This transcript is for a White Bear Lake City Council meeting. Based on the context provided, here are the identified speakers: **Key Speakers:** * **Mayor:** Dan Steffes (Presiding) * **Clerk:** City Clerk/Staff member * **Miss Crawford:** Lindy Crawford (City Manager) * **Assistant City Manager Juba:** Rick Juba * **Mr. Lindall:** Jason Lindahl (Community Development Director) * **Council Member Edberg:** Steven Edberg * **Council Member West:** Heidi West * **Council Member Hughes:** Bill Hughes * **Mr. Anderson:** Troy Anderson (City Attorney/Staff) * **Mr. Copy:** Paul Copy (Public Works Director) * **Chief of Police:** (Typically Chief Dale Hughes, but addressed as "Chief") * **Miss Longendike:** (Staff member presenting liquor licenses) *** **[0:42] Mayor:** Meeting to order. Will the clerk please note those in attendance? **[0:42] Clerk:** All will be noted with the exception of council member Walsh who is excused for the evening. **[0:42] Mayor:** Very good. Thank you. Will you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. **[1:10] Mayor:** Let's jump into the agenda. Item 2, a minutes of the regular city council meeting on August 15th. I'd entertain a motion to approve those minutes. **[1:10] Council Member Edberg:** So moved. **[1:10] Council Member West:** Second. **[1:10] Mayor:** Motion a second. All those in favor say I. **[1:10] Council Members:** I. **[1:10] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. Item two be minutes of the city council work session from August 19th. I'd entertain a motion to approve those minutes. **[1:28] Council Member:** Second. **[1:28] Mayor:** The motion to second. All those in favor say I. **[1:28] Council Members:** I. **[1:28] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. The minutes are approved. Item three, adoption of the agenda. I'd entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. **[1:28] Council Member Edberg:** So move. **[1:28] Council Member:** Second. **[1:28] Mayor:** All those in favor say I. **[1:28] Council Members:** I. **[1:28] Mayor:** Any opposed? We have an agenda. Item four, consent agenda. I'd entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. **[1:47] Council Member Edberg:** So move. **[1:47] Council Member:** Second. **[1:47] Mayor:** The motion to second. All those in favor say I. **[1:47] Council Members:** I. **[1:47] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. Consent agenda is approved. All right. Item 5A, recognition of service of Dale Graham Bush, Charter Commission member, Miss Crawford. **[2:02] Miss Crawford:** My apologies, mayor. I'm going to kick it to Assistant City Manager Juba. **[2:02] Assistant City Manager Juba:** Thank you, Mayor and Council members. Uh tonight we're here honoring Dale Graham Bush's 22 years on the city's charter commission. Now, having a charter is a little bit unique. White Bear Lake is uh one uh one of 107 cities in the uh state of Minnesota that operates under a charter charter. There's 855 cities in the state. So it makes us a little bit unique and our uh charter has been in place since 1921. The charter commission's a 15 member board that's made up of uh people that are appointed by the chief judge of Ramsey County. And during Dale's 22 years on the charter commission, he's gone through two redistricting processes, which is a huge undertaking and five charter amendments. And charter amendments themselves are scrutinized very heavily by the commission because they ultimately change how the city's governed. So during those processes, Dale's acute attention to detail has been an incredible asset to the commission and will be greatly missed. So, while we're celebrating his uh his time with the charter commission tonight, I'd be remissed if I didn't uh uh mention his overall um commitment to this community. So, White Bear Lake prides itself on volunteerism and Dale has been found anywhere from Marketfest to Manito days to many other causes throughout the community. So, thank you so much for your time on the card on the charter commission and thank you so much for always raising your hand in this great city. **[3:34] Mayor:** Well, very good. Well, I'll I'll echo what Mr. Juba said. I've had the privilege of knowing Mr. Graham Bush personally, and for a few years there, we did overlap and serve on the charter commission together. It's one of those things that it's not a huge time commitment, but when issues do come up, it's really really important. Um, and it's one of the few uh kind of touch points that we have with a citizen board that isn't appointed by anyone with the city. It's through the the chief judge of Ramsey County. So, it's important work. It's um one piece among many things that you do for the community. So, this award is welld deserving and I'd ask you to come forward now and accept your tiny bear. [Applause] No speech. **[4:35] Mayor:** [Laughter] Fair enough. All right. Well, thank you again. We appreciate it. All right. Item 5B, community development by annual report. Mr. Lindell. **[4:35] Mr. Lindall:** Thank you, uh, mayor, members of the city council. Uh tonight I'll be running through the um activities uh for various parts of and duties of the community development department for the first half of the of the year. Um so the report that's included in your packet includes information um in four areas of the of activity for the community development department. uh overall building permit information, code enforcement activity, zoning um cases and activity, and then um at at uh at the request of the council after some feedback during our zoning update process, we've also included uh rental housing information. So, um, what you'll, you know, generally from the billing department, what I'm going to next couple slides is I'm going to show you are the, uh, some context for like the the the numbers for the entire year of 2024 um, and some comparisons of overtime, but we'll talk more specifically about the numbers for the first half of 25. So, um, in 2024, we saw just over uh 3,500 permits. um with a valuation of just over 110 million and permit fees of 1.2 million. So um this chart shows you building permit activity for the entire years of of these specific years going back to 2010. And so what you'll see here is um what we've talked about the last couple years is a decrease a noticeable decrease in permit activity uh since a peak in 2022. um you know there's there were a couple but but an overall fairly similar um level u dating back to 2010. So um couple of things that explain the peaks in 2021 and 2022 coming off of a COVID year where there was less activity. So some pent up um activity that didn't happen during COVID and then that corresponding to um more significant projects like the Barnum apartment building and all the school districts activity that occurred um in those years. So now what we're seeing is what what what generally we see what we see specifically in the building permit data. we're seeing more generally throughout the the community development activity at least related to building kinds of things is that and that's a return to what we feel like is the new normal. So in your staff report you'll see that building permit data continues to trend um downward similar to in the last couple years. Um, but I what I think is most noticeable about the building permit data is the the number of permits, the total number of permits compared to the first half of 24 to the first half of 25 is down 11%. And so that's not insignificant, but it's not um the more noticeable increases that you're seeing in valuation or permit fees. And again, what I would correspond that to is the the increases that we saw were a few bigger bigger projects with higher valuation. So that's kind of skewed the numbers in the building department. So again, in the building department, overall numbers of permit is are are down um slightly um um but there's a more significant impact on the valuation and the total revenue. And just as part of another thing to note from the building permit activity is um I believe the city managers have mentioned a couple times that we did have uh one of our inspectors move on to a different position at the end of June. So really kind of during the peak season of permitting. We've been down one inspector too. So that's um corresponded to a lower level in activity. But it seems like um the the staff in general has been working pretty hard to fill that gap. So, um, taking a look at code enforcement activity, there's a more detailed chart in your, uh, in your packet. Um, but what I would highlight here for you, here is, um, you know, the motor vehicle related kinds of, uh, code enforcement activities is the high is the highest one in this particular first half analysis. Um what's down significantly in the overall numbers compared to this year to last year is the weed and grass complaints. And we just generally attributed that to um a particularly really wet spring last year that we think we had those permits were just higher because of the weather conditions. And we also, that was the first spring of the current code enforcement officer. And I think she just did a really um good job of communicating maybe with some people that had kind of habitual kind of long grass kinds of situations. And I think so we've seen reduced weather conditions related to that. And I think just more consistent enforcement on that. If you're looking at code enforcement uh by ward um you'll see that ward five has the highest percentage of complaints. Um three and or three and five tend to be have the higher numbers but generally a pretty even distribution throughout the community. Taking a look at the uh zoning activities, um you'll see that overall the numbers here show and the total numbers on the far right side. Um first half numbers are in the more kind of brownish car uh color and then of 24 and then 25 is in is in that more mustard colored. Um and you'll see that the difference in total cases and activities through planning department is really only seven total overall. Um so really what we're seeing here is while there's some changes in individual numbers like some of the zoning permit and overall building permit review numbers are a little bit down that