This is a professional transcription of the White Bear Lake City Council meeting. Speaker identifications have been added based on the context of the dialogue and names mentioned during the proceedings. *** **[00:00] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Nice. It was a nice tank top, but she just went crazy. I’m gonna call the meeting to order here. The clerk will note those in attendance. Thank you. Will you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? **[00:12] All:** I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. **[00:26] Mayor Dan Lewis:** All right, moving on to the approval of the minutes. I trust everyone's had a chance to look at the minutes from the city council meeting on July 22nd. I'm going to entertain a motion to approve the minutes. I have a motion... a second. All those in favor of approving the minutes say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. The minutes pass. Moving on to Item 3: Adoption of the Agenda. Are there any amendments or corrections to the agenda? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. Do I have a second? Sorry, I have a motion... a second. All those in favor of adopting the agenda say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We have an agenda. Moving on to Item 4: Consent Agenda. I’d entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. Motion... a second. All those in favor of approving Item 4, the consent agenda, say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries, and the consent agenda is adopted. Which brings us to Item 5: Visitors and Presentations. We have the White Bear Lake Lions Club and Lions Club International Foundation donation for the all-abilities playground. Ms. Crawford? **[01:15] Lindy Crawford (City Manager):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. Tonight, as you just stated, we have the White Bear Lake Lions Club Foundation and the Lions Club International Foundation here to present the city with a very generous grant of $100,000, as well as $5,000. So we will take the opportunity to take a photo with both of those groups. But the donations and grants are for the future all-abilities playground, and that will be located in Lakewood Hills Park. To date, the city has received a total of $480,000 in donations towards this project. And that is—to my understanding, it started before I came—but to my understanding, solely from the Lions Club, from the White Bear Lake Lions Club. So it's pretty amazing what they have done. The project is expected to cost about $600,000, so we have a little ways to go, but the Lions Club is actively working on raising those additional funds. So with that, I will stand for any questions, or if you have questions of the two groups, and then I can adopt that resolution. **[02:22] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Sure. Well, first off, I just want to thank the Lions Club for all your support and generous donations. I know this project has been a long time coming. We're really close now, and I look forward to bringing it across the goal line. We're going to do the formal presentation in a second, but first off, are there any questions for Ms. Crawford on what we're considering here? So before we jump down there, just as a matter of course, we have a resolution before us. So with that, I would entertain a motion to approve the resolution accepting the donation from the Lions Club. **[02:54] Councilmember Dan Jones:** So moved. **[02:55] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Any further discussion? Yes, Councilmember Jones. **[03:00] Councilmember Dan Jones:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Personally, just after watching you guys over the last 15 years, it's unbelievable. I mean, this number is unbelievable, especially after the flagpole. Thank you to International for coming through the local. Wow. I mean, it's just one after another, it's back-to-back. And that's what really... I don't know what else to say but wow and thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. **[03:26] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, I have a motion and a second before us to adopt the resolution. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The resolution passes. And with that, we're going to step down to take a picture and formally thank you guys. **[03:45] Mayor Dan Lewis (Off-mic):** He's wearing Zumbas... I'm not wearing any pants... you're a professional. Thank you. Thank you. All right, this was a first for me, so I don't know who I give these checks to. I know I don't get to keep them. All right. **[04:28] Mayor Dan Lewis:** All right, with that, we're going to move on to Item 5b: Prosecutors. Mr. Olson, Ms. Munans are here. You both can please step forward and give us your update. **[04:45] Heather Munans (City Prosecutor):** Council members, Mayor, I’m Heather Munans. This is Rob Olson. We are attorneys with GDO Law, and we prosecute for the City of White Bear Lake. We typically like to provide updates more often, but because of COVID, obviously, it put a stop to a lot of things, including these updates. But I’d like to let you know what's happened in the courts in the last two years because there have been quite a bit of changes. In March of 2020, the court stopped, just like the world stopped. It took several months in Ramsey County to figure out how we're going to transition. We used to do everything in person. The majority of it was at the Maplewood Courthouse, which is the suburban courthouse for White Bear Lake. What happened then is we spent several months where Ramsey County really focused on felonies and how to process felonies as efficiently as possible, since those are the more serious offenses. We went from March to about July or August where we did not have any court appearances in 2020. What we were doing in that time is we were contacting private attorneys, our public defenders, and then some pro se defendants to try to resolve these cases with a plea by mail, and we were pretty successful in quite a bit of that. In July to August, we transitioned to Zoom court appearances. The biggest change in this for us is pre-COVID, on an arraignment date, which would be a first court appearance, I would be in court at 8:15 in the morning and we would have 70 to 75 cases heard within four hours in front of one judge. So we had quite a few cases that we could process very quickly. When you go to Zoom, at least for us, it takes so much longer. So going from 75 cases for a first court appearance, we started with Zoom and it was about 40 to 60, and that's kind of where we are still at currently. Our arraignments are mostly still via Zoom, and it's been two years and I believe they want to continue via Zoom. But not everything has continued to be via Zoom. We are slowly transitioning back to in-person court. Right now, we are doing pre-trials—so today I was at the Maplewood courthouse and I was doing pre-trials in person. We are also doing the trial management conferences in person. Just within the last couple of months, we're doing jury trials in person, obviously, and then contested hearings in person. Our first court appearances will be remaining via Zoom, as well as some of the minor traffic and court trials will be via Zoom. This has created a massive backlog with the Zoom. Like a lot of things, they say we have thousands of cases that are backlogged in Ramsey County, and we are slowly getting those cases processed. What the backlog really means is we had five months where we had no court, and then when we started court, we had smaller calendars. And for two years, if you get a citation in April of 2020, your case was on "pandemic status" for two years. You had a court file number, but you had no court hearing. You couldn't even call and request a court hearing; you were just told to either contact the prosecutor or we would let you know when you can come to court and resolve your case. And so, just in the last three months have these cases that are two years old gotten a court appearance. I believe every single case now has a court appearance, but it took two years to get there. So that's created a backlog and that's kind of... we're slowly working towards that. The other thing that's happened in the last two years is there has been a decriminalization of certain laws. The Ramsey County Attorney's Office has decided there's certain cases that, in the interest of justice in their current position, they're not going to prosecute. The majority of these cases are drug-related cases. So these are felony-level drug cases that they have decided at this point, because of COVID and because of our current philosophy, we don't think it is appropriate to prosecute. Those—that doesn't mean *we're* not prosecuting them. So we've talked to our police chief, as well as a lot of the other suburbs have also said, "We are going to move forward with the prosecution of these cases." I think that's important for a couple of reasons. One, it is illegal to use drugs in the State of Minnesota. I don't think we can just say we're gonna just not worry about this law right now. The other thing is under the law for first-time drug offenses, you are given what's called a "stay of adjudication," which means if you complete a chemical health assessment, go to treatment, this case will not stay on your record. We want to give these people an opportunity to take it off their record and get the help they need. And so we are taking on these felony-level cases that really aren't our cases, but we are now prosecuting them as gross misdemeanors. This has greatly increased the amount of prosecution we're handling. We also are prosecuting some theft cases that are being turned down by the County Attorney's Office. At one point I had a car theft case that should definitely not be a gross misdemeanor, but it was turned down by the County Attorney's Office for various reasons. So we have a large backlog of cases and then we're also prosecuting more cases that really aren't gross misdemeanor levels. So that's kind of what's happening with that. In the last—I believe since City Manager Crawford came on—I've also been providing her quarterly updates. I provided her two quarterly updates now just to kind of give her some general statistics. These aren't exact, but kind of statistics on what's happening in prosecution. I can tell you this year we've resolved in the first half 240 cases. These are criminal cases, so we're not talking traffic tickets mostly, or licensed cases or driving after suspension. These are criminal cases. Of those, 85 have been DWIs and 35 have been domestic-related offenses. These are mostly domestic assaults, stalking, and then no-contact orders. The DWI numbers are slightly high due to the large backlog. Those should level out a little bit more going forward, and I'm hoping this may be really optimistic, but I'm hoping we can get mostly caught up or completely caught up on the backlog either the end of this year or the first or second quarter of next year. That's optimistic. The other thing I can provide the Council with is an update: we are scheduled to do our annual training with the White Bear Lake Police Department. That will be, I believe, next Wednesday. So even during COVID, we went to the place from—in every year—and provided training. It's usually on whatever the relevant subject is at the time. Previously, we've done a lot of DWI training because White Bear Lake has a lot of DWI offenses. We have a large downtown area and our police department is also downtown, so we have a lot of DWIs, and there's been a lot of changes to the DWI laws and warrants and requirements. So we like to provide updates on that. There was a lot of changes a couple years ago to the stalking statute, and so we provided a full training on different elements of the stalking statute. And I believe last year we did a training on testimony for officers. Some of our officers may have been sworn officers for the past two years but never actually physically been in a courtroom. And so we provided training on testimony, how to prepare for your first or any court appearance, and what they're looking for and how to kind of answer questions. It becomes a skill on how to answer the questions for during both direct exam and cross-examination. So we have training coming up this next Wednesday for that. Is there any questions or anything else