[0:04] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** Right, all set. All right, I'd like to call the regular city council meeting for Tuesday, April 16th, 2024, to order. Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. All right, any additions or corrections to the agenda? No sir. Seeing none, I'll move the agenda. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Council: Aye). Opposed? Agenda is approved. [0:50] **Logan Martin (City Administrator):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. April—specifically April 21st through 27th—is National Volunteer Week. And so every year we take a moment to just proclaim National Volunteer Week and then use that as a chance to talk about the wonderful volunteerism that exists here in the City of Rosemount. And City Council will be having a reception for a portion of our volunteers that we have direct connection with coming up here in April. But there's just such a broad volunteer network in the community that really makes so many things that residents have come to love: Leprechaun Days, Haunted Trail, street cleanups, park cleanups. You know, these are coaches on youth t-ball leagues and peer mentors and Rotarians and things of that nature. And so just a chance to proclaim our appreciation of volunteers. And so Mayor, if you would please read the proclamation. [1:36] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** All right, the proclamation of appreciation goes: The City of Rosemount is proud of the volunteers who continue to enrich our community through their concern, commitment, and generosity of spirit. And whereas Rosemount has numerous community organizations and events that thrive with volunteer participation, and whereas our volunteers show every day through their actions that they truly care about our community and the people who live in it, whereas the City of Rosemount wishes to celebrate the impact of dedicated volunteers who inspire others and who have discovered their power to make a difference, and whereas we thank volunteers for their wonderful contributions, their hard work, and their commitment to help make our community stronger, more vibrant, and a better place to live in which we work and play. Now, therefore, I, Jeffrey D. Weisensel, Mayor of Rosemount, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim April 21st through the 27th, 2024, as National Volunteer Week in the City of Rosemount and urge all citizens to recognize volunteers who contribute their time, talent, and energy to our community. Dated the 16th of April, '24. Someone like to move the proclamation? [3:08] **Paul Theisen (Councilmember):** So moved. [3:08] **Tami Klimpel (Councilmember):** Second. [3:08] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** I have a motion by Theisen, second by Klimpel. Roll please. Essler? Aye. Klimpel? Aye. Weisensel? Aye. Theisen? Aye. Freske? Aye. The proclamation is approved. We'll move on. That completes item three. We'll move on to item four: Response to public comment. I understand we do not have any additional comments to share this evening. We'll move on to item five: Public comment. Anyone wishing to come forward to address the Council on subjects not on the meeting agenda may do so. Your name and address and your comments for Council. The answers will be sent either by letter, phone, or within a week. The Council podium is open. Anyone? Go once, twice. All right, we'll close the public comment and move on to item six: Consent agenda. Anyone wishing to pull items from the consent agenda, which consists of this evening’s bill listings, minutes of the regular and work session proceedings, a request by First State Bank of Rosemount for approval on a conditional use permit for a drive-through facility and minor amendment to the Prestwick Place PUD, and the request by Maplewood Development for approval of the Amberfield 17th Edition preliminary and final plat. Council, anyone wish to pull one? [5:26] **Tami Klimpel (Councilmember):** I'd like to pull item D, please. [5:26] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** Item 6D is pulled. Any other items? All right, got a couple willing to pull that. With that, would anyone like to move the consent agenda items A through E with D pulled for further discussion? [5:26] **Paul Theisen (Councilmember):** So moved. [5:26] **Heidi Freske (Councilmember):** Second. [5:26] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** I have a motion by Theisen, second by Freske. Roll please. Klimpel? Aye. Weisensel? Aye. Theisen? Aye. Freske? Aye. Essler? Aye. The consent agenda is approved. We'll bring up item 6D. Councilmember Klimpel? [5:26] **Tami Klimpel (Councilmember):** Yeah, Mayor, I wish to pull this item for some public visibility about an exciting new development coming over to one of our highly watched intersections in town. So, just hoping to get a little visibility here. [5:58] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. Happy to present the item here on First State Bank of Rosemount and the actions that are before the Council this evening. I'm going to go just through a couple of the items here as Planning Commission recently made some recommendations as well as took a final action on their site plan. So just kind of a reminder for Council as well as the public that as a part of a series of requests for lot development projects, Planning Commission makes final approval on site plan. So that's, I'll say, the more interesting aspect of it where it really talks about the flow and the parking and that type of thing—it was approved at the last Planning Commission meeting, but I will go through some of that here for the Council and for the public this evening. So City Council tonight is being asked to consider requests by First State Bank of Rosemount for two actions: for a minor amendment to the Prestwick Place planned unit development along with a conditional use permit to construct a combined bank and coffee shop with drive-through facilities. So just to orient everybody—the general area of town—Akron and 42 would be the major intersection, and then the Roers apartment building that is currently under construction is kind of outlined here in this aerial map