This transcript appears to be from a **White Bear Lake City Council** meeting. Based on the context of the dialogue and the names mentioned, I have assigned the speakers (including Mayor Dan Dannecker, City Manager Lindsey Crawford, City Attorney Peter Gilchrist, and others). *Note: Timestamps are estimated based on a standard speaking pace for a meeting of this length.* *** **[00:00] Mayor Dannecker:** Call the meeting to order here. Mr. Clerk will call the roll. **[00:04] City Clerk:** Councilmember Hughes? [No response] Councilmember Jones? **[00:07] Councilmember Jones:** Here. **[00:08] City Clerk:** Councilmember Edberg? [No response] Councilmember Angstran? [No response] **[00:12] Mayor Dannecker:** Join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, jumping into item 2a: minutes of the City Council work session on June 21st, 2022. I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes. **[00:35] Councilmember Edberg:** So moved. **[00:36] Councilmember Jones:** Second. **[00:37] Mayor Dannecker:** Motion and a second. All those in favor of approving the minutes from the work session on June 21st, say aye. **[00:42] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[00:43] Mayor Dannecker:** Any opposed? Motion carries; the minutes are approved. Item 2b: minutes of the regular City Council meeting on June 28th. I'd entertain a motion to approve. **[00:51] Councilmember Jones:** Move to approve. **[00:52] Councilmember Edberg:** Second. **[00:53] Mayor Dannecker:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approving the minutes of the regular City Council meeting on June 28th, say aye. **[00:58] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[00:59] Mayor Dannecker:** Any opposed? Motion carries, minutes pass. And item 2c: minutes of the City Council work session on June 28th. I'd entertain a motion to approve those minutes. **[01:06] Councilmember Edberg:** So moved. **[01:07] Councilmember Jones:** Second. **[01:08] Mayor Dannecker:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. **[01:10] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[01:11] Mayor Dannecker:** Any opposed? Motion carries, the minutes pass. Item three: adoption of the agenda. We have a couple notes. One is that there's been a request to pull part of item 4a—the Park Advisory Commission minutes—and we're going to move that to 8a under New Business. And then we're also going to add to item nine—we'll call it 9a—a discussion on THC regulations. Are there any other additions or changes to the agenda? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda. **[01:40] Councilmember Edberg:** So moved. **[01:41] Councilmember Jones:** Second. **[01:42] Mayor Dannecker:** A motion and second. All those in favor say aye. **[01:44] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[01:45] Mayor Dannecker:** Any opposed? We have an agenda. Onto item four: Consent Agenda. I’d entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended. **[01:52] Councilmember Jones:** I so move. **[01:53] Councilmember Edberg:** Second. **[01:54] Mayor Dannecker:** Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. **[01:56] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[01:57] Mayor Dannecker:** Any opposed? Consent agenda is adopted. Item five: Visitors and Presentations. We have a quarterly Community Development report. Mr. Lindahl? **[02:05] Jason Lindahl (Community Development Director):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the City Council. Included in your packet tonight is the second quarter Community Development Department report. You know, just by way of summary, it includes separate tables—well, the second quarter report obviously includes information from April, May, and June of this year. It's summarized into three tables: looking at specifically land use cases, building permit information, and then code enforcement activities. Overall, if you look at the land use table, staff would just highlight for you things are up in the second quarter, and that's generally a seasonal kind of thing that happens as the planning department applications generally get busier in the spring. It's likely a leading indicator into the building permit information that you'll probably see in the coming second half of the year. Building permits are generally up, and the volume—or excuse me, the values—are generally on track with the previous quarter. Staff would just note for you there is an increase—the building official highlighted for us that there has been an increase in roof permits, kind of related to the storm activity that has come into town, so that's been a specific part of the increase in those permits. And we'd also just highlight for you—or note for you—that this information right now does not include probably the two biggest things we've been talking about in the first half of the year, and that would be the high school permit and then the Shaefer Richardson application for planning that is still going through