. Um, and I’m satisfied with the abatement, the need for a warrant, etc. If you don't have homeowner approval, that's reasonable. Um, Mr. Kelpy, what are we looking at for costs of removal of... Okay, I’m looking at the number of ash trees 30, 40 years old, 50 years old, um, 12, 15 inches in diameter at breast height. Um, what are we looking at for costs of removal that we are imposing as a result of this ordinance? **[1:51:38] Paul Kelpy:** Uh, mayor, members of the council. So currently right now we—as we do I'll call it the boulevard tree removal where we notify homeowners that it is—does say take for example the ash tree that council member Edberg had just described. Um, we would go out, we would have our public works staff go out and get bids on that tree removal. Again, per our current ordinance, it would be split 50/50 between the homeowner and the city. Um, that being said, um, kind of the average typical price for a tree removal has been about $2,000–$2,500. Um, so if you split that 50/50, it's typically about $1,100–$1,200 per party. So... **[1:52:21] Council Member Edberg:** Only for—are we splitting only with boulevard trees? **[1:52:24] Paul Kelpy:** Correct. Only with... **[1:52:26] Council Member Edberg:** I’m out of a tree in my backyard that is deemed dying, whatever. Um, we have the opportunity to tell somebody in 45 days you got to cough up two grand or 2,500 or whatever to have this taken out of your yard? **[1:52:38] Paul Kelpy:** Uh, mayor, members of the council that is correct under what Mr. Anderson had described if we deem it that it be a public hazard. Um, we’ve had quite a few discussions about this and say a tree is—we take a look at it and we say if that falls it's going to fall in the backyard and it's just going to be a mess for the homeowner, so be it. You know, it's—if we feel it's sitting next to an adjacent park and there's a playground there and we think that it's going to fall in there, um, that would be that legal process that we would follow that was described prior. Um, however, just like any other property owner component that we would do code enforcement on—people aren't upkeeping their property or even just property maintenance—that somebody's furnace goes out, they need to pony up the money and have their furnace fixed if they want heat for the winter. So, that being said, it's part of home ownership—that's a maintenance cost. Um, we would step in, as city attorney mentioned, if it became that hazard where we felt it was going to pose some public risk. **[1:54:02] Council Member Edberg:** So the worst case scenario: Okay, looking at the certifications that we just dealt with, the number of folks that are having trouble paying their water bills... Water is kind of an essential. Okay, trees, yeah, they're important, they're not essential. And we're giving ourselves the authority to inflict pretty good costs on folks in a trying economic time. And I just—I want to be real sensitive to how we empower ourselves and how we implement. So, the fact that this might be—this might need to be a dangerous tree as opposed to simply a dying tree. Um, if it's at risk to the homeowner's property, but not necessarily to the public—it's not next to a playground—is that a—by this new definition, is that a tree that we can force abatement on? **[1:55:08] Soren Anderson:** Could be. It depends on the circumstances. Mayor and Council and I'll preface all this too with we're not really changing any policy with that respect. I mean, there is language right now in your code that says "any tree, living, dead, or parts thereof infected with disease or infestation or which may be considered a threat to public welfare are considered public nuisances." And we have every right to determine that—make that determination now—and exercise all the abatement processes that we're talking about here. We're just in my mind supplementing it with I think sound legal policy procedure and those kinds of things. Um, there's really very little if any distinction I would say between what we're defining as a hazardous tree in the new language other than I think clarifying it and making it a little easier for people to understand as compared to what was in there or what is in there today because that language exists right now in 706.030 that defines public nuisances—disease and dying trees—and then the language after that currently does give the city the ability to do what we're talking about today. **[1:56:15] Rick Juba (Assistant City Manager):** So it comes down to how we exercise our power. Mayor and council member Edberg, just a couple things. Most of those scenarios are going to deal with a code enforcement situation where you have a neighbor actively complaining about another neighbor's tree that they feel is threatening their property. So that's the most likely scenario you're going to see there. And I would also just stand up a little bit for staff's reasonableness in these situations. I mean, we have a patient staff. We work with our residents. So I don't necessarily see that being—I realize it's a policy that gives us the authority, but we do also have practices in place that I think show a lot of restraint and respect for our residents when exercising that authority. **[1:57:08] Soren Anderson:** Could I add one other thing too, Council Member Edberg? Um, in response to your question: in my view, we're actually extending quite a bit of grace and providing due process that isn't necessarily provided today to these property owners