This is the transcribed townhall meeting for the City of White Bear Lake, identifying the speakers based on the context of the dialogue and the names mentioned during the proceedings. **[0:40] Mayor Dan Louismet:** We're going to call the meeting to order. Will the clerk please note those in attendance? All will be noted with the exception of council member Hughes. And I will note for the record that Miss Hughes is on her way and will be a couple minutes late but plans to join us. All right. Will you rise as the honor guard presents the colors, please? **[1:22] Honor Guard / Pledge Leader:** Citizens of White Lake, the flag of your nation. The pledge of power to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. **[2:32] Mayor Dan Louismet:** Very good. Please be seated. **[2:39] Mayor Dan Louismet:** All right, let's jump into item 2, a minutes of the regular city council meeting for May 25th, 2025. I'd entertain a motion to approve those minutes. **Council Member:** So move. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Do I have a second? **Council Member:** Second. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** I have a motion, a second. All those in favor say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Any oppose? Motion carries. minutes are approved. Item 2B, minutes of the city council work session from June 3rd, 2025 and entertain a motion to approve those minutes. **Council Member:** So move. **Council Member:** Second. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** A motion a second. All those in favor say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Any oppose? Those minutes are approved as well. Item three, adoption of the agenda. We have two additions. We're going to add a 9A Bolt Works Commons community room rental fees as a discussion item. And then we're going to add a new 11 close session considering the purchase of real property. And the current item 11 adjournment will become item 12. Unless there are other additions or corrections to the agenda, I'd entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. **Council Member:** So moved. **[3:36] Mayor Dan Louismet:** Have a motion, a second. All those in favor of adopting the agenda say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Any opposed? We have an agenda. Item four, consent agenda. I'd entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. **Council Member:** Second. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** We have a motion, a second. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. The consent agenda is approved. Item 5A, swearing in of a new police officer, Chief Haggar. When you're ready. **Chief Haggar:** Mr. Mayor, members of the council, thank you again for giving us an opportunity to brag on our newest officer, JJ Vang, tonight to celebrate with his family and supporters and loved ones here in the room. Um, we like to um we like to make a big deal about nights like tonight because um this is really quite an endeavor that JJ has gone through over the last couple years of his life to prepare himself for this and uh we just really want to celebrate with him. So, thank you for that. Also want to thank the honor guard for doing a great job as well tonight. Uh JJ was born and raised in St. Paul with his two brothers who were currently in the military and not able to be here. um one sister who's here tonight. Uh growing up, uh scout, his scout troop played a large role in his life. Uh he even earned an Eagle Scout rank at the age of 17 and he graduated from Washington Technology Magnet High School in St. Paul. **[4:51] Chief Haggar:** As a child, JJ's father served for a while um the city of Oakdale as a community service officer, which JJ credits at least in part to his desire to be in law enforcement. In the summer after high school, JJ attended basic training for the Minnesota Army National Guard. While with the National Guard, JJ spent a lot of time as a recruiter. He also was deployed to Minneapolis during the summer of riots in 2020. Later, he was deployed to Syria and then to Afghanistan to assist with the US withdrawal in 2021. **[5:24] Chief Haggar:** JJ still serves with the Guard where he earned the rank of sergeant in 2023. Also in 2023, he started taking uh classes at Century College and he started as a security guard for the Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis where he gained a valuable experience and honed his deescalation skills and he encountered countless issues related to mental health. I first met JJ when he sat in my criminal investigations night class um a year ago or so. He's quite he was really a quiet student, but he was one of those students that when he did speak, something meaningful was going to come out of his mouth. In 2024, he earned his associates of arts degree for law enforcement and then he completed his skills um program at Henipente and passed his post test this last fall. **[6:12] Chief Haggar:** In um January of this year, he began his field training program with our department. Spent about half his time on days and half of his time on overnights. He's a very positive person. One of his um one of his partners at one point in time described him as having great energy. In fact, they challenge anybody in the