He's muted right now. >> All right. >> Please, let's stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> To the standy for all. >> Thank you very much. Roll call, please. >> Council member >> Derby here. >> Council member Woods. >> Here. >> Council member McKenzie >> here. >> Council member Schwar >> here. >> Mayor Mongi >> here. >> Thank you very much. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda, please? >> So moved. >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> Second. Council member McKenzie. We're going to be reading off the Is that just at the end or is that now when it comes to roll call? Because we do have somebody that's that's um out. So, we going to read off for everything or just when we get to voting on things. >> I think when you vote. >> Okay, that's good. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All right. Thank you very much. Consent agenda. >> All right. Thank you, mayor. Uh first up, item A, July 1st, 2025 workshop and regular meeting minutes. Item B, general claims of1,652,31.36 cents. Item C, H claims of $6,3151. Item D, approve proposed ordinance amending chapter 112, bingo and charitable gambling. Item E, application for a temporary onsale liquor license and an application for charitable gambling for exempt permit for Church of St. Peter fall festival uh to be held September 20th through the 21st of 2025. Item F, special event permit for the VFW P and MIA uh remembrance walk. Item G, special event permit for the wilderness inquiry uh canoe mobilebile event. Item H, resolution accepting donations for June of 2025. Item I, a building permit report for June of 2025. And item J, approval reision revision to AT&T tower lease agreement with related exhibits. >> Thank you. You can always tell summer's starting to fly by when we're talking about the fall festival over at St. Pete's. So, would anybody like to pull any at this time? >> I would like to pull item D, please. >> All right. Item D, that's pulled. Can I please get a motion to accept the rest? >> I'll make a motion. >> Council member McKenzie. >> I'll second that. >> Second. Council member Schwar. All those in favor say I. I. I. >> Should I take individual? Yeah. >> Okay. Council member Nordby, I. Council member Woods. >> Approve consent agenda. Council member Woods. >> I you. >> Council member McKenzie. >> Hi. >> Council member Schwar. >> I. >> Mayor Mongi. >> I. Thank you. >> All right. Next is going to be meeting open to the public. Um we have three that are going to be talking about the the one you pulled. So, that will be coming up there if you want to look. Those are the names for that one, too. Also, we have one here. I'm going to do a little bit uh different when it comes to um coming up just to give your name as far as that. We already have the address. Just say name and resident. That way, we can uh so that we do have the if we need to get a hold of you, we do have your address on there. So, Dave Nelson Your time's already started. [Laughter] >> We'll hit the clock again for you. >> Okay. Dave Nelson. I'm a resident in North St. Paul. Uh how is he parked? That's great. You know, they got the pickle ball court and and that in that park gets a lot of use in that building. I don't know what uh uh occupancy or how many people supposed to be allowed in there. I was at the park and wreck meeting. They kind of told me 47. Well, there was 51 vehicles there. I'm sure not everybody had more than just one person in per vehicle. And it's hard to get up the street because some of these trucks had the mirrors extended because I suppose they had bigger trailers they were pulling. They never pulled them in. I had 12 inches on one side, 14 inches on the other side. Then I had went up because I go to Charles North. I had to back up and then go again. There is four other residents that are complaining about the parking there. when they lease out the the building should be parking only that surrounds the park or uh I have noticed there is people that come in and they drive on the lawn up to the building. They unload their gas grill because there's only charcoal there. They unload the g their gas grill and they do their cooking and that they unload into the building. Why don't you put a small parking lot, black top parking lot, and right in front of the doors, two handicap spots for the people that are handicapped that are renting that building. And if you want in the wintertime, that could be part of the ice rink. I don't know. But it does get a lot of use. And that that's because it's a lot cheaper than Casey. Casey, I helped put in the playground there. I helped at Silver Lake. It helped that one other playground to help put it in and that's so they get used a lot and I would like to for the residents there should be no parking for people that are renting the park or the buildings on the resident side because the people have a hard time and there's no way a firetruck or an ambulance would have got through at the time when I went through and I had to back up and and and go ahead and back up again to get out. If I made a car, one of us was would had a backup. That's that's how tight it is. But it gets a lot of use because it's cheaper to rent. The the people that rent it just need to be notified. You cannot park on the resident side. You only park on the park side and that. But if you put a parking lot down below, that would be great. Right with a door. two handicap spots and then other people it would lighten the load on the street. So, >> but no, I appreciate everybody all the city workers what they do in the park and that they mow the grass and stir up the mosquitoes for me and have a good day. >> Thanks. Appreciate it. Thanks, Dave. >> All right. Um I think for convenience sake for our audience members that are here this evening uh we will pulled item we'll make that item A and then we'll just bump everything down. >> Okay. >> Um so item A will be item D pulled from the consent agenda which is the approved proposed ordinance amending chapter 112 the bingo and charitable gambling. And I'll turn that over to council member. >> Um thank you. I pulled this item because um I feel that it's unclear and I wanted some clarification hopefully. Um so I have many questions but we're going to start with um the first one. Um, the beginning of this ordinance reads, "It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct lawful gambling regulated by this chapter directly or indirectly upon any premise or by any device without first obtaining either an annual premise permit or a temporary local permit. Jack, if you would could you please tell me how to read or where to read um where it says um h how does that first statement how do we read it? Who is this affecting and who is this regarding because it it doesn't really clarify it. Uh yes and um I do agree that the laws around this are a little bit unclear and they use a lot of very similar terminology. Um so uh this is kind of a basic um premise statement. The intention of this amendment is to clarify but not really change any of the current regulations. So this is saying that you need to either get a a premises permit and that is a state level permit um or uh obtaining uh a temporary local permit that would be through the city. Uh so this does not affect uh other than some changes to the fees later on. Um clarifying there was a mismatch between what was on the books and what we were actually doing in practice. Uh, and so this is just clarifying that you must be licensed by um either the state or the city to conduct charitable gambling. >> Okay. So, you're saying if you currently have a gambling license through the state, you are not required to get a temporary or an annual license through the city. Uh, yes. So, you are required. So the um the city is allowed to and what this is um to clarify on um you get a uh license through the state annually. Uh the city is conducting a background check to make sure there are no violations on that. This is there is a cost associated with that background check. That is what this is clarifying. So there is still an ongoing involvement. >> Um So, so let let me So, I'm going to just pick a random member of the audience. I I know some of them are from the VFW. They currently get their license from the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. Right now, my understanding is there is no city involvement with that license. Will this change that or is that a misunderstanding of this ordinance? >> Uh, yes. So, this will sort of change that. So the city is and there's a a specific statutory provision on we are not allowed to require further licenses or permits but the city is allowed to require an annual background check. So this would and it's in the code already and it's just not something that we have been doing in practice. It's um technically in there as um $150 a year uh which is more than we are allowed to charge under the statute. And so this would be to um keep the requirement that is currently in the code but turn it into something that we are doing and are allowed to do. It is not to potentially head off a further question something we are required to do. So, so just just to be clear, I if I'm reading the intent of this um is it code? What's the name of the correct >> or ordinance? Thank you. >> So now every single person or I'm sorry, every single organization, charity or not, >> no, I I I apologize. Every single charity organization that conducts gambling within the city of North St. Paul would now be required to submit to the city a permit for the annual license. No. Would be required to undergo a background check once a year. >> Um which is again just like where this cleanup is coming from. So, there is a specific statute that lets us require that background check. It was in the code already, but in what we felt was an unclear and unclear way and was charging more money than was allowed under the statutes. It would be within the council's power to just not require that. The again, the intention behind this as drafted was to take what was already in the code and harmonize it with the statute. If the council wants to make a change and not require you to to have the code not require that um then the council could could do that. Uh the intention behind making charitable gam you know organizations undergo a background check once a year um is to make sure that um organizations are not um you know uh there aren't violations that are occurring elsewhere in the state. uh since some of the requirements do involve um you know whether or not the there have been violations before and again I I defer to council. I understand there's some some feelings in the audience. I defer to council whether the the city wants to require that and again this is drafted as what was already in the code um but harmonizing it with what is in the statutes. So, I'm going to talk for a while. Um, and and try and clarify all my questions because I think otherwise they're going to want to come up five times. Okay. So, the the background check, we'll we'll table that for now. So, the ones that are licensed through the state of through the Minnesota Gambling Control Board and pay their fee and are bonded through them. Is there any license fee associated with this ordinance that they would now have to pay to the city? >> No. >> Okay. So, so there's no fee for those that are for those that are regulated through Minnesota Gambling Control Board. The ordinance just states that um there was a background check. Now, for those that conduct charitable gambling who are not licensed, because there are three l I'm going to use this in the loosest um possible. There are three ways you can get a permit license through the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. You can get a regular license, which I believe most of these people have. You can get an exempt permit, and you can also get an excluded permit. for those three permits. I'm assuming by the way the ordinance reads that they would still be required to get the background check. Is that an accurate statement? >> So the um licensed organizations undergo a background check >> through the state >> through the state. Uh that would be the city. So that's the $100 annual background check through the city. So, this would be licensed organizations get a an annual background check when there was a $100 fee um cost associated with getting the background check. Again, whether the city wants to do that, up to you. How much we charge for that. Um capped at $100 by statute. Could charge less if desired. Uh for exempt or excluded, um