in your code. I would say if we were going to be using these powers today, we would still—at least if I’m consulted—we're going to exercise and give those rights to people and make sure we kind of slow walk through this to make sure we jump through the hoops, if you will. Um, but, you know, we're extending the time period from 20 to 45 days, for example, on removal of a hazard tree. Um, we're making a very clear process for how you can appeal—you have the right to go talk to a neutral hearing officer and make sure that they look at the facts and say staff made the right decision here. This is a dangerous tree. This is a hazard. So, um, to me, this is a—while I think it helps everybody, city and property owners, I think it's also quite a benefit to property owners and their rights to not have the city have unfettered discretion to just go on their property and remove trees. That's all. **[1:58:15] Council Member Edberg:** So, taking into account Mr. Juba's comment, I’m going to assume at this point that we are not going to have to hire more public works staff to enforce this ordinance. Um, we may choose to at a future time, but since we're dealing mostly on a complaint basis, these are kind of one-offs type of things. Maybe a bunch of one-offs, but... I’m trying to wrap my head around it. We have an epidemic. We have an ash borer epidemic. All right. 2,000 trees on city-owned property alone was the last estimate that we had. And it's way more than that on all of the private property. And so if we're going to start moving rapidly, it's like: okay, I don't have an issue with problem trees—those that are dangerous, those that are dying, etc. Got it. I appreciate the staff that went and got us some grant money from a couple of different funds to help remove boulevard trees. Kudos. Um, but this whole process of... we're talking a lot of money to a lot of folks and it's coming without necessarily under their control of their budget. And when most Americans have trouble coming up with 500 bucks on a short-term—that's the statistic. Maybe our city is a whole lot better than that, but you know, most people can't—the majority of citizens in the United States don't have thousands in their savings account. So it's like how we reconcile the magnitude of the issue with the costs of the issue and these policies. It's like we need to be thoughtful. **[2:00:10] Rick Juba:** Mayor and council member Edberg, I would just reiterate: I think we have a very patient approach to code enforcement in general. We are generally trying to work with people, issue several notices, trying to get a hold of people just to discuss what issue might exist on the property in order to find a solution. So, uh, that's not to say at the end of the day sometimes matters can't be resolved or won't be resolved with that property owner because maybe a refusal to try and resolve it. And those are the cases when these policies generally get used. So, for the most part, I think that patient approach will continue to spread through this problem as it has through any other thing that's arisen from a code perspective that we've dealt with over time. I think we do a very good job of that and will do a very good job with this. Um, as far as the staffing perspective, we have discussed, I think, through staffing plans the idea of needing additional staff just to deal with forestry issues: cutting down trees, planting trees, maintaining trees. That's not necessarily on the enforcement side; it's just the sheer magnitude of the number of trees that are going to have to be dealt with over the next several years. **[2:01:34] Mayor:** And I just want to comment: I think, council member Edberg, everything you've pointed out from a policy standpoint, I agree with and support and we should consider all those things. I read this and saw this as not a "heavy-handed city has more power" thing. I mean, I read it as quite the opposite. The city had discretion to invoke certain rights and go into property and declare things a public nuisance or a hazardous tree before and after. And this at least provides some clarity, some longer timelines, some very clear appeal processes, and a more formalized process. And I would assume the city attorney would also agree that just updating something that's 50 years old—there's 50 years of case law and changes in statutes—needs to be done anyways. So, I share your concerns. I’m just not reading it the same way you are. I think this is a positive for the residents and I trust the city staff that just as they have had similar discretion under the current ordinance will going forward exercise good discretion and patience. The ultimate check always is: if a resident is really getting jammed up or the crazy hypothetical city staff kind of goes rogue and is unfair, we're going to hear about it. It's going to come before this council. We'll have that opportunity in those really extreme situations. But the day-in and day-out is we're pretty darn reasonable working with residents and I don't think any city staff wants to stick it to someone. But this at least gives us a mechanism while we all work through this tree infestation and how we're going to deal with a very large stock of trees. So I think this is a positive for the residents and for the city. **[2:03:15] Paul Kelpy:** Uh, mayor, members of the council, just a little bit of clarification. Council member Edberg's previous comment regarding the impact to residents under the current ordinance: if we—as a rough estimate—we