you guys would like to know? **[12:35] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Thank you, Ms. Munans. I have a couple of questions. I'm first, I'm curious: so do you see an end in sight for the arraignment calendars and some of the petty court trials to actually go back in person? **[12:50] Heather Munans:** So we are in a weird situation right now with arraignments. They have been completely virtual from March till August 1st. And then from August 1st to the end of August, they decided for one month we are going to be in person, and then everything starting from September onwards is going to be back to Zoom. I have no idea why we have one month of in-person arraignments. They said they're going to use it as a test case to see if we can resolve more in person. But the short answer is, they give us one month of in-person and now we're back to Zoom at the end of this month. For court trials, I think they like them virtual at this point. They like that our officers can come in from anywhere and kind of just Zoom in and testify. And the other thing is, not all of the people who are picking up traffic offenses are from Ramsey County, and so they appreciate the fact that maybe they don't have to travel to appear on a court appearance. And that's kind of the reason we're also doing the arraignments virtual, because most of the arraignments, a lot of it's traffic-related offenses. These aren't serious criminal offenses, a lot of them aren't even criminal, and so it's more convenient for everyone to appear via Zoom. I personally like in-person, but it's more convenient for the public to be via Zoom. **[14:14] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Thank you. Who's deciding? Is that the Chief Judge of Ramsey County? Is this the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court? **[14:23] Heather Munans:** It's both. So Justice Gildea has provided us parameters on what all of the different judicial districts can do. And so she is the one who has said that pre-trials, trial management conferences can be in person. But she has also said that the less serious cases as well as the civil cases—so very few civil cases unless you're doing trial or everything—is via Zoom. And she is the one who's setting the parameters on those. There's a little bit of leeway what our individual Ramsey County clerk can do, but most of it's set by the Supreme Court. **[15:00] Mayor Dan Lewis:** I want to pivot just for a second because I'm curious about the felony-level criminal cases that Ramsey County Office is not choosing to prosecute. And we had a nice discussion last month with Ramsey County Attorney Choi and expressed some of our concerns about that. So I want from our City Prosecutors, in your opinion, these are otherwise good cases? These are cases that we've got a good faith basis to secure a conviction, we've got the evidence, and they ought to go forward but for a policy? And that's why they're falling to us to charge them under a lesser charge of gross misdemeanor. Do I have that correct? **[15:37] Heather Munans:** Yes. So these cases, we're teeing them up, we're going to try them. We're not pursuing it at the felony level because at the municipal level, we don't have any jurisdiction. Correct, that's correct. **[15:47] Mayor Dan Lewis:** So, what's been the outcome of those? **[15:52] Heather Munans:** Honestly, we haven't done any of these felony-level drug cases [at trial]. They've all resolved. They've all taken plea deals and resolved. So that is just their policy of they don't want to criminalize this anymore. All of the suburbs—and I can't speak for St. Paul—but all the suburbs in Ramsey County and all of the police chiefs, the suburban prosecutors and the police chiefs have said, "We still want to prosecute these. They are violating the law, and let's get them help and let's require them to do a treatment." So there's nothing wrong with any of these cases. What's happening procedurally is our police department is required to submit them to the County Attorney's Office. The County Attorney's Office provides them the exact same letter every single time which says, "We're declining to prosecute due to the Ramsey County Attorney's Office policy on these cases." And then it immediately gets submitted to my office where we do a formal complaint on a gross misdemeanor case and the case is set for a court calendar. **[16:53] Mayor Dan Lewis:** And it's fair to say, as you kind of alluded to, that's putting an extra amount of burden and stress and pressure on your office because these are crimes that otherwise would not have fallen to the municipality to prosecute, but for Ramsey County quite frankly not doing its job and prosecuting them. **[17:11] Heather Munans:** It has definitely created a lot more drug cases that my office typically would not prosecute. Their felony level offenses... we do prosecute minor gross misdemeanor level felony drug cases, but these are felony level drug cases that we're now prosecuting, not the gross misdemeanor level. **[17:28] Rob Olson (City Prosecutor):** And if I might make it clear: so, you know, we always had—and only in Ramsey and Hennepin County are the city prosecutors allowed to prosecute any drug cases—and it was up to a quarter of a gram. You know, anybody, you know, a small amount, less than almost a user's quantity, kind of like the remaining part in a bag or something. A quarter gram of say cocaine or methamphetamines. But I start seeing cases coming across their desks with three, four, five grams of meth. And now as a practical matter, they get one "get out of jail free card." You get this stay of adjudication under the drug statute so that a person, the first time, they go through the rehabilitation and all that and they get that. But then if they repeat offend, their get out of jail free card is gone and now they're having to deal with it. So it is a little concerning that we're doing this. I'm not going to sit here and second-guess the County Attorney, but I don't, quite frankly, really understand it because they are geared for it. They've always had this. There's Drug Court downtown. We're doing it now. We're not complaining, we're not asking for any more money to do that, but we think it's important. And I think the same thing with the thefts. You know, we usually prosecute up to a thousand dollars. That's the threshold. When we see a car, it's not a thousand dollars. You know, this wasn't a junker. It was a car. We're seeing a little higher level. And I know they're busy, but so are we. And what Heather had indicated, that cases weren't getting processed... actually we've appeared more, but we're sitting in our office playing "Hollywood Squares," is what I call Zoom. And you know, your turn, your turn, your turn. And we've been going to court more than we ever had because we're covering less, because everybody says, "Oh, do you want to go to a breakout room?" So we go over here to a breakout room, then we chit-chat—you know, lawyers talk too much—and then you come back and you get it done. So we're spending more time, but we understand that's just the pandemic. We had no control over that. And as far as court appearances go, what it used to be, we were in court two and a half days a week when it was in person. Now it's about four full days a week virtual. And as I said, the number of cases on a calendar has shrunk because you just can't do as much via Zoom as you can in person. So we're in court more, it's just not as efficient, I guess you can say. **[20:18] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Sure, sure. Council, any other questions? Councilmember Edberg. **[20:23] Councilmember Kevin Edberg:** Thank you, Mayor. So this issue of capacity is not a new thing just since the pandemic. I remember a conversation with you, Mr. Olson, about the courts being inadequately funded and resourced and turning down—and judges choosing not to prosecute some of the, or not to hear some of the court cases that we would bring. Am I vaguely remembering that conversation correctly? **[20:51] Rob Olson:** I don't know, Councilmember Edberg. I don't know in particular what you're referring to, but there's always been, you know, decisions made on what's going to be prosecuted. But we've never made a carte blanche, "We're just not going to prosecute this type of case." Now, an individual case, we have discretion to say, "Well, this person looks like they could use a break for reasons ABC," but I don't know in particular. **[21:18] Councilmember Kevin Edberg:** So I'm recalling that we actually had cases that our police department wanted to charge, I believe you wanted to charge as well, and there was not capacity in the court system to actually hear the case. And this is going back like five plus years. **[21:34] Rob Olson:** Yeah, I don't have a specific recollection of that. **[21:37] Councilmember Kevin Edberg:** Okay, all right. **[21:38] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Councilmember Jones. **[21:39] Councilmember Dan Jones:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Two questions, Heather. And thank you, by the way, for your explanation. I'm afraid to ask the first one. Explain to me how the Ramsey County Prosecutor has asked GDO to prosecute their cases. **[21:56] Heather Munans:** They don't ask us to prosecute. What they say is, "We're declining." The Ramsey County Attorney's Office declines the case. And so at that point, either the case is not prosecuted or the police department can refer to us to prosecute. **[22:11] Councilmember Dan Jones:** The White Bear Lake Police Department, correct. **[22:14] Heather Munans:** And so then what will happen is we get a copy of the reports, the AV, and then the decline letter from the Ramsey County Attorney's Office. And they say, "Please review this for charges." And then we look at that, and most of the cases, the facts are there, the probable cause is there to charge. It's just their policy not to charge. That doesn't mean it's our policy or we're stuck with that policy. So then we usually will charge that case. **[22:42] Councilmember Dan Jones:** Okay, thank you. So on the crime list, this isn't probably the highest thing, but it's probably the one that I hear about the most: ordinance violations related to residential properties, specific to the repeat offenders that are non-responsive. Now the city's dealing with this, right? And I guess I just want our residents to know what is happening or what is not happening. **[23:08] Heather Munans:** So what happened over the last two years is, unfortunately, although these have high priority for us, those are the lowest priority for the courts because there's a large backlog. And they're saying, "We're going to start with the felonies, the gross misdemeanors, the misdemeanors," and then we have traffic and ordinance violations. That's how they rank them. Whether that's right or wrong, that's just how they're looked at. And so for two years, you could have had... we could have cited someone with an ordinance violation and I could not have gotten a court date if I asked for one because they're just not prioritizing that. And maybe that's what you were touching on a little bit more, the conversation. And I will also say the other problem is, and we've had this issue before where we say, "Okay, we don't have a resolution, we need to have a trial on this," and we do get pushback from the bench sometimes because they're like, "We have so many other serious cases. Are we going to spend multiple days doing an ordinance violation?" So occasionally we do get a little pushback on those. I will tell you when we resolve these ordinance cases—I just resolved one I think like two weeks ago—the agreement is: you plead guilty, you have to get your house or property into compliance within 60 days and have it inspected. In those cases, the probation is to me. So I'm putting it on my calendar, and then in 60 days from now, I'm contacting our Ordinance Department and saying, "Are they... have they complied?" And if not, I can bring a probation violation for that. **[24:51] Councilmember Dan Jones:** So I just think... it’s not criticizing at all, absolutely at all, but it seems this goes again beyond previous to the two years that this is not unusual. And when you have someone surrounded by neighbors that are doing their job, keeping their most financially probably valuable