This transcription has been updated with speaker names based on the context of the meeting, roll calls, and staff reports. **Note on Names:** While the provided list mentioned Michele Hanson as Mayor, the transcript audio explicitly identifies the presiding official as **Mayor Susan St. Ours**. Additionally, the transcript identifies **John Dahl** and **Connie Carlson** as Councilmembers and **Adam Bell** as the staff member administering the meeting (Clerk/Administrator), while **Matt Kline** is addressed specifically regarding Public Works and Infrastructure. *** [0:55] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [1:44] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [2:30] [Music] [3:16] [Music] [3:40] [Music] [4:26] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [5:15] [Music] [6:25] [Music] [7:14] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [8:00] [Music] [8:57] [Music] [9:10] **Mayor St. Ours:** 2021 Bayport City Council meeting. Uh, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. [9:56] **All:** 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. **Mayor St. Ours:** Great, thank you. Adam, please call the roll. **Adam Bell:** Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours:** Here. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Carlson? **Connie Carlson:** Here. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Dahl? **John Dahl:** President. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Hanson? **Michele Hanson:** Here. **Adam Bell:** Councilman Gilmore? **Ethan Gilmore:** Here. **Adam Bell:** All present. **Mayor St. Ours:** Excellent. That takes us to the approval of tonight's agenda. Does anyone have any changes or questions? [10:46] **John Dahl:** Looks in order to me. **Mayor St. Ours:** Excellent. With that, would anyone like to make a motion to approve tonight's agenda? **John Dahl:** I'll move to approve the tonight's agenda as submitted. **Mayor St. Ours:** Great, thank you, John. Is there a second? **Connie Carlson:** I'll second it. **Mayor St. Ours:** Thank you, Connie. Adam, with the roll. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Dahl? **John Dahl:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Carlson? **Connie Carlson:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Hanson? **Michele Hanson:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilman Gilmore? **Ethan Gilmore:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours:** Aye. And we get to vote once you're excited about the agenda. Okay, we're taking a look at our proclamations, accommodations, petitions, and announcements. [11:31] **Mayor St. Ours:** And our April recycling award recipient is Mary Jo Niemic at 408 7th Street North, who will be awarded for her recycling efforts with funding made possible by a grant from Washington County. So thank you very much, Mary Jo, for your efforts. Um, then we move into our open forum where we set aside 15 minutes of the meeting to address any topics that are not on tonight's agenda. If anyone is in the wings, Adam—please, we ask that you state your name and address for the record, um, and then you're free to start addressing the Council. But I'm not seeing anybody in the wings. [12:17] **Mayor St. Ours:** Anyone present for a topic that's not on tonight's agenda? Adam, I'm not being notified. Um, I know one person here is for one of the agenda items—the other, either Miss Kelly or Mr. Dipple, are the two that I don't know their status. If anyone would like to address the Council, please unmute your line and state your name and address for the record and feel free to share with us. **Elizabeth Kelly:** Hello? **Mayor St. Ours:** Hello, Elizabeth. **Elizabeth Kelly:** Um, I am here to—I just wanted to listen about the stuff about what's happening at Barker's Alps. But I don't since that's an agenda item, I don't know if this is the appropriate time or if I just listen right now. [13:04] **Mayor St. Ours:** Uh, you are—it is on the agenda, so you're welcome to provide comments at that time. Or if you'd prefer to not stay through the whole meeting, we could address it right now. **Elizabeth Kelly:** Oh no, I'm happy to stay and listen. Thank you. **Mayor St. Ours:** And we will take comments at that time if you'd like. **Elizabeth Kelly:** Okay, that is all. Thank you. **Mayor St. Ours:** Others are here for the agenda? Okay, super. All right, well with that then we can move along to our consent agenda where we'll consider a resolution adopting items one through nine. [13:49] **Mayor St. Ours:** And they are the April 5th, 2021 City Council workshop minutes; the April 5th, 2021 City Council regular meeting minutes; the April payables and receipts; April building, plumbing, mechanical, and zoning permits report; the hiring of Kara Hoyer as a part-time Office Support Specialist here at City Hall; a revised special event application from the Bayport American Legion for the Memorial Day ceremony on May 31st, 2021; authorization to post no parking signs along 4th Street North; award a quote to perform sidewalk saw-cutting repairs as part of the City's sidewalk maintenance program; and the renewal of a boat trailer parking agreement with Andersen Corporation. Any questions or comments from the Council regarding tonight's consent agenda? [14:34] **John Dahl:** Yeah, um, go ahead... I do. The Memorial Day event—can somebody explain what parameters that they're working within in terms of state guidelines and what's going to be allowed and what's not allowed? **Adam Bell:** Madam Mayor, I can respond to that. Um, if it's something that the Council would like to discuss, I'd suggest pulling it from the consent, but I'm happy to provide just information to Councilmember Dahl's question. The information that the City has as far as what they are proposing is all that's listed on the application. [15:22] **Adam Bell:** In response, the City's response to the applicant was pointing them to the state guidance and advising them that they needed to comply with all the current guidance, or the guidance in effect at the time, since it was still some time out. There's almost a month. Um, that includes any social distancing requirements, capacity requirements, and mask-wearing, etc. We put them in touch with the—or we gave them the information directly from the state. The City won't be specifically policing that; that is part of the challenge with the parade. But I have not heard back any feedback from the applicant that that would be a problem. [16:08] **Adam Bell:** It is incumbent upon the organizers of these types of events to comply with the state guidelines and take any necessary steps on having a preparedness plan or anything like that. So that's the status of the application. It was, as you saw, a much smaller event than originally was proposed with the including the parade. I just did a rough calculation using the state's capacity calculator, and I think they could have about between 500-600 people using the entire area that they had outlined on the map, all socially distanced. [16:55] **John Dahl:** The only thing I could see in state guidelines right now still limits—the way I'm seeing it, and I'd love to be wrong—it still limits outdoor gatherings to 50 people or less. Am I wrong in thinking that? **Michele Hanson:** I believe it's 250 now. **Adam Bell:** The City's understanding is that it was 250. Um, Councilmember Dahl, do you have a specific... because they're different for different types of gatherings, as we know. [17:42] **John