Based on the context provided in the transcript, here is the formatted dialogue with speaker names added. **Note on Speaker Identification:** * **Mayor:** The primary facilitator of the meeting. * **Mr. Juba:** The acting clerk for the meeting. * **Miss Crawford:** The City Manager. * **Director Lindall:** The Community Development Director. * **Council Members:** Edbert, West, Hughes, Walsh, and Strang (identified by the Mayor’s call-outs). * **Mr. Anderson:** The City Attorney. * **Chief Hagar:** The Police Chief. * **Deon Holston:** Legal counsel representing M&J Tobacco. * **Miss Shimik:** City staff (likely Economic Development/Planning). * **Mr. Copy:** City staff (likely Engineering/Public Works). *** [1:14] **Mayor:** All right, we're going to call the meeting to order. Will the clerk please note those in attendance? Mr. Juba is pinch hitting. [1:14] **Mr. Juba:** Thank you. Will you please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance? [1:14] **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. [1:32] **Mayor:** [cough] [clears throat] Item 2 a, minutes of the regular city council meeting from November 12th, 2025. I would entertain a motion to approve those minutes. [1:50] **Council Member:** Motion. [1:50] **Council Member:** Second. [1:50] **Mayor:** All those in favor say I. [1:50] **Council Members:** I. [1:50] **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. Minutes are approved. Item 2B, minutes of the city council work session on November 12th, 2025. I'd entertain a motion to approve those minutes. [1:50] **Council Member:** So move. [1:50] **Mayor:** Do I have a second? [1:50] **Council Member:** Second. [1:50] **Mayor:** Motion second. All those in favor say I. [2:06] **Council Members:** I. [2:06] **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. Minutes are approved. Item three, adoption of the agenda. Are there any corrections, additions, changes? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. [2:06] **Council Member:** So moved. [2:06] **Council Member:** Second. [2:06] **Mayor:** Have a motion to second. And all those in favor say I. [2:06] **Council Members:** I. [2:06] **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. Item four, consent agenda. I'd entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. [2:23] **Council Member:** So move. [2:23] **Mayor:** Do I have a second? [2:23] **Council Member:** Second. [2:23] **Mayor:** Motion a second. All those in favor say I. [2:23] **Council Members:** I. [2:23] **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. Item five, visitors and presentations. Nothing scheduled. Item 6A, first reading of an ordinance establishing the 2026 fee schedule. Miss Crawford. [2:39] **Miss Crawford:** Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Um so tonight we are going to go over the first reading and conduct a public hearing for the 2026 fee schedule. And so to just high level go over some of the proposed adjustments to the ordinance. Business licenses we're looking at a routine rate increase to support staff operations compliance checks and licensing programs. Offenses for tobacco sales have been incorporated to align with Minnesota statutes. The special event permit fees—you just adopted a special event permit policy. So we have included the associated fees with that that align again with that newly adopted permit policy. On page four of the fee schedule is ambulance and we are proposing a 3% rate adjustment to that. Pioneer Manor, a 5% adjustment to cover property insurance increases and contract services for cleaning, refuge hauling, lawn care, and management software. [3:42] **Miss Crawford:** On page five, water. It looks very redlined because after two years of a deep dive, we discussed with the council at the October budget work session a new rate structure with a base fee that replaces the infrastructure and meter fees as well as a tiered rate structure measuring billing in billing unit of 100 cubic feet that will charge residential and commercial customers at their actual water usage. For surface water, there's no change for residential. Commercial and multi-family housing unit quarterly fees increase by $1. There has been also an adjustment to commercial residential equivalent unit or the REU numbers. Again, that was discussed at the October work session as well. Sewer is a 0.5% rate increase for services. Refuse—really this serves as kind of a pass through. But on page six, a 2% increase for the vendor per contract increase and a 9% increase to the tipping fee portion to cover the expenditure increase for everything that's needed there. [4:58] **Miss Crawford:** When we move on to community development and look at planning on pages seven and eight, there have been necessary adjustments for the updated zoning code that we have just implemented. Those include park dedication fees as well as the addition of interim use permits, reasonable accommodation measures, site plan reviews, and site alteration permits. And then jumping ahead a few pages to pages 10 through 16 for building, sewer, water plumbing mechanical and electrical or building division. There have been many new escrow fees recommended as an incentive or security for applicants to complete work on their property outside of the building or in the adjacent public right-of-way that may not be possible in Minnesota's cold weather months. And so these really just ensure that the project will be complete. And then electrical permit fees have also been adjusted due to contractual obligations. [5:58] **Miss Crawford:** And so that's a very high-level overview of the fee schedule. I will stand for questions that the council may have. But again, we are looking for you to conduct the public hearing and the first reading of the fee ordinance or fee schedule for 2026. The second reading will—you will conduct the second reading on December 9th prior to consideration of adoption of the fee schedule which would go into effect January 1 of 2026. Thank you. [6:26] **Mayor:** Thank you, Miss Crawford. At this time, I will open up the public hearing for anyone who would like to be heard on this. There is no names on the list, but anyone who would like to speak to this may be heard. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing, bring it back to the council. Council, we've had our first reading. Are there any major glaring things that we'd like to see changed before it comes back for the second reading and consideration of adoption? Council member Edbert. [6:54] **Council Member Edbert:** Thank you, Mayor. Miss Crawford, on page 10, the escrow fees are a new thing, and I'm trying to remember what that purpose is. Why are we doing all of the escrows? [7:14] **Miss Crawford:** Uh could you—Mayor, Council Member Edbert—could you go back one slide staff? Thank you. So um these are we're proposing them for new for 2026 and I'll have Director Lindall jump in too, but these are being recommended so we can ensure that work is being done. So much of our work is done seasonally and we can't always get that finished and so this would be ensuring that work is done and if it's not done it would allow the city to come in and complete that work. Director Lindall? [8:00] **Director Lindall:** Mayor, members of the council, I would just expand on Miss Crawford's comments just a little bit to say this escrow tool in a building department is a common tool used throughout the metropolitan area that has yet to have been adopted in White Bear Lake. And precisely what she said is the reason behind this, in that there are situations in the construction process where the winter season comes along and certain things haven't been done. And so, but the property owner or homeowner may need to or business owner may need to occupy that and get an occupancy permit and move into it before some of these things like outside landscaping or rain garden improvements can be done. And so, it's a tool that would be used sparingly to just ensure that certain improvements generally outside of the home that are impacted by weather conditions in Minnesota get done and as soon as they are done they're then returned to the property owner. [9:06] **Council Member Edbert:** So I was in the context of okay I've got—I need a new roof for whatever reason and I get my building permit um and then I change my mind. Do I then—am I—do these fees apply to [snorts] voluntary things or are they only connected to the things where a certificate of occupancy is required or what's the where do these get applied in that process? [9:32] **Director Lindall:** Uh mayor members of the council that's a very good question. It really would only be for required improvements. Again if you look at the list they're generally things that are outside of the home. If this is a discretion, I mean there are standards where you know the city's housing maintenance code would say you need to have a roof. So there are situations where that would apply but this escrow list is not intended to address those more code enforcement kinds of things. This is really more to address specific again generally outside improvements on a new site or a redeveloping site or rebuilding site um that are improvements that just can't be completed due to seasonal changes. [10:17] **Council Member Edbert:** What Okay, so I'm still missing the point. Um so we have one for hard surface driveway. I decide I get—I pull a permit to replace my driveway and change my mind. That's not a required... What's the—what are the triggers that require these services? It's not just that they're outside. What's the motivating trigger that causes these to become applicable? [10:51] **Director Lindall:** So, mayor, members of the council, the tool was really envisioned for like if you're doing a tear down and rebuild of your home and you have the home complete, it gets to be November and the driveway can't be completed until the spring because of the winter season. And so at that time we would ask for a security for that to ensure that when spring happens that the improvement is done and then the security can be returned to the builder or the homeowner depending on who the permit's from. I suppose there is a scenario where a homeowner or property owner could, as you described, pull a permit for something and then decide not to do it. But, you know, our ordinance requires now that you have a driveway. And so traditionally what we try to do is work with property owners to ensure that improvements are done and if they would agree to provide a security and agree to a plan to make their improvements then we would take that route. If they weren't agreeable to that then we would have to consider the other enforcement mechanisms that are available. [12:21] **Council Member Edbert:** I'm still confused as to things that are thoroughly optional, cosmetic in nature, but that require a permit, require action that requires a permit, and why—if those are covered, excuse me, dry mouth—um, I'm still not understanding whether those are covered or not. [12:52] **Director Lindall:** So, mayor, members of the council, maybe it would help if we looked at the list specifically for you. The list of things here are really only situations that would be required improvements. So, these were things that would be required to be done and it doesn't for example address anything outside of this list. [13:16] **Council Member Edbert:** And required as a condition of what? because of a variance... [13:16] **Director Lindall:** ...building permit. [13:16] **Council Member Edbert:** I'll give it some more thought. Thank you. [cough and clears throat] [13:32] **Mayor:** Let me drill down on that a little bit because this is all tied to in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy. Correct? So, I've got a house that was built 70 years ago. It's got a driveway. I decide I want a new driveway. I need a permit to put a new driveway in. Right. I already have a certificate of occupancy. Right? The signing off of the new driveway doesn't require any additional certificate of occupancy. The finishing that work isn't tied to a certificate of occupancy in that situation. Correct. [13:56] **Director Lindall:** Uh mayor, members of the council, you are correct. But there's always a final inspection and we wouldn't sign off on a final inspection until the improvement, driveway, whatever it was, was complete. There may be some improvements, like you say, that aren't necessarily tied to a certificate of occupancy, but they would always be tied to a permit that requires a final inspection. [13:56] **Mayor:** But that's not this. That's what I'm asking. So, if I rip up my driveway and for whatever reason, I can't get to it. You're saying under those circumstances, I got to put up eight grand. [14:22] **Director Lindall:** I'm sorry, I'm not following your question. [14:22] **Mayor:** I think I want to separate new construction, big projects, big things, tearing down houses versus a guy who just wants to replace his driveway, but for whatever reason, there may be some delays for all kinds of different reasons under that narrow circumstance. Does this apply? [14:49] **Director Lindall:** If we got to a situation and the winter months came, mayor, members of the council, it is—this is intended to be a tool for staff to use to help motivate those homeowners that may not be moving forward in a timely way with their projects. It's generally those situations are generally tied to seasonal conditions. Um there are situations where someone may be moving slower for a variety of reasons and we would always attempt to work with them on what their schedule was assuming it was working to complete their project in a timely manner. It's not that this is a tool that's intended to be punitive, if that's your question. [15:57] **Mayor:** No, but an $8,000 escrow might be considered punitive. [15:57] **Director Lindall:** Yeah, I guess it's [clears throat] not inconsequential. [15:57] **Mayor:** Yeah, that's my concern. I'm just trying to think practically what's the realm of things. I separate two different things: new construction, you're doing a five, six, $700,000 and up project versus someone who is going to put in a new maybe $8,000 asphalt driveway, does the demo, and all kinds of variables that are out of the homeowner's control. And now we have a mechanism where at a certain point we're going to say, "We'll give you the temporary certificate of occupancy knowing that it's going to