asset, and somebody not doing it... it's probably the biggest thing that I get, I hear the frustration with. And I don't know what to do about it because the people are doing what they're supposed to do. They go, you know, Marco or whoever goes out, right? We do our job, you try to do your job, and there is nothing that anybody can do except wait. So really, Mike—thank you, Francine, for the question—my point to the Council, Mr. Mayor, is how do we educate our residents on this, that we can't do anything else? I don't think it's a newsletter item, but I'd like it to be, but it's probably not. **[25:52] Rob Olson:** Councilmember Jones, you know, one thing: if there are particular properties that are eyesores that you bring to our attention... I had one in Anoka County that I won't get into the details, but you wouldn't want to live next to this person, okay? And I was able to pull that out of the stack in Anoka County that was in the same bin, bottom of the barrel, with all these other cases. I was able to pull that out, get that case brought up. I had to, you know... it felt like I was getting a pass from God or something, you know, to get the case to come up. We had the guy... we all know him very well. He pled guilty. He had to clean up his property in 30 days. Guess what? It didn't happen in 30 days. So then he went to jail for 20 days. Then he got out with the promise: 30 days to fix it. On the 29th day, the property was whistle-clean. And so, you know, if you have particular properties... and I would hate to have a ward where you got people saying, "Well, what good are you? You can't get anything done." So if you have some real problem properties, feed it through Marco to us and we will do what we can to advance those on the calendar. And now, I don't know if Ramsey County is as receptive as maybe some other counties to this, but we will do what we can to try to push those up further to the front of the line. **[27:14] Mayor Dan Lewis:** So if I'm hearing you correctly, and we don't know how Ramsey County is going to respond, but we know that our code enforcement officers are doing what they can. As a Council, we're doing what we can, saying as a policy we want to enforce the ordinance, and you're doing what you can taking up the case. We're at the mercy of the bench and the judges. If I'm hearing you correctly, the ones that are really, really bad, you might have the ability to grease the skids a little bit and get a little more leverage because the courts, quite frankly—and I know where you're coming from—don't look too favorably on hearing them. **[27:48] Rob Olson:** Yeah, and that's that's true. There's some judges that just don't want to put people in jail because they have junk in their yard or cars that don't run or whatever. And they kind of have the "well, it's probably due to economic reasons." Well, we know it's maybe a little, but they can sure get rid of stuff, you know, at some point. So if you have those cases, bring it to us. We'll do everything we can. I can't promise, but we will do what we can to go up the ladder to try to get those cases put on the docket. **[28:18] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Thank you. One more comment on that front, and this is not so much for you guys, but just Council to note: I'm asking the question because I don't know the answer, but some food for thought for the Council: isn't there a mechanism for the city to simply go and cut the grass or clear the thing out and then we send them a bill? I mean, that's the other result, because the goal, what you're saying Councilmember Jones, is not to stick it to the person who's violating the ordinance, but to relieve the neighbors that are sitting there living with this mess. So we do have other mechanisms outside the prosecutorial arm that maybe we haven't decided to do, and maybe we can do that in the future. Are there any other questions? **[29:05] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** One more, just to dig another level. Just curious about the communication between you and the police—probably the Chief or maybe the Captains—on these investigations, these decisions. You know, we're talking about, "Okay, the County Attorney's not going to prosecute, it ends up in your lap." Can you just talk us through that communication? Is it sort of like, you know, the Chief wants to prosecute these so you go forward, or are we talking on every case? What's that communication like? **[29:34] Heather Munans:** So the cases actually come from our investigators. We have three investigators in the City of White Bear Lake. They're all on my speed dial. And so what usually happens is one of the investigators forwards it to me via email and says, "Here's this case. It was declined by the County. Can you review it for charges?" We've had these conversations with our Chief before of how do we want to move forward on these, and our agreement is we are going to move forward. We are going to prosecute these drug-level offenses. We're also going to prosecute some of the other cases that have been declined by the County if we think there is probable cause. We're going to prosecute them because that is our job. We're not going to get as serious of a penalty because I can't get a felony conviction on that, but most of the communication on individual cases is with the investigators that are assigned to that case. **[30:25] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** That helps, thanks. **[30:26] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** Sorry, I'm just confused... well, not confused, but you said you got an additional maybe 200 cases you think from these? **[30:37] Heather Munans:** I don't have an exact number. I mean, even one case versus a thousand cases... **[30:42] Rob Olson:** I would say we see cases every month. I don't know the exact number, but I'm sure it's more than 50. We'd have to count them up. And as they get them, they bring them to us, and we've never turned a single one down—a single one of the drug cases down. There's other reasons why Ramsey County Attorney's Office will decline cases and then we will look at those, and some of those *we* will decline because we just, quite frankly, don't have sufficient evidence. But the drug cases? Those are the ones we're moving forward with because that's just a political position of the [County] Attorney's Office. **[31:18] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** I misheard. You said do most of those plead out then, or are you taking them to court? **[31:24] Heather Munans:** A couple of them we've had contested hearings, but almost all of them do resolve, yes. **[31:30] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** Okay. And why do you think that is? Is that just because they're guilty and they know it? **[31:35] Heather Munans:** I think a lot of it is that a lot of them are going through treatment. The other thing that happens is it doesn't happen in a vacuum. So usually when you pick up one in White Bear Lake, you also have one in Roseville you picked up, and you picked up another drug offense in Dakota County. So we're seeing that they're picking up multiple drug offenses in a short period of time. **[31:55] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** One person has multiple? **[31:57] Heather Munans:** Yes. And so they're picking up multiple drug offenses in a short period of time and they're kind of looking for global resolutions. And they know under the statute they're required to do a chemical health assessment, and on a drug case, that's going to include treatment. So you still can get them into the system then in order to get treatment on that first time. **[32:17] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** And so then if they go and they end up in another county who maybe will prosecute it, do they not have their first one through you anymore? **[32:25] Heather Munans:** You get one time free, which is... it doesn't go on your record if you comply with all the requirements of court. **[32:32] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** But that's the first time... that's just one time ever? That's not one time in each county? **[32:36] Heather Munans:** No, that's it. Okay, you have to do it here and then... okay. And so when I get a drug case, I check them on Minnesota MNCIS, which is where you check all the prior cases, and you say, "Have they had a previous stay of adjudication?" That's under Statute 152.18. And if I see they haven't had that, then by law I'm required to offer them that. If they have had that, then it just proceeds with a gross misdemeanor and it would go on their record. And then we're talking about whether any type of... we always do a chemical health assessment. But sometimes pre-COVID we were talking about whether any jail was appropriate or community service was appropriate. During COVID, that kind of all got put on pause because the jails didn't want to overbook or overfill due to COVID. **[33:28] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** And are you back now with jail, or are you still in the no-jail? **[33:32] Heather Munans:** It's mostly no jail. You know, in Ramsey County, a lot of times we'll arrest... our officers—I don't know if how much deeper you want me to go on this—a lot of times our officers will arrest someone for a second-degree DWI, which is a mandatory bail case. If you get arrested, you have to post $12,000, and the jail won't accept them. The jail may be too filled that day and so they just won't accept them. And so we're also getting pushback from that as well. **[34:03] Mayor Dan Lewis:** There's one question I forgot and I wanted to ask: you guys have municipal contracts in other counties, right? **[34:10] Rob Olson:** Correct. **[34:11] Mayor Dan Lewis:** So is this phenomenon of the County Attorney's Office not prosecuting crimes and having it be absorbed by the municipality happening elsewhere? Is this just Ramsey County? **[34:23] Rob Olson:** Well, Ramsey and Hennepin are unique because they're the only two counties where city prosecutors have any authority whatsoever to do drug cases. We have contracts in Anoka County. Even if the County Attorney declines in Anoka County, I have no authority to prosecute that drug case. It's only given to Ramsey County and Hennepin County. So it's unique counties under the statute. But I think what you're addressing, Mayor Lewis, is: No, the Anoka County Attorney is prosecuting drug crimes. The Washington County Attorney is prosecuting drug crimes. The Isanti County Attorney's Office is prosecuting drug crimes. As we say—you know, lawyers are smart-alecks—we say, "Ramsey County isn't a bad place to be a criminal." And you know, and that's decided from the bench. And you know, most of these people are very nice people, I get along with them all, but it's a little frustrating. It's frustrating at times and it's just a philosophical decision, more people... the hassle of housing more people. But you know, I don't like it as a prosecutor, I'll be honest with you. I think it's... sometimes I leave court and I think, "That judge there must be a terrible parent because their kids must be little brats because they don't know how to deliver consequences." But of course, I'm older and I'm cranky, so I just complain about things like that. But that's kind of how I feel. **[35:55] Heather Munans:** I'm trying to give the less cranky response here. **[35:58] Mayor Dan Lewis:** No, you had a good nice good-cop/bad-cop response there. I appreciate that. Council, is there any other questions or comments? I just want to close quickly by noting that 10 years ago, I had the privilege of prosecuting both Heather and Rob when I was in law school, and I got to observe both these guys firsthand do the work that they do. And I assume after a decade you've only gotten better. So you were pretty good then, and I'm confident in everything that I'm hearing, you guys are continuing to do good work for the city. We appreciate that. We thank you for the update and look forward to talking with you again at your next update. **[36:34] Rob Olson:** Thank you so much. **[36:35] Heather Munans:** Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. **[36:38] Mayor Dan Lewis:** All right, moving on to Item 6: Public Hearing. Second reading of a proposed interim ordinance authorizing studies and imposing a moratorium on