for excluded, um there is very little regulation. It's a very narrow category. it is specifically, you know, it's excluded under the Minnesota statutes. Uh and um city code says that it's not subject to any requirements under uh chapter 112. So excluded um which again is mostly limited to um bingo at senior living facilities. Um that can just be hosted and there's very little government involvement with it. There's certain caps they have to follow to qualify uh but there's basically no regulation. um exempt. Uh an exempt permit is basically a that's the sort of temporary special one-time event gambling permit. Um that would require a permit from the city. Again, that's not a change from what we have been doing or how we've been processing. It clarifies um what the fee is. Again, I think there was um a $150 fee for that and it wasn't clear whether that was for every event in a year or for one or whatever. So, that that's been clarified. So, uh a licensed organization, they get their license from the state, they get a background check from the city, they're good to go. Excluded, they're just good to go. Exempted, they have to get a permit from the city. Uh that would be uh I believe it's $25 a day. Okay. I I do appreciate all this. Do you >> mind if I ask a quick question? >> Yeah. >> So, as you're putting that decision up to council to say whether or not they need to do the background checks, part of the decision that the city has to make is to find out if they have made any violations before that is given out. Correct. And we would not know that if there wasn't a background check. That is the the the point of doing a background check is to um dis discover if there have been any violent because again um you know lots of charitable organizations do gambling in um multiple lo jurisdictions uh and we might not know if there have been violations without performing a background check. And so that's and then um it's done annually um again just to see if there have been any new violations that have come up. >> Okay. Um, and then the other one of my next questions is um well, I guess at this time I do have more questions, but I'm going to pause and at this time I'm going to invite some uh just so we're all on the same page. Um, I'm going to invite um some some of our local uh business members that do participate in this so they can explain their process and how this pro new process would affect them if that's okay with everybody. >> Sure. >> Fine. >> Who would like to go first? >> Yeah. >> Okay. But but I got confused so I needed a minute. >> Good day. >> Good day. I'm Dan Bronc, non-resident, but I am the gambling manager of the North St. Paul American Legion. Um, so in order for me to be a gambling manager, every year I have to go to gambling classes, get reertified by the state, get a background check, pay my fees, and then get issued my license. Under this new city ordinance, he wants to charge do another background check. Even though I'm getting one done by the state of Minnesota, I carry a $10,000 bond on me. So, it's just kind of redundant. as a person who's already certified from the state of Minnesota who gets a background truck every background check every year to pay another fee to the city council to do the same thing. It doesn't make sense to me, you know, because the people that get temporary permits don't have they don't do the gambling classes. They're required by the state law. They don't attend continue education. They don't go to the conferences. They don't carry bonds. They get a one-day permit. They do their event and they're done. for the VFW. Myself, we do everything that's in accordance with the state law. $10 conferences, carry $10,000 bonds, and do a background check every year. So, this is kind of redundance for us to pay another fee when you're going to get the same outcome. >> So, you've never done a city one? >> I have never done a city. I brought my past past commander, gambling manager, Randy Bastier. We have never paid us a fee to the city of North St. Paul and we have never been in compliance or any non-compliance. our our lost charitable cash loss last last year was only $800 out of a $5 million industry, you know, but we have never ever done a background check to the city of North St. Paul. So, it seems redundant to me that I do everything on the state side to stay current and they do a background check. Now, you guys want to implement this and have us do it again. We're going to get the same outcome from the state of M. If I didn't pass the state of Minnesota, my gambling license would be revoked right away, you know. So, that's all I have to say. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. I didn't >> that doesn't make >> that doesn't make sense. >> All right. Did a member of the BFW wish to speak as well? >> Good evening. I hope you folks know that you are keeping us from watching the All-Star game, but we're more than willing to give up that. Uh, my name is Pete Olson. I am not a member of North St. Paul, but I belong to the BFW post 1350, which is a resident of North St. Paul. Uh, I think I just want to repeat what the uh American Legion fellow said. We do the same thing. We have a state gambling license. We do uh have to go through all kinds of paperwork for that. We pay the license every three years. We get audited by them. Compliance review uh uh things. So, it's not like we're running fast and furious. We are very highly controlled and it's not that we don't necessarily object to this uh background check thing, but we think it's already being done. >> So, you have any questions of me? >> Thank you. >> Okay. It almost reminds me of the food truck thing we had going where it was the license worked its way down. if they didn't have one. If somebody just came in to here and didn't have anything, almost kind of figures that out. >> Doesn't make any sense to do it twice unless >> Yeah. >> As long as somebody has it above, then why would we as a city have to do it? >> Unless there's something we're not thinking about, Jack. But so is there any case where somebody would Did you >> I mean again it's a um it's it's a riskmanagement thing. Uh the the the statute allows us to require this annual investigation fee to perform this you know a sort of a background investigation on gambling within the city. The idea behind that is that that will allow the city to have a better idea of if there are, you know, violations occurring outside of the city or if there's other, you know, illegal activity associated with an organization that would be cause for concern. Um, there are other regulations uh as well. Of course, they all they still have to get the license through the state. Uh, and so I think it's it's just up to the city of do you feel that the state background check, state process is um is enough guarantee for the city or would you like to conduct your own investigation? >> So it sounds like you're we're cleaning it up, but nobody's ever done it. >> That's exactly how I'm reading it is that it's the verbiage isn't clear in the current >> um ordinance. So you cleaned it up, made it clear the city isn't currently doing that right now. We're not practicing it. We fix what is in the ordinance. Excuse me. Should this occur and we have to complete or we feel it's necessary to complete a background investigation on this. I would say that what we did was correct by cleaning up the ordinance and just restating it. [Music] So, so I guess my next question would be for Brian. To the best of your knowledge and maybe Jenny, to the best of your knowledge, has any charity in the city of North St. Paul paid us a $100 fee ever? This was just recently implemented uh with the last community development director that we had that is no longer here. It was one of things that she did before she left uh and it was implemented and it was above what the statute uh would even required. So as we looked into it and said saw that it was already on the bill because yearly we go through the fees and rates and uh we picked it up after the fact and saw that we had not charged for that at this point. Um, so we are readressing it coming forward, but I guess I didn't realize there was redundancy with the state. And just out of curiosity, when you guys get your license and pay for that, is that at like at the beginning of the year or is there a certain date? And then do we do it at the same time the state does when you guys turn in your information? >> Dan Brock, now resident. Um, to answer that question is it's done by when you were appointed as the gambling manager, the charitable manager. So mine ends in March of every year. So, it's when you get you take your classes, you pass the gambling test, you then you send in your bond, you get a $10,000 bond, then when you get all that submitted, that's when your license is issued to you. You can do a one year, a threeyear, and that's about it. But on another note is that most of us that are charitable gambling in North St. Paul, we all have CPAs that do all our auditing. So, we have another check and balance. We have we use Landon Scott. So, we have our own internal controls, but we also send it out for an independent person to inspect our records to make sure there's no fraud or abuse going on. So, we're doing multiple checks and balances to keep off the radar to keep our organizations going. So, we just don't do it in internal house. We a lot of us send it out to CPAs to do it all and make sure our all our stakeholders like Mayor Collegi, we have 600 stakeholders. So, they all get the sand they get the annual report of how we did. So there's a lot of checks and balances and you know and to just to clean you know I would look at the city ordinance say hey if you've been licensed through the state of Minnesota then you're exempt from paying the $100 city fee you know if you've gone through everything to get certified and carry the bond and all that then you're considered exempt from paying this the city background check. And then on that note I don't I got like three minutes less than three. Um if you guys deny it then do we lose our charitable gambling license? If you say, "Hey, you you guys don't because how I read it is you guys have the approval or non-approval who gets to do charitable gambling in your city." That's all tied into that. So, but somebody to say, "Hey, we don't like the veterans organizations. We're not going to approve it. We lose. Why would we be in the town then?" You know, the verbiage is not really clear in there. You know, it's not it's came up out of nowhere. It was tried a couple years ago and it got didn't go nowhere. Now, we're back at we're back at this again. So, I think it needs more staffing and more better outlining. I know you guys want to try to make right what was correct the process that you you guys weren't doing, but I think we all should sit down and kind of work through it and come up to a good understanding on that. You know, it just I don't like when somebody can say we'll approve or disapprove your gambling license, you know, because the state of Minnesota's already approved us. >> We fall in compliance with the state that oversees the cities and the counties and all that. So, I do think we should a little bit more time on that, you know, but that's just all I got to say. Does everybody have a manager like you, a gambling manager? >> Most or each organization has a gambling manager. >> By law, they have to have one. >> By law, they have to have a gambling manager. Now, if it's like Merit Corporation that comes in from out of the city that run does charable gambling, Max Diner, they have a lot more facilities. They have one person that oversees all the facilities like still American Legion Bayport, they have about 40 different locations. They got one gambling manager and CPA firm that manages all that. the VFW, American Legion, we're single house. We don't have anything outside. We're all controlled internally. >> So my question for you is, Mr. Bronc, if you were to leave the Legion, we're just figuratively speaking. >> Yep. >> They no longer have their gambling manager. So therefore, they cannot >> they cannot operate until they put a new person in place. >> They have six months to get a new >> to get. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> We do have two assist I do have two assistant gambling managers under honor me. So we do multiple checks and balances. The same person doesn't do all the data entry. Doesn't do all the deposits. We rotate through. >> So everybody's touching the money, everybody's checking the book work and stuff. That's how we operate at our post. >> But yeah, you have six months by law to get somebody certified. And if they don't get they don't pass the test, >> then you don't get your gambling license and you have to exist stop and assist all gambling operations. So >> we learned a lot on this. Thank you. It is it's a it's you know it is it's a weak course just to get certified. There's a lot of testing, a lot of different avenues and a lot of things you have to go through in order to pass the test and if you don't pass the test you get another retry. So there's a lot to do and then you got to go through a background check with the insurance company to get your bond. >> You know they do a background check on everything your family to make sure that hey we can put a $10,000 bond on you to make sure that you're going to something happens we'll pay you'll pay back the charitable organization. So there's a lot of checks and balances and again I just think it's redundance that we get certified the state and the city wants to add another background check on it. It's just they got more things to do on their time than we're doing a background check that the state has done already. So thank you. Any other questions? >> Yeah. >> Yes sir. >> Do we have a is that public information that we can pull that up online? >> Yeah. So you can go to um Minnesota Gambling Control Board's website and then you can pull down and you can search right organizations, who's the gambling managers, when their license expired and all that. You can see everything that each organization done and how many facilities they have on the offsite premises they have. It's all public acknowledge on the state of Minnesota gambling control board. So >> there's any pending violations. >> That was my next question. >> Yep. Yep. All the family violations are out there, but lucky for us nursing we have never had a a violation. So we plan to keep it that way. So >> Dan, before you go, I do have one more question. Um I'm sorry, Mr. Bronc. >> That's okay. Mhm. >> Um I have before me the permits that someone like to the best of my knowledge and I I would like to ask Jack for clarification. Um someone who was doing a bingo event or a um a exempt permit would require these permits do require um a a a city someone from the city approval before they are submitted to the state. Um, so, so would someone that's doing a temporary bingo application, they they have to get this signed by the city. This then goes to the state. Do they also get a background check by the state at that level, too? I'm seeing some nodding of of the head for >> Yes, they would get they would get a a background check regardless of if it's just a temporary because it's charitable gambling. They don't want to give a license to anybody that has a felony or background. So, the city would still do it fill out the application and it would still go forward for consideration and then be approved by the chairman of the gambling control board. So, it would still get to validate it from them first. So, >> thank you. >> You're welcome. Any other questions? So the only time we wouldn't need that is when it's the bingo situation where they're not really monitoring that per se. Otherwise everybody else >> old folks bingo. >> Yeah. Old folks. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> So otherwise >> go for bananas. >> So unless it's a senior living assisted facility or or something of that nature. Um everyone else is already getting background checks from the state. >> Uh no money exchange. >> That is my understanding. Although I am not as familiar with what the state how the state processes those applications. You know I know like for um you know for liquor licensing right the city does the background check and once we sign off on it and send it to the state it's pretty proforma at the state level. I don't know exactly how much additional for an exempt permit where it's not a full license. I don't know how much background the state is doing on that. Um, obviously for licensed organizations, it's a full background check. It's very tightly regulated, >> but for the temporary permits, I'm not personally familiar with that. >> Yeah. And temporary permits, you're only allowed five per year. So, you can come into a city, you can only do five five charitable gambling events per year and then you're you're capped out. So, you can't come keep coming back to a place and doing it nons every month. It's regulated by five times per year and that's it. If you're not l fully licensed and everything. So, >> uh, five times per year and I I believe there's a dollar amount. Um, I think it's >> 1,500. >> Um, uh, so it's, uh, five or fewer days in a calendar year. Uh, no more than $50,000 in prizes in a particular gambling year. Uh, and then there's a um uh $100 application fee to the state for each um uh >> event, >> each permit that they receive, each event that they're holding gambling at. So then on top of that, there would be a $25 a day city fee and there would be some review that we're doing with that. So it's you know, it's it's fairly minimal um review that the city is doing on these exempt permits. And this is just clarifying that the the previous code seemed to sort of conflate some of these things and sort of had the had the permitting review for everything. Uh, and we don't do as much review on a licensed organization other than if we want to do a background check. That's sort of the one lever that the statutes give us. Um and that's again um that's only if we want to use it. We are not required to do a background check on anyone. >> Yeah. My concern is when you talk in your state statute where it says the the city council can the city ordinance can approve or deny a gambling permit, you know, and I just worry about does that is that just in people coming in to rent a premise or is that just for those or is that does that affect organizations that own their property that it's it's it's their own building? You know, I can again a premise permit is a person coming in to Max Diner from outside to do a >> but when you can approve that, I just want to make sure the clarity is that the city council can't deny a licensed organization from charitable gambling when the state has already approved it. You know, I can understand if you're doing a temporary permit, you don't know, we don't want this going on at this date because we have fall roundup prey going on. We don't want somebody coming and selling stuff or doing a raffle. I can understand that you want to be able to deny something like that, but how it's worried right now is that it's up to the city council can approve or deny any gambling permit and I'm just worried about the the verbiage on that from a licensed organization to a temporary. >> Uh and that is the current existing city code. That language is not changing. Uh it currently states that the city has that power. Uh the city, you know, has some say and again it's it's for one of the specified reasons. Um, so, uh, may deny an application for, uh, violation of gambling statutes, uh, or, um, failure to comply with, um, fire code, uh, or if it's, you know, other, um, health issues. And that isn't changing with this ordinance. That is the current city code. Um, and that is currently a power that the city has. Uh, so it would have to be for one of those specified reasons. It's not just because we don't like them. Um, but there is some degree of city oversight. >> It's a good thing. >> Yeah. Any other questions? >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it. >> Thank you. Learned a lot. >> I'm just kind of curious of the unique situations that you might have. So if if the background check shows there's been no violations, but what if the violation is what if the violation is here and going on now and but if you didn't have the ability of saying no, you'd have to wait until the state. I mean, I'm this is an out there idea, but just I'm trying to think why this would be in place for something like that. If if the violation was happening now, but yet their state background check, they were clear. But if the violation happened here and now, then we wouldn't have the ability to say, "Look, we we can't give you that because of that, or would that be why something like this would be in place?" >> Yeah. So, I mean, it would be um you know you're you know, it's not a violation until the process of establishing a violation is completed. Until that point, it's an alleged violation. So, there is an alleged violation that hasn't been resolved yet by the time that the city would need to approve or deny the permit. >> Um, then it's still only alleged and we'd have to approve it and then it would be an after the if it, you know, turns out to be, you know, if someone says that they're breaking the gambling rules, you know, obviously that we have to go through and establish whether that's true or not. >> So, then wouldn't this assist us in providing the background check, >> right? Just want to regarding violations. So you could be cited for a violation but it comes with the corrective action. It might be to fix that violation within one year, could be within 20 days, you know. So each violation could be tied up for about a year depending on how the gamma control board assesses that violation. It could be a wrong accounting and they might say, "Hey, you got to you got one year to go send your gambling manager back and your commander back to get reertified." So, just want when you talk violations, they can go on for about almost about a year before they can get actually get resolved. So, if you run a background check and that person comes up because he has a violation, you might say, "Hey, you can't do it." But he's actually got state laws gave him a certain period of time to correct that action. So, I just wanted to interject on that one there, too. All >> thank you. >> Mhm. Thank you. >> So we didn't have this before the the um community director the last one or before Randy was it that did it? >> So this was new at that time then this >> the fee was new at that time. >> It was new >> is my understanding. >> But we didn't do the the check. So I mean it wasn't no no check no fee right because we didn't do any background checks. I would have to ask uh the admin assistant that are running that for to know if they did the background checks, but the fee was not collected. I know. >> And my understanding based on some conversations is that we have not really ever done this in practice. And >> again, the purpose of this was just to not change what we had on paper. Uh and if the council would like to change what the code says, then that's, you know, an option that is before you. Well, >> I mean, my feeling, and I I'm one of five, is that this is something that's going to affect every charitable gambling operation in the city. None of us, to the best of my knowledge, did this intentionally. Um, everyone that I've contacted seems surprised by this. I don't think this is the right way to enact an ordinance um that that affects all the charitable gambling organizations in the city. if it's something we truly discuss, vet out, and want to do in the future, um, that would be a different conversation. But to surprise the the gambling organizations by this, that was supposed to be a worded clarification and all a sudden no one knew about it and no one was doing it. I don't feel that this is a right way to uh enforce a regulation or a fee upon all these organizations >> when uh in my my opinion one of five like you said is you know sounds like something's working and we're just stepping into it. So I think there seems like by the information we were given there's a lot of checks and balances already above as far as uh with the state and everything else. So I mean is this you said it's either you and you didn't write you didn't you know this is us trying to figure out you know do we go back and and take care of it like you say make it the correctly even though we you know we were kind of not trying to change something but you know does it make sense to look at it again as far as changing >> uh Mr. Mayor I think that's certainly an option. Uh, I guess I would just suggest that uh I think we need an ordinance one way or the other. Um, either to clarify the language that we are requiring a background check like the current code says or to clarify that we're not doing a back to remove that requirement from the code. Uh, and so I I think we will need a an ordinance one way or the other to clarify what the current >> we're pretty much saying this as