room with a couple exceptions to find him without a smile on his face almost the entire day, which is really kind of encouraging to have that kind of person around. Um after being on days for the first part of his training, he was really excited to go to nights. He kind of like uh Babe Ruth, he kind of called his shots to say, "I'm going to get in a foot pursuit." And he's really excited about a foot pursuit. I would not be so excited about that because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't catch him. But uh I don't know if it was that night or it was within a day or so he and um Officer Dylan chased down a domestic assault suspect um who fled an apartment building uh near the dealerships on Highway 61. Uh he's clearly a very athletic person. He's trained in Muay Thai for the last six years. He does Brazilian jitsu, jiu-jitsu, and he boxes. I suspect that someday uh real soon he will be a defensive tactics instructor. I look forward to seeing that. **[7:27] Chief Haggar:** As I said earlier, many of JJ's family members, friends, and loved ones are here to help us celebrate, including his girlfriend Nia, his father, Chucky, and his mother, Yia, who will be pinning on his badge here in a little bit. So JJ, please join our city clerk up front here so she can issue your oath of office, after which you'll get your badge pinned on. **[7:54] City Clerk:** Please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, state your name. **Officer JJ Vang:** I, JJ Vang, **City Clerk:** do solemnly swear **Officer JJ Vang:** do solemnly swear **City Clerk:** that I will support **Officer JJ Vang:** that I will support **City Clerk:** the Constitution of the United States **Officer JJ Vang:** the Constitution of the United States **City Clerk:** and the state of Minnesota **Officer JJ Vang:** and the state of Minnesota **City Clerk:** and will discharge **Officer JJ Vang:** and will discharge **City Clerk:** and faithfully execute **Officer JJ Vang:** and faithfully execute **City Clerk:** the duties devolving upon me **Officer JJ Vang:** the duties devolving upon me **City Clerk:** as a police officer for the city of White Bear Lake **Officer JJ Vang:** as a police officer of the city of White Bear Lake. **City Clerk:** Without fear or favor. **Officer JJ Vang:** without fear or favor. **City Clerk:** To the best of my judgment and abilities. **Officer JJ Vang:** to the best of my judgment and abilities. **[8:34] Mayor Dan Louismet:** Congratulations. [Applause] **[9:31] Mayor Dan Louismet:** And now the family of JJ will let take off and head over across the cross sidewalk here for a little celebration. Thank you. Right here. **[10:24] Mayor Dan Louismet:** All right. Item six, public hearings. Nothing scheduled. Item seven, unfinished business. Nothing scheduled. Item 8A, reconsideration of a resolution number 13519 due to mayoral veto downtown parking lot project order project approval plans and specifications and authorized advertisements for bid. I'll tee this up since it's here because of me. Um, I'll note that you all received a memo from the city attorney that's setting forth the process. I think this is—I don't think I know this is a first for uh this council and for me—vetoing anything. So, I'm just going to kind of lay out what I put in my memo that I trust you all received a copy of here and uh an email this afternoon uh and then we can have some discussion about it. And if if you have any questions about process, our city attorney is ready, willing, and able to answer any questions regarding that. So, I'll be brief. There's nothing nothing new that I haven't already said at the dais on several several other occasions. **[11:28] Mayor Dan Louismet:** Um I thought we had a good public hearing, a good public discussion about the trees. Um the merits of keeping all of them, some of them, a discussion about the health of each tree, and where it comes down to for me is a kind of a common sense decision. We have four trees, three that the experts have told us are in good health, one that's in declining health. Um, that will require extra expense to try and keep alive. Um, and I think the cost-benefit analysis just isn't there. So, I think we should keep the three that uh won't require extra money and ultimately remove the fourth tree. I think that's a logical conclusion given the leadup to this and the discussion that we had. I continue to have public safety concerns about the fourth tree, both in its current state and the uncertainty of whether it will get better and how long that might take and what a declining tree will, you know, continue to degenerate into by way of more dead branches and potentially falling limbs. **[12:30] Mayor Dan Louismet:** And I am concerned about the financial aspect of it. I don't I don't want to foreclose the notion that, you know, it's not worth spending money on saving trees, but I think this body makes all kinds of decisions every day and certainly staff does on a few thousand here, a few thousand dollar there on very important equipment that the city needs to buy, purchases that we need to make. And this to me strikes me as something that could be a bottomless pit of throwing more money at trying to nurse this tree back to health with no guarantees. And I'm equally