corresponds to the changes in the building permit activity. Um but basically we're seeing zoning activity holding about steady and then rental license uh data um um is added this time around. And so what we have here is rental license data by type either single units or multifamily units and then also by ward. And so what you see here is um um that wards one and two have about the same amount of total permits between singles and multi-units. Um and together those two wards have about have 95 and 100 permits respectively and they're about twice the number of of permits in wards three, four, and five. Um, what's not shown here, and I think what we can start to do to dig into these numbers a little bit more, is the the the multi-unit numbers are really just for one particular multifamily, multi-unit building. So, we can start to give you numbers that are a little bit more broken down so you can see like total numbers of units by ward and we can get you that as we wrap up, you know, in the year wrap-up report that comes in January. So I think the overall message is while we're seeing some decreases in um the building permit data that's trickling into other sections of the zoning activity for example um you know the the the the decrease has been in a few large projects um with only really a smaller percentage increase in the total numbers of permits and really what a return to what we think was more of a a uh status quo kinds of numbers for a fully developed community like Wiper Lake. So with that, I'd stand for questions. **[12:46] Mayor:** Thank you, Mr. Lindell. One quick question. Do we track kind of what the turnaround time is for permit application and final approval? Is that a metrics that we we shoot to achieve some level of proficiency on? **[13:16] Mr. Lindall:** Well, I can tell you that what we shoot for is that permits get turned around in 10 working days. um once they get to kind of the building permit stage. So, you know, if if you're if you're coming in for a zoning approval and it's going through planning commission, obviously there's a different time scale for that. But once you get to the building permit stage, whether it's a new building, you know, um you know, sometimes if you're talking like some of the bigger apartment buildings, obviously it takes longer. There's a longer lead time, but the average permit is we're trying to get things through in 10 working days. And um to more precisely answer your question, we haven't been tracking our you know whether how much we're hitting that goal. I I can just tell you that there's a pretty strong ethic to try and get through things as quick as possible for works because we know that in Minnesota the building season's short. **[13:51] Mayor:** Thank you. Council questions for Mr. Lindall. Council member Edberg. **[14:16] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Lindal, I'm looking at the chart provided in the packet. I guess would be page 5C, and I'm looking down at both the permit totals by number and the permit valuation. What I'm This is a something new that just struck me this evening. Um, of the categories that we have there, the VA, would it be correct to say that the vast majority of them reflect commercial activity? that there is there are a couple of line items for what I'm assuming SF dwelling new. I'm assuming that's single family dwelling new and I'm not sure quite sure what alt is but there's another one for single family dwelling alt. Um, would those be if if I were going to ask myself, are the citizens of our community investing in their homes, upkeep, expansions, renovations, uh, storm storm repairs, etc. Is that the place to go looking for that kind of data or is there a different place? Is there a different set of data? Um and it and do you have any I realize I didn't ask this in advance but any kind of your professional sense how is that going in our community? **[15:23] Mr. Lindall:** So uh mayor members of the council I I think you asked a really good question. Um the numbers don't kind of do break this down a little bit. Um what you see there in where it talks commercial industrial or single family dwellings with either new or the alt um um the the alt is um um I'm sorry the word is escaping me but not new. It's it's it's making any other sort of kind of investment in the property. So that could be windows that could be roof that could be water heater. um you know any of those types of improvements. So that's where you would go to look for the data for that. So, I mean, if you look at quickly what you're seeing year to date for single family um new um you know, that's basically 1.5 million in in um in White Bear Lake um and then 7.5 million for alternatives. And and so I would say at least in the new category the majority of those are new homes that are you know happening in Mount Meidi as part of the work that we do. Um but we certainly could um start to dig into the data um to try and give you a council a breakdown of more specific kinds of things that are included in that investment category. **[16:41] Council Member Edberg:** I'm not going to ask for that at this point. It's um so the question of investment in the community is that's kind of an important topic. um my sense and I I haven't done a deep dive on them and I I don't expect you to have either, but up until this year, commercial, which I'm going to kind of guess might also include schools um investments have been substantially outpacing um the investments in private in single home or or family home. Um but nonetheless those those family uh investments in in their dwellings are not insignificant and they seem relatively stable. Is that does that mesh with kind of your sense or do you not have a a clear picture of of that? Again I re I'm not expecting an expert response here. **[17:27] Mr. Lindall:** Well, and and and looking at the the building uh mayor, members of the council, looking at the the table that uh council member Edberg is referring to, if you look at the single family numbers, you you know, the the first three there, first three columns are White Bear Lake year to date, Mameidi yearto date, and then the total year-to- date. And so I I'm sorry what I should say should have said is um you know there is um still just by sheer numbers um there's more investment that's happening in and I'm sorry what I'm looking here is I'm looking at the middle column for valuation and maybe we should go up to the the first columns or rows in the top. So you'll see um you know new homes in White Bear Lake, three uh uh uh four in Mameidi, total of seven in the first half of the year and then the alternate kind of all the other kinds of permits you'd see 333 in White Bear Lake, 112 in Madameidi for a total of 445. So there there's just by sheer numbers there's still you know a lot more activity in White Bear Lake by comparison. **[19:00] Mayor:** All right. Thank you council. Any other questions for Mr. Lindall? All right. Thank you for the report. Appreciate it. All right. Item six, public hearings. We have nothing scheduled. Item seven, unfinished business. Second reading of an ordinance amending the municipal code replacing chapter 603 for parking. Mr. Anderson, when you're ready. **[19:23] Mr. Anderson:** Thank you, mayor and councel. Uh so we're here tonight for a second reading of the rewrite of the city's parking ordinance. Um this was a kind of a culmination of a pretty lengthy endeavor amongst uh staff. There was a lot of discussions and recommendations from various department heads, um police, public works administration. Um, pretty much everyone at city hall was uh very involved in this process and uh we talked a lot about this at first reading in addition to some general cleanup and I would say a modernization of uh existing code language to kind of bring things into um conformance with today's practices and what may be enforceable, what may not be. There's also a lot of new language or I should say some new language proposed most of which um seem generally acceptable to the council at first reading. Um all that is is laid out in the materials. There were two items specifically that prompted um I guess I I would call it some additional discussions during first reading. Uh one is the traileronly parking prohibition on city streets. um or at least a prohibition on trailer only parking longer than 30 minutes. Um there was some concern from the council that um an abrupt change um could create some um concerns or at least a um some issues with uh residents. And so based on some of the council discussion there, um staff did clarify in the new language that that provision wouldn't take effect until May 1st of 2026. that would offer um staff some time to, you know, reach out, communicate, um get the word out, um leave the status quo in place at least through this lake season, through the winter, and then we'd be ready to begin enforcing um or at least um having the discussion with folks when it takes effect after May 1st, 2026, uh if there are incidents. Um and then the other big topic at first reading was or at least one that warranted some some discussion was the winter parking restrictions or snow related restrictions. Um, as you may or may not know, currently the city uh prohibits parking between November and April uh on city streets or in municipal parking lots for periods longer than 24 hours and also prohibits parking on city streets or in municipal parking lots uh when more than 3 in of snow falls. Um, generally speaking from staff's perspective and public works and police, those are really hard to enforce and not as effective as we'd like them to be from the standpoint of snow removal efforts. And so what staff is is recommending at this point is language that would prohibit overnight parking uh between November and through uh through March of every year uh from the hours of 12 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Uh and would also [pulling up my memo] um it would also prohibit parking in municipal lots following any accumulation of snow. Um, and again, this is to to avoid the enforcability issues that they're dealing with a lot when the restrictions are triggered by a certain threshold of snowfall, which is very complicated from, um, from that enforcement standpoint. So, um, in the ordinance in front of you tonight that's in your packet from a snow or winter parking restriction standpoint, there are two options. Option one, which is this new proposed language. Um there's also option two which is generally identical to the existing language except it uh reduces the threshold from 3 in to 1 in. Um and then at the council's request I also provided some just some very sample uh snow emergency language uh just to give you a flavor of what that looks like. There was some discussion at first reading about, you know, does it make sense to have a an ability to call snow emergencies. Um, in further discussions with staff, um, staff is still strongly recommending option one. Um, there is not a a desire to implement any sort of snow emergency uh, language in the code. Um, again, at the council's request, we did include uh some language to give you an idea of what that would look like. Um but um of the of the three options I would say um option one is uh staff's preference followed by if you'd rather not do option one we'd prefer that you leave the status quo or at least the existing language but reduce the threshold to 1 in um in terms of snowfall. Um, finally, I I want to add that uh regardless of what the council chooses to move forward with as it relates to the new parking ordinance and the language that's being proposed and recommended by staff, there is an immediate need tonight to establish these additional restricted areas near the new high school campus. Um that was uh based on council direction this past spring uh maybe early summer. I think it was around March. There were a couple meetings and a lot of studies that staff did leading up to those meetings um where there were a few areas and city streets that uh we want to make sure um non-residents or non-individuals that are living in those neighborhoods can't park in. Uh we do want to keep the ability to park on those city streets available to residents so that they can of course uh park in the street or um um potentially have their guests park in the street. Uh but just due to a lot more traffic, all of the different athletic uh and other uh amenities that the high school offers um to try to keep traffic um and parking more particularly away from those areas so that people can't look to those neighborhoods just for a more convenient place to park. um because you know just the way the neighborhoods are laid out, there are some locations that might be closer to a field that they would choose to park in rather than an available parking lot which is um seemingly very uh available in terms of of spaces uh based on the the new construction and the new project though. Um, for all those reasons, uh, again, staff recommends that the council conduct its second reading tonight. Um, adopt the proposed ordinance, but when doing so, make sure to specify whether you seek any changes related specifically to snow related provisions or or choose which of the options you want to go with. Um, and then if the new ordinance is adopted tonight, there's a companion resolution that would authorize summary publication of the ordinance. What I would say is uh regardless of whether there's a split council or any kind of decision that uh may not be unanimous with respect to the uh actual ordinance, if the ordinance passes, I would strongly encourage all four council members that are present and able to vote tonight um to still move forward with the summary resolution, which is simply a cost-saving measure that would allow the city to um save money in terms of of what we publish to make the the ordinance effective. Uh and then there is finally a third uh resolution which restricts the parking near the new high school campus as uh summarized in the report. Um and that again is consistent with uh council discussion and direction that was provided a few months ago um when this was was before the council originally. So I'm happy to answer any questions. I know that we have department heads here. We have the police chief. We have public works and engineering um administration. So, um, happy to talk through this and, um, I'll leave my comments at that. **[27:19] Mayor:** Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Council, do we have any questions for staff or comments on whether you favor option one or two? Council member Edberg. **[27:19] Council Member Edberg:** I'm not satisfied with either option one or two, and I'm prepared to offer an amendment or a motion that deletes all reference to overnight parking and trailer parking that we take that up next year after we've had more time to con thoroughly consider uh all of the ramifications implementation and receive feedback from our community. But so, I'm just preaging the conversation by telling you where I'm at. I'm not going to vote for either one of those. **[28:02] Council Member West:** Yeah, I'm still concerned about um particularly the folks who are living near the multifamily housing that park on the streets and not having an option. Um I just don't know where where they where they park if we have um kind of this complete no parking. So, I would want to look into it longer, too. **[28:35] Mayor:** Okay. I'm going to go ahead and take a contrarian view. Uh, I like the idea of option one. And as I said when we did the first reading, nothing's irreversible. Change is always difficult and there's going to be some consternation, some issues. But I do place a high premium on making sure that our public works department can operate as efficiently as possible, particularly in a snowstorm or when we have a snow snow event or condition. Um, I think everybody has a neighbor or someone on their street where the plow comes by and then it has to jet out and then depending on the conditions that chunk of ice can sit there for days, weeks, depending on how things uh how the weather conditions are. I know other communities it's it's pretty common to not be allowed to park on the street 24/7 365 even in July. We're just talking about doing it where there's an operational need when there's snow. So, I'm hearing what the council's saying and I I don't think it's a you know, we're at critical mass that we need to jump into it, but and and more conversations are certainly uh okay, but I'd like to try it. I'd like to see what it looks like if we get cars off the street during those hours and and see if we can, you know, just keep the streets even more clean. I think public works does a great job, but this just can take take our city services to the next level. I do have one question for Mr. CPY. So, I'm going to defer to your expertise, but I want to explain how this makes sense in my head. If we have more snow, more ice buildup that accumulates and stays on our streets for weeks, months, the whole winter, if you go through a cold spell, it makes sense to me that that that degrades our roads and helps it it precipitates the roads breaking down sooner than if we can clear out all the snow on a much more efficient, higher percentage basis. Am I totally off on that? or is there actually a cost savings to longevity and our roads by doing this and clearing the streets more efficiently? **[30:47] Mr. Copy:** Mayor, members of the council, um very good question. Um I guess I have two two kind of responses to it. First is the snow and ice itself. Um the longer it sits there primarily in the spring. Um but any free stall cycle um whether it be you know we get a warm day in January and we have freeze thaw it can degrade the road um that's what gets down in the pores of the pavement and you know the water gets down in there it freezes it pops um so the more snow that we can get off obviously is um helps the road condition. The other thing is is that if we do have to go and add additional salt it's additional cost it's additional and salt degrades the road even further. So, um, to what degree, I don't know that I can tell you, but kind of anecdotally that, um, both of those cases, whether it be adding more salt or more freesty cycles, would definitely degrade the road more. **[32:00] Mayor:** Thank you. I appreciate that answer. So, I offer that up to the council. Just there there might be disruption. People don't like it, but that's a big part of what we do is figure out how we can make the city run more efficiently and more cost-effective. Um, and our our street reconditioning projects are a huge line item on our budget every year. And if something could potentially help, I think it's worth taking a shot. So, those are my thoughts. Council member West. **[32:00] Council Member West:** Um maybe can I ask what would happen if um people did not follow this regulation like even now um if they're continuing to park and we say that they and we don't want them to park on a city street not on not on one of our parking lots like what what should happen and what does happen? **[32:27] Chief of Police:** Mr. Mayor, members of the council, um if I understand your question correctly, council member West, um right now in the winter, if it's over the 3-in mark, um will we do everything in our power to get a hold of the vehicle owner before we have to take any steps, uh likely a citation would be issued if it's a problem. And if it uh if we can't get a hold of the owner and a tow truck is waiting to clear the street at that area, if there's a tow truck available, uh which it's their busy time as well during those uh events, um then we'll tow the vehicle out of the way. **[33:06] Council Member Hughes:** Um yeah, I have a question. What What is happening with the trailers that were getting them off after 30 minutes? Like what complaints have we heard that we're saying that trailers sitting there without a truck attached to it are a big nuisance and we're moving them? What what prompted that change or is that just something that all cities have and we are coming up to date? **[33:42] Miss Crawford:** Uh mayor, council member here, I have to dig deep here because it was months ago. So if anyone wants to chime in and help me out, please do. Um we took a holistic look at the ordinance um while uh while we had it open. Um what triggered the the opening of it was the school parking and and permit parking. So, we did take a