the sale of cannabis products and on the establishment or expansion of tobacco shops. Ms. Crawford. **[36:55] Lindy Crawford:** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. As you just stated, we will have a public hearing and a second reading of the proposed ordinance. As you stated, at the July 12th City Council meeting, it was a decision that let's bring forward an ordinance to review and discuss. At the July 26 City Council meeting, there, the City Attorney and I brought forward that ordinance for the first reading. I do want to note, in at that July 26 meeting, I stated that the public hearing would be on August 23rd. It was able to be noticed earlier, so in the newspaper, it was noticed for August 10th. So that is why we were having the public hearing and the second reading tonight versus August 23rd. So I apologize for that. So we have before you tonight the interim ordinance, as well as a resolution approving a summary publication of an interim ordinance. And the moratorium ordinance again could be in effect for as long or up to as 12 months. It can be once studies and research have concluded, it could be revoked at that time. And this ordinance would prohibit the sale of cannabis products, establishing new tobacco shops, or expanding to existing tobacco shops in White Bear Lake for the duration of that moratorium. With that, I will stand for questions, or if you want to open the public hearing first, whatever you like. **[38:13] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Yeah, why don't we start things off with the public hearing? I have a couple names on my list here. I have two names on my list, so we'll start things off. When I call your name, if you can state your name for the record and your address, and then—we don't have a lot of people, so as long as we keep it somewhat brief, I won't cut you off, but we have other items on the agenda to get through. I have an Ava, last initial D. Okay, please step up to the podium here. **[38:45] Ava Joes (Public Speaker):** Thank you guys for hearing us tonight. My name is Ava Joes. I am a co-owner of Nothing But Hemp in downtown White Bear Lake. I want to let you know that this HF 3595 law that clarified hemp-derived cannabinoids is a step in the right direction. Prior to that HF 3595 law, companies could sell THC products without any milligram threshold. Prior to that bill law, right here in White Bear Lake, THC products were being sold in smoke shops, CBD shops, and throughout your city. The reason for this law that recently passed on July 1st was to provide better consumer safety. We have always self-governed and done this on our own to make sure our products are safe, but the new law has it so you have to be 21-plus to purchase any cannabis products. Products must be childproof. It's limited to 5 milligrams per unit and 50 milligrams per package on all THC goods derived from hemp. So a safe limit. There's great improvements compared to before. There was no childproof packaging requirements, there was no milligram requirements, and people of 18-plus could purchase. At Nothing But Hemp, we have self-governed and only sold to 21-plus even before this bill was passed. We are an educational brand that has won "Top 100 Healthcare Company" awards nationally. Me personally, I have won a top 100 healthcare award in the world. We have 10 stores. We started our business in Maplewood Mall and we opened in White Bear Lake in 2019. If you ban THC in White Bear Lake, it won't stop companies from shipping into White Bear. People can purchase out of state and get it shipped in, or in other cities, and we don't know if those companies are doing what they're supposed to be doing like we are. It will only hurt your local businesses and consumers to take these products off the shelves for many different reasons. Eighty percent of our customers in White Bear Lake are over the age of 45. They are in pain, they can't sleep, and dealing with anxiety. If you put the moratorium... we are willing to partner with the city, teach them about the 150 different cannabinoids that come from the hemp plant. I know THC seems scary, but the customers that take these products are not taking them to feel intoxicated. They take them for health reasons. We've been here, we hear the stories every day. Like I said, most of our consumers here are much older and we do everything we can in our power to make sure it's safe. We lab test our products, we educate our customers, and we love being in White Bear. And this would hurt the businesses, us who've been grandfathered in who've already been here. It would pretty much put us out in White Bear if this were to happen. So please reconsider. We do recommend working with you guys to make sure that any other smoke shops in the area are also only selling to 21-plus, only selling up to the five milligram threshold, and also following the rules like we are. So thank you guys for hearing us tonight. This is actually my business partner, Steven Brown, so I'll let him say a few words too. **[42:15] Steven Brown (Public Speaker):** Thank you very much for allowing me to speak tonight. So my name is Steven Brown, I'm the CEO of Nothing But Hemp. Like she said, stated, we started right in Maplewood. This was our third location. It's been really great being here in White Bear Lake. I'm also on the Noxious Weed Advisory Committee for the State. I helped Representative Heather Edelson with HF 3595; she kind of utilized us as consultants. We've also had Mayor Carter come out to our stores for education sessions. So I'd love to offer an education session out at our location at any time you'd like to learn more about cannabinoids. That way you guys understand what's on the shelf. There are some scary cannabinoids that are out there that no one's really talking about, that you guys are just banning THC, but there's other cannabinoids too that you guys need to understand. And so I'd love to partner with you guys as a business owner but also give you a better understanding of different cannabinoids and how they work. This new law really does put a lot of clarification. I know there's still a lot of places where you can kind of run a truck through certain areas, but before, I mean literally, there were places right here in White Bear that were selling 1,000 milligram Delta-8 THC products all throughout the city. Right now you can go online and purchase 25 milligram Delta-9 products and have them ship right to White Bear. So if you do put this moratorium in place, it's not going to stop out-of-state shipments or even local delivery services from coming into White Bear and having those customers making those purchases right then and there. So I hope you guys reconsider, maybe licensing and allowing for current businesses to be grandfathered in, and I'd be happy that you guys can utilize us as a resource and we'd love to partner with the city. So thank you. **[44:17] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Thank you, Mr. Brown. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this issue? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Council and open it up for discussion. I'll remind the Council that we do have our substitute City Attorney here to answer some of the more legal fine points that we might have. But before we jump into it, I just want to talk about some of my initial thoughts. We don't know a lot of this stuff. I mean, I'll plead ignorance on this, I just don't know. But that's the point of a moratorium. We call it a one-year moratorium; it could be two weeks, it could be whatever, however long it takes for us to wrap our heads around this. And my natural inclination with something new like this that we don't know, that can potentially have some negative consequence for the community, is to slow down, take a breath, and then the burden will then be on us to do our homework and figure this thing out. And we would be open to hearing what stakeholders have to say. So it's not picking sides one way or the other at this point, it's a willingness to simply want to slow down and gather some facts before we just say, "Let's open the floodgates and rock and roll." So that's where my head is on this, and that's why I do support the moratorium. And again, it doesn't have to be a year; it could be shorter. So that's kind of where I stand right now. But with that, I'll open up to the Council. I know Council has a lot of questions and discussion. **[45:42] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** Okay, so Councilmember... the presentation was you could buy whatever it is we're banning up until this? I mean, the moratorium is on all cannabis products or just this THC Delta-9? **[45:57] Mayor Dan Lewis:** The moratorium, I think, is on all... is it on—? No, it was me, I wasn't using it. You're good. The moratorium is on all cannabis products. **[46:07] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** Okay. Can you help clarify for me what you mean? This is new information that we've heard from those that have testified and spoke at the public hearing. Is that true that there was something that was already legal before and that this just simply changed that or placed a cap on it, or is that not quite the full picture? **[46:27] Lindy Crawford:** No, I think that Minnesota just made this legal, and so... **[46:34] Steven Brown:** Well, and maybe... the 2018 Farm Bill legalized it, but the 2018 Farm Bill had the 0.3% threshold as well. That's exactly what this is right now. It's just that a gummy could be at 0.3%, but you could put 100 milligrams in it. So basically, Minnesota said, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, what's happening here? Why is there 100 milligram gummies out there? We need to bring that threshold down on milligrams." So that's the only thing that really has changed is the amount of milligrams and they actually put a milligram percentage in. But 0.3 is based on the dry weight basis of the product. And we operate in Florida, so in Florida, I could legally sell a 1,000 milligram candy bar. We choose not to because we think it's a public health hazard. **[47:25] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Okay, thank you. So I don't know if I got an answer or any clarification, but if anything, that just underscores the point that there's a whole lot of unanswered questions. I appreciate what you're having to say and I appreciate being respectful and trying to educate us. But in fairness to the 25,000 residents, I can't take you at your word. And if there's some disagreement among the legalities of it, that's the point of this moratorium: to slow down and say, "Let's wrap our heads around this." **[47:56] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Well, let's keep going on this. I mean, maybe we could ask the folks in the room... for some more education. I mean, it would be nice to come to the mic because folks at home cannot hear you. **[48:10] Mayor Dan Lewis:** The public hearing is closed. **[48:11] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Well, okay, it's up to you. **[48:12] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Technically the public hearing is closed, but... everyone take a timeout. I'm happy to hear from you. Councilmember Walsh, if you have questions... we're not going to sit here forever and debate, but if you have a direct question for members of the audience, go ahead. **[48:26] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** I thought my understanding of the law was the change in law was... maybe it has to do with the 0.3%, but it was the Delta-8 versus Delta-9. And I didn't think we were selling Delta-9 legally in Minnesota, and now that's allowed. And so I'm surprised to hear... I guess the point I was making is I thought we were grandfathering local current businesses—legal businesses—in with this moratorium. What I'm hearing is you're already selling something that I thought the law is now allowing as of recently. So that's the disconnect for me. How are you already selling something that the legislature just made legal in Minnesota? And I thought our ordinance was going to grandfather things that were currently legal in. So maybe City Manager, comment regarding the grandfathering? **[49:15] Lindy Crawford:** That was related to the tobacco shops. Existing tobacco shops and tobacco license holders would be grandfathered in. There would be no THC sales