This transcript appears to be from a **White Bear Lake City Council** meeting on November 9, 2022. Based on the context of the names mentioned (Mayor Rohr, City Manager Crawford, etc.) and the specific agenda items, I have identified the speakers accordingly. [00:00:00] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Right, moving on to item 2A, minutes of the regular city council meeting on October 25th, 2022. I'd entertain a motion to approve those minutes. [00:00:15] **Councilmember**: Motion. [00:00:16] **Councilmember**: Second. [00:00:17] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: All those in favor say aye. [00:00:18] **Council (In Unison)**: Aye. [00:00:19] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Any opposed? Motion carries, the minutes pass. Item 2B, minutes of the city council work session on October 25th, 2022. Do we have a motion to approve those minutes? [00:00:25] **Councilmember**: So moved. [00:00:26] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Those minutes are approved. Moving on to item 3, adoption of the agenda. Are there any corrections or amendments to the agenda? [00:00:35] **Councilmember Hughes**: I have a comment about the consent agenda. Do I do it now or do I do it at the next...? [00:00:40] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Um, if you want to, when we take up the consent agenda, we'll have a discussion on that. So with that, I'd entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. [00:00:45] **Councilmember**: So moved. [00:00:46] **Councilmember**: Second. [00:00:47] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Motion and a second. All those in favor of approving/adopting the agenda say aye. [00:00:50] **Council (In Unison)**: Aye. [00:00:51] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Any opposed? Motion carries. We have an agenda. Moving on to item 4, the consent agenda. I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. [00:01:00] **Councilmember**: I don't know how to bring it up, Mr. Mayor. [00:01:02] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: So when we get them—do I have a second? I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the consent agenda? Councilwoman Hughes? [00:01:10] **Councilmember Hughes**: I suppose I could just discuss it here. Simply that um, there are comments made in the consent agenda—acceptance of minutes for the various commissions: Planning Commission, Park Advisory Commission. And I'm curious if we will discuss the results of any of those commissions specifically, the Park Advisory Commission, but any of them in the future? If there's a plan to delve into them or if this is a "we approve their minutes and we don't look at it again." [00:01:35] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: I can share what my intent is specific to one of the notes on the Park Commission—specifically the dog beach. Now that it's effectively closed for the year, it's my intent to take that up this winter or sometime before it reopens, so the council can digest what the Park Commission has to say and then make a decision on whether or not we're going to continue with that. Miss Crawford? [00:02:00] **Lindsey Crawford (City Manager)**: Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. We are planning to have a January work session with each of the boards and commissions, and that is when I was planning to have that discussion with the Park Board, City Council, staff, and the report that has been put together, which I believe staff is still finalizing. [00:02:15] **Councilmember Hughes**: Great, thank you. [00:02:17] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: All right. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approving the consent agenda say aye. [00:02:22] **Council (In Unison)**: Aye. [00:02:23] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Any opposed? Motion carries. The consent agenda is adopted. Item 5, visitors and presentations—we have nothing scheduled. Item 6, public hearings—nothing scheduled. Item 7, unfinished business—nothing scheduled. So we have item 8A, new business: Resolution accepting bids and awarding construction contract for the public safety renovation project, city project number 22-09. Mr. Koppy. [00:02:50] **Paul Koppy (Project Manager/Staff)**: All right, thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Um, a lot of the initial part of this presentation I'll just kind of be recapping for those who may be watching in the audience or at home. So again, just to recap the project scope as we have discussed a number of times over the last year, most recently at a workshop in October. So the scope of the project has replaced the fire apparatus bay, addition of a police garage, remodel the interior space of the building, changed some things up operationally such as adding dorms, decontamination rooms to bring things up to code, update the break room and kitchen area. Again, along with some needed facility updates: some HVAC, roof replacement, garage doors that actually fit the equipment that we have, and obviously indoor parking for valuable assets for police cars and other equipment. We will also add secure staff parking as part of the project. And one thing that Council directed is to have a public display of the La France fire truck. [00:03:45] **Paul Koppy**: Next slide. Here's just an overview of the site campus. Shows the a new location starting at the west side of the site: the new secure staff parking which would be fenced in with key card access gates. We have the new police garage. You can see the new drive-through fire apparatus bay that'll enter and exit both off of Second Street there. [00:04:05] **Paul Koppy**: Next slide. This next slide really just shows which areas are new and which areas are being renovated. The area in green is the interior renovations for the public safety, police, and fire. The red area is the new apparatus bay. Just to the north of that is the decontamination areas. And then the orange is the fire support space. Blue is the new police garage that will house all of their equipment and vehicles. And then on the north side, you can see in the purple is a required storm shelter that's required by code today to accommodate the uses of our building. [00:04:35] **Paul Koppy**: Here's just a couple of aerial views looking at the campus—what it'll look like after completion. Next