This is a transcription of the White Bear Lake City Council meeting from September 2023. [2:59] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** All right. (Foreign language/Background noise) [3:16] [Music] [3:40] [Music] [3:49] [Music] [4:00] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** [Music] All right, whatever. (Foreign language/Background noise) [4:36] [Music] [4:49] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Thank you very much. [5:00] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** All right, we're going to call the meeting to order and get going here. Will the clerk please note those in attendance? All will be noted. Will you please rise while the honor guard presents the colors? [5:36] **Honor Guard / Assembly:** City of White Bear Lake, the flag of your nation and a pledge to follow. Presents arms of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [7:05] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Very good. Let's jump right into item two, approval of the minutes. I trust everyone's had a chance to review the minutes from the August 22nd, 2023 meeting. If so, I'd entertain a motion to approve the minutes. **Councilmember:** Move to approve. **Councilmember:** Second. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. **Council:** Aye. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Any opposed? Motion—one abstention. Uh, motion carries. Minutes are approved. Item three, adoption of the agenda. Are there any corrections or additions to the agenda? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. **Councilmember:** So moved. **Councilmember:** Second. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** The motion is seconded. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? We have an agenda. Item four, consent agenda. I’d entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. **Councilmember:** So moved. **Councilmember:** Second. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. **Council:** Aye. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Any opposed? [7:51] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Motion carries. The consent agenda is approved. Item five, visitors and presentations. Uh, Ms. Crawford, we have the swearing-in of our new police chief. [8:08] **Lindy Crawford (City Manager):** Good evening, Mayor and members of the Council. Tonight we will be swearing in our new Chief of Police, Dale Hager. So after a few remarks, the City Clerk will administer the oath of office, and Dale's wife Kelly will then pin his badge, and we will wrap things up by hearing from Dale himself. So, Dale was born and raised in Minnesota, but his law enforcement career began in North Dakota 26 years ago. He eventually moved back to Minnesota and was hired at the Lino Lakes Police Department where he served for 15 years and achieved the rank of Sergeant. In 2014, he was selected as the Administrative Captain for White Bear Lake Police Department. Along the way, he served as a narcotics officer, K9 officer, and DARE officer, [8:54] **Lindy Crawford:** investigator, firearms instructor, field training instructor, and defensive tactics instructor. He holds a bachelor's degree in law enforcement and a master's in Emergency Management. He is also a graduate of the 251st FBI National Academy. In addition, Dale helps shape the future of law enforcement by teaching courses at Century College and Hamline University. Whether it be Night to Unite, Night Market Fest, the Farmers Market, or one of our many outreach events, Dale has been a familiar and welcoming face to this community. He helped establish our Community Emergency Response Team—everybody you see in the yellow shirts here—and served as a liaison to Triad. [9:40] **Lindy Crawford:** I witnessed his popularity last weekend firsthand when he received two rounds of applause and numerous hugs when he simply walked in the room at the Triad picnic. In his downtime, Dale enjoys playing basketball, volleyball, and reminding us all that he is a pickleball champion. But above all, his favorite things to do are spend time with his friends and family. Dale has shown he is ready to take on the responsibilities of Chief of Police. His commitment to community policing, respect for officers and City Administration, and approachable demeanor has served and will continue to serve our community and organization very well. So it is my pleasure to present Dale Hager as White Bear Lake's next Chief of Police. Chief, will you join me at the podium? [10:57] **City Clerk:** Do solemnly swear... **Dale Hager:** Do solemnly swear... **City Clerk:** ...that I will support... **Dale Hager:** ...that I will support... **City Clerk:** ...the Constitution of the United States... **Dale Hager:** ...the Constitution of the United States... **City Clerk:** ...and the State of Minnesota... **Dale Hager:** ...and the State of Minnesota... **City Clerk:** ...and will discharge... **Dale Hager:** ...and will discharge... **City Clerk:** ...and faithfully execute... **Dale Hager:** ...and faithfully execute... **City Clerk:** ...the duties... **Dale Hager:** ...the duties... **City Clerk:** ...evolving upon me as Chief of Police... **Dale Hager:** ...evolving upon me as Chief of Police... **City Clerk:** ...for the City of White Bear Lake... **Dale Hager:** ...for the City of White Bear Lake... **City Clerk:** ...without fear