take X amount of time" and you got to put up eight grand. That's a different scenario than all the financing and different mechanisms around a big construction project. So, this gives me some heartburn. I trust staff completely that it's not going to be used as a weapon, that you'll exercise great discretion. That's not the concern. It's that we codify this and 5, 10, 20 years from now, it's still there. Do we need this? I look at that—there's always the possibility that it can be abused and that's not an insignificant amount of money on all of this. So, you know, the temporary certificate of occupancy and some mechanism to hang it over them to motivate them to do it—Great. Some of these numbers strike me as a bit much, particularly when the reason for the delay could be beyond the homeowner's control. I don't want to just assume that someone who's got the money to put in a new driveway also has eight grand sitting in the bank because that's what we're talking about. An escrow account is dollar for dollar. It's held by a third party escrow who's the fiduciary of that money. You need the cash right now. So that potentially puts people in a very difficult spot. So, I would be open to some kind of structure that solves what I think staff is after—a tool so that projects don't drift—and perhaps it's an additional administrative fee because rather than approving it, we've got to now go back and take pending projects as new ones are coming online. I can be open to that structure, but these escrows just strike me as too much money. That's my feedback. Council member West. [18:06] **Council Member West:** I guess to follow up a little bit on what you were saying, Mr. Mayor, I am curious about like how many times you think in the last year or two you would have used something like this? You would have said, "Oh, gee, I wish we would have had this because it would have been helpful in this circumstance." [18:30] **Director Lindall:** I'm sorry, I don't know that number off the top of my head. Through some conversation with the building official and our building tech, we could get a better sense of that. I would say it's generally speaking it's seldom because that would be a conversation I think we were having in our department about a challenging permit to complete. Again, it's staff's intention that this is the exception to the process and the balance of the tools we have available to us at this point are citations and then eventually court actions to motivate someone who doesn't finish their project, and there's time and expense involved in the legal process that goes along with that. And this is again a fairly—I mean I certainly hear the concern about the amounts that are on these pages. Um, this is not an uncommon tool throughout the metropolitan area and the numbers were researched from other communities and are generally accurate for completing a project. But we certainly can get you some more feedback if the council still has questions about it. [20:01] **Council Member West:** Well, I appreciate you looking into this and making sure that it's in alignment with other different localities in the metro. I'm just concerned about adding a complexity to our system that may not actually be necessary and also kind of the appearance, whether or not it's an actual concern about high cost. So if it isn't an issue very often, my preference would be to not add this in until it becomes—hopefully it won't—but unless it becomes a bigger, wider spread issue. [20:47] **Director Lindall:** And mayor, members of the council, that's good feedback and we can dive into this and give you some more around the numbers. We can just get you some more information. [21:04] **Mayor:** Kevin—Council member Edbert. [21:04] **Council Member Edbert:** Thank you, Mayor. So good policy should be informed by data. How many examples of uncompleted projects have we experienced in the last say five years or how many of each of these kinds of issues have we had in the real world? [21:27] **Director Lindall:** Uh mayor, we don't have it today. [21:27] **Council Member Edbert:** I'm not expecting that you would have it at your fingertips but for the next meeting. [21:27] **Director Lindall:** Mayor, members of the council, I can have some conversation with the community development department staff and have some more numbers for you when we meet next time on it. [21:46] **Council Member Edbert:** So, mayor, I'm just going to make—I'm not all that thrilled about the idea that we are adopting standards that are applicable in all kinds of other jurisdictions. 55 years of living in this community, I've never aspired to be New Brighton, Roseville, or anybody else. We are who we are. We have tried to be frugal. We've tried to be reasonable. But the number of times that "this is standard in everybody else's community" is showing up way too often for my tastes in all of these conversations. And when we delegate authority, we should delegate with clarity about exactly what our expectations are. And I'm getting very uncomfortable whether it's the tree ordinance, the parking ordinance, and these as attributes of the fee structure. So I'm just putting that out there. That's just one council member's view. I'm getting uncomfortable. [22:50] **Mayor:** [cough and clears throat] One clarifier because I don't like this, but I want to be sympathetic to staff saying, "Hey, under certain circumstances, maybe they're extreme, we need tools for the betterment of the community." I'm open to that conversation. I'm not convinced this is it. But I want to understand something—and you just push back and say, "No, you're way off, mayor"—it seems to me that a lot of these things make good sense in undeveloped communities where you have a builder that comes in and they're doing 40 spec homes and they just can't seem to get the darn driveways done and you go, "Listen, we got to get these driveways in. It's 8 grand a pop times 40. You got to put an escrow account or get it done." I like that. I get that under that scenario. A resident who is doing an improvement on his home is a different thing and ought to require different considerations. So, if we were an undeveloped community with large neighborhoods going in, this would make really good sense because there are more unscrupulous builders where things like that tend to drift or it's one item on the punch list that we need to get them moving on because at scale it's a problem. But unless we have actual problems on an individual basis for improvements or the occasional tear down and build, this just doesn't strike me as ripe for what we need in our community right now. But I'm open to some feedback if you can convince us otherwise that there's a problem and that council needs to make a decision to help staff solve those problems. [24:24] **Miss Crawford:** Mayor, I'm going to push back a little bit with my previous experience in community development, not in this community, in a very developed community that was full of tear downs and rebuilds. That's where we used this. I wasn't part of drafting this with staff, but this is where I used that in a very different community. Um not compared to White Bear Lake, but it was used for that instance. Not Mr. Walsh redoing his driveway. It was used for tear down rebuild and construction was taking longer and then when it was ready to be finished with landscaping or pouring concrete then they still weren't doing it but they wanted their certificate of occupancy. So that's when we had to implement the escrow portion for a tear down rebuild. It was not for again Mr. Walsh redoing his one-off driveway. But um that's my experience. So, I did want to push back on that a little bit because I think it makes sense for both situations when it's necessary. [25:18] **Mayor:** Okay, that's helpful. I don't know. I could be totally wrong, but I look around the community and I don't see that happening a lot and that's critical. Is there a problem that we need to solve? And then two, I want to think practically about the situations, the circumstances under which these situations come up. So, for example a person who's building their dream home in White Bear and isn't getting around to doing the landscaping—that usually is one of two things. The contractor is dropping the ball and they can't get to it, or the homeowner doesn't have the cash but really wants to finish the landscaping. There are lots of different dynamics here that aren't an unmotivated property owner who simply doesn't care that the community has to look at their ungraded yard or unfinished driveway. That's how I see it. And Miss Crawford, I appreciate it. In other communities, that was the issue. The seminal line there is "other communities." I don't see it as a problem in White Bear. The homes that I'm seeing being torn down and built are pretty nice, pretty expensive, and the homeowners are pretty motivated to put those thousands of dollars in landscaping. And if there are delays or they're not getting around to it, there's probably extenuating circumstances that hitting them with an escrow probably isn't going to help. Um, there's other ways to motivate them. So, that's just where I come down on that. Any other thoughts on this or would like to have a particular request for staff to bring back a different fee schedule as it pertains to this for the second reading? All right, Council Member Hughes. [27:05] **Council Member Hughes:** Uh, thank you, Mayor. I guess I'm not really excited by it, but I would definitely be interested if we're going to push forward on really making sure we're clear on new build or major remodel versus—because that's not in here. There's nothing in here that says you can't just jerk on a guy who didn't put his rain garden in. So before I'd want to go any further with the escrows, it would need to be very clear that it was on projects, you know, over a certain dollar amount or over a certain size or something. Um, and even then, I'm not real excited by it. Um, but if I could continue on to something else. [27:48] **Mayor:** Well, if you're going to continue on something else, I just want to stay on that with a follow because this is the part that I don't understand. I think a certificate of occupancy is when a new construction or something and I don't feel like I got a clear answer. So, I'll maybe ask again and try and get some clarity. We issue certificate of occupancies if the guy replaces a driveway? I thought that's just a permit and an approval. So, this wouldn't apply. And I don't feel like I got a clear answer that "yes, this would not apply." I feel like I got the answer that "well, it could apply under that circumstance." And that's the issue. So when does a certificate of occupancy need to be issued? Is it on individual improvements or is it tear-downs, new construction? So is it tied to just any permit? [28:31] **Director Lindall:** Mayor, members of the council, um I apologize if I wasn't clear. What I tried to say last time was in a situation where—so in the example that we're talking about with a driveway—there would not be a—as you're correct to point out—there would not be a certificate of occupancy with a driveway. So, it would be tied to the building permit that goes along with putting in your driveway. [29:05] **Mayor:** What's it? The escrow account? [29:05] **Director Lindall:** Yes. [29:05] **Mayor:** Well, that's not what this says, though. It says certificate of occupancy. And that's why I'm confused. [29:05] **Director Lindall:** And mayor, members of the council, that's an important distinction that we could add to make sure that it's the certificate of occupancy or applicable building permit if that's the council's concern. But I'm hearing what I guess what I thought I hear was some more concern about the general process of implementing a new escrow schedule. [29:41] **Mayor:** Well, I guess I got a couple things. In concept, I've got an issue with this, but now in practice, I've got an issue because I only read certificate of occupancy, not approval or final approval of a permit. So, I'm quite frankly—it gives me pause that the situation where there's a permit for a new driveway is being read into the plain text in front of me, which is "in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy." And I don't mean to beat up on you. I think we're going to have to have some feedback on the next round, but I don't read this as something that you can use where a certificate of occupancy is not required. For example, an existing home where you're replacing a driveway. It's just a permit. So, let's clarify that with this: is your reading of what's in front of us right now that an existing home redoing a driveway would be excluded from this whole construct and an escrow account could not be used under those circumstances for delayed work? [30:27] **Director Lindall:** Mayor, members of the council, it was staff's intent that this language would be used for the applicable process and the language only says certificate of occupancy and that's clearly language that we could correct. But for example, almost all of these projects in most cases are tied to some sort of certificate of occupancy. And so for example I think it's probably more common that if you're, you know, doing a complex redo of your driveway, it's also tied to a garage improvement or an accessory building improvement that would have a certificate of occupancy that goes along with it. So, it's—this is good feedback and certainly important for staff to think about this from a plain reading of the average resident who's just reading this and not someone who's moving through these permits on a daily basis. And so, I'd say it's good feedback. [31:53] **Mayor:** Okay. I'm not exactly sure what the will of the council is for coming back. Your safe play is scrape the thing, but that's just one guy's opinion. Um I guess I'd like to know just for staff's sake and the efficiency of the next meeting. Does anyone want to see this outright pulled or is okay leaving it in? I guess that's the question. Are we okay leaving it in for purposes of this round or do you want it to come back as being struck? I just want to give staff some feedback so the same thing doesn't come back and I'm going to say, "All right, I've got the same arguments and same issues. Strike it now." This is what the first reading is all about. Council member Edbert. [32:36] **Council Member Edbert:** So I'm skeptical but I will reserve judgment