a city, the state's going to take care of that and we're depending on their judgment with the gambling board and the state and everything else to take care of all that. That was what that would be. >> We we could do that. Yes, >> that is one that's one of your options. The other one is for us to go forward with what we have. And and just to clarify something too, um the ones that do it annually and are forced to through the gambling control board, we're asking currently uh $100 for the temporary ones, the ones that are doing a one-off. Um and this might be uh cleaning up the language a little bit more, but under 112.09 09 on the temporary local permits. Um, this organi or the organization may be subject to a background check conducted by the city police department at no cost to the applicant. So, so we're charging uh organizations that are going through all these checks $100 to do something similar. We're but the ones that want it for a one-day issue that don't have the full necessarily weight of the Benua Emily control board we're doing for free. That seems a little counterintuitive and and I I um council member Norby I would tend to agree with you. The reason it's written like that is because that's how the statutes are written. Um, we have authority to charge. Um, it's actually the amount you can charge for the investigation fee depends on the size of the city. Um, based on the population of North St. Paul, we are allowed to charge up to $100 a year. We are not allowed to charge for background checks for the exempt permits and that's the way the statutes are written. Uh, and so this is um the ordinance is written to conform with the statutes and again um defer to council if we want to make any changes from that. But that's the um that's just kind of where we're getting some of these numbers from. Perfectly legal and okay though if we chose not to charge either group. Correct. >> Uh yes, Council Norby, that is correct. uh we have the ability to charge a background fee. It is not imposed that we must. >> So is the issue the money or the fee? >> I mean in all >> of the background check you mean? >> Yeah. What's what's >> what's the issue? And I'm sorry Jason, you're very close to Yep. Agreed. >> this organization and I know um personally and both professionally, which I appreciate your professional background in it as well. Um, I don't think I mean this is again one of five of us. This isn't I don't believe that this is a personal attack on anyone in the city by any means. It's cleaning up an ordinance that we have and I know at the time the community development director that was here was cleaning up those and um we were talking about fee schedules and what other additional fees can we have to >> um trying to think of the word off top my head anyway it's not gonna it's not coming to me but overall Well, we're rewarding an ordinance and making it a little bit more clear and charging the $100 fee for all charitable Max, BFW, Legion. It could go to um Rody's, Sidewinders, you know, anybody. I'm just throwing these out as an example, please. Thank you. Um, >> that said, I'm just using those as examples. Thank you. That said, are we determining whether this is we want to get rid of this or change the ordinance? Are we saying that we don't want fees anymore? What are we >> address one more time? >> No. One second. >> Okay. Um, part of it I think is is it falls underneath kind of like the food trucks if we're we don't charge for that if they already have it from another license above. Correct. >> We count from the state. Correct. >> So that's that's what we've been doing if there's already a state license and it's precedent because with the food trucks, we don't make them do the city one because that was a big thing. So we're kind of following that with this whole process is if they have the state one, they fall in line. We don't have to do the city one. So that's where I see it. If anybody correct me if I'm >> and I agree with you. I am very close. And the way I look at it is if we wanted to charge every group of business, let's say we wanted to charge every bar $100 for a you know umbrella fee for I don't mind doing it if we all talk and go this is what we want to do. We think this is a smart choice as a city. We want to impose this fee. Then we give them all notification say this is what we're going to change. This is what we're going to do. >> Um my issue I don't know if I agree with it or not. Um honestly I'm fairly close I probably not. But to me the right way for these people to find out they all of a sudden have a fee and an application they're supposed to be submitting isn't a at a council meeting where we're just supposedly cleaning up the language. >> Yes, sir. Uh I have a question for you. Uh, North St. Paul does not operate in a vacuum. So, my question for you is how many other cities are enforcing this background check thing? You know, >> no. >> Uh, I mean, is is this something brand new that or have other cities already incorporated this? >> Um, you know, I I I'm not aware. Um, I think Brian is more aware. >> Yeah, if I could interject. they uh they did look around and whenever we look at fees or we look at new laws, I mean, we look at neighboring uh communities and surrounding cities to see what they are doing. And yes, there are other cities that are um charging for that and there are actually some other cities that were charging above and beyond what they should have been charging as well from my understanding. So, >> and there are y >> some who have decided not to. >> You're right. Okay. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Uh and again just one more time, one of the issues, one of the sort of the reason for this ordinance is uh the current code says that we require an annual application, an annual background check, and an annual, it actually says $150 fee. Uh and we have not been doing that. And so um you know that that sort of that mismatch between what it says we require and what we have been doing in practice will require cleanup of some kind. >> So right now the the manwork and the liability is on the state to do the background check and take care of all that and it's all done by the state. if we have that ability to look that up. I mean, there's value in that. And when we do uh process uh paperwork, I mean, there is, I believe, an admin fee for that, which is a minimal. It's like $10 or $15, which if we're just looking up on a state website to say that, look, the background search is done. They have passed. >> Yeah. >> I don't know why that wouldn't be sufficient, but that's up to you guys. Uh and again just to to clarify the situation as written right now the code says that we are assuming the duty to do that background check. >> Correct. >> We have not been doing that and so that's again that's a problem that we say we're doing it but we're not >> 100%. >> Um >> so either we don't do it or we do it. So obviously we have to do >> Yes. And and either is an acceptable a legally permissible decision to either do it or not do it. >> My opinion is it's already done with the statewide we have to get into it. >> Yeah. or confirmation that it has been done. I mean, we're doing that with like the food vendors, you know, so >> and it's not unprecedented what we're doing. If they got a license higher and >> they get that's where it goes and then from there it works its way down >> and if there's a violation >> they'll know >> they're going to know about it and they're going to get slapped with their fines anyways through the state. >> Yeah. So, I think we should go that route where we're not doing it. That's my opinion. Mhm. >> It's already taken care of everybody else thinks. >> Jack, did you want to Is are we in our timeline with this? Is this something that we could rewrite up and bring to the next council meeting or is this something you could word now that that they could vote on and we could write it up? >> Let's see. Um, not to put you on the spot but I think I would I would probably want to um uh take it back to the next meeting. If we decide to remove that background check, I'd probably take it back because we do so they they they should still be providing their license to the city kind of on anformational basis. Um, so we're not going to delete the entire thing, but then I will be I would be removing the background check and the sort of approve deny language. >> That's that's Yeah, that's We didn't think we'd throw out something out today. It's just I think we need to take it back and, you know, be able to get it correctly. So, not on the fly, but be able to re it up and be ready to go for the next one. >> Does that work for everybody? >> Yeah. I mean, and to Cassid's point before we got to avoiding I I actually need to ask Jack if I can vote uh I guess I [Music] uh to a degree um it comes down to you generally speaking um it is not considered a conflict of interest to be voting on something that affects all members of a community equally. if you feel like you are more closely connected to this. Um I I admit I don't know your specific connection to the these organizations. Um but if you feel like you have an unusual degree >> my significant other works for one of them to be fully transparent and Uh yeah, I think probably most likely that would be a conflict of interest and you would um not be voting on the ordinance amendment. >> Okay. >> We don't want you sleeping on the couch. >> Well, no, but I mean it's about doing the right thing, not you know. >> Mhm. >> I appreciate you guys coming out. Um because you're here and we've already had you coming up back and forth. Is it the background check or is it the fee that's bought I mean that you're really here and passionate about? >> For me it's for me it's the fee. Dan Bron North um Scandia Minnesota non resident. For me it's the fee. Last year I donated uh $49,000 back in the city of North St. Paul youth sports high college uh the churches and all that. $100 is $100 in my eyes. I rather give it to a charity of kids sports, baseball teams, girls choir. I'd rather give it $100 to them, not to the city. You know, everybody's hurting for money. So to me, if you want me to pay $100, that's fine. I'll pay the $100. It's just $100 I can't give back to my community by the regulations. I have to spend a certain percentage per year by the gamma control board or I get flaked. So I can't hold money and keep it in my account. I have to get rid of it. So to me, I give it to the city or I give it to the church or the baseball team or the choir team who's want to do trips and stuff. That's where my money goes to. $49,000 last year. That's what that's just me. I don't know what they BFFW, but that's we're putting a lot of this money back into our community. I get a lot of donation requests from outside organizations, Moax, all that. I deny every one of them because it's not my community. >> I support my community here and that's what we're about. We are the Legions and the BFWs are a community- based program. we survive because of our veterans and our organizations and our community members. I'd rather give that $100 to this community versus Thank you. So, >> thank you. So, in the grand scheme of things, it's the fee. >> Yeah, it's the fee. It's really the fee, but I would pay the fee, but then as somewhere down the line, it's not getting $100 for when I get a donation request in or a veteran in need or community member needs $100 for the grocery bill or their rent. Last year, we did about five rent requests for non-residents that are looking for money to pay the rent. >> That's amazing. They come to us and they ask us and we vote on it and we give it right back to our community because we can't we're a nonprofit so we really can't control a lot of money. So, so it's all about for me it's all about giving back to my community, not giving it to the city or the state and stuff like that. So that's just my opinion again. >> No, I appreciate I appreciate that. I appreciate the clarification and the question at the end of the day it's the background check or it's the fee. >> Yeah. Yeah. It's just uh it's the fee. I'd rather give it to somebody else. >> Okay. >> So, thank you. >> Yeah. >> Yep. And as a city, how much time does it take us to do that as far as the background check? What do we have to do on the city's side? >> It's not a lot of time if we're looking up and just confirming that they do have the license. Um, >> so staff just does that, >> right? Okay. >> But I mean, staff was Cassidy made a good point. Staff was directed to find other fees for the city