have approximately 1,700 trees in the right-of-way. So if we're trying to manage those—and we're just talking about Emerald Ash Borer today—just the removal of those trees as the ordinance is written is a 50/50 split between the resident and homeowner. So if we were to move forward under the current ordinance—not accept the grant—we would be sending letters to 1,700 residents saying "you owe half of the tree removal for that ash tree in front of your home." So the ordinance is actually taking that burden off of the residents, allowing the city to remove and replace those trees, again to maintain that canopy. **[2:04:09] Paul Kelpy:** There is leeway within the area that was selected under the grant to work with homeowners. There's a general list of species that we use that are hardy for Minnesota, resistant to pests and diseases. Um, we have some experience with the water gremlin mitigation where the city was granted a thousand trees and we worked over the course of about two years to get every one of those things planted in people's homes. Very few people said "No, I absolutely don't want a tree in my yard, I don't want to rake." A lot of them were folks that had a previous tree removed and had to pay for half of it and said "I don't want to do that again." So knowing—if we were under our current or our proposed policy where the city owns and maintains those trees—a lot of them I think would have gladly accepted those trees as well. So we do have that experience of working with the property owners to get those thousand trees planted. Very successful with public works and engineering staff to do that. Um, so again under this ordinance we're actually I think providing a benefit to those homeowners that it is a very clear-cut line that these are city-maintained and owned trees, but with that same recognition that we work with the homeowners to get them planted in the right locations, the right species for our climate. **[2:05:54] Mayor:** Okay. Well, we've definitely had our first reading. Uh, are there any marching orders from council to staff? Anything you want to see different when it comes back for the second reading or can we take up additional debate and a public hearing then? Good. All right. Thank you, Mr. Kelpy. Item 8B, tobacco license review, M&J Tobacco. Miss Longdike. **[2:06:19] Molly Longdike (Admin Services Director):** Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. I'm here tonight to report a tobacco violation that will require council to review and consider an appropriate penalty for the violation. Earlier this fall, the city was notified by the Minnesota Department of Revenue—which oversees licensing of tobacco and cigarette distributors and wholesalers—that it had seized contraband from M&J Tobacco. The contraband either was obtained from an unlicensed tobacco seller, the tax on the products hadn't been paid by the distributor, or there was no proof of invoice from a licensed seller. All violations of state law. **[2:07:02] Molly Longdike:** Based on these findings, staff would recommend an administrative fine of $150, which in the fee schedule indicates that there were no other tobacco related violations having occurred in the 12 months prior for further consideration. Included in the staff report is a history of violations prior to that one-year time frame. These include underage sales of both tobacco and edible cannabinoid products as well as the sale of edible cannabinoid products during a city-imposed moratorium prohibiting the sale of such items. **[2:07:34] Molly Longdike:** Based on the compiled list of violations, the city council may consider a stricter penalty and has the authority to do so pursuant to the municipal code, which states any tobacco license may be revoked or suspended by the council for a violation of federal or state tobacco laws, a violation of the chapter regarding tobacco products, or a violation of the code related to the licensee’s business operations. **[2:08:04] Molly Longdike:** The business owner was notified of this meeting as well as the staff's recommendation of the $150 administrative fine and the possibility of a stricter penalty determined by the city council. I would like to note that the business owner called in response to receiving the letter to challenge the findings of the Minnesota Department of Revenue. I directed the business owner to work this out with the state department and that the city should be contacted directly by the department of revenue with any corrections. I have not received any communication from the state department, nor did the state receive any filing for an appeal during the 60-day review period following the seizure. **[2:08:54] Molly Longdike:** The resolution before you imposes an administrative fine of $150 should the council consider a stricter penalty. Staff recommends council direct staff to bring a revised resolution with a desired penalty to the next regular meeting which would also offer an opportunity for us to notify the business owner of the proposed penalty. And I will stand for questions. **[2:09:24] Mayor:** Thank you, Miss Longdike. Uh, before we jump into questions, is there a representative of M&J Tobacco here that would like to speak to this issue? All right. Not seeing that. We'll come back. Um, for some perspective, is there any other tobacco shop in town to your knowledge that has such a significant history of violations? **[2:09:34] Molly Longdike:** Mayor and city council members, I would say not to this