slide. Now here are the site elevations as we had discussed at our last workshop. That will remain as part of the project with the exterior elevations taking materials from all the different city buildings to kind of make a cohesive site and kind of tie all our buildings together. Here is a view looking north off of Second Street that shows the display area that will show off the La France fire truck, as well as at the same time providing or maintaining a secure fire [access]. [00:05:10] **Paul Koppy**: Next slide. Here is a slide that's looking northeast. This is where the fire trucks and the police will exit the facility and then head on the Second Street and then out onto their calls. You can see—I'll go back one slide—you can see off to the left of the slide the secure fencing. It will be that wrought iron fence from the north and south, and then a composite wood type fence along the adjacent residential properties to provide some screening. [00:05:35] **Paul Koppy**: Next slide. This slide just looking northwest. This is looking at the new fire apparatus bay and the fire training tower, and you kind of see the City Hall in the left side of the screen. [00:05:45] **Paul Koppy**: Next slide. So getting on to project costs and funding. As we discussed at the last Council workshop, we originally had a budget before going into bids at 14.7 million. After the bids came out, we had a bid opening on October 11th; we had 17.8 million. It's quite a swing. We discussed that at the last workshop where just the market and the construction industries just [saw] double-digit increases that drove us to where we're at. Going over the cost side of it, you can see the 17.8 million. We're going to delay two items based on that workshop discussion: the monument out front—we can add that at a later date, we'll prep the site and have that ready for it, but we'll delay that installation. I will also delay the roof replacement. Both those items we’ll reevaluate as we go through the project depending on cost savings as we go through with our contingencies. [00:06:35] **Paul Koppy**: As far as funding goes—and I'll let Kerstin or Lindsey jump in as needed—but we'll do two bond issuances: one this year as the 22B issuance; the 23A will begin almost immediately so that we'll have that early in 2023. A couple of the other items that will fund the project are interest earned on the bond proceeds. As we go through the project, we get a lot of the money up front, so we'll have some investment opportunity to gain interest on that. Secondly, we will have a sales tax rebate based on the materials that are used on the project, so we'll do that on an annual basis as we go through the project. And anything left that we need to carry things over would be out of the Community Reinvestment Fund, right now showing at just over a hundred thousand dollars to carry us through the project. That again is all dependent on how we end up with our contingency and how the project goes. [00:07:25] **Paul Koppy**: Next up, project schedule-wise. The top part is just to recap where we've been. Next steps: tonight, November 9th, we would—we're going to present in front of Council that they would award the construction contracts. If they're awarded tonight, we anticipate construction to actually begin with interior renovations in March of next year, and it'll be about a 16-month or so build-out. So June 2024 will be substantially complete. We'll do minor restorations, cleanings, things like that beyond that. [00:07:55] **Paul Koppy**: So that's where we're at project schedule-wise. Gonna flip to the last slide. One thing I want to point out is a kind of a last-minute change—you should all have received the amended resolution. The elevator company who originally was going to rather bid based on what they believed was an error, said that they could do the work within the bid that they submitted. So we accepted that bid and amended this resolution to also include our scope of 14B for elevator for Otis Elevator company based on their base bid. That being said, staff would recommend that Council adopt the attached resolution awarding the contracts, or the amended resolution awarding the contract for the public safety facility renovation project. [00:08:40] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Thank you, Mr. Koppy. So just as a housekeeping matter so the Council is clear what Mr. Koppy said: the resolution, the amended resolution that's before us that includes WS-14B, the elevator, is the resolution that's before the Council should someone decide to move it. [00:08:55] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: A couple just introductory remarks. First of all, I want to complement the Council on the work session that we had on October 25th. As the meetings note, we started that at 8:23 and we adjourned a little after 11—11:04. I say that for those that are in the audience and maybe watching at home: we took a lot of time on this because the original budget was 14.7 million and then the bids came in at over 17 million. So it was a huge price jump and I think everybody in the Council took that to heart. Everybody was committed to the project—myself included. This obviously predates my time as mayor and being on the Council, but I support the project and I think it's overdue and it's part of those essential city services that we need to provide for our residents as best we can. This will help us do that. [00:09:45] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: So again, I want to complement the Council. I thought we did a great job. Some of the creative things that we came up with was one, to cut as much fat as we could. I think the delay of the monument was a good thing because that doesn't help us provide better police, fire, ambulance services—so that was an easy one to cut. And then we're delaying the replacement of the roof on the rest of the building, which I'm told can wait. So we did a good job sharpening our pencils. [00:10:10] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: I also think we made a smart decision by dipping a little bit into the Community Reinvestment Fund. There are several million dollars there. Part of why we have that is so that we can help out in projects like this and ultimately grease the skids to make it work. The big thing that the Council placed a priority on was not exceeding 10 million dollars in