Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. All right, we're ready. >> Good evening everybody. It is March 2nd. This is a City C city of Mitankka City Council study session. Um I'll call this meeting to order and we will do introductions. We'll start with uh Miranda Domen. >> Miranda Diamond, assistant city manager. >> Eric Nelson, city attorney. >> Mike Funk, city manager. >> Paty Foster Bolton, Ward One. >> Kimberly Wilburn at large. >> Amanda Maxwell, W two. >> Rebecca Shack, mayor. War Kyle, war. De Calbert at large C day. >> Susan Thomas, city planner. >> Julie Wishnack, community development director. >> Scott Bordon, police chief. You >> have to identify yourself for the record. >> Uh, Michael Cavis, resident. >> Okay. >> Jason Meccl, resident. >> Frank Sturka, resident. >> Thank you. Right. Welcome everybody. Um, we'll get started right away with our business items. The first one is substance regulations. Mike, >> yeah, thank you, Mayor Sha. Um, council, good evening. Uh, tonight we'll have presentations from probably more to the staff to your right. Uh, so I think is it Chief Borwin, are you going to kick things off? >> Yep. So Chief Borman's going to kick things off, talk aboutratum. Now that became um surfaced through our development of the 2026 annual study session work plan. So we'll talk about so chief board when we do that and then followed by other staff and I believe Julie will talk about cannabis. >> So this is a little bit about all substance and use. So and then we'll have a cannabis overview. Uh, as you know, council, you adopted a resolution, excuse me, an ordinance last year, uh, regulating cannabis in Minnetonka, and Miss Wishnack will have an update just with some of the activity, uh, and inquiry that's happened regarding stores, uh, retail stores that perhaps could be coming to Minnetonka. And then also we'll talk about, uh, enforcement of tobacco. And so is that chief borboom, I believe, will also touch on the tobacco enforcement because that came up a couple times in the council meetings last fall where we had some residents and young adults addressing the council regarding concerns over flavored tobacco in Minnetonka and staff has an update for you on what that looks like and kind of the status of your activities. So with that, if it's okay, just turn over to Chief Bourbon to get us going. >> Excellent. >> Thanks, Mike. Good evening. Um yeah, as Mike has has mentioned, um this this topic came up in a in a meeting several months ago and I think specifically the theratom was was brought to our attention and I'll be honest with you, I I didn't know what that was and so I've done my research. reminded me of my ebike presentation, but uh I will do my best to explain what it is, but I'm also gonna uh touch on I'm gonna do first. Uh walk you through uh what we know about and um what we know about it in our city, and then I'll touch on uh I'll do a review of our tobacco compliance checks, kind of what we do annually and some of the results. And then I'll kick it over to Julie uh on for a discussion on on cannabis. And so and I you know I can assumeratom that came up because I mean we have since I've asked some people not so much my peers aboutratom but just out in you know out in the out in the street or or uh you know amongst some of the officers I you know and they're they're aware of the termratom and I think how I best describe it is it's a it's it's considered dangerous really for a couple reasons is because it its dependence uh carries an overdose risk. It lacks regulatory oversight, which I'll kind of cover a little bit tonight, and has documented adverse health effects. And one of the things as I as I created this, it was really to provide you with some as as other cities in the country or other states tackle this issue. Uh they look at a couple different um concerns from a from a policy u decision as a decision maker. wanted around consumer safety, youth access, product contamination and co-use with other substances. So um what is it? Well, it is what isratum? It is a native plant originating originating in Southeast Asia and it contains some natural uh com compounds that are are highlighted here because what happens is like with many other synthetic drugs. What you find is you'll take like in this case a leaf and you'll extract different compounds from that and you mix it and you you you'll make it into something other than what it maybe initially was. And that's important because as you look at regulating uh anything in this caseratom it may not be uh it may not be illegal today but if if the federal government or the state were to were to make illegal sometimes what happens is the the then they remix the formula and something new comes out and now it's not illegal. And so just keep that in mind. I think one of the issues with trying to regulate something like is that um with synthetic drugs um you switch up the ingredients and now it's not so much illegal and so that's that's going to be that's always going to be a struggle. Um in low doses is a stimulant effect with increased energy and alertness. It works in minutes lasts for hours. It does uh react like an opioid um providing some pain relief and relaxation. And on the street it's referred to as a gas station heroin. And that's because it's readily available and it can provide in high dosages a similar effect to uh you know opioid like drugs that are regulated more um more strictly by the by the government. And so you can kind of see some of the uh side effects of of kratum. I gave just a quick uh you know about uh what it is and so it is uh sold as a herbal extract or a dietary supplement to boost energy, mood and relieve pain. It is sold in a variety of places including um some of our tobacco stores and I'll kind of cover that here in a second. You can buy it online pretty easily. In fact, you could go to Amazon right now uh if you would like and uh you could you could buy some. So, um it's ingested orally in the form of a capsule uh an extract or a tablet. It can also be chewed, dried, crushed, or be consumed as or put it in your tea if you'd like. And then there's some um compounds within that are even more dangerous. And I you know it gets into these these ac you may hear that it's often sold in pills gummies or in a shot. You also see it in seltzer. So uh who uses kratum? I did do some research on your typical uh demographics. Uh you can take a look at that. Nothing um you know of that jumps out at you. Uh but I just wanted to kind of highlight let you just take a look at that for a second. It does like I said uh in low dosages it does increase energy and I think that's one of the attraction to to the drug. High doses have the adverse effect and I think that's what's most difficult is when you try to regulate something it's usually because um you know high dosages may may may have a different response. Also, you're not sure what what's what's being put in the drug as as these things are are are made up in a lab or in in a kitchen or wherever they're making the stuff I talk about is isratum addictive. It is it is u from what the research uh states it's a little uh too early to to tell. However, they find that it has very similar uh effects to the to use of opioids over a long period of time. So, your withdrawal is more difficult the longer you use it. It is more difficult to stop using it. And with children, it does uh for those that are pregnant, it can it can create some problems for the for the baby. And really the the really the reason for it is like anything else. You have you build up a tolerance and you have a physical dependence to the drug and then you have withdrawal symptoms. So that's really the why it is addictive. Talk a little bit about federal regulations and I'm going to I'm going to show you actually a u a nice little map or a a sheet that shows where it's being regulated. But currently it's not being regulated by the FDA. um is not approved for medical use or as a dietary supplement. In fact, the DEA has labeled as a drug or chemical of concern. And then within uhratom, I had mentioned there's different compounds which are are tried extracted from from the plant and can create a whole different uh issue of drug use. And so there is some attention to some of the compounds within but as of today there's been no action on that. And then um you know due to the lack of regulation there is no consistent standard for selling and that's why some states have adopted some some uh procedures where there is more of a of a of a regulation. It's it's sold in stores however it's being regulated on on the compounds and stuff like that. I'll kind of cover that in in a minute here. Um and then products have been found to contain heavy metals such as lead and harmful germs such as salmonila and you can the FDA has linked 35 deaths to smell tainted cratom kind of narrowing it down to Minnesota specifically in 2018 uh the state did change it to you have to to you can't sell to anybody under the age of 18. when we went to uh some of our local tobacco only stores um we did discover that it was 21 in stores in Minnetonka. So that's encouraging. I don't know if they're associating uh the sale of them with tobacco um but we did uh we did check and uh under the age of 21 you cannot um purchase it. I can't tell you if everyone but the ones we did check there was a couple we did check and it was 21 was the age. And then in 2023 this uhratom consumer protection act was introduced uh and it did not pass. And so as of right now the only regulation in Minnesota anywhere in Minnesota is that you cannot purchase it under the age of 18. That's state law. No other city in Minnesota county nobody has adopted any additional regulations on the use ofratom. uh thisratom consumer protection act was actually uh you know folks had that supportratom wanted to bring uh supported this regulation regarding um the sale of it and it really focused on a couple areas age restrictions product standards labeling and testing requirements the uh compound limits so the limits I had mentioned some of the ingredients that are in there are very dangerous unless it's controlled controlled and how much they use. And so this uh consumer protection act, it wasn't just Minnesota, it was a national effort to get states to adopt it. So it, you know, instead of having a an all allout prohibition onratom sales, I think what I read is that this consumer protection act was a way of not, you know, not not allowing any sale. It was more how can we best regulate it. And unfortunately, you know, it would have been nice if this would have occurred in 2023 because I think we wouldn't be talking about this today. And so that just kind of talks a little bit about what Minnesota did. And then here I just I did a quick snapshot of of what you're seeing in other other parts of the country. Again, the only uh city to full ban is in the in the city of Bloomington, Illinois. Uh nothing here in Minnesota. You can see some statewide uh legislation uh that prohibit it. And then you see some uh some other local control in California partial ban. But I think most of the cities uh it's in the staff report um really took a look at how can they how can they uh look at this consumer protection act and it really focuses around um you know making sure you have the right age under 21 prohibited you know the right marketing the right labeling. So when when you know I I actually have a photo if you go into one of our uh one of our tobacco shops pretty much the entire wall is >> and if you look at the packaging or the way it's advertised one could say it's to attract they're good at marketing and so I think when this consumer protection act it was really a way to help you know control that you know making sure there's advisories so people know exactly what they're what they're purchasing. Um and again it's it's it's really unfortunate that it did not pass in Minnesota. And then as I look through um all the different states and kind of what led them to really focus on their approach and this is something that I would bring forward to you as you as you consider this and you know from from my position, you know, um this was more about education and really to kind of understand what it is and then if there was a desire to somewhat to regulate this, this is what I saw in other jurisdictions is one they maintained current approach or they really adopted a regulated market model, testing, labeling, you know, what the potency is of it, strengthen the age and retail controls and then high target high potency or syn synthetic derivatives. And what that means, and this is what's a little um well, it's concerning, but it's it's the reality of it. If you were today to create an ordinance prohibiting the sale possession of tomorrow there might be a new drug on the on the shelf. And so what some jurisdictions are doing are really focusing in on the compounds like isn't isn't so muchratom what what withinratom is dangerous and in what what potency and so that's what I saw was the challenge is that these things are changing daily and if you're going to rely on the federal government to do you know FDA or to get it scheduled like a controlled substance I think one of the issues that they run into is that because it's they they change it so frequently it's hard to say on top of what's the latest and greatest drug. And so that's that's just kind of where cities have landed. And that's why, you know, that's why I keep bringing up this this consumer protection act. Um, I personally believe the best course is for the state and for I actually brought this up to u somebody in Congress and the cratom wasn't even on their radar and so I think it's more just education and then for the state of Minnesota to maybe step into this arena and take a look at where can they as a as a state control this and this is where I see areas is you know around the age marketing you know how it's how it's being sold in stores, some sort of regulation like what is in that that you know in it as ingredients because right now it's pretty much a free-for-all. And so that's about all I had on on create was just a real quick overview of what it is and kind of some of the challenges. Um but these are some areas that I saw other uh councils or those that are uh doing public policy, they focused on these areas right here. And so I'll kind of stop here and kind of turn it back over to you mayor for any questions. >> Yeah, thanks. Um, council Deb questions. >> Yeah, I have so I have two questions that are interrelated. So inratum products that are on shelves right now. Is itratom or is itratom synthetic derivatives or both? Because my second question would be at what point is something considered a synthetic derivative? Because if you could just define it, you could ban it. >> Yeah. So your question what we saw on the shelf is you you may seeratum in in there somewhere. But oftentimes look at the ingredients. It's going to pull out like some of the ones you saw on the first slide. I'm sorry. Right there. Number the second bullet. Mhm. >> You may see ingredients such as that, but it's it's more of the uh the compounds that are pulled out. Now, it was in a seltzer. I think it depends on how it's done. Like if it's a leaf that's crushed up, it may just be its whole form as if they put it into like a seltzer or some other um they may have to take ingredients out of that leaf. So, I think it's a variety of ways it's marketed. It's not you don't just see cratom like the one that the um I think the uh the seltzer in the in the in the cooler is called mitra mi t r o l. So I think they're using portions of the compounds. I think it's all over the place and I think that's where the regulation is helpful is when you say you have to identify what's in there and know exactly what you're getting and that right now doesn't happen. was a second question. Well, then you know my whole the whole thing is there were places that were selling tea I think in Hopkins just a few years ago and um you know that if you're just steeping leaves that's one thing if it's if it's a synthetic derivative I feel like if you can define what synthetic is define what what synthetic is you can ban it. >> Question. >> So I mean I think you're right. I mean that's that's a question >> we did talk about to me if you could call I don't know if you can just gen generically say any synthetic. If you call out the drug of seven hydro which is is an ingredient in within the leaf you would be catching up. What's the next thing? I think you're on a to a point there. I would take some more working with um what that looks like but um that is the that is the challenge. I mean that's the same with with almost any >> correct >> drug is that you they keep changing it even pharmaceutical companies do it to keep that thing >> especially opioids you know fentanyl I mean there and carfentanol and there's probably a new one out there all they do is change the makeup of that drug and it where this becomes dangerous is when it it when it's mixed with other drugs and there's no control you would like fentanyl you don't know what you're getting for dosages and I think that's where this is very dangerous. And this has been out for a long time. In fact, we we went to some of our uh uh convenience stores, gas stations, and there is one that we know of that sells it, you know, seltzer. We know one that pulled it from their shelf like a year ago, and that must have been a decision by the corporate level. And so there there I mean there are folks paying attention to it, but um >> interesting. >> Yeah, it's council. Other questions? Anybody? So I mean I think the question then for us is my perspective is maybe this is a first step in like information like now now we know. I don't know that it seems out out of our depth as far as what we could do with this information. I mean is that fair Scott? >> Yeah. And so we've talked about that. So a couple options. one is I I I think it is exactly that you know I educated I think it's more of education and what's actually happening in Minnetonka. So it is encouraging that where we think it's being sold they're requiring you be 21. I think that's that's good. They did that on Owen. I think it's also um and then to you know for us to monitor I mean you don't always have to jump on a bandwagon