holistic um look at it and you know I quite frankly I don't remember um I haven't my office hasn't received complaints about trailer parking but we did recently a year and a half ago enact no um boat trailer parking in some areas of town um and I suppose to take a holistic look at that um because some of our roads are very old and narrow and we don't have the space. So, um, if anyone remembers that, Chief or Director Copy, **[34:28] Mr. Copy:** Mayor, members of the council, um, some of it came up through our conversations at the public public works level. Um, there are times where people store, um, trailers, you know, they have they don't fit in their yard, so they have their boat trailer, you know, whether it be, you know, with the boat on it, off of it. utility trailers um that you know should be stored um you know in somebody's driveway, their garage on their yard. Um they can pose and I'll let the chief uh jump in as well, but they can pose safety hazards if they're not reflected. They're, you know, just kind of sitting there. You know, the back of a car has tail lights, whatnot. So, um just from a safety standpoint as well as a maintenance standpoint, they're sitting there. they're uh much harder to get somebody to move in in the event, you know, we're uh sweeping the streets, we're uh doing uh street maintenance, trimming trees, things like that. They get in the way and they're um typically sit there for long periods of time, but um and I um maybe Jason has a any comments from a zoning standpoint from parking those types of vehicles as well. **[35:37] Mr. Lindall:** Um, mayor, members of the council, I guess I would just echo um, Paul's comments in that um, you might have remembered that um, in the slides that I showed you, motor vehicle complaints and code enforcement are the highest at the highest level although not that much higher than a few other things. Um, and those complaints relate to or those code enforcement cases relate to just the parking of vehicles on private property, not necessar not at all on public property. There's really a pretty clear line between um if you have a motor vehicle issue that's on private property that's handled by community development and code enforcement versus in the public right ofway which is handled by engineering and then enforcement by uh the police department. So, but as you can guess, I think think there there's a relationship to those things, which I think is what Paul's point is here in that um in areas of town where you have smaller lots and people have, you know, recreational vehicles um there are times where those things get pushed just for lack of space into the public rightway. **[36:50] Mr. Anderson:** And and I would add too, mayor and councel, um one of the issues that I recall during the discussion with staff was that um and and keep in mind the language just prohibits trailer only parking. So if you if you have your vehicle attached to the trailer, that's okay. I think the concern was related to people that were storing trailers on city streets for long periods of time, which was a problem. Obviously, streets are supposed to be used for circulation, traffic, things like that. And there was um some um concern that allowing trailer only parking would create situations where people were putting trailers or trailers with boats on them or other things um by themselves on the street because they don't want to park them somewhere else or they don't want to store their boat or things of that nature. So um keep in mind there are some existing trailer related restrictions in W 2. None of this would affect that. Um there are certain streets in W 2 that um the parking of trailers alone or trailers connected to vehicles is prohibited. Um this would be just a more trailer only citywide restriction on city streets. Um but of course it's it is a new provision recommended by staff. Um certainly up for discussion and debate by the council. So, **[38:24] Council Member Hughes:** uh, so I guess following up on that, I wouldn't mind a provision, I don't think, um, where trailers were not allowed to be parked overnight. Um, a half an hour is is uh, right off kind of a problem for me. Had a lot of work done on my house and those guys park their trailer and then go to lunch. Um, and I assume it's not a two-hour lunch, but hey, maybe it is. I don't know. Um, and I don't have a problem with that because they're, you know, that's the nature of the business anyway that the trailer's going to be there. But I would think that maybe just limiting them to not being able to park overnight would maybe get at that problem if that's um what is occurring um on the parking overnight uh during a snow emergency. I mean, I hear you, Mr. Mayor. You know, you don't you know, I get it. I've got people in my neighborhood where the snowplow is constantly going around the exact same car in the neighborhood in a couple different spots. But I also have people in my neighborhood who park outside on the street all the time. That is their parking spot. And um while they probably can get it into their driveway or you know they share the driveway because I don't know what is going on there. Um I don't need them to tell I I'm not trying to tell them to move their car for the entire winter. Um and and I'm not really interested in that. I guess my kind of fundamental belief is, you know, the taxpayer really is the kind of owner of all this and they're asking the city staff to take care of what they own. But I'm not hearing from any taxpayer that they're hacked off about um too many people parking in the street and making a mess out of it. Even though it's probably going to cost them more in the long run because it's going to cost more to have um streets come by and either clean up the snow or whatever is left on there. Um, but having said that, it is a nuisance. And so I'm wondering if there's some other way to write the snow emergency that basically just says if snow is falling at midnight, you have to move your car. And if there's if there's already a pile an inch on the road, move it. But if snow is falling, you have to move it. And I don't know what that looks like, but I don't mind it being a a um a real deterrent for people to park there overnight when they're when snow is falling because it does happen all the time. And we all have a weather app. Um and I don't, you know, I don't need Paul to get out there with a ruler. It's only 3/4 of an inch. I can't move them. I don't need that. But at the same time, if it's not, if it's not snowing, I don't need my I don't need my neighbors to move their car. that's where they park and that's their right. And I'm not trying to take that away from them. Especially, I mean, how many arguments do we have around here about, oh, this multif family housing business is going in and we've given them 12, we've made them, you know, have 12 parking spots, but they need 75. Well, the understanding is on that that 60 of them are going to be parked on the street and we've just kicked them all out. So, I'm not really interested in doing that. **[41:01] Mayor:** Well, you you bring up a good idea. I I really would like us to brainstorm and solve the goal of when it's snowing out, you need to be off the road so we can plow properly. And when it's not snowing, I don't I don't care either. So, what's the in between? The in between is we have a snow emergency, which which a declared snow emergency, which requires communication and different things. So, I mean, we can try that. Um I'm I'm open to that. It's more a question for city staff. It sounds like that's pretty difficult to actually administer, which I can appreciate, but it would be nice to have some mechanism. Um, even if it's just a trial for this winter to see how it goes. Um, that makes sense. Council member Hughes. **[41:57] Council Member Hughes:** And I don't I don't mind it being less than an inch. I also don't mind dialing back to 8:00 at night, you know, or whatever time f period needs to take place in order to well, whatever it is. so that you know you're getting a plow out there at 3:00 in the morning. How how do you step that back so that people can be notified, they have the chance to move their car, if they don't move their car, then the tow truck moves the car. I mean, obviously that's not going to happen in 15 minutes. So, what's a reasonable time frame to try that at um with a reasonable snowfall amount? **[42:42] Mr. Anderson:** And for what it's worth, and I don't I don't know if this was entirely clear, and if not, um, I can specify or clarify. Now, the mo most of the cities that have snow emergency language in their code, I mean, that supplements other types of like overnight parking restrictions because the point of a snow emergency is we're declaring it during the day. we're getting a blizzard and we need to have crews out all day effectively moving snow constantly because it's one of those events where we don't want any cars on the street. Um what we have today is you're not supposed to park a vehicle for more than 24 hours on a street uh or in a parking lot between those, you know, certain months. That one I don't think is ever probably enforced because it's just impossible to know how long people are there and by the time you think they might be there for 24 hours then you have to start the clock and determine if they've been there for another 24 hours. So that really is meaningless uh from an enforcability standpoint and probably an effectiveness standpoint. The other one that we have in place today, which I suspect is what keeps things relatively um effective for staff, although not perfect, is this whole if you get 3 in of snow, you can't park in a municipal lot or on a on a street. Um, and so I would, I guess, urge the council if you're thinking about the snow emergency option, um, to let staff study that a lot more before implementing anything and not do anything to that effect yet. The reason I say that is because I think that has to be implemented together with other restrictions similar to what we have today. It's just another It really is just another tool staff would have to keep cars off the street during the day. Um because then people are going to have the communication from either the news outlets or the city or whatever else that says you're not supposed to be on the streets until your streets totally plowed. Um, so the the depending on what direction the the majority of the council wants to go with, um, I would say um, either option one or option two. If there's not an interest in option two with the reduction down to 1 in and just leaving the status quo for now, then I guess you go option two, but keep the threshold at 3 in. Um, and the only reason again that I say snow emergency language at this point wouldn't be a great idea is because I think a lot more thought and planning would have to go into it. Um, then staff has looked at at least that's my take on it. If staff disagrees, let me know. Um, the direction heading into tonight was really what does that snow emergency language look like? That's why I included it in my uh staff report. Um but again there's there's really no um in my view path forward with that at at this moment in time. So that's my take. **[45:24] Mayor:** So if I'm reading the council right there's there's not great consensus here but I and some would like some more study on this. I think community feedback would be helpful. I would suggest that at a minimum option two as recommended reducing it from three inches to one inch um does give us a little bit more f flexibility and just by doing it puts the community on notice a little bit that hey we're we're looking into this. It's it's um being slightly more restrictive. There are more events where you need to be off the street and it starts a conversation uh as we move towards maybe a more long-term solution. So, I think that that would be a wise course of action. Thoughts on option two? **[46:21] Council Member Edberg:** I'm not in favor of that either. So, I'm con I go back unpacking and having a whole bunch more conversation and community engagement. Leave the overnight parking and the trailer parking in place as they have been in force as we do or do not. That's fine. We can do we can live with that for one more winter season. We've done it for at least 55 years that I know of and we can do it one more during that time. Have these conversations. Unpack it. We have no data to go on. We have no other feedback that says here's how or no shared understanding right now of here's how this piece impacts that piece which needs this over here. We need to think our way through this comprehensively. So my sense of where a consensus might be is uh we've had a great conversation on other aspects of parking. I'm totally on board with the restricted parking around the around the school and and the other stuff. I'm just saying for one more year, figure this out, start the conversations, have it in place for next year. And that's my sense of where consensus lies. **[47:23] Mayor:** Sure. I I I'm all for the scrapping the trailer thing. I mean, I'm not sold that there's a problem. So, I'm not going to die on that hill and I trust staff that that they bring up valid concerns, but I don't think we're at, you know, a crisis by any means or even a problem. So, I'm good with that. I really do think after hearing how it's actually administered the current 3-in have to be off the streets that's already there and it sounds like here raise your hand if you didn't know about that. I didn't know about it until we started this conversation and I'm the mayor so I want to I want pe I want it to be published in the newspaper. It went from three to one if for no other reason for people to go, "Oh, I didn't know about that one in because I don't think it really changes much by going from 3 in to 1 in." As a matter of policy by adopting this is saying, well, I think there's more of a compelling need to to enforce what we've already had on the books for a long time at 3 in, but at 1 in, which is still enough to gum up the roads in a plowable event, no, we don't need to. So, we're really not changing much and it's very very incremental, but it really does start the conversation and create some some public awareness and give law enforcement an opportunity to just have that touch point. I'm confident that our law enforcement isn't, if we make this switch, going to come in heavy-handed and say, "Well, this is the change and last week you would have been okay because it's 2 in, but now it's down to one. So you're going to get to it's still going to be the same engagement but it it starts the conversation in such a with such a minor change but an important conversation to have. So I I don't think it's going to move the needle much. Mine is more just a public awareness to get it out there. So adopt option two or not. I don't care that much. But I think there is some value with very very little cost in dropping it from 3 in to 1 in. Council member West. **[49:25] Council Member West:** Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. Um, yeah, I I don't know that there's a problem that has been um convincing about the trailers. So, I'd like to not um have that go forward. You know, I think that we could do the public um awareness campaign for the 3 in and kind of see actually how that goes while we're gathering more information. I just I'm not I'm not convinced that um folks to your point, Mayor, that they really understand what the requirements are and um maybe we could be more thorough, more regular with communication. I wish that the city had more support for communication to be quite honest. Um this is yet another example of that. Um, but you know, I I think that um we keep it as it is and gather more information, have a more thorough discussion next year. **[50:30] Assistant City Manager Juba:** Thank you, mayor and council members. I would just add that we've already for several years been uh publishing on social media at least and through our our police department, our department and the fire department. We have a pretty decent reach across the city on the the 3-in requirement and almost at nauseium. You know, when when we go through the season, it it might happen I I don't know, uh, Mr. Copy, 30 times, 20 times, 10 times. Uh, I don't, but nearly every time we dispatch our our fleet to go out and plow, and it might not be a 3-in event, but we still publish something saying it's time to move your vehicles. We need to plow the streets. And so that conversation has been ongoing for a long time. We do publish it in the newsletter every year. Um there should be some awareness about that. **[51:28] Mayor:** Let me start here. I'm hearing consensus that we don't like the the trailer restriction. Right. Okay. So I'll put that. I'm hearing basically nobody in favor of my idea of option two and dropping from three inches to one inches, which is okay. I think I'm right, but it's your call. Um, so we've got an ordinance before us. I'd entertain a motion to adopt the ordinance u as amended, however someone would like, but I think we've we've got a good direction of longterm where we want to go, but we have something in front of us tonight. So, what would we like to do? Council member Edberg. **[52:09] Council Member Edberg:** I'll move that uh we adopt the um parking ordinance as presented with the exception of uh all references to trailer parking and that with the understanding that we leave our 3-in low uh level in place at this time. my commitment if that's acted on that we'll take that up and we'll have that in place for next year. We'll have we will have enough discussion to make that happen in a reasonable way. We'll understand what those implications are. **[52:48] Mayor:** Okay. So, just to tee that up, it's it's a motion to approve the the ordinance before us striking reference to the trailer the new trailer restriction parkings and option two, but we maintain the 3-in threshold. Okay. Do I have a second? **[53:04] Council Member:** Second. **[53:04] Mayor:** All right. Any further discussion on this? And did our city attorney want to clarify anything? **[53:04] Mr. Anderson:** No, that that works. I I just wanted to make sure the trailer portion of that motion was only related to the new trailer language because there is other existing trailer language that we have not changed. So, I think your iteration works. **[53:27] Council Member Edberg:** Mayor, I agree. As the maker, I concur with that interpretation. **[53:27] Mayor:** Very good. Any further discussion on the motion? Council member West or Hughes. **[53:42] Council Member Hughes:** I I just have one question. I thought we had Don't we have a parking restriction during the winter if there overnight if there's snow falling? No. No. Okay. What do those signs say as they as you drive in? Like if you drive down 96, it's a big sign there right outside the sport center. Yeah. Anyway, I'll read it again. Okay. I thought there was already something that was never— **[53:58] Council Member Edberg:** Is it on 96? Yeah, that might was a state highway. So, **[54:15] Mr. Copy:** yeah, mayor, members of the council, that may be depending on where you're at on 96, there is the township that borders it as well. So, it could be a township sign. **[54:15] Clerk:** The township does have overnight parking restrictions. **[54:15] Council Member Hughes:** It does. I was going to say I thought it had our little bear in it, but maybe I'm giving them credit. **[54:15] Council Member Edberg:** Maybe it's their bear. **[54:31] Council Member Hughes:** It's their little bear. **[54:31] Mayor:** And we can fight over whose bear it is. [Laughter] **[54:31] Council Member Hughes:** Whoopsies. I think I've think I've already read I've always read that sign as ours. Anyway, thank you. **[54:31] Mayor:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor favor say I. **[54:31] Council Members:** I. **[54:31] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. The ordinance as amended is adopted. I'd entertain a motion to adopt the corresponding resolution publishing notification of our action. **[54:47] Council Member:** Second. **[54:47] Mayor:** Motion to second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. **[54:47] Council Members:** I. **[54:47] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. We have a third resolution or another resolution involving the parking permit construct around the school and entertain