Dahl:** Yeah, I was trying to find a specific to—yeah, it might be difficult for me to share it, but let me see. I had it... "Outdoor gatherings," this is under Stay Safe Minnesota.gov. "Outdoor gatherings may have a maximum of 50 people from any number of households. Members of different households must maintain six feet separation," etc. But this is right off the state's website. I could try sharing it; I'm not sure how I do that. [18:30] **Michele Hanson:** I'm pretty sure it's 250 because like weddings and things of that nature, I think have expanded out to 250 now. Just being in, you know, kind of the hospitality business, I know it's going in that direction. I think when he expanded to 75% capacity in restaurants, I think that's when it expanded to 250. That's my understanding, anyways. But I could be wrong. **Adam Bell:** On March 15th, it was expanded to 50% capacity, no more than 250 people for outdoor gatherings, except special events. [19:14] **John Dahl:** If anybody could share that with me, I'd love to be able to see that. I've looked at multiple times and I don't know what I'm looking up wrong. But I must be doing something wrong because the state website seems like it's been updated all along here. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Dahl, I think you're looking at "outdoor social gatherings," which would be like a close barbecue or something. But for "outdoor events," it's 250 people. [20:00] **John Dahl:** Okay, so thank you. **Mayor St. Ours:** And we think it will be limited to that or close to that number? Is that what they've said, Adam? **Adam Bell:** They did not specify. They said, "small crowd" or something. And I did ask what that meant and I did not receive a response. But using the state calculator for capacity—outdoor venue capacity—that kicks in at 113 square feet per person. And so based on using that entire area that they outlined with those sections, that's giving everybody a six-foot distance. That's where the 500 to 600 number comes in. So they'd still be using that large space. [20:46] **Adam Bell:** The type of event... I know they were looking at it as including like a funeral, which—the ceremony itself is different than a parade; it's different than a lot of other types of events. There isn't one specifically for ceremonies such as that, so it kind of has to fit in with some of the others. But as I said, there hasn't been a specific number that was provided. [21:30] **John Dahl:** I guess for me, and I appreciate that explanation, when it's all said and done, the ceremony for me is the reason for the whole parade. At the same time, the parade to me was kind of the fun part, the family-friendly part for kids and so on. But to me, the parade seemed like the more safe situation in the first place, and we canceled that. But now we're allowing the one... in my opinion, I highly doubt the guidelines will be followed. I hope they are and I hope everybody does what is asked of them. [22:18] **John Dahl:** It just doesn't seem congruent to me to—now I'm sure the parade idea has sailed. But it just seemed odd to me that the place where everybody congregates, we're still going to allow, and the parade, which is spread out among blocks of the entire city, we didn't allow. So I'm having a hard time seeing that. So that's my two cents on that matter. [23:05] **Ethan Gilmore:** Adam, was it were they going to do it as an invite thing, or was it an open-to-the-public type? **Adam Bell:** It was listed as public. **Ethan Gilmore:** Okay, I was just curious if they were sending out their, you know, just wide-open invitation. **Michele Hanson:** The only thing I guess I see different, John, is that it's probably a lot less people that would normally gather for the ceremony after the parade in the outdoor space. I guess that's where I see it different. **John Dahl:** You think less people gather at the...? [23:30] **Michele Hanson:** Well, I think less people will probably gather at this type of thing because a lot of the people follow up from the parade up to the cemetery. Whereas if they're not out for the parade, I'm thinking you're going to have a less of a gathering. That means, you know, a lot of the people from out of town that come to watch the parade and then go to the ceremony probably won't just come up to the ceremony. **John Dahl:** Yeah, you're probably right about that. **Michele Hanson:** And you also don't have all the people from the bands from out of the area that would be coming. I mean, because at that point they said 3,000 people involved. So I guess from 3,000 to 500, that's a drop. [24:35] **Mayor St. Ours:** I share your concerns too. No, I—I think they were counting their participation. But I had a question regarding: do we typically provide satellite toilet delivery for...? **Michele Hanson:** I asked the same question earlier in an email, Mayor. It's funny. I mean, that just looks unusual. Do you think we provide it for other private gatherings? I mean, not that we don't have a great relationship and support the American Legion. So, I mean, yes, and I'd like to see people be able to use facilities, but it was a curious thing for me. [25:20] **Connie Carlson:** I don't think we've ever had them up there before either that I recall. I've gone to that ceremony dozens of times. **Adam Bell:** Madam Mayor, we've never provided those services up at the cemetery for that event. We have in the past—if you ask for it, there's a line item on our fee schedule for the cost to provide that. **Mayor St. Ours:** Okay, all right. I was thinking about how we should maybe have the fees on here for that kind of thing then, because it's a little confusing. It seems like it's free; you just have to check it. [26:07] **Adam Bell:** On page two of the application, it lists the fees for the additional items. In the past, the City has provided picnic tables at no cost for this event. **Michele Hanson:** I live there; I do see satellite toilets now. I'm sorry, I didn't see it before. **Adam Bell:** I believe in 2019, the last time this was held, the City provided our six picnic tables for the event, going on for quite a few years. **Mayor St. Ours:** Okay, and I'm not saying we shouldn't. I just was curious. But it's on there; I just didn't see it. So we're not charging them for it according to this because there's no amount due? [26:52] **Adam Bell:** We would, as an equivalent service... we're not going to provide multiple satellites. I'll defer to Matt; he's the one who works with those. It would be one because that's what we've done in the past. So if that can achieve the capacity, that would be at the City's expense. Correct. **Mayor St. Ours:** Okay, which is what they have not—they did not request any picnic tables this year as they have in the past. **Adam Bell:** But it's ultimately up to the Council as the Council has approved it. **Michele Hanson:** As I said, I feel like we cancelled their parade. I think we could provide one time. And I'm not objecting. [27:39] **John Dahl:** Yeah, I agree. I just want... if we vote to approve this, does that mean we're committing to provide a satellite or portable toilet and are we going to do so? **Adam Bell:** That would be included in the approval, Councilmember. And to Councilmember Hanson's previous questions that she had asked me about this, it's similar to the Council waiving some of the fees for some of the community-wide or public events, such as the liquor license for Derby Days, the donation towards the fireworks. [28:25] **Adam Bell:** That's