because other cities do but I think it is interesting that not one city in the state of Minnesota has has addressed this. So I think it's to watching what others do and then putting pressure on the state if this if there's any chance to say hey especially if this was actually brought forward in 23 um because I think if that were that that's where it should land is is at the state and if they jumped on with the consumer protection act that's occurring in many other states in the country that would provide the protection that we're talking about right now. I think so I think that would be my my um uh suggestion is to to try to put pressure on the state. Uh I asked somebody and they didn't know so I don't know if it's even on their radar but it's maybe something we just encourage them to go back and revisit this. I'm not sure why it didn't pass in 23. Maybe I don't know Eric do you remember >> they didn't even have a hearing. >> Yeah. Uh it it it was just introduced and didn't even get a hearing. Okay. So, >> so maybe this is something we can put on our >> 2027 legislative awareness topics or and I can bring it to my committee at um the league because we talk about stuff like this all the time. We had a huge presentation on >> label, you know, the cannabis product labeling and sort of the the whole marketing and all of the other things that so this seems very much in that. Um, so if everybody's kind of comfortable with of moving deliberately but not significantly on this for right now and see and and if Scott you can kind of keep us aware if you're noticing people you know I >> having challenges >> you know calls or whatever you're hearing amongst the chiefs that this is a problem then maybe we can raise it up to a higher level. Can I ask one that that just reminded me of another question? So, >> it's it's like cannabis that there's probably not a field sobriety like there's not like how do you find out if someone's under the influence of cratom and so that's a whole other >> Yeah. So, it would it would have to be through a drug test. I mean a drug test like a blood test >> Yeah. And and really an impairment. And so it it's it's really considered um it's a psychoactive drug. And so if you think about that, the cannabis, alcohol, tobacco, caffeine are all in that category, but they're legal, right? And cratom cola falls into that area. But then in the same category, you got heroin, cocaine, LSD, and ecstasy that are illegal. And so within the same realm that you know you're hallucinating, uh maybe you're depending on the quantity. But I actually checked with our our drug task force officer and maybe it's because it's not a controlled substance. He went back and said, "Do we have anything with them?" And they've had zero interaction withratom. You remember I think it was a long time ago there was some what was it called? Cat. There were some other u uh I can't remember leaf that was >> Yeah. That it's from from East Africa. >> Yes. And so when you talk about other substances, there's all there's a variety of like leaf like substances that can create like an opioid like feeling. they all have a different name and are made up differently. So I think if there is a discussion with the league, it's to maybe look at not so much identifying the name of the plant. It's like the the cause and effect. So that's with controlled substance. I think if it has some sort of an addict certain level of of a if you're addictive certain sort of then it's not so much the name, it's more about what it does. I think that would be a better approach. Then you're not trying to okay what's what's the next term we're dealing with >> with all the different >> correct. So, I think that's a good to your point, mayor, I think that's exactly what I would recommend unless there's a desire to explore something differently. Um, that's, you know, I'd be looking for feedback on that, but that's kind of where where we landed is just to keep an eye on it and and see how it continues to come out. >> Excellent. All right. Well, thank you for all that research. You should write a paper on it now. Um, >> don't start going to school like Julie. >> At my age, it comes in, it goes out. So, by next week, >> okay, >> I'll remind tobacco, right? That's >> Yeah. So, um, for tobacco, I just wanted to maybe talk about how we do compliance checks. So, you know, I don't have a slide presentation. I'm just going to verbally um talk about this. So, um, annually, um, roughly after school gets out, our school resource officers will do go out and do alcohol and tobacco compliance checks. We do it every year, um, about the same time each year. So, I know operation, but you know, so, you know, it's not like we're trying to catch you in the act of something. We just we do it annually each year. And um and so uh I know last year with with flavor tobacco it came up and um you know when we've done tobacco compliance checks we sent in somebody under the age of 21 to attempt to buy tobacco. Um what we haven't put as much of a focus on is the flavor tobacco. And this year we had we had or last year we had complaints and we identified the folks that were non-compliant. We work with them and um and they as far as I know are compliant and I think our approach has always been when it comes to compliance on on just regulatory whether it's alcohol tobacco I mean we have a lot of ordinances about our just a variety of ordinances we are more reactive we like to work with you know the folks the businesses and we like to have a good relationship so we we probably we are not as aggressive as as you know some residents would like but I do believe we have a nice balance and approach and at the end of the day, you know, it was um um we were successful in removing all the flavor tobacco because it was a learning curve for us too because again, like anything else, these things change in the way they market the the stuff. You don't know when you walk in, you don't know what you're looking at. And so I would say going forward, I know we had a few that were non-compliant that were I think we're working through um the the uh non-compliance issues, but I would suspect going forward you're going to see uh as direct enforcement on the under 21 as well as the flavor tobacco. >> Um >> I think the only the only issue I would add is remember that it takes a long time to get through a criminal prosecution. So if someone uh sold to an underage person, this could be for tobacco or for liquor, it takes sometimes up to a year to process that person. So if the city council doesn't see a you'll see an order of stipulation, which is their punishment basically for doing uh the civil side of that. Um but you won't see that. It lags way behind. So sometimes you'll scratch your head and you'll say, "Well, what that was done a long time ago. Why didn't I see this for a while?" But it's because we have to wait until the criminal prosecution is done. If they're found guilty, then we file the civil uh order for stipulation, which is um there's a predescribed penalty in the city code for tobacco. So that's how the >> criminal side and the civil side interact. And then at any time if you feel like it's egregious enough, you can pull somebody's tobacco license um when they have violations like that. But usually you'd have to get to a pretty extreme level. Um we got to that recently actually um with a tobacco lency uh and we did remove their license for lack of compliance. So um that happened and they no longer can sell tobacco and and unfortunately can't be in business. Um but they wouldn't um comply. So we did that. >> Yeah. and and beyond the annual uh compliance checks, we on occasion will have complaints against a specific retailer and we will go in at that time. We don't wait until the next year to do the to do the compliance checks. Um, and so I guess that's what I wanted just to just to provide a quick just a recap of how we do it. And if there's any specific questions you had regarding the tobacco or uh compliance checks or anything around that, I would certainly >> council questions. >> I do have soy. Go ahead. >> So the all the people that that came to the council meeting and com and you know voiced their concerns about were those all followed up on? >> Yes. >> Okay. Absolutely. >> So that's all correct. >> Thank you. >> And I think part of it too, if I may, um, Paty, there's not a lot of times the police don't say tactically what they're doing with a particular enforcement case. So, um, they have to kind of go through all of the violations that we've heard. Um, and you had a plan. There's education first, right? Then educate again. I think you had to do this a couple times with a couple people and then get to the point at which you're um you know writing a violation. So I think that takes time and you have to allow time for everyone to adjust. So I know it wasn't as fast as some people wanted, but I think there's a methodical approach on at least the police side as well as the community development. >> Yeah. And I I mean it's our approach for years is is a balance. We can come in pretty hard and aggressive from day one. We've always been very um accommodating, you know, what can we do? How do we make this work? Education. It's kind of like ebikes. Yeah. At some point, we have to take it to the next level. If we if we don't have compliance, yeah, we may have to step it up. But I mean, our first uh um you know, few few attempts will be more could you please help us out, do the right thing, right? And then and then if we need to >> and comply and comply. Um, and some cities may have a different approach, but you know, regardless of the complaint, I think that has been our approach to a variety of beyond just alcohol, tobacco, and whatever. It's you name it when it comes to uh, you know, ordinance violations and things like that. Compliance. >> The goal is compliance. >> I think we I think we're there. >> And if we don't get there and we get a complaint, we will >> we will follow up and address it. >> I think you had a question, too, >> Yeah. I just have a quick question. You just kind of alluded to it. um you know, how do other cities in terms of fines like because I've I was told by a resident, well, other cities will just, you know, impose a fine right away. Um and why why don't we do that? And I I don't know. This just that's what I understood that we file a criminal complaint first and then have to wait up to a year for the civil and then it's like, well, other cities don't do that. So, do we know I mean that what options are is there an option to impose a a civil penalty first or do we have to wait? >> That's a good question. I don't know the the way that works, but >> I mean we have fines. >> Are you asking do we can we go to a civil penalty versus a criminal part? >> Yeah. Or first and you know like okay you know it's like first strike you you know you >> it's not educa education and a little slap on the wrist and then it goes up. I don't know. I just I don't understand how we work. Maybe I could. So at the at the time of the violation, we we'll issue >> the criminal part is addressed then >> immediately >> immediately, but then it's followed up with the civil portion. So there is some that happens first. I don't know if you can reverse the order. Is that why you're asking? Well, yeah, because if the criminal portion takes up to a year and >> well, I think the the idea and Eric helped me out with with this, but the the theory is if a court does not find them criminally liable, then what stance does the city have on the civil side of it? I mean, that's the theory. Am am I even close to being right? >> Sure. Yeah, that I I think that's right. and it's based on the different you know standard of proof for a criminal prosecution which is beyond a reasonable doubt versus a civil enforcement mechanism which is preponderance of the evidence. So a lesser standard than a criminal case. >> So a civil action would be a lesser >> correct. Y >> so it wouldn't have to depend on the outcome of the criminal. >> That that that's potentially true. We'd want to look at our you know our ordinance provisions that bear on enforcement. But we'll just note that in general enforcement is highly discretionary on the part of staff charged with doing it. Um and so it's typically can be a combination either an isolation or an order or a combination of criminal and civil uh actions or you know adverse business license action if it's against a business as well. So there there are a number of tools typically that cities will have. Um, >> so it wouldn't have to be wait a year. It could be something quicker than that if we so choose. Or am I misunderstanding? >> I can I'm going to maybe provide a scenario. Um, this is in regarding I think it's along the same lines is if if you get pulled over for a DWI >> and your car can be seized based on a civil forfeite because you have certain amount of DWIS you can lose your car. There's a civil process. I think in theory you could seize that and take the car, but if all of a sudden there's a criminal case and the person gets maybe found not guilty for, there could be a hiccup, right? There could be something and now we kind of got oursel ahead of the where technically even though the car may have been seized and could lawfully be taken since we lost the criminal portion, it seems a little punitive that we're going to take. So, it's almost the right the reason for it, I think, too, is also creates more of a level of like, okay, you were found guilty in the court of law for criminally violating selling tobacco. Now, we're going to impose civil sanctions. I think it just makes you feel like they're on firm ground. Even though I don't think it's necessary, I just think for like due process, people appreciate that, hey, I had my day in court. I was found, you're guilty, so now we move forward or not guilty. Hey, I don't know if we would move forward with a civil sanction. Would you? >> We wouldn't. No, we wouldn't if they weren't find found criminally um responsible, there would be no standing for the civil uh penalty. So I it I mean it's might sound easy to do, but if you're the business owner and we penalize the business yet the criminal prosecution of whatever happened hasn't been completed doesn't feel like uh due process. And I think that's probably why the city has followed this procedure well as long as I've been here. Um, but also I think Eric's right. It's it's a matter of circumstance and what's happened and how how um the enforcement agency wants to handle it at that moment. But I would say there's a pretty long history especially with liquor, tobacco. Um, help me out. What other >> um >> liquor and tobacco for sure are handled this way. Uh, I'm just trying to think of another example. DUI is obviously when you're forfeiting a vehicle. Um, nothing else rises to my head right now, but that's the point. So, I think if you wanted to change how that process work, you're going to have to change the code to be more emphatic about what procedural steps you wanted. >> So, are we going to do the same with cannabis? Then >> cannabis whole another subject matter. So, I'll get to that next, but that we do not have that much control in the cannabis arena. So, do you want to skip to that or were there more questions? >> Let's Yeah, let's let's try to >> stick to what we're talking about. Anything else? >> I just had a quick follow. I I would even though we have a lot of discretion when it comes to alcohol tobacco, we are our folks zero um it's enforcement. And so, if we have a violation, we know it's there. They don't say, "I'm going to give you a break today." We enforce it regardless of of the circumstance only because we're there for a reason. We're doing compliance checks. And so um we we recognize the focus on al flavor tobacco and and the under 21 and so next year you we'll make sure that we are very uh specific on what we're doing. >> Thank you. All right. Any anything else on the tobacco wise? Let's keep on moving. All right. We're moving on to cannabis. >> Cannabis. Right. So totally different animal. Um remember the city does not hold the licensing agency for this. So, we do not license cannabis. We are a retail registration. Um, and so that's way different uh in terms of what happens in enforcement. Um, but I I don't I'm not even that far, Paula. I'm I'm still on the getting them registered um process. So, we have um three out of five location requests. And I'm calling them I have really specific language in the in the staff report that we prepared because it's important that you understand first they have to find the location, right? And then they have to go to the state and say, "Hey, I found a location that's zoning compliant in the city. Then when it's zoning compliant in the city, now I can go tell the state of Minnesota I have a location." Then they come back to the city and then they get their permits and they get their um building permits to do whatever changes. And you think, well, how many changes could a cannabis make, right? But there are different things that they're doing and I don't want to talk necessarily about all of those, but think security measures, right? Um, and then once they have the construction completed and they have a certification that the construction's completed, they have their final inspection, then they go back to the state and now the license can be issued. And that's after I'm pointing to Susan because Susan's the processor of if they have their compliance. So, there's all kinds of different papers and and uh forms that we have to fill out for the state. So, just to tell you where these places are. So, Ember Roots at 12949 Ridgel Drive um has signed a lease and will be begin construction soon. I just looked today. They did actually pull their permits, so they have their permits in hand. Um then E uh Sig Dispensary at 14645 in Glen Lake, Excelsia Boulevard. That location has applied for construction permits and they will once they're complete, they'll move on to the state. And then the third location is 12970 Yeta Boulevard. If you can't remember where that is, it's um by Wendy's on the frontage road up there. There's a location that they have applied for city registration, but they haven't actually done their permitting at this point. So I say two >> really out of five, but three