until the second meeting. I would like to see data to find out okay exactly when and where to the extent that you can describe with some—I won't say highly granular—but at least some reasonable scoping of "here's where these things tend to apply" and "where they haven't in our past." That would be useful. I'm not interested in creating more either fines, administrative fees, or increasing the cost of living for things that are not real issues. Um, and if there are things that we can live with, I'm inclined to figure out how to live with things and maybe we use other tools. Um, but I'm not—we don't have that data. I'm totally fine waiting. So, that's where I'm sitting. [33:39] **Council Member Walsh:** And Mayor, I share your skepticism and what and your opinion for what to do going to next meeting. I agree with Council Member Edbert. [33:57] **Director Lindall:** Mayor of the council, I would just say I we certainly can come back to you with some more data. My educated guess is that we're not going to come back with like a high number of occurrences. It's going to be a relatively low number of occurrences that create a lot of work for staff to do enforcement. And so this isn't just intended to have a motivating tool that is used in the front end of the process rather than a longer-termed process that draws out because a contractor has moved on to the next project and the homeowner is—so... [34:42] **Council Member West:** Um it sounds like we're going to come back. I share the reserved feelings about this. Um the plain language part I did note that one of the things that was discussed that isn't in the language is that this is required exterior work. So if you could make sure to add that term in there. I think anything that can help people to understand better of what this would be for without having to talk to staff would be helpful. And um I also note that there's a non-refundable administrative fee. So that should be clear on what exactly that fee is. [35:46] **Director Lindall:** Oh, the last line. Oh, I'm so sorry. Okay. So, I would have looked... Okay, thank you. It's clear. Thanks. [36:01] **Mayor:** Any other thoughts on this, Council Member Hughes? [36:01] **Council Member Hughes:** Yeah, I'm not really excited by it, but again, I am trying to derail the conversation in that there are a few other new escrows in here, and I don't know how they all work together. So, before I say, gosh, that's really unexciting—I'm seeing like three others that are in here and I don't know if they are the exact same thing, if they are overlapping, if they are completely different, if they do the job that this does. So I would like some clarity on that as I yell into the mic. And you know a couple of them in particular: you've got site alteration permit escrow 500, fee 400, amendment 400, time extension 100. I assume those are all—the fee amendment and time extension are not escrow but the just the permit is. And then we've got a site plan review that has an escrow of a thousand plus an additional fee plus an amendment fee plus a time extension fee. So, how does the site plan review, site plan permit work in conjunction with the rest of these escrows? I mean, I realize that site plan isn't in here, but we've already got a thousand bucks of theirs in the site plan review and an extra 500 bucks on an alteration permit. So, is that not enough money? Should that be where some of this is instead to incentivize them rather than some of these other things? [38:13] **Director Lindall:** Mayor, members of the council, thanks for that question. So, what we've been talking about up until this point is for physical improvements tied to a building permit. And the question here is now we're moving back into actual land use applications. And so the fees that have been added are—as Miss Crawford elaborated to begin with in her presentation—the new ones are the result of just changing process in the zoning code. So things some things were relabeled, some things were expanded. Um and so when we added a process or relabeled a process in the zoning code update, we've now also updated the fee schedule to address that. And so in situations where a land use application has an escrow, that's a situational thing where the site plan review may be for a commercial site, for example, that has some other process that requires professional work to be done either on behalf of them or some other professional service that the applicant needs to provide. So the escrow is intended to cover whatever professional work would be done outside of their fee. And again, it wouldn't necessarily be charged in each instance. It would be when there's a specific professional requirement beyond what city staff does for the permit fee. And again, it's an attempt to make sure that the permit fee covers the expense of the applicant and that we're not drawing on the general fund and taxpayers to support those applications. [39:44] **Mayor:** What's a for instance? In principle, I agree with you. The burden should be on those that are looking for approval from the city. If that's engineering, highly specialized, whatever, fire code, whatever it might be. I get that. To me, there's a way to do that rather than just having them put up an escrow and then the city at staff's discretion drawing from it. Just putting the burden on the applicant to say, "Okay, I heard we do what..." So, I'm sorry, I didn't hear the full question. Give me a for instance—what would be a scenario where we'd go "We just don't have the expertise and it's not fair that the city incurs the cost we need to go to third party XYZ." What does that look like? [40:46] **Director Lindall:** So mayor members of the council there could be situations where there is a development agreement that is prepared that ensures certain site improvements are done on the site. So that could require engineering support, city attorney support to prepare. Um, there could be other engineering work on design on the site for storm water management that needs to be done that would be beyond what the city does as a reviewer and not a designer. And again, this isn't—this is just intended as a tool to help ensure that additional work that needs to be done doesn't fall back on the general taxpayer to support. [41:27] **Mayor:** Okay. Right. I'm gonna have to think about that a little more. Council member West. [41:27] **Council Member West:** I just wanted to make sure... Okay. Can we go just quick back to page 10 the escrow fees—that's triggered with the certificate of occupancy? I guess um I think what I'm hearing as a reason one of the reasons why we would want to do this is to make sure that city staff aren't dealing over and over and over again with something that a homeowner or business isn't doing. So, an example that we have had that has taken a lot of staff time, like what the complications are, the time that it takes... I mean, I'm just trying to weigh—is this going to make life easier for our staff, which are already overburdened, and to what degree is that versus what it looks like, what the complications are, putting something in place that we may not need that could be used differently later on. I mean, I think there's two different things. So, I would love to hear that the next time we talk: an example. [43:03] **Mayor:** Any follow-ups on the escrow concept? Um, I just have one clarifying question just to make sure I'm reading this right. For the park dedication, that's for new construction. I assume for residential, a single family dwelling was $1,200. The proposal is now it's $2,400. So, if you build a new home under the current fees, you got to pay 1,200 bucks that goes to the city's park fund. The proposal is that that's $2,400? [43:22] **Director Lindall:** Mayor, members of the council, you're correct about the fee amount change, but it is specifically—the city can only ask for that fee through the subdivision process. If you tear down and rebuild your house, we don't ask you for a park dedication fee because presumably it was paid at the time when that lot was subdivided. And that's state statute. We can't ask for that fee under any other circumstances. [44:11] **Mayor:** Okay, that's what I wanted to clarify then. That makes sense. I get that it's a broader project. It's different. Okay. Any other questions, comments on the fee schedule as proposed? Okay. Should be a good discussion at the next meeting. Look forward to a little more detail. Very good. Thank you. All right. [clears throat] Item 7 A, tobacco license review: M&J Tobacco. I don't know if Mr. Anderson is taking this, or Lindy—I'm sorry. Go ahead. [44:36] **Miss Crawford:** Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Following two recent tobacco-related violations, the city council scheduled a review of M&J Tobacco's license for this meeting tonight. So, first, the first violation occurred on—well, the city was notified on September 3rd by the Minnesota Department of Revenue that on May 23rd, 2025 it seized contraband from M&J Tobacco. The contraband included products obtained from an unlicensed tobacco seller, tobacco products on which the tax had not been paid, and tobacco products offered for sale for which there was no proof of invoice from a licensed seller. Um, the city code makes it unlawful to sell or offer to sell tobacco products in a manner or form prohibited by state law. So that was the first violation. The second violation: on October 23rd, 2025, the White Bear Lake Police Department conducted a tobacco compliance check at M&J Tobacco with an underage buyer. M&J Tobacco failed that compliance check by selling tobacco products to the underage person. Again, city code makes it unlawful to sell or offer to sell tobacco products to persons under the age of 21. [46:01] **Miss Crawford:** Um, other code failures where citations were issued to M&J Tobacco include on November 20th, 2023—that was a failed tobacco compliance check with an underage buyer—and on June 27th, 2024, a failed edible cannabinoid product compliance check with an underage buyer. M&J tobacco has additional history of non-compliance for which administrative penalties were not imposed by the city. Two of those included selling edible cannabinoids during a citywide moratorium and then one incident where tobacco was sold to an underage person during an educational compliance check. Those three instances that I just explained are referenced because they're a matter of public record, but because they did not result in administrative penalties or other adverse action against M&J, the council should not take them into consideration for purposes of the present violations and the associated license review. Uh, they should have no bearing. So in other words, they should have no bearing on any decision made by the council as it relates to this matter. [47:09] **Miss Crawford:** City staff recommends that the council impose an administrative fine of $750 total for the two failures that we discussed initially—the Department of Revenue one and then October 23rd compliance failure. Because the October 23rd violation is considered the licensee’s second violation in the past 36 months, the city must at minimum impose a $600 administrative fine under Minnesota statute section 461.12 subdivision 2. Per city code, the council retains authority to take more significant adverse action against the licensee for violating state and local laws, including suspending or revoking the license. It is worth noting for the council that should M&J obtain another underage tobacco sale violation on or before November 20th, 2026, the city council would be required under Minnesota statute section 461.12 subdivision 2 to impose a fine of $1,000 and a 7-day license suspension. So, um I'll pause there if the city attorney wants to elaborate further. And then Chief Hagar is also here should you have questions about the compliance checks. Thank you. [48:46] **Mr. Anderson (City Attorney):** Thanks, Mayor and Council. Um that was well said by the city manager—that covered almost everything. The only thing I would add, as provided in the council memo, in addition to the history and what city manager Crawford summarized, is that before making any decisions tonight, I want to make sure that the licensee and/or his attorney is provided an opportunity to be heard regarding the recent incidents. That would include whether they have comments regarding what sort of penalty or other actions the council should impose should the violations be found to have been credible and have occurred. And again, it's important to reiterate: there are these two recent incidents that we're talking about. One with the Department of Revenue, the other with the underage sale incident that happened in October. There were also the two previous administratively cited or penalized violations that I think are before the council and relevant and should be and can be considered in your decision-making process tonight. [49:55] **Mr. Anderson:** But just given the nature of those other violations—those three others that are summarized and Miss Crawford talked a little bit about—I don't think those should play into the decision tonight. And I would just caution the council to try to separate those and think about this with respect to the more recent two incidents and the other ones that the individual, the licensee, was cited for, was given an opportunity to challenge under our administrative citation process and there was due process afforded. Just the nature of those other three violations, for reasons we don't necessarily need to get into, warrants kind of setting those into a different category or bucket. And so, um, again, I would defer to the council and I would certainly be interested to hear if the licensee has anything to say as well. [50:41] **Mayor:** Chief, do you have anything? Are you here really just for questions or do you have any comments or anything? [51:04] **Chief Hagar:** Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I'm open for any questions that the council may have, but I think it was summarized pretty well there. [51:04] **Mr. Anderson:** I'll add too, mayor, sorry to jump back in, that I know the council has received copies of both the Department of Revenue documentation regarding those violations as well as the police report from the October 23rd incident. Even though that wasn't included in the public packet, I know the council has received copies of it. For your information, the