how I believe it's been viewed in the past. When there was a parade, this obviously is a little bit different in that it's more isolated or more confined to just the ceremony. **Michele Hanson:** I just didn't want us to get into some kind of situation where it's a precedent and then we have to follow things elsewhere. So it's just nice if things are noted on here, you know, like "in-kind" or whatever. So I agree with Susan on this, by the way. I have no problem necessarily doing it—it's a nominal fee—but it is not clear on here to me that we are providing it. I agree with the Mayor on that. [29:20] **Connie Carlson:** I think what Michelle said—to revise that document to have: if you check that satellite, then there should be a price right after it. It says "due to" whatever. But I think this time we can make an exception. **Michele Hanson:** Yeah, it is on the rental schedule; it's just not checked. It's under "Office Use," so they're not the person filling it out. They may not even look at that. **Mayor St. Ours:** Good point. You know, that's what I feel like—it's not as clear as it could be. But maybe it should say like, "See the fee schedule" or something. [29:57] **Michele Hanson:** Of course, my question back to Adam... when he said, "well, yeah, we usually do picnic tables, but we thought we could do a satellite this time for the ceremony," well, I asked: well, are we going to do the same thing for the street dance? Because I know PCAL pays for satellites, but then I thought the City did let us have picnic tables without charging us. So maybe that was the trade-off. It's just something that we want to make sure we're consistent and we're not offending somebody else in the future, or being fair. [30:44] **Mayor St. Ours:** Right, exactly. If we can just make that... and so if anyone would like to make a motion regarding the consent agenda, they could just make that notation and we'll be able to progress. So does anyone have any questions or comments regarding the consent agenda, or would someone like to entertain a motion? **Connie Carlson:** I'll make a motion... Wait, wait, I have one more quick thing! Sorry, I'm sorry, Connie. **Michele Hanson:** For next year, if we could have a chance to just look—unless we've already got our new property and a new boat launch—I would like to review the Andersen parking thing as a Council. We don't need to do it now because it's kind of, you know, it's done. You've probably already talked to them and it's all good. But we have a little issue with how many spots are actually available because of the way people park and the size of vehicles now versus how many... you know, like they say we have 20 spots or whatever, but there's really only like 15. [31:30] **Mayor St. Ours:** What is this pertaining to? I'm sorry. **Michele Hanson:** I'm remembering him on the consent agenda. **Mayor St. Ours:** Oh, okay. I thought we were still on... sorry. **Michele Hanson:** No, no, I just watched she was gonna approve the consent agenda and I'm like, "well, there's a thought mentioned for the next time." I mean, I think it's okay now. But I've used the launch one time so far and it was full. There was no place for us to park. But it wasn't full; there were only 14 cars there. So just we need to just figure out a better plan for how that's going to... because if you sell it saying there's so many spots, people show up and there's not really that many spots, you get a little frustrated when you pay the fee for it. [32:17] **Michele Hanson:** That's all. I noticed it too late in the game that it was on there, to be honest. **Adam Bell:** That's definitely something we can look at in the future to discuss both as a city and with Andersen. This has been brought up at least once before in the last couple years. Andersen has been very reluctant to adjust this contract. We actually just had this conversation—staff with Counselor Lennon regarding making some proposed changes. And so I don't know that it would necessarily hurt to have a discussion with them, and possibly as part of the bigger conversation as they show an interest, voiced interest, in helping us with the future project of moving the boat launch. [33:04] **Adam Bell:** So maybe it can be wrapped in during that. So we can see. But for this year, staff's recommendation would be to approve it since we're already three days in and address it again in the future. **Michele Hanson:** Yeah, and you know, we could think about as a city, maybe doing something to mark where you're supposed to center your car or something like that. Because I think that's the problem with the spots getting used up—people aren't parking nicely. They're taking up one and a half spots because they just pull in and don't think about it because they're not really delineated spots when you're pulling your trailer over there. So people will just pull in. But if there was like "center your car here," maybe that would help. [34:15] **Mayor St. Ours:** Did you have something to say, Sarah? **Sara Taylor:** Madam Mayor, Councilmember Hanson, is it possible—I've truly never been over there when they've parked because it's usually on the weekends—is it on a paved surface that we could actually line as a line striper? **Michele Hanson:** I think only the first few are paved and then the rest is dirt, if I'm recalling correctly. I know they've put that area in last year or something like that. It's still off on the dirt. **Mayor St. Ours:** Boy, I park near there when I drive to work sometimes and I guess I never looked that closely. I was thinking it was paved now and we could line it, but I may be wrong on that. I can't remember, but it feels like there's still dirt. **Sara Taylor:** Okay, great, thanks. [35:10] **Mayor St. Ours:** Good point. Okay, with that, Connie? **Connie Carlson:** Make a motion to approve tonight's consent agenda items one through nine. **Mayor St. Ours:** Thank you, Connie. Is there a second? **Michele Hanson:** I'll second. **Mayor St. Ours:** Thank you, Michelle. Adam, please call the roll. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Hanson? **Michele Hanson:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Dahl? **John Dahl:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilman Gilmore? **Ethan Gilmore:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours:** Aye as well. Great. That takes us to our public hearing. This is a public assessment hearing for the proposed 2021 city infrastructure improvements. And I'll call upon Matt to lead this discussion. [36:10] **Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, members of the Council. On March 1st, the City Council adopted a resolution setting today as the final assessment hearing for the 2021 city infrastructure improvement project. The purpose of this hearing is to hear from affected property owners on the assessment, whether it's their opinion or just essentially to hear what they have to say. Notification of the assessment hearing was published in the City's official newspaper, was also sent directly to all property owners in accordance with state statute. It's also attached to the City agenda for reference. Following the public hearing, the City Council will be asked to consider a resolution adopting the proposed assessments. At this time, staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing on the proposed assessments for the 2021 infrastructure improvement project. [37:16] **Mayor St. Ours:** Thank you, Matt. And with that, I'll open the public hearing. And if anyone would like to address the Council, please state your name and address for the record. **Matt Kline:** Yes, ma'am. Just a couple additions there, Madam Mayor. We did not receive any written comments on the assessments. We did take a few written comments prior to the first public hearing, but not since then. **Mayor St. Ours:** Okay, thank you. And Adam, anyone in the wings? **Adam Bell:** No, Madam Mayor. **Mayor St. Ours:** Okay. Um, with that, would anyone like to make a motion to close the public hearing? [38:10] **John Dahl:** I'll move. Go for it. I'll move to close the public hearing on our 2021 infrastructure improvements. **Mayor St. Ours:** Thank you, John. Is there a second? **Connie Carlson:** I'll second it. **Mayor St. Ours:** Thank you, Connie. Adam, roll call. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Dahl? **John Dahl:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Carlson? **Connie Carlson:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Gilmore? **Ethan Gilmore:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Hanson? **Michele Hanson:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours:** Aye. Okay, then we'll move on to unfinished business. And the first item is to consider a resolution adopting the assessments for the 2021 city infrastructure improvements. And back to you, Matt. [38:49] **Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, members of the Council. As the Mayor mentioned, this is considering the resolution adopting the assessments for the 2021 infrastructure improvements. In accordance with the Minnesota 429 procedure, a public hearing was just held at the Council meeting to provide the public with an opportunity to comment. There were no comments received. At this point, you can see the attached resolution approving the proposed assessments along with the proposed assessment role. I will note that the cemetery was considered exempt from the assessment role due to a clause in state statutes. There are some requirements with that exemption, and they do have on one of their plats—they're needing to do some work to meet that exemption. [39:35] **Matt Kline:** But at this time, we're showing that they are not receiving an assessment. We will keep you apprised of that; if we do need to go back and assess them, which is unlikely, we'll move forward in that process at that time. The proposed assessments do reflect unit costs associated with the accepted bid that occurred on the April 5th Council meeting. The exact interest rate actually will be determined tonight if Adam has that. I'll keep going with the other items, though. An overview of the payment methods are as follows: [40:20] **Matt Kline:** There will be no interest charge if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days of the adoption date, which would be tonight, so that would be June 2nd. The assessment would have to be paid in full from June 2nd to November 30th—assessments can be paid directly to the City, but interest would be accrued to December 31st, 2021. After November 30th, the assessments will be applied to the taxes on a yearly basis. If a property owner wishes to pay off their assessment balance in any given year, the owner will need to pay their yearly assessed portion to Washington County by November 15th in order to avoid paying interest for the next year. Partial payments over and above the amount being assessed to property taxes can be paid at any time to the City directly. The remaining total would then be reassessed to the property taxes. The City will certify the assessments to Washington County on November 30th and they would be included on the county tax roll. Staff recommends that at this time the City Council adopt a resolution approving the assessments for the 2021 city infrastructure improvements. [41:30] **Mayor St. Ours:** Thank you very much. Are there questions for Matt on this item? **Michele Hanson:** Do we have an interest rate for them? **Adam Bell:** Yes, I do have that. I'm sorry, give me one moment I gotta relocate it... It totals 3.58. The interest rate that we had received was 1.58 plus the 2% per our policy, which totals the 3.58. [42:30] **Mayor St. Ours:** And Matt, everyone will receive the information about how to make these payments and when things are due, and/or has it already been communicated? **Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, that actually has already been communicated with this letter. But in the past two times that we have done assessments, we've provided another letter essentially stating how everything works moving forward and reminding them of the different dates where payments can be made. So yes, another follow-up letter will be sent. **Mayor St. Ours:** Right, great. And it will also probably appear—well, it appears in our agenda packet, so it would be there for reference if people wanted to go back. They can always call City Hall. All right, any other questions from the Council, or would someone like to make a motion? [43:18] **Connie Carlson:** I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution in establishing the assessment for the 2021 city infrastructure improvements. **Mayor St. Ours:** Thank you, Connie. Ethan, was that a second? **Ethan Gilmore:** Yep, thank you. **Mayor St. Ours:** Thank you very much. Adam, with the roll call please. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Carlson? **Connie Carlson:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Gilmore? **Ethan Gilmore:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Dahl? **John Dahl:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Hanson? **Michele Hanson:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours:** Aye. That takes us to—and thank you, Matt—that takes us to item number two on your unfinished business, which is to consider an appointment to the Inspiration Stewardship Foundation. [44:04] **Adam Bell:** Thank you, Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Back at the March meeting, staff had brought the Inspiration Stewardship Foundation item back to the Council. Immediately prior to that, the Inspiration HOA, which is the other half of the appointing entity, had made their two appointments per the governing documents. And the City had three appointments to select from. At that time, at the March meeting, I was selected as the City representative, or in my stead, the Assistant Administrator. One of the City representatives in his non-official capacity at the time was Councilmember Dahl. [44:51] **Adam Bell:** So that left one vacancy or one opening remaining. The City did post an invitation in the newsletter and to the public to get applicants. The City received three applications or three letters of interest from residents for this foundation. And I did learn—I had to go back and check—it's for a three-year term. They're not staggered, which is just the way that I initially thought that they were, but all in three years after they become official part of the directors of the foundation, that'll be the term of their tenure. Then they'll need to be reappointed by each appointing body. [45:37] **Adam Bell:** As I said, the three applications we got: there was one from Rob McManus, who the Council is familiar with. He has been very active in contacting the Council over various environmental issues; it's something that he definitely takes to heart. He lives—everybody knows, but for the public—he lives not in Inspiration. And the other two, let me get their names: Mr. Timothy Nolan, who was one of the