concerned that if it does continue to decline and next year or two years from now or even five years from now we ultimately have to remove the tree, that's going to require removing a tree in a relatively new parking lot, ripping up new curb that we've already put down. Um putting asphalt down, we'll have a patch in a new parking lot. And I just think this is kind of a common sense decision given all the factors and the totality of the circumstances. **[13:16] Mayor Dan Louismet:** I am glad and happy that we are going to keep the three healthy and mature trees. I think we've got a good plan um to maintain uh their their viability long term and ultimately that's that's where I land on this one. So, I have vetoed the prior resolution, but I do want to make clear that I do support the broader parking lot project. It's going to provide a huge improvement to the downtown area, to public safety through lighting. It's going to make the downtown area look better, better accessibility for those with mobility issues. Um, so I do want us to ultimately approve that tonight. That's this the second item that's before us. What's currently before the council now is a resolution or an agenda item for reconsideration of the resolution that was approved at the last council meeting and vetoed. So it's reconsideration of the resolution preserving the fourth tree. That's what's before us if someone wants to move it and second it and have a discussion on it. So those are my thoughts. **[14:38] Mayor Dan Louismet:** And I'll just note that if nobody wants to move the vetoed resolution or nobody wants to move the resolution for reconsideration it simply goes away and we can take up the second resolution which is the one that was originally brought before the council at the second meeting in May that follows staff recommendation to remove the fourth tree. **[14:59] Council Member Walsh:** So, if you're looking for a motion for that, I'd move the second resolution, the original resolution to put in front of us. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** I have a motion for the resolution as originally brought at the May council meeting that authorizes removal of the fourth tree. Do I have a second on that resolution? **[15:18] Council Member Engstran:** Second. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** I have a motion, a second. Any further discussion on that? Council member West. **[15:23] Council Member West:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I have been a proponent for keeping all four trees like all along. Um, but I happen to have a um failing tree, well, a couple in my backyard that lost one of them lost a large branch on the top of a structure which was troubling to get down. And it just makes me think and consider, okay, so what if a large branch from that oak falls because city staff don't catch it early enough on um someone or their vehicle. And I just um I think it's more important that we're moving forward with the redo of the parking lots um than preserving this one tree. Um, as sad as that makes me, um, I would support this resolution. **[16:26] Mayor Dan Louismet:** Any further discussion? Council member Edberg. **[16:30] Council Member Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I want to, uh, take this to a big picture. In 15 and a half years, this city has had two vetos. Um, I don't even remember the issue of the first veto. That was during Mayor Emerson's term. This is not a common occurrence and it's not a reflection of any deep-seated controversy. I suspect that a more reasonable interpretation of the contention is we have different preferences and place priorities in slightly different places. I would assert that the council members who voted in favor of keeping the fourth tree are not spendthrifts. We are not—I place a priority that we had an unusual outpouring of public commentary and expression of interest. I would note that there has not been a demonstrated need for additional parking. Mobility study says that's not a critical need. No individual business requested that uh we embark on a more aggressive uh parking plan. Um and even if individual businesses did not want to expose themselves to that position, we didn't hear from the chamber, from the economic development corporation, or from Main Street who could have represented those views if they if they thought this was a burning issue. **[18:35] Council Member Edberg:** So, I'm not particularly swayed by that. In a 1.2 to 1.4 million project that we're it's going to cost us two grand to take it down now and we it would have cost us a grand to treat it and buy some time. So, the the financial impacts are minimal. Um I would almost dare say minuscule, but it's symbolically important. Um, I don't want to pick nits with the mayor's purpose of um, vetoing. I'm simply going to say I'm going to ask for two things. The tree represents a symbolic connection to the founding of our community. This thing was growing prior to our incorporation as a city. There may be some value in uh—and I would take this to a non-governmental expenditure perhaps the historical society perhaps some uh the environmental advisory commission—I've heard from both expressing a desire to see if there might be a way of salvaging wood cutting