bonding in one single year, because crossing that threshold not only changes the economics and we would pay a little bit more to borrow the money and interest rate, but it would mark a significant departure from anything that the city's ever done. I say that because it's important for folks to know that we took a hard line on doing this as frugally as we can, but ultimately delivering what will be a project that we're all proud of once it's all said and done. So I support this project, I support this resolution, I'm excited to move forward. I think the Council's mainly on board as well. So with that, I will throw it to the Council for questions for Mr. Koppy or comments on this project or a motion. [00:11:10] **Councilmember Walsh**: Move to approve. [00:11:11] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: I have a motion. Do I have a second? [00:11:12] **Councilmember**: Second. [00:11:13] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Motion and a second. Any further discussion on this? Seeing that said it well—no, sums it up very good. So I have a motion and a second. Without any further discussion, all those in favor say aye. [00:11:23] **Council (In Unison)**: Aye. [00:11:24] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Any opposed? The motion carries and the resolution passes. Thank you. Moving on to item 8B: Resolution providing the sale of General Obligation Capital Improvement Plan Bonds, Series 2022B. Ms. Kinswader. [00:11:40] **Kerstin Kinswader (Finance Director)**: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. As we've discussed as part of the public safety facility renovation and expansion project, we'll be issuing two bond issues. You described, Mr. Mayor, perfectly that our goal is to remain under the 10 million dollar annual limit of when we issue the bonds. When we issue under 10 million in one year, the banks are qualified to bid on our purchases and so we increase our number of potential bidders, and then there are lower interest rates that come with those issues. So very prudent to do that. [00:12:10] **Kerstin Kinswader**: So this bond sale that's presented to you tonight is the first of the two bond sale issues. It's for 6 million 990,000. We took 10 million for the year, subtracted out the bonds that we issued for the street improvement project earlier this year, and that is how we came up with our 6 million number. The preliminary debt service schedules that were prepared by Ehlers and that were in the packet were for planning purposes. They use the market rate at the time for issuers with a Double-A Plus bond rating—and we have the Double-A Plus bond rating—and they added an additional 75 basis points just to cushion for any potential changes in the interest rate that would happen between them issuing their report and when we sell the bonds. That 75 basis points is three-quarters of a percent. [00:13:00] **Kerstin Kinswader**: So based on that information, they took the market rate at the date and added on the basis points, so the true interest cost for this bond issue is 4.5 percent—just over 4.5 percent. When we talk about the true interest cost, that's really the actual interest cost of borrowing the funds, taking into account the coupon rates and then the underwriters' discounts or premium when we issue the bonds. Based on those assumptions, we'd be looking at our bond would have 20 years of principal payments. So based on all of those assumptions, the annual tax levy will range between slightly over 372,000 and 566,000 during the life of the bonds. [00:13:40] **Kerstin Kinswader**: As part of this bond process, the staff has been working with S&P Global Ratings and Ehlers because we're required to have a ratings review. They look at our financial data, they ask us quite a few questions just to analyze what our rating is, and we were notified on Monday that S&P, based on their review, affirmed our Double-A Plus bond rating for this issue. So they give us the Double-A Plus bond rating for this issue and they affirmed it for all of the debt that we've issued. It's very exciting in their letter that they sent to us—their view of the city is that there's very strong economy and we have access to a broad metropolitan base being so close to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. So our economy is good and their economy is good. We have strong budgetary performance and strong management with good financial policies, our long-term financial forecasting, and our capital planning. I think that speaks to the hard work that the Council has been doing with our finances to make sure that we're planning for these purchases. [00:14:40] **Kerstin Kinswader**: So with that, I recommend that the Council adopt the resolution authorizing Ehlers to assist in the bond sale. We would establish November 22nd, 2022, as the meeting to consider the bond sale proposals and setting November 22nd, 2022, as the date for awarding the bond sale, and that we would authorize Ehlers and city staff to participate in the preparation of the official statement for the bonds. We do have Dan Tentner with Ehlers here at this meeting, so if there's any questions that the Council may have that they'd like to ask Dan as part of this process, either of us are available to answer the questions. [00:15:20] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Thank you. Council, any questions on this? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to approve the resolution. [00:15:25] **Councilmember**: Motion. [00:15:26] **Councilmember**: Second. [00:15:27] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. [00:15:30] **Council (In Unison)**: Aye. [00:15:31] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Any opposed? Motion carries and resolution passes. Item 9, discussion. 