allowed; they're not grandfathered in because they're not currently allowed per our ordinances. **[49:33] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Okay, so that's a misunderstanding on my part. And I'm less comfortable with a moratorium that doesn't grandfather current businesses in. I didn't realize we had current hemp THC businesses in White Bear Lake that we were going to say, "You can no longer sell something you were selling yesterday." If that's what this resolution does, I'm a little less for it. I'd like to get more clarification. **[49:58] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Yeah, I think I'd like clarification from our City Attorney. Is that the case? **[50:02] City Attorney:** Yes. The way this is written is it bans the sale of THC. So it would ban the sale uniformly while it gets studied for purposes of licensing and zoning. If you wanted to grandfather in, you could go back to the drawing board a little bit and put some language into this resolution that would grandfather in existing businesses. The challenge to that approach is defining the existing business, figuring out who they are. You would need to figure out... because this is such a new area, while there are businesses like the gentleman here today, there are a lot of stores selling this where this isn't their predominant use. Their predominant use is something entirely different and they have a few of these on the counter. So who are you going to grandfather in? How are you going to define who should get grandfathered in? Those questions all need to be answered before you start talking about amending this action in order to grandfather. So grandfathering is possible, but like everything else, the point you've been making is it's complicated. **[51:10] Steven Brown:** Grocery stores sell full-spectrum... **[51:11] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Thank you, Mr. Brown. Sir. Okay, so if I'm understanding this correctly... because I'm with you, Councilmember Walsh. My understanding was we were not saying we're now prohibiting something that you were already selling on June 30th. That was never my intent. My intent, my understanding was whatever was in this law that passed and you suddenly could sell July 1st, I'm telling you I support a moratorium that says you can't sell that. What I'm hearing is the language of our moratorium is broader than that and encompasses things that were already legal prior to July 1st. Is that a true statement? **[51:50] City Attorney:** Yes, but they were legal because they were unregulated. So they were regulated by federal law but not state law. And so they were being sold here because the only law governing the sale of those items was a federal law. And so the State stepped in and regulated and limited what the federal law was otherwise allowing. **[52:09] Steven Brown:** There's Statute 151.40... I'm not an attorney, but I have three attorneys. There's a statute in Minnesota law that allowed the sale of 0.3% THC. So these products have been sold since 2018. We sold full-spectrum products right at the mall, right down the street. **[52:31] Mayor Dan Lewis:** So what's new? What suddenly was on your shelf July 1st that caused the line around the block? What's different? **[52:40] Steven Brown:** It took down the amount of milligrams we were allowed to sell. We sold a lot of Delta-8 products for a long time. A lot of customers used that for pain. That was our main customer that came in for that product. **[52:54] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Was it the medium by which you could ingest it? Is that what changed? I don't understand. **[53:01] Steven Brown:** So there was clarity... there was a lot of ambiguity in the past statute. And so the confusing part for a lot of the hemp industry, or really for any business, was: could we sell this or could we not? One statute would say yes, another would say no. The Department of Ag would say on their website Delta-8 was okay, and the Board of Pharmacy was saying no. So we were screaming as an industry saying, "Can we fix this and understand what we can sell and what we can't?" Hence why you have three attorneys. I get it. Yes, it was a complicated regulatory minefield. **[53:39] Steven Brown:** Very, very common. And it sounds like it was made even more complicated with this. And so based on the way that you guys are writing this new statute—or at least for this moratorium, sorry, I'm not an attorney—it's basically saying that I can sell what I was able to sell beforehand, which is against state law. So you really have to look at that, because I can't go and sell 25 milligram Delta-8 right now inside the city or in the state at all. It'd be completely illegal and it would be a misdemeanor. **[54:14] Mayor Dan Lewis:** What's the difference between Delta-8 and Delta-9? **[54:18] Steven Brown:** I could definitely answer that. So Delta-8 is one molecule away from Delta-9 THC. It's typically more of a body feeling. It's about 40% less strength than Delta-9 THC. Delta-9 THC comes from cannabis. They both do. The hemp plant is *Cannabis sativa L.* Any cannabis plant under 0.3%... any *Cannabis sativa L.* plant that's over 0.3% is then considered "marijuana" by definition of law. And so when it's grown, you're growing hemp cultivars, which is cannabis, but you're growing it to a point that it only goes up to 0.3%. And then you're taking that and you're able to extract that. In White Bear, you have one of the largest extraction labs in the state that's right here in White Bear. We work with them quite a bit. Let me go back. The reason I'm asking is because you're talking about being able to sell Delta-8 products, and we're looking at Delta-9 products... all THC. It just happens to say Delta-9 because it happens... yeah, that's right. Sorry. You're looking at me like you're tired. There's so many different types of THC. The state law, the law that changed, is the THC in general. It's not Delta-8, Delta-9... **[55:41] Steven Brown:** Well, I remember reading that the statute change had to do with the addition of Delta-9, but there's some irony in that, right? Delta-9 was always there. It always was 0.3% Delta-9. So there was Delta-9 being sold all throughout the state—I mean, really high milligrams. And that's why this law exists, because they're saying, "This can't happen in Minnesota. This is absolutely crazy." And it was... wild west was happening. **[56:10] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Mr. Brown, I got a question. Is there anything that you sold on your shelves prior to July 1st—whatever mood-altering sense of euphoria, health benefit, whatever effect you could get out of anything you have on your shelves—is there a difference between those and what you're selling now? **[56:29] Steven Brown:** There is. There is a difference. We used to have products with higher milligrams that were Delta-8. What Minnesota did is they said all THC products have to be under 5 milligrams no matter what type of THC it is. **[56:45] Mayor Dan Lewis:** But they can be sold in 50 milligram packets? **[56:47] Steven Brown:** Yes, sir. And so we had to take all of that product and then ship it to our locations in Florida. And that's what we did, because we could federally—because under 0.3%—we could federally move that across state lines. And that's what we did. So the law added nine to eight but then lowered the milligram level. Nine was always there. There was eight, nine, ten, THCP—which is a totally different story we can get into later on when you guys want an education session, but that is the scariest THC that's out there right now. **[57:25] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Okay. I'm looking for some clarification from our City Attorney. I'm putting you on the spot, so take a second. But under our definition section, we have Section B: Cannabis Products. My understanding is the moratorium would ban cannabis products as defined under our resolution here. And it says: "means edible cannabinoid products and any other product that became lawful to sell for the first time in Minnesota effective July 1, 2022, as a result of the adoption of the Act." Am I wrong in understanding that to mean it's *not* prohibiting anything you sold before, but just those new edible products? And is that what the intent of the Council is? **[58:11] Councilmember Dan Jones:** If it is the intent of the Council, Mr. Mayor... thank you. I would say yes to that question. Without this information before me—and by the way, I don't have a big problem, I mean, they're going to be making cars out of hemp someday. But my problem with this to the Council is that this was a hot mess. If you read about how this law got passed: wow, hot, hot mess. You got one party going, "We did what?" Literally going, "We just made THC derived from hemp legal? Did we legalize pot?" And they're like, "I don't know, did we?" Which I think is ironic that they couldn't pass other bills to help fund things that really mattered, no offense. Love that you're doing a business, but they crash-coursed this thing. And by the way, so let's talk about the Board of Pharmacy who is in charge of this: 23 employees. 23! No testing facilities, no labs, no nothing. So I'm like, they're the enforcement of this? This is why, Mr. Brown, this is why we are here going, "Absolutely, we don't want this to just... I don't want it being sold every corner, every block." I'm concerned about it more so from the residents than me personally, to be honest with you. So that's my concern. I don't want the "wild west" coming to town, and we gotta think about this because of the poor legislation that was provided. I don't agree with the legislation in the big thing, but that's my concern. Hearing all the questions, I'm like: I want to move the table. Not yet... **[59:45] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Well, I'm more... I'll be honest, you read my mind. I mean, I'm warming to that. Table it definitely for the next meeting and give us two weeks to figure this out. But the one thing that I'm... and the reason I'm not quite there yet is, as Ms. Crawford just brought up, the way we define cannabis products is: we're talking about not everything on your shelves, not the stuff you sold before, but what is now new, as our understanding. So I'm going to ask you a very poignant question: if only edible cannabinoid products were had to be pulled from your shelves, are you telling me you no longer have a viable business? **[60:21] Steven Brown:** We would sell tinctures. I probably would shut down the location and then wait for your moratorium to be over because it wouldn't be worth it. Prior to this law passing, our business was literally doing this [flatlined]. We did get a lot of media exposure, we were all over the news, and that really helped us and we had lines out the door of our White Bear location. We're downtown, we have a beautiful location, chandeliers... it doesn't look like a smoke shop, it's a totally different experience. And we still want to provide that experience to the people of White Bear and make sure it's a lawful experience. **[61:01] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Thank you, sir. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Brown? Because I'd like to really just bring it back to the Council here. But if someone does, that's okay. **[61:11] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** Well, I guess I'm just confused. As you were saying, this sentence: "Medical cannabis and hemp products that could be sold are exempt." Isn't that everything that he was selling before except for what the state has said he can't sell? And if the State says he can't sell it, it doesn't really matter what we're doing because the State has already said you can't sell it. Am I misunderstanding that? Because that seems like that's your grandfathering right there. If you could sell 14 loaves of horses, then you still can, as long as the State didn't say you can't do it. I mean, if the State comes through and says you can't do it, then what are we going to do anyway? It's not like we're going to say "go ahead and do it." Am I missing something? **[61:55] Mayor Dan Lewis:** I don't know. But again, the further confusion only compounds the impetus behind the moratorium in the first place. But let's get a fresh take. Councilmember Edberg. **[62:06] Councilmember Kevin Edberg:** I have two questions for Mr. Brown if I might. So the law passes July 1. You said that before that, your business was relatively flatlined and now it's, you know, lines out the door. In five weeks, that has changed your business trajectory? **[62:26] Steven Brown:** Yes, completely. It's been absolutely amazing. We've hired more employees at White Bear, which has been great. **[62:32] Councilmember Kevin Edberg:** But had the law not passed, you'd still be facing the same conversation about shutdown? "Do I hang on, do I try?" **[62:40] Steven Brown:** Yes, we were considering closing the location in White Bear. **[62:45] Councilmember Kevin Edberg:** Okay. Second question: so if I were... let me be clear, I have never retailed any cannabis products in any form. I was Jesse Ventura's hemp guy at the Department of Agriculture 20 years ago. **[63:05] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Wow, that's a fun fact! Look at that. **[63:08] Councilmember Kevin Edberg:** So my question: if I had lines out the door, I would be ordering in inventory and I would try and make sure that I had enough product in my store to be able to handle this really crazy demand. If we impose a moratorium, I'm looking at trying to make it the least onerous on an existing business as I can. What would we need to do in terms of an implementation date for our moratorium that might allow you to reasonably liquidate your inventory without taking a bath, and make it more reasonable for you to at least recover cost out of that deal? And I'm looking not just at your business, but everybody else who... the newspapers have been full of stories and pictures of high demand. If we're going to do that, how much time do you need to make yourself at least reasonably whole on that process? **[64:05] Steven Brown:** That's a great question. Because we have a warehouse in St. Paul, we don't carry tons and tons of inventory at a particular location. And so that's not an issue for you primarily; you parse it out elsewhere in your other outlets. Exactly, and then we transfer products in. So that's what we do as a company. Now, other companies that might be a smoke shop might be carrying $50,000 of inventory if they have their own location physically here. I can't speak to those businesses, but in our business, I just want to be truthful, and that's how it works for us. **[64:45] Councilmember Kevin Edberg:** Thank you. Thanks very much. **[64:47] Mayor Dan Lewis:** I just have one more question because... and I want to thank you, you've been a helpful resource because obviously we have a lot of unanswered questions. Mine is: I don't fully understand the chemical nature behind all this. What I'm seeing and hearing is prior to July 1st you were wavering; something became different July 1st, and now a lot of people want it. And there's a reason a lot of people want it. Fair statement. So it clearly isn't just the same as it was before and the state legislature just changed the milligrams or any of that stuff. It's something different. **[65:25] Steven Brown:** It's the media that did it. The media covered it so much. We got $735,000 of earned media just to kind of give you an idea. **[65:33] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Right, but hang on. The media saying this is now new and causing a line to go out the door is true right up until the people that were the first ones in line came in and said, "Well, this isn't anything different than was before." But obviously, if the lines are still out the door, there's something different. And that's what our concern is: we don't really understand what this different thing is. And I don't want to put you or any other business out of business; I want to be agnostic when it comes to what you're selling or anybody's selling as long as it's within the bounds of the law. It's easy when most other laws are pretty clear-cut and dry what you can sell and what you can't sell, but this is all so brand new. It would behoove this Council and our city to just hit the pause button. And if we pass a moratorium tonight, it doesn't mean that we can't task city staff with really studying this up like tomorrow and saying, "We want this moratorium... if we become comfortable that this is okay, to be as short as possible." We don't know yet. We're just trying to gather some facts. And I think there clearly is something new that's causing lines. It is something that alters the effect of the body; there's no question about it. And I want to learn more about it. Until that happens, I don't want it sold in the city. And that's just where I stand. **[66:50] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Is it something new? Are these new customers coming to a product that they didn't know about and understand until this legislation happened and then the media attention came to it? Because it may not be a new product; it may be a little bit new packaging, but new customers. **[67:06] Steven Brown:** That's exactly what it is. It's brand new customers for us. These are not old customers; these are customers we've never seen before. So that's exactly what happened. **[67:18] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** There's a disconnect. All right, thank you, Mr. Brown. I appreciate everything you've said. **[67:23] Councilmember Dan Jones:** Mr. Mayor, thank you. Basically asking staff... the one question that I had regarding Article 4... we're calling out tobacco shops specifically. Well, liquor stores sell cigarettes. Can you help me out? **[67:44] Lindy Crawford:** Yes. We're referring to... if you look at the definition of tobacco shops, we're referring to stores that sell the majority of their items are tobacco-related items. Regardless of THC at all, this included tobacco shops. We didn't even... weren't even talking about THC when it came to the tobacco shop discussion. **[68:04] Councilmember Dan Jones:** So that doesn't leave a window open for a liquor store to sell? **[68:08] Lindy Crawford:** We're talking about two different things. Okay, so tobacco shops... let me find the definition here. **[68:15] Councilmember Dan Jones:** I thought the tobacco portion of this was because we needed to look at it? **[68:20] Lindy Crawford:** That is... no, it had nothing to do with the cannabis, but it was just taking advantage of that. So we want to do this as well. **[68:28] Councilmember Dan Jones:** Okay, but does Section A cover everything else? Just says "no business" for the cannabis section. **[68:34] Lindy Crawford:** For the cannabis section, correct. So that means no liquor store, nobody else... nobody can join in on the fun. That's correct. That covers no cannabis; they can't be sold in the city, period. You can still sell tobacco; we're just saying don't expand your tobacco—no new store, no new tobacco stores. Tobacco shops are Section B. **[68:55] Councilmember Dan Jones:** I just look at it... all right, we're going to call out the framing shop. It's just on the tobacco shops as listed because again, we're looking at a tobacco shop as a retail establishment with sales or projected sales of tobacco-related products constituting at least 40% of the establishment's total sales in any month. That's what we are looking to study in addition to cannabis. Thank you. **[69:25] Councilmember Kevin Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree that we have lots of conflicting information and lots of ignorance on the part of us as policymakers that require study. I'm on board with the idea of study, and that makes sense to me. I would prefer that we conduct our study in a way that does not harm an existing business. To me, this likens back to the conversation we had in these chambers about two years ago with the inappropriate subletting of space—Mr. Walsh, you remember the business over... somebody had rented out a portion of the real estate business and it was in the middle of a pandemic. They already had consummated the deal, they were in violation. We chose to find a workaround that allowed that business to stay until that lease was done and then we would not extend the exemption beyond that. But we didn't put them out of business right away. I'm trying to find a way that says we give existing business that had been lawfully incorporated, legally selling product, an opportunity to stay in business, retain employees, etc., etc. It's not my desire as a part of our moratorium to put businesses out of business, because I think that's what will happen if we impose the language that we have here. So I want us to think through: how can we find a way to study without negatively impairing legally incorporated businesses doing legal business? Okay, so that's my second point. My third point is I'm actually not completely comfortable with one moratorium addressing both tobacco and cannabis. I agree that they fall in similar realms of regulation; I agree that both might in fact be necessary. I would prefer that we actually separate out so that we can distinguish: we are prohibiting the expansion of tobacco shops, but we are outright not allowing—we are banning—the sale of cannabis products. I would prefer that we have those two policies separated in whatever future draft that we have. I'm supportive on conversation on each one, but not in the same piece of moratorium. I would like us... along the lines of not harming business, to find an implementation date, reasonable notice, so that they can adjust inventory and make adjustment to their business as opposed to "Oh, we're going to publish something and right after that you no longer get to do dot-dot-dot." For me, it's the impact on an existing business that creates a higher bar for us in how we use our regulatory power, and I want to make sure that we are thoughtful about how we do that. Last item: especially if we separate tobacco from cannabis, I would really like to look at shorter than one year. I accept the argument that we don't know exactly how long it will take and that it does take time and we can't grow our analytical capacity overnight. At the same time, I'm not interested in saying "one year." I would prefer a shorter time frame. If we need to have a conversation about extending that, I might be open to that as well, but I don't want to go in with a year and then maybe promise that we can finish it earlier. I'd prefer to hold feet to the fire faster than that. That's where I sit on these various topics. **[72:50] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm tracking really closely with Councilmember Edberg on most of those points. The split resolution I think is wise; they're two separate topics. And I came to the meeting tonight expecting to vote for a one-year moratorium that did not affect current business and grandfathered everybody in. And maybe I didn't read close enough. And my also understanding was that there was something that you couldn't do before July 1st that you can do now and we're just not going to let that happen yet until we figure it out. That's not the case. And that's not anybody's fault—certainly not their fault for having a business in Minnesota in what they claim is a "wild wild west." It looks like, without me being an expert in this, it is a bit of a wild wild west without enough regulation from the state. And that's really not their fault, it's not our fault. But the remedy is not to shut down the current business, and that's just... I'm not ready to vote for that. I won't vote for that. And so I don't know what the path forward would be. I'm not interested in a moratorium that does that. So I might just... if we can table this or vote no on it tonight. I mean, our options are to... I don't know how to write a resolution of grandfather clause to allow something that's not definable because we... it's not like "this product A was then now sold as B," it's undefinable. So I'm not sure that's the path. My thought is we might have to lead and not follow, and we might have to go fast and not wait. And so my recommendation would be not do a moratorium—and I'm just talking about the cannabis piece, the tobacco piece is separate, we can deal with that as a different issue—but on the cannabis piece, we don't do a moratorium and we just get to work and figure out our own ordinance, licensing, you know, who, why, when, where... all those things. Give them some direction, learn more about the state law so we know we're within state law, what we can regulate, what we can't. And then maybe lead and get that done and then not disrupt current business. I guess I'm not concerned—I'll just say it as a Councilman—I'm not concerned about the current activity happening at White Bear Lake. I'm learning that it was happening before July, might even be better with the state law because while the media seems to think they have liberalized things, they've also in fact put more regulation in place in terms of size of product and things. So I'm not concerned if we don't pass a moratorium today and the business continues as it is down the street for a week or a month while we go fast and get a resolution in place. So that's my direction. Open to other ideas, too. **[75:30] Councilmember Dan Jones:** Mr. Mayor? Big idea guy. Yes! Love it. All right, so Nothing But Hemp was selling before July 1st. Is there any way we can—I'm looking at our City Attorney—establish that these businesses were selling legal products before July 1st and grandfather them a business license that would be short-term that would cover our moratorium period? **[76:00] City Attorney:** Yes. **[76:01] Councilmember Dan Jones:** How will I know who was—? **[76:03] City Attorney:** Let me finish. You're asking me a question. Yes, but no one has figured out how to do that yet. Is it possible? Absolutely. We just need to figure out the words and write them down. But we don't know what those words are and we don't currently have them written down. **[76:18] Councilmember Dan Jones:** So that's where I would say: that would be a way for me to say if you were selling it before July 1st, that means you're a legitimate business. We know of you some way, somehow. Prove to me... obviously Nothing But Hemp, it’d be easy for you to do that. If there's other people that stand up, it's like: you've got two weeks to contact us, we're opening for business to issue this license for... I'm just making things up here... two weeks. If you do not contact us in two weeks to apply for that license, you're out. You gotta wait for our moratorium. I think there's a way. And that's what I'm hearing from Kevin, I'm feeling the same way. There's got to be a way. Let's take two weeks and just hold off. But I want to hear from staff... Lindy? **[77:00] Lindy Crawford:** I do want to hear... you'll beat me up, but I get that. I want to hear from Julie because I'm looking at the other side of Mr. Brown. That's the other part that we've got to consider is the enforcement. This whole new thing to our enforcement and we don't know what we're doing. **[77:22] Mayor Dan Lewis:** You wanted some thoughts from city staff on the logistics. Could this happen? **[77:28] Lindy Crawford:** I'm not going to confidently know who was in business on or before July 1. I won't know that. Someone can falsify something easily now and say they were and they weren't. I'm not going to know that. I don't have the officers to enforce this. We were going to be conducting compliance checks periodically, but I can't have them go out tomorrow and tell me of all the places that are selling THC in White Bear Lake today. Two weeks isn't going to give me enough time. **[77:55] Councilmember Dan Jones:** Sorry, Mr. Mayor. May I? Two weeks, going back and forth... it's just whatever time you need. I mean, that's what I... I'm just looking for our businesses that are established, that we open this business license we can control and issue business licenses. And if you got one month, whatever it is, to apply for that business license, if you don't apply, you're not grandfathered in. Right? That's really the question that I'm asking: to give you the flexibility to make it a cutoff point for businesses to grandfather in. And it would be a business license that would probably expire at the time... **[78:30] Lindy Crawford:** Yes. Mayor, members of the Council, there are a few communities who have gone that route of licensing. Edina is the only one that I know of at this point. Their city attorney may know of more. I haven't read their ordinance, I haven't looked at it. I will say this: they're my colleagues. I think it was short-sighted. I think it's too soon to issue an ordinance or adopt an ordinance that regulates this, and we don't know everything yet. I think there may be things that occur down the line at the legislature that change this or modify it; then we're going to go back and modify our ordinances. We're going to be following up with anyone who we've issued a license to. And so a moratorium ordinance—an interim moratorium ordinance—doesn't mean that in the end we're saying "no." I may come back to you and say, "Hey, actually I recommend we don't even regulate this." I don't know yet. I don't know all the information. It's probably a good thing I don't know all this stuff, right? So I was requesting the City Attorney and I were recommending that we take some time. It doesn't have to be 12 months. I would request the Council allow me 12 months because we are short-staffed and everything is tight. We have many new faces and new things, a lot of things that are going on, to just take time to look at this. I may come back and suggest we don't regulate it, we do regulate it, or you prohibit it. Maybe not. I don't know yet. We've heard from one business owner. In the staff report, I said that after this would be adopted, I would be reaching out to those businesses and kind of... not creating a task force if the Mayor wants one, then great... but I would be asking for business owners' feedback. "Teach me about this, help me understand it." Let's get all that information out, but let's do it thoughtfully and not rush it. **[80:15] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Thank you. That's helpful. I'm certainly more confused than I was when we began the night. My intent with this, my understanding with the moratorium, was we were only placing a moratorium on that which was suddenly able to be sold after July 1st. And there clearly is an ambiguity there. I don't think we have a clear answer on that. And I still am open to a moratorium, and I'm open to creating some flexibility. The goal isn't to put you out of business. But let me put it this way: from a policy standpoint, if we can craft a moratorium that said you can't sell this *new* thing that you couldn't sell before, and that puts you out of business, I'm sorry, that's just free market economics. I'm not trying to prevent you from selling something that you were doing in June and the years before then. I think there's a distinction there. My recommendation of the Council would be to table this to a time period that we think we might be a little bit smarter on this and to give us some time to either: (A) modify the moratorium, (B) decide we want to vote it down because we're smarter, or (C) decide we want to pass it because we're smarter. But there's a lot of unanswered questions right now. I'm not willing to... that which prompted it was still important today, even after we've heard your feedback. But there may be some reason to modify it. But we need to get smarter on this. So that's where I think we should go. And if we table it definitely to more than two weeks out, we can do that, can we not? Or is there a timeline that we have to —? **[81:54] City Attorney:** With regard to the ordinance? No. Not the second reading. **[81:57] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Okay, so then I would be looking at city staff. We're not trying to make it, you know, have to burn the midnight oil every night. So that's the question: how long do you need for us to make a more informed decision? **[82:09] Lindy Crawford:** I don't have that right now. I don't have enough information on that right now. **[82:13] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Well, we got a ballpark of about a month, two months. **[82:17] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don't think we're asking for the entire study and the entire research. I agree, I'll make that motion... I'm in favor of an idea of an emotion to table the resolution in front of us because it's still the right way to go. And I liked everything you were saying about the process going forward as long as we don't shut down a business that's currently operating and was operating legally in the State of Minnesota before July 1. So we need to do both. And so I don't know that we need to solve the licensing and the ordinance piece; we just need to get out of this meeting because we can't solve things in this format in a public meeting. We need to get staff working on a better resolution for a moratorium. And so that's maybe one meeting or two meetings... two meetings is essentially a month. So I mean, we can give... if it's... and again, I don't think—we don't have the Chief here, but I don't know that we're going to jeopardize the safety of the city if we take a month to re-look at the moratorium and then end up in the right spot. So I'll just make that motion, Mr. Mayor, that we lay this resolution on the table. Is it two meetings? Or to our September blank meeting? **[83:35] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Before we jump into that, do we want to bifurcate? Because we mentioned the tobacco portion of this—Section A and a Section B. Is there a desire to pass Section B related to tobacco tonight? And if so, we need to separate it first and then we can get into exactly what you're saying. **[83:52] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** I'm happy to do that, yeah. **[83:53] Mayor Dan Lewis:** We haven't discussed anything about tobacco. I'm just assuming Council's by and large in favor of Section B. So we would need... looking at my City Attorney to correct me if I'm wrong... we would need a motion to separate the current resolution into a Section A and a Section B? **[84:10] City Attorney:** Yeah, I think if you made a motion to separate, to take out the references to THC and leave just the references to tobacco and the regulation of tobacco shops... I think that's something that... I don't know what your normal practice is, but I think that could be done administratively, this actual physical separation part. And then still preserve a motion to table on all the relevant parts. **[84:34] Mayor Dan Lewis:** That's the question. That's where it gets complicated. **[84:36] City Attorney:** No, I don't think you could do that. You would need two items before you. I don't know of a process to split one item into two. So you could adopt one today and bring the THC back, but I think it would need to start over procedurally. **[84:50] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Is there a great need to get the tobacco section done before we revisit this in, say, a month? **[84:58] Councilmember Dan Jones:** That's entirely up to the City Council. **[85:00] Mayor Dan Lewis:** I'd say hang on. Councilmember Edberg had his hand up. Sorry, go ahead. **[85:04] Councilmember Kevin Edberg:** I would just remind Councilmember Walsh that on the first meeting in September, we normally have a pretty big agenda having to do with something with dollar signs and our preliminary levy. So my inclination is to say this might not be the right topic to add on to that agenda, but it's up to the Mayor and the City Manager. **[85:25] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Listen, six weeks... I don't think... we want to get this right. I don't think whether it's two weeks, four weeks, or six weeks... the city's not going to burn down in the meantime. We're taking it seriously, but we're doing it reflectively because there are stakeholders that have some competing ideas and we're just not smart enough yet. So is the Council receptive and open to that? The second Council meeting in September, giving city staff a little more time? **[85:53] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** Well, how many times can we table it? If we bring it back in two weeks, can we table it again? We just keep bringing it back. Can we just keep tabling it? **[86:03] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Well, I think in theory we could. It's not the most ideal. I'd rather try and set us up for success and hit a meeting where we think we can make some decision on it. **[86:13] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** Right, but if we do it and come back and Lindy says we're not ready, we can just