from a little while ago now. But the highlighted parcel right at the edge of Abbeyfield and Highway 42—that is the proposed site for First State Bank in combination with an in-house coffee shop. I do want to note that the applicant is also here this evening, and I did chat with them for just a few minutes, so if there are questions on the project itself, he would be more than happy to answer those. So again, this is more site plan related, but running through kind of what we're taking a look at here: a single-story building, parking lot layout, potential room for an additional expansion. But I think the interesting piece that makes this project a little bit more unique, especially from an established business that we have in our downtown—this is a second and a new location. I know that was emphasized very clearly at the Planning Commission; the downtown bank is not closing or moving over here. This is a second and new location for these guys. But the concept of having a coffee shop internal to their bank, accessible from a separate drive-thru, is a little bit of a more unique concept that we haven't seen here in Rosemount. So you can kind of see how the traffic lines up there and kind of getting back to the nature of the request specifically before the Council this evening: looking for a minor amendment to their PUD which reduces the amount of stacking, so a number of cars that are required to be spaced out in terms of space on the site. So there were findings that were made by the Planning Commission and recommended to City Council that find that you don't need that much room on the site; it's really maximizing the site to be a bit more efficient for this type of use. I don't want to pretend to talk in too much detail—I'm not an architect here on the project—but you can see in this floor plan for the bank as well as the coffee, North would be up in this case. There is a dedicated coffee area, and a lot of the conversation that was had at the Planning Commission meeting that the applicant was able to speak to is just the separation of the two—the bank and then the coffee—and just being able to utilize those at different hours based on the needs of each of those individual businesses. Just a quick landscape plan showing how this is landscaped. And one thing just as to where this sits on the site itself—it's important to note because I look at this stuff all day from the top down—but that drive that heads east to west on the north side of the outline of what would be the bank here, that's an internal drive which would access an additional site for development. The main road that would go through near the apartment project is actually kind of off the screen and to the north here. So think of everything as a little further south, and then this is the stormwater area here. And I can go back to the aerial too if there are questions just where it sits, because I know that is a little hard to kind of wrap your head around exactly where that is, but this is in that furthest southwest corner of Abbeyfield and 42. A bit of the elevations showing the style on the layout as well as some of the architectural detail about the construction materials that would be included on this building. And then ultimately, the action that is before the Council tonight: the two recommended motions to adopt a resolution approving the minor amendment to the Prestwick Place planned unit development agreement, which reduces the vehicle stacking requirement for drive-thru facilities subject to two conditions which are outlined in the attached resolution, and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the minor amendment; as well as a second motion to adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit allowing drive-through facilities for First State Bank of Rosemount subject to conditions. Again, those are outlined in the attached resolution. I can certainly stand for any questions. The applicant is here if there are other questions or just to hear from them. Back to you, Mayor. [11:15] **Tami Klimpel (Councilmember):** Do you mind going back to the diagram? So there's essentially two drive-throughs: one for the bank and one for coffee, is that correct? [11:15] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Correct. This one you can see here on the landscape plan—and this one's a little bit of a zoom out of that earlier one—I can go back to the one that shows the stacking. But again, the stormwater pond is up here and this is an internal drive. So the Planning Commission as well as the applicant did have a bit of discussion just about how traffic circulation would occur on that site, and they were very satisfied with the answers. I can try to relay that to the best of what I recall, but essentially how cars would be able to enter the site if you can see my cursor here, and then there's the dual-stack lane for the coffee drive-thru along the north side of the building. And then where they anticipate to be, let's say, a lesser frequency of traffic at a drive-up teller window, that occurs on this area as they would come in and then circulate out of the site. [12:15] **Heidi Freske (Councilmember):** Thank you. Question: maybe this is a question for the applicant, but the parcel that they are looking at purchasing includes both this location and then the parcel directly to the east. I'm just wondering if there's any conversations yet on any potential business or commercial business there, or is there any conversation at all, or is that still just being marketed? [12:15] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** I would have to defer to the applicant what their plans could be or what they'd be willing to share with Council at this time. [12:55] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** All right, we'll take this time to ask the applicant to come forward. As he's moving his way up here, recognizing First State Bank is—what are you now, like 101, 102? [12:55] **Mark (Applicant, First State Bank):** 115. We're the oldest business in town. [12:55] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** Oh, and finally expanding! [12:55] **Mark (Applicant, First State Bank):** Yeah, well, that was the tipping point—115! We're