it. That tree would have a whole bunch of 2x4s or 1x6s or whatever we might choose and there might be a project to build a bench to build a picnic table to build something that might be a way of recognizing and remembering the values of our community and uh the historic connection um even if the tree is not allowed to stand. And I personally will uh do the work to try and uh determine whether or not that is a suitable non-governmental expenditure would look for some cooperation from the city in terms of timing and so forth. Um, that's a conversation I would like to advance. **[20:07] Council Member Edberg:** Um, the second piece that I'd like to raise is that in asking us to see the forest for the tree, we have an urban forest issue. This is just a a very visible spot for one of over 2,000 dead ash trees on public property and numerous numerous others on private property. Not just ash, but a whole bunch of stuff. And I will use this as a time to say we need to advance our conversations on how do we maintain and sustain a vibrant urban forest in our community. And um I will look forward to working with council and staff and in pursuing that. I will uh for the reasons the mayor noted I will too will support the project as amended. **[20:40] Mayor Dan Louismet:** Thank you. Um our city attorney has a comment. **City Attorney:** Thank you, Mayor and Council. Um, I would just before the council votes, um, point out just kind of a housekeeping matter. That resolution that's before you for vote right now was the original resolution staff had brought to council a couple weeks ago. So, there are two dates toward the end of it that just need to be pushed back by two weeks since we're two weeks down the line. So, I guess I would just confirm with Council Member Walsh and Council Member Engstran who um made the motion and seconded it that they would incorporate as a friendly amendment pushing those two dates back by two weeks before the resolution is finalized and signed. **[21:17] Council Member Walsh:** Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Very good. Thanks for the catch. Yes, thank you. Good catch. Um, I do want to respond to council member Edberg and with a thing I agree on and a point that I just want to highlight because we are having a broader discussion. I agree that the council members that voted in favor of this aren't spendthrift and are trying to make waste money and I I'll take it at face value that it was a policy decision that whatever money it costed it was well spent and worth it for the importance of the fourth tree. I understand that. The part that I do want to disagree on, and it's part of a broader conversation about what I see our role as elected officials, is it's not just a couple thousand dollars or $3,000. It's that right now and then continued treatment depending on where what direction it goes. **[22:05] Mayor Dan Louismet:** And I don't really want to get into the merits of the tree because I think we've already spoken about that. But at least from my perspective and this chair for the remainder of the six months or so that I'm mayor, I do want us to think more granular about those two, three, four, $5,000 decisions because yes, it is a 50 plus million budget, but all of those little decisions do add up to a lot. And this to me was a pretty clear one where the benefit we potentially would receive wasn't worth even two or three or $4,000, which is still a lot of money. A Lucas machine that we keep on the ambulance—that's the artificial machine that provides CPR—it's about four or $5,000. We make decisions like that on when do we need to replace it, what's the useful life. Those kind of decisions are made across the board and this was one that was before us. So 2, 3, $4,000 it is a lot of money at scale. **[23:08] Mayor Dan Louismet:** I think of someone like myself, my adjusted proportionate share of my property taxes. That's like four or five of me in the community. It is a lot of money. So, I do take it seriously. And I don't suggest, Council Member Edberg, that you don't, but I think those kind of granular decisions are important for us to really dig into as we get into these issues. As far as the urban forest and other tree issue, I agree. We've got to solve that. We've got a huge expense with the ash trees and a topic for another day, but we we do need to address that. All right. Any other comments on this discussion? If not, I have a motion and a second before us. All those in favor say I. **Council Members:** I. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Any opposed? The motion carries. The resolution with the friendly amendment is approved. Item 9A under discussion. Boatworks Commons community room rental fees. Council member West, uh I believe you wanted this on the agenda, so whenever you're ready, let us know your thoughts and we'll discuss. **[24:14] Council Member West:** Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um, so I was reached out to by a community member who lives in White Bear Lake, um, but, uh, has a nonprofit that is not a White Bear Lake-based nonprofit and they want to use the Boat Works Commons um, but have an objection or interest in looking at the rate um, of it. So, right now for a um like a nonprofit or a group um from outside of White Bear Lake, it is $500 minimum. Correct me if I'm I'm wrong. Okay. Um and then for a resident, it is $50. Um, and there's a little bit of um lack of clarity on the between the website and um the documentation like the form that you have to fill out, but it's it's pretty clear on the website what the requirement is. Um, so I just wanted to um kind of bring this up as a conversation. Um, honestly I don't know if I'm like in favor of it or not. Um, because I want to I want to um kind of know more about what the use is right now, kind of what that could potentially do um and all of that. **[25:52] Mayor Dan Louismet:** All right. This is a discussion item. Anyone on the council have a thought, an opinion? Council member Walsh. **[25:56] Council Member Walsh:** Well, I've been where you are. I think I asked for this a few years ago. I think the original memo I asked for is in that packet. Uh yeah. I mean, we kind of we kind of revisit this every so often and then remind ourselves why we're doing what we're doing. I think uh it's just $500 is a lot of money uh to rent the space. You know, that's what would cost any of us to rent it if we want to have a graduation party or something there. Um uh but there's a lot I think there's a lot going on. One, you see it in the memo, I think. But the the things that that convinced me to just not change anything um you know one of the original things when we when we did it originally—I shouldn't say we I wasn't on the council although actually sort of built it and then worked on the policy after it was up and running. So I might have been on the council after we started going—we don't want to compete with other event centers in town. So that's one factor is you know you've got Kellerman's you've got some other places in town that do this for money. So, if we start doing competitive rates, then we are competing with businesses in town, uh, which is something we just really I don't want to do as a policy level. **[27:18] Council Member Walsh:** Um, if we started if we tried to do this and at competitive rates, um, we're going to we're going to end up having to hire somebody. I mean, I think that's the other bottom. We're going to need another staff person to staff this thing, clean up afterwards, handle the reservations. Right now, it's not that used that often, so it's not a—I mean, it is a burden, but it's not an overwhelming burden where we have to hire half a person or a person to do it. So, I'm not interested in growing the staff to be in the business of running an event center. Um, and then the last thing, just living in that building. Uh, there are people that live in an apartment directly above this, so it's a little unique. Um, you know, so, you know, we can have—they know what they're doing when they moved in there for sure. Um, but but, um, you can't really start doing, you know, quinceañeras or things. You know, they go into the night and have loud music and things like that. So, um, so there's limits on this space, I think. So, I've gone down this road representative Council Member West just like you are and uh and every time I do, I end up back in the same spot, which is not to change it, keep the price expensive um uh on purpose almost. And then, you know, nonprofits, local nonprofits can use it, which is a good thing. **[28:08] Mayor Dan Louismet:** Any other comments, thoughts, opinions? Well, I'll just partially echo that. I going in I I guess I didn't look at it from the standpoint of a resident. It was also has a nonprofit that is not within the city because I think it's I don't think anything needs to change from that standpoint. If if you're a an actual city of White Bear Lake nonprofit and you get it for the reduced rate, that's a a very small little market, but that's the availability for that that uh accommodation. Um, what's interesting with a resident, yeah, I don't know how you scoop that up and address the exact issue that was posed to you without also saying any nonprofit, period, regardless of where you are, can also get that reduced rate, which I have no desire to do. I'm okay with that kind of being an infrequently used room. Quite frankly, given its age is a reason it's in such great condition, is because it doesn't get used that much. And and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. So, I don't see a need to to change anything. Um, but I think it's fair to bring it for the council because it's an honest inquiry from a resident. But I've got no appetite to change the fee schedule. I think it's it's good as is. Council member Edberg, when's the next time that we would uh be reviewing rental rates? Is that part of our annual rental rate setting that we do in like what, December, January type thing? **[29:36] City Manager Lindsey Crawford:** Mayor, council member Edberg. Yes, we do review the fee schedule on an annual basis and that is in um November and December and it's adopted annually for January. Um, but it was my understanding it wasn't only really the fee, it was the ability to use, which I think is a broader discussion that you may correct me if I'm wrong, that council member West, you may have wanted to have tonight in addition to a fee because we will bring you the fee schedule always, but if it's if there's if