is on the on the edge. And it's important to make that point because we take first come first serve. So, basically, whoever is pulling those permits is considered a location um that is spoken for. Um what else was I going to tell you? Oh, I know. Uh just so you know, we we field questions about this every day. Um there's a log kept in the planning uh division that has who they spoke to, what location they spoke to, what the answer was. because we're dealing with um well, we're dealing with lots of different people that may or may not have understanding of the whole process. So, we want to make sure first that we knew who we told that information to and what we said. But secondly, so that if they're owners of a business or understand they want to understand more about why or why not their location was compliant, that we have the answer for them. Uh we did have a a little bit of a problem where somebody thought they were compliant and they were not because we're too close to park property which the city council said you have to be more than 500 ft from a youthoriented facility and so they were kind of misunderstanding that and we kind of didn't help the matter and so we cleared that up with them but so I can think of one that we haven't been able to accommodate because we're too close to a park property. So, that happened. Um, I don't know, Susan, anything else that you can think of on the cannabis side that we've dealt with? >> Uh, no, other than just to reiterate what you said, Julie, that the planners take at minimum two phone calls or emails a day um with people looking for locations and thus far only three have >> right that we've set out. So, >> right. So again, two more location probably will be in the future. So I'll leave it at that. >> On this I have a question. >> This is a huge investment before you even know you have a license. >> Correct. >> Is that right? >> That is true. >> I broke my own rule. Um >> so and people are really eager to do it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And we don't know how. >> Yeah. Go ahead. Susan wants >> um Minnitankka is doing things slightly different than some other cities in terms of that building permit requirement. And I think a a example is a a a business owner who's looking for a site in Minnotonka that actually thought they had secured a site in the city of Hopkins, but some folks secured this site previous to them. They have no intention of opening that site in the near future, but Hopkins allows someone to kind of hold a permit or a site. And so >> for a period of time >> for a period of time and we had decided early on that we only wanted to issue registrations to people who were actually >> constructing something quite frankly from my perspective so that um we know we're done when we get to five that we know that we're done that we're not continuing >> and it's not misleading to whoever is looking at more spaces. You know if there's a building permit in that registration's gone. So, it gives a little bit more predictability to the property owner and the person doing the business. The other way is you're kind of like hoping that you make it to the finish line before the other person, but there's no guarantee. And that to me is a little hard. Um, if I were in their shoes, I'd be a little apprehensive. That's actually worse, I think, in terms of exposure. >> Okay. So, last question, we can move on. Um, do we I mean does the state have it together? Are they are they granting the license this on this issue on specifically? >> Is it possible to get a license if you get through all this? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah, I do. Yeah, I think um they definitely have improved the communication about the process. I think the the materials they've given us as a local government have they're light years ahead of where it was. Um they are very good about their database information. We noticed this with THC providers too that they're providing all that information pretty much just in time as they approve things. So um there's not like a a big lag or anything in terms of finding out whether or not somebody has approval. So uh so far so good. I don't I don't notice anything outstanding as far as the state's concerned, but we haven't gotten to the end point with any of these people. So, we'll we'll come back to that. >> Okay. >> When you mentioned that you get phone calls for people that are looking for locations and so two questions. One is what are they asking and what kind of information are you giving? So, they are are they literally saying, "Hey, do you know exactly >> this address usually?" Yeah. >> If that's if that's available. >> They're giving us an address. They they most callers understand that in the city of Minnotonka, we're going to allow only five registrations. And they also understand the zoning districts. They're looking at a specific tenant space and asking us whether or not that tenant space meets our buffer requirements. And so we're doing um a lot of mapping um each day to see whether or not those tenant spaces >> um if someone calls and just says what does the city allow for cannabis retail, we send them a link to our ordinance and tell them to call back once they've reviewed that and >> and have a site >> and have a site in mind. >> Okay. You know, I don't I'm hesitant to because because >> um to talk about that specific >> place um because Glen Lake the Glen Lake place and it was 500 ft from a park >> and this park has never been used or it's not being used as a park but there was >> right it's like a fountain that >> I actually disagreed with that assessment. Okay. Yeah, >> they it's a splash pad and it's a water active >> right and the splash pad I mean my question is um is there any way because it does I mean based on that I mean I know that you disagree but >> it isn't it isn't in working order >> the splash pad >> right >> well there are some troubles with the the splash pad yes I would agree with that >> so I I mean I mean that's the piece where what what could we do? Well, I think what you could do as a council is see how many times is this issue cropping up? Like is it just unbearable that you cannot handle this 500 foot setback, right? So what happened in Glen Lake, it didn't like disqualify every strip mall in or any space I guess I would say in Glen Lake. It just was the space they were looking at. So it didn't qualify them on that particular site. There are other spaces in Glen Lake that would qualify with adequate buffer. So with the 500 feet. So if you're finding that this is kind of continuing to happen or you hear about it or you you think you want to get rid of it, you'd have to do a new ordinance amendment to take away that restriction you put on originally. So I think that's just one case. I don't know that I would make a a you know some kind of recommendation to remove it at this point because there might be other areas where you might want that protection. So this case might not be exactly what you were thinking about in your head, but there would be other examples maybe that you'd want that protection. I don't know. you'd have to think about. >> I mean, I know I remember at that meeting I I thought the same thing and but just as we're talking about it, how hard it is to get this. I just thought >> Yeah. Yeah, it is. >> Okay. Well, I think this is another one of those things a good thing that you have the log because that mean if we're seeing the same issue crop up with multiple locations or they're getting my concern of course was that they would all be concentrated at Ridgedale which was something you know if we're finding that they're really only one or two spots for it maybe as a council we re-evaluate but anything else on this otherwise let's keep moving we'll move on to zoning update. >> Bye. >> You want to go right to Julie on that? No, we're we're going to go right to turn over to Julie. She'll provide a zoning update. Um and then of course, Council Member Wilburn is on that committee and certainly could add to the conversation and so is now Mayor Shack and former mayor Brad Wen is still on the committee and you've had some activity lately and tonight it's just moreformational with the council. Uh we had prescribed this to come to you a few times throughout the year and so Julie's here to give an update. >> Right. Susan. >> Yeah, it is Susan. I the only thing I would say uh based on what Mike was saying, yeah, we um the committee makeup if you remember has changed a little bit but you guys approved that and and so we have some of the same members continuing on which is great. Uh Rebecca joined us last meeting so that was in January. I think we hopped online for a little while to kind of give an update. Uh, so I'll turn it over to you, Susie. >> And I will apologize to council member Wilburn and Maxwell because you've seen this presentation already at the um uh or we gave it at the January meeting and then I also gave the planning commission a little bit of an update. So, just going to recap where uh we've been, what we have done since last February was which is when we kicked this off and then a schedule for what is yet uh to be done. That's fine. So, um, in last February 2025, we did kick off the zoning update work. We had meetings with both the staff workg group, which is our 20 plus person um, development review team as well as with the community workg group. And at that meeting, um, Zone Co., our consultant, uh, they brought everyone up to speed on the diagnostic report that you had seen, uh, back in 2024. And then they also did some preference surveys, visual preference surveys, um, with folks on both of the work groups. Then in September is when we had a really indepth working format uh for these workg groupoups. We met a second time. We reviewed discussed and I'll say sometimes debated um potential zoning districts uh the land uses that should be allowed within those zoning districts and some specific lot uh standards within those districts. >> There's Oh, hi. Hi. Um, I think uh both of the work groups seem to have a it was a I think a good time. I think zoning is always a good time, but the work groups were a good time. >> Since September, then uh Zone Co. has been uh compiling and considering all of the feedback that they got out of those work group sessions. They've been drafting a new zoning map. Um they've been drafting language in three modules. And this is how the new zoning or the proposed draft will lay out. So there's this module one introductions of just what the zoning ordinance is and how it's going to work. Um the various districts and then the uses that would be allowed in those districts. Module two is the development standards. So this is where we get into um setbacks, heights, trees, landscaping, sustainability features, all of those things. That's in module two. And then module three is um kind of the boring stuff, the nonconformities, the administration and procedures, and then a glossery. As of Friday of last week, Julie and I have actually received draft module one and module two. Um it's it is in just a word format. It's not pretty. Uh it's 266 pages. Um we have not had an opportunity to review that language um since since last Friday. Um, we've then drafted uh between Julie and I, we've drafted a kind of of a timeline as we see this over the next um I guess eight months. It is now. Um, first here in March, we're providing you with this update and this timeline. In April, the staff workg groupoups will meet to review and discuss the draft language. Then in May, Zone Co is actually coming into town. They will be meeting with the staff and community workg groups to go through that draft language to have discussions um conversation debate uh perhaps and the workg groups will provide feedback. Uh zone co is considering putting together then a story board. I think all of you are familiar with the fabulous story boards that Julie's team has put together for other things that will help us explain kind of what the the draft ordinance says versus um the previous ordinance. Um in June then staff and by staff I mean Julie and I will create and post a series of kind of educational videos to get people on a a baseline. I think uh council member you brought this up at a previous study session. So, having some uh podcast type conversation about what is planning, what is zoning, why is it important, what's the comp plan, and how is that different than zoning, why is the city going through this process, why did you think that it was important, um what are some of the goals of the zoning update? So kind of to set the stage for that in July we will provide a summary of the draft ordinance to the council and we'll outline our public engagement activities that we've come up with. Um right now we're thinking of things like uh and and then the public engagement will take place throughout the rest of the summer and into the fall. Obviously, your typical Minnetonka memo, um, social media posts, tableabling at the farmers market, Ridgedale Mall, sports tournaments. Um, I was not part of the last comp plan update, but um, they did planning and pints at the local breweries, just being uh, where people are. We're thinking about doing some virtual planning hours, which would include daytime, nighttime, and weekend time where staff just has time. we're logged into a virtual meeting setting. People can pop in, they can ask questions, they can give feedback. We actually done that only once before, but it worked really well for the um Walor Kia project that was controversial that people had a lot of questions about. Um it just worked really well for people who couldn't or didn't want to come into city hall to talk with a planner. So, we're thinking about that. And then some videos just driving around town showing the diversity of what we already have and um asking people how they feel about those things. Throughout those months, there will continue to be editing done on the draft ordinances. So, I I don't want to imply that here's the draft and this is what we're going to work with. But, as we continue to get feedback um changes made, then at the October study session, we will plan to provide a final draft of the ordinance to the council as well as what we heard from the feedback for all of those public engagement activities. And then the end of the year comes and we have planning commission public hearings. We were thinking about two planning commission public hearings. Perhaps the council wants to be involved in one of those um first hearings. It's a joint hearing. Can talk more about that as uh we approach that. And then final council consideration. Obviously, this is kind of fluid, but these are the things that we're targeting for the next rest of the year, I guess. >> Then we'll write the comprehensive plan. >> Then we'll start on the comprehensive plan. I I should say following um if the council adopts an updated zoning ordinance of some kind, the next step will actually be a lot of again education. Um just as we did education to ground them in what is zoning now education and by them I mean residents, property owners, developers, planning commissioners um talking about okay now we have a new ordinance these are the things you need to know. So that is step that I just thought of right now. >> And that's all I have for my presentation. So, I turn it back to the mayor. >> Thank you, Susan. Um, good work. All right. Questions about where things are at here. >> I just >> Paty, go ahead. So, um I was just wondering if and I and this might be too big of a an ask, but you know when at the stage when you're doing a lot of the educational vid videos and stuff is that if there are big that if they're going to be changes like if that could be included um in terms of so that >> description >> so that people >> um because it just seems like before or the public engagement activities occur like during those during those is that possible >> like things to highlight is that what you're saying >> yeah like what what people are going to see and like what are the impacts of >> I think that's a a great idea and I think that part of that story board that we're hoping to put online is also to do that highlighting we want to have public engagement we had public engagement if you remember last summer and fall to really just get general feedback on what people like about Minnotonka, what they would be comfortable seeing changed, what they want to see changed. So, we did that public engagement last year and we've been holding off now because we want to be able to provide people something to engage with. >> And so, I think that um having that draft ordinance, having the storyboard, and having some of those those videos, I think that's a really good idea. >> Y try to help people understand what they should be paying attention to and why. >> Right. Yeah. right? >> They probably don't care about how many, >> you know, the width of the parking lot striping, but they might care about what's the minimum square footage of of a lot. What is the new >> Exactly. That's so those those >> those things that we know people are going to care about. >> Yeah. >> Anything else? Otherwise, I have one. Go ahead. Um just oh gosh I don't even like to even talk about this but um given the pending or potential state legislation is that changing our approach or anything that is >> I can't hear you Paul. So given the pending legislation, what's going on at the state, my all the text message I've been getting since we started this meeting. Um, is that we have the same question. >> How how is that impacting all of this >> or are we just going to kind of wait and see? >> Yeah, I'll start and then Julie will um >> add and and change or amend what I'm saying. >> I don't know yet. I think uh we have throughout the last year and the beginning of this year, we have told zone co about things that are percolating in the legislature. They work nationally. We're not the only, you know, state that things are percolating in. So, we keep them a breast of what's um what's being talked about. From my perspective, I I don't think that there's a reason to necessarily stop what we're doing right now as part of our review of the ordinance. I think that there's a lot of good good ordinance changes that could happen independent of the housing conversation that I think are