first in the Landucci property up in Inspiration, and he has environmental background as well. And then the third interested individual was a John Horford, who also lives up in Inspiration. [46:22] **Adam Bell:** So the staff has included their interest letters. If you've looked at them, you can see that they are all well-qualified. Staff did not conduct any types of interviews with these, mainly for the reason that we don't have a lot to interview them on—the foundation having not been in existence to this point, we're just kind of at the ground level still. The only distinctions that we saw is really the geographic location of where they live. They all are qualified. At this point, if the Council is looking for broader representation within the city, we do feel comfortable recommending that the Council appoint Mr. McManus. [47:07] **Adam Bell:** He has voiced interest in participating in the city previously; he's been active as he states, and as the Council is familiar with, he has been active in the prairie conservation. That said, with the other two applicants or interested parties, they're both well-qualified as well. The one item that we don't have a direct or clear answer for is Mr. John Horford also listed in his experience as being a member of the Minnesota Land Trust. The Minnesota Land Trust is a non-voting member of this foundation, and I don't know if that would cause any conflict or if that would be problematic. [47:54] **Adam Bell:** Staff hasn't had the ability to really research that, but that's just one more consideration. This group, it really is taking off now; we don't have a lot of guidance as to what type of candidate would be best suited for this. Those are the... if the Council wanted to change who they've already appointed and redesignate Councilmember Dahl as a city official and pick from two of these, that's also an option. One of them should be a city official, either a staff person or elected official. I don't know if that makes it better or worse, but I wish I had a better stronger recommendation. But all three candidates are qualified. [48:45] **John Dahl:** I like the idea of keeping a staff member in this group personally, and so I will throw that out there. In the interest of keeping the group diverse, my recommendation—and I can make a motion if you want if people are ready—but I would choose Rob McManus for the reasons Adam mentioned, just to keep the core of that group as diverse as possible: some Inspiration folks and some greater Bayport folks. [49:40] **Michele Hanson:** I would definitely second that. Rob's passionate about this kind of thing, we all know that, and I actually thought of him when we talked about this last month. I think I mentioned his name. So I was happy to see that he applied; I didn't even tell him about it, so he did that on his own. **Connie Carlson:** My second... actually, I'm very comfortable with Rob too. He's been passionate about that area up there since before it was started. So I guess I'm very comfortable with that nomination too. But Adam, we have one more person right? Besides there were three applicants... what is the... is there a city plus two? [50:12] **Adam Bell:** There's a city plus two. At the March meeting, the Council appointed Councilmember Dahl as a resident member to fill up one of the city positions and then appointed myself, the Administrator, as the official—the city official. **Connie Carlson:** Okay, but what I think I'm hearing is that John just said to keep a city staff person, which is you. John, were you—I don't want to put words in your mouth—were you removing yourself from the mix? [50:40] **John Dahl:** I was not. But these other people, frankly, are more qualified. They're all uniquely qualified for this. I certainly would—if that's what the rest of the Council... I won't fight that one iota. But I'm strong in saying that I think one of the spots needs to be a city staff member, not just a community member. **Connie Carlson:** And please forgive me, I did not mean to put words in... **John Dahl:** Oh, that's quite all right. I'm glad to clarify. So yeah, if we want to choose two of these and I will step aside, or if we want to just choose Rob and I will stay on, I'm fine with that too. I just think Rob makes sense for a lot of reasons and at the same time, the other two people are quite qualified as well. I like the idea—I do like the idea of equal representation between Inspiration and kind of the balance of Bayport. So I will put that out there, which would mean I would stay on there. [52:30] **Mayor St. Ours:** Okay, so there's that. How many other members are there, Adam? **Adam Bell:** There's six members. The Minnesota Land Trust is a non-voting member, so they are the sixth member. The Inspiration Homeowners Association has two appointees and then the City has three. So this would be the third, with the other two being myself, Councilmember Dahl in his resident capacity, and Mr. McManus. If that is the motion, then we'd have two Inspiration people to two Bayport at-large people if I stayed. **Michele Hanson:** Okay, I think that sounds like a good balance actually. **Connie Carlson:** My seconded motion of John saying, "let's just appoint Rob." **Michele Hanson:** Okay, I just didn't hear properly. **Connie Carlson:** I'm just saying we can move on because I think we're all okay. I made the motion and I second it. I think we just need to vote unless anyone has more comment. [53:15] **Mayor St. Ours:** And that's fine. I just want to make sure, because we want to make sure that our neighbors in Inspiration are represented and are involved. And we've had challenges getting volunteers overall, so this is fabulous and all three of these candidates are incredibly qualified. Okay, well we have a motion on the floor and we have a second. So with that, Adam, please call the roll. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Dahl? **John Dahl:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Hanson? **Michele Hanson:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Carlson? **Connie Carlson:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Gilmore? **Ethan Gilmore:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours:** Aye. Boy, great qualified candidates, that's amazing. So thank you all. All right, so that takes us to the third item under unfinished business, which is to discuss the public comments and results from the Bayport Speed Limit Survey. So over to Adam. [54:47] **Adam Bell:** Thank you, Madam Mayor. I've been trying to figure out the best way to present this information, so I'm actually just going to share my memo with the public. Hopefully, it's some. As the Council knows, we conducted a survey over the month of March into April and we received 383 responses to that survey, with a mix of the newsletter paper copies, the online, and email. It was also posted on our website, which I thought was a really good response rate based on what we were initially expecting. This was kind of a first type of survey in City history, so we're looking forward to that possibility in the future. [55:33] **Adam Bell:** That said, I don't know that the survey results made anything crystal clear. The results were kind of spread in various ways, so I'll just quickly go through that. As you recall, there were seven questions asked in the survey: how the community feels about the speed limit; whether or not the City should spend money; what the preferred speed was (30, 25, or 20); public comments; age; relationship with