the planning process. With that, I'd stand for any questions. **[03:45] Mayor Dannecker:** Council, any questions? Councilmember Jones? **[03:48] Councilmember Jones:** Mr. Mayor, no questions about the first two pages. Inside the last page, just numerically, the total cases for code enforcement seems up, and I know that is also seasonal—it makes sense. It just... I don't remember seeing numbers that high. Do we know a comparison to a couple years back? I'm just curious; I'm just asking for later, not really looking for an answer now. **[04:12] Jason Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council, we can certainly try to give you some context to these numbers as we bring things back to you in the third and fourth quarters. **[04:22] Mayor Dannecker:** Any other questions or comments from Council? Seeing none, thank you for the report. Move on to item six: Public Hearings. And we'll kick things off again with Mr. Lindahl. **[04:32] Jason Lindahl:** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. The item before you tonight, as you mentioned, is a public hearing for the right-of-way vacation of Fifth Avenue between the north side of Clarence and the south side of Whitaker. Just by way of background again, we're talking about a right-of-way vacation; this process came about through neighborhood concerns that were raised during the Rose Park View plat addition or the Tice property that went through the city's review process late last year. You may recall that the City Attorney was then directed to do research on the status of the Fifth Street right-of-way in this neighborhood and reported back to the Council at the December 14th meeting last year. That staff report from the City Attorney is included in your packet for your reference, but the main takeaway from that was that the City Attorney found that the city still has a right-of-way interest in that area and that the city has the authority to vacate that if they so choose and still maintain the street ends in this area. This item as a public hearing was noticed in the paper, and staff has not received any comments prior to this meeting. City staff has discussed this—the City Attorney, the Engineering/Public Works department, and the Planning department—and they're all recommending approval of the resolution that's contained in your packet. With that, I'd stand for questions. **[05:55] Mayor Dannecker:** Thank you. Before we jump into questions, we do have a public hearing question. Before we do that, if you would... **[06:02] Councilmember Jones:** Mr. Mayor, just a clarification—I don't mean to be a stickler and nitpicker, but this topic has been difficult. So the slide says the "north side of Clarence to the north side of Whitaker." It's the south side of Clarence... and just to track the record, we're vacating from the south side of Clarence—oh, I said wait, wait, wait... as I say that, I see it. So it's the boundary of the north side of Clarence, not to the north of Clarence, but the northern boundary of Clarence to the... okay, it's right. Good, good. Never mind. Thank you. **[06:35] Mayor Dannecker:** Yes, foot retracted. You don't want to make any more mistakes—well, not that we made a lot of mistakes, but just you know, I think there was a different entity of government that made some mistakes. All right, at this time I'm going to open it up to a public hearing. I do not have anyone that signed up, but I will open it up if anybody wishes to be heard on this. If you want to step up in an orderly fashion and state your name and address for the record, we'd be happy to hear from you. **[07:05] Paul Woody:** Yeah, just go and step on up to the mic? **[07:08] Mayor Dannecker:** State your name and address please. Hang on one second, it’s kind of goofy, but for the purposes of the minutes, it’s helpful. Go ahead, start over. **[07:15] Paul Woody:** Paul Woody, and I live at 1823 Park. I've been at the meetings before on this. Now, my understanding is they're going to keep the right-of-way for Clarence and for Park for the street to go through, right? The way you're talking from the south side of Clarence onto back to Whitaker, you can still vacate the end of Park Street then, right? **[07:38] Jason Lindahl:** No, no. **[07:39] Paul Woody:** See, that's what I wanted to specify because that's what has been a hassle before. We went to the city before on Park Street and he said, "Why don't you plow the snow into your vacant lot?" and I said, "We can't because we're going across private property." So even the city had that as being vacated before and it's led to hassle. But that's what to me you're correcting—what you did in '77—you keep the end of Park and keep the end of Clarence, right? Is that correct? **[08:05] Jason Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council, that is correct. **[08:07] Mayor Dannecker:** The City Attorney is nodding his head as well. **[08:09] Jason Lindahl:** Mr. Mayor, if I may just quickly for everyone's sake: on