worthwhile um continuing on. We did talk briefly about this earlier today and maybe it's as things move through the legislature as we have maybe a better I don't know I want to say understanding but um p we see the path maybe it's near the end of this timeline that we have to do a pause um I personally would hate for all the good work that we've started to just pause not not knowing what will happen at the legislature >> yeah the only thing I would add to what Susan said is there's There's different time frames attached to some of these ideas that they have like compliance by a certain date or whatever. And and let's just say they say 27 or 28. You can always go back and amend your let's just say there's a slew of changes that you want more time to to kind of digest and figure out how you're going to implement them. I can think of one particular one where I'm scratching my head a little bit how to implement some of this draft legislation. So, um you might need more time to digest it. So, you might adapt this and then go back uh and amend or if it's just in time and you have enough time to consider it, you could probably get it written into this. So, it just depends on timing, what the legislation is, how complicated it is to change in the ordinance, those sorts of things. And I don't think we know those answers yet. >> I think also, wouldn't you say that it depends on what the legislation is actually impacting? Is it impacting the comp plan where it says you have to have a certain amount of your city guided for X um density? That's a a comp plan situation and some zoning followup, >> but depending on when things happen, those are things we can talk about when we do the comp plan. So, >> and and the deadlines that they lay out in the legislation. So, >> question answered with it depends. Yeah, >> clear as mud. >> That's right. Right now. Yes. >> So, start thinking about who wants to volunteer to be on the comp plan. >> Yes. >> That recruitment starts today. >> Any anything else, council? >> Otherwise, we're cruising right along. >> Okay. >> All right. Excellent. We'll do a little shift in our >> presenters. >> Okay. We need a little >> move along to the um short-term rental >> research. Mike, are you going to start this or kick it off to Julie? >> Yeah, I can be Whoops. >> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I can be real brief. uh based on so with your 2026 study session work plan that was approved we had scheduled to bring this item forward and so staff been working on this report uh for some time for tonight's presentation and I think Julie will introduce the folks that are presenting here this night tonight mainly covering what was in the staff report just in terms of a kind of a comprehensive overview of short-term rentals um also want to note that there was an agenda so I don't I don't want to be remiss in mentioning that and so council member mainly had sent some information over to me to be distributed to the council. So I'd sent that out earlier today not realizing there was a revise after that and so um so so you got a follow-up email from me once I realized there was a follow-up to that and then um talking with the attorney just want to make sure it's part of the record so it is an an official agenda and so that's uh presented to you here this evening with that information I think even Mr. from Ay had also printed that out perhaps and have provided that as well. And so with that, I really kick it over to Julie and her team to start tonight's presentation. And then I think at the end of it, we're just looking for direction on next steps. >> Perfect. Yes. And we have a a slide to prompt you at the end to remind you. I think um I brought Alicia Gray, obviously housing and economic development manager. We also have Kendall uh Larson here who is the housing coordinator. and you've seen both of them before, but I just want to add there's also Susan, she's sitting back here now, but it's kind of us four who talk about these issues and try to get um try to get the information in a distillable form for you to all kind of digest and not too long of a staff report. Uh but we have been working on this for a while. It's been uh at least a couple of months of of homework. Um mostly Kendall, thank you Kendall for doing all of that. Um, but I think basically we want to tell you about what's happening in the world of short-term rentals as we know it in the nation and then distill it down to the state and then of course go local and try to tell you what's been going on in Minnetonka and hopefully at the end give you some choices as a council and then kind of give you our feedback as staff members as I'm sure uh we do with everything. So go for it Kendall and >> Perfect. Alicia and I might chime in here and there and we've kind of practiced those locations. So, go for it. >> Good. >> Uh to start out with um just giving a definition of what we use as a short-term rental. So, the city defines a short-term rental um as a property in which the owner rents all or a part of their home to guests for less than 30 days. Um, Mini, as you probably have seen all around, there's a bunch of different platforms that people use, but the most popular ones, um, are Homeay, Airbnb, and VB, VRBO, um, to rent out their properties. And as Julie mentioned, you know, communities across the country and locally um, have been researching and exploring regulatory um, options for short-term rentals. And so we will start first with uh looking at the national kind of conversation um and kind of looking at it from a really high level um nationally. And so there have there's a lot of conversations out there talking about short-term rentals in different parts of the country. Um and a lot of them specifically um are looking to address the impact on the housing market. That's one of the biggest topics. Um, and so research has shown that short-term rentals are prevalent in places that, you know, attract tourism, have high income earners, um, have high value properties, you know, a lot of places that are city centers and have really good transit uh, to move around. And, um, there are also, um, there's a lot of research that actually there's some research that was done by the Congressional, uh, research service. um to kind of help policy makers at the federal level um look at this topic. And so the big items that they noted in their research um was the impact on the housing prices. So really looking at um the converting of single family homes from either long-term rentals or owner properties into short-term rentals and and looking at that um the increase of the pricing in housing not just for the purchase of homes but also the impact that those um Airbnb and others have on rental prices as well. Um and then of course um looking at kind of the the supply question um and they in there that it it's really impacts locally. So, you have to look at a local market to see how short-term rentals might impact um a local market. Some local markets have a lot of supply, so it might not be as big of an issue in a community um who is on the opposite of that who may not have the supply. Um also an impact on the hotel industry. um that's where a lot of people um you know do weekend holidays, but Airbnb is now an option or short-term rentals are an another flexible alternative to staying in a hotel. So there is some um not necessarily concern but a an something to look at um in terms of policy at that federal level is is how that can impact um that competition can impact the hotel industry. And then of course looking at the impact on local tourism, uh the economic benefit behind um short-term rentals in supporting the tourism that that some uh communities see um and how that's beneficial. Um and then also it notes in in the research the um looking at the apps themselves that are used, the platforms um and looking at price transparency and online platform liability is are things that Congress has um considered taking action on whether they have or not. Um but those are just some policy federal policy level um items. Um, and then just briefly the kind of two items that I touched on before, but that economic benefit of short-term rentals, you know, the looking at the individual level, the property owner level um impact for them having additional revenue from a short-term rental. Um but also for communities having that benefit of you know if there's increased tourism or more people coming to their community staying in their community even for a short period of time that it is you know their spending in the community when they're there. So um on that economic benefit side there and then also of course you have to consider the impact on the housing market. Um and so looking specifically at those you know increased rent prices, the decrease in supply in local markets and then um the impact of just housing prices in general. So that is what we have been seeing. There's also of course regulations happening um across the country um different uh styles of regulation um from bans to um you know permits and licenses um and you know kind of everything in between. So um there's a variety out there which we will touch on in the local section. Um so looking at the kind of local conversations in the Twin Cities region um there are lots of communities that we that researched um that are taking steps to regulate short-term rentals um really looking to address community concerns about safety nuisance um and noise and traffic. Um and so one of the examples uh we point out here is Weisetta since it's our neighbor um that uh previous to their um approving an ordinance in September of 2025 uh they were toward the the least restrictive end. Um, you can see it on your screen is a graph that actually comes from a discussion in August of 2025 when they were uh discussing this and deciding what to do going forward. Um, and so it's just a good example of kind of looking at specifically the Lake Minnotonka area. Um, and there's a a a lot of different from most um restrictive to least restrictive. And so there's some that fall in between um the most restrictive and least restrictive. Um and so Wisetta as an example, they did a lot of research, a lot of community engagement um and they went forward with adopting an ordinance in September of 25 to prohibit um short-term rentals and then that would go into effect um in April of 26. So coming up here in a few months. Um Kendall, just something to um point out here before you get to your last bullet. So again, if you're if you're not catching this graphic and and there's a better you can blow it up a little bit better in your packet. So each city is identified in the colored area uh for what kind of regulation it has. So just just so in case you missed that or you couldn't see it because they are kind of small print. Um, just want to make sure you saw those cities are identified and I think is it 13 here? >> I don't know. We have something like 13 in that in that um analysis that Weisetta did. Sorry, you can jump to your last point. >> Yeah, my last point I'm actually tossing it over to Eric here. Um, but the that Weisetta and um Apple Valley and Bloomington um were all sued due to the bans on short-term rentals. So, don't know. >> Sure. just provide an update on the lawsuits. >> Yeah, >> sure. Um, so, uh, Apple Valley and Bloomington are both in a, uh, the lawsuits were consolidated, uh, into one. It's a federal court lawsuit, um, and it's an individual who purchased property with the intention of using them as short-term rentals, uh, actually after Bloomington has prohibited them. So, Bloomington has prohibited short-term rentals since 2015. uh and this individual bought property there then and is challenging the ordinance on a takings theory. Uh I I I don't think that's a terribly strong argument, but that case is pending. The case that's more pertinent to your consideration is the Weisetta case. Um that that's a situation where the city did, as Kendall noted, did allow for short-term rentals through a licensing regime prior to adopting a prohibition. uh they adopted their regulation in their rental licensing codes. Uh and that was very um key from their perspective. Um and I can address maybe a bit of of sort of the licensing versus zoning dynamic. Um they put an effective date of April 2026 intentionally because they're existing licenses which licenses are issued to a person or an operator and they um are subject to annual renewal. all of their existing licenses expire in March and so when the ordinance goes into effect those will have all expired. Um they were sued. Uh the the lawsuit is really in my mind going to get at the crux of regulation in this area which is the question of um licensing versus zoning when you're approaching the regulation of short-term rentals. So, just to just to back up real quick, and you I'm sure many of you already know this, but it bears repeating. Um, a light licensing regime, a business license in this case, is adopted pursuant to a city's police powers. Um, it's issued to a person. And so, that's why often when you have licenses that are issued for certain businesses, the highly regulated businesses, they're background checks of the operators, uh, criminal background checks and other things. um they're subject to annual renewal and then they can be suspended or revoked uh for bad behavior or poor management. Flip of that is a zoning regulation is a is adopted pursuant to the state law enabling authority in the municipal planning act. So the municipal planning act provides the enabling authority for all cities in the state to zone and plan. Um, and there's processes then that when you adopt something as a zoning ordinance, it has to go through a separate more involved process to adopt it. There's a required public hearing at the planning commission, for example. And then key is a zoning ordinance runs with the land. It's not issued to a person. It runs with the land. And so somebody who buys a piece of property that has zoning entitlements on it assumes those rights. Uh, as opposed to a license which is not transferable. So each new owner comes a new and has to apply and and be eligible on their own. Um and then with zoning two, you you have to recognize non-conforming rights. So in short, non-conforming rights are grandfathered rights and that's when a use is legally established under a regulatory regime. At some point in the past, the rules change and they're no longer would no longer qualify or be legal under current rules and the city has to recognize their right to continue. And there's certain there's limited exceptions, but essentially they can continue indefinitely um assuming they haven't discontinued the use or it's destroyed by natural peril and some other circumstances. So the Weisetta case is going the crux of that lawsuit is that Weisetta says we've adopted our short-term rentals as a business regulation. We're regulating this this this business. It's adopted in our licensing codes. We have the police power to do that. uh and so they didn't conduct a public hearing at the planning commission. They're not going to recognize the ex properties that are currently conducting short-term rental businesses, hence their effective date as well. Um and the flip of that is the plaintiffs are arguing that doesn't matter what you call it, your ordinance or where you say it's placed. This is a zoning ordinance. And they get into some of the definitional aspects of the municipal plan act. It's a zoning ordinance. you didn't follow the process to adopt it properly, you're going to have to recognize grandfathered rights. And alternatively, um the their argument is that you've effectuated a taking. And so >> what? >> A taking a regulatory taking. >> And so the city um needs to engage in a condemn condemnation process to compensate the property owners. Um that's going to be the that's that's boiling it all down. That's going to be the question. So the court's going to look at it's in district court right now. It's in front of Judge Klene, Henipin County District Court. They actually have dispositive motion hearing on Friday. It's March March 6th. The judge will have 90 days to issue a decision up to 90 days. So we could expect the decision later than maybe Memorial Day. Um and it's almost certain to be appealed regardless of which way it goes. But I think it would will give us some some really good guidance um at least some initial guidance on that notion of licensing versus zoning. And that's also why you see some of the the varied approaches there. You can see some of these that are a license clear licensing attempted licensing approach and some that are zoning and some that are kind of a combination of both. Um, so for example, uh, the the mound regulations, the red portion of the graph was sort of a combination of both, but it's in their zoning code. And so they're recognizing the existing short-term rentals. They've essentially grandfathered those in. That has its own policy considerations because by doing that, you're kind of effectively creating a monopoly situation. Um, so there are many things to think about there that depending on the the route you go and assuming it's a legally sustainable route ultimately, then they're going to be a lot of other considerations involved in sort of figuring out how you might go and creating that record as Kendall has talked about is is going to ultimately be the key for any defense, right? So it's doing your engage your community engagement, getting all perspectives and having all that information in the record, taking the time to do that. Um, Wisetta has got a really good record uh for their defense. They really did do a lot of engagement. Um, and so it's it it's it's complicated, but I do think this decision is going to be enlightening. So why you stew about what Eric just described because I think that that's the kind of end discussion like when you're going to have to talk about where you're headed with this um where you are as a a council in terms of where your consensus is about how to regulate. So sit on that for a minute while Kendall kind of just goes through a couple of different slides about um other things that she found in her research and then we'll get back to what Eric was talking about in a little bit. Perfect. So, still on this local conversations, you know, um looking at the lake communities as examples, you know, only kind of represents one part of Minnetonka's geography. Um and so looking at some of the other suburban communities as well that might um also reflect other parts of Minnotonka, there were a variety of regulations used um as you saw in the last slide and then also here in this in this graph um that you know the different types of regulations used from full-on prohibit um as um we just talked a little bit about um but prohibiting them but allowing existing you know all of those different things. Um allowing with a license, allowing but restricted to only homesteaded or own occupied. Um or allowing with a license but are restricted to very specific sections or very specific zones um in a city. Looking at getting even more local um to Minnotonka. Uh you can see on here that it's been uh short-term rentals have been a part of discussions for a while um in the city. Um, and there has been some additional research done um by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis put together a property tool um looking at investorowned properties and um they use data from uh non-homesteaded property data um and then it doesn't diff differentiate between short-term and long-term uh but to give a picture about kind of what the investorowned properties look like in Minnetonka um you You can see that Minnotonka out of I think about 8,000 18 um,000 nonhomesteaded properties that about 584 are considered investor owned. This takes into consideration not just single family home but condo and town home as well. >> 18,000 units. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. 18,000 units. >> Just making sure. >> Um, and that Yeah. So you can see it's a very small percentage about 3.2% of that share of those non-h homesteaded units that are investorowned in the city. Um looking specifically at our data um the using the rental registration there's around 25 short-term rentals registered with the city. Um most of them are owned by Minnesota residents. So, people living within the Twin Cities or even in Minnotonka or surrounding communities. Um, and then also just to point out that um when two properties did their annual renewal this year, uh, two that were previously short-term rentals renewed as long-term rentals. Um, and then we also used AirDNA data. AirDNA is is an analytical uh company that looks at, I believe, Airbnb and VBO. um to look at um what's kind of happening in communities and getting data on those short-term rentals. Um and so they indicated there's about 24 unique rentals in Minnotonka that um the average daily rate is about $46 per night um in for Minnetonka. Looking at the minimum stay for those 24 units, about 92% of stays last between two and six nights. So, um that quick stays. Um and then also that about 58% um occupancy rate. So, it's not they're not consistently rented out necessarily. Um but, um in addition, looking at the annual availability, just over half the units were available for more than 271 days. So, um a little over three quarters, I think, of the year. Um, and then looking at the distribution of the size of the homes, um, you can see by bedroom size, it's pretty proportional. Um, so it's not one way or the other dep for the size of the homes. >> Not a certain housing type. >> Yeah, not a certain housing type. It's kind of all over. Um, in addition, um, looking at some Airbnb reviews, just doing a quick search, looking through, um, their overall renters were very pleased with their experiences um, in Airbnbs in the community. Um, reviews commented on things like the cleanliness of the places, the good neighborhoods, the quiet neighborhoods, um, the the host hospitality. Um and then also a few um reviews also noted some of their reasons for staying. Um and so you can see things like people here for work trips um or for um stations um or just general vacation to the city um and also coming to visit family for holidays or different life events. Um, and so, you know, reviews can be an indicator sometimes when you're when you're looking through them of if there's problems in short-term rentals if they don't get good reviews, of course, and that impacts their ability to to rent out. Um, and so, yeah, >> or from the landlord, too. >> Or from the landlord, too, if >> Yeah. >> Um, and then switching looking at complaints and calls for service um for the properties um that are registered There weren't many as you can see here that about eight had police calls for service. Um we're looking at the time during when they were registered. Um and so that includes all types of incidences. That's not just disturbance related calls. It could be any call u that comes in. Um, and then >> like a medical >> like a medical a gas concern if they smell gas odor, if a you know a door was left open or or whatever it may be. Um, and then none of the properties had nuisance complaints submitted to the city um during the registered period. >> And I I neglected to put in the community survey results that you had last year as we ran out of time last week. So, we threw it in the slide just so you remember. We asked a bunch of I would call them nuisance related questions and you asked about your garbage can issue, your overnight parking. We we continue to watch this over time now that you've added it. Um and also the short-term rental issues. So, you're seeing uh how much community concern you have regarding these issues. So, we thought it was helpful as you look at tonight's materials that you have that overall citywide perspective as well. >> Thanks. >> Of course. >> Um, and then looking at kind of what the options are um that the first one here is to continue to monitor through the rental registry program um and to review annually um at our annual housing study session. Um, you could regulate through zoning, um, regulate through licensing, um, or prohibit entirely. So, those are kind of the the options. Um, and then just staff's analysis and conclusion. Um, there's pros and cons, of course. Um, you know, the pros looking really at for owners that economic benefit um of renting out their home um or you know, having another option if they have to leave the community but they're going to return back later or whatever it may be. There's that economic benefit for owners, for renters. There's a variety of reasons as I have already uh pointed on in a few slides ago. um having an alternative to a hotel, you know, if they need a bigger place to host family for a holiday, um needing a kitchen or just somewhere closer to relatives that there might not be other options. Um or maybe they just want to have a place that feels like home. Um and then of course there are economic benefits to communities as I mentioned, you know, that tourism aspect and and spending in community. The cons looking that short-term renters um can sometimes be viewed as bringing more people to a property than there might be um previously causing some differences in the surrounding area. Um the lack of owner occupied property um can be viewed negatively as an owner may not be aware of proper of issues happening at a property. Um and again looking at that impact um on the housing market and rental prices dependent on the local market and and trying to understand what that looks like. Um and then of course our analysis uh found that short-term rentals, you know, do represent a relatively small share of the housing um in in the city and may not rise to the level of specific regulation. We haven't there haven't been a lot of significant calls or nuisance complaints. Um and the complaints that um we would get um could be addressed by existing ordinances or regulations. Um we're tracking them through the rental registration program now. Um and uh that it offers a variety of lodging options that might not be be available around. with that. >> So, at this point, mayor, we want a couple of things maybe to help you with your discussion. Um, you know, maybe trying to identify your main concerns. What exactly are you trying to address with whatever ordinance or or regulation that you want? Um, and then truly is there a consensus from you all to regulate? because the discussions over the past I'm going to say back to 2017 and we were reflecting on why was 2017 important. It was when the Super Bowl was here and there were a lot of short-term rentals happening at that time and then um I think that was the final four here too. >> Final four 2019. >> Yeah. So that there continued to be kind of these events that were causing some of that conversation. So that was what was happening back then. But >> what was that? >> The writer cup. >> The writer cup. Yeah. Right. So, there were lots of big things that were drawing tourists to our region and I think that's where the council was talking about it. They never could quite get to consensus though. So, I think that's from a staff perspective, it's never been like we're going to do this. So, I think we need to kind of if you're ready to move ahead, then we need consensus on how to regulate uh the short-term rental because what will happen when you answer that second question, we can kind of tell you what the forward-looking time frame looks like. So, depending on what kind of regulation want, we'll dictate the time frame in which we think we can uh address it. And then if regulations are pursued then maybe just talk a little bit about your expectations as a council about how much engagement we know what we do on other ordinances uh that we propose uh we often do manita matters and we do direct mailings to people who are impacted that sort of thing. So just talk about that. So I don't want to be too um you know directive but those are the questions we had prepared. >> Oh that's helpful. Okay, let's first start with council. Any questions? Um, well, first of all, Kendall, thank you very much. Obviously, a lot of work went into this and so really appreciate it. I think you found it useful. Um, council questions, >> Eric? Yeah, I do. >> Go ahead, Paul. >> Eric, um, regarding, uh, the lawsuit, >> so Weisetta has a blanket prohibition, correct? They don't have a non-ownero occupied, you know, exe um, exemption, right? Correct. >> Okay. >> Yep. And just in your opinion, does that make a difference in terms of standing and the anticipated, you know, kind of legal action that one could expect? because there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven um other city, seven cities on Lake Minnetonka that ban outright versus four who that or three that um ban except for three and a half that ban except for homesteaded owner occupied properties. So is there a difference? >> Sure. >> Yeah. And that's sort of >> I'm trying to remember the there's there's a whole bunch of plaintiffs in the Why is that a lawsuit and I think most of them are out of state owners. >> Yep. >> Um and so >> what did you say? >> They're out of state owners. Um there are some that are in state or maybe even >> but not in Moetta. >> Not in Moetta. Yeah. Um, so, so yes, and and I think I think we can fairly confidently say if it's just a flat prohibition, no recognition of any existing rights, you you will likely get sued. I mean, that's pretty fair to say that's been the landscape of what we've seen. Uh, and so a rate something less than that, of course, it's not a guarantee that you won't. It's going to depend on how you craft it uh very carefully who the plaintiffs are and what their current property interests or rights are um and then what they might not have uh after the application of the ordinance would likely dictate you know how how we would be standing but but something less than outright prohibition. Sure that you're >> because Bloomington and Alpha Valley both also have outright prohibition is my understanding. Correct. >> Correct. Correct. >> Okay. And those are the three that have had litigation. >> Correct. and and and there is a again the Bloomington and Apple Valley lawsuit there is also that is also approaching an oral argument date I can't remember what it is >> uh so so it very much as I think as the slide said pending and then and then of course why is that a they'll be arguing on Friday >> right so I just wanted to clarify that those are all with blanket prohibition >> correct >> okay thank you that was one question I can wait until >> so Deb you have a question >> yeah I have a maybe a couple so one is what when we think of investor investorowned is that always like some what does that mean exactly? Because I I remember years ago, you know, people uh upset about like reverse mortgage like bankowned >> bankowned properties, >> right? Uh, and so I'm just what does that mean? >> So the Federal Reserve on their nice tool and you can actually ask it different questions. So there's actually a um drill down if you want to look at just town homes or you just want to look at single family or whatever. And then it also how many homes they own, it's more than you can look at just bankowned. You can look at two properties they own up to a hundred. So and anywhere in between. So, it lets you kind of choose the I think the point we were trying to make in the report. Um, and we've looked at this before. We've talked about this when you had your housing study. I think we showed you this tool last time. If you think about all the issues facing Minnetonka is invest your own, you know, one of the higher issues or is it probably not as strong as it is in other locations? It's not as strong here and we can tell that by comparing communities. So on that map, the darker the area, the more often people are doing investor owned properties. So um so we look at that in the short-term rental arena because you want to look are they buying up all these houses for this purpose and we just don't see that. And we we don't see it because we're not seeing the same geography and we're also not seeing the same type of housing being picked up. So if you I mean and we went through every single address of of where these places are. So um you just don't see that phenomena happening. I think a lot of people are talking about it and it's all over the region. But and there are areas of the Twin Cities this is happening. It's just not happening here. >> But for the purposes of this to clarify I think what Deb's asking which is an investor could be a couple got married. They each had a house and now they're they've converted one of their houses to a short-term rental and it's non I mean for the purposes of this tool this would be >> you'd have to own two properties that way not just one in addition to your home you have to have two in that entity >> yeah and do you miss because people do lots of LLC's sure that but what you're trying to do is get a gut right with this tool it's not foolproof >> you have another question >> yeah I do So, you know, uh, Paula, I think, has been sort of spearheading the discussion because I'm sure you're hearing from people and it's and so one of the things that I've been thinking about is I think it it's clearly more of an issue in, you know, lakeside or, you know, near certain kinds of amenities than others. And um I think one thing that would be so it's more of an issue in maybe part of ward >> three >> three much more so than in ward one say. So, um, and so I'm just I'm sort of wondering about well, I'm sort of wondering like >> when when if we're thinking about zoning or trying to get at the root of sort of being surgical in our approach in Minnetonka, is there a way to do that because it it will so disproportionately affect this sliver of the city and maybe other, you know, we have other lakes in Minnetonka with with lakeside property. So I also a small proportion. >> So So Deb, your question is, is there a way to be more prescriptive about how we're doing this? >> Yeah. Like is there a way to think about Yeah. I mean, is there a way to think about it to sort of get at the parts of the city that would be disproportionately affected and maybe minimize the possibility of litigation because >> okay, >> yeah, the the only thing I would offer and and you know, we've kind of gone through the the mapping of all of this, so >> I think that's that might be the thought. So less than 100 lakeshore Minnitonka lakeshore properties is >> doesn't count gated access. >> We're gonna one person's going to talk at a time. Okay. >> Yeah. So my point is if you look at all of the lakeshore property like one right on the lake. Okay. Out of 25. You look at near the lake you pick up a couple of more. If you look at Minnetonka in general, it it truly I'm looking at the map right now. >> It's it's very spread out. And so if your question is can it be surgical like one geography of the city, you aren't going to pick up all of what what short-term rentals are in Minnetonka. 