ready. Our current facility was built in 1959, we added on to it in 1978, and then we remodeled in 2016-17. So you have been expanding and improving through the years too. Our architect, HTG Architects, when we did our remodel in 2016, tried to convince me to add on and I was like, "Oh well, I don't know that we'll need this space, we're just fine." About two years later I was like, "We need more room." And actually, we just hired someone to fill—we have no empty desks in the bank starting the 20th of this month, or of May. So we are on the lot to the east of us. We are openly marketing it. We've talked to a couple of—I think right now it's about three different entities. One of them I'm not as excited about. The other two are restaurants. One of them has talked about a little bit more of an upscale type restaurant which I think Rosemount sorely needs. I don't know that we need another pizza place or dental office. So we're not really looking towards office space; it would be more towards something that might have traffic a little bit more in the evening that would fit our parking and their parking—we could work together. So that's our hope, would be to have a restaurant if we can, and that's what we've told our real estate agent, that that's kind of the way we want to go. [15:26] **Heidi Freske (Councilmember):** Awesome, great. Thank you for that. [15:26] **Tami Klimpel (Councilmember):** Other questions, comments? I would say I noticed on the floor plan there was a room labeled "community room." Can you explain the usage of that room? [15:26] **Mark (Applicant, First State Bank):** So our plan—that would be—we have a conference room in our current facility but it's a little small, so we don't really have room to have a big gathering. Our plan is to use both of them as our boardrooms, but then also to open it up so that the way it's structured, we could open it up so that when we're not open, someone else could sign out and use the room, whether it's a scout troop or a Bible study or whatever. Say a youth basketball team wants to have a team meeting or something like that, they would have room to do it. It should seat probably about 12 to 14 people around the table. So it's something that we wanted to make available because again, it's something that there's not enough space in Rosemount to be able to do that. [16:58] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** Great, thank you. Just a comment: thank you for reinvesting in Rosemount. It appears that there's enough business here for two facilities for you, so that's wonderful. You certainly have been reinvesting in the community, upgrading and stuff, but it's just really wonderful and exciting to see an opportunity like this pop up for you. And I think everybody kind of knows this, but just reinforcing that your roots and ties and certainly 115 years have been in the community, and it's certainly appreciated staying here. [17:43] **Mark (Applicant, First State Bank):** Yeah, well, you know, there's not much room for expansion in downtown Rosemount, and most of the growth is happening to the east, so to capture more of that, we just felt it was important to be out there. That's why we're looking at doing it. [17:43] **Paul Theisen (Councilmember):** Follow-up comment: well, I was just going to say, I was going to ask a question about the coffee, but when you just brought that up, one of the great things about this is, you know, we talk about having the hometown feel with the growth. Nothing is more hometown feel than having our oldest—you know—in town expanding. [17:43] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** I'm not the oldest! [17:43] **Paul Theisen (Councilmember):** The oldest business, Mark! You're not that old yet, sorry. The oldest establishment. To move on, so that's kind of cool. That just kind of came to me, that was fun. Thank you. But how often does this coffee-bank—has that been done quite often? [18:29] **Mark (Applicant, First State Bank):** So our architect has done it a number of times. They actually have one down in Northfield, Heritage Bank, which is right on Highway 3. They have a coffee shop they partnered with—the Hideaway coffee shop in downtown—they put one in, it's called the Hideaway Vault. It's attached to the bank. There's one in Waconia called the Mocha Monkey which is tied into Hometown Bank. There's a bank up in Bemidji. There's a couple of—dare I say—credit unions on the northern part of the city that have done it as well. And the main thought behind it is to draw people into the lobby. And the way it's designed is, when the bank is open, they're going to come through our main door and walk through the bank. The fireplace that's in there will have seating which is part of the bank and part of the coffee shop, so you'll be able to enjoy a cup of coffee on both. And it is—we had a couple of go-arounds with our real estate agent. He was like, "Well, you'll get more traffic if you have Starbucks or Caribou or Dunn Brothers." And me being a community bank, I was dead set against it. I said we need to find someone local. So that's right now we're focusing on someone that's local. Hopefully we'll know more in the next probably two to three weeks, but it looks good right now that it'll be a local company. [20:02] **Paul Theisen (Councilmember):** That's great. So what I hear you saying, though, is that this has been done in many other communities with similar situations like there with a community bank, and they've really had success with having the draw. I mean, it makes sense. It also is, you know, other than Life Time, there's not another commercial entity out there yet. And so to have people go to Life Time, when the new school's built come from the school, come in, grab a cup of coffee, go around the corner and do their banking and go on their way—sounds great. [20:48] **Mark (Applicant, First State Bank):** That's the hope. Thank you. [20:48] **Heidi Freske (Councilmember):** Yes, last question. I think: what is your timeline for development? [20:48] **Mark (Applicant, First State Bank):** So based on our timeline that Sean and I went over, we're hoping, assuming all approval goes through, to be breaking ground sometime