as well. So, >> I get that. >> Yeah. >> I just wasn't sure what the how long she time was in the project. >> Yeah. So if we feel it, this again just brainstorming, if we feel it necessary to conduct a background check on any facility that has a charitable gambling, do we charge them a fee for having the investigation itself that we feel that we have to conduct this investigation? Do we go to again you guys are here so I'm going to use you as an example. Do we go to the Legion and say, "Hey, Mr. Bronc, we understand that you are doing we've received a complaint that you're doing this. Based on our ordinance, we feel it necessary to conduct a background check with you in regards to that background check. We you will need to pay a fee of $100 for that. Again, brainstorming. >> I I like the idea of waiting like uh Jack said, just for the sake that there may be some steps that I may be missing. So, are they actually if they're actually doing the background check starting over even though the state had done it and as opposed to pulling up the state website and saying, "Oh, they've already got it and it's done." >> Two different deals. Um, so >> yeah, I'd like to find out some more information as well. >> So, it says if you're in good standings on the website and everything else, right? >> Yeah. Are they just going to the website or are they actually doing a background check? So, yeah. >> Uh, and if I may, Mr. Mayor, again, the the ordinance that we currently have on the books says that they will undergo a full background check conducted by the North St. Paul Police Department. So, that is what is currently the ordinance that the city code says. Okay. >> Uh is that it's a a more robust, you know, full background check on the organization. And again, we haven't necessarily been doing that, but that is um the current city code that would exist without any ordinance amendments. >> All right. I was just to say if you walk into any uh charitable gamma organization their licenses our licenses are posted by law in plain sight for everybody to see. So you can walk in you can see that this establishment is licensed and it's certified to this state. So it's public knowledge you make and can see if it's chair it's been approved by the state of Minnesota. It's all visible for everybody. So thank you. >> All right. Um, are you going to Well, >> now we have to figure out how to motion this, >> right? I mean, so you still have the charge in front of you. Do you are you wanting to wave that and um are we going to change the language that we are doing a full background check as required and through our police department. So, couple issues to address. Jack, you probably address it better if you want specific topics to hit on as we're motioning through this. >> Yeah. So just kind of um procedurally I think what we'd want to do right now. Um so there's the sort of um yeah kind of the three issues. So are we doing a background check on licensed organizations? Number two is are we charging a fee for that background if we're doing the background check are we charging a fee for it? Uh and then number three there were also a couple of language clarifications on the exempt permits. That's those temporary permits that won't affect the Legion of the BFW at all. Um, and um, are we going to go through with those? I think what I'd be looking for right now is council direction on those three points and then it would be a motion to table to next meeting to allow me to go amend the or to reddraft the ordinance um, to conform to whatever that direction is. >> Do we still have Troy on the line? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I just gone off there. I wasn't sure. Okay. So, the first one, read the first one. We got to do say it again. >> So, the first one is, are we going to do a background check on licensed organizations? >> Are we >> I would say I don't feel like we need to. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. I don't think so. I agree on with Troy on that one on that piece. >> So read it one more time or say it one more time. >> So are we going to do background checks on a licensed organization? Next one was are we going to charge a fee >> and then >> and clarification on exempt? >> Yes. Um so yeah so the second issue are we going to charge the fee? If we're not doing the background check we're not charging a fee for it. Correct. So that one's also no. All right. >> So now the third one is um it's uh section three of the ordinance um which works out nicely. There's just a couple of clarifications on the exempt permits which is the temporary um sort of you know one-off temporary event gambling permits. Um just clarifying what those are. um clarifying the fees on those, clarifying how long those events can be for uh and um um clarifying some of the criteria that the council uses. >> The third vote would be to vote to clarify the issues. >> So though that language is in front of the council and so basically do we need to change that part of the draft ordinance? thoughts >> and I can I can walk through the the changes that are there if the council would like. >> Yeah, let's do that. >> Uh so the >> sun already came out again, so we're already cooking along here. >> So uh the the first thing is it would change it the the title from local permits to temporary local permits. That is just to clarify what this part of the ordinance applies to. That it applies to temporary events and it does not apply to licensed organizations like the VFW. >> Mhm. >> Um it would then clarify that uh a temporary event can be no more than three consecutive days. >> An organization may conduct no more than five days of gambling in a single year. So, no one event no more than three days over the course of the year, no more than five total days. Um, that's from the statute and this is just to make sure that we're following the statutory requirements. >> Okay. Uh it is then um stating that um uh one adding in the we right now we have a fee for those in the fee schedule. >> But it does not the ordinance does not say that there will be a fee. >> Okay. >> And so just clarifying that there is a fee as set by council. Mhm. >> Um and then it is limiting to that for um no more than four days of fee per year. So right now um with the change in the fee schedule, it would be $25 a day. >> Mhm. >> For the first four days, if they use all five, it's still only $100 total for the year. >> Okay. Is everybody okay with what he read off for the changes for that part of it? Question three. >> Yes. >> Also, okay, >> I think so. >> Yeah. All right. >> About that. >> Okay. So, the first one is >> So, we are not doing a background check. >> Yep. Okay. >> We're not charging for the background check. We are going to clarify the exempt. >> The first ordinance is >> permits. Uh, and so I would, um, hearing where we are with the discussion, I believe what we would be looking for is a motion to table to next meeting um, so that I can make those changes to the ordinance. >> Okay. >> I would motion that we >> Go ahead. >> I would motion that we table this till next meeting. Then >> can I ask a quick question, please? I'm sorry. Uh, what is an event? So, I mean, if somebody's places will sell raffles and they might sell raffles for a month, you know, is that an event or how does how does that work when you when we're specifically talking about days? How does that fit into that? >> That is spelled out. It is >> um >> Okay. >> Uh in the Minnesota control board about um how many days you can sell it for and um so I I can give you that paperwork. >> Oh, thank you. Sorry. There's Yeah, there's a lot of state regulation on how that all works, >> right? Okay. >> I'm sorry. Troy made a motion. >> Motion to table. Do I have a second? >> Second. Council member Kenzie, would you do a roll call, please? >> Council member Nordby. >> Jack, how do I answer this? So uh I is you would like to table it to next meeting >> relationship. >> Oh right. >> How do I answer this? >> You will be abstaining. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Council member Woods. >> I thank you. >> Council member McKenzie. >> Hi. >> Council member Schwar. Nay. >> Mayor Muggy. Hi. All right, we'll get everything cleaned up. >> Is that everything? >> All right, we'll move on with the city business action items. U so item B is now the comprehensive land use plan and zoning map. >> Thanks everyone. >> Thank you. >> Thank you gentlemen. Uh and the city for the city of North St. And I will turn this over to our committee development director, uh, Ken Roberts. >> I've got some maps she's working to get put up, but there we go. Thank you. Uh, as city manager Brian introduced, this is a proposal brought to you really by city staff for two areas along 7th Avenue and South Avenue, east of Mcnite Road that staff would like council consider changing the comprehensive plan and the land use designations for each of these two areas. So I kind of clumped them into two areas here along south and then up along 7th and on Oakhill Place. The little bit of background. The plan commissioner reviewed this just last week. It had a public held a public hearing regarding these proposed changes. We had uh probably six or seven property owners come out, ask some questions about it. The commission held the public hearing. The residents in the area were concerned if the changes would affect their property taxes and it will not. And there was some confusion. The neighbors thought we were trying to change the designations to commercial which they already are. Clarified that no, we are actually proposing to change those back to residential. And after that, plan commission made motions to recommend approval of both the proposed land use plan change and the zoning map for these two areas. So, in more detail, sort of up on Oakill here and the comprehensive plan and zoning for both these areas are the same. So, the future land use designation for these areas is corridor mixed use. And that's the same designation that is to the uh east going up 7th Avenue into downtown. I think these were put in place with that commercial designation. Well, I know they were with the 24 2040 comprehensive plan update. Uh they are in both these areas all developed primarily with single family homes and there are two vacant lots as well in these areas. And here's the other area aerial photo just showing the affected properties or proposed properties. And in the Oak Hill neighborhood here, there are two vacant lots that are also uh included. this lot here on the corner of a third and then a vacant lot up here on the corner of second. So the proposal is to change the land use designation uh to a residential designation which would be consistent with those land uses that are there. The challenge right now with the zoning and the land use designation is these properties are legal non-conforming. They're single family homes primarily, but with commercial land use designations and commercial zoning, which means by law and by our city ordinance, city has very the city and the owners are very limited on anything they can do with the properties. And in fact, the two vacant lots could not even be built on with single family homes because that or twin homes because those are not approved uses in that zoning district and by comprehensive plan. So the change would be again to change the land use designation uh to a residential a low density residential. Uh and another reason for the my idea, this is really a staff staff generated idea is for a development to occur which would do a commercial development or a mixeduse development. It would require a developer to assemble six, eight, 10 properties all together, all at once and put a big proposal together and have it go through the city review processes. My sense is that that's not likely, at least in our foreseeable future, in either of these areas. And because of the legal non-conforming status, again, it limits what these property owners can do. So the change would be to a low density residential and comprehensive plan and then of course and go to this map. So this is the current zoning. Again, it's all the mixeduse corridor and the zoning map amendment that I would recommend is if we change the comprehensive plan, we should change the zoning map to be consistent. And that change would be from the corridor mixed use to an R2, which is our mixed residential district, which allows single family homes and twin homes. And the reason for the R2 district for zoning is that has a minimum lot size of 3,630 ft. And the lots in these two areas