the City; and where they lived if they were a resident. We did have a handful of duplicate responses. We did want to leave it open so a household could answer it twice if there were two drivers. [56:14] **Adam Bell:** But we had some where there were five responses all from the same house. We didn't ask for identifying information, but we are able to track the IP addresses. Hopefully, it wasn't nefarious, but it does frustrate the accuracy. And again, this was not a scientific survey; it was a community poll to try to get the sentiment of the populace. Of those 355 eligible respondents, approximately 53% felt the current speed limit of 30 was "too fast." Only 9% felt it was "too slow," which we didn't expect that to be high. But the other remaining 38% felt it was "neither too fast nor too slow." So if that's the Goldilocks speed, I don't know how to identify that. [57:47] **Adam Bell:** With the next question, 39% lean towards "not likely to spend the money" and 49% lean towards "spending the money." This one was much more polarized. There was not a lot in the middle. On the preferred speed limit, almost 38% favored 30, 26% favored 25, and 34% favored 20. So again, not quite evenly thirds, but fairly close. There was not an overwhelming majority for one specific speed, but there was a majority for less than 30—but they didn't settle on 20 or 25. [58:56] **Adam Bell:** The open-ended comments were as the Council saw; they're kind of all over the board. But some of the most popular ones were controlled intersections—there was quite a few comments on wanting additional stop signs or yield signs. As the Council learned in one of the previous discussions from John Perotti, it's counter-intuitive to think that an uncontrolled intersection may be safer because it puts the onus on the drivers to drive defensively. That's not widely known. But that is what the science behind that does state. [59:42] **Adam Bell:** There were also comments that people drive too fast, wanting safer streets for children. One of the other consistent comments was the desire for increased law enforcement on the speed. As the Council is well aware, that's going to be a challenge no matter what the speed limit is. We can't be everywhere all the time; we have a limited police department. But our police are up to the task of enforcing whatever speed limit the City settles on. The demographics: the largest age range was 35 to 44, but otherwise it matched our demographics of the City. We do have an older community age-wise than a lot of cities in Minnesota. [1:01:15] **Adam Bell:** Most of them were Bayport residents—95%. It looked like a pretty balanced response; it might have leaned a little heavy on Inspiration, but a good broad mix. I also included in the packet information from MnDOT about the "Statewide Speed Limit Vision Project" and a history of the speed limit in Minnesota just to see how we got here. Just to remind everybody, the 30 miles an hour that the City currently follows is the state standard across the state for urban residential streets. [1:03:34] **Adam Bell:** That leaves us... staff hasn't spent too much trying to analyze these beyond just the data. I expect there to be different perceptions as to what the data itself says. The options before the Council: One, don't take action on changing the speed at this time and just continue the discussion to see if there's any other alternatives to achieve the same improved safety. Two, maintain the 30. Three, lower it to 25. As a reminder, that would not trigger the requirement for the study, but we would have to sign every intersection where there's a speed transition—every intersection off of 5th Avenue and 95. The cost for those is about $5,000 for the signage. [1:05:08] **Adam Bell:** The fourth option: if we wanted to go to 20, we are required by the new legislation to conduct a study. The cost estimate for that was $4,800 for the study. If we do want to go to 20, we can do the "gateway signage," which would be pretty much every entrance into the city: "Bayport Speed Limit is 20 MPH unless otherwise posted." There are some streets that would not be eligible if they're not primarily residential—portions of Central Main Street would not qualify, so we'd need separate speed limit signs for that. Those are really the kind of the four options. Staff didn't have a specific recommendation. [1:06:39] **Adam Bell:** Our position is we'll do whatever the Council wants, but the data alone doesn't necessarily require modifying the speed limit. However, it is clear that a significant amount of the population has a differing opinion on what they think the speed limit should be. So that becomes a policy question for the Council. There were quite a few respondents who supported changing the speed but didn't support paying for it. That makes it a little more challenging. I'm happy to answer any other questions about the survey results itself; otherwise, Matt and I are happy to answer any of the questions about the process or next steps. [1:09:20] **Ethan Gilmore:** Well, thank you, Adam and everybody at the City for putting that on. You got some great responses. My first thing: I'm curious about the people that said 30 is fine. Do you have the age data for that? Because I'm sure 22-year-old me probably didn't want to drive 20 miles an hour either. But when you said the majority of people that did it were between 35 and 64, I'd like to see if it was 22 to whatever, if that would skew those numbers a little bit. [1:10:31] **Ethan Gilmore:** I guess that was my main thing: seeing the people that did want to keep it at 30 or the 9% that said 30 was too slow. I'd be interested to see that age breakdown. I think with the two combined, 60% want to see some sort of reduction in speed. I'm surprised that there were as many people that didn't support it financially. Sometimes I don't know if people realize—$10,000 sounds like a lot on the surface, but when you're talking about public safety, we vote on things that cost way more than that and there's never public outcry when we spend X amount on a new piece of equipment. [1:11:45] **Michele Hanson:** I actually prepared something because I wanted to make sure I covered everything. Just first of all, I disagree that this study wasn't revealing because I think that 60% saying they want a lower speed limit is very clear. If you ask what speed limit they think we should have in town, and if you combine the 25 and the 20, it's 60%. So, 60% are saying the speed limit should be lowered. [1:12:03] **Michele Hanson:** Lowering the speed limit on residential streets is not unprecedented. A growing number of U.S. cities have lowered speed limits in recent years, including both Minneapolis and St. Paul. Nevis, with a population of 390, was the first city to lower speed limits after the state law was updated. I also read that Rochester has recently made the decision. Golden Valley, Edina, Falcon Heights, and St. Louis Park are considering it. But this is about the safety of our own city. The main reason Bayport needs to take this opportunity to adjust the speed limit from 30 to 20 miles per hour is that it has been proven that slower is safer. [1:13:34] **Michele Hanson:** The fact is a car going 20 miles an hour can stop sooner than a car going 30. Some studies say up to five car lengths faster. Some people think "if it isn't broke, don't fix it." In fact, someone mentioned that the City stated in the introductory text that "available traffic and crash data does not indicate a significant