table it right away. **[86:18] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Yeah, right. If we leave it open for her... if she's ready September 7th, 8th, whatever it is, then she's ready for it. Can we table this indefinitely and then just put it on the agenda another time? **[86:31] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Can I just ask something else instead? In Article 4 here, this moratorium: can we just mirror the tobacco shop with cannabis shops? So you just can't expand your... you can't get any bigger. We're not going to put any more shops in. These guys can still do their business, but nobody new. **[86:47] Mayor Dan Lewis:** I would prefer to take a deeper dive before that would be adopted tonight because I'm not sure that's the complete consensus of the Council. **[86:55] Councilmember Dan Jones:** No, I'm just... out. **[86:57] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Okay, we can evaluate that, though. **[87:01] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** Can the City Attorney answer my question? Can we table it indefinitely and then just put it on the agenda? I don't know where we stand with the rules on that. **[87:09] City Attorney:** Technically, tabling indefinitely does not violate Robert's Rules of Order. I hesitate to recommend it. Things get lost there. Now, maybe this is not one of those things, but in order for the public record to be clear about when this is going to be reconsidered—the fact that this is out there in the world—I just recommend against it. **[87:31] Mayor Dan Lewis:** So let's... let me just call the question. I'd entertain a motion to table this definitely until the second meeting in September, giving staff time to research and get us smart on this, at which time we'll take it up again. Would anyone like to make that motion? **[87:47] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** I'll make that motion. **[87:48] Councilmember Dan Jones:** Second. **[87:49] Mayor Dan Lewis:** I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? **[87:51] Councilmember Dan Jones:** So my question is: can I do a friendly amendment at this point? This is where I'm looking at this going: let's rip tobacco out, bring it back separately. **[88:02] Mayor Dan Lewis:** I can... is that —? **[88:05] Lindy Crawford:** You can, and then the cannabis can be by itself on the date... **[88:10] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Mayor, members of the Council... the City Attorney I believe had stated you can remove everything about THC, you could adopt a moratorium ordinance on tobacco tonight, and I can remove that administratively. Am I correct on that? **[88:23] Lindy Crawford:** But here's the question then: have we by default then voted down the cannabis portions if we can't table them? I don't want to vote it down right now. You guys are discussing tabling; you're discussing amending. I'm just... **[88:38] Mayor Dan Lewis:** It's further discussion on the motion before us then. Don't worry. If you want to do that, then we have to vote down the tabling in order to do that. Well, you call the question, I have no choice. **[88:48] City Attorney:** You can pull the THC out of the ordinance. I think it's in the eye of the beholder whether or not that amounts to a vote-down of the THC or amounts to separating the two and letting the other come back. That would effectively be an indefinite layover of the THC issue. But if you wanted to move forward on tobacco tonight, I think that that's possible. I think that the two regulations, even within individual paragraphs, are easily identifiable as applying to one or the other. Normally I wouldn't recommend that be done administratively—normally I'd be sitting here with a pen—but in this case, they're pretty easily several. So that's an option. But whether you want to consider that to be voting down the THC or not, I guess like I said, it's in the eye of the beholder. It does pull it out and it would not pass tonight and it would not live past tonight. **[89:40] Councilmember Kevin Edberg:** So we attempt to be friendly. I would suggest we consider two motions: one to approve the tobacco-only portion by an affirmative motion to strike the THC and approve the tobacco portion, and then to express the will of the Council to have a second motion to deal with the other part and how we would choose to deal with that. **[90:04] Mayor Dan Lewis:** I thought we established we couldn't—that that's what we couldn't do, was bifurcate it? That wasn't the proper way to do it. Am I not hearing that right? **[90:13] City Attorney:** Mr. Mayor, you are hearing that right. To separate the two, because you only have one item before you. You can't turn one item into two items before you procedurally. **[90:23] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Here's where the rubber meets the road for me: where's the fire for passing the moratorium on the tobacco shops and why can't it wait till September? **[90:31] Councilmember Dan Jones:** This is why I'm suggesting: rip tobacco out of this, let the cannabis move forward, bring back the tobacco separately. **[90:38] Mayor Dan Lewis:** If we table this motion and bring it back in September, we can put on the agenda a clean tobacco moratorium and vote on that separately. That's the proper and easy way to do it. And then when we bring it back to the Council, we can amend it as it was brought before us once tabled. So that is how I'd like to do it. Does that work? **[90:58] Councilmember Dan Jones:** Yep. **[91:00] Mayor Dan Lewis:** So would you like to withdraw your motion to amend? **[91:02] Councilmember Dan Jones:** It was under discussion. I have not made a motion. **[91:04] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Second. No, your motion's the table. Yeah, that's the right motion. **[91:09] Councilmember Dan Jones:** To table and let this move... just take it off. **[91:11] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Okay, motion's still good. All right, second. Any further discussion? Do we remember what the motion was for? Tabling the current resolution indefinitely until the second meeting in September. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? All right, just kidding. Motion passes. We're gonna hold this over for a couple Council meetings. All right, thank you guys. Thank you very much. Government's ugly, but it gets it done. **[91:45] Councilmember Dan Jones:** Yeah, I thought we were putting on a clinic here on really how to work through a tough subject, or maybe I'm just doing a bad job chairing. I don't know. **[91:52] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Item 7: Unfinished Business. We have nothing scheduled. Item 8: New Business. Resolution approving a variance for 2510 Manitoba Island, the Brugeman residence. Ms. Crawford. **[92:06] Lindy Crawford:** Thank you, Mayor. Members of the Council, as you mentioned, the item before you is a variance request for the property located at 2510 Manitoba Island. The request in this case for the variance is for a one-and-a-half-foot height variance from the overall four-foot limitation for solid walls. The Planning Commission reviewed this item and held a public hearing at their meeting on July 25th. That public hearing produced no comment, although the applicant was present at the time and spoke—and their representative spoke just generally about it—emphasizing the decorative nature of what they're proposing. The variance criteria to consider a variance outlined in state statutes is detailed in your staff report. I’d be happy to answer any questions about any of those items should the Council have them. But overall, staff did find after reviewing those criteria that the applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty in this case, and so both staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of this item. Currently, the Council may be wondering why this particular item came forward for an actual presentation tonight versus most of the other items that are planning items that would be on the consent agenda. In this case, the item is before you because the Planning Commission voted 4 to 1, and so there wasn't a unanimous vote from the Planning Commission. And so that's why the item was brought before you tonight. Just to quickly give you a summary of the items included in your packet, this picture was also included in what was presented to you in your packet that shows a general... well, it shows the actual walls that are being proposed at this point by the applicant. So while there is a portion of the wall that does exceed the height limit overall, the slope design does limit that effect. The applicant's overall landscaping and site plan, again included in your packet, details the positions of these entry monuments on either side of their horseshoe driveway. And you can see the graphic here points to their location on the aerial photo on either side of their existing horseshoe driveway. So with that, again, staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of this one-and-a-half-foot height variance for the solid wall entry monuments on the subject property, subject to conditions which include that the monuments will be set back at least eight feet from the street-side property line, and that is already in place by the applicant. So with that, I’d take any questions. **[94:44] Councilmember Steven Engstran:** Move approval. **[94:45] Councilmember Dan Jones:** Second. **[94:46] Mayor Dan Lewis:** I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Motion carries, resolution passes. **[95:02] Mayor Dan Lewis:** All right, Item 9: Discussion. Nothing scheduled. We all got an education on THC. I don't know if we're smarter or dumber, but we're... we know things now that we didn't know, or we know wrong things that are incorrect. I don't really know. It's not our fault. Item 10: Communications from the City Manager. Ms. Crawford. **[95:25] Lindy Crawford:** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. Just a couple things tonight. The "Bear Tracks" AV shuttle launched. We had a ribbon-cutting ceremonial ribbon-cutting and media event last Friday. You'll see a couple photos on the screen. Mayor Lewis gave a very nice speech. And on the next slide, I have a couple more photos. He also took the inaugural ride with the MnDOT Commissioner there, who also attended the event, as well as the Chamber, Ramsey County, New Tracks was there. It was a very nice event, and so it is in operation now. You can ride that shuttle for free Monday through Friday, I believe 9:30 to 1:30. You can get on at the YMCA or any of the other stops. There's their own website; they have all their social medias and I think the branding looks pretty cool too. So that is what I have for that one. Upcoming events: there's ribbon-cutting tomorrow that staff will be at for Grease Monkey tomorrow at 2:00 PM. A ribbon-cutting for Blue Pencil Collective on Thursday, August 18th at 3:30 PM. And then the last "Fridays with the Firefighters" is Friday, August 19th from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM at the South Fire Station. And with that, that's all I have tonight. **[96:42] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Thank you. **[96:43] Councilmember Kevin Edberg:** I just wanted to say thank you to the fire and police department for Night to Unite. They were present at all kinds of folks. I had the privilege of riding along. Mr. Walsh had an evening as well. And our staff were awesome and they interacted... my observation was they interacted incredibly well with all residents, particularly young ones who like big trucks. **[97:10] Lindy Crawford:** In addition to that, I should have also shared a couple of photos from Safety Camp. That was yesterday at Podvin Park. Fire, police, Connexus Energy, the Ramsey County SWAT team... I think it was HealthPartners... many people were out there. It was a really great time, full morning/afternoon with kiddos. And so I echo the sentiments of Councilmember Edberg: our public safety team is phenomenal. **[97:36] Mayor Dan Lewis:** Thank you. All right, anybody else? All right, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. **[97:44] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Move to adjourn. **[97:45] Councilmember Dan Jones:** Second. **[97:46] Mayor Dan Lewis:** All those in favor say aye. Aye. Well, thank you.