the map that's shown on the screen, it's the red portions that are being vacated. The yellow portions are being retained as those street ends. **[08:21] Paul Woody:** Because when you said from the south side of Clarence back, I thought, "Are you gonna... because we're gonna have a hassle about Park then." You know, we went to the city before about plowing and stuff and there's always been a hassle. One part of your city says one thing and one says another, you know? So thank you. **[08:35] Mayor Dannecker:** Thank you. Would anyone else like to be heard? **[08:40] Pat Kenney:** No, that's okay, that's no problem. My name is Pat Kenney, I live at 1800 Park Street, which is right on that corner. My complaint all along—well, one of my complaints—is when I moved into that house, I was not made aware that that was an old dump site. A few years ago, I don't remember how long it was now, but they did some work on Whitaker pond and all they did was plow up a certain amount of that part of the dump site and made a big berm there. There was some question as to the pollution that might be hidden in that section, and I wonder if that's ever been addressed. And I understand what Paul is saying about plowing; we've gone around with the city about that many times and they kept saying, "Well, that's private property," but it was also right at the end of my original driveway, so I was unable to get into my yard. I don't know what you can do about that, but I think that should be addressed—that possibility of further pollution. I talk to the guys that go down to Whitaker pond and they check the water every time there's rain, and it's not clean. But they don't really know if it's part of that old dump site or if it's coming from the other pond that flows down into that area. So I think it should be looked into a little more closely. Thank you. **[09:55] Councilmember Jones:** Mr. Mayor, I may address... so what he's talking about is the expansion of the forebay by the VLAWMO that drains almost 800 acres down right into that. So yes, it is polluted water. It is very polluted water because that is basically the end of Dillon Ditch and it drains 800 acres into that. But I know VLAWMO does testing of water on a regular basis on that; I'm the board member for VLAWMO, so I would hear about it if it was polluted because we get those reports. Absolutely there’s pollutants; that was built to treat pollutants, that's what that whole system is for—the pollutants settle into there before being passed on. **[10:35] Pat Kenney:** [Off-mic] Right, well will you raise your volume rates to pay for that? **[10:38] Councilmember Jones:** The question is because it was done... yep, the grant has been concluded. I'm not saying we will do that, I'm just saying that's what it would take. Let them know we're not looking at doing raising rates right now, it’s just that's what it would take. Understood, thank you. **[10:52] Mayor Dannecker:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Sure. All right, would anyone else like to be heard on this subject? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Council. Council, do we have questions for staff? Otherwise, I'd entertain a motion to approve the resolution before us. Councilmember Edberg? **[11:10] Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the comment about snow plowing has been raised in prior conversation at this Council, and I believe if I'm recalling correctly, at the Planning Commission as well. Is there a way that staff can bring light to that or bring resolution to that long-standing conversation? I'm actually looking at Mr. Coffee, because I have a suspicion that snow plowing is more in your bailiwick than in Mr. Lindahl's—but I could be wrong, maybe we can mix things around here. So that's the first item that I'd like to ask: can we get a process underway to resolve the questions or protocols around snow plowing, etc.? The second one: there is this unusual piece of city property that I frankly didn't remember or know until this past year that we actually own, and I'm just curious what kinds of... I'm not interested in opening it up for development, I'm not going there, but it's like, what is our responsibility? What is our stewardship of that piece of property as it pertains to the area surrounding it? I suspect VLAWMO has some interest in that portion as well for the purposes that Mr. Jones just raised. It's like, it's not a park, but what's our stewardship supposed to look like for that? I don't have an answer, but it doesn't seem quite right that it should just sit in limbo. Anyway, those are my two questions/comments. **[12:35] Jason Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council, I can for sure answer the snow plowing question. If you recall back to some of the earlier conversations with the plat that had come through for the Tice property, there was some dispute with the adjacent neighbors that those street ends were already vacated, so our public works crews kind of