something isn't clear, then, you know, I would be looking for direction from the council to to clear that up. um or if there's a suggested policy change, a consensus of the council to bring something back to you to review. But again, correct me if I misunderstood. **[30:25] Mayor Dan Louismet:** Yeah, I don't know if anything needs to be cleared up. I mean, I think one person has an issue, but I don't know if that's necessarily indicative of widespread confusion on it. Council member Hughes, I'm confused right now. **Council Member Hughes:** So they can't—I'm confused. Somebody can't use it. **[30:41] City Manager Lindsey Crawford:** Right. But yeah, so the pay—Mayor, Council Member Hughes, I wasn't the recipient of the email, so I'm paraphrasing I think here that um it's a a resident who is the president of a non-White Bear Lake nonprofit and they're requesting to use it at a lesser rate. Um, when this has come before staff, it was a request to waive the fee entirely, but it's a non-White Bear Lake nonprofit. Therefore, I have been the one that has said no. Um, because we open ourselves up to many other um requests. This is not infrequent. Um, and we've been consistent with that. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Right. So, the rules are it's 50 bucks for a White Bear Lake nonprofit. **Council Member Hughes:** It's free for a White Bear Lake nonprofit. So, who what is the $50? **Mayor Dan Louismet:** So, a private party is $500 for 4 hours, which includes us setting up and tearing down. Okay. So, that's the rule. If you're not a White Bear Lake nonprofit, it costs $500. Whether you're someone who wants to have a birthday party, whether you're a resident of White Bear from St. Paul, whether you're a nonprofit that's outside of White Bear anywhere, that's the that's the fees. **[32:13] Mayor Dan Louismet:** I don't think that's confusing and maybe we need to be clear on the website, but that's I think more of a on a staff level how we how we just message that better so that there's not confusion. It seems it's a pretty small group. It's here's the here's the waived fee if you are a nonprofit that is whose address is in the city of White Bear Lake. That's the only exception to the $500 charge. Everybody else, don't ask. If you can't check that box, it's 500 bucks. That seems pretty simple. And I'm from a policy standpoint, I'm okay with that. Council member Hughes, one more stupid question. **[32:32] Council Member Hughes:** Is there a $50 charge somewhere to somebody or did I just mishear that somewhere totally wrong? **Mayor Dan Louismet:** There's only zero for a White Bear Lake nonprofit or everything else is 500. **[32:41] City Manager Lindsey Crawford:** Mayor, members of the council, um, so just to do a complete overview so we all are on the same page. A White Bear Lake-based civic or nonprofit less than 20 people is free. White Bear Lake-based civic nonprofit that's greater than 20 people is $50. So that cost would um probably cover the cleaning costs. And then all other groups—resident, private corporate—$500. **[33:16] Mayor Dan Louismet:** Thank you for clarifying that. That's very helpful. All right. Any other thoughts on this? Okay, it's fair game to bring it up again when we talk about fees in in the fall when we start that process, but for now it'll stay as is. All right, item 10, communication from the city manager, Miss Crawford. **[33:36] City Manager Lindsey Crawford:** Thank you, uh, mayor, members of the council, Mr. Copy, I have three slides tonight. So, we are embarking on summer, which means all things events in White Bear Lake. Um, market fest starts on June 19th. Um, of course, downtown Wiper Lake, it's the Manito days kickoff and, uh, which leads into Manito days, which is June 19th through July 4th. Um, the parade is on June 20th at 6:30 p.m. Um, city council, I did send you an email today to request that you uh, show up promptly at 5:45 to be part of the parade. Um, just meet outside the public safety facility and we'll get you on that uh, on the LaFrance. The beach dance is also the same evening on June 20th from 8 to 11 pm. Um there is a fee for that. Fridays with firefighters. Uh our first one of the season is also on June 20th um from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the South Fire Station. Um and then a reminder uh to council and just announcement to the community, we have a speech landing uh rededication and monument unveiling on June 24th. It's just ahead of our next city council meeting. So that is from 5:00 to 6 pm at Matosska Park. **[34:48] City Manager Lindsey Crawford:** So those are the upcoming events for the next couple of weeks. Um we do have a municipal election this year. Um we do have three candidates um or persons who have filed for candidacy for mayoral uh for the mayor seat. So that means we will have a primary election which is on Tuesday, August 12th. And I just wanted to uh the city clerk um was generous enough to put together this slide um for the public to outline, you know, um in-person absentee voting, absentee ballot voting, and then election day. Um you'll vote at your regular polling place for that and then early voting can be done at Ramsey County Elections Office in St. Paul. Um there are extended hours on August 