or favor... **Dale Hager:** ...without fear or favor... **City Clerk:** ...to the best of my judgment... **Dale Hager:** ...to the best of my judgment... **City Clerk:** ...and ability. **Dale Hager:** ...and ability. **City Clerk:** Congratulations. [Applause] [12:19] **Dale Hager (Chief of Police):** Thank you. Holy cats, I'm a little nervous. I've got like three ex-chiefs in this room and uh, like 15 or 20 of my former bosses are in this room, so I have a lot... I'm very nervous about this. But I think I'll get through. Mr. Mayor, City Manager Crawford, members of the Council, I have an overwhelming feeling of gratitude tonight. I'm incredibly grateful for your continued support of the White Bear Lake Police Department. I'm grateful for the last nine years here in White Bear Lake that I've benefited from this fantastic relationship I have with the Council—we have with the Council—and with other departments in the city, to include the Fire Department, um, as well as our incredible citizens [13:05] **Dale Hager:** and our volunteer groups like Triad and like CERT and like our Reserves. I'm very humbled to be here. I'm also very grateful for the many leaders I've had in this profession. Each one of those leaders has taught me much about policing and relationships and what it means to serve others. Leaders—many of them are sitting up in front of me now, but many of them are behind me. Leaders like Dave Peacha and Julie Swanson and John Swenson, Kelly McCarthy and Phil Henry, my father-in-law Tom Ladwig, Dick Hickman, Mike Rumson, many, many others who've taught me about leadership. I'm so very grateful for them. However, if I'm being honest, the person I've learned the most from about leadership is my wife, Kelly. [13:51] **Dale Hager:** Well, I suspect during the many, many, many, many, many, many, many times that she's told me what to do and where to be and how to act, I suspect she's never really felt that I actually really appreciated that. And I'm very grateful that she is—she's my North Star, and I really appreciate the leadership lessons that she's taught me. Speaking of family, I also want to thank my son Nick and his wife and their three-year-old daughter who are in Grand Forks. I also want to thank my crazy smart son Lincoln and my beautiful and very athletic daughter Brindle for being here as well. My brothers and sisters are also here, and many of my lifelong friends are in the back as well. And I want to thank them too, as they served as my mentors and my inspiration. [14:37] **Dale Hager:** Lastly, I'm grateful for the White Bear Lake Police Department. I know I have representatives from many different departments in this room, and I'm a little biased, but I think that we have the best cops in the state. Um, yeah, I think that's great. [14:55] **Dale Hager:** I also think our civilian staff and everybody that works with us is top-notch. I can't ask for anything more than to work with people and amongst people that have big hearts and strong work ethics. I'm confident I can rely on my co-workers in this department to help me through this transition that I'm in. I'm also confident that they're going to help me tackle any problems that lie before us. I want to thank the cops and staff that are here tonight and those that couldn't make it for your tireless work in a challenging position which is always hard and often thankless. These men and women in uniform behind me are what makes all of this work as a city, and I'm really grateful for them. Thank you again for the opportunity. I'm excited to be part of what the future holds for the City of White Bear Lake and the White Bear Lake Police Department. Thank you. [16:21] **Lindy Crawford:** Now I think we should leave. [16:30] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Thank you very much. [Laughter] [16:47] [Music] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Okay. [17:02] [Music] Um... [17:25] (Background noise) [17:36] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Take your time. [17:54] **Councilmember:** White balance for the camera? [Laughter] [18:09] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Oh yeah. [18:18] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** And it gets all the other colors right. The camera has to get a good view of light. It can't be shiny. Yeah, that... that's too shiny. I appreciate it though. Yeah, it's too shiny. Well, it's got to... it just caught me off guard. I once knew how it all worked, but I don't understand anymore. Yeah. [18:42] [Music] [18:51] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Sounds good. All right, well, now that I'm holding that book, I can read a proclamation about the United States of America. Just pivot to that similar type of thing. All right, item 5B, Constitution Week Proclamation. I’ve been looking forward to this. It's an exciting proclamation, so I'm just going to jump right in and read it. "Whereas the Constitution of the United States of America, the guardian of our liberties, embodies the principles of limited government in a republic dedicated to rule of law. Whereas September 17, 2023 marks the 236th anniversary of the framing of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention..." [19:38] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** "...Whereas it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary, and to the patriotic celebration