licensee and his attorney has also received all that information as well. [51:22] **Mayor:** Okay, very good. Well, at this time, my understanding is the licensee and council is present. They've been obviously given notice because they're here and we're going to deliberate this. So, I want to give them an opportunity to be heard on this. So, please step forward and if you could state your name. [51:53] **Deon Holston:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor, council. My name is Deon Holston with Wind, on behalf of M&J Tobacco. Um, I appreciate all your time tonight, especially given what's going on outside, and I don't want to take up too much of everybody else's time. Um, I want to address three things. Number one, I want to address the past history, which was mentioned just because it was mentioned a little bit tonight. I want to mention the recent alleged violations. And I want to talk about my client's desire to move forward in conjunction with the council and with this city in a way that supports both his desire to be a successful business person in this city and this city's protecting this city's interests in regulating his businesses going forward. [52:38] **Deon Holston:** Before I get into those, I do want to state that I really appreciate Mr. Anderson and city staff's response to document requests. That was very helpful and as I'm sure you can imagine, I deal with a lot of city attorneys. I wish all were as helpful as Mr. Anderson has been over the past couple weeks. Um, and so to Mr. Anderson and the city staff, I really do appreciate your help in getting us those documents because I think it has helped us all frame this issue a little bit clearer. Um, I do want to note we are still talking about these past instances as "violations." However, they are not. Um, so I think even though I do respect and appreciate the fact that the clarification was made that those instances cannot be used tonight, I do think we should still cease to use that language as they are not violations. [53:25] **Mayor:** Council, I don't mean to cut you off. I just want to at least make it known from my standpoint: I understand that those three that were either education or no enforcement action or fine was administered... For me personally, that's not even a part of my evaluation of this. I'm looking at the four total instances um where administrative citations were administered. But I appreciate you clarifying. [53:25] **Deon Holston:** And I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor, and I understand that. I just wanted to make that note just because that term had been used. So, turning to those recent issues, it is our position that this seizure issue—that is not in and of itself a violation that this city can use to issue any type of administrative penalty. The state statute does not—there's been no citation from the state. There has been no penalty from the state other than the seizure itself. And under that statute there are many different reasons why seizure may occur. So I think it is a stretch to be calling that a violation since in and of itself that statute doesn't call it a violation of law. Um, seizure is a different punitive measure for certain reasons and there are things that the business can do. I will say in this instance, the business made a business decision not to challenge the seizure um because the total value of the product was less than $1,000. And so just from a business perspective, they made the decision not to challenge that. But no penalty has been received from the state. No violation of state statute has ever been received in relation to that instance. [55:05] **Deon Holston:** So I don't think it's appropriate to be considering that as a violation of state statute for purposes of any city penalty that may be given. I will also note that in conjunction with my appreciation with Mr. Anderson and city staff's production of documents—I think Mr. Anderson might have a more specific number, but I think it was close to about 400 pages of documents—nowhere in those documents is there supporting documentation that a citation, an administrative citation, was issued in relation to this alleged November 20th, 2023 instance. And no supporting documentation was provided in connection with this purported June 27th, 2024 instance. So, as I stand here today, again, if there is documentation—if Mr. Hagar has it or if Mr. Anderson has it—we would like to see it. I have not seen it, my client has not seen it. If there is supporting documentation for those instances as violations, we would happily review it. However, as I sit here today, we have not seen anything supporting any administrative citation for those two instances. And therefore I submit to you that no consideration can be given to those two instances as violations for purposes of any administrative penalty that the council may give tonight. [56:28] **Mayor:** Just to clarify that's the November 20th 2023 one that you're referring to. [56:28] **Deon Holston:** I thought it was November 20th. If it's November 2nd that might be my fault on the date. [56:44] **Mayor:** November 20th 2023 and June 27th 2024. Those are the two that you're referring to. [56:44] **Deon Holston:** Yeah. I had June 7th, 2024. Again, I might be a little bit off on the dates, but yes, the November 23 and June 24 instances. [57:05] **Mayor:** Very good. [57:05] **Deon Holston:** I will note that I have read—so in our opinion, the only instance before the council tonight that there is documented proof of and that should come into consideration for any administrative penalty is this October 23rd, 2025 instance. I will note the citation that was given to the business for this instance. The box was checked that this was a first offense. So again, that is in line with our understanding that no citation was issued for these past offenses and that this October 23rd, 2025 instance was a first offense to the business because that's what the citation says. Um I've read the police report on that issue. It notes that there was a—the clerk who was working claimed that she was having a bad day and that's why she made the sale. Um I can assure you that my client has taken adverse action against the employee. She has been terminated for her failure to comply with the law. Um and the business did that in part to reinforce with this council that they want to be a functioning member of this business community. [58:19] **Deon Holston:** Something Mr. Edberg said earlier that really struck me is "we are who we are" and this is a personal issue not just for my client but for me also. I was born in this city. I was raised in this city. So I don't stand here before you and talk about the issues affecting this city lightly because what Mr. Edberg said is true—there's a lot that goes into what you have to do to make decisions about maintaining this city's future and I respect that and my client respects that and I cannot stress enough how badly my client wants to show you that they are working with you moving forward and not against you. That's why at the end of the day, even though my client disputes the seizure issue and the 2023 and 2024 instances, my client stands here before you today and will submit and not object to the recommended fine by the city staff of $750. Despite the objections that I've noted on the record, my client is willing to accept that penalty and requests a meeting with city staff and Chief Hagar to go over their compliance policies that the business has in terms of training its employees to make sure that this is the last time M&J Tobacco is ever before you on an issue like this. I'm sure all of you want that as well. That's what my client wants. And so my client offers that—we have said our piece in terms of our positions on these past issues and the history that has been talked about—and my client just really wants to stress that he is committed and his business is committed to being a successful and productive member of this city and will agree to pay the staff recommended fine with the hope that the city will agree to have a meeting with city staff and the police to go over compliance issues to make sure that M&J Tobacco is doing right by the city and doing right by this community in operating its business going forward. That's all I have, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. [1:00:29] **Mayor:** Thank you, Mr. Holston. Um one immediate question regarding the past two violations. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Pursuant to the data request, there was no documentation or anything substantiating that. Do I have that correctly? [1:00:46] **Deon Holston:** I have not seen it. Correct. [1:00:46] **Mayor:** All right. From my understanding, there was an administrative citation. So, I don't know. We'll ask other city staff. Um, I just want to know to your knowledge, did your client pay fines related to those two instances? [1:01:04] **Deon Holston:** I am not certain. Um, I was going off of the document request which we received late Friday night and I actually haven't had a chance to talk with my client about whether or not anything was paid in relation to those. I know there were individual citations as reflected in the police reports. And so I think they were aware of the instances, but I'm not sure if any administrative citations were actually paid. [1:01:27] **Mayor:** Okay. Thank you. Uh, council, any questions for Mr. Holston? All right. Thank you. Anything else you'd like to say? Final remarks? [1:01:54] **Deon Holston:** No. Uh, we we appreciate your time, Mr. Mayor and Council, and we really again just hope that we don't have to be here in front of you again and we hope that the city will take us up on our request to have a discussion about compliance policies to make sure that everything is right going forward. [1:01:54] **Mayor:** Thank you. Appreciate it. [1:02:02] **Mr. Anderson:** Mayor. Um, so I I would just like to add in response to the comments about the November 23 incident and the June 24 incident: there were police reports that were produced by city staff. Those have been shared with the licensee and his attorney. The police report specifically for the June 27th, 2024 incident does indicate the police narrative here from Detective Shurmer indicates that he mailed an administrative citation to the business M&J Tobacco Inc. Um and on the November 24th, 2023 incident, also there was a police report that was provided to the licensee and his attorney that also indicates a notation here from Detective Morardi indicating that an administrative citation was mailed to M&J Tobacco in that instance as well. I've not seen copies of those. I assume they were provided to the applicant at the time based on these police reports that they went out. I'm not sure if we have access to copies of what those are, but maybe the chief could elaborate on just the process when these violations occur. Um what your department does, what gets mailed out. Do you track whether the fees are paid? I just want to maybe enlighten the council about that in light of what we just heard. [1:03:26] **Chief Hagar:** Sure. Mr. Mayor, city attorney, and members of the council. Yeah, I think that you put it correctly. Our SROs are currently our officers who do these compliance checks. They do them twice a year. As you can imagine, there are dozens of compliance checks to do between tobacco, THC license, and alcohol. And so, they knock them out whenever they can spare a moment when there's no school or something like that. They hit those kind of sporadically throughout the year. The general practice—I read the reports earlier today and I have the same understanding that you do that both administrative citations were mailed out to them. I don't have that with me in council chambers tonight. But generally what happens is once the compliance checks are done, if a compliance check is failed, the officer goes in, makes contact with the responsible employee of the establishment, advises them of the violation, gets their pertinent information, and either issues them a citation on site or later back when all the compliance checks are done, they issue them a citation, bring it to them specifically, and then mail out to the business owner or to the establishment an administrative citation. And in both of those instances, as you already stated, Mr. Anderson, in the 2023 and the 2024 incident, the officer stated that they did that. After that happens, to be honest, we kind of lose touch of it because it's an administrative issue and we don't follow up on that. [1:05:17] **Miss Crawford:** I'll add chime in as well. So after that is completed that kind of completes the police department's work of it, right? Then it comes to the city manager's office for processing through the business licensure piece of it. And so that's how we got here today. Just for an example, just to kind of close that loop—he's correct that once that is issued, it's paid. It really comes to my office through an internal memo from the police department saying, "FYI, city clerk and city manager, this happened." And then it's on the city clerk and myself to analyze and kind of track is this the first one, is it the second one or where does this need to go to determine whether it needs to go to the city council or not. So then that brought us to here. [snorts] [1:06:03] **Mayor:** So just to clarify for the record, did these go before the city council or they just handled at the staff level? [1:06:03] **Miss Crawford:** Uh mayor, members of the council, they were first violations. So they would have at that point been handled just with the business and the police department. They wouldn't have come to council because we wouldn't have had to ratchet it up to the council at that level yet. [1:06:29] **Mayor:** And do we have any record of whether they were paid—the citations were paid? [1:06:29] **Miss Crawford:** Uh mayor, members of the council, that's something Chief Hagar would need to go look in the database next door. We don't have that here right now. I so I can't tell you tonight if they have been paid or not. I apologize for that. [1:06:46] **Mayor:** No, that's okay. Not critical to my analysis, but would just like to know. Um it's been called into question whether or not at its most cynical point these ever actually happened. I think it's pretty clear that they did. And then I was looking for anything that would give me some indication that the