July, maybe. And we're hoping, depending on how the winter would go, we would probably have some sort of a grand opening somewhere between May and July—I mean, around Leprechaun Days maybe—but we don't know for sure. If our winter was like this year's, it'll go pretty easy, but chances are it'll probably be the snowiest winter we've had in a while. But we're just excited to—you know, obviously Rosemount is important to us. I know that Jeff and Paul have heard me say this a number of times, that my dad always told me that, you know, if we don't give back to Rosemount, why should people come in the door? And this is just another step for us to help the community. [21:33] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** Awesome. Anything else? No? Thank you, Mark. All right, thank you. Would someone like to move the recommended action? We've got two of them. [22:20] **Tami Klimpel (Councilmember):** I'll move to adopt a resolution approving a minor amendment to the Prestwick Place PUD agreement reducing the vehicle stacking requirement for drive-through facilities subject to conditions and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the minor amendment to the Prestwick Place planned unit development agreement. [22:20] **Paul Theisen (Councilmember):** Second. [22:20] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** Have a motion by Klimpel, second by Theisen. Roll please. Weisensel? Aye. Theisen? Aye. Freske? Aye. Essler? Aye. Klimpel? Aye. And the second motion? [23:08] **Heidi Freske (Councilmember):** I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit allowing drive-through facilities for First State Bank of Rosemount subject to conditions. [23:08] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** Second. [23:08] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** Have a motion by Freske, second by Essler. Roll please. Theisen? Aye. Freske? Aye. Essler? Aye. Klimpel? Aye. Weisensel? Aye. And that completes item 7A for both. Best of luck, thank you. Start turning that dirt. That completes item 7A. We'll move to ordinance adoption. Miss Grant? [23:56] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** Hi, thank you Councilmembers. So I am presenting tonight an ordinance proposal for an administrative citations program for the city. Just to provide some background: our Code Enforcement Division was created to enforce and regulate zoning and property standards within the City of Rosemount. And we have currently two methods of enforcing that. The first is a complaint basis, which is held year-round, and that's more reacting to complaints, so if someone calls about their neighbor. And then the second one is our Sequential Code Enforcement Program, which highlights a neighborhood every summer, and they do block-by-block inspections. They give notice to that neighborhood and it's more of a proactive seasonal approach. So you can expect roughly every neighborhood to be inspected every six to seven years. So this would just be another addition to our current enforcement mechanisms. So what the city is proposing is amending chapters 4 and 9 of Title 1 within the city codes relating to general penalties and authority to issue citations, and then adding a brand new chapter to Title 1—Chapter 10—to the city code which would establish that administrative notice and citation program for code enforcement. So to get started, Title 1, Chapters 4 and 9, it's just updating and omitting some outdated language as far as it pertains to the general penalty and then language for who has the authority to issue citations. And so we expanded that to include: "City code enforcement official, building official, or any other person with authority to enforce the city code may issue a citation in lieu of arrest." So that just gives the city some more flexibility in the case of if contracted out code enforcement work—you know, that would be a person authorized by the city to do so. So adding into Chapter 10—I don't know how thoroughly you looked into it, but this would allow the city, in addition to our other enforcement mechanisms, to have kind of its own internal judiciary system versus having to go through Dakota County. And it results in a more cooperative process between the homeowner and the city versus the two options—or for like repeat offenders—just giving them notice after notice and there being no result. And it does not take away from current code enforcement processes such as abatement; it's just an additional tool for us to use. And again, our goal is code compliance. It's not to punish homeowners if their grass is slightly too long or, you know, if they had their trash in the wrong spot and they don't even know it. It's just to increase public safety, health, economic vitality, community pride, and harmony. And so here are the steps for administrative citations: so if a homeowner is in violation, the city would issue a warning notice which states like the date and time the violation was seen, the type of violation, and a timeframe. So in our ordinance proposal, it's 14 days to remedy the violation before an inspector will come back out and just evaluate to see if it's still there. There's two avenues. The first avenue is what 80% of residents will take, which is they didn't know or they didn't realize and they'll remedy the violation. But then you have the second option, which is where residents—the violation is still present on their property. And so that leads into the next step, which would be issuing a formal administrative citation which is issued with a civil penalty or a fee. And then there's an option for homeowners to request an administrative hearing, which would allow them the option to appeal and contest the citation they were issued if there's like a disability, an illness, or a reason why they can't fix it. And it is written in our code that the city may grant an extension as well to the timeframe to fix it if the property owner calls us and shows a good faith attempt at remedying the violation. And then final steps: if they don't pay the civil penalty, or they do but the violation still exists outside of that case period, there can be an issuing of second and third plus citations, abatement measures