number of excessive speed violations or traffic accidents." As a professional researcher for nearly 30 years, I was extremely disappointed to see this statement in the survey materials. It should not have been published in the introduction; it is likely to have biased the respondents. [1:15:06] **Michele Hanson:** I closely reviewed the data collected by the Bayport Police Department last year using those "your speed is" signs. It shows, for example, that if we consider 20 miles per hour the speed limit, an estimated 56% of drivers on Inspiration Parkway would have been driving at an "excessive speed." That same is true for 39% of drivers on 5th Street North crossing 4th Avenue North, right near Pony Preschool. To me, these numbers are significant. I urge you all to try driving through an uncontrolled intersection at 30 miles an hour; see if you feel like you could stop safely. [1:16:38] **Michele Hanson:** And regarding accidents—if you don't live at the crossing of 5th Street North and 1st Avenue North, you wouldn't know that there were three accidents on that corner in 2019 alone. All three of those were cars t-boning other cars. Thankfully no pedestrians were involved. So to me it's clear that the facts support a change, and so does the survey. Among those who favor a speed limit reduction, more would like to see it set at 20 than at 25. A higher percentage of respondents would be likely to support a reduction in the speed limit than not support it. We need to do this before it's too late. Thank you. [1:18:45] **Connie Carlson:** Yeah, I guess I didn't read the results quite the way you did. I was hoping that we'd have a more one-way-or-the-other result like 80/20. I feel like we maybe have to hit a compromise. I drove through a lot of towns this weekend—Maplewood is 25, Oakdale is 25, Hudson a lot of it's 25. To me, I was coming forth going to say maybe we need to do a compromise. I get frustrated when people want to change but they don't want to pay for it, and there was a larger amount of people that said they weren't interested in financing it. [1:20:14] **Connie Carlson:** I think we have to listen to all the residents, not just the ones we pick and choose. I was curious, kind of like Ethan, to know what age groups were in the certain area. Both my boys took the survey—they're in their early 30s—and they both felt like it needed to be lowered, but they didn't agree on 20. [1:21:46] **Adam Bell:** Let me see if I can share this... so this is sorted by the speed limits and then the age groups. If everybody can see that. Of the 30, there's a good mix of demographics. When you get down to the 20, mostly the same thing—it does start to skew a little bit younger, between the 35 to 54 range. At the very end, it does lean a little bit more towards the 35 to 44. But it was not a strong, "everybody under 30 wants it at 30." [1:24:30] **Ethan Gilmore:** And then towards the end, the people that were voting for 20—those are the exact people that have school-aged children. Again, that's going back to the safety issue. I drive 20 through the city now and it's plenty fast. You can drive 30 on 5th Street or the highway until you're three blocks from your house. I don't understand what the issue is. [1:26:00] **John Dahl:** I'm usually not used to going last; it's kind of fun. In terms of the bias on the survey, I understand why the statement about the data was included—I don't think it was necessary. I think it's a strong majority that want to slow things down. 60% is a large percentage. I get my vehicle up to 30 and just ask: what does it feel like to me? Does it feel like I'm traveling at a reasonable speed in a residential neighborhood? And it's just not the case. [1:28:42] **John Dahl:** If slowing people down is off the table, the only thing I can touch is the speed limit. I wanted to be proactive and not reactive. Maybe we'll have a fatal accident a month after it changes to 20 miles an hour, but if we have a fatal accident a month after it stays 30, I'm gonna be pretty disappointed with us and quite frankly feel guilty about it. To me, this dollar amount is very nominal—this is a one-time cost. We don't have safe refuge for pedestrians on large swaths of the city; people are required to walk on the road. To have somebody driving by them at 30 miles an hour is just irresponsible. [1:31:50] **Adam Bell:** Madam Mayor, we did have one resident, Ms. Elizabeth Kelly, had raised her hand. [1:33:10] **Mayor St. Ours:** I want to thank the Council and staff for the extra time to reach out to the community. I found it insightful. I think it's unanimous we all are interested in safety. I didn't see everything being as black and white with the survey results as some of you see, just because of the comments that also came with it. I saw a little bit more balance. Our Bayport Police Department and their speed study also did not support a change from 30. Chief Eastman did acknowledge that there are some repeat offenders. [1:36:26] **Mayor St. Ours:** Regardless of if it's 30, 20, or 25, I think we're hearing from people that they want to have things enforced. I don't have a strategy of how that's going to be accomplished with our current staffing. I would have a hard time justifying based on what we've seen to go down to 20. I do think we have definite areas that we need to address, especially intersections. Maybe Inspiration needs speed bumps? The roads there are incredibly narrow. With that, I'd love to hear from our person that is on the line. Elizabeth? [1:39:30] **Elizabeth Kelly:** My name is Elizabeth Kelly, I live at 298 4th Street North. That is the intersection of 2nd Avenue and 4th Street, with the elementary school kitty-corner from us. If you want to have your heart stop on a regular basis, you can watch kids going across the intersection on 4th Street. The number of times a night we hear cars bottoming out on the dip in the road because they're going fast is... I'm shocked that we haven't had accidents. Ethan lives just down the street, so I know he is aware. It can be scary because the cars do not realize there's going to be a kid zooming across on a bike. I just feel like it's a matter of time. We want our kids to be able to be out on their bikes and enjoy that without some tragedy happening. [1:43:45] **John Dahl:** I'd love to hear some sort of alternative to making the city safer other than slowing traffic down. The data says they want to slow the speed limit down, period. The majority of people—60%. I haven't heard an argument for leaving it at 30. **Mayor St. Ours:** I sense a strong feeling from members... is there any further discussion between 20 and 25? **Michele Hanson:** I'm for 20. No halfway measures here. I think we go for what is safest: 20. **John Dahl:** I'm clear. 20 is reasonable. I invite any of you: let me drive past you going 30 and see how you feel about it. [1:47:30] **Connie Carlson:** I am not against slowing down, I just—as I took from the survey, I was looking to compromise with 25. I was hoping we could come to a compromise. **John Dahl:** I would consider 25 if there were significant measures taken at intersections—stop, yield, some way to control. But without any of those other measures taken, I'm going to err on the safest side as possible. [1:50:30] **Mayor St. Ours:** It's interesting because coming in tonight I wanted to stay at 30. And listening to you, I appreciate the dialogue. I would like to see a compromise at 25. I also want to see the key areas of these intersections addressed, within Inspiration in particular. I'm open to 25. **Michele Hanson:** I guess I'm still leaning towards 20. I understand the compromise idea, but I don't think this is a time for compromise. I would advocate that some of that money we're going to spend goes to "20 is Plenty" signs people can put in their yards like they did in Minneapolis and St. Paul. If the motion is 25, I'm not going to be able to vote for it, which will break my heart. [1:54:02] **Ethan Gilmore:** I'll make a motion to authorize SEH to conduct the speed limit study and go down to 20 miles an hour. **John Dahl:** I'll second that. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Hanson? **Michele Hanson:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Gilmore? **Ethan Gilmore:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Dahl? **John Dahl:** Aye. **Adam Bell:** Councilmember Carlson? **Connie Carlson:** I will go "Aye" with the reserve that I want residents to know I tried to hit a compromise. **Adam Bell:** Mayor St. Ours? **Mayor St. Ours:** Nay. (Motion passes 4-1). [1:55:40] **Adam Bell:** There were two intersections noted earlier in the year—5th and 1st was one specifically mentioned. **John Dahl:** 5th Street and 1st Avenue had the three t-bones in one year. That's a no-brainer. **Ethan Gilmore:** Adam, maybe you can direct SEH to look around the school as well. I see a lot of school zones are 15 miles an hour. [2:02:35] **Mayor St. Ours:** Okay, Adam, you have your direction from the Council. That takes us to consider allowing the installation of an outfield fence for the baseball field at Barker's Alps Park. [2:04:10] **Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, members of the Council. This is to consider allowing the installation of an outfield fence. Tim Ober, the baseball coach, and Rich Dipple, the athletic director for Saint Croix Prep, are both with us tonight. Tim has received a Twins grant to cover the installation. This would impact what is considered the "sledding hill" in the City of Bayport. Installing a permanent fence would essentially eliminate one of the three runs. [2:10:30] **Rich Dipple:** Madam Mayor, members of the Council. I was for five years the Parks and Recreation Director at South St. Paul, so I am very familiar with these conversations. We've always had a good working relationship with Bayport. We hope at some point in the future to have our own fields on campus, but it is not in the near future. Our funding model is different; we operate on about two-thirds the budget of most public schools and don't have the ability to tax. About 7% of our students do live in Bayport proper. [2:14:15] **Tim Ober:** I'm the head baseball coach. I wrote the grant. Not only did we get a grant, we got their largest grant—the $15,000 grant the Twins offered us. [2:15:15] **Elizabeth Kelly:** This is Elizabeth Kelly, 298 4th Street North. Barker's Alps is a public park; it has so many uses. The openness of the area is so beautiful and peaceful. A permanent fence sends a message about whether people are allowed to use part of the park. Limiting the availability of space in our public park is not something I see as a good use. [2:18:40] **John Dahl:** What benefit is there to having a permanent fence versus a temporary fence? **Rich Dipple:** From a safety perspective, temporary fences don't look good and tend to tie kids up when they get into them. A permanent fence defines the field. It would not enclose the park; people would still be able to use it for running their dogs or track meets. [2:23:45] **Michele Hanson:** Does the grant money have to be used for a fence? Could we use it for an extension of the backstop so balls don't go into the pond all the time? **Tim Ober:** The Twins grant is specific. I wrote it for fences and dugouts. I don't know if they would allow us to flip-flop on that. At the time I wrote the grant, we could afford to put a roof on the dugouts and cement it. Product costs have tripled since I wrote the grant. [2:34:50] **Matt Kline:** Madam Mayor, we've had discussion about this internally too, about potentially tabling this discussion if you want us to research a movable fence. **Mayor St. Ours:** I would feel comfortable tabling this. We did hear back from multiple residents. It has a tradition of being used by those that like to sled. If we could look at other options to come to a compromise. [2:43:11] **Connie Carlson:** I'd be more comfortable with you guys meeting with Matt and Adam and seeing what we can come up with. I would oppose it if we had to vote on it tonight. **Mayor St. Ours:** With that, I think we can table the topic. Thank you very much for sticking with us. That takes us to our liaison reports. Michelle, let's start with you. [2:44:00] **Michele Hanson:** I have nothing to report. **Ethan Gilmore:** I also have nothing to report. **John Dahl:** Nothing to report. **Connie Carlson:** The Library Board—they've already raised over $900,000 in grant funding towards the building project. They are actively forming a community fundraising committee. Their hope is that they can convince the City to make some contribution. [2:47:50] **John Dahl:** I just think based on the fact that they've raised so much money, the City needs to really seriously dig in to see what we can do to make this happen. **Connie Carlson:** I think they were hoping the City could contribute $100,000. [2:50:10] **Michele Hanson:** Why are all the summer programs still Zoom this year when kids are back in school? **Connie Carlson:** I think Jill is playing it safe. I think not knowing where the numbers were going to go, she felt safe staying with the virtual things. [2:51:30] **Mayor St. Ours:** I attend the fire association meetings each month. Adam and I also met with the Chamber director, Robin Anthony, this morning. Just some expansions around Highway 36 and Manning are on the horizon. I'll turn it over to administration. [2:54:30] **Sara Taylor:** I'm currently working on the spring edition of the City's e-newsletter. We're excited to have Kara Hoyer join the team in May. To develop a design scope for the permanent access location at the Clean Water Land and Legacy property, a meeting is scheduled for tomorrow morning with Andersen Corporation. [2:56:45] **Gabe Kinney (Chief Heisinger):** Our April call volume ended up with 79 calls. We are recognizing service credits for Dustin Vincent (6 years), Brandon Johnson (15), Jake Vindal (17), myself (20), and Jason Severson (26). [2:58:10] **Jay Jackson (Chief Eastman):** We conducted part-time interviews. Of the eight we interviewed, we move one forward in the background process. [2:59:15] **Joe Hansen (Matt Kline):** There's two Eagle Scout projects building satellite toilet enclosures for the parks to make the big blue satellite toilets a little less conspicuous. [3:01:45] **Adam Bell:** The Bayport city cleanup event is scheduled for June 12th. We are expecting to charge residents $20 per vehicle. I'd also like to propose a special meeting for May 17th for a workshop on City goals and to potentially swear in a part-time officer. [3:06:02] **Ethan Gilmore:** The 17th works for me. **John Dahl:** I'm fine with 4:30 or 5:00. [3:10:03] **Connie Carlson:** I finally remembered the word I was looking for: the diorama! No, wait... the rendering! **Mayor St. Ours:** Thank you all. Would someone like to make a motion to adjourn? **Michele Hanson:** I move we adjourn. **John Dahl:** I will second. **Mayor St. Ours:** Roll call... Aye. Thank you everyone. [3:11:38] [Music]