licensee acknowledged it—and the strongest proof of that is well you don't pay for things that you don't acknowledge and kind of want to move on from. So again, not critical to my analysis. I don't dispute that they happened and that they were handled properly and that they went through whatever channels and processes are necessary and it's been fully adjudicated within that process. So the council—do we have questions for chief or city attorney clarifying? Council member Walsh? [1:07:33] **Council Member Walsh:** Uh thank you Mr. Mayor. Um, just reading the memo just to be clear here. Uh, on the bottom of page one of the staff memo, um, last second to last paragraph, last line, "an administrative fine in the amount of $150 was issued by the police department following the incident." This refers to the October 23rd, 2025 incident. So is that what that is talking about? Is that the fine to the retail salesperson who got a ticket? Is that what you're talking about? Or is this an administrative fine to the business? [1:08:17] **Miss Crawford:** Mr. Mayor, Council Member Walsh, that administrative fine in the second to last paragraph refers to the administrative fine for the business. The employee that was working that day received a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor citation that goes through the court system. Completely separate two separate issues. [1:08:47] **Mr. Anderson:** And to clarify, that's a good point. I mean, we're here talking about should we fine them for that incident and now it looks like there was a fine issued. This is something that's being cleaned up right now, which you see in your current fee schedule, just to make it very clear. But there are statutory minimum administrative penalties that should be issued for selling tobacco to somebody under the age of 21. The city's current fee schedule doesn't make that clear. And so I think the police department works off that fee schedule. We realized that after this happened, after the fine was issued, clarified it and fixed it for this memo and for this discussion tonight. Moving forward, it's also going to be addressed. It's a little bit ambiguous or not super clear in the city code, which might be older language, but it just says for any violation of state law, the city council has the authority to impose administrative penalties, which may not be less than the mandatory minimums contained in 461.12. I don't think—this isn't taking anything away from staff. Those things are kind of hidden in the code. I don't blame them for not seeing that. The reason this would have been noted as a first offense is because our fee schedule talks about a 12-month look back. [1:10:01] **Mr. Anderson:** And the statute actually does a 36-month look back. And so that's why I also pointed out in that memorandum that regardless of what happens tonight, if M&J continues to operate and they have another underage sale violation for tobacco before November of next year, the statute would require not only a $1,000 administrative penalty, but also a 7-day suspension. Um so that would be another consideration here that I think is relevant to the discussion. [1:10:34] **Council Member Walsh:** And then just so I'm clear—so the recommendation is $750 total set amount? Calculated in the city's presumptive administrative fine of 150 for the contraband—that's different—with the mandatory statutory minimum fine of 600 for the more recent underage. So we've issued a citation for 150 for the underage. We're saying disregard that. It's going to be 600. Pay that instead? I assume the 150 hasn't been paid because we're still discussing all this. [1:11:09] **Mr. Anderson:** Yeah. And if it has, it would, you know, they would take that off. [1:11:09] **Council Member Walsh:** Yeah. And to make this even more convoluted, of course, the mandatory state minimums in 461.12 only apply to certain types of violations, including underage sale violations. They don't apply to the contraband violation, which is a violation of state law—don't get me wrong. I have no concern or issue with that being considered an unlawful activity that our city code precludes, but it would be subject to a 12-month look back under our code and a $150 penalty because the statute doesn't apply when it comes to finding that. So again, clear as mud, I know, but... [1:11:56] **Council Member Walsh:** Well, just so my math is right. I mean, I appreciate the answer because the 150 is for the violation of "unlawful to sell or offer to sell tobacco products in a manner or form prohibited by state law." The contraband clearly meets that standard. So, I'm comfortable with 150 for that. You know, I asked that when we had this up in front of us last time. I said, "Did the state issue a fine?" No, they just seized the goods. But we do have an opportunity. I'm comfortable with that for the 150 and then the 600 is the underage fine. So I'm comfortable where we're at. Thank you. And let me just since I have the mic and I won't maybe not speak again—I do appreciate that you took action against the employee. That's important. That means something. So I appreciate that. [1:12:34] **Council Member Edbert:** So to dig into that conversation just a hair. Mr. Holston argues that the contraband issue is not an eligible violation to count toward the—we've got at least two or three different levels of conversation going on. At one level, there's a recommendation and a willingness on the part of the business to pay 750 for however we get there. 600 plus 150 fine. The dollar amount's fine. What I'm curious about is—let us accept for the moment that we accept the offer of 750. If there is another one, is that a second violation or what number is that? And where does that fit in? I'm willing—my assessment is I'm willing to accept the 750. I don't want to have this coming back before us again. If it does, I want to—I would also like to know: do we have the authority to suspend for a longer period than seven days? My understanding is we do. [1:14:06] **Mr. Anderson:** You do. Yeah. I mean, like I said in the memo, the council has the discretion to revoke the license. And so, a suspension is certainly something short of that. And I think you're talking on the one hand, it's fines, and on the very other end of the spectrum, it's revocation—anything in between. So long as it's not arbitrary and capricious, you can support it with reasons that justify and from the council's perspective are in furtherance of public health, safety, welfare, protection of White Bear and its residents. As the licensing authority, you have that discretion. And so to your question, Council Member Edbert—you know, I think your hypothetical was if they come back on another violation, can you suspend for more than seven days? You can. The seven days would just be the statutory minimum that state law requires. [1:14:51] **Council Member Edbert:** So to—we have a whole bunch of convolution going on. I'm willing to say 750. Next time I'm personally interested in a longer than 7-day suspension. So I hope there's not another one, but if there is, we'll have that conversation at that point in time. [1:15:28] **Council Member West:** Thank you. Um so I'm looking at the pattern of what has happened and you know if there are checks at least twice a year and once in 23 once in 24 and twice in 25 there have been issues. I mean, that doesn't leave a lot of times where things have gone right. And so, I'm just—you know, we had an issue with another business within the last year. Um, and it wasn't it wasn't the same issue, but there were repeated problems and when it was coming in front of us, the owner had already made some changes and had brought it to us and were like, "Hey, we really want to and we want to meet with you and we want to meet with the city. We want to meet with the police chief and we want to figure out what else we can—I want to share what I've been doing to change it and to make it better and what else I might need to do." So I do have a concern that coming here there was first of all kind of an argument about "did this actually happen" and second of all that there hasn't—I understand that you took action with the one employee but we also didn't hear like "and here are other things that have already been improved." That would have been a better case to me. I'm just—you know, three of these things were about selling to underage people and your business is on the same block as a school. And so there's a potentially a lot of young people that are nearby. Um so I I'm very concerned about this. Definitely okay with 750, but I'd be open to more and more strict. I just wish that there was more positive action on your end before coming in here instead of kind of waiting. [1:18:00] **Mayor:** All right, I'm going to jump in. I'm frankly surprised by my colleagues on the council. I walked in here pretty upset and concerned to hear this as the licensing authority. Three consecutive years of underage sale—twice for tobacco, one for cannabinoids. And then I take no position on the contraband and that that's subject to an excise tax and the state wants to collect their money, but there is a state law. Department of Revenue says that you violated it. It's been fully adjudicated. So I have no other choice but to look at that as an infraction against the business in the operation of selling tobacco. So when I hear "750" or "okay 600"—this is just peanuts in the grand scheme of our duty as the licensing authority to protect public health and safety and welfare. So I ask myself: would revoking your license further public safety, health, and welfare? Absolutely. Is a suspension for 7 days, 30 days, 6 months something that we should be considering? Maybe. I'd be open to hear that debate, but I think this council needs to take seriously the sale of tobacco to minors and cannabinoids to minors, particularly in such close proximity to a school. [1:19:28] **Mayor:** And that's where I would like to quite frankly see the conversation go. And if no one else on the council has the appetite for that, that's fine. But that's a pretty significant duty and I don't hear of our many other tobacco retailers having such a consistent pattern of failing. So I say all of that as someone who—the last thing I want to do is tell any business owner you can't operate. I don't want to get involved with commerce and the private sector and your private capital and your ability to run a business and make a living. But you're selling a product that you can only sell through licensing through this body because there's a body of health evidence and reports and studies that says it can cause negative health effects. And as a matter of state law in all 50 states, we prohibit the sale at a certain age. That's what the state law says. And you failed to abide by that law on at least these three occasions with regard to underage, and a $750 fine just isn't good enough. That's where I stand. I think it needs to be taken seriously. You're selling to minors. You need to be vigilant. You've terminated one clerk. That's great. In this instance, if I was having my third infraction within a 36-month look back, I'd want to show up to this meeting and be able to say, "We terminated that employee." That's just not good enough from my standpoint. What about the other two? I don't know. I don't really care. Um, we have three instances where it happened. So, I don't know if anyone on the council shares my fervor for this, but we have to take this seriously. Council member Strang. [1:21:24] **Council Member Strang:** Thank you for your comment. Um, my last comment was on the last meeting when we had this to Mr. Edbert was that I wanted to do $1,000 and a six-month or a two-month suspension. I've gone down to maybe a 30-day suspension, but that's kind of where I want. I didn't say anything earlier because it doesn't seem like it's the will of the rest of my colleagues. So, um, but I appreciate your comments. I believe we should come down stronger on them also. Um, especially with them not saying that the contraband was real. I mean the definition of contraband is illegal. [1:21:51] **Mayor:** Very good. Thank you. Any other comments Council Member Hughes? [1:22:18] **Council Member Hughes:** Uh I guess to begin or to start you kind of the comments about the contraband on the um related to the state not collecting its tax dollars. I I don't—I care but I kind of don't care. Um so the state didn't even issue a fine. So, if the state can't be bothered, I don't know why I'm bothering. But I do agree with you that what we're doing is offering a license and they should be abiding obviously by following state laws, but by not selling to minors. And I'm not sure if I'm ready for $1,000 and 30 days today, but I'd certainly be ready for that if after they came up with some sort of plan other than just being here to show that they were trying to get the sale of minor issue under control. That that would be um—and then if they weren't able to—then it seems like the next fine, the next situation definitely gets ratcheted up farther. Um, I mean, I I I get what you're saying. I don't know that I need all of their employees to be fired because I'm not exactly sure under what circumstance the minor was able to buy whatever it is. So I'm not really ready to have everybody fired. And I know that's not exactly what you're saying, but my point being I agree that we need a little bit more here than just, "Hey, I'm sorry, I'm willing to pay the fine." That is already on the table. So um I'd like to take them up on the offer to do more recognizing though that that is a burden on the police department and um I'm not exactly sure what that means. You know, if they're going to come in with some grand plan and spend three hours of Chief Hagar's time, that's an expensive portion on the city that not every other establishment is using. On the other hand, I'd like them to not be selling products to minors. So, if that's what we need to do as part of the public good, then that's the burden the taxpayer needs to pay. That would be kind of where I'm standing. I don't have a problem with $750. Doesn't sound like they do. Um and so if we can find a way to build out an enforcement table like we did for the previous business—again under different circumstances—that'd be I think a good direction to go so that the next time we're sitting here it's the next—you know, you're ratcheting it up. That's a lot of conversation to say