9th for that, but um we can, you know, share out this information on our social media um uh as it gets closer to. **[35:28] City Manager Lindsey Crawford:** And then to follow up with that, um city council, mayor, city council, I'm this is a question for you. So we have a regular city council meeting that is now scheduled on Wednesday the 13th. Um the council, you approved that on January 14th. So, our regular day was August 12th, but because we have a primary, that got moved to the 13th. Um, the primary must be canvassed within 3 days of the primary. So, by Friday, August 15th, and so I'm asking uh you here tonight, we have a couple of options. Um, do you want to have two separate city council meetings? One on the 13th and then the second one to canvas the results on the 14th or the 15th or um do you want to move the city council meeting so you have your regularly scheduled council meeting um my recommendation would be Thursday, August 14th and include the canvassing of the results. So, we take a second to ponder on that, but we do either need to move it or schedule another meeting. **[36:45] Council Member Walsh:** I'd move it. I don't have my calendar with me and I know that I've got some other travel that week, but I we need to make a decision now. I'd say move it to one one night. Can we do one night on—Can we canvas on Wednesday night? **[37:13] City Manager Lindsey Crawford:** No, because the—Well, no, Kelly [Clerk]. Um, mayor, members of the council, the abstract for those primary results won't be available until Thursday. So, though we could canvas them as early as Wednesday, it won't be available. So, it'd be Thursday or Friday. **[37:33] Mayor Dan Louismet:** And to me, doing one meeting on Thursday the 14th makes sense. I won't stand in the way if that's what accommodates everyone. **Council Member:** I can't make the 13th or the 14th. So, um it won't be the first time I've been gone. Might be the second. Um so, it's really a question for Council Member Edberg. You'd have to fill in, but uh get home to my calendar. **[37:57] City Manager Lindsey Crawford:** Okay. Um it sounds like we can punt on this and decide at a at a later date. Yes. Um, I'll follow up maybe in a week or so. Um, couple days, couple of days we'll be fine. Um, and we'll get back to everyone and update our website with when the city council will be meeting. **[38:17] Mayor Dan Louismet:** So, very good. That is what I have for tonight. Thank you. I have one question for you, Miss Crawford. So, the city has to hold the primary. Is there a cost associated with to the city for holding the primary? **[38:34] City Manager Lindsey Crawford:** Um, Mayor Louismet, yes, there is a cost. Um, it is it is rolled into our original contract. Um, which is something that I learned about, you know, I think on yesterday. Um, but the cost of a primary election is about $54,000 um to the city of White Bear Lake. And the primary is in um is is outlined in our city charter. So, Council Member Ringstrand, I was incorrect when I told you that earlier, too. I'm learning every day. So, but it is outlined in our city charter that if we have more than two, we'd have a primary. We have a primary. I just want to clarify that. **[39:11] Mayor Dan Louismet:** So, our contract with the county, it's it's included or is that there is—I'm trying to understand. Is that an extra $54,000 that wouldn't have to be spent, but for the fact that we happen to need a primary? **[39:27] City Manager Lindsey Crawford:** No, it is not an extra $54,000. It's built in. **[39:34] Council Member Edberg:** Very good. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. Would you be available on the 15th? You noted the 12th or the— **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Yeah, I think I I think I can move flights to make sure I'm back by Friday. So, if we could do a Tuesday and a Friday, I can make that work. **[39:44] City Manager Lindsey Crawford:** Tuesday, we can't do Tuesday. Friday—Wednesday is Tuesday would have been our regular day. We cannot meet on election day. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** No, I'm understanding it. Okay. Um yeah, I I there's no point in fumbling in a meeting anymore. Follow up um in a couple days and we'll we'll look at calendars. Thank you. **Council Member:** Friday night, I won't be here Friday. I won't be here. **[40:12] Mayor Dan Louismet:** All right. Uh item 11, we have a closed session. So for those in the audience, for all intents and purposes, we're done. I have to read some things pursuant to the statute and then we will close the meeting and ask you all to adjourn. Uh we now need to go into close session pursuant to Minnesota statute section 13D.05 subdivision 3C3 which authorizes the council of developer consider offers or counter offers for the purchase of sale of real or personal property. The address of the property to consider an offer for purchase is 2230 county road E. Therefore, I request a motion to go into close session pursuant to Minnesota statute section 13D.05 subdivision 3C3 to discuss the above described matters. **[40:56] Council Member:** So move. **Council Member:** A second. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** All those in favor say I. We are now in close session.