degree. Otherwise, you probably would be hearing about it. **[2:09:41] Mayor:** Okay. Council questions for Miss Longdike. Council member West. **[2:09:44] Council Member West:** [clears throat] I recall that this particular establishment was requesting um to be able to sell cannabis products, but they were not—they were too close to property that belonged to the schools. Um, so they weren't eligible for that. Can somebody—do we remember what around what date that was? **[2:10:14] Molly Longdike:** I don't recall the specifics of that conversation, nor do I remember what [clears throat] property was the subject of the conversation. However, they would not have received that license if it were interfering with that property based on zoning. **[2:10:31] Council Member West:** Yeah. I guess my point of bringing that up is just that we literally had a conversation that it was not okay for them to sell those products um because—so they literally asked to be able to sell the products and decided to sell the products anyways um even after we explicitly said you can't do it. So, it's even a little bit different than like kind of a regular in my mind at least um a regular just not following the rules. It was like council actually said after they had requested that "No, you can't do that." **[2:11:16] Rick Juba:** Uh, Council Member West, I can talk to other staff and get back to once I can um maybe seek some more information on this topic. Mayor and Council Member West, I think I can clarify. I believe we're referring back to the zoning ordinance discussion regarding cannabis and I believe that the tobacco shop owner that came forward um was a different shop that was on County Road E. **[2:12:00] Council Member West:** Thank you. Yes, thank you for the clarification. **[2:12:12] Molly Longdike:** But I do want to clarify, council members, that that property and that business owner that has had conversations about advocating for cannabis sales on that property was not in violation of selling products that they weren't allowed to sell. I just want to make that clear for the business owner. **[2:12:38] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you, Miss Longdike. To what extent are the... So the tobacco license review that is the subject—to what extent do we also have cannabis issues related? My read—but I might be mistaken—is that the cannabis violations were prior to the 12-month period and therefore um within the past 12 months—within the confines of the the narrower interpretation—we've only been dealing with tobacco related violations, but that the cannabis and other tobacco were prior to... Am I correct in that or were there cannabis related violations in the past year as well? **[2:13:20] Molly Longdike:** Council member Edberg, uh, within the staff report, I do have some dates outlined and just at a quick glance: so, this seizure happened in May of 2025 and it was less than a year prior, June 2024, that they had failed a THC compliance check. But what's before you is just regarding the tobacco license. But I did bring note to um in the municipal code when determining a penalty against the tobacco license, the city council does have the authority to also see in other areas of the code that they may have had unlawful activity. **[2:14:10] Council Member Edberg:** And would some of the other ranges of punishment available to the council include temporary or permanent suspension of their tobacco sales licenses? What's the range of other options that you say we may have? **[2:14:24] Molly Longdike:** Council member Edberg, I think the range is from doing nothing to revoking the license altogether. There's something that's interesting about the tobacco license in that currently the city licenses the edible cannabinoid products and that is tied to the tobacco license. So until M&J Tobacco—I’m assuming they they're pursuing their edible cannabinoid license with the state—if you suspend or revoke their tobacco license, they will not also be able to sell those edible cannabinoid products. **[2:15:10] Council Member West:** So M&J is actually um within—too close to a school property just to be able to... I’m just kind of trying to piece together the different things. They are close to a school. **[2:15:40] Soren Anderson:** Um, council—council member West and mayor and council. I'm not sure the buffers—I don't have the buffers in front of me. I'm not sure they apply to what are considered low-potency hemp edibles which I think we're talking about here. Edible cannabinoid products is the old statutory phrase that is being replaced by low-potency hemp edibles with the new chapter 342 that legalize full-blown cannabis. I know cannabis retailers do have the buffers; there's statutory authority for that. We exercised a right here in White Bear to impose those buffers on businesses. Um, I'm not sure, but I don't believe that they apply to low-potency hemp edibles, which are sold at liquor stores and gas stations and a lot of different locations that you might not expect to see the full cannabis retail business going on. **[2:16:35] Council Member West:** Thank you. I think I'm caught up now. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. **[2:16:53] Council Member Walsh:** Thank you. Um, the Department of Revenue did the inspection, did the seizure. Uh, is there a fine from them? I don't remember seeing that in the memo or hearing you say that. Did they fine the business? Do they have a tax issue? Is there going to be a tax penalty coming their way? I mean, their issue is that you're selling stuff and not properly taxing and sending the money to the state. Do you know if there's fines coming from the Department of Revenue? **[2:17:15] Molly Longdike:** Council member Walsh, I don't believe so. I was in contact with the department twice following this letter to learn more about it. Um, and I did not hear of any additional penalty. They forfeit the product and I don't know if they get any revenue from that. **[2:17:35] Council Member Walsh:** That's just kind of an interesting point. I mean, they they do the inspection, they confiscate the product. Okay, that's a loss to the business, but there's no other penalty or consequence from revenue. They just hand it over to us, and we're the entity, the government level that needs to bring a fine. So, it's kind of—I don't know—I just find that interesting. Um, and the 150 bucks feels light today. I'll just say that it feels like a light fine, but if that's the fine that we agreed to in the schedule for this... we just revisited all of this just last year, two years ago, so I don't want to go back and relitigate that. But as we're doing it today, it feels a little light. Um, and you know, if that's what the schedule calls for, I'll certainly support the $150 fine today. I mean, if there was an appetite from my colleagues to go heavier—even double it—I think I might join them. But I don't know. I mean, if that's the schedule, that's the game we've laid out. I feel like we should honor it. Maybe after some experience and we revisit that in a year or two, I might be interested in upping these fines, especially if they don't have an intended effect, which is to stop bad behavior. We need this kind of behavior to stop. That's the point of the fine. It should be something that makes them go, "Oh, we better be more careful with what we're doing or we're going to have to—it's going to be a business issue. We're going to lose money." **[2:18:52] Rick Juba:** Uh, mayor and council members, Miss Longdike, if I'm correct, we had a similar instance just recently with a liquor license, correct? And the fine was $150. **[2:18:58] Molly Longdike:** Uh, yes, Assistant City Manager Juba. It was in the $100 range for the alcohol and gambling enforcement, and then the letter invited the city to review as well and put any additional penalty on. Council Member Walsh, we will be reviewing the fee schedule and specifically for underage sales. There's some state statute language that determines those fees that we will plan to incorporate. And just as a preview, um, I think the first offense is $300, second offense $600, third offense $1,000 plus suspension. Um, city attorney Anderson if there's any other comment about the state statute language but we will align some of those fees. **[2:20:01] Council Member Walsh:** And is that a mandate from the state? "We need to up our fees that way." So that's not a suggestion—that's saying that's got to be the fee now. **[2:20:07] Soren Anderson:** Uh, mayor and council. Yes, so there are statutory minimum fine amounts for businesses that violate just certain tobacco-related laws which include selling to underage. This one doesn't fall into that minimum because it's under the forfeit and the illegal product statute, but we were following the city's presumptive fee schedule—12-month look back and 150 for a first. So again, that doesn't mean the council can't necessarily deviate given the history with the business, but that's at your discretion, of course. **[2:20:41] Mayor:** [clears throat] Here's what I'm struggling with. I think you know at first glance when you see Department of Revenue and tax and weren't taxed on this, it feels like: okay, that's a state thing. Our prerogative really ought to be enforcing the law and making sure our licenses don't sell to minors. I think that's critical. But when you dig a little bit deeper, the notion of unlicensed tobacco—which is just to say we don't know where it came from—and then a history of selling to those that are underage... I’m more inclined to say we should really think about whether or not we ought to be more punitive in this one because the notion that because they bought unlicensed product, the state didn't get a tax on it... That's the state's problem. I’ve got no desire to do their bidding. But that whole construct is regulated such that the tobacco producers have to check the right boxes, have to go through compliance and making sure that they're following the rules and regulations and then their distribution network has to make sure that they're using those proper sources. And this didn't happen here. **[2:21:40] Mayor:** And in addition to the tax not being remitted to the state, that means that but for this being caught, we don't know what product they were selling and they have a history of selling to minors. So this doesn't really sit well with me to just say "What's 150 bucks?" I’m not saying we don't ultimately arrive at that. But I feel like I'd want to know—I don't feel like I’m making the most informed decision right now. I'd like to hear a little bit more perhaps from law enforcement to understand this a little bit more and see what their concern is. But I mean, my thought would be to punt on this until we get a little more information because I think 150 sounds a little light and I do have concerns of the ongoing kind of recurring violations and it seems to me if you look at the dates and how they line up it's sort of like well they're kind of just