nothing. [1:24:46] **Council Member Walsh:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A question for the chief on the offer to visit with the business. We do that, don't we? I mean, we already do that. You have trainings. You have sessions with all of our licensed liquor and tobacco. That's not a—I mean, it's a great thing to say, but isn't that already standard operating procedure in the city? [1:25:07] **Chief Hagar:** Mr. Mayor, Council Member Walsh, as of right now, we don't—it's not a regular practice that we have regular trainings. We will anytime somebody were to ask for one; we will accommodate that. And to Council Member Hughes's point, our number one goal is that everybody passes every compliance check. So, if we can put some staff hours into making that happen, I'm all for it. So, I understand your point about occupying my time. I don't know that I'm that valuable, but occupying my staff time to make sure that their establishment passes their compliance checks? I'm all for it. So, definitely accommodating that. [1:25:47] **Council Member Walsh:** I've heard of this before that was just all ad hoc upon request, an offer you make, and so you're willing to do it and we obviously know how to do that, have a training for employees and whatnot. [1:25:47] **Chief Hagar:** Yes, sir. [1:25:47] **Council Member Walsh:** Okay. Uh on the fine, I mean I I'm happy to go higher. If the leadership of the Mayor or Council Member Strang wants to go higher—a $1,000 fine is not something I wouldn't be afraid of doing today. I'm not at suspension of license today. I think you know we've set up this the scheme in the code that two violations within a 12-month period it gets ratcheted up. I think that's when you go to that route of any kind of suspension for any kind of time of shutting the business down. This, you know, it's unfortunate, but our thing is 12 months. It's troubling that they're hitting one every 12 months and haven't hit two, but if they hit two, the penalty will increase greatly and there's a great incentive on them not to get that second infraction. They fired the employee, they're going to get some training. But today, in light of what we're dealing with, if others on the council and obviously the mayor thinks that's true, I think we can do a thousand today instead of the 750. [1:27:05] **Mayor:** I want to pose a question to the council. If we don't say as the licensing authority "we're going to suspend your license and not allow you to operate because you're not doing it correctly for a period of time," what do we tell every other licensee in the city that is managing to card people? What do we tell every other licensee that isn't asking for handholding to say, "Show me your ID. Do basic math and say you're not of age." What kind of training do we need here? We're talking about selling tobacco and drugs to minors and we're sitting here having an absurd conversation about the difficulty of it requiring training. So, I want to know what that training looks like and why it is we should make some special accommodation because it's so difficult that we should make that concession and allow them to get the additional training. What does it look like? [1:28:28] **Chief Hagar:** Mr. Mayor, members of the council, while we haven't conducted a training like that for our tobacco licenses recently, I have been part of those types of training in my past. And it's a little more in-depth version of what you just described. Although at the end of the day, it's how to recognize somebody's underage, how to recognize somebody's even close to that age of making sure that you should check them. And then of course as you say, math—you know, maybe there are some devices they could purchase, something in their establishment that will help them ensure that somebody is of age. You know I'm sure you've all been into some kind of establishments that have a calendar on the wall or a digital readout that says if the date of birth doesn't read this then they're not of age. The problem generally that we see when we do compliance checks is that an ID was never requested. And it's not typically a math problem, although we have had that as well. It's not typically a math problem. It's just that somebody's just not asking for an ID. [1:29:15] **Mayor:** Let's drill down on that. When we do our compliance checks, do our CSOs present a fake ID that looks really good? [1:29:41] **Chief Hagar:** Mr. Mayor? No, they do not. [1:29:41] **Mayor:** So the establishment didn't say, "Sir, ma'am, may I see your ID?" [1:29:41] **Chief Hagar:** Mr. Mayor, that's correct. [1:30:01] **Mayor:** Okay. So that's the level of training that's being requested. "New employee, every person, ask for their ID. Okay. Year of age." That's the kind of training. That's this big hurdle that we're talking about right now. Three times. We should be talking about a suspension. If the council doesn't want to get to revocation, that makes sense. But we are the licensing authority. There have been repeated times where they have failed at a fundamental simple task. And we're talking about being tasked with public health, safety, and welfare, and dollars and cents. 750 or 1,000—pardon me if I'm being arrogant—that means nothing. I don't own a business, but I'm assuming that doesn't mean a whole lot. That's not punitive for what the infraction is. What is at stake for complying with the law? That means nothing to me. $750, $1,000? It needs to be a clear message: You are not allowed to operate for a period of time. So that's going to sting. Then you need to get it right. So when you do open your doors, you actually feel the effects of what you did incorrectly. That's the message that we need to send. So is there anyone on the council that has an appetite for some level of suspension? Because quite frankly, under these circumstances, if we're not willing to do that, then we're sending a message to every other licensee: You can screw up a lot. You can screw up three times in three years for an underage infraction and after three years you might get a $750 fine. So let's weigh that fine against three years of profits. That's the kind of proportionate fine that we think is appropriate here? That's ridiculous to me. If we're not willing to at least suspend for a period of time under these circumstances, then we've sent a message to all licenses. This is a small game of math and dollars and cents and we really aren't going to have any teeth in our licensing authority when you're selling tobacco and cannabinoids. I've made my position very clear—if the council is fine with just a fine, someone make a motion or someone chime in and see, you know, are you willing to suspend for a period of time? [1:32:18] **Council Member Strang:** 14-day suspension, $1,000 fine. [1:32:18] **Mayor:** Is that a motion? [1:32:18] **Council Member Walsh:** Well, happy to second it for the purpose of discussion because let's have the discussion. [1:32:36] **Mayor:** Well, I have a second. Um, and to clarify, I believe in the memo it did the action item before us was to not impose that fine tonight, but to direct staff to bring a memo formalizing that in a resolution. So, it can be formalized in a motion to direct staff, I guess, is what it would be for in this instance—a motion, a second for a $1,000 fine and a 14-day suspension of the license. Motion a second. Any further discussion? [1:33:11] **Council Member Walsh:** Um, I'm just trying to figure out if your issue tonight, Mr. Mayor, isn't with the code and the the scheme—I use the word scheme, but that's not in a bad way—but the scheme that's set out in the code. We're calling this a first offense technically tonight. Correct? [1:33:11] **Mayor:** No, I'm evaluating this as—we're calling it a first offense for purposes of the monetary fine that's associated with this within our code. But our authority as a governing body rests with state law which has its own set of structures. So this to me is... a fee schedule is a factor. We are the licensing authority, says the State of Minnesota. We are the grantor of the license and the overarching predicate to that is preserving the public health and safety. So we have broad discretion as the city attorney has laid out. If you're getting at—but where does the language "first offense" come from? We're calling it—we checked the box—where does that come from? I guess that's a question for the attorney. [1:34:23] **Mr. Anderson:** Sure. The city fee schedule has a schedule of fines for tobacco violations to licensees and that is a product of the fee schedule. It has a 12-month look back and there is no—in that schedule—there is no heightened adverse action related to suspensions or revocations like there is with our liquor schedule. We do in our code—which is a new liquor ordinance that was adopted recently—the city council approved a ratcheting up of offenses. So, if you violate once, twice is a suspension, I think three times might be a revocation. I may not have that correct, but we're not talking about that here. Our city code only dictates administrative penalties for tobacco licenses based on a 12-month look back. That is again inconsistent with the statutory provisions about underage sale. That's why we go to the 36-month look back in that regard. And additionally why there's a mandatory 7-day suspension if there would be a third in a 36-month period, which we're not facing in this instance. The discretion to suspend or revoke is a product of our city code. There's language in the code that simply says any license issued under the tobacco chapter can be revoked or suspended by the city council for a violation of federal or state tobacco laws, any provision of this chapter, or a provision of the code related to the licensee’s business operations provided that the licensee has been given reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. So in my mind that gives the council the discretion, assuming it's not being arbitrary and capricious, to make findings that support either a suspension or a violation following a finding that state law was violated or local law was violated related to the business operations. That gives you the authority to do that. So we're really not talking about a schedule of penalties. We're talking about more generally your discretion to do what I just mentioned which is in your code. [1:36:36] **Council Member Walsh:** So 12 months look back in the fee schedule, which is kind of where this "first offense" language is coming from, but state statute gives us a little more comfort going 36 months. So you know you've said, Mr. Mayor, several times, you're counting the other infractions and we talked at the beginning of this meeting about, well, we got to put those in some things... Well, maybe that's the other category, but we're—you're comfortable counting all three, one a year for three years, including this new one in October. My only hesitance—and I'm not—I'm undecided. My only hesitance is, you know, we have to set out a scheme in the code and then the businesses look at that in good faith and try to follow it. Now, I'm not trying to say anybody's trying to game the system—"we're going to do one a year for six years in a row and we're going to be okay"—that's playing the lottery. You're playing with fire because we could do a compliance check. Especially with the history, we certainly have the discretion to check some businesses more than others as long as we're not being arbitrary and capricious. So that'd be playing with fire. But nonetheless, we set out the parameters, the businesses see that and they follow it. I guess that's the only thing I'm trying to say is the first offense nature of this, but you know, maybe it only does apply to that dollar amount and that we are more comfortable with a suspension because we have three in a row. [1:38:09] **Mayor:** Yeah. I just want to clarify one thing mainly for for the public record and minutes: I am only considering these two recent ones and then the two for which an administrative citation was given. I don't even remember what the dates are of the other ones that weren't an administrative fine. So I'm not factoring that in at all. And I think it is important not to confuse a table in a fee structure with what our authority is as long-standing city code that puts everybody on notice that a violation of state tobacco law is grounds for a suspension, revocation, all those possible things. So, I'm not losing any sleep at night thinking, "Well, geez, no licensees are on notice that this was going to be more than just a $150 fine." I think that's just a well-established understanding of licensing authority and the fact that it is a privilege that you have to be granted that license and that you are expected to follow certain rules. There are lots of state laws that I've never read, but I know are illegal and therefore don't do them. So that doesn't really pass the smell test for me. Um and maybe what I'm hearing is revocation—outright revocation is too steep a penalty. That's fine. But we have a motion before us for a 14-day suspension, which I think is infinitely reasonable under the circumstances and is appropriate. So any further discussion on this? Council member Edbert. [1:39:36] **Council Member Edbert:** Thank you, Mayor. So I'm not real pleased to be having this conversation. 