range in size from about 4,800 square ft to 19,600 square ft. So all the lots with the R2 zoning would be conforming with that minimum lot size in the R2 zoning district. I outlined in the report code language that the city is supposed to follow when considering a zoning map amendment, a resoning such as this. There are five criteria listed there. And these the change to these two areas meet all those criteria again for this area and this area they're highlighting on the screen. So tonight I have two recommendations for you. One would be there's a resolution that approves the comprehensive plan amendment for the future laneous map and that change would be from corridor mixed use to low density residential. If city council supports that then there's an ordinance for your consideration that changes the zoning map to make that consistent with the new comprehensive plan designation. And again, that would be from MU3, which is corridor mixed use, to R2, which is our mixed residential zoning district. With that, I will stop and take your questions. >> Well, thank you. So, at one time, they're all single family homes, so one time it had to be single family homes, so somebody had to change it down the line, I would imagine, right? >> Yes. >> You know how long ago they did that? >> I don't. I have a feeling that it was done when they built the pen place back 20ome years ago, close to 20 some years ago because at that point there was approximately four or five homes from the first street up partway up that block that was taken for the pen place uh project >> and I imagine that was when it was done and then it was the pen place was located in and then it was probably changed at that point. So that would be 25 years ago. >> So it sounds like it's really not fair how it's zoned right now for the residents because you said they have a higher criteria and they it's harder for them to do things. >> That's my opinion. Yes. >> Okay. >> Makes sense. >> Uh Ken, uh super happy you're on the planning commission. Your attention to detail has been wonderful. Um thank you so much for all this. One of the things unfortunately I was able to miss the last meeting, but the meeting before that you you had mentioned and and please correct me if I'm wrong. Um, but the way it's currently zoned, if we didn't change it, if if a structure built down in the fire, they wouldn't be able to rebuild some of these. Is that >> not exactly? it there is language that they can rebuild if they start within 180 days and build the similar size structure. What the non-conforming language gets more involved with is if they want to put an addition on or do a significant change of more than 10% of the floor area, then the city code says we can't allow that. So, even if let's say they had didn't have a detached garage and wanted to add a garage, probably couldn't do that because of the way the zoning language is and the non-conforming rules. >> Okay. >> So, >> okay. >> In the area, I would say the upper right there is >> up here >> park plan in that area. We have a park plan developed in there. Is this going by reszoning this would this preclude um a park installation? >> No. >> Thank you. >> I actually asked that question in planning. I thought of >> I appreciate you. >> All right. Any other questions? If not, why don't you read the first one who wants to vote on? >> Sure. So, it's on page three of this report, which is page 48 in your packet. It's the resolution approving the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for the future land use plan map for the residential property shown in the study areas. Uh and the change would be from corridor mixed use to low density residential. >> Okay. Can I get a motion for that please? >> I'll make a motion. >> Council member McKenzie. >> Second. >> Second. Council member Norby. Roll call, please. >> Council member Nordby I. I. Council member Woods >> I. >> Council member McKenzie >> I. >> Council member Schwar >> I. >> Mayor Muggy >> I. >> Thank you. >> And then >> second one. >> Thank you. The second action then is there's an ordinance for your consideration. And again, it's the ordinance approves the zoning map amendment to change again the zoning of these same properties from uh MU3 corridor mixed use to R2 mixed residential. Thank you. I have a motion, please. >> Motion. >> Council Mayor McKenzie. Second. Second. Sorry. Council member Norby. Roll call, please. Council member Nordby >> I. >> Council member Woods. >> I. >> Council member McKenzie. >> Hi. >> Council member Schwar. >> I. >> Mayor Muggy. >> I. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to the next city business action item there. Ken, Metropolitan Council pre-development grant application. Got another map that I Here we go. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, this request is to uh for your approval of a resolution that would be supporting city staff working with a developer to apply to the Met Council livable communities pre-development grant program for the Nature Point Townhouse Development. This site, I'm going to switch is this property here along South Avenue. uh gateway trails to the south side and seventh is here on the east side. The border with Maplewood is right over here. Uh Mr. Hong Kong Vang has been working with city staff actually even before I started with the city on development plans for this site to develop up to eight units of townhouse developments or townhouse units something like this fashion. And again, this is a preliminary plan, but to give you a feel of what's been looked at to date, uh, two four unit buildings and then a storm water ponding area here. Uh, two driveways going out to kind of B or south depending on which side of the border you're on. Uh, again, showing the gateway trail to the south. Mr. Vang is requesting that the city uh council approve the resolution to apply for the grant which would be for up to $300,000 in grant funding uh through their pre-development program. And what that does it if approved and the Met Council approves it, it provides the city a grant and then they're a sub recipient of the grant. the developer is to further define or redefine and finish their development plans. Again, these are preliminary. There's some engineering to be worked out. Uh this end unit here may not fit because it's a tight squeeze with the grading and drainage is one example. We don't have all the final architectural landscaping plans, those kind of things. The intent of this grant program is to help support low to moderate income housing being developed in the metropolitan c the metro area. And the Mr. Vang is proposing these these would be for sale units again for low to moderate income uh families of four or more in the city in North St. Paul if the grant is approved. So the process is if you support the resolution that gives me the authority and the city and to work with Mr. Vang to submit an application to the mech council for the grant funding. They may approve it. They may approve part of it. They may not approve any of it. We don't know. Uh there's no guarantees. If the city is granted the grant, then we work with the developer on finalizing the project plans with the understanding there's an agreement between the city and the bank council and then there's an agreement between the city and Mr. conveying the developer for per who performs what, who's responsible for what and to ensure that whatever grant funds are received are used for developing the final plans for the project. Again with the understanding that the units would be uh for the low to moderate income folks, families of four for and for a point of information uh according to the uh housing and urban development, 60% of the area median income for a family of four right now is $79,440. 80% of the area median median income is 104 uh $14,200. So in my past lives at other cities when people have mentioned low to moderate income folks they get concerned that it's somehow could be a bad thing or negative thing at those income levels. They're very workingclass people, if not even middle class people by many people's standards. And any buyer of these units would have to meet those income standards for at least 15 years. So, it's to help get more housing for more affordable, which is kind of an air quote thing, into the city and help develop a site that's one of the less really vacant sites in town. So, Ken, are you saying when you say that it's a Vanet site, is it city-owned site right now? >> No, it's privately owned. >> It's privately owned. Can you go back to the map? I am having a trouble trying to see where this is located. >> Do you know where that Pine Creek window washing place is on? It's like two two down from there. There's a house and then there's this vacant lot. >> Thank you. Okay, that's helpful. >> Oh, yeah. The border of Maplewood's right here. >> Okay, now I I can see it. Okay. >> So again, the resolution is supporting staff applying for the grant and then if we are granted the grant, there's a whole bunch of contracts and things that need to come back to the council for final approval. All the project plans would still have to go through the planning commission through the council for final approval. This is just step one of many potential steps down the road. Uh Mr. Mr. Vang is here also. If you want to ask him a few questions or have him come up and introduce himself, he'd be happy to do so. Otherwise, there is a resolution in the packet uh authorizing city staff to submit uh apply for the livable communities grant program for this project. >> Would you like to come up and introduce yourself? >> Sure. >> Yeah, exactly. you sat through the a long process. So, at least you can come up and say hi. >> Yeah. >> Well, no, thanks. Uh Ken, I met with Ken. I know he's new the city. Uh it's been great to work with. >> Why give your name and address? >> Hong Kong Vang. Um I'm a non-resident. Uh but uh no, it's been it's been great working with the city of North St. Paul. I mean, as a kid, I used to drive on 36 here and I see that snowman. So, it always brings back a lot of memories. Uh my first investment property as a real estate investor or agent was actually in North St. Paul. So that's back in 2012, you know, with the real estate market was down here. You know, >> I graduated from the U of M with the masters in HR. And then I took a a side role on into real estate. And the passion with real estate was uh to see my parents being able to come as refugees and purchase homes through Habitat. And so, you know, back in 20 back in 2001, my parents were able to purchase a home through Habitat in St. Paul. And so, a passion of mine has always been obviously uh just beyond making money is obviously putting people first. Um I'm a former Ramsey County social worker, financial worker. So, you know, I work in nonprofits with youth. Um so, you know, my my passion is people, but you know, as a as a young developer, I I I will admit I'm really green. This is new to me. I'm learning this whole architect. I'm learning this whole civil engineering this whole city process. Um I understand that when you have someone who's so green on the side there's a lot of you know uh uncertainties but um I want to reassure you all that I am a go-getter and if I make things um down I like to go forward and make it happen. I know this has been kind of a back and forth plan and you know every year we've got setbacks but you know this is the year I feel like hey you know what if we've got the M council in support this is something that we can actually bring a lot of opportunities in the city of North St. Paul and I think affordable housing is still something I am passionate about. You know, when I work with you, I'm a beyond that I'm a real estate broker. I run uh Partners Realy off in Little Canada and um I've see a lot of first-time home buyers um that are going through the process of buying homes and um we live in a really great state. Uh we have a lot of great cities that do a lot of great work to allow home ownership and I think this is a good opportunity to be able to do that. I know we're very farfetched from the the you know the final plans but I hope that with the support we can actually get things moving a little quicker and like what Ken mentioned it's not a guarantee with M council but it's worth a shot. >> How long have you had the property for? >> So I actually don't own the property. It's actually currently owned by my father. Okay. And so he had purchased this property back in 2019 right before co and his plans were to be able to build himself a