outside the one-year mark. So we don't have this kind of past practice counts against them except for we have broad discretion to look at the totality of it and and make an informed decision. And to Mr. Juba's comment about a liquor store, I think yeah that that was a similar fact for one small piece of this but that establishment didn't have the track record of prior violations. So just a distinguishing comment there. **[2:23:03] Soren Anderson:** Uh, mayor and council members, Miss Longdike... If I’m correct, can I—not to bury the lead, mayor and council, but in the last couple of days it's my understanding that staff is in the process of notifying this tobacco licensee of another incident of a potential failed compliance check with an underage person. And the goal tonight was to nevertheless present this—that's still being processed by law enforcement and they haven't been given notice of that yet. So, it was a little—I would say—it wasn't ripe enough to bring to council, but the plan was regardless of what happens with tonight's item to—assuming that indeed happened—be back soon with another potential violation and another potential ramification for this business based on that. And based on what you just stated, mayor, I don't know how the rest of the council feels about this, but we could to your point punt and inform this licensee—if they did of course have another violation too—that the council is going to do a more comprehensive review based on what we have in front of us tonight, what may or may not have happened in the last couple of days, and determine a comprehensive penalty whether it be a fine or something more significant, which again I think is all within your discretion. But that might be cleaner at this point just based on not only what I’m hearing but what's happened in the last couple of days. **[2:24:50] Mayor:** So without disenfranchising this property owner and wanting to make sure they receive due process—I appreciate you sharing that. What is the timeline for that? That alleged infraction at this point running through to the end in terms of the notice period when the final disposition would be made on that? **[2:25:10] Soren Anderson:** It was so close to this council meeting that we didn't feel comfortable putting them on notice of additional sanctions because of it. Um, I think there's time between now and the next council meeting on the 12th—which is that Wednesday after Veterans Day—to get a notice out to them this week that they have another violation, and that the council is going to do a more thorough review of their license on the 12th of November. We could also do it on the... tobacco. Thank you for catching that. Oh. Um, you know, I generally always like to say I’d like to give them at least a week's notice. We usually mail these things; we do have email from their application forms. But depending on what's going to happen, I like to give them at least a couple of days too to make decisions about their business, talk to legal representation if they want to, just to make sure they're getting good advice on things. **[2:26:12] Mayor:** Okay. So, I’ll just finish my comment. Council member Edberg and then go ahead. That would be the direction I think we should go. It's two weeks out. We have this—I think we just punt on it and then we take this whole thing up and once we have the facts at the next one, give them notice. Give them two weeks to do whatever they need to do. And I would encourage them to show up at that council meeting and we should hear them out. But I think this council needs to take this recurring pattern of very serious infractions seriously. And I think we need to take our duty seriously of issuing tobacco licenses only under circumstances that business owners follow the law. And we've had infractions come before us and there's been fines and then we don't hear from them again. And that's great. A mistake might happen. This is a recurring pattern [snorts] and it's a problem. And as council member West pointed out, it's like four houses down from an elementary school. Just things to consider. So, that’d be the direction I think we should go. We should table this until the next meeting for a more robust review of all the facts. Council member Edberg. **[2:27:18] Council Member Edberg:** I was going to ask if it strengthens our hand to take action tonight, accept the recommendation and use that as a basis for... either, we dealt with this one according to [policy] and now the next one is very clearly within that year. Like, still have the comprehensive conversation but take this one off the table and rely on the next one. **[2:27:42] Soren Anderson:** It's a good question. I would say no. I mean, I think always when you're considering the next one, you can look at the history regardless of if you impose the penalty. In this case, it's just they're so close in time and when we were bringing this to council, it had just happened. So, I’m not concerned about holding off on a decision tonight reducing the council's authority or giving you more justification to make a different decision next time. **[2:28:14] Council Member Hughes:** Um, I would be uncomfortable doing much more than the $150 without knowing more about what this event was. I mean, the statement here is: "the contraband included products obtained from an unlicensed tobacco seller"—not how much. Could be a pack of cigarettes. So, I would just like to know more about it before we go any higher than what our own statute says. I’m