got chased out of there at times. So they just kind of backed off and did not plow to the end. Now that there is resolution, our public works crews will plow to the ends of the street. So that's a fairly easy resolution. As far as the actual properties go, I can't answer that here tonight; we'll have to do some research into it and see how we acquired them, what the exact condition of the land is—if it's wetland, if it's low area, if it's undevelopable area. It might be just have been a property that we acquired just as open space, which there's nothing wrong with the city having open space as well. So we'll have to do a little bit more research on that and we can get back to Council. **[13:38] Councilmember Edberg:** Okay, thank you. **[13:40] Mayor Dannecker:** Anyone else on the Council? Questions, comments? Otherwise, we have... **[13:44] Councilmember Jones:** Mr. Mayor, and to staff for bringing this forward—it was good, I think, to deal with the development first and then the vacation second, so we're finally getting to the vacation. Paul would call me about once a month, or a couple weeks, and say "Hey, what are we doing with the vacation?" So I'm glad we're finally doing this, Paul, to get this done. I appreciate the work that's been put into this and we're going to get everything right, and then we're going to get it plowed. I think there's no question anymore that if you... and by the way, if you're not getting something plowed right, just call. Just call, and these guys with customer service will take care of it and we'll get it done right away. So with that, I'd move the resolution approval. **[14:22] Councilmember Edberg:** Second. **[14:23] Mayor Dannecker:** I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of adopting the resolution before us, say aye. **[14:31] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[14:32] Mayor Dannecker:** Any opposed? Motion carries and the resolution passes. Item seven: Unfinished Business. We have nothing scheduled. Item eight... I thought I heard you say 8a. I'm sorry, no, it's okay, I had a rhythm going. [Music/Pause] Item seven, Unfinished Business, we have nothing scheduled. Item 8a: the Park Commission minutes from the previous month. Councilmember Edberg, you want to pull that one? **[15:02] Councilmember Edberg:** Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, first of all, I want to express appreciation for receiving the minutes of all of our commissions. I find it useful and informative; it gives me insight into meetings that I'm not at and gives me a sense of what's going on. I appreciate that, thank you. I'm also thinking that having each commission appear before the Council once a year... you know, historically my experience has been we only hear from them when there's an issue, and we don't have too many issues. But just as we're doing this evening with the quarterly Community Service report, maybe there's an annual commission report. I would just like to hold that up as a way for the Council to be aware of our appointed commissions and their work. And the second piece of that that occurred to me is the vitality of our democracy rests on people being engaged and involved. An important piece of that, we see it mostly in the Planning Commission, is their counsel to us about how certain proposals fit or do not fit with our practices. It occurred to me in a conversation with a constituent this past weekend: how are we being intentional about educating our citizens or engaging our citizens and making them aware of these opportunities in a proactive way that elicits folks who want to participate? Could we have a "commissions academy"? I'm making that up, but kind of not. It's like, how do we make it easy and transparent for folks to know what it is to be a commission member as a way of stimulating more community engagement? So I pose that as a question. I also want to express appreciation to each of the members of the Park Commission who personally went out, talked to patrons, and wrote a report. I thought that was awesome. I'd love to hear more. Clearly, they are engaging in their work in a very meaningful way and I appreciated that report. **[16:55] Lindsey Crawford (City Manager):** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I may: if the Council is interested in having an annual presentation from each commission, that would be something that we'd like to know sooner rather than later. The Environmental Advisory Commission is already planning to be here for a presentation in an upcoming couple of months, but give that some thought and report back to staff and we can certainly get that organized. Thank you. **[17:18] Mayor Dannecker:** Well, I'll just echo it sounds like a good idea. It'd be nice at least once a year to touch base with all the commissions. I agree it serves as an opportunity—it's not uncommon for there to be vacancies in these commissions because perhaps people just don't understand what it's all about and how they can get