which will commemorate the occasion. Whereas Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the President of the United States of America, designating September 17th through the 23rd as Constitution Week. Now, therefore, be it resolved that I, Dan Lewis, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Mayor of the City of White Bear Lake, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim the week of September 17th through the 23rd as Constitution Week, and ask our citizens to reaffirm the ideals that the framers of the Constitution had in 1787 by vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties." [20:34] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** And I just realized I signed my copy and not the official one, so now I'm going to sign the official one. Make sure that those official documents end up in the proper place. I will. I will, right here. Okay. All right, item 6A, public hearings. The second reading of an ordinance prohibiting the use of cannabis products in public places. I believe Ms. Crawford is taking this. [21:20] **Lindy Crawford:** Thank you, Mayor. Mayor and Council, so tonight you will hold a public hearing and a second reading as part of the bill legalizing the use of cannabis. The legislature did not prohibit the use of cannabis in public places; instead, it gave the authority to local units of government the right to do that. However, the use of cannabis involving inhalation of smoke, aerosol, or vapor is prohibited at any location where smoking is prohibited under the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act. There are other specific location prohibitions in the law, such as a public school, but there is not a general prohibition on the use in public places. So at the direction of the Council, the City Attorney and staff prepared an ordinance prohibiting the use of cannabis in public places within City Limits, which means any park, any right-of-way, or any parking lot. And so, highlights of that ordinance in your packet are, of course, definitions, and then it prohibits the use of cannabis in public places. The penalty is [22:06] **Lindy Crawford:** a petty misdemeanor, but the ordinance also states an administrative penalty may be imposed. The ordinance would be effective on the first day of publication. And so when we are talking about where it's prohibited, again, that includes how the ordinance reads right now: public parks, public parking lots, sidewalks, and rights of way, and then in any facilities that the City would own. So with that, the City Attorney and I can stand for questions. [22:54] **Councilmember Edberg:** Mr. Mayor? So, Ms. Crawford, I don't have an issue with prohibiting public use of cannabis in parks as described. What I do have an interest in is ensuring that our treatment of cannabis is in parity with our treatment of tobacco. Could you explain how this aligns with our current other prohibitions about smoking of tobacco or other products? The memo references the indoor Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, but I'm not clear about how that applies to other places and how our policy aligns or does not align. [23:40] **Lindy Crawford:** Sure. Mayor, Councilmember Edberg, and Councilmember Jones, I do not have our tobacco and alcohol ordinances in front of me, but we do not prohibit the use of tobacco in public right-of-way on sidewalks. I cannot confirm if we prohibit it in parks. Alcohol, under Minnesota state law, you cannot walk around with an open container—maybe perhaps in Anoka you can right now, but yeah... [24:27] **John Gilchrist (City Attorney):** Just quickly, I mean, the reality is this is more closely aligned with the liquor prohibitions than it is tobacco prohibitions. I mean, you can walk down a sidewalk and smoke a cigarette, but not drink a beer. So it really is more aligned with an intoxicant like alcohol than it is with tobacco. And I will add, so we brought a most restrictive ordinance with the thought that you could loosen that up. It is entirely up to the City Council's discretion, but we did put everything in, and you may remove things at your wish. Keep in mind, the way the law is set up, if you look at the definition of "public place" where it says "it does not include any of the following," technically the most restrictive ordinance you could have had says "everywhere but those places," which would have been a much bigger universe of places within the city. Instead, this focuses that down, it whittles that down just to purely public places: the parks, the streets, the sidewalks, those sorts of things, rather than private parking lots and other things [25:12] **John Gilchrist:** that technically could be considered public under the way the law is written. So it's restrictive, but it's not as restrictive as it possibly could have been under the statute. **Councilmember Jones:** Can I use cannabis in my curtilage? **John Gilchrist:** Correct. **Councilmember Jones:** What I read—I know you guys don't think I read stuff—definition, yes. Carry around the home. Curtilage—great, weird word. Yeah, word of the day. **Councilmember:** Move to approve. **Councilmember:** Second. [25:58] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** I have a motion and a second. At this time, we'll open it up for a public hearing. I don't have any names on my list. Going once, going twice... I will close the public hearing. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on this? **Councilmember Edberg:** Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I'd welcome some conversation at the level of Council about policy. I can see the argument about the intoxicating nature of alcohol and cannabis as being a reasonable way to say these are like items that should be treated alike. So that makes intuitive sense to me, and we already pretty much prohibit that for alcohol. And I'm not immediately [26:45] **Councilmember Edberg:** knowledgeable of any disparities there. We've had pieces of this conversation over the past year about what's the appropriate treatment of tobacco and cannabis. I don't recall that we've reached an agreement on that exactly. I don't know that we've articulated an official policy position about, you know, are they alike, are they different? I recognize that all of our regulation about tobacco has been... we haven't had very good ordinances in the past and that's been a more recent effort. And then the cannabis [27:31] **Councilmember Edberg:** stuff got layered on top of that because we chose to start examining tobacco licensure and zoning and all that kind of stuff, re-examining that actually before we had to deal with some of the other stuff. So I'd welcome some conversation about what is the right policy framework to use and why, so that we can be clear to ourselves and that we can be clear to citizens about what is and what is not permitted and why. And that there's at least some kind of a statement on the record that says, yeah, we did talk about it and this was the consensus of the policymakers at the time. So before we move to adopt or take action on the motion, I'd [28:16] **Councilmember Edberg:** really welcome that kind of a perspective. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Councilmember Edberg, is it your thought just generally that you want to be consistent, or are you suggesting that we should pass this and then bring the tobacco ordinance in parity and prohibit tobacco use in those spaces? **Councilmember Edberg:** That's a great question, and that is indeed a part of what I'm wrestling with in my own mind. In general, I think there is a public purpose that is served by having consistency—that consistent approaches to regulated use of regulated compounds makes enforcement, public understanding, and acceptance more reasonably obtained when we have consistency. But how that consistency is defined and described, we haven't had that conversation. I could go either way, actually. My thinking is that cannabis and tobacco should be regulated in alike ways. Now, we can achieve that as you suggested; we could achieve that by addressing that when we [29:48] **Councilmember Edberg:** review, revise, or adopt tobacco regulation. We could do it some other way here. I'm open to whatever works, but I think it would be wise for us to understand the implications of each. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Yeah, I think it's a fair question, it's a fair debate to have. I think the consistency is important. I'll layer in another distinction without taking the position, because I could be persuaded either way. It seems to me the distinction is, for example, with alcohol: well, is it prohibited? It's preempted by state law. Is that correct, Mr. Attorney? **John Gilchrist:** Mr. Mayor, yes, for the most part correct. Sometimes cities go a little bit further when it comes to their own property, parks, and things like that. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Okay. And the reason I ask that is, it sort of begs the question: we still have this yet-unfleshed-out rules surrounding cannabis. I don't know, maybe that will be taken up by the state and they'll decide to bring cannabis usage into parity with alcohol and prohibit it in public spaces or not. So my inclination is, because that is a possibility, that I would be comfortable passing this because I support it, but recognize that there's some nuance there with tobacco. I would want to let things play out a little bit because I do see that as a distinction. If the state policymakers say, well, it's an intoxicating liquor, it's an intoxicating substance, we're going to take the reins on that one—that's the distinction that I see. I'll just throw it out there: I would also support prohibiting the tobacco usage in the same places that we're prohibiting this. I don't see a big compelling public interest against that, and I don't foresee a lot of public outcrying. So those are my thoughts. Anyone else want to weigh in? **Councilmember Jones:** I'm going to defer to Mr. Walsh, he had his hand up earlier. [32:06] **Councilmember Walsh:** Thank you, Councilmember Jones and Mr. Mayor. I'm more along the lines of comparing cannabis to alcohol because of the mood-altering characteristics of the substances. So that's point one. But I think the broader point is cannabis is new; it's new in Minnesota, it's new in White Bear Lake. We have no experience with how it's going to work. And so as a policymaker, I want to start slow. I think my comments will speak to both this item and unfinished business. Because we have no experience, and we have some other states that have done things, but we have no experience in Minnesota, with the ordinance in front of us, the public place thing—I like the way it's written. Public places