a motion. I have a motion. Do I have a second? **[55:05] Council Member:** Second. **[55:05] Mayor:** Motion to seconded. Discussion on that. Yes. Council member Hughes. **[55:23] Council Member Hughes:** Could you explain that just a little bit more? How does that how is that going to work? And do they have to pay a fee to get the permit? And do they have to pay a fee to get a second permit? Is it pretty simple? **[55:23] Chief of Police:** Mr. Mayor, members of the council, uh we've started to prepare in in anticipation for tonight. Um our staff had regularly done this for the South Campus for years and years. Um it is a application. They come in, they can either do it online or they can come in for the application and complete it. We give them a little sticker. They stick it on the back of their um rearview mirror. And um it's nice and colorful so our officers can see uh which cars are supposed to be there and which ones aren't. There's no fee for that. They just have to prove their residency. **[55:55] Council Member Hughes:** And so if like a homeowner is like, you know, four people and they all can drive. **[55:55] Chief of Police:** That's right. **[55:55] Council Member Hughes:** Can they ask for all four of them or does each one of them have to file a— **[55:55] Chief of Police:** I believe that's true. Yeah. **[56:12] Council Member Hughes:** Simple. Okay. Just curious. **[56:12] Mayor:** And then there's a mechanism for guests, too. What does that look like? You know, Mr. Copy, I don't know if you have a knowledge of that. I don't. **[56:12] Mr. Copy:** U mayor, members of the council, similar to what the chief had said. Um if a for example a resident was having a grad party, a wedding, something in their yard, um they could request um additional permits uh from the uh temporary permits from the police department to allow for that to happen. I don't know that it's happened all that many times done by South Campus, but um if you read the existing language of the uh South Campus and the ordinance, that's uh what it states. Um likewise with uh what police is working on with uh getting prepared for um the uh um permanent parking area. U public works has ordered signposts. We've determined locations um after tonight we will get the uh signs ordered um and up. We won't quite hit the target of the first day of school, but very shortly afterwards. And then uh engineering and public works will work with the police department to send a letter to all affected residences. so that they can start that permitting process. So, we'll kind of figure out what that, you know, when we post signs versus when um um just to give folks enough time to get that application in and get the permits um for their vehicles. **[57:45] Mayor:** So, we're not reinventing the wheel. We're doing what we did on South Campus for many, many years. It's nothing different. Um if memory serves me, that is only during the the regular school months. That's that's not active during the summer months. give me some information on time of day and time of year and its application. **[58:31] Mr. Copy:** Uh mayor members of the council as proposed uh for north campus this would be uh basically 24/7. So it would be permanent parking only. Um reason being is north campus operates much differently than south campus. on North Campus has uh much larger uh event venues um with the uh the theater, the um athletic fields um that they're running tournaments all summer long. Um um so parking becomes an issue year round. Um and um and then as well as the uh school year um prevent students from parking in certain areas adjacent uh to people's homes along Bald Eagle and Division primarily. So, **[58:31] Mayor:** okay. Well, I support this. I I guess my my note to the community is this is new on the north side and it's there's always some trial and error. So, we're putting our best foot forward and we want feedback, good, bad, or otherwise. And we can always adapt and change. I'll just say give it an honest chance in a long decent period of time to see where the kinks are, if there are any, and give it a shot. And uh I think the council will be nimble and responsive if we need to be if there are any any issues to work out. All right. Any further discussion on that? All those in favor say I. **[59:07] Council Members:** I. **[59:07] Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. That resolution is approved as well. Mr. Copy. **[59:07] Mr. Copy:** Uh mayor, members of the council, just one other quick update um regarding the north campus area. Um Ramsey County has also have their plan for bald eagle um signing that no parking north of 9inth Street to the tracks. Uh they they too are working on getting signage and materials ordered. So that should be in they're hoping to get it in before the first day of school, but um they're hoping in the next few weeks that that would be uh included as well. Uh the area uh adjacent to the old tennis field or tennis courts uh will also be signed. No parking. Uh they don't have a we don't have a specific boulevard restoration plan at this time. Um but that will but it will be signed no parking. Um so uh in addition to being linearly along Bald Eagle, it will also have kind of those perpendicular parking spaces signed no parking as well. Um and hopefully uh depending on staff availability, uh we can get the county to get that restored next spring. So it will it will come. um in my discussions with the county, they just uh short staff and a lot of projects and things this summer that they weren't able to uh get that followed up on. And then they also um they had just over the summer um they had some staff turnover. So their traffic engineer um kind of got on board um middle of the late summer here. So um he will be working on that Ninth Street and Bald Eagle intersection looking at the stop conditions there. So that's coming. It's not that they didn't forget about it. that is that they had uh some staffing issues, some staff turnover. **[1:00:50] Mayor:** Very good. Thank you. All right. Item 8, a new business, a liquor license review. Miss Long and Dyke, when you're ready. **[1:00:50] Miss Longendike:** Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm here tonight to report recent liquor violations that will require council to review and consider exercising its penalty structure outlined in the liquor section of the municipal code. Earlier this summer, the city was notified by the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division or AG that White Bear Wine and Spirits was unlawfully selling alcoholic beverages. They were purchasing products for resale from another liquor store instead of purchasing the products at wholesale. In addition, they were selling certain food items that an exclusive liquor store is not allowed to sell. A imposed a civil fine of $1,000 for the violations, which was paid promptly by the business owner. According to state statute, the city may impose an additional penalty to AG's civil fine. The municipal code and fee schedule outline the administrative penalties which correspond with the number of violation occurrences. This is the first liquor violation for White Bear, Wine, and Spirits. Staff does recommend an administrative penalty to document the violation and ensure future violations are handled accordingly. The owner was notified of tonight's meeting and was invited to attend. So, staff recommends the city council adopt the resolution imposing an administrative fine of $150 as outlined in the fee schedule and recording this as the establishment's first liquor license violation. I should add that subsequent violations within the next 18 months could result in a 7-day suspension and greater fines issued by the city. And I will stand for questions. **[1:02:27] Mayor:** Thank you, Mrs. Longike. Uh council, any questions or comments? Council member Edberg. **[1:02:45] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you, Mayor. Miss Long and Dikeke. Um so I'm I'm supportive of the recommendation. Um, my recollection is the owner is a relatively new liquor business operator or is there Okay, I'm concerned about um how do we uh make sure that there's not a second one? Now, that's obviously it's on him, but where's the education process, access to support, whatever? Um, what does that look like in a situation? I know what it looks like when we have a bar who overserves. We have support and and education components, but what happens in the case of a of a liquor store, if anything? **[1:03:26] Miss Longendike:** Um, Council Member Edberg, well, just for background, um, the owner is a relative of a previous bar or excuse me, um, liquor store owner. So, um, it's a family business. They they should know liquor laws. Okay. Um, I would say with the letter from the city and the letter from AG and just running a business related to liquor, it is their responsibility to follow the law. Um, I wouldn't say the staff would use any additional resources to educate them. I think the uh the two letters is enough for them to know that this is a um their first violation and second violations or more would come with more stricter penalties. **[1:04:12] Assistant City Manager Juba:** Council member Edberg, I would also add to that upon opening in a liquor establishment, they get what's called a buyer card from AG, and that essentially establishes where you may buy liquor or who you may buy it from. And it's not a wholesale retailer. This is um uh I want to say a more politically correct word for common sense when running a a liquor store establishment. **[1:05:18] Mayor:** Well, I do want to note one thing because on our agenda item, it's liquor license review and we've got a violation of the liquor license. I'm not condoning anyone that violates the ordinance. I just I want to make it clear, at least from my standpoint, there are great variations in violating your liquor license, selling to a minor. That's a big deal. What we're talking about here is a violation within a very complicated, very interesting, very old distribution model for who can sell which hooch there. And you can't go buy a bottle of Jameson from your competitor because you're out and then sell it at retail and all that. So again, I'm not