9A—that is: land use and zoning application review process. Mr. Lindahl. [00:15:45] **Jason Lindahl (Community Development Director)**: Thank you members of the Council. So just to highlight a couple things before we get started here—again, this item appears under your discussion section of your agenda, so we're really just here for feedback and discussion by the Council. No action is expected and nothing results except direction to staff from this item. The item that we're talking about here tonight basically is looking at refining some of our land use and zoning review processes. It really results from direction that the Council provided during work sessions last summer when you started reviewing the Housing Task Force report in your work sessions in June and July of this year. In those work sessions, you looked at that report and the four broad recommendations that came out of that report, which are shown up here on the slide. [00:16:35] **Jason Lindahl**: The third action—Guiding Future Development—was assigned to the Planning Commission. And so, "Guiding Future Development" really kind of includes two components. The first one will be started next year, and that's a broader review and update of the city's zoning standards. But the second one is just a processing point that has come up in discussions as part of some of the recent applications that have come through the city. And so we decided that process-wise we could look at those ones separately and try to be better prepared for anything else that may come our way as we see future development proposed in the city. [00:17:15] **Jason Lindahl**: The Planning Commission was assigned this task and they started looking at this at their last meeting. Staff presented the same outline of these things that we'll talk about here tonight and took feedback from them. Generally, the Planning Commission was—excuse me—very supportive of this process. They felt that they were encouraged to see that the city was trying to be proactive to have some broader engagement and earlier engage the community with the more whole-scale or broader redevelopment projects or planning projects that may come through the city at any given time. [00:17:50] **Jason Lindahl**: And so they had questions as part of their discussion about how this could affect timing of applications, what kind of costs could be incurred. Generally, the city staff's response was, in working through similar kinds of processes in other communities and seeing how they've played out, that there will be some extra time and costs incurred by developers to do this. However, it's been staff's experience that developers find value in these processes because of the ability to get involved with the community in front of the Planning Commission and City Council sooner, earlier in their process, and before they have to develop a full final plan set that usually comes through the formal review process. So they do find value in these processes. [00:18:35] **Jason Lindahl**: So what I also wanted to do was take a look at the neighborhood meeting process first. I'll outline some things here; we can certainly have discussion or questions at any point. Much more detail is included in your staff reports. Looking at the neighborhood meeting process, the city has used this in an informal way on a few redevelopment projects—Schaefer Richardson had neighborhood meetings—but up to this point, we didn't have a formal process and standards that we could hand in a clear manner to the developer or that we can share with the public. [00:19:10] **Jason Lindahl**: Again, the intent here is to get more information out to the public and get them involved earlier. The neighborhood meeting would be required to be hosted by the developer; it's their meeting. Often times the public comes in and sees a meeting where they were already into a formal application and were in a formal meeting here at City Hall where they think the process is maybe further along than it really is. This really gives both the public some opportunity to comment earlier in the process and the developer to be able to react and revise or adjust their plans with that feedback. City officials and staff are invited to the meetings, but again, the developer hosts the meetings and actually has that interaction and presentation with the public. We're really there to answer procedural questions—like, do they really need a Planned Unit Development or what kind of deviations from the zoning code could they need? When would they go to Planning Commission? The developer is responsible for hosting that meeting. [00:20:05] **Jason Lindahl**: The neighborhood meetings would be part of the concept plan review, which is the next thing we're going to talk about here. So this is a component of that next process. And then part of any conditional use permit or rezoning process that is either within or directly abutting or adjacent to a residential area. If we're talking about projects that are out by [Interstate] 35 away from people, just part of an industrialized area, this isn't a requirement as proposed right now, but certainly that's open to discussion. [00:20:35] **Jason Lindahl**: These meetings would need to occur at least one week before the Planning Commission process so we can make sure that we get the feedback from the neighbors and that the developer then relays that information to staff so we can include it in the report that goes to the Planning Commission. The notice mechanism or part of this process is very similar to what the Council would be used to for a public hearing. It's a 10-day [notice]; they need to provide notice 10 days prior to the meeting. It's the same notification distance—approximately 350 feet as it stands right now. Copies of the notices would go to those residents but then also to the members of the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Community Development Director so we can monitor that process and attend if you like. [00:21:20] **Jason Lindahl**: The results of the meeting: the applicant is required to take notes or minutes of that meeting, offer a sign-in sheet so people can keep a record, take comment cards or comment sheets, and provide us minutes back from those meetings. The way that we have structured this process to date is there is that "modifications" section. That's really intended for the city to be able to have options to modify this process should there be something unforeseen. Really, this was something that was added in the last community I worked in as a reaction to COVID, when it wasn't safe for the public to actually gather and have a public meeting. So we pivoted in those situations and had online meetings and had the applicant host a website that allowed for comment. It's intended for the city to only have options—it's not intended for the applicant to be able to get around this process in some way. [00:22:15] **Jason Lindahl**: So that's a quick overview of the neighborhood meeting process. We can move on to Concept Plan