by the city, and then the final course of action would be to go through Dakota County for criminal penalty charges. So here is—this is not an exact amount; the amount would be determined in the fee schedule adopted by you guys. This just shows a rough ballpark from working with city staff what we think would be generally appropriate. And it would be each day a violation exists outside of its case period constitutes a separate offense. The violation amount does not reset yearly for the same or substantially similar offense. So think in the case of—you have a hoarding situation and it's 2023 and you give them their third violation, it's not like the minute January 1st, 2024 starts they immediately have a clean slate, kind of similar to speeding tickets, you know, it's on your record. And if they have a different offense, then yes, they would start back at the first violation amount, if that makes sense. And that would include administrative hearing fees and a late fee per 30 days of not paying their civil penalty upon the due date. And so the projected timeline for spring would be to adopt this ordinance and then start education and engagement with community members and Rosemount residents just so that way it's not coming out of the blue. And so we wrote and it's being published in our spring 2024 newsletter on code enforcement, and then we're working on—if you remember from our work session—a little city code enforcement booklet to send to new and current property owners within Rosemount and maybe some other different measures. And then in early fall 2024, we'll start to slowly implement the administrative citations program, and then hopefully by spring 2025 it'll be fully incorporated into our code enforcement processes. So the recommendation is a motion to approve the ordinance amending Title 1, Chapter 4, amending Title 1, Chapter 9, and adopting Title 1, Chapter 10 of the Rosemount city codes; and a motion to adopt a resolution approving the summary publication of the ordinance number 2024-XX approval. I can take any questions if there are any. [31:38] **Heidi Freske (Councilmember):** All right, we'll open it up to Council. So if you think about in recent years, any idea of an estimate of how many of these violations would happen on an annual basis? [31:38] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** Yeah, I can't give you exact numbers, but from talks with our Chief Building Official who oversees inspections and code violations, it's been gradually increasing every year as far as complaints, violations that have not been fixed, and owners who are not cooperative or refuse to cooperate with the city and we're kind of—what can we do? And we can't really do anything, if that makes sense. [31:38] **Heidi Freske (Councilmember):** Are you talking 10? Are you talking 100? Any ballpark estimate of what we're thinking? [31:38] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** I would say we're looking at approximately 5 to 10 like major violators that have been in violation for over a couple of years, and then just a couple of minor ones, and usually will fix those right away. [32:25] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Freske. Typically we'll have an increase in enforcement over the summer. We bring on a seasonal employee, which has been our past practice, to go through the sequential process which Alicia kind of ran through. So over a course of a summer, we'll issue several hundred notices of violation. So what this is really doing is moving it from "something is observed to be wrong" to a criminal process; it's putting a process in the middle that allows us to have a civil penalty enacted if the process is not remedied through our regular code enforcement processes. [33:10] **Paul Theisen (Councilmember):** Thank you. I was just going to say, you know, I like what you said—I heard "good faith," I heard "neighborhood harmony." You know, the goal of this ultimately is that you're working with the residents. That's what I like about what I'm hearing with this motion. But then also kind of the burden off the staff, to your point, Adam, is the whole idea of giving them something instead of going from either extreme—something in the middle to say, "Hey, let's move this along." And even if it's only 5 to 10 trouble cases or whatever, at least it gives another tool for the staff, which I think will take the burden off the staff. That's what I like about this. [33:56] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** Can you explain a little—how widespread is the usage of administrative citations programs? Is this something common in our neighboring cities or cities our size? [33:56] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** Yeah, so there's been a couple cities we used to research: Woodbury, New Hope, Lakeland. There are quite a number of cities that utilize this program, both statutory and home rule charter cities. I don't have the list right in front of me from all my hours of research, but there are quite a number of Minnesota cities that do enforce administrative citations, and it is within our authority per Minnesota statute 412 to enable and enforce code enforcement. [33:56] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** Thank you. [34:42] **Paul Theisen (Councilmember):** I think it's been mentioned, but you know, kind of a slow, soft rollout is what I would favor so it's not just flip a switch and they get an email, or do they get a communication? It's like, "We've now gone to this ordinance and now this is what's going to happen and you get one warning and then you're going to get the..." I mean, hopefully that's the intent of staff; it's going to be a kind of a soft, slow rollout so it's not just flipping a switch. Is that what you guys have discussed? Is that kind of at the staff level? [34:42] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** Yeah, so we've kind of talked about it like how Minnesota passed the "no touching your phone while you're driving" rule. Starting in the fall, nothing's different if you think about it from what we currently do in which we do still give notices to this day. The only difference is now there's a potential citation. So I