condoning it, but this is this to me is okay, fine. You're gonna pay your fine. Let's move on. Don't do it again. But this is this doesn't really get me too hot and bothered like a underage sale would. Things that actually, in my opinion, affect public safety. So I support it. I think we should adopt it, impose the fine, and move on. Do I have a motion to adopt the resolution? **[1:05:43] Council Member:** Second. **[1:05:43] Mayor:** Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. **[1:05:43] Council Members:** I. **[1:05:43] Mayor:** Any oppose? Motion carries. The resolution is approved. Item 9A, downtown social district request. Miss Crawford. **[1:05:59] Miss Crawford:** Thank you, uh, mayor, members of the council. Um, Main Street, Inc. uh, uh, submitted a request to the city, um, to consider a social district in downtown White Bear Lake. Um within that letter uh which is in your packet they they stated that they believe it will enhance the vibrancy and economic vitality in the area by increasing foot traffic um offering a more dynamic experience for residents and visitors. Uh they do not wish to assume any management role um for any social district that the city would uh enact and but they will uh um collaborate throughout planning and implementation. social districts um are new to Minnesota and and to be honest with you, I don't know, I'm not very familiar with their um you know, other states and and how they operate. So, they're new to Minnesota. Uh they allow communities uh to authorize through special legislation uh to designate public areas where alcohol can be carried and consumed uh within that certain area. There are only three authorized cities that have this special legislation in the state as of now. and NOA was the first one and they're in their third year of their pilot. Shakape and Stillwater both uh received special legislation in 2024. Shakape um is about to kick off their pilot for one month um this fall and then they have another weekend I think in December of when they're going to uh have their social district active. And then Stillwater um while they do have special legislation, they hit pause um after an initial public feedback period um which I find interesting. So still watching Still Water, but that's just the uh the status. And then that is an NOA's social district map. Highlights of the social district special law: Um there would be designated branded cups which identify which establishment served the beverages. Participating establishments must be within um those social district boundaries, whatever they are defined as. The city designates hours and days when consumption is allowed in a social district. Beverages must be finished or disposed of before entering a new establishment. That was something that I learned uh recently. uh after two years of implementation then the city must submit a report to the state outlining uh various areas and I don't know what that report entails because this is still brand new so I suspect Anoka is just now um writing their first report. Steps that the city would need to take: Um first building a consensus from the city council if um if the council is interested in researching and acting a social district in White Bear Lake. Um I this is the first time this has been brought before the city council. So wanted to just have a discussion um tonight and uh Main Street was invited. They also had their board meeting tonight which is probably um just wrapping up. So I suspect they would be here if they were able to. Um if interested. So step one is is uh getting consensus tonight whether you are interested in researching this or not. If you are interested seeking community feedback and learning from Manoka Shakapi and and watching Still Water, um then we staff would bring those findings back to a future city council meeting. City council would direct um my office to engage local state legislators for that special legislation. It does need support from um uh our senator as well as our house of representative if it reaches legislation and if it's adopted into law into state law. uh the topic would be brought back to the council once it would be passed into law. Then you would adopt a resolution accepting that special law um defining the social district boundaries and regulations and you would adopt an ordinance formally establishing that district and then we would implement that. Um and this as I've said a few times this is brand new. So, um, we've internally come up, staff has come up with some factors for, uh, consideration. They're outlined in your, um, in your staff report, but are also on the screen here. Um, I think it's it's, uh, I would urge the council to when when thinking about doing this or even researching it is consider the overall vision for downtown and our community and would a social district align with the city's strategic plan. think about public safety and infrastructure resources. So that would infrastructure resources what I mean by that is in addition to you know police and fire, public works, trash pickup, all of those things, street sweeping, etc. Um economic impacts, I don't know that I know them at this point. Um if it would be beneficial or not. nearby residential impacts. You know, downtown is butts u single family residential homes. It does not have a buffer zone of apartments or or multifamily or other things like that. So, think about potential residential impacts. Marketfest uh and special event operations, is there an impact on a social district, you know, becoming making those events become not familyfriendly? I don't know. um internally uh our our organizational capacity, time and resources of city staff. Again, does this align with the city strategic plan? Does staff have time to uh implement that? I don't know that I can answer that at this point without learning more from other cities or an NOA I guess. And then uh you know, beverage container waste and where that is all disposed of and again street sweeping and public works and trash pickup. So, um, tonight we're I'm seeking your, uh, feedback on, um, potentially implementing or, you know, I guess Main Street's request to provide direction to staff on whether we should take next steps to look at a social district in White Bear Lake or not. We do have the chief of police, community development director, public works uh, director, and assistant city manager here tonight all for this discussion. if you have questions at this point. Um, and there was one more thing I was going to say and I forgot it. So, I come back to me maybe later. So, for now, that's where I'll I'll stand. Thank you. **[11:12] Mayor:** Thank you, Miss Crawford. Um, I'm going to share my thoughts and you can take it with a grain of salt because the ultimate decision will lie with someone else who will be sitting in this chair. But I I do have a kind of a a knee knee-jerk reaction to this, which is extreme skepticism that this is at all a good idea. I get why the business owners like it. Um I get why their communities wanted to adopt it. Um and if it all goes really really great and people walk around with a beer and that's about it, fine. I these things have a way of kind of spiring out of control in my opinion. I also don't know how you have any kind of uh district that doesn't include basically all of where Marketfest is. Um, and I don't want Marketfest to be uh a drinking scene. It's a family-friendly scene. That's what Marketfest is. Um, so whatever incremental increase in in commerce that it generates, I think we more than lose by changing the character of what what our downtown, family-friendly downtown is like. Having said all that, I don't think it hurts to have staff spend some time just getting some feedback from the three other communities that are implementing it, good, bad, or otherwise. But I think this is a new concept and there is no compelling, you know, need for this that would precipitate uh uh the city pushing for any kind of legislative change this cycle. Um so that's where I stand on this this issue. Miss Crawford, you remember what you forgot? **[11:13] Miss Crawford:** I did. Thank you, mayor. Um, just so the Main Street board did vote to submit this letter um uh this request that we uh investigate this. I want to be clear that Main Street does not reflect all businesses downtown. And so I'm not certain how much engagement that they did. But I just I think that's worth noting that, you know, we we place a very high value on feedback from Main Street, but it doesn't, you know, it may not include all of the businesses that we would need significant amount of uh public engagement still. Thank you. **[11:14] Mayor:** You may not have an answer to this question, but do you know if the vote was unanimous or if it was just a majority of the board approved it? **[11:14] Miss Crawford:** Mayor, I do not know that off top of my head. **[11:14] Mayor:** That's okay. Thank you, Council Member Hughes. **[11:14] Council Member Hughes:** Uh, Mr. Mayor, I would take your comments even further. I note their comment here. At this time, White Bear Lake Main Street does not intend to assume a management role for the social district. And I would say it doesn't even seem like they are going to assume an educational or investigatory role, and they're going to have city staff do all of that. And you know, wasn't too long ago that we were talking about where city staff should be putting their time and their effort and what um how that's going to fit into the budget. And this is the role of to me another staff person. And um I don't feel like that's necessarily the way the city staff should go. If White Bear Lake Main Street wants to have a social district, which benefits Whitebear Lake Main Street and not all of the city, then they can investigate further. They can go to Still Water and Noa and all of the other places and see how it's falling out. They can do an investigation of where beverage container waste would go and how other cities are maintaining the the lines around the social district and how it fits into uh what all those economic impacts. They can go and find out all that information and our city staff can wait and take that information from them when they've completed it and made the