involved. So I'd be open to it. It sounds like Ms. Crawford, you've got a path for how we might achieve that and we can get in touch with staff in the future. Good thoughts. So with that, I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes from the previous Park Commission. **[17:48] Councilmember Edberg:** So moved. **[17:49] Councilmember Jones:** Second. **[17:50] Mayor Dannecker:** I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. **[17:55] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[17:56] Mayor Dannecker:** Any opposed? The minutes are approved and passed. So moving on to item 9a: THC regulations. Mr. Gilchrist, I understand you're going to enlighten us on what that's all about. Include any demonstration or...? **[18:10] Peter Gilchrist (City Attorney):** Absolutely, I'll be handing them out now. So, thank you Mr. Mayor and Council. I talked with the City Manager leading up to this meeting and had some discussions about how best to approach this issue. Obviously, everyone's aware of it—this is something that the legislature adopted that went into effect on July 1st, allowing the sale of products containing a certain amount of... up to a certain amount of THC. I won't attempt to pronounce the full name. And so that's left, frankly, a lot of local governments scrambling, trying to figure out what their role ought to be. Should we have a role? What are we allowed to do, frankly, under the statute? Because the statute frankly doesn't speak to local regulation. It doesn't prohibit it, but it's not like 340A that deals with liquor that says we can license, or tobacco that says we can license. It just frankly doesn't speak to that. It puts the oversight role in the hands of the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy, and there certainly are some regulations around what is prohibited, but there's not much by way of operational administration of licensing. There's no state license or anything like that associated with the sales. And so, things we've looked at—we had a discussion in the office just end of last week trying to figure out how best to move this forward or just get our arms around this, frankly. And we're working with the League of Minnesota Cities too, because they're in the same situation of trying to get a sense of where we're at, because obviously you have potentially licensing issues where the city may choose to get involved. You have zoning issues potentially—do we want to look at this as a use in either allowing it or prohibiting it? Those are the two principal means of regulation of uses at a local level. Another option that we've talked about that I'm frankly advocating to my clients—just because there is so much uncertainty at this point about the roles and responsibilities and authorities—is to look at adopting an interim ordinance to place a moratorium on the sale to give everyone, frankly the city, an opportunity to study this issue. To figure out what you want to do. To give the Council an opportunity to discuss: do we want to look at licensing? If so, then develop an opportunity to draft a licensing ordinance. If you want to deal with it from a zoning perspective—and it can be an "and/or," it could be both certainly—giving an opportunity to have those discussions about how do we want to deal with it? Where do you want to allow it, if at all? What are the regulations going to be if it is allowed? So I frankly think it's better to have those discussions, take your time, in an opportunity where you know that things aren't going to be accelerating while you're trying to have those discussions. Because the alternative is rushing to try to put something in place. I mean, I could certainly draft you a licensing ordinance and have it ready for you at the next meeting, but we'd just be rushing to try to do something without really understanding the lay of the land. So raising it tonight just acknowledging that's an issue. Part of the reason for having it tonight is because the longer this goes... the city's already been approached, I've been told, with questions about "Hey, I'm interested in selling this, so how do I go about doing it?" I mean, good for the citizen to come and ask how to do it right. The difficult part is, frankly, we don't know exactly how to do it right right now. And so that's where we wanted to bring it before the Council—not for a full discussion at this point, but in case the Council is interested in giving yourself that breathing room to have those policy discussions, to allow staff time to study the issue, bring back recommendations, those sorts of things. That's why we thought we'd bring up the idea of possibly, if you're interested as a Council, looking at preparing an interim ordinance for consideration at your next meeting. Coincidentally, we also have a tobacco issue going at the same time where your ordinance hasn't been updated to reflect the changes from a year or two ago to the tobacco laws, and so frankly those need to be updated too. There's