house there. And obviously with the zoning, you know, I don't think it was zoned for single family. Um he's a retired postal service carrier. So he decided to build not too far from North St. Paul right his house is actually just a little bit west on the Mapwood area. But u my intentions is to be able to purchase this through my dad. We did verify with Met Council that there should be no conflict of interest. >> Great. Okay. >> Thanks for your introduction. >> Thank you. Any questions or >> All right. >> I think I'm good. >> Appreciate it. Thanks for coming up. >> Thank you. >> Good to hear background. It's good story. Thank you. >> Sorry. >> Go ahead. >> I was just triggered. So, um, these units that you're looking at, how many square footage? What are you looking for? Square feet. Obviously, um Ken, you had indicated that the one to the far right as we're looking at the screen that may not obviously occur just given the um what is it? There's some water >> the drainage >> the drainage over there >> and and that's if I may reason to >> if we can get the grant funding or if he can >> get into the weeds into the details on the civil engineering this is enough to talk about it but there's a lot more work to be done but yes this unit here is a maybe a 50/50 at best that could be so it might only be seven units instead of the eight And when we're discussing the units, how big of units you said family of four, right? >> Square footage or 738 is shown here. >> 738. Sorry, my There we go. I need >> Would it be a slab on grade then? No basement or would it be basement? >> That's slab on grade. >> Yes. And then on top of the garage should be about I would say 15 to 18. >> So it's like the M&I where you got garage building on top. Okay. >> Would you uh do underground parking then or is it street parking? >> It's going to be >> garage right in. >> Garage right. Okay. Each unit has a twocar garage. Yep. Oh well. Okay. >> It's kind of like the MI up there. >> I've never been in there. All right. Nothing else. Do you want to read what we need to There's other questions? No other discussion? >> Yeah. No, I'm good. >> All right. Just want to make sure we're not cutting you off. >> No, you're good. Thank you. >> So, before you is a resolution of support to apply the to the mech to support to apply to the MEC council livable communities development grant program for the proposed Nature Point townhouse development. Okay. Do I have a motion? >> Can I ask a quick question? >> Oh, yes. >> Um, so Troy had logged in before. Uh, unfortunately his battery is dying on his computer. Can he call in or is that not an option since it's supposed to be visually and audibly heard? >> Uh, he can call in and listen. Uh but if he wants to be um a participating member under the open meeting law, he does have to be um seen be seen is one of the requirements of participating by interactive technology. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I was just now is he gone now? I was just wondering. Okay. So he's off already. I think he's >> okay. Just wanted to make sure. All right. Can I have a motion, please? So moved. >> So moved. Council member Norby. >> I'll second. >> Second. Council member McKenzie. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah. He's not going to be able to do it anymore. >> All right. Next item up is uh item D, city code text amendment. That's one more for Mr. Roberts. So, speaking of code cleanup, that's what this item is. >> Last time was in about an hour, so we'll see what happens. >> We're not >> we're not messing with the gambling. >> All right. As long as >> uh there are three sections in section 110 of the code that staff brought to my existing staff brought to my attention that are unclear and inconsistent of primarily how we uh license or don't license contractors. And so there are three sections that have a series of revisions that we are proposing to help clean up. So in section 11025 which is regarding heating, ventilation and air conditioning installations, we're proposing to remove that entire section of the code. It's not necessary. The state requires each contractor to hold a bond and provide their own insurance which staff checks when licensing these contractors. uh our Rum River Consultants, our building inspection service believes that having this requirement on the books now is it's essentially double dipping. And it really the current language adds an extra step when the city approves permits because again we're similar to the Gerald will be gambling. They're checked by the state and then we be checking by the city of North St. Paul. So, we're proposing to strike that whole part of the code. Second part moves into section 11027, which I've never seen this before, but there was a special section about trenching licenses and ordinances and requirements. We're proposing some revisions to that. First, that licensed plumber plumbers doing underground work would not need to get a separate trenching license from the city. Hopefully, if they're digging in pipes, they know what they're doing. They don't need a separate license for doing the same work. Uh, also proposing that we drop the requirement that sewer and water contractors working in North St. Paul submit a corporate sur bond because yeah maybe that's a good idea but similar to the last uh the charitable gambling this has not been something the city's been requiring for several years and we don't necessarily see a value in it and it puts an extra burden expense on the contractor so okay >> we're proposing to drop that >> and then the last section is 11028 which is about general contractors in general eneral. There's a whole list of general contractors are outlined in that section. There's masonary, roofers, sign uh installers, excavators, plasterers. I never knew plasterers would need a license, but that's what codes currently says. and for driveways and fences and uh tree trimmers. We're proposing that the city remove the license requirements for all those general contractors except the tree trimmers. And we want to keep the tree trimmer license as a city license because we want to make sure if they negatively affect our public infrastructure like our power lines that we have a way to go after them if we need to. All the other ones again most of those work all those types of work are covered under building permits that they would be getting uh for any kind of project that they are working on. So it seems redundant again primarily and most of those are also licensed by the state. So the what's before you this evening then is an ordinance that makes all those changes with all the pretty strikeout and replace and repeal language. And so if the council so inclined, we're recommending you adopt the ordinance in the packet. And that ordinance approves the ordinance text amendments. This is city code language relating to the contractors and contractor licenses in North St. Paul. >> All right. Thank you. I have a motion, please. >> Can you repeat all that again? >> Exactly. >> I'll make a motion. >> Motion. Council member Schwar. Second. >> Second. Council member Norby. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? None. >> All right. >> All right. Next up is uh item E, 2025 street and chilly improvement project uh city project number 25-01, which is approve a change order. >> Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council, this item before you is uh to consider approving change order number one for the 2025 street utility improvement project. You may recall that's a reconstruction project happening in the Casey Lake uh area uh which includes full reconstruction of streets and utilities in that area. So upon um consideration of the contractor and some suggestions on the part of the contractor review by engineering and also for public uh works we have this change order which um change orders are not always bad things or things that increase costs on project. This in fact provides some cost savings to the project. So what this uh contemplates is deleting some of the uh trenchless sewer lining and sewer service lining from the contract and replaces it with open cut open trench uh sanitary sewer replacement and service replacement. Um, based on the numbers provided by the contractor, there is a cost savings uh to this change order of $108,493.65. So that would be a cost savings to the contract and to the overall project. uh and public works and myself agree that uh based on uh contractor's proposal uh and the reason why there's some savings here the soils um access to the project and we feel that um the ultimate end product would be a better final product. Uh we have been using some of these trenchless technologies on past projects to be able to limit disruption and to improve access to the neighbors in the neighborhood, but for this particular project, it seems to make uh reasonable sense and there's significant cost savings to contemplate this change. So staff, public works, myself, engineering, we all support and recommend approval of change order number one uh in the amount of a deduction of $108,493.65 65 uh for the 2025 street and utility improvement project. That's city project number 251. And so with that, I'll stand for any questions the council might have. >> Okay, we're good to go. I get a motion, please. >> So move. >> So move. Council member Schwar. >> I'll second. >> Second. Council member McKenzie. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Opposed? None. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council. [Music] >> All right. Last item up on the city business action items is item F. Uh council direction on community multicultural outreach center feasibility study and grant funding. Um I have some explanations to do on this. But overall, this is being brought back again um due to the EAPC when they brought their presentation forward to give you guys an update on this study and how it's been moving forward. Um some of the costs uh were eye opening that and they confirmed and we did see some of these costs um for the redevelopment of the building uh was done by the wool um study and now they did confirm those numbers and probably even added to some of these costs. Um, so since they were here uh back on June 17th and went over that uh I did receive a bit of feedback um both from public um and council concerned about the excessive cost for this which would be above and beyond uh the funds that we received um grant money for on both state and federal level which uh that totals 5.35 million. Um the study that they had uh put forward explained that the city would have to come up with $3 million more than $3 million above and beyond what the grant money accounted for. So that was the reason in bringing this back to you and the information um it's just confirmed from their study. Their presentation is also attached on here. Um, one thing I'd like to go over though is so in looking into some of this information and trying to find out what options might be available for uh either modifications to the grant or uh any way of repurposing. So, the way the grants are handled is they turn that over to DED. Um, DED is just an acronym for Department of Employment and Economic Development. the state puts that responsibility on them and we are assigned a person that uh is in charge of that. I did reach out to this person trying to find out what options we might have. Um I had heard that you can make modifications to the um bonding money on you know try to shift things around a little bit but make it still work. Um I didn't get very good answers there. Uh so recently uh we reached out to our local legislator who got us got me in touch with um the woman who is the DFL committee administrator for the capital investment committee. Um she came back with some really good answers. Um so different ways to move forward with this. We um well you have you have two votes in front of you this evening. First one is to not continue with the EAPC feasibility study for the community center. The second one was to are we going to reject the grant funding just for the sake that the costs were so overwhelming that the city it'd be a pretty large financial burden on our residents to take on this kind of debt. That was the concern. Um, but we found out that you can do modifications. And if you take this back to uh the legislation, I think through their committee, you could do modifications. And when I was talking to her on the phone, one thing that uh uh lessons learned of with our lobbyists that when we put this forward, there were all sorts of things