would be slowly implementing. You know, after the sequential enforcement program, there would probably be less violations because homeowners are more aware after that process going through. And it's getting colder and people usually clean up their yards and prep for winter. And then with engagement and education, then we could fully implement that starting spring 2025. [34:42] **Paul Theisen (Councilmember):** And what is that communication plan to communicate to the residents? How are we getting the message out there? [36:15] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** Yeah, so we're currently working with Lee from Communications. So far we have the newsletter, the "Do You Know Your City Code?" booklet, and then something that's been in the talks very briefly was like educational seminars, or putting it in for new residents, putting it on our website—just trying to get the information out there for homeowners and anyone that moves to Rosemount, since we do get so many new residents with all the development going on. [36:15] **Paul Theisen (Councilmember):** And you're going to have residents all along the continuum, but you're going to have some residents who are going to be really irritated with this because they're going to probably be the offenders. But then you're also going to have a lot more residents who are going to be excited about it. So I guess just as you work with Lee on this and roll this out, just kind of be cognizant of the fact that you've got two at least two extremes and then everybody that kind of falls into the middle just to kind of figure out how to navigate through that. Because again, I think the vast majority of our residents will be thrilled with it, and little annoyances of their neighbors are now going to hopefully be remedied. Then the last question is: the $35 admin fee, is that normal that there's a fee for an administrative hearing if somebody wants to appeal? Is that normal, or does that seem like it's a—do we need to do that, I guess, is my question? [37:01] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** So if we would get a hearing officer, they would kind of be similar to Planning Commission where they would receive a stipend for one monthly hearing with residents that appeal, and so it would more cover those costs and staff time for processing. But the $35 fee is not fixed; that was just an example. I've seen it range from like $12 up to $40. It's up to our discretion as far as how much we want to charge and even if that is necessary. [37:01] **Paul Theisen (Councilmember):** I mean, I get the "skin in the game"—I mean, probably something so they can't just willy-nilly decide that, "Hey, I'm just going to fight it and that doesn't cost me anything other than my time." But I would just maybe ask you guys reconsider that. My hope and guess is that you're not going to get a lot of administrative hearings; people are going to either accept it or they're going to pay it or fix it. So that's the intent, right? [38:36] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** Could you turn back to the fee schedule? Initially looking at that, I was kind of surprised; it seemed a little light. At least from what I'm experiencing, where does this land in your research? Is this kind of in the middle? Is this on the low end, high end? I'm trying to get a sense of where these are landing. [38:36] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** From what I've seen, there's been multiple systems that different cities have adopted, whether that's a tiered system, so like a Level 1 violation which would be less severe, or the violation amount which we thought would be the most simple, concise, easy to track. This fee, I would say within my research, is probably right in the middle to lower end. There's some cities where their first code violation can be like $75 to $150. So we thought by the first, second, and third violation process and then late fees compounding on top of that, that would make the most financially reasonable sense. [38:36] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** Okay. And how—this is kind of like an enforcement—so if I'm the building official, I go out and I see multiple violations on my visit. So each violation could conceivably be hit with a $50 fine? Is that how this is, or is this kind of on a visit basis? [40:09] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** Yeah, it would probably be—so for example, if someone has a bunch of junk cars and then they have trash, those would be their one—not like per car, if that makes sense. So it would be the type of violation that they have on their property would be a separate offense. [40:09] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** All right, so the violation of the junk cars, but if you had 10 of them, it's still one violation? [40:09] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Mr. Mayor, the violation is tied to the section in city code. So the violation is, as Alicia said, "you have too many vehicles." It's not an index of you have 8 versus 10 versus 12; it is "you have too many vehicles, you need to correct it to the allowed amount on your property." [40:09] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** And not in the presentation but I noticed it in the reading: so if somebody chose not to pay and after three violations and things, what is the mechanism for us to collect that money, those civil penalties? [40:57] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** Yeah, it would be a lien and assessed against property taxes. [40:57] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** And how much cost is that lien involved when it's actually executed on the property? [40:57] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** I may have to defer to our Administrative Services Director on that, who probably doesn't have that off the top of her head. But just from some past experience, there's typically an additional administrative fee as a part of that, as well as an additional percentage or interest component that goes onto it. The idea behind it is it's not meant to be punitive or a punishment, but you don't want it to be basically seen as a payment to