comfortable with $150 being a slap on the wrist—don't do that—similar to what we have already done. But anything more punitive than that, I sort of feel like I’m acting like a judge and this isn't enough information to be going outside of our own things. Whatever word I’m looking for there. **[2:29:05] Mayor:** So, it sounds like you agree with me. We should table this until the next meeting. **[2:29:10] Council Member Hughes:** Yes. I just wanted to bring that up in addition to the tabling with more information. **[2:29:12] Mayor:** Can I take that as a motion to table this to the next meeting? **[2:29:15] Council Member Hughes:** Yes, you can. **[2:29:16] Council Member Walsh:** Second. **[2:29:17] Mayor:** Have a motion to second to table this to the first council meeting in November. Any further discussion? **[2:29:22] Molly Longdike:** Mayor, may I add a comment? **[2:29:24] Mayor:** Please. **[2:29:25] Molly Longdike:** Um, so council, you can expect the proposed administrative fine for the second offense to be $275 per the fee schedule. **[2:29:34] Soren Anderson:** Sorry. That will be subject to the statutory minimums and your code does say the fee schedule applies unless a statutory minimum applies that's higher. So it would—if it is indeed an underage sale situation—that's going to be a three-year look back. And it's going to use the 300 to 600 to 1,000 I think and potentially suspension. We got to fill dates in and figure out when this happened, but it could be different. **[2:30:10] Molly Longdike:** Just to clarify: I’m just addressing the type of product. It was 60 vape-related items. I think specifically vape pens. Um, a small amount of product I'd say in the grand scheme of what the Department of Revenue can seize. Nevertheless, it's unlawful product and how they procured it. **[2:30:37] Mayor:** Thank you. Any further discussion on this before we vote? Just one comment to the city attorney: I think as we take this up at the next council meeting, a brief primer on just where our discretion lies as a governing body on our ability to make decisions on the local license would be helpful as we approach this. All right, no further discussion. All those in favor of the motion to table until the next meeting say I. **[2:31:02] Council Members:** I. **[2:31:03] Mayor:** Any opposed? All right, this is tabled until the next meeting. Thank you. Item nine, discussion, nothing scheduled. Communications from Mr. Juba, the assistant city manager. **[2:31:31] Rick Juba (Assistant City Manager):** Thank you, mayor and council members. Today is National First Responders Day. So shout out and thank you to our police and fire departments and also the Ramsey County 911 dispatchers. Thank you for all that you do. Uh, Friday is the last farmers market of the season. So rain, snow, or shine this time of year, we got to be prepared for anything. Uh, it's been another successful year. And I just want to thank Mary Helmrich and the public works staff also for all the work that they do to coordinate the weekly market. I think I counted them up today and that's 19 farmers markets throughout the season this year. So great job to them. Uh, next Tuesday, November 4th, is election day. So that's our local election for Ward 2, Ward 4, and the mayor. Polls are open 7 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. So you can visit our website or Ramsey County’s for polling information. And as the city attorney mentioned earlier, our next regular council meeting will be Wednesday November 12th due to the Veterans Day holiday on November 11th. That's all I have. **[2:32:42] Mayor:** Thank you, Mr. Juba. Any questions for our assistant—maybe soon to be deputy—city manager? [laughter] All right. Um, before we adjourn—high school students, thank you for being here. I have a 30 minute lecture on local government... **[2:33:14] Council Member Walsh:** No. **[2:33:16] Mayor:** No, I don't. The chair does not recognize council member Walsh at this time. [laughter] And I'll continue. Thank you for being here, Mr. Malum's class. Very good. Did you get my spiel? 23 years ago, I completed this assignment for Mr. Malum. It was a good experience then. I don't think I had to suffer through a 2-and-a-half-hour council meeting, but we appreciate you sticking with us. There were some important items on the agenda. Hope you learned a little something. And I would encourage you as you get older—or tomorrow—there's certain boards you can volunteer on, but participate in local government in one shape or another, whether you decide to run for office, volunteer on one of our committees, perhaps even become an employee of the city in the various departments one day. It's the level of government that affects your everyday life, unlike—in my opinion—any other, from the water that comes out of your faucet to what happens [snorts] when you flush the toilet, who responds when you call 911, whether the roads have potholes, all those good things. So, again, thank you for being here and as soon as we adjourn, you can come up and anyone at the dais can sign your piece of paper and you can get out of here. Thank you. All right, with that, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. Council member Walsh, would you like to make a motion to adjourn? **[2:34:27] Council Member Walsh:** Yes, Mr. Mayor. Move to adjourn. **[2:34:29] Council Member West:** Second. **[2:34:30] Mayor:** All those in favor say I. **[2:34:31] Council Members:** I. **[2:34:32] Mayor:** We're adjourned.