25 are not all on the lake. So I think that's the impression maybe some people have, but that's not actually what has happened. Are there a little >> a grouping of them? Yes. but not on the lake. There's one on the lake. So, Eric, >> sure. Uh Deb, I I might just reference and piggybacking on what um Julie said there there's a so all again if if you're thinking about this from a zoning perspective, which if you're talking about sort of geographic tailoring is zoning. >> Um there's a provision at the very beginning of the municipal planning act which provides that essentially you have to in order to when you're talking about uses and regulating uses from a zoning perspective, you have to do it uniformly. So if you have a particular zoning district with a particular type of use, that use needs to be treated the same wherever it's located in the city. So it really kind of limits your ability to tailor >> based on geography from a zoning perspective. >> Um, you know, there's there's a part of me when I look at the legal arguments, I I still think of this as a as more of a business regulation, the Wisetta sort of defense. >> Yeah. >> Um that it's more of a rental licensing >> uh type of approach that you're really doing. Um um so but but the idea of geographic tailoring is difficult there too, right? >> U because you have to you know you're gonna have to tr treat all applicants that are similarly situated the same um or else you get into sort of equal protection arguments and some of those things. So it's tough to to do that. >> So Becca that that just brought up one other question. So, thinking about licensing in in our materials, um, you know, it talked about cities that have licensing. Licensing is was one thing, permitting was another, and we're not a city that does rental to licensing yet anyway. And, um, I just wondered if you could talk a little bit about, you know, if we're going like is I don't I don't know the nuance like between permitting and licensing but >> what do what would that require? I mean would we have to like launch the rental licensing then? And right, >> you know, oi oi, right, mayor, if I may, go ahead. >> Um, the I think we talked about this as a group um while we were preparing for today. You could probably figure out a way to subcategorize short-term rentals. Eric was in this discussion when we talked about it where you just license short-term rentals and don't do the whole rental scheme. And I actually that is what held the council back in 2019 when they talked about it. Um because they were talking about short-term rentals then and in 2019 they said yeah we're not ready to do rental licensing in general so we're just not even ready to cover short-term rentals. So that kind of was the same discussion. I think, and again with Eric's nodding, I think we could write a subset of licensing just to license short-term rentals and then it would be a smaller program obviously just for 25 or how many ever were available at that time. So, okay, other questions? I have a question if we did that. I mean, I'm thinking about the cannabis licensing, right? Like Theoretically, we could say we've got 30 short-term rental license available. >> Yeah, you do that a lot. Yeah. >> Or, you know, there's eight per ward available. We could do something like that. I mean, is that something that's a possibility? >> Well, let me tell them the the history and then you you answer the question. So, the history is you've done it with liquor. >> You know, you say up to 12 um liquor stores. You've done it with tobacco. You say whatever's available. Right now we're down to five exclusive tobacco stores. So you've had that policy for some time. Uh and then obviously with cannabis, but that that was a state law, so that was different. But go ahead. Sorry. >> Um yeah, Merritt, I think that is one of those middle ground approaches if you're looking at something in between the polls of, you know, allowing registering but just allowing and monitoring versus an outright prohibition. that's one, you know, something in between and you could do a cap. Um, in some of the more some of the other industries mentioned, typically those caps are also buff buffered by spacing requirements of some sort. So, it does sort of set up the map once once they start operating. Right. >> Right. So, they're not concentrated. >> Right. Right. So, you need to, you know, you need a rational basis for your cap and how it applies, but that could be something. >> So, in Still Water, they do a cap of 50 outside the CBD. Got it. >> All right. Let's go back to the questions then that you have queued up for us. So the first one is what what are the main concerns regarding short-term rentals. So I Paula, do you want to >> Yeah, I do. >> Thank you. >> Um so the main concerns is that we looking at the chart which is a little bit more readable I think than what was presented in the staff report. Uh again, we in Mitaka Beach are the only communities around Lake Minnotonka that do not regulate um and do not regulate short-term rentals at all. Um while it's a small percentage of Minnetonka, yet we have more um lakeshore properties that this can uh potentially impact than Minnetonka Beach, then Excelsier, than Spring Park, then Weisetta, then Greenwood, um then Woodland. We have almost as many as you know just by a I'm not saying it was a pinpoint count but you know going through and and looking at the satellite imagery have almost as many as deep haven we don't have as many as mound we don't have as many as Orno and we don't have as many as Tonka Bay we probably have less about half as what those Tonka Bay and and uh Mound and a lot less than uh Orno. So, you know, this is something that, you know, does impact at my count 140 um lakeshore properties or have access to lake like they might be right across the street and they have a dock and that doesn't include all of the deed access um docks which is that you know there's a dock and there maybe 10 or 12 slips. They the houses for that are across the street or just up you know a couple houses away. And so those are all of the properties that you know could be impacted. Now we know that there's not a lot of corporate rentals right now. Um but corporate means more than two. So that could be like the guy who just bought the house next door to me who owns M Minnesota hot tubs. He may not own many more than one. But since so he's not considered corporate. He lives in Mound. He can't do short-term rentals in Mound. And so he came and bought in Minnotonka because they're not regulated here. And you know, as more and more, yes, there's, you know, other places have less shoreline. We only have 3% of of shoreline, but we are very dense in what we have compared to other communities. So 140 in the amount of shoreline that we have, and that includes Libs Lake, by the way, which um has direct access to Lake Minnetonka as well. So all you do is go through a narrow channel from Libs Lake. So that's really considered Lake Minnetonka by most people who live here. Um so you know it does impact a lot of people and a lot of those houses are older. Um they're 1500 square foot like mine um that are getting sold like my neighbors like you know people you know and they're getting um bought up. If not now, this may not be a concern right now, but it could be a concern in the future. And if we want to avoid a situation like Weisetta or other places where you know we say you know this this conversation where we you know grandfather in or something like that then we are opening ourselves up to that situation if we don't regulate now and be proactive and forward thinking about this for those residents you know like like me and and talking about you know complaints I had drunken teenager just next door to me all summer. Did I call the police every time? No, because there wasn't going to be something that could be done. I've talked to other neighbors who have had the same thing. And so they don't call the police. How I mean, you don't because it's just a party. What's going to get done? Nothing ever gets done. So that doesn't mean it doesn't impact your quality of life. My husband had to save a life of one of these kids who passed out in the lake um over the summer. So, you know, it does impact u people's quality of life. Um, and so looking at the other uh communities that do this. Um, we have non-lakeside communities, Edina, Egan, Bloomington, Apple Valley, St. Louis Park. Um, you know, all banan outright. Prior Lake bans um less than 60 days. As uh was said, Still Water allows a maximum of 50 STRs outside the central business district and requires a license. Um you know, others, you know, do allow but requires license. There's very few, if any, that don't have any regulation at all. Um and I think you know some of the studies and research beyond um the 2025 uh congressional report which is 2025 congressional staff research report which sorry I don't mean to uh throw shadows on the current administration and their researchers but um there may be skewed divisions in that um you know I've presented and and shared with you all um studies from respected um journals and academic resources from the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy that notes the impact on you know housing availability um you know others by an author who is one of the leading experts in short-term rentals and how they um affect communities. the Mid America Regional Council um you know that states that the increasing body of evidence that this is an issue and it's becoming a greater issue. the Journal of Urban Economics um you know also discussing this as a as an issue of negative impact. The Urban Institute um we're talking about um the impact on having disperate negative aspects on renters and people of color and lower income uh residents. And then Granicus, our own Granicus. Um, and this is by one of the the AICPs, uh, you know, one of the leading AICPs who's a urban planner and designer, one of North America's leading authorities on short-term rentals and how they impact communities. Um, he's written extensively on best practices for cities and the author of an article in the New York Times and Planning Magazine. and he argues for establishing primary residency as a requirement as the most direct tool that can be used to address housing issues. Um and you know I I summarize why in here and that was the original intent of um Airbnb and Verbbo is for home sharing not investor um rentals. And so, you know, I just I would point this out as considerations to help frame our discussion. And, you know, the considerations are that it does impact us. Is it a huge impact? No. But, you know, we're looking at all impacts and and and it does, you know, disproportionately impact lower income renters, people of color. Um, you know, again, corporateowned does not mean non-investorowned properties. Um, going back to, you know, anything over two is corporate. That means, you know, people who do have who live in Mound or who live in, you know, Minneapolis and then have their short-term rentals here, they're still absent. They're absentee landlords. um you know the community and character and quality of life when we have you know no we don't have a lot right now but this could become an issue in the future and it is impacting quality of life for some people especially those in or near the lake which is our tourist destination um you know lawsuits again you know it looks like if there's some compromise and middle ground from here we can u minimize the risk of that um and I think in a 2017 memo was, you know, concerned about staff times and comparing to Duth which currently has 700 units. Paul, >> I'm going to ask you to wrap it up then so some other folks can weigh in. >> Yep. Well, I think it's important to kind of get this uh perspective out there and I think the most important um factor is is that we discussed this in July 2025. I provided a link or a um time marker for audio at which point we did um provide direction and come to consensus that there was you know Mayor Wome did basically direct um us to go forward and uh to look at you know an ordinance in Q1 of 2026. And the same main question seem to be whether that would be a outright ban or if it would be something like Excelsier and Orino and other communities are doing. So you know those are the things that I would like to um ask council to consider as we as we move forward in this discussion. >> Kimmy, >> I was going to say um I do have some concerns um about the short-term rentals. We We're talking about investors coming in. Um I know that you said we don't have a big problem right now. It's a small problem, but as we start to think about um the incentive program to have elders sell their homes and um try to get younger people to come in to purchase homes. I just thinking forward um that may be a time where now we're going to start having folks that can afford those home come in and swoop them up really fast and purchase them. and then maybe use them for short-term rentals. And so I think about that unless we put something in place to prevent that. But also um you know I don't like the fact that we talked about the regula the regulation of um there's something that I think Paula had said or someone had said earlier about um kind of slipp my mind. It slipped my mind but um I know in other cities like Minneapolis is one of those cities where there was a lot of investors who came in and purchased up a lot of property um and it made it really hard for people to rent um because of their um regulation. Matter of fact, my mom rented I help my mom navigate two different ones. I know invitation homes was one and then there was another one. And I know that we don't have that problem here right now, but I do think about um like I said when we start trying to put those in incentives in place. So that's one thing I think about and And I mean, far as the disparity piece, um, you know, far as low income affordable housing, we have that already. And so, I don't know if the short-term rental tool will make it harder um for people that's lower income to purchase home because I mean, we're having that problem already. So, I don't think that would impact that. But, um, yeah, I don't I don't know. But, I do I do have that concern. Um but if I I did I would probably lean more towards um you know owner occupied short-term you know rental. If I had to make a decision I probably would prefer that if we're going to do short-term rental it would be owner occupied. Um because I feel like I think about this landlord that lives in Minnitonka who owns homes in Minneapolis and she owns a lot of homes in Minneapolis but she lived in Maton because I went to her house and she was she just wasn't a good landlord. But I told you my daughter had the sewer and we had to go through this court stuff and she won her case, but she owns a lot of property and she didn't care about the property in Minneapolis. She did not. But her place out here in Minnetonka is really nice. And I think about stuff like that. And I don't know if she did shortterm, but I know she did long-term rental. And so I know when people come from other cities and they purchase property in your city and they're not here, they're not in the city. I can see how that happened because I've seen it happen. I played I saw saw how it played out in Minneapolis. So that that is a concern for me too. De >> Yeah, I mean I I sort of agree. I mean I do have some concerns about preservation of natural naturally occurring affordable housing which I think a lot of the time that might be, you know, sort of the way um people might go. Um and just housing in general. Um I mean, we're struggling as it is to uh house our residents. So, that's one concern. And I also agree that um I mean, personally, I'd be perfectly fine banning short-term rentals. I I in Minnetonka, but if we were to have short-term rentals, I would also lean towards owner occupied. Um, and I would want to sort of further stipulate that they would be there when the guests were there, not just that they're there most of the year, which technically means their owner occupied, but that they are there when they're when the guests are there. Um, I agree that, um, when you have rentals of people that actually live there and live in the community, um, things tend to, um, maintain, uh, just better standards. Um, and in terms of public engagement, um, you know, I think the the survey showed that it's it is not high on people's radar. Um, I think in ter in terms of public engagement, I think we'd at least want to reach out to the people that we know are already engaged in short-term rentals and get their feedback on it. Um, and uh, I think it's probably prudent to do some kind of regulation. I don't know that I would just not pursue it. And um I do recall the meeting um with Mayor Wearsome and um I think there's wisdom in getting ahead of it before it does become an issue. I think sometimes things catch up with us and they're a surprise. And I I'm I we're so famous for being planful. This would be a good place to be planful. What do we What are our thoughts over here? Anybody want to weigh in? >> Um, Kimberly, >> yeah, I don't know that I have much to add to I I pretty much agree with what Kizzy and De are saying that I would lean toward more towards owner occupied or some cities that said like the owner either has to be in the house or living next door. So, like I would the owner's there. Um, so in in proximity um um yeah, I I don't I don't have much else to add. >> I would just Okay, >> yeah, I'll I'll go. Um I agree that absentee landlords are a concern for shortterm and for long-term rentals overall. We have a long-term rental in our neighborhood that has continuously been a problem for the last uh several years. Um I also have stayed in a short-term rental in Minnotonka and this was for a station with some friends. We wanted to get away from our spouses and our kids and I'm nerdy and a rule follower so we played board games and watched movies and were not passed out in the lake. Um, but I found that kind of setting very important and it's what kept me in Minnetonka instead of taking my station somewhere else. And I do see there being value in having some short-term rentals in the city. We could not have gotten what we wanted at a hotel. Um, and we didn't need a big um, you know, a giant house or like a big, you know, uh, game like a room at a library or something. we needed a place where we could be in our pajamas for for a weekend. Um, and I I disagree with having to some sort of requirement for having the owner stay nearby or be in the place because again for our purpose, we wanted privacy. We wanted to get away. I could also see if we had um if we required homestead there being uh owners who say live in Arizona or Florida in the winter who want to have short-term rentals in their space. They care about their space. they're going to come back there, they will take care of it. Um, but they are not going to be here during a short-term rental. And I think we need to allow for that type of use um of properties where we have um respectful uh owners. So, for that reason, I'd say I um I wouldn't mind regulating. I would if we went that way I would prefer to have um homesteaded properties be um be included and for public engagement um I think we would need to say have something on the Minnitonka matters for example and then engage with people who have done short-term rentals and if we could find a way to find people who have stayed in short-term rentals in the city and see sort of what are their thoughts I think that would be helpful as well >> and I'm gonna I'll weigh in here my I think we're conflating a couple issues So, I don't I don't feel very strongly about any of this because I I think it's not a current problem, but I understand the concern. It's not a major problem. It is a problem that should be addressed, and whether that's through