allow it to occur. So the example I think that we like to use is: if somebody is storing something illegally—there are private facilities where you can store your recreational vehicles and stuff—we don't want to make the fine less than what it costs to go offsite and store it and say, "Well, I'll just keep paying the fee; it's cheaper to have the city ding me than store it down the road." So there's those types of considerations that go into that. [42:32] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** My point on the lien cost is, is that covered or addressed in the ordinance itself? Because I don't see it there, that's why I'm asking. [42:32] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** To my knowledge, Mayor, that becomes part of the assessment, right? We can verify that with the City Attorney, but to my recollection, that's an automatic allowance that within the County's process they just add it to what they assess. [42:32] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** I just don't want to see somebody come back and then we're fighting about something because it wasn't addressed somehow, even though we may be entitled to it. I think it should be just right up in front that there's other fees if you choose not to be compliant. [42:32] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Yep. [43:18] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** The last point—I know I have met with multiple residents in a variety of situations that have indicated that they've struggled with the idea that it doesn't seem that the city's been able to do anything over multiple "scofflaw" people that have been given a violation and they choose not to do that. And certainly, I think we see at the county level that they don't necessarily take all these things—they're not looking for that, they have enough on their plate, apparently. So I think this is welcome from a lot of those residents that appreciate having this middle step, to be able to indicate that those things are being addressed. [44:07] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** Right, it’s a tool. [44:07] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** Right, it's a tool, it's not punitive, but I think I've seen enough of these and I've talked with enough residents that a lot of them are just kind of fed up with some of their neighbors and they're looking to the city for some type of action. And I think this helps do that. [44:53] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** Just—and maybe I missed this—but is this cumulative? So the 50, the 100, the 250? So by the third violation, they're on the hook for 400? [44:53] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** Nope. So what it would be is any third violation and any past that would be at 250. [44:53] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** Okay, so it wouldn't be increasing past that. Their bill totals would be cumulative? [44:53] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** Their bill would be. So their first violation: here's a $50 citation. If they get to the third violation, they will have paid $400. [44:53] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** Right, yeah, okay. And then at what point—and I apologize if I missed this—but at what point are you filing the lien? So that's done on either a biannual or an annual basis if they failed to pay it? Is that what you're getting at? When they get the third violation and you bill them for the 250—at what point? If they haven't done anything by the third violation, they've paid $400—you're probably not going to see it or they haven't paid it, but they've been assessed $400 and they haven't paid it. At what point? [44:53] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** So they would continue to incur additional citations at that top-end amount in perpetuity until that is— [44:53] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** Is that a monthly charge? [46:23] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** Alicia, you may have to walk back through the steps and stages of it. [46:23] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** I think the important part to note, Mr. Mayor and Councilmember Essler, is that this is certainly being seen as an additional tool in the middle. It is not precluding us from other avenues that we have, which would be civil litigation. So right now it's: we ask nicely or we bring you to court. This is in the middle. This doesn't take away our ability to either abate it and then recover those costs or to pursue prosecution. I guess in your example, if somebody's just completely like, "What are you going to do other than continuing to fine and have those fees accumulated?" this does not take away our ability to then also pursue. [46:23] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** But at some point you've got to make a decision to file the lien, and I guess— [46:23] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** And that does happen on an annual or a semiannual... I'm not exactly sure how often we do that with other unpaid. [46:23] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** We hold a public hearing. Once or twice you hold a public hearing and then you have to authorize that be added on there. [46:23] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** Got it. Okay, got it. Thank you. [47:10] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** And the other thing that I'm hearing here: so are all the violations like within 14 days? Is that kind of standard on whether it's the first, second...? Okay, so after 14 days if they haven't paid, then that other item kicks in at 10% for a late fee, correct? [47:10] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** Correct. Sorry, it's 14 days that they have to fix the violation before we issue a citation. And then they'll be given 30 days to pay the civil penalty, or that can be extended if they request an administrative hearing. So if it's not extended, after 30 days then they will see a 10% charge. [47:56] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** So a $50 fine—and was that daily? For every day the offense exists constitutes a separate