that we covered in there that uh that we were going to address whether or not it was uh for the vets, for seniors, for kids, for um all these different items plus uh fulfilling objection um um you know having green power and all these efficiencies. and she said, "Well, I can see how you guys were having trouble, you know, checking all these boxes and all these requirements." Um, we got a little more specific than maybe what we should have is from my understanding. Um, so the one option is also, uh, there's repurposing. So what you do in that case is you take your grant, you um go through your legislature, you cancel it, and then you turn around at the same time and you ask for a repurpose of that money to do something different. Um which then really opens it up. Um you could do a road project, you could do a water tower, you could do um any number of things. um which would be something to be brought back to you guys for suggestions on which direction you'd want to go or how you'd want to handle it. Um but that comes with a caveat. You're not guaranteed that money. So you can cancel it and you can turn it back. And she did explain though that this because this money was uh cash and that not a borrowed sum that it is easier to manipulate and move around which made it sound like it would possibly be. It's easier certainly than starting from scratch as far as it being repurposed and try to do something else with it. Um so those that needs to be known as you guys vote for uh these two resolutions that are in front of you tonight. It was brought in as a single resolution. I I feel it should be brought separated into two resolutions. Um I don't know if you want to add anything more to that or clean it up any better, Jack. Uh no nothing in particular for me. >> So and also this grant was gotten uh in 2023. There are four years for you to use these funds once it's given to you. So here we are two years later. Um now we still that uh timeline comes into play too is if you're going to go back to them and ask them to repurpose it. Um, so as you saw in Dan's uh information this evening that we are in a small surplus this year. It is looking like it is not going to be a surplus after this year moving into the following years. So if we would do it, we would want to do it and be get it ready uh to hit this next legislative session coming up in the fall. Um just a FYI. >> Thank you. I know I was I reached out to Leon Lily a few times. we were playing phone tag but he got a hold of you today as far as so then he um you want to tell what the conversation was about that? >> Yes, thank you. Um so clearly that's an important part of it that uh you need a legislator to back you on this process. Um our local legislature happens to be on that committee. So that is u to our benefit and I did ask him if he would support if we decided to come back and ask for a repurposing for another project and he did say he that he would support that. Okay. >> So the first vote is >> the first vote >> I would before we vote I would like to bring I would like to have a discussion. Um we've made we've created a environment where the public in our community can have updates regarding the feasibility study and um we've made that dedication to those. We have not held a public hearing. The last public event that we had, it was closed and it was discussing um the community center where EAC is with it, right? Um unfortunately, we lost Troy given just electric issues on his computer. I um this is a very big topic, a very passionate topic I believe with everybody that either wants it or they don't want it. Um, but I would I would like the council to consider tableabling this for the next meeting and have Troy here. >> That's all I have to say. >> Any input on that? >> I could text him. Well, no. It's >> the first thing that comes to mind is right now is anyone help me with the date. Um, >> the next one we have is >> or excuse me, 19th of August. >> Yep. It would be August 19th. >> Does anyone know if they currently have a conflict with that meeting? >> Please. not going against what you're saying, but um so I did have a conversation with Troy. Um he knew this was coming forward. Um he was aware of the situation. He did not ask me to relay that to you guys for a table. So just want to put that out there. He didn't ask, but uh you're certainly in the you're right to ask for that. >> Yeah. Yeah. I just I I am asking because I I personally would like to table it. That's just me speaking on behalf of myself. I personally would like to table it and wait for Troy to come back in in the past. We have a history of asking for the same thing um of trying to get all the council members together for it. Um I I I don't have an issue with that ask. I would support that. >> I would prefer go forward myself. I That happened the last time to me. So >> I I I know. But you didn't enjoy it. >> Yep. But that's where I'm at. >> Any thoughts? Well, any thoughts? What you prefer to do? >> That's That's what we're >> Yeah. No, I I I um no matter what's going to be, I think we should just table it, wait for everyone to be here to make it fair to everybody and uh but I think it should be at the next meeting for sure. >> Yeah. >> And we should have a definite outcome at that point. Uh if we do table it is that incurring a cost. >> No. >> Uh so for all intents and purposes EA >> EAPC we would just still leave that on hold. >> It's it's paused. >> Yep. Okay. >> I asked them to pause that. Um and it's not costing anymore. So it can still be paused until the next meeting. So that that's not an issue. That's cool. Well, that's a majority. Yep. Do I have a motion? >> I would like to make a motion to table this for the meeting of August 19th. >> Okay. >> All right. Seconded. >> I'll second that. >> Second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All right. Next meeting. >> All right. Thank you. Uh moving on to reports from city manager. Um so we had our staff meeting today. Um, electric department's been busy with the road reconstruction project because at through that process they are uh rewiring overhead underground when it comes to the primary work and they're getting all that transferred over. Um, they were getting prepared depending what kind of weather was going to come in this evening for anything severe. So, they're good about that. Uh, also working with Cowin's school and the addition that they're looking to put on the school come next year. So, they had met with the um electrician there for that job just to make sure that their loads aren't going to increase enough to where they'd have to upsize their transformer. Uh community development has been, as you see, reviewing uh outdated code regarding contractors uh pulling uh and pulling multiple permits on things that maybe they don't need to. So, that's a work in progress. Communication's been busy. We have national night out coming up pretty fast here already that we have 11 block parties registered. We usually have some coming uh towards the end there. We had 14 I believe last year. So it should be good. Um deadline for the final registration is July 31st. Uh we have Silver Lake Beach party which is this Thursday. They have a really strong showing. Uh so there's a lot of people that have already committed to it, but there's been over a thousand people that have said interested. So it could be big. Um we are doing our part. We're going to have PD bring out uh the extra trailer camera that we have in place from Casey and put it out there. Um we've asked PD to be on standby as well as fire. So we're hoping for a nice output. >> That's good weather. >> Yeah, absolutely. Yes. Cooler. Yes. Um, actually tomorrow too for you guys, uh, we have staff appreciation for tomorrow that we'll be having out at Casey Lake. Um, what is that? From 11 to 1. 11:30 to 1:30. So, you guys certainly welcome to swing by, please. Um, finance has been certainly busy with the ongoing budgeting. Um, we also are looking at the implementation of our Paycom, which is underway now. Uh they've had several meetings with Paycom and getting close to start doing some of the transition work. So looking forward to that which Jenny will certainly benefit from and be happy about. Police department. Uh they got the fish with the cop coming up which is this Saturday which is awesome. They usually usually get 80 to over 100 people there for that. So that's always a fun event. Um public works is always busy. They uh working at cleaning up uh some of our restroom cleanups, which has been just unfortunately very messy lately. So, to the point that we are actually changing the uh hours of operation on them. We're going to start closing them earlier. We're going to close them at 6 p.m. Uh the vandalism is just been really unfortunate. And the one out at uh Silver Lake found bags of used hypodermic needles out there. It's just absolutely unfortunate. um seen so many places that just get shut down because cities just get sick of dealing with it. Um but they've been busy also with the mowing, massphalt patching, uh fixing uh basin repairs and uh doing street sweeping, of course, tree work all the time. Uh student build house in progress. We're getting really close there. The counter countertops are in. Landscaping will be in next week. Carpet and fence is scheduled for early August. uh plumbing to be completed yet this week. Um Bule project they're staying on top of which is moving along well. Nothing major as far as items happening. Sewer line is in uh in the but the Bule area and then uh new water man is going to be starting to installed this week as well. Uh fire department did find out and I know I just told you guys this yesterday. This is how much this changes. Now they're saying the fire engine will be here by July 30th. So it will be here for the national out. until tomorrow. We'll see what they say. >> Daily updates. >> Yeah. Uh they assisted Maplewood with a water rescue. Uh no injuries, which was good. Uh they have their live burning uh training tomorrow out at the training center. And uh we had our first property abatement um this year, which was just uh trying to deal with very long lawns. So they were staying on top of that. But uh that's all I got for you. All right. Thank you. Commissions. Committees. >> Parks and Recreation um had their first meeting. Sorry. Parks and Recreation had their first meeting in June at Howy Park. It went really well. Um it was the day it unfortunately it rained pretty hard so um it was a little wet but it was nice to I've not had a park meeting out in the park so this was my first and it was fun to have that. Um we will meet uh next Wednesday the 23rd and I'm really sorry I don't know the park yet. I got to reach out to Sarah. So that one's on me. >> But where are they going to have them? >> Yeah the next park. Yeah I don't know off the top of my head. I'd have to reach out to Sarah. I apologize. >> No, definitely. No, >> we're meeting in a park. >> That's good. Summertime, you should be meeting in parks. >> It's nice. Yes. And I invite everybody to come. It's cool to have a meeting outside of council chambers. >> Yeah, sounds good. Uh the EDA won't meet until September 9th. >> Okay. Thank you. >> The last planning commission um met uh uh on uh July uh 9th. Unfortunately, I was not able to make it, but you got to see most of what was discussed here today because we voted on it and um just want to welcome Ken and say say super happy with you being on the team. Thank you so much. >> Great. Thank you. Any general business? Just want to remind everybody that there's no council meeting um on uh August 5th and encourage everyone to try and make it out for the night to unite >> national night out or >> Yep. >> Okay. Anybody else? Nothing else. Um I was I was uh sent an email um about uh the disability pride month. So I figured the dyslexic mayor will read this. So, we'll go from there. Disability Pride Month is celebrated every July in honor of the history, achievements, and cultures of people with disabilities, making the anniversary of the American Disabilities Act signed July 26, 1990, and promotes ex acceptance, vis um visibility, and ideals of disability and then the part they play into our community. So, just wanted to say congratulations. I know your daughter's disabled and there's quite a few and that was uh just wanted to bring that up too. So if nothing else I'll ask for a German. >> So moved. >> So moved. Council member McKenzie. >> Second. >> Second. Council member Norby. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> See you August 19th.