nuisance or through this, I'm I'm happy to consider it. Um, but I don't think if the issue is short-term rentals on lakes, that is not impacting our affordability. Like, those are two separate things. And I think we at least should be intellectually honest about that conversation is that, you know, are we doing this because we want to protect the Blake properties, which is a reason, which is a valid reason. Are we doing it because we want to protect home values? Um, which is a different reason. Uh, because I think the issue is more so investors buying affordable housing for long-term rentals. I think that's a different problem that we have that we should be we've been thinking about. >> Um I feel pretty strongly I've you know I mentioned this I relisted to the meeting and when we did home renovations over the summer we should have moved into a short-term rental while that happened. We didn't. I have family members who had did have done that. You want to stay in the community. You have some obligations if you're me to stay in the community for that purpose. and were really inferred some of the reasons that um Amanda suggested that's not nec I I was comfortable with the idea of 30 days. I I liked that. I like that people. >> Um I can un also understand this issue of good people are coming to our community, you know, quiet people who want to stay in our community to rent. And so I feel a little bit about that, but you know, it that would sort itself out at some point, I guess. Um, I would be more, but I it sounds like the council's going in a different direction and I can get behind that, but I would be more interested in maybe putting some limits in place with some geographical considerations that would protect us on the side and that would be a lure, right? And then that would protect us on the side of um lawsuits from existing short-term rental owners. That's my impression. I get I could get on board with that. And I also liked your idea about maybe putting a cap on how many, >> right? >> And so I I thought that was really >> Yeah, I think a cap. And then and then the last thing is I you know I I think there's some traps in the owner occupi. I mean certainly if you're looking at somebody who's moving who's a corporate rental or somebody's here for a couple months or they're renovating their house or whatever they need to rent a space they're not going to do it with a owner present. Um I I get the idea if there's some owner tied to it. I don't know how we manage that. Right. That seems like it, you know, other than it not being homesteaded, it being homesteaded as a requirement, which wouldn't hit on if somebody is a snowbird, tell you what, they're a resident of Florida and their homestead is in Florida or Arizona. It is not in Minnesota. So, that would be that would be a problem. Um, so I think we have and then the last thing I will say is, you know, if we're going to do robust public engagement about garbage cans, I think we have to do robust public engagement about this. I mean, >> um, so I would like to see that what wherever we land on this that we take an opportunity because that will help us on the litigation side as well. >> Yep. >> Um, yeah. So um so those are my thoughts. I I want to get to something that staff can do something with. So Paula, one more comment and then let's see if we can coales on >> some direction here. >> Yeah. Um thanks. I appreciate that. I just needed to I wanted to you know take a little bit of issue about um intellectual honesty because I think um when you have you know properties that you know are run down and derelict whether they're on the lake or across the lake it it the trickle down effects do affect all properties um and and so they'll drive up rents um often across the board. Now is that effect large? No. It's not intellectually dishonest to say that it's not connected. Um the second thing is that um we my understanding from Eric that there would be less of an issue legally a risk to have an owner occupied and when I say owner occupied homesteaded not that they would actually be in the property while the short-term rental happens but that um they would be homesteaded. Now maybe they they might be in Florida five months a year, but they have neighbors. I have neighbors next to me who are in Florida 5 months a year, but they're still invested. We have a relationship, so they care about their neighbors. That's not the same usually with absentee people who are nonhomesteaded. So that is my concern. Um, so those are the, you know, I think most of the council will seem to be interested in doing the not the outright ban, which, you know, I'm I respect um, and we're interested in that uh, intermediate, which seems to be the less legally risky position, which would be to have that owner rather than try to do the lensure, which has gotten um, you know, why into trouble. So that's what my final comment on that and the fact that we did, >> you know, kind of go over this back in July. >> Okay. Um Julie, go ahead. >> No, I was trying to see if I could synthesize maybe >> somewhat of a direction. I'm not sure. I think I heard I didn't hear some support. Not all of you supported a ban. Can I check that off the list? >> We're not doing banan. >> Okay. >> Okay. I heard some people say owner occupied. I heard some people say homestead. I heard some people I mean that was all over the board. So I'm gonna throw some out here and then see if you like it. >> Homestead. >> Homestead. >> Homestead. >> Homestead. So, a homestead though, my one concern with that is I've got some friends who they are in Florida 6 months in one day, right? And that home is not homestead >> and they're in Minnesota 5 months and 29 days and they got their little app and they track it. I mean, it's all very Yeah, I have a friend like that, too. So, >> for those Florida residents who are like snowbirds, but they're not homesteading back here in Minnesota, are you concerned about that? Well, I mean that >> not sure yet. I'm gonna put >> I don't know why don't I put not sure yet. Okay. So, we'll put this on >> we'll we'll talk about drafting and how to draft it and then >> Oh, hold on for a second. >> Yeah. Do you have an ordinance in >> Yeah, just hold on. I know what you're going to say about the ADUs and stuff. Yeah, I know. I know. Susan and I have worked together for 20 years. I know what she's going to say. Yeah. So, basically on an ADU, you got to own you got to have owner on one side of it. But that's not the case with a single family home, right? You don't have that situation. But I take your point. Thank you, Susan. Okay. So, homestead, I'm going to put a question mark. We're not sure. We're not totally >> one, two, three. We didn't pull the rest of the council. >> I'm just saying it's an issue that doesn't seem total totally >> resolved. You're right about that. You're right about that, Julie. >> So, I'll just put a question mark by it and we'll we'll we'll draft it one way and then if you don't like it how it's drafted, we can change it, right? >> Okay. Then, did somebody said m Well, a couple of you said max number. So, I don't know how many people said max number. >> Me and Rebecca. I think >> I agree with the max owned. Okay, >> I got a max number and then I'm going to put geography. I have to think about that cuz I just don't know the answer to how to solve for that. And so that's going to take inquiring minds to try to address geography. Okay, >> fair enough. >> So I'm going to put question mark there. But max number, yes, there seems to be a majority. Then um license or zoning that seems to be a >> license or zoning. >> Zoning people are kind of or some combo thereof. Mound like right mound has the combo platter. Go ahead. >> Might I mention on that the licensing and zoning question we will get some initial answer from the courts early June late May about that. And so it may not matter whether we call it one thing or the other. The courts may say if it functions like this, if it's drafted like this, if it regulates what we say is a use, not a business license, it's a zoning ordinance. >> So I think >> and then you have to recognize grandfathered rights. So maybe that goes to timeline. >> So maybe where we can have Eric kind of >> Yeah, we need uh I think we just need a legal opinion on this. Maybe the license versus zoning, right? Okay. So we'll get some legal advice on that. TBD. Okay. Then on did I forget any of the major areas? I'm looking at you, Eric, that we talked about anything in terms of the regulation. Otherwise, I'll move on to time frame. >> Huh? >> Well, I think that depends on what Eric says. Yeah. Okay. So, Eric, if we go that route, we're we're getting advice from you. Um it's it's a month month and a half to kind of get a draft ordinance for people. This is how we usually do it. We draft the ordinance. We post it on Minnotonka Matters. We invite people like the short-term renter owners to a meeting and then anybody else who wants to talk to us about short-term. We just do this online engagement and then we figure out how many people we've got concern. Then we come to you, we introduce the ordinance and we tell you what people are saying at that point. then you tell us if you want us to change the ordinance and then we'll come back and bring that ordinance to you. Now, it if that gets really heated, right, if people are really upset on either side of this that you're you are regulating or not regulating regulating it enough, um that can take longer, right? Because then you might want to make more changes. So, um at least a month to a month and a half to kind of get a draft ready, put it out for public consumption. So that's two months, three probably two and a half months of kind of prep work. That's in my head. And then when you get to a decision, that's up to you how many changes you make and how that the rest of the process goes. So that's my best guess right now. And I can be more as we get more information, I can be more distinct about what dates and what meeting dates. That make any sense? >> I don't know. Mike, how do I do? I think so. >> Okay. >> Fading. >> Okay. Sounds good. >> All right. >> Do we feel like we have plan? >> Feel like we've got a plan. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> So, so timeline, Julie, we are we're 3 to five months out. >> Yeah. Before you have an adopted and and that is not going to take care of possibly, and we'll get this in the legal, we'll address these grandfather situations, these 25 that exist today. And whatever scenario we come up with in the ordinance will tell you what could happen with those either grandfathering or no grand >> what our exposure is on those. >> Right. Okay. >> Can I ask a question? When you say you're going to put a number on how many um >> a max number you going to determine that? >> I don't know. I don't know. Busy. You got an idea? >> We're gonna have to figure >> I mean we'll propose something to you but I don't know like tonight I don't have a number in my head. >> It's just going to be one of the options, >> right? You don't have to I mean like say I come with max 50 and you go that's a crazy number and then you say no I'm comfortable with 20 >> or we don't have to have any max. We could do the homestead. >> You could you could >> Yeah, I was kind of thinking um the the the number is kind of a little different. Only reason why I was thinking you know putting a number on it and I'll just be honest I think about like people who don't have the funds to go ahead and start trying to get their license or whatever they need to do homestead or whatever it is. You know, what about people who maybe don't can't move as fast as others? >> So, I always think about that part like some people are >> Oh, I see. like getting it set up. >> Yeah. People who are able to move fast and say limitation. Yeah. >> It's the same idea. >> You know, some people be left out because they can't move as quickly. So, that's what I'm thinking about for that. >> Got it. But I still heard a majority wanted to have a >> I'm I'm either or it doesn't really >> I think it's gooding. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm just I'm trying to get the best draft for you possible. And if you leave a lot of these things to another time, you're going to be disappointed with the draft I bring you. So I think that's why I'm I'm being a little bit um I'm trying to get as much data as I can from you and see where I've got consensus. Otherwise, we're just going to keep spinning about the issue. So, I heard a majority say they wanted some kind of max. So, >> like the max number >> and I on that one it was kind of it was split. It was like three three and I don't know where the seven ended up. >> Julie, can you Why don't you just Why don't you back up again? Repeat everything again. >> There was no consensus to do a ban period. So, that's off the table. We need more legal advice on licenses, zoning, and he's going to Eric's going to kind of give us some lay of the land, how to deal with that. Homestead was kind of half and half, and then where you're going to land majority, I don't know. So, I said we would bring back options for how to write that. Okay. And I think there are there are choices that kind of get at what you're saying, but I have to have a more creative brain to think of them. Um, max number seen it like you had a majority that wanted to regulate by max number and geography also had support, although not understanding exactly how we would do that. So, we're going to think about that. I think I got everything people talked about. Okay. >> And then the time frame, again, to reiterate, it's going to be at least two to two and a half months to get something drafted and get it out for public consumption. And and the reason, and I don't want you to think we're dragging our feet. We're trying to be really methodical about what we say, how we say it, give people a chance to weigh in so that there's no kind of question at some point if if there's some legal matters. So, we want to make sure people feel like we have given them an opportunity, but we're also putting out a draft that we could deal with and live with, right? >> Mhm. >> Okay, >> that's a hard one. Sorry, mayor. We took so long. >> Thank you. >> I appreciate it. >> Thank you very much. So, here's what we're going to do on the public engagement when we've gone out on Mitaka Matters, >> Julie. >> Three weeks. Three weeks on Mitaka Matters. um two s seems not to be enough time to get the word out and people to to go to the website and and provide information longer than 3 weeks then it feels like gets elongated too long. We usually kind of hone in on three weeks just so you're aware of that. >> And then to synthesize what was said. So that'll take time and then we'll bring it to you. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Thank you to all these people. >> Appreciate it. All right. So, I see that that we already have the graphic up for our last agenda item, which must mean that Mike and Miranda think we're going to cruise through this next one quickly based on our conversation earlier today. Is that what you're thinking, Mike? >> I I'm not running the mouse, so I'm not sure. >> It's not ready. >> Okay. So, I think we need a break. My plan is to be out of here by 8:45. So everybody take a three minute break, fast break so that we can keep it moving and we're gonna try to get our study session done before 9ine. Our first of the year before nine. Okay, ready Miranda? >> I just turned mine off. I turned it on just in time to save. Okay. Sorry, I had to wait for my mic to turn back on. >> All right. So, item D is the review of city council policies. So, Mike, do you >> Yeah, you can take it off. Yeah. You want me to kick it off? >> Sure. Go ahead. >> So, in your I think I shared all this with you when we connected. Sorry, let me back up since I had my mic on. Um, thank you, mayor. As I I think chatted with all of you today, really wanted to bring this item forward to you really for one really main reason, and that's with the council. Make sure I get the right one here. Rules of procedure. That's the 16page document. And in there is how it kind of if you read through it, I assume you read through it, kind of lays out a number of the procedures for meetings and etc. And so what's come up a few times uh over this last year is uh looking at the the sequencing or the order of the agenda and really I think for a couple reasons. One um probably earlier in 2025 when there were more heavy business items really related to land use. I think we experienced where we'd have developers in the room, applicants in the room and that's item 14 on the agenda. And oftentimes we might see it's meeting starts at 6, it's now 8 8:30 before we get to some of those really heavy items. And so not only just having people that are traveling and residents coming in sitting there for a couple hours, we're also getting to a stage in the night too where it's trying to tackle some heavy issues after a couple hours um into a meeting. So I think we all can relate to the difficulties at times of tackling heavy issues when you're already two hours into a meeting. So, there's some I think a few of you had mentioned, well, should we switch that around? Should we look to move some things around on our agenda um to acknowledge folks that come in um so they're not sitting there for long periods of time and try to get to that business sooner. Um and one other thought in that is well, maybe moving some not only moving maybe 14 up, but also looking at reports from city manager and council, maybe moving that down because sometimes that can take 15 minutes to 30 minutes at times. And so really trying to uh kind of shift things around. And so that's why we put it on here was really just to have that conversation because the only way to change the agenda is through the policy. And so if there's an appetite from the council to change the agenda, um you would have to do it through a policy change. So that's why it's there. Um we did at the same time I added in there uh the other document that's uh a little bit lengthier which is what 233 pages. that city council >> um policies. >> The idea was not to go through that and dissect it. It was really uh meant to just give you as a reference point knowing there's another document there. Um as all of you have gone through orientation and Amanda will now go be going through orientation. We show this document to you when you get onboarded and then you probably don't see it again. And it's been a number of years since it's been reviewed. >> I ever saw it >> or maybe ever saw it. And so that document is yours as well. And so, not only do you have as policy makers ordinances obviously, but this also is a pretty significant document and it it really provides guidance to staff and all the areas that are outlined in there. So, just wanted to put that back in there as reference mainly if there's something in there that you thought might um call attention to where not to really address tonight, but something to maybe flag for upcoming conversations as we look at the 2027 work plan and perhaps even um putting some issues on the table for next year. Understandably, then I think I've talked to a couple of you that there's some clean up on it. It's it's been a document. It's been out there for a while. I I recognize there's some sections that generally need some housekeeping housekeeping and that's to be expected when you have a document that's living and breathing for so many years and we haven't really done anything with it for a while. So that's kind of a different conversation I think but just certainly just wanted to have that in your hand. So really I thought tonight was really just about that agenda management and if there's anything else in that 16page document that um jumped out at you. staff doesn't have particular recommendations on any other sections in that for your consideration. So, that's really tonight's conversation is looking at that agenda management. And if there's anything else and then I Rebecca, you want to chime in on some of the thoughts we had. >> Um, I'm going to jump ahead just because and you guys can all weigh in, but I'm going to let you know what I think because I did kind of ask Mike to put this ultimately on the agenda. So probably going back to last year, I maybe thought about this a little differently. I think our agenda outline has worked for us in in many ways so far this year. And so maybe have some reservations about moving things around now. So what I suggested to Mike was was two things. So the first thing related to how we manage our agendas was in reading that policy and and the guidelines, you know, we do have the authority to move the agenda, adjust the agenda order in within a meeting. So perhaps if we see that there's a more efficient way to run a meeting, we have an agenda item that's on other business and that's the only thing people are there for, but we have something that we know as a council we're going to take a long time talking about. Let's anticipate that and move that item v via motion as a part of the individual meeting because as I was looking at well sometimes it's it's um public hearings that take a long time but sometimes it's other business that takes a long time. So understanding what would be more efficient I'm not sure I have a great handle on that. So, I would propose we take the next six months and say and think about how the Mike and I when we meet in the afternoon, think about how we think the meeting's going to run and maybe at the beginning of that meeting suggest a moving talk with um planning staff particularly about it too and and they can tell their applicants, their developers when they can plan to come. Maybe it's a development that they want to be there. we know we're not going to get public comment on and that's not going to come till 9ine, we can tell them to get there at 8:30. And then if we get to the end of the year and we realize we've been moving the agenda around a lot in a certain way, maybe we can then think about that changing the order at that point. And maybe when we when we get through some of the issues that we're dealing with now, hopefully we can reconsider. Do we want to move reports from city manager and council at that point, but I I'm thinking that's maybe not the best idea in this moment in time. So that's my plan A and then I'll stop talking after I tell you plan B, which I think is very or for the other the council procedures or the other document. Um maybe that is a good topic for 2027 um retreat is we can staff can make proposed changes that they think make sense. We can crack they can identify some of the more substantive issues. Maybe want to have a more robust conversation about. We can really tackle that document in a way that's this is our refresh. It's going to be our 2027 refresh and we can start working on that over the course of the next year to know how because that's a big document to try to update. So those are my thoughts. I'm happy to consider other ideas or you know questions, comments. Um, so I would just say that like I don't I don't object to your proposal, but we just want might want to be cognizant of or aware of like if if if we're moving um something with public comment of people trying to plan when to be here, when to be at the thing. So maybe coming later and then finding out that we've already >> that we've already done the thing. So, and I don't think that's like going to be a large number of people because we've seen people sit for hours and wait. Um, but just something to be aware of that could potentially complaint. >> Yeah, I was going to say I like what um Kimberly said, maybe um letting the community know ahead of time, you know, maybe at um our council meeting where city manager may say, you know, going to be adjusting or maybe you see we're going to be adjusting our um our agenda items here and there and so just making sure they check ahead of time so they kind of alert them to it. So I do like I like what you said though um you kind of deciding if things are going to be heavy because my whole concern is when the item is heavy I do not want it at the end of the night because I'm tired. So >> yeah. >> Yeah, I I I agree. Um, in general, um, I I share the same concern about, you know, switching it up and then people that are, you know, have been around long enough to sort of like time it out and then we're like, no, already did it. Haha. You know, I don't want to. >> Yeah. And that's not >> do Lucy do a Lucy. But um and I also feel like you know consent agenda generally like that is something easy to me that we could move at the end because it's >> you know it it generally isn't that controversial. I agree with you. it seems like a long time for us to I just feel like there are a lot of important things to say um in reports because of what's going on and I and I also suspect that it it may be somewhat quieter for a short period of time but I think it's going to ramp up again in some months and um I I was reluctant to put those reports at the end especially from the city manager I I think they're import and I feel like you're going to have some important things to say. I feel like you could take a point of privilege and just speak at any point as the mayor also. Um and then in terms of the larger document, I'm sure you shared some things there. there. There's just some, you know, on a high higher level, I feel like there might be some reordering of things like substance regulation that that are a little here and there. And there are some locations that are in our recreation section that I that may not be in there by that time or should have been included. And um and then there's just some general cleanup. So, I think that I think doing it at a retreat is great unless we have to do something like revisit the strategic plan, which is we got one more year on that, right? One more year. >> Yeah. So, I think I think doing that next year, I mean, I don't I mean, it's in pretty good shape, but there were some things that just really leaped out at me that that could use some attention and clean up and I think would be so worthy because then we'd all have looked at it and be more familiar with it. So, I think it's a great idea, >> I wanted a copy of it, actually, a hard copy of it. >> Yes, we'll get you. um was >> just because I thought it was so interesting and you know really referenced that like throughout the next couple of years >> and I also part of it I agree I mean I think what you'll know at the beginning of a meeting when the room is full you'll know that pretty much people are there that are going to be there and they're not waiting that's what I think so I think in those ex those circumstances I think uh uh you know I think I you know you'll get a feel for that. >> So I agree um with your A and B right. So >> go ahead Kimberly >> my So did you have a chance to check with Eric on my >> I did question. >> So do you want to preface it? So I and Rebecca, I've talked to you about this that like the the first part of our agenda like down through consent agenda I feel like doesn't need to be roll call votes. >> Doesn't need to be what? >> Roll call. >> So um like we could change the whole first section to vote by acclamation, but I just wasn't sure >> procedurally how you do that. >> Yep. So, um, uh, Council Member Wolverin, the the under Robert's rules, actually, the the default for voting on city councils is a voice vote. Um, so then we have to look at our council rules of procedure. There are two provisions that require roll call votes. 3.1, which is the initial attendance roll call, which you would have to do that, that's given, but it's 9.1, which requires a roll call vote on each motion. So that's more than you have to do that and you are in control of that. The um charter just references that um votes on motions, resolutions, and ordinances must be recorded unless the vote is unanimous. >> So that's where sometimes the >> so we would need to change 9.1 in the procedure if we wanted to do something other than a roll call. >> Correct. Correct. And you know just from experience that uh approval of the minutes, approval of the consent agenda, it's usually unanimous vote can be quick. Adjournment, all those things can just be a voice vote. >> So anything that's unanimous even under the way it's written now, we can do by >> No. So uh the that's just the difference between when the clerks are following the voting. If it's not unanimous, they have to record each and every vote. If it if it is unanimous, they just record whether it's pass fail or they can't. But our clerks do I think track everything though. It's a 9.1 which requires a roll call vote on each motion. >> Okay. >> So um but you so you could go to voice vote for a lot of things. >> So do we want to amend that? So we need to amend that to be able to do that. >> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Unless >> unless anyone objects >> I might pull out one example. There is an example and I can't remember. It's a min It's a Minnesota community though and their rules of procedure just says that um the votes of the members on any ordinance pending before the council shall be by roll call vote and then they let they allow voice vote for everything else. >> I just one question. So if somebody wanted to pull something for a consent agenda item then they could still do that and then it would be a roll call vote after that. You can still do that. And I think all of these provisions always always accommodate any individual member requesting a roll call vote on any particular vote. >> Or if there's a confusion, you can't hear the vote, it sounds like it's mixed, then you go, well, let's >> let's do it. Let's do a roll call. >> That's fine with me. >> Sounds fine to me. >> I mean, it would save our clerk's uh right >> the pain of it. And you know, I would say I would probably say because that could be at discretion, right? I mean, we could call a roll call vote if it's not a unanimous decision. Would probably make the most sense, right? >> That's correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Oh, just I forgot about this. I I just pulled the This is from the Minnesota Mayor's Handbook and it's their appendix. It's their representative city council bylaw. sort of the form bylaws and on their provision on this issue. It just says the votes of the city council will be taken by voice vote >> book. So, so yes, you could you could you could require by certain things. You could just say that your votes are subject to voice vote and we could have the accommodation for any individual member requesting a roll call vote. >> Mike, do you have a opinion on it? I I don't um I was trying I was I was talking with Kimberly earlier and just thinking like it's been a long-standing obviously senator in your policies and you know why is that and I assume part of it is Minnetonka has just had this longstanding history of professionalism and perhaps doing a roll call vote does in my mind signify some higher level of professionalism when you go through an individual vote the way that we do it. So, it's more maybe just optics and and what you want it to look like and the formality of of vote taking. It certainly would speed things up. >> I'm sure Kelsey would probably love that. Um, it's just kind of how you want it to how you want your meetings to feel for you as council members. >> Well, I feel like we can still take roll call votes on >> big things. big things but yeah but >> like passing the agenda or you know accepting the agenda doesn't you know >> it does bring up a question so you know almost every week someone has some change to say the minutes we don't get into the substance of the changes generally speaking but how would it work to make the motion somebody would still make the motion to accept and you could make the you know their comments and then it's still instead of going down the line it's still >> you're still you're still making a motion to approve but the it's you know there's a motion motion to approve all those in favor say I uh everybody chimes in >> okay if opposed >> yep >> so I think it just comes down to how you want how you want it to feel >> I mean it it seems like people are >> comfortable I And I think to the extent that we can be more efficient, I think that trumps everything. >> Yeah. Right. >> Right. Yeah. I think there's a level of professionalism to being efficient. >> Yeah. I mean, we've Yeah. I think people would argue staying until night is a super, you know, >> right? >> Well taken. Kimberly, >> I will say that on planning commission, we've done voice vote on most things unless it's a non-consent agenda. So there's at least precedent within our city. >> Do it here. We bring back something. >> Okay, sounds good. >> All right. Anything else on on D? >> So what I'm hearing is we we'll um bring something back for you at a regular meeting. >> Yeah. >> Hear this conversation. We won't that's not I think Word Smith yet tonight. We'll bring something back to you that we hear. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And that's uh um that'll have to be approved via roll call vote. >> Yes. >> Sorry. Okay. So then we'll go ahead. >> I guess one other quick thing now that we're one thing that's occurred to me and maybe I haven't asked this of Eric so this is going to be a surprise for him as well. Like minutes are a separate item. There are many cities that put minutes in consent and I don't know if that's >> minutes at the end. >> Minutes is part of the consent agenda. >> Oh. Oh yeah. >> That's sure. >> It's even more efficient. They don't care. >> I guess I guess but that that also changes the >> right because we have a we there's a council ro procedure says this is the your agenda and has the items. So say so yes you could certainly do that. We probably just need to tweak that other provision and take it out as a separate line item. You know >> I they'd be pulled almost every time for minor things. So >> that's true. >> Let's keep that. We'll we'll consider that with our with our other changes. If we decide to change the agenda at going into next year, then we can >> These are mindblowing tweaks, though. >> Yeah, we're really getting into the thick of it. All right. All right. Let's move along to E. April study session topics, Mike. >> Yeah. Real quick, I'll just we'll just go through the next quarter real quickly. So, April 20th uh was our next study session. That's where we're gonna you'll hear from directors. That's for Amanda. You'll first year hearing from directors, but that's our first step in the budget process. We'll have our directors coming forward. What's that? >> Oh my god. >> So, starting budget uh and then we'll have both Chief Fox and Chief Borboom here next time uh with an update on the public safety master plan and how the implementation is going. And then part of that, it's not on here. Uh Kimberly brought this up and I think it's a great idea. Uh at the same time with Chief Fox here and Chief Warroom talking about public safety master plan, uh we'll have them go through just safety procedures for meetings. And so we have our study sessions here. Um and so our emergency management coordinator, Eron Morris, will be here. We think we'll we'll carve out a few minutes just to talk about this room. Um just safety procedures. This is I'd say our most vulnerable room. Um as a council, just >> glass wall right here. >> Glass wall. you have your backs to folks and so it just it's good planning and so we'll have do that and then we'll go to the council chambers as well and just talk through some scenarios on the whatifs. Um I think all of you know we do have bulletproof plating in certain locations. So we'll kind of walk through that and and just kind of walk through if something were to happen on different scales and what what to do in those moments. So we'll just do kind of a refresh reference check on that. We do have our 30 minute open time. Amanda will get you caught up on that tomorrow, what that looks like. And then in May is our official budget kickoff. And so part of that we'll talk about some marsh operations, our wreck amenities funding, priority based budgeting. So we're excited about that. That's coming along along really well. And then Peter Leatherman will be back with our community survey results. And then in June will be more budget stuff with our CIP. And then also in June is coming back as staff are coming back with the Perkatory Park update. So that's our next quarter. >> Excellent. >> Any questions? Anybody? >> All right. Not seeing any. Um there you have it. We are adjourned.