ask for it in a more comprehensive manner. I understand why again why they would have done that. This is a great benefit to them if you can have more people wandering around with a beer for sure. But I think this is like a hailmary to the city then to take on and I don't think that that's an appropriate place to put our tax dollars at this point. **[11:16] Mayor:** Any other thoughts? Council member Edbert. **[11:16] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um Miss Crawford. Um, so the statute that permits social districts refers to alcohol only, no other intoxicants, no other smoking, whatever. Um, is that correct? **[11:16] Miss Crawford:** I believe so. Yes. **[11:16] Council Member Edberg:** Okay. And is there any sense of what time either days, hours, whatever Main Street is suggesting? Is it is this like 247 365? Is it between uh 4 and 10 on weekends? Is it has there been any of that kind of narrowing or or definition discussed so far? Or is this pretty much a hey, this is what we want. Here's a blank slate. Please, please start giving it to us. **[11:17] Miss Crawford:** Mayor, Council Member Edberg, um there haven't been those discussions yet. Much research needs to be done. Um, if we are going to start that conversation tonight, I um I would not be supportive of a social district enacted during Marketfest. With that said, I don't um I think it would be very challenging for our police officers who are already there dedicated and working overtime hours to ensure someone's cup is not a social district cup. Um, so I'll leave it there. **[11:17] Council Member Edberg:** So where I come down at the moment is we can't be the first. I don't want to be the second, third, fourth or fifth. It's like we can watch what happens in other places. We can observe, learn. It's not a priority for my use of staff time or for how I think our city should use staff time. And similar to Council Member Hughes, I read the their letter that we take no we're not taking responsibility for oversight, management, etc. Um, we'll we'll help get it off the ground, but we're not going to help administer it, which puts it into our lap, and I don't want it in our lap. So, I'm not inclined to ask you to spend your time or staff's time researching. I like council member Hughes's suggestion that if somebody else wants to do that research and submit it to us after they've got after we have more communities more experience then we can validate that experience and um and have a discussion later but I'm I'm not inclined to say yes today. **[11:18] Mayor:** but that's only two of us so— [Laughter] **[11:18] Council Member West:** Okay. **[11:19] Mayor:** All right um I'm ready to move on the consensus is this is not a high priority. So, uh, staff shouldn't be spending any time on it. I think the Main Street is free to follow Council Member Hughes's advice. If you want to do some research, we'll we'll respond from any uh input or request from from the community, but there's a big big step that has to happen before that we even look into it further. So, I think staff has their answer. Thank you, mayor and council. All right. Item 10, communications from the city manager, Miss Crawford. **[1:19:48] Miss Crawford:** Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, Senator Heather Gustoson was selected again this year as a League of Minnesota City's 2025 legislator of distinction. Um, so congratulations to Senator Heather Gust Gustoson. We appreciate all of her uh hard work and support on behalf of Wiper Lake down at the capital. Um, and this is the hot topic at least um that comes through our phones uh this week and a little bit of last week. The post office um sent out uh this postcard. I didn't receive one. Um I think some of the council has, some I think have not, which I find also interesting. Um but they about they are proposing to relocate um part of this branch from downtown Wiper Lake um to somewhere else uh give or take three uh or what's that say? Two miles three miles away. Two miles away. Um that's all the information that we have at this point. the city was not contacted about this um prior to a few of you and a couple residents sending me text messages about it. So um we are trying to uh be in you know talk to someone at the post office about the possibility of retail moving out of downtown White Bear Lake. As a city manager, I'm not supportive of that. Um I will go on the record and say that. Um, which I don't know if council's the same on if I'm on the same page as council, but that's where I stand as city manager. Um, uh, I think that the post office is very important to our downtown, especially for those who do not have transportation and and use the the retail portion of of the post office. So, um I all this is just to say I wanted to gauge council's um uh fe, you know, take your temperature on whether you would like to put this on the next agenda to have a letter of um you know, I don't know, a letter of support for retail in downtown Whitebear post office uh or something that we could get to um Representative McCullum's office as well as I guess send it to North Carolina where we're supposed to send things for the post office um or any feedback that the council has if anyone wants to discuss this. **[1:22:17] Mayor:** Let me just start by saying if if council wants to adopt some resolution, I don't care. It sounds like your your phone's getting lit up a little bit. So, if for no other reason, this is a good opportunity to at least acknowledge to residents and I'll give you my personal opinion. I think we have very very limited ability to influence this and I don't want to project a self-important well we're going to adopt a resolution and and we're going to contract uh Congresswoman McCullum okay we can do that I think the the federal government's going to do pretty much what it wants to do um so to the extent residents really want to put their best foot forward write your congressperson write your one of the two senators I think that's probably going to carry more weight but that's just my opinion. Council member Edberg. **[1:23:05] Council Member Edberg:** Yeah, I marry your comments, mayor. The distinction that I'm seeing or hearing is they're proposing. Okay. For those of us who have tried to make use of their retail service during a busy t part of the day, which is many parts. It's not just one particular. You can stand in a line that goes out the window or out the the first set of glass doors and out into the lobby. in staff in my experience have done quite well but I've taken to going to other post offices I'm lucky I've got one in Wilerny I got one in Vadness and they're all about equidistant and they have less lines so it it's just I go to elsewhere but the point is they do have limited retail space they are proposing to keep employment here which is good this is so they would keep their trucks and and carriers using the current facility and look for a separate retail facility somewhere within. I think it I agree with the city manager. Ideally, we would keep that um present in our downtown community, but the mayor is probably also right that there's only so much that we can influence the federal government on. So, it's like um I guess if they're going to move, find a place another place in White Bear Lake. That but that's kind of the the gist of it is I don't know that we are in we're in danger of losing the the foot traffic that might generate in downtown for the retail service. But beyond that, the property isn't doesn't it doesn't sound like the propertyy's coming up for sale. There's doesn't sound like there's a redevelopment opportunity, anything like that. It's just where do the people stand while they wait to buy stamps? **[1:24:55] Council Member West:** I mean, I I still think um I agree that we should try to keep the retail in the city. Um again, for the same reason that everybody else is stating. I I I just think, you know, people are used to it and we've got folks who are relying on it who don't have transportation um and convenience. Um, but like like I think it's a good idea to send a letter. Um, I I know that the likelihood of it making a difference is is low, but also it's zero if we don't send a letter. So like I you know if we do support keeping the retail there um I don't see any like problem or negative to sending a letter from us supporting you know hey could you please consider us you know thinking that retail should stay? **[1:25:52] Mayor:** I'll just say this. If we're going to write, if we're going to draft a letter, fine. But this is what I think it should read. Hey, retail's important. It should stay. But if you're going to take the retail out, then vacate the premises altogether so we can use a higher and better use of it. Cuz the plan is not having retail, but it's just going to be a distribution center. So, it's just a dumb big building with trucks coming and going with no actual retail benefit. Um, if if I had a magic wand, I'd say great. Sorry for those that benefit from the retail side, but that's a big huge piece of property. If the federal government would just leave, I'm sure there are any number of higher and better uses that would come in there. So, I don't think we should do the letter. I don't think it's going to go anywhere. But to the extent that it can do something, great. We want to keep retail or go pound sand federal government and open up that space to higher and better use. That's where I stand. Council member Hughes. **[1:27:07] Council Member Hughes:** I'd like that letter and I think we should also CC the uh Congress and senators. Yeah, we'll send it to the Donald as well just in case uh you know the president wants to take a look. Might might want to weigh in. **[1:27:07] Mayor:** but they have the opportunity to influence. **[1:27:07] Council Member Hughes:** Yeah, I understand. **[1:27:07] Mayor:** Okay. Anybody opposed to writing some sort of a letter? **[1:27:25] Miss Crawford:** I will add this to the September 9th uh city council agenda. Thank you. **[1:27:25] Mayor:** Sounds good. All right. I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. **[1:27:25] Council Member Edberg:** Move. **[1:27:25] Mayor:** All those in favor say I. We're adjourned.