an opportunity at this time to really do both if you're so inclined: get our code updated and address some zoning issues, and then also what do we want to do about the THC issue? With that, I'll just be happy to answer any questions but really looking just for some initial direction from the Council. **[22:25] Mayor Dannecker:** Let me just kick off the discussion with some of my thoughts. I read the memo and Ms. Crawford brought this to me a few days ago. I think, first of all, I'm in support of a moratorium. I think this is a situation where we need to slow down and figure out what this all means. The legislature passed this law and we don't have really any guidance for what we can do to regulate it. And because this is a new area—something certainly unprecedented at least in this state with regard to THC and the expansion of that—it's not a question of "we should walk before we run," we should "stop before we walk." So I think taking a year to figure out what does this all mean, taking a year to give the legislature some time to maybe clarify in the next session (which I would hope that they would do) is a good idea. So I would be in favor and would fully support a moratorium to slow down. I think time is of the essence because there's no real legal structure in place to prevent someone in the city of White Bear from selling this. And if it is the desire of the Council to say we think we should be regulating it, we should have a say in it—its proximity, where it's sold, how much—then it seems to me the only way to do that is a moratorium. Let's get some information, and up to a year from now—it certainly could be shorter than that—we can make an informed decision as a Council what we think is best for the community. And quite frankly, because it's relatively new, I would like some input from the community. How do residents feel about this? So I would welcome that as well. Those are my initial thoughts, and I would welcome a discussion on this. Anyone else on the Council have some thoughts? direction? Councilmember Edberg? **[24:12] Councilmember Edberg:** So I think a moratorium is wise. I think there's wisdom in thinking about proper roles. Concerns? I guess the two questions that popped into my head as I was listening to our attorney: first, how long? I could picture between six months and a year. I don't feel more than a year is reasonable; if we can't get our policy stuff in a place in a year, something else is going on. I think the idea of incorporating opportunities for citizen input is always good, particularly in a new area as the Mayor has said. But I'd also want to make sure that... I did not read or hear in any of those comments that it is our privilege to forbid the sale of the product. It seems to me that the legislature has permitted it. They have not... that's expansive. I haven't seen the limitation, but it might be out there. And so if it's a year to figure out how we regulate, I think that makes sense, but I don't see this as—or I would hope that it's not being driven in the sense of—here's a year to prevaricate. If the legislature changes its mind in six months, fine, the legislature gets to do what the legislature does. But if they don't change that fundamental, then it's like: okay, these are reasonable questions, let's figure it out. But not more than a year, and not with an intent of frustrating the will expressed in law. **[25:38] Mayor Dannecker:** Mr. City Attorney, is there anything about how long a moratorium can last or should last? And do we have an ability to prohibit sales of something that the legislature has authorized? **[25:52] Peter Gilchrist:** Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers, so you would not want to put a moratorium in place that extended beyond a year. You're dealing with two types of moratoria: one is express authority under the zoning chapter to put a zoning moratorium on, and that's limited to a year. The other side of it goes back to a case that found that when a local government has the authority to regulate something, an inherent part of that power is to place a moratorium on it to allow you to study to protect public health and safety. That's where the other piece comes in, because you have the authority to issue business licenses under your public health, welfare, and safety authority. So you do, in my opinion, have the authority to put a moratorium on that side of it too. The moratorium would really cover the landscape of both the licensing and the zoning. And during that time, yes, prohibit the sales. Now, long term, whether you get into prohibiting this—I think you can, but I don't want to get too far out ahead because we're still frankly kind of figuring this out. In zoning, there's uses that aren't allowed—anything that's not allowed is prohibited. So there are uses you can prohibit. But how that's all going to interplay, how the legislature is going to step in and clarify that... that's all part of what we're still trying to work through. I think there's no question you can zone. I think there is no question you can license. I do think, again, that you can prohibit, but those are all important policy discussions that need space to allow you to have them rather than let's hurry up and adopt something in two weeks. **[27:35] Councilmember Walsh:** Well, thank you Mr. Mayor. When I heard the moratorium language, I thought that's a good idea. And then when I heard you say "a year," I thought, "Wow, that's a long time." But then if you really think of the calendar—if we put this in place August 1, six months doesn't get us through the legislative session. So I really do think you want to leave this until after the legislative session. That means June 1st of next year, which is essentially right out of the year. So a year is probably the right time. Let's see what they do. I think the way this was passed was kind of different, so they may come in with some ideas and give us better direction. Makes sense to me. **[28:18] Peter Gilchrist:** Mr. Mayor, just one quick clarification: I've been through a number of these. 12 months ticks by incredibly fast. The study and the discussions at least take us six months, and then by the time you start drafting and reviewing drafts, it really does tick by quickly. Now, the reality is, though, if you complete your work sooner than that, the moratorium can come off in nine months or ten months or whenever you happen to be done. So it's not necessarily a full year, but you want to give yourself that breathing room. Things like this always take longer than you think they might. **[28:55] Councilmember Jones:** Mayor, just short—I'm in favor of the moratorium on THC 3.2. **[29:02] Mayor Dannecker:** Anyone else? All right, well I think staff has some pretty good guidance on where the Council is leaning and perhaps at the next meeting we would have a proposed resolution that might look at a one-year moratorium. **[29:15] Peter Gilchrist:** Yes, we will prepare a draft ordinance for your review for first reading for the next meeting. **[29:20] Mayor Dannecker:** All right, very good. Moving on to item 10a: communications from the City Manager. Ms. Crawford? **[29:26] Lindsey Crawford:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to share a recap of the Fourth of July fireworks that we had here this year. They were phenomenal. We had a new contractor and it went off with a bang, I'll say. [Laughter]. Everybody worked really hard with our new barge, new contractor. Rick worked for many, many months with the fireworks committee securing everything, and I just wanted to acknowledge him on his work on that. It was very impressive. Some of the fireworks shot into the water before they went up into the air—I've never seen that before, I don't think many of us had. So just wanted to say that that was wonderful. Secondly, some of the upcoming events that we have in the next couple of weeks: this Friday we have Fridays with Firefighters at the South Station from 10:00 to noon. Bear Tracks, the AV shuttle, is being commissioned and has begun attendant operator training. Neighborhood meetings started tonight—or actually last night, sorry—and the launch is scheduled for next week. It will be in operation from 9:30 through 1:30. Riders can get on at the YMCA. There's a Chamber business meet-and-greet at Northern Tool and Equipment on Wednesday the 13th from 11:00 to 11:30. Cops on the Course is at Gem Lake Golf Course on Friday, July 22nd from 8:30 to 10:00 a.m. And then lastly, we have Floats with the Fuzz at Tally’s, sponsored by Tally’s, on Tuesday, July 26th from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. Those are just some of the upcoming events. I also just wanted to kind of publicly announce that we have a new City Planner, Ashton Miller. Formerly our planning technician, she was promoted to City Planner. Samantha Crosby has moved on and started a position with the city of Richfield. Ashton assumed that role yesterday; very, very excited. She's been with us for a handful of years and has done a very nice job. We also have a City Clerk hired, so Kaylee Longendike will start—Rick is relieved, I am also relieved! Kaylee Longendike will begin on August 8th. She lives in White Bear, comes from a school district as an administrative assistant to the superintendent. That'll be very exciting. And then lastly, the August 9th City Council meeting will be moved to August 10th for the primary election. 7:00 p.m. So that will be moved from a Tuesday to a Wednesday in August. And that's what I have tonight. **[32:05] Mayor Dannecker:** Thank you. Council, any questions for Ms. Crawford? Seeing none, I see one more item on our agenda. Item 11: Adjournment. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. **[32:15] Councilmember Jones:** Motion. **[32:16] Councilmember Edberg:** Second. **[32:17] Mayor Dannecker:** All those in favor say aye. **[32:18] Councilmembers:** Aye. **[32:19] Mayor Dannecker:** We are adjourned. Thank you.