offense? So say if someone is in violation, they're given a notice, 14 days pass, they're given a citation, and then say 30 days pass, they haven't requested an administrative hearing—that would be their time case ending, or until an inspector goes by? Violation after 30 days, then 31 days they get hit with $5, which is 10% of 50, right? Is it that simple? [47:56] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** If they have failed to pay. And that becomes a— [47:56] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** Daily charge? [47:56] **Alicia Grant (City Staff):** No, it’d be monthly. It's a monthly charge, like 10% per 30 days. [48:43] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** All right, so for the first 30 days it's $55, the next one is... I think what we want to make sure that we're not missing here is that the intent is compliance of it. [49:29] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** I guess what I wanted to clarify is that there is discretion in terms of what that compliance allowance looks like. We're making sure that it's very clear in here what the maximum ability of the city to enforce that is. A real-world scenario is most of the time you have some sort of reason that they're not complying, whether it's medical or something else. It's meant to be compassionate but also strive towards compliance. So let's say somebody says, "Yeah, I'm sorry, I couldn't mow my lawn" or whatever it is—three weeks—there is discretion how that's administered with the goal of being compliance. But worst-case scenario, this is the schedule, this is the timeline and fee for maximum enforcement. [50:16] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** Okay, yeah. Any other questions? No? All right, with that then we'll open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this may do so; come forward to the podium, state your name and address and any of your comments. Floor is open. Go once, going twice. Seeing no one moving up to the podium, I'll move to close the public hearing. [50:40] **Heidi Freske (Councilmember):** Second. [50:40] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** All in favor signify by saying aye. (Council: Aye). Opposed? The hearing is closed. We'll move to any further comments or questions for staff? Move to the recommended motion. [51:28] **Paul Theisen (Councilmember):** I'll make a motion to recommend the City Council approve the attached ordinance amending Title 1, Chapter 4, amending Title 1, Chapter 9, and adopting Title 1, Chapter 10 of the Rosemount city codes. [51:28] **Heidi Freske (Councilmember):** I'll second. [51:28] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** Motion by Theisen, second by Freske. Roll please. Freske? Aye. Essler? Aye. Klimpel? Aye. Weisensel? Aye. Theisen? Aye. And the second motion? [51:28] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution approving the summary publication of the ordinance number 2024-XX approval. [51:28] **Tami Klimpel (Councilmember):** Second. [51:28] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** Motion by Essler, second by Klimpel. Roll please. Essler? Aye. Klimpel? Aye. Weisensel? Aye. Theisen? Aye. Freske? Aye. That completes 7A. First motion 5-0, second motion 5-0. With that we'll move on to unfinished business, which we have none. New business? None. And announcements, Mr. Martin? [52:14] **Logan Martin (City Administrator):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. One item tonight that I just wanted to mention since the last City Council meeting: we held our Guns vs. Hoses hockey fundraiser event and just wanted to thank the community for the really wonderful outpouring of support. The event raised over $11,000 for the Minnesota 100 Club, which is the nonprofit entity—you've also maybe seen the new black license plates with the red and blue stripe through the middle; proceeds from those license plates go to the Minnesota 100 Club which funds support to families of public first responders who've been injured or killed in the line of duty. And Chief Dahlstrom or Chief Schroeder weren't here tonight, so I thought I would just take a stab at calling it out. But we had three gentlemen that worked on the Guns vs. Hoses event: Paul, Alex, and Ben Taylor on the Fire Department. Just did a phenomenal job and it was really fun to watch. Again, Fire Department won again—I think every year they've won, unfortunately for the police, but it was competitive this year until a couple empty nets towards the end of the game. But a lot of fun. High school kids too; two varsity players on each team as nominated by their team to play with the "old duffers" on police and fire, and it was a lot of fun. So kudos to PD and Fire for putting that out. The Ballin’ in DC basketball tournament just happened; I haven't heard a report on how that went either, but really cool to see our public safety public servants doing this philanthropy on the side as well. So just wanted to shout that out, and I think that's all I had on my list, Mayor. [53:46] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** Right, thank you. Great community events. I'll open up to any council members having any announcements? Seeing none otherwise, that completes 10A. We'll move on to 10B, updating the community calendar. We have on Monday, Parks and Rec Commission; appears that it was moved to April 22nd from 6:00 to 7:00. The volunteer commission and appreciation event that we had the proclamation for earlier tonight is next Tuesday, April 23rd from 4:45 to 5:45. The Planning Commission on April 23rd from 6:30 to 7:30. Our Youth Commission will be meeting on April 24th from 3:00 to 4:40—that includes a Public Works and Police campus construction walkthrough, and then retiring to the Rosemount Community Center to follow. The City Council next meets: work session will be on May 7th, 5:00 to 7:00, and City Council meeting May 7th from 7:00 to 8:00. And with that, if there is no other business to come before the Council, move to adjourn. Is there a second? [53:46] **Paul Essler (Councilmember):** Second. [53:46] **Jeff Weisensel (Mayor):** All in favor signify by saying aye. (Council: Aye). We are adjourned. Thank you.