16 years—I've never—we've never revoked and we have never suspended that I'm aware of. So that's our pattern. One of the things that is important to me... to be clear, if this comes back again, this is not going to be a good conversation and it will be a really not good conversation. Having said that, I'm also interested in a degree of consistency. We had an alcohol enterprise. We did not suspend their license—I don't believe unless I missed that. That was an instance where we actually had weapons drawn and shots fired on the premises. We—so it was not underage—that's a different action, but we had other actions occurring. And I'm looking... So, could somebody break that down without naming names, but it's like how—we gave them training. We went into their premises, suggested technologies that can be used. We spent staff time publicly paid to gain compliance with the goal of "we don't want that one coming back again" either. So help me distinguish. Is it simply because this one is sales under age and the other one was not or what are the distinguishing characters that can help me get over this consistency conversation? [1:41:35] **Mayor:** My recollection on that was that our reason for working with the licensee was it was not actions directly attributable to the conduct of the license for which it was granted: the liquor license. So there were shootings, there was conduct of patrons. Was alcohol a contribution? Probably. I don't know. But this wasn't, for example, failing to card three times in 3 years. There was a history and a pattern of crime and sources of calls for criminal conduct that the police had to weigh in on and we felt the bar could do a better job with just keeping order. That was my understanding. Miss Crawford? [1:42:22] **Miss Crawford:** Mayor, Council Member Edbert, within the last four years, we have suspended—separate from the establishment that you and the mayor are discussing right now—a different establishment. We did suspend that liquor license and that was for underage sales and that was consistent with the action that the council imposed on a yet a different establishment 10 years prior. So we have done that for liquor. I—we haven't done this for tobacco. Regardless it is within the council's authority in the city code to do it. You know, staff brings forward the minimal amount. I feel like that's my job to bring forward: the minimum amount with council's authority to do more. [1:43:19] **Council Member Hughes:** That's awesome. Um, I guess I feel like I'm not real comfortable with suspending their license tonight. I sort of feel like we did not make that clear in any portion of our code that that would have been something that we would have considered right now. But again, I have no problem putting that down on the record that the next time we see them, they can be expecting a $5,000 fine and two month license pull. I mean, the next one could come down, but I guess I just feel like we haven't set the stage for that within our even though we have the right. [1:44:05] **Mayor:** Okay. Motion in a second to direct staff to draft a resolution bringing a 14-day suspension, $1,000 fine. Any further discussion? [1:44:21] **Council Member Walsh:** So, just to clarify, Mr. Mayor, tonight does not impose the fine and the suspension. You're telling staff to bring that to us in a future meeting for another vote? [1:44:21] **Mayor:** Yeah. If you want a second bite at whether or not you would ultimately adopt a resolution that in substance has, in addition to laying some predicate facts, a 14-day suspension and $1,000 fine, then don't vote for this motion because this is the opportunity in my mind to hash out what the penalty is. [1:45:03] **Mr. Anderson:** And the reason for that, if I might jump in, is mainly because we didn't want to come to council with some pre-loaded resolution with findings. I mean, tonight the council was going to hear, discuss, talk about the reasons for whatever penalty it does want to move ahead with. And I want to memorialize those carefully based on this discussion tonight. Bring it back—it would... I think it makes sense for the decision to be made tonight; that just needs to be formally approved. I would say rubber stamped by the council. Could even be a consent agenda thing. Let's figure out the penalty tonight and then we can memorialize it. That's just from the standpoint of establishing a record and creating reasons for decisions that you make as a licensing authority. The safest thing to do to protect the council from arguments that you might have made a decision that wasn't well thought out, discussed, deliberated, and all those things. So, that's the rationale for that. I know it's not typical, but... [1:45:50] **Council Member Walsh:** Question, Mr. Mayor on that—part of it is just due process. So this is the opportunity for due process for the business as well. They've had their say because we're dealing with the violations in front of us. Now it's penalty phase. So we're good on due process, right? [1:46:35] **Mr. Anderson:** Yes, I would say so. And I would also add—and this is regardless of the decision—that the licensee’s attorney can determine... If the council makes a decision, he's going to have other rights to challenge things, whether at the district court or the Court of Appeals level. That's for him to figure out if he disagrees with it. But from the council's perspective, this is the opportunity. It was his ability to address the council and be heard on it tonight. [1:46:55] **Council Member West:** Thank you. Um, two things. Mr. Anderson, we were talking about a 36-month timeline in there. And so I just wanted to be really clear why we're not falling in that when there was an underage tobacco in November of 23, an underage cannabinoid in June of 24, and a tobacco underage in October of 25, which would be within that 36 months. [1:47:29] **Mr. Anderson:** It's a good question. It's because the minimum penalties under the state statute apply to underage sale of tobacco. There's separate penalties in the statute for THC violations. And so—yeah, that's the reason. [1:47:46] **Council Member West:** Okay. Um I don't actually like that answer, but thank you very much for it. Um and the other question I have is for the staff: when I—I love consistency. I think it's really important for fairness that we are as consistent in making our decisions in similar circumstances as we can. And so I am curious if we remember at all what the circumstance was with the suspension for the business that had the underage alcohol. Um, how long was the suspension? [1:48:22] **Miss Crawford:** Mayor, Council Member West, if memory serves me correct, that was for underage and it was for multiple underage within a—I think—a year or a year and a half. We followed the ordinance. But it was multiple underage violations. So, that was consistent with what we did 12 years ago with for a different establishment. I want to say it was seven or 10 days. [1:49:09] **Council Member West:** So, um, you know, I don't see—I mean, I understand the legal difference between tobacco and cannabinoids, but to me, the underage happened three times in under three years, which in my mind does make it kind of fall into that area. And with the past history of doing a similar thing with the underage to alcohol, I am more convinced of a suspension. I probably wouldn't do 14 days. I would maybe think of seven and a $1,000 fine would be probably where I would land. [1:50:14] **Council Member Strang:** Or adjusted preference. Amendment—I will amend. [1:50:14] **Mayor:** All right. We've got a motion to amend the suspension from 14 days to 7 days. Do I have a second on that? [1:50:14] **Council Member West:** I'd second that. [1:50:14] **Mayor:** Any further discussion on the amendment? [1:50:14] **Council Member Strang:** Appreciate that. I'm more comfortable with that. [1:50:14] **Council Member Edbert:** I'll support that. [1:50:14] **Mayor:** All those in favor of amending the suspension period from 14 days to 7 say I. [1:50:31] **Council Members:** I. [1:50:31] **Mayor:** Any opposed? I vote three to two. I think that passes. All right. So, we have a motion before us now for a 7-day suspension and a thousand dollar fine. Any further discussion? [cough and clears throat] [1:50:48] **Mr. Anderson:** Mayor, if I can jump in. I just want to memorialize a couple things for the record before there's a vote. I'll defer to you. I apologize. [1:51:09] **Mayor:** No, that's okay. It feels like if we're laying predicate facts on the record, we should do it before we vote. [1:51:09] **Mr. Anderson:** We can. Here's what I'm hearing: that the restrictions on tobacco businesses are necessary to protect health, safety, welfare of the public, including those that are most vulnerable—we've talked about youth, underage sales. The council needs to take multiple violations seriously. That the city has tobacco laws in place with a recognition that strict regulation and control is necessary for public health and public good. That when regulations are violated repeatedly, the council feels compelled to impose significant penalties to ensure that it doesn't happen again as the licensing authority. That three underage sale incidents—regardless of whether tobacco or THC—and the fact that the business is near a school, all this is detrimental to public health and safety. And that the penalty that's before you here on this motion—the 7-day suspension and the $1,000 fine—is commensurate with the discussion we're having, the violations that are on the record and being considered, and consistent with the council's feelings as it relates to those violations. Um, jump in and add anything if you think I missed anything or correct anything if you think I misstated anything. [1:51:55] **Mayor:** I think that both correct and sufficient. [1:51:55] **Mr. Anderson:** And then in—if the council moves ahead with this in terms of the 7-day suspension—just mechanics. I've seen cities do it one of two ways. One, you can tell the licensee which seven days specifically you want them to be suspended. Some city councils have given them an option to say, "You choose the seven-day period in the next month or two months," but it does have to be consecutive generally and I assume that's what the council thinks. If there's any other parameters around that I guess please let me know so I can include them in the resolution. [1:53:15] **Mayor:** Other than consecutive seven consecutive days within you know a certain period of time... it needs to be meted out but I don't really care when it's done or if there's a preference from the licensee. Seven consecutive days. Does anybody have a dog in that fight? [1:53:15] **Council Member Edbert:** Beyond our scope as... I just hate to delegate to the staff but that feels like a staff decision. [1:53:15] **Mayor:** My inclination is we aren't going to formally act on this again until our December 9th meeting. We can request and give us your preferred—or give us some options in the next 60 days to—seven consecutive days in the next 60 days. [1:54:20] **Mr. Anderson:** Yeah, I think that makes sense. [1:54:20] **Mayor:** Okay, thank you. And is the council comfortable with this based on the discussion and everything that we've talked about tonight with this just coming back on consent? If you have issues with the resolution or the findings, we can always pull it or if you want to discuss it further, but my thought would be put it on consent for formal approval. [1:54:40] **Council Member Walsh:** Makes sense to me. [1:54:40] **Mayor:** All right. With the establishment of those predicate facts on the record and explanation for the to-be-written resolution stating our reasoning, all those in favor say I. [1:54:56] **Council Members:** I. [1:54:56] **Mayor:** Any opposed? [1:54:56] **Council Member Hughes:** No. [1:54:56] **Mayor:** Motion carries by a vote of 4 to one. We look forward to seeing that resolution on the consent agenda at the next meeting. Thank you. [1:55:19] **Mayor:** Item 7B, continued second reading of an ordinance amending chapter 706 of the municipal code regarding trees. [1:55:19] **Mr. Copy:** All right, mayor, members of the council, tonight we will continue the second reading of the ordinance amending chapter 706 of the municipal code regarding trees. So, if you remember at the November 12th meeting, council talked over the ordinance and decided to table any action to allow staff time to modify language to address several concerns that council had. So, the two concerns that staff addressed as part of the ordinance in front of you tonight: one is to increase the appeal period from 7 to 14 days and also a modification was made that would allow staff to authorize extensions beyond the 40-day abatement period if a property owner is working in good faith effort to remove a hazard tree in a timely manner. So, those two modifications have been reviewed by staff and the city attorney, incorporated into the ordinance before you tonight. So, that being said, staff would recommend that council conclude the second reading and adopt the ordinance amending the city code regarding trees. If adopted, staff would also recommend that council adopt the resolution authorizing summary publication of said ordinance. Staff would be happy to answer any questions. [1:56:50] **Mayor:** Council, any questions? Anyone want to make a motion to adopt the ordinance? [1:57:01] **Council Member:** So moved. [1:57:01] **Council Member:** Second. [1:57:01] **Mayor:** I have a motion, a second. Any further discussion on this? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. [1:57:11] **Council Members:** I. [1:57:11] **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. Just like that, we have an accompanying resolution. I'd entertain a motion. [1:57:11] **Council Member:** So moved. [1:57:22] **Mayor:** Okay. Motion a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. [1:57:22] **Council Members:** I. [1:57:22] **Mayor:** Any oppose? Motion carries. The resolution is passed. Thank you, Mr. Copy. That was quick. Item 8A, County Road E Corridor action plan: branding, placemaking, and marketing. Miss Shimik, whenever you're ready. [1:57:56] **Miss Shimik:** Good evening, mayor, members of council. Um, I will try to be not quite as quick as Paul, but quick. I think we all know the background of the County Road E project, but it began with securing a grant from Ramsey County to complete a corridor action plan in partnership with Gem Lake and Vadnais Heights. In 2022, we completed that project with a series of community engagement events that formed and informed the engagement and the strategic themes in the action plan that include near, medium, and long-term strategies to meet the overall objective of creating a cohesive theme and overall sense of place for the corridor. From there we again as a partnership applied to the Ramsey County Critical Corridors grant program and secured funds to complete a plan to foster a sense of place and purpose for the corridor through a branding marketing and placemaking strategy effort. [snorts] [1:59:18] **Miss Shimik:** Through that process we've selected Civic Brands through the RFP process. The actual process of creating the report that's before you began with an initial assessment by the consultants in partnership with staff of identifying some "place types" along the corridor. Council may be familiar with that term from the recently completed update of the city's zoning code. That process was done by analyzing both how the corridor is used today, the density of uses, the scale of uses, and also the aspirational intent of the partners. Those were informed by feedback from staff as well as a steering committee. Those place types were important because they were used to guide the placemaking recommendations and also the initial branding recommendations. Um from there the consultants presented the steering committee and staff with three different concepts. They were deemed "Illustration E," which is the one on the left, "Block E," which is in the center, and then the "Font E," which is on the right. [2:00:16] **Miss Shimik:** From there we took those concepts to an open house and we also conducted an online survey. This wasn't a voting process in the feedback; it was more requesting feedback on specific questions to help guide the finalization of a final design, as well as whether the designated place types were considered appropriate and if the recommendations on how to implement placemaking was appropriate. And with that we came to the final design that you see here. The design is meant to be simplistic but also colorful to bring different art elements and interest into the corridor—but also a physical representation of the fact that the corridor while it is straight, it is in constant motion. There's lots of activity and it's really an everyday use corridor. And then you can see on the right there just some different ways that it can be implemented in physical items—whether it's County Road E light pole banners, swag bags, or the such. And then that bottom kind of wayfinding signage. [2:01:48] **Miss Shimik:** You can see on this slide we also have the different place marks for how you can specifically brand certain areas with the different cities. That can also be used if some intersections kind of develop their own identity such as Hoffman Place or Bair Avenue. You can also incorporate those that way. It's really meant to be flexible and interesting, not a monolithic design that's just planted everywhere, but something that really adapts to the different place types and uses. For next steps, currently staff's recommending that council pass the resolution accepting the final report and authorizing staff to continue the collaboration with Gem Lake and Vadnais Heights. If council does that, we will work with the project partners on developing an implementation plan both for the branding and placemaking efforts and recommendations that were in the report, but also continuing the work of the overall corridor action plan. And further staff would like to work with the project partners to seek additional funding through the Ramsey County Critical Corridors Program to begin implementation work. With that, I will take any questions or comments. [2:03:11] **Mayor:** Thank you, Miss Shimik. Council, do we have any questions? Or I would entertain a motion to approve the resolution. Council member Edbert. [2:03:30] **Council Member Edbert:** Thank you, Mayor. So, Miss Shimik, I'm not the guy to talk to about branding. Fonts and colors ain't my thing. I'll accept these. Peek into your crystal ball: what in the White Bear Lake portion of County Road E might be different in three to five years? What's that midterm, long-term action plan that goes beyond putting up nice banners with pretty colors and fonts? What's—what become the things that give that street its life, its energy, its juna whatever? [2:04:13] **Miss Shimik:** Um, you know that in a collaboration and partnership, we all have our different objectives and goals. So I will be speaking from my own perspective here. I believe in addition to implementing these as a physical asset along the corridor, I think it would be helpful to consider working with a group of leaders along the corridor—business leaders, organizational leaders, perhaps community members—to develop a model that's perhaps like the downtown Main Street group that helps activate different areas along the corridor that helps carry out advertising initiatives and really draws in activity and a sense of place that's unique to the corridor. But also respects the fact that different places along the corridor are physically different—they're used differently—and finding ways to implement that in a way that is engaging to the community, doesn't feel forced, but feels like it is a partnership and a collaboration with all partners involved. [2:05:30] **Council Member Edbert:** That's a satisfying answer. Thank you. So peer a little deeper into your crystal ball. Give me—if you were a community group on County Road E—open up my imagination. What are the kind—what are things that we ought to do, install, be whatever? I like the suggestion that there be a main street type engagement that can implement some things. What do you see? What have you been imagining over the last couple years as you've been working on this project? [2:06:10] **Miss Shimik:** Um, at times I think there are certain places along the corridor you could drop me and if you just took off a blindfold I might not know if I'm in White Bear Lake. I might not know if I'm in Vadnais Heights. And so I think by implementing these branding strategies—whether that's through public art, banners, or wayfinding signage—you add visual interest that makes it a distinctive place and you remember it for uniquely what it is and what you experienced while you were there. I think that that is part of the charm of downtown White Bear Lake—you know when you're in downtown White Bear Lake that it's downtown White Bear Lake. It's not downtown Hudson or Stillwater. I would like the corridor to have that own sense of identity that it is as uniquely County Road E as Grand Avenue is uniquely Grand Avenue. And that that brand presence is a strength that businesses and organizations along the corridor can leverage to be successful, whether that is planning for different events that attract people from beyond the County Road E corridor. Um I also think that by implementing this across the corridor, we as municipalities recognize that the way people use the County Road E corridor does not stop at borders. I think some areas community thinks of it more along the lines of "this is the White Bear Lake area" or "part of the White Bear Lake school district." There are different elements that people tie to it that don't necessarily recognize that this is White Bear Lake and this is Gem Lake. And in fact, I think there's probably lots of people who couldn't draw the borders on a map if we asked them to. And so, my goal would just be to have that cohesive sense of place, give businesses tools—whether we're helping them use those tools as a collaboration between the three cities or whether they spin it off and they have their own group like how Main Street functions. Um, it can help serve to attract different investments whether that is development, redevelopment, or new types of businesses. I think it looks differently at different places along the corridor. [2:08:28] **Mayor:** All right, I'd entertain a motion to approve the resolution before us. [2:08:28] **Council Member:** So moved. [2:08:28] **Council Member:** Second. [2:09:09] **Mayor:** Have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. [2:09:09] **Council Members:** I. [2:09:09] **Mayor:** Any opposed? Motion carries. Resolution is passed. Thank you, Miss Shimik. Item 8B, order feasibility report 2027 pavement rehabilitation project. Mr. Copy, whenever you're ready. [2:09:30] **Mr. Copy:** Mayor, members of the council. So, this if you recall from our workshop held on November 12th, we made the ultimate decision to split the downtown area into two projects. The 2026 project passed under the consent agenda; this being the 2027 portion of the project. We're ordering the feasibility study early to allow us additional time to start engaging with the downtown community and taking that opportunity to really get the design right for that area. This is the downtown core area that consists of the business area. That will take a lot of coordination and cooperation with the business owners to make sure that our staging is correct and that we're able to maintain their businesses throughout the project. So that is the area. Um going back to the scope: it's full street reconstruction, new curb, gutter, all new sidewalk improvements, decorative elements. Um we will have our utility main and service repairs. A lot of that is very old in the downtown. We want to make sure we have that correct and starting the project early now will allow us that interaction with those businesses. Street light improvements, mobility concept consideration, public realm improvements... wayfinding, amenities, streetscape, trees, all those kind of things that the downtown mobility and parking study laid out. And then obviously, we work with private utilities to make sure that they get their upgrades in so that they're not tearing our streets up a few years later as well. [2:12:11] **Mr. Copy:** This is the reason that we brought this portion to council tonight: to memorialize that within that mobility and parking study, a number of different mobility concepts were presented. The one that had quite a bit of discussion was the potential closure of or consideration of closure of Third Street from Highway 61. At that November 12th workshop, council basically reached unanimous consensus that we should not consider that during any future phases of the project or during final design. So just wanted to memorialize that that will not be moving forward with any kind of final design as we start that work. We're ordering the feasibility study here in November. We'll start that design work and really start that public engagement in the spring once we've got some kind of preliminary designs. We'll bid early in 27 to attract the best contractors. Construction would go through May through October. Basically kind of also give all our community events time to relocate and figure their schedules out for 27. We'll start working with them over the next year as well to make sure they can continue in some form or fashion. So that being said, staff would recommend that council adopt the resolution ordering the preparation of a feasibility study. Happy to answer any questions. [2:14:13] **Mayor:** Thank you, Mr. Copy. Just one question, more of a confirmation and clarification. This feasibility study is moving the downtown reconstruction project forward, but does not include plans that would close the Third Street entrance into the city. Do I have that correct? [2:14:38] **Mr. Copy:** Mayor, members of the council, that is correct. The closure, any closure of Third Street is not being considered. [2:14:38] **Mayor:** Very good. Thank you for confirming and clarifying. I appreciate that. Council, any questions? Council member Edbert. [2:15:05] **Council Member Edbert:** Thank you, Mayor. So along those lines, we did not discuss—is there any need for realignment of any realignment of the intersection of third and 61? And I would just say I am not interested in closing eastbound on third off of northbound 61. Not interested. But it comes at a funky angle. And if there were design-based needs that needed to be addressed, have those been identified? [2:15:39] **Mr. Copy:** Mayor, members of the council, we always look at modern geometrics as we look at roadway design. So that any kind of adjustments in the curvature of the roadway, how things align, we definitely look at those to look at modern geometry, current vehicle sizing, things like that. Um also, as we had mentioned at the workshop, we'll also look at how we cross pedestrians in that corridor—again, that was really what was driving that consideration. But we'll look at all those things as we get into it and present that to council when we develop those final designs. [2:16:10] **Council Member Edbert:** And I forget when—when is the final design anticipated again? [2:16:10] **Mr. Copy:** Mayor, members of the council, we'll start doing preliminary layouts over the winter here but mid-summer next year we'll start bringing those concepts back to council. [2:16:15] **Council Member Edbert:** Thank you. [2:16:15] **Mayor:** Any other thoughts from the council? Otherwise, I'd entertain a motion to approve the resolution ordering a feasibility study for 2027 pavement rehabilitation project. [2:16:32] **Council Member Edbert:** So moved—as long as Third Street stays open. [2:16:32] **Council Member Walsh:** Second. [2:16:32] **Mayor:** All right. He was kidding about that. The second is for just the resolution as is, I'm sure. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. [2:16:32] **Council Members:** I. [2:16:32] **Mayor:** Any opposed? The resolution carries. Thank you. All right. Item nine, discussion. Nothing scheduled. Item 10, communications from the city manager, Miss Crawford. [2:16:50] **Miss Crawford:** Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Um, city offices will be closed this Thursday and Friday for the Thanksgiving holiday. A few upcoming events: the White Bear Area Chamber kickoff and click-off reception to their annual auction is Wednesday, December 3rd from 2 to 6:00 p.m. at Farmhouse Style Furniture. The Greater White Bear Lake Community Foundation "Share the Joy" event is Tuesday, December 2nd from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. at White Bear Country Inn. And then our own event, Fire Safety with Santa is Sunday, December 14th from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. at the North Fire Station, right here at our city campus. Sign up is required, though. So anyone who's interested does need to sign up ahead of time. So there's information on the screen for people to be able to do that. And that's all I have for tonight. Thank you. [2:18:02] **Mayor:** Thank you, Miss Crawford. At this time, the city council may go—may close the meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. Portions of the meeting may be closed pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D.05 subdivision 3A to evaluate the performance of the city manager. Therefore, I request a motion to go into closed session to evaluate the performance of the city manager. [2:18:02] **Council Member:** [Unintelligible motion] [2:18:02] **Mayor:** You don't have to get this part recorded. You don't need this part. Do I have a second? [2:18:18] **Council Member:** Second. [2:18:18] **Mayor:** All those in favor say I. [2:18:18] **Council Members:** I. [2:18:18] **Mayor:** All right, we're in closed session.