and kind of see how these things fit together or I can answer any questions. So looking at the concept plan—again, neighborhood meetings are one component—but the idea here is that this pre-application concept plan review would allow developers to come in and get feedback from the public, the Planning Commission, and Council prior to submitting a formal application. This process is unique in that it's not a formal entitlement process. So the review, the comments, the feedback is all advisory. It doesn't bind the city or the applicant to anything. It is really just an opportunity for these more significant land use applications to be out in front of the public early in the process to allow the public to be more well-informed and engaged about these projects that could affect their neighborhoods. [00:23:15] **Jason Lindahl**: This would apply to applications again for Concept Plan but would be optional for projects—but could be required for any Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezonings, Planned Unit Developments (PUD projects), or any project that may request city financial assistance. Again, this process doesn't bind the Council or the city to anything related to any of those projects; it just allows a more open dialogue to happen. [00:23:45] **Jason Lindahl**: So the process for looking at those concept plans would begin with the neighborhood meeting. The applicant hosts that meeting, presents the project to the public, and gets feedback. And then the next step would be to have the project go on to the Planning Commission. That's intended to be a follow-up to the neighborhood meeting and would build upon that process. So what would happen is the neighborhood meeting occurs, feedback is gathered, and then the next step would be then to have a more traditional review by the Planning Commission and City Council. [00:24:20] **Jason Lindahl**: It would go to the Planning Commission, have an informal meeting, allow the developer to make a presentation. Staff would have a general report about the scope of the project and how it might fit within the zoning standards but wouldn't make a formal recommendation. The public would be invited to comment and planning commissioners would be provided the opportunity to give feedback. And then again, no formal recommendation. [00:24:45] **Jason Lindahl**: Then the neighborhood meeting info and Planning Commission feedback is brought to the Council where you also have the same kind of process: developer-led presentation, staff informs that process and gives some context, provides all the public feedback that has occurred up to that point, and then provides an opportunity for the Council to ask questions and have conversations directly with the potential developer. As far as next steps, it really just results in more information for the public and the Council and the developer—for the developer then to use as they see fit, which would be to allow them to use that information to put forward a future formal application if they choose to do so. So that's a quick run-through. At this point, no formal action is requested; we're just looking for feedback from you with the idea that we'd take that feedback and start preparing a future ordinance amendment. [00:25:40] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Thank you, Mr. Lindahl. Well, this being a discussion, let me kick things off. First off, for members of the audience, a little bit of backstory about what the genesis of this was: it was decided at a work session among the Council that the city could do a better job when it came to transparency and consistency. I think this speaks to that. "Transparency" meaning we involve the community, and "consistency" having some formal process that isn't subject to whoever staff person's whims are that day—some predictability to the process. [00:26:15] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: It was also prompted in part by public feedback and, quite candidly, accusations that "Hey, the city's a year into a project and then we feel like we haven't even heard about it." This speaks to that. It gives the public an opportunity to share their ideas and thoughts early enough in the process so that if we think it's a really bad idea, it remains and dies a bad idea and we move on to the next thing. Or if we think it is a good idea, that we can address some of the concerns that can make it possible early enough. [00:26:45] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Against that backdrop, you're looking for feedback from the Council—I think this is great. We're absolutely on the right track. Is this the finished product? Probably not. I'm sure members on the Council have some suggestions for tweaking it a little bit, but this to me speaks to the heart of transparency and consistency. I'll put it this way: if the city moves forward with the project, the Council votes to approve a project and certain people in the community don't like it—that's one thing. That's inevitable; you're never going to get 100% buy-in on any project. But it's quite another if people in the community feel blindsided, like they never had a chance to be heard. That I think is not acceptable, and I think this process speaks directly to solving—I don't want to call it a "problem" because I don't think it was a problem—I just think we can improve on it and do better than we have done in the past. This I think shores up sort of that blind spot that maybe we at one time did have. So that's my feedback. This is absolutely on the right track. I think the early neighborhood meeting and putting the onus on the developer to organize that and spearhead it very early in the process is exactly what we need. So I support this. Anyone else in the Council? [00:27:55] **Councilmember Jones**: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I concur with everything you said. I would just add: the process of voicing concern—the squeaky wheel, the loudest voice—as I've learned in 15 years, gets heard the most and people don't want to stand up to that. And so there is the "silent minority" or "majority," whatever it is, that doesn't [speak up]. I would like to see a process where there is a written, verbal, online... whatever, a different process where they don't have to get up in a room full of people shouting them down. That's the biggest negative that I've seen: that people who have something to say are just afraid of public speaking, of dealing with an opposite viewpoint. And it doesn't matter which one it is. But I think this is great also. [00:28:45] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Great, thank you. So Mr. Lindahl, have other cities done something that really speaks specifically to that? I know we have some different things in here in processes and websites and different things—is that something we can add to it as an option or a supplement to the formal neighborhood discussion? [00:29:05] **Jason Lindahl**: Mayor, members of the Council—you actually asked, I think, a great question that did actually come up as part of the Planning Commission meeting as well. One thing we've learned that was helpful during COVID was requiring the applicant to have a website. So not only do the neighbors get a notice in the mail, but that notice includes a website that the developer hosts that shows the basic concepts of their plans, some site plans, elevations, and a basic narrative about unit count or uses. It gives the opportunity to submit online comments right on that website and it provides—what we found to be effective—a direct phone number to those residents who want to talk directly to the developer. At this stage, it's really a conversation between the developer and the neighborhood that the city just needs to kind of play referee a little bit on. And that website opportunity gives, I would hope, a little bit more comfort level to those that either don't feel comfortable about their particular opinion or just [allows us] to have gained broader public engagement because you can send your comment at nine o'clock when you're done getting your kids to hockey. Maybe you couldn't get to the actual meeting. We're hopeful that particular element of this would cover that concern. [00:30:25] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: No, very good. I'll just echo one other thing to councilmember Jones' point—and I think it's a fair one—people just might not be comfortable speaking. This is still a representative body. I mean, our email addresses, our phone numbers are on the city's website. So contact myself, contact the other members of the Council—there are certainly opportunities to make your voice heard short of a formal presentation or public speaking in front of all your neighbors. So that's always available. [00:30:50] **Councilmember Jones**: I mean, with the combination of the website, plans, all one-stop shop—I don't have to grab an email address, I don't have to go hunt it down. I think that that's awesome. That's fantastic because I get to see the plans right there and there's my [comment]—I'm done. I think that's fantastic. [00:31:05] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Any other comments? Councilmember Walsh. [00:31:10] **Councilmember Walsh**: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I support the plan, the idea, and the concept. My fear is—I'll just raise it—we can not talk it through maybe, but you see, it's not the formal process, but it could *replace* the formal process. We've had a couple of times even before we've done this where we've had developers come forward, we've had community meetings, and we've frankly scared the developer away with a really loud community response. And I sat back and thought, "Well, don't give up... we can work with the neighbors." And the Council might be supportive—I mean, I can't prejudge—but I'm not scared, let's talk about it. But the developers say, "Ah, not worth the effort, we're out." So I have a little bit of a fear that this could kind of replace the formal process and we could have some of these just kind of pop up, we're going to have a concept plan, and then we're gonna have a neighborhood meeting, and [the developer thinks] "not worth the effort." And we might not get anybody through that to the real process where—I don't want to say "cooler heads"—but people that are [on] the Planning Commission, whose job is to really go into detail with your staff recommendation. We make a decision, duly elected. We've proven we're not afraid to make people angry with some votes if it's good for the entire city. So I guess, if you guys have thought of that or not? We just got to make sure it doesn't replace the formal process and become the process and then scare developers away. [00:32:30] **Jason Lindahl**: Mayor, members of the Council—again, I think a great question. The challenge we have here is how do we balance providing ample opportunity for the public to be involved early with providing so much process that people get confused. To your point about could this replace the process, it's important to remember that there are no entitlements that come out of this. In the past, we've just told developers "go have a neighborhood meeting" and then in certain projects where they got a lot of neighborhood pushback, there wasn't any sort of other process or follow-up, which just kind of as you said, scared off a developer. This process combines that neighborhood meeting with a process where they actually come and talk to the Planning Commission and then come talk to the Council. And the Council will have the opportunity to say, "You know, this neighborhood feedback we really think is important, but we think this is a great idea [overall]." I think it's the combination of that neighborhood meeting and then combining it with an informal but *required* process that goes before the Planning Commission and Council to balance that broader perspective of the Council. [00:33:45] **Councilmember Walsh**: My other concern—I just don't want too much burden on the developers as they come forward. So we're talking about like sketch drawings; they're not hiring architects, they're not going deep into that, right? We're not requiring anything like that on the front end of this because they shouldn't have to spend too much money—obviously they have a concept already. That's kind of what you're thinking? [00:34:05] **Jason Lindahl**: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council—yes. The idea here is that the concept plans are just that: they're conceptual. We're not talking about formal site plans, surveying, or architects that do renderings and specific layouts that fire needs to look at for a formal application, or detailed engineering reviews with stormwater management. Those kinds of things shouldn't be part of this application because again, we're having a conceptual discussion. And that's again part of what developers have really liked about this: if they come in and we have a neighborhood meeting as part of the *formal* process where they've already spent substantial money, they've already invested in that project. We want to provide that balance between enough investment in plans that we can provide some constructive feedback, but we're not talking about drawing on the back of a napkin, but we're also not talking about full engineered plans. [00:34:55] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: No, I think that's a good point. I want to flesh that out a little bit. I see this process as more, in its most simple form: "Hey, developer wants to put a four-story apartment complex there." We'll parse it out a little bit, but the color, which way it faces, the pitch of the roof—those things that require a lot more money to be spent—we're not getting into that nitty-gritty. That to me is the [point]: it's good to have that conversation early because if there's just an outright rebellion, I want to know about that early. And if people are open to it, we can always figure out what the roofline looks like later. So we're clear about that—this really is conceptual and it shouldn't be too costly for a developer to get to this stage? [00:35:40] **Jason Lindahl**: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council—the only caveat I would say is that in my experience, I also try to balance by telling the developer, "You want to put your best foot forward early in this process." A picture is worth a thousand words. From what I've heard from my brief time here in this community is design is important in these kinds of projects. So I think we could expect to see some fairly substantial elevations, but I also would balance that, as you say, the roofline, the color, the exterior materials... all those things are to be adjusted. But I do think it's important for them to present their best product. [00:36:15] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Has it been your experience—because as our city manager just pointed out, we're not reinventing the wheel where this is common in other communities—has it been your experience that this has proved unduly burdensome for developers? Or as you said, they kind of like it and they get the process? [00:36:35] **Jason Lindahl**: Mayor, members of the Council—I would say that in the vast majority, high 80 percentage, developers welcome this because again, they know they can make a more reasonable cost-effective investment and learn about where the community lies. And again, we're not talking about doing this for the average resident who wants to build a new garage; we're talking about the larger-scale, more impactful kinds of projects. [00:37:00] **Councilmember Hughes**: To that point, one of the items that [was] spoke about that night—one of them is changing a current building from a business office and making it assisted living, but one of them is, I don't know, a garage for a dentist? And I'm just thinking to myself... I don't want a neighborhood meeting for my personal [project]. That doesn't mean that I wasn't trying to share it—I had to send a letter out, talk to all my neighbors—it's just that I wasn't going to put together a website for the thing. Again, not because I wanted to hide it, but that would have been a cost. And so I guess I'm just wondering, as you just said, this is supposed to be for kind of bigger things. And turning the convent into an assisted living facility—probably the neighbors would be interested in knowing that—but it's already a building where multiple people sleep. And the dentist's office—I guess the neighbors would probably want to know about it, but it wasn't this major expansion. So these do seem a little bit—it just seems like a very big process for the dentist to put together a website. I'm not interested in an actual line, but how far down are we going to push developers? I guess I don't know how "small" to go. [00:38:05] **Councilmember Jones**: Mayor, members—if I could just quickly: it wasn't my intent at least to require the residential projects, but more so the very large scale projects. [00:38:15] **Councilmember Hughes**: The same follow-up is: does a variance trigger it? Does a PUD? Does a CUP? Does the zoning change in a house—how small? Like "impervious surface," and I'm being somewhat sarcastic—two square feet? Boom. That's the slippery slope of what level defines how small. For example, my neighbor wanted to put in a hair salon next to [me]—that's going to put traffic; I might not like that. So do they now have to [do this]? We need to weed through that. [00:38:40] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Yeah, no, I think to shore up that and throw it to you Mr. Lindahl, but we have an "applicability" section in here. I read this to mean the big projects. I agree, councilmember Hughes, we don't want someone having to go through this for some relatively superficial thing. So maybe you can speak to that—how can we polish up the applicability? [00:39:00] **Jason Lindahl**: Mayor, members of the Council—again, I think you raise a great question. Staff's intention here is to involve the public early on. We always want to balance providing information to the public with providing them so much information that they feel overwhelmed. Similarly with your concerns about where we draw the line: at this discussion stage, we've given you what we think is kind of the broadest approach. I think what I've heard tonight is we want to make sure that we're sharpening our pencils on this. [00:39:35] **Jason Lindahl**: To be quite honest with you, there have been situations where I've used this process and the developers have had meetings and had very little public involvement or no public involvement. And then there are situations where they've had dozens or more people show up. But in either of those cases, I think the developers found that useful because they could point to the fact that no one came to their particular meeting as evidence of the level of interest—or that at least they made a full-blown and legitimate effort to try and engage the public early. [00:40:05] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Sure. And just to put a final capstone on the applicability: inevitably there's going to be some element of discretion. It'd be nice if it's completely objective, but that's just not how the world works. To a certain extent, we've got to rely on staff to be able to know where that is based on what the appetite for the Council is for public engagement. I can say I trust City staff to implement this. [00:40:35] **Councilmember Hughes**: I guess one thing I'd like to suggest: is it unreasonable to kind of take the residential part out? You know, if someone's just doing something to their house—obviously adding a hair salon is now business—but to the extent that it's just residential, there's notification already. And so hopefully if your neighbor is mad that you're doing something, that is plenty of notification for them and then they can just have that conversation to themselves. That would just be one thing I would like to suggest. [00:41:00] **Lindsey Crawford (City Manager)**: Mayor, members—I think that there's room for us to work on the language when we do bring back a text amendment for that. [00:41:05] **Councilmember Jones**: One of our constituents just texted me this—so they're watching, I don't know why, but thank you—and it reminded me: the concept detail thing. I've seen it go bad both times. You put too much detail in—[like] Bel Air County Road—too much detail was put in, so they sat there and talked about the restroom colors. It just took down a big part. Not enough detail was given—[like] Third and Cook—and [the public says] "I didn't like it." Public has a tough time seeing something and going, "That's permanent, that's what it's going to be." And I don't want to ask City staff to get involved in that referee match because it's their meeting, but how can it be stated clearly? [00:41:50] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Nonetheless, if memory serves me, when we had this work session months ago, that was one of the mandates was some element of public education so that folks knew a timeline, if you will, or a flowchart of "Here's what stage you're at." So if you really hate this project and it doesn't get killed at this meeting, well, that's one of like 18 different stages where you've got an opportunity. [00:42:10] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Here's what I'm going to envision: City staff can tell me whether this is feasible—some one-pager or little simple flyer that says "Here's how an apartment complex start to finish gets built in White Bear," and all the stages of how it goes. So people in the community have an idea of what those stages are where public input has a chance. Because that I think is the disconnect—residents feel like "I missed that public hearing, I didn't get a chance to say no, and somehow tomorrow there's going to be a four-story apartment in my backyard." Well, that's just not how city government works. Something to that effect—simple, easy to digest literature—I think would go a long way. Is that kind of what you're trying to address, councilman Jones? [00:42:50] **Councilmember Jones**: Even to the point where—I gotta say it just because it's me—somebody asked about the Bel Air County Road, like "Is your sanitary sewer line... it's going uphill? Do you have enough capacity?" I'm like... it just those things suck time and effort out of what the big picture is. And what you're alluding to—yes or no, do you want that or not? That's really what we're after. [00:43:10] **Lindsey Crawford (City Manager)**: Mayor, members of the Council—I agree with everything that's been said. There is some discretion, there is some staff guidance for the applicant during this concept stage. It's not uncommon for the applicant to say, "You work here—what do people want to see? What will they value? Is this too much detail? Is this not enough?" And I think that we can help guide that. It's not to provide any influence, but it's just a gauge for that community meeting. [00:43:40] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Anyone else on the Council have any thoughts? Great. Mr. Lindahl, does that give you the feedback you were looking for? [00:43:45] **Jason Lindahl**: Mayor, members of the Council—yes. This has been a great discussion and valuable feedback. I think we can craft up something formally to take it through. [00:43:55] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Very good. We look forward to seeing that. All right, thank you. Moving on to item 10: Communication from the city manager. Miss Crawford. [00:44:05] **Lindsey Crawford (City Manager)**: Mayor and members of the Council, I don't have any slides for you tonight—just a verbal update. So, we have been putting in shelters at Lions Park. I hope you've all been able to see them, and we're getting very nice feedback on the looks of those. That is a very visible park in our community; it will nicely put that park together. Thank you to Public Works and Engineering for their hard work on that. [00:44:30] **Lindsey Crawford**: Yesterday was Election Day, right here in council chambers among other places in the city. Just wanted to publicly say thank you to Ramsey County who administers our election for us; they do a wonderful job. It was a steady flow of people in here morning through the night, so that's always good to see. [00:44:45] **Lindsey Crawford**: Friday is Veterans Day. Non-emergency offices at the city are closed that day. I just want to publicly thank—we employ 11 veterans here at the city: specifically seven in the Police Department, two in the Fire Department, and two in Public Works. We certainly appreciate what they have given up for us. [00:45:00] **Lindsey Crawford**: And then lastly, in your packet, council members—we did have a little memo to you should you be interested in entertaining electronic meeting packets like council member Hughes is working on. It greatly reduces staff time, fuel, all of it, paper everything. So please consider it and let either the city clerk or myself know. That's all I have. [00:45:25] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: Any questions from Miss Crawford? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. [00:45:30] **Councilmember**: Motion. [00:45:31] **Councilmember**: Second. [00:45:32] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: All those in favor say aye. [00:45:33] **Council (In Unison)**: Aye. [00:45:34] **Mayor Dan Rohr**: We're adjourned. Thank you. That was what, five minutes? Seriously.