generally. I don't anticipate [32:52] **Councilmember Walsh:** our police—because they're the ones that'll be enforcing us for the most part—out there as the "Cannabis Police" looking for offenders. I don't think they have time to do that. I think they have more important things to do on a daily basis. But this gives them a tool in their toolbox should there be a problem, should there be an issue or a nuisance. They have the ordinance in their back pocket they can use. They can just say, "This is against the ordinance, you need to move along, go home," or they could even cite them. I think it's just new; we have no experience how this is going to affect our city or the state. This is a good start to get this as a tool in the toolbox for our police and then we'll see how it goes. We'll be back revisiting this as to the state. I mean, at the moment, they have not regulated public place use, and I don't think the rulemaking process will allow them to do that. They would have to go back to the legislature to do that. Not to say they won't do it in the next session, but at the moment, we've got no regulation. So I think this is the right way to go. [34:25] **Councilmember Jones:** Um, yeah, it's the intoxicating substance. Without picking on the legislature too much, I just don't know why they don't outline this almost identically. It doesn't make sense any of it to me. It's an intoxicating substance; the police should be able to treat it with equal administration. It's easier. As far as tobacco goes, that's not on the plate currently. They can legally do it; we haven't talked about that. So I think tobacco needs to come out of this conversation as far as public spaces. If we want to have that conversation, that needs to be separate. [35:11] **Councilmember Hughes:** Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilmember Edberg, I think it's a fun conversation. I agree, I find marijuana usage to be more in line with alcohol than I do tobacco. I think it'd be kind of weird for us to say you can't smoke a cigarette while walking down the street. I'm sure somebody has done it, but I'm so used to seeing it in all of my life, I think it would be very difficult to enforce. Whereas I think it would also be equally as weird to see somebody smoking a joint as they walk down the street and have that be acceptable. [35:51] **Councilmember Edberg:** I'm persuaded to support the proposal. I reserve the right to re-raise this conversation when we get back to tobacco regulation. But for tonight, I think this is fine. I appreciate the sharing, thank you. [36:37] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Very good. All right, I have a motion and a second to adopt the ordinance. All those in favor say aye. **Council:** Aye. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Any opposed? Motion carries, the ordinance is adopted. We have an accompanying resolution. I'd entertain a motion to adopt the resolution. **Councilmember:** So moved. **Councilmember:** Second. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Any further discussion on the resolution? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. **Council:** Aye. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Any opposed? Motion carries, resolution is adopted. All right, let's jump into item 6B, second reading of an ordinance amending the fee schedule. Ms. Crawford. [37:24] **Lindy Crawford:** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. So we have a public hearing and a second reading. The City Council recently adopted an ordinance licensing and imposing regulations on the sale of edible cannabinoid products. Our 2023 fee schedule does not list any fees related to edible cannabinoids because they were not legal at the time when we adopted the fee schedule. So staff was directed to prepare to amend the fee schedule to add edible cannabinoid products licensing, and an application and background fee, as well as penalties for administrative offenses for that ordinance. You did also just adopt momentarily ago an ordinance prohibiting the use of cannabis products in public places. So in anticipation of you potentially doing that, we also added that as an option for the second reading. So also in the ordinance are administrative offenses for penalties for edible cannabinoids in public spaces. This is a public hearing. [38:09] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Thank you, Ms. Crawford. Can you just expound a little bit on how we arrive at these fees? Are they comparable to other things that we regulate and license? How do we get to these numbers? [38:55] **Lindy Crawford:** Sure. So these fees, the fee structure is similar to tobacco products for those licenses and backgrounds. We had nothing to compare this to, so we believe that these fees would cover a reasonable amount of staff time to administer those license applications and run those background checks. This is at least the edible cannabinoid license—it is a temporary license that we will be offering. We do revisit the fee schedule annually, so we have an opportunity to revisit these should they prove that they are not satisfactory. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Before we jump any further, this is a public hearing, so I will open up to the public on this issue. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Council. All right, Council, any other further discussion on this? **Councilmember Edberg:** Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Only in the spirit of English grammar, looking at the top of page 6B where we say "penalties for edible cannabinoid sales," then it says "consumption in a public space." Are we regulating sales or consumption? [39:42] **Lindy Crawford:** Sure, that is a typo in the staff report, and we can get that corrected in the fee schedule before it would be published. **Councilmember Edberg:** Thank you. I'm totally on board with consumption. I don't think we want to penalize legally conducted sales. [40:28] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** I entertain a motion to approve the ordinance adopting the fee schedule. **Councilmember:** So moved. **Councilmember:** Second. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. **Council:** Aye. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Any opposed? Motion carries. All right, item 7A, second reading of an ordinance amending a zoning regulation regarding tobacco and cannabis uses. Ms. Crawford or Mr. Lindahl? [41:16] **Jason Lindahl (Community Development Director):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the City Council. Just to give you a little bit of background since it's been a month since we held the first reading: this is a zoning code text amendment related to tobacco shops and cannabis retailers. It was initiated by City staff at the direction of the Council. It seeks to create tobacco product shops and cannabis retail uses, and as presented in front of you, assigns them to the B4 General Business District. The Planning Commission conducted the required public hearing back on July 27th and had a very involved discussion. They recommended approval to the Council. The City Council back on August 8th conducted that first reading and then asked staff to bring this item back tonight for a second reading. [42:03] **Jason Lindahl:** Since the first reading, we did receive one comment from Solomon Hale, and that email comment is included in your packet. Mr. Hale is in the audience and can talk about his comments if the Council wishes. What staff wanted to highlight for you tonight is that there are actually two option ordinances included in your packet. During the initial first reading, we went into more detail, but the most important context is we looked at each criteria to come to the recommendation to place these two items in the B4 District. [43:37] **Jason Lindahl:** The reason we did that was based on looking at the Comprehensive Plan and its guidance on where we would put commercial uses. It doesn’t specifically address either one of these particular uses, but it does break down our commercial categories into zoning districts that are primarily commercial, or other mixed-use districts like downtown or the Lake Village District. We used that guidance and the criteria related to the buffering for these particular uses to come up with a recommendation to place these in the B4 District. That recommendation also attempted to treat them similarly to liquor sales. [44:22] **Jason Lindahl:** Option one was the original ordinance reviewed by the Planning Commission. It contains one definition for all cannabis businesses and limits them to B4. Option two separate includes separate definitions for cannabis businesses (full dispensaries) and then a second separate use that would allow edible cannabis businesses. Under option two, the full dispensaries would remain limited to B4, but edible cannabis businesses would be allowed in any commercial district throughout the city at a business that also has a current tobacco on-sale or off-sale liquor license. Again, trying to focus those edible products into other uses that would sell similar types of products. In either option, the tobacco shop standards and the buffering standards remain the same: 1,000 feet from a school or 500 feet from a daycare, residential treatment facility, or a public park. [46:42] **Jason Lindahl:** Looking at existing uses, we have six existing tobacco product shops. Those become legal non-conforming (grandfathered). They are allowed under state statute to be repaired or maintained, just not expanded. So they would remain in place subject to licensing. Full cannabis businesses would remain prohibited under the city's moratorium until January 1, 2025. [49:01] **Jason Lindahl:** Again, we reviewed a number of good questions raised by the Planning Commission. They asked if the Sports Center qualifies as a park; it does. They asked if non-conforming tobacco shops could sell cannabis or hemp products. Under option one, no, because they would be treated as dispensaries. Under option two, yes, they could sell edibles if they have a license. [51:22] **Councilmember Jones:** Mr. Lindahl, so under option two, full cannabis or "dispensary" are basically the same language? **Jason Lindahl:** Correct. **Councilmember Jones:** After January 1st, when the moratorium is lifted, they would be able to apply, but only for B4? **Jason Lindahl:** Correct. [52:54] **Councilmember Walsh:** I certainly appreciate where staff and the Planning Commission are coming from. What scratches my head is trying to treat these things the same. What is the difference between a dispensary and a store that sells off-sale liquor? If someone can tell me the difference, I'll support the B4, but I can't support it otherwise because I've got two locations that have had a liquor store within that strip mall forever. It scratches my head that we're going to be okay with having a liquor store there but not this. [54:27] **Jason Lindahl:** Mayor, members of the Council, the foundation of that consideration was taking previous direction from the Council trying to find a way to treat these two kinds of uses the same. We looked at the Comprehensive Plan and the definitions of commercial uses. B1 is neighborhood commercial, B2 is limited commercial serving the surrounding neighborhood, B3 focuses on auto-related uses. B4 is General and designed to serve beyond just the White Bear Lake community. Because the state law comes with these buffering standards from schools and parks, B4 is the category you're left with because our neighborhood zoning often allows commercial right next to those buffered uses. [58:19] **Councilmember Jones:** Mr. Mayor, regarding those buffers, I understand them. But the daycares—they can pop up tomorrow. I could open up a daycare tomorrow and suddenly someone's business is within a buffer. I think it's almost hypocritical to allow a liquor store to continue to sell liquor when we restrict this. I'm just looking for consistency. [59:52] **Jason Lindahl:** Liquor stores are currently a permitted use in B2, B3, and B4 zones. But liquor doesn't come with the state statute that includes buffers from these other neighborhood uses. [1:00:15] **John Gilchrist:** One quick note of clarification: the buffers that are in the law are "may," not "must." You have discretion. [1:00:38] **Councilmember Walsh:** I'm comfortable with B4 for cannabis retailers after January 1, 2025. But this second version seems a bit schizophrenic. You're saying Edibles are B4, but if you co-locate in a grandfathered tobacco shop or liquor store outside B4, that’s okay? But then the buffers might prevent that from happening anyway. I’m comfortable with B4 for the dispensary, but I’m still struggling with edibles. [1:06:03] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Let me take a stab at that. I share a lot of what Councilmember Walsh said. I want to take this slow. I'm less concerned about a business saying we "jipped" them out of six months of selling edibles. I want a regulatory structure from the state first. To me, option two goes too far—it's too expansive out of the gate. [1:08:21] **Councilmember Edberg:** Admittedly, this topic has all kinds of permutations. When we addressed public use, we said treat cannabis like alcohol because of its intoxicating nature. But when it comes to zoning, we're comparing it to tobacco. Why are we not making the comparison to alcohol in zoning? Our zoning ought to look for consistency of the intoxicating substances. That means cannabinoids should be comparable to alcohol, and tobacco is the extraneous item. I like the idea of distinguishing Edibles from the full-leaf smokable products. We already have systems to regulate these businesses, like checking for sales to minors. [1:13:02] **Councilmember Edberg:** Also, from an economic perspective, buffering is going to create economic incentive for a very small number of parcels. If a strip mall is an inch inside a buffer, is the whole property excluded? [1:16:06] **Councilmember Jones:** Why do we need to make this decision right now while the state is still figuring out the pieces? What if we had our own city-owned dispensary? We take away the buffer issues and it's a revenue source. [1:17:38] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** That's a hard no for me. I don't want the City to be in that business. [1:18:24] **John Gilchrist:** To answer the question of "Why now?": Edibles can be sold now in the city. Licensing is tied to tobacco and liquor. We should at least get our arms around where we want those to be sold. You have a moratorium on dispensaries until 2025, but the edibles are happening now. [1:20:42] **Lindy Crawford:** I am looking at full-blown cannabis as full-blown liquor, and edibles as 3.2% beer. I also want you to remember we are discussing tobacco zoning in this. Even if you don't zone cannabis, I strongly suggest you begin to zone tobacco. [1:22:14] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** I agree with the treatment of alcohol and full-blown cannabis equally. I'm open to saying liquor stores are now B4 as well, and everything existing is grandfathered in. But comparing a bar to a dispensary is hard because you can't smoke marijuana in a retail location like you can drink a beer in a bar. [1:26:03] **Councilmember Walsh:** What if we look at option two, but strike the tobacco license requirement? That would limit THC edibles to liquor stores and bars/restaurants, which are already used to handling intoxicants, rather than any gas station with a tobacco license. [1:33:44] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** I like that. I have a fundamental policy argument: I want to restrict this until we have better regulatory structures. We found through testing earlier this year that we couldn't even tell how much THC was actually in some of these products. I have zero confidence in the manufacturing consistency right now. [1:46:11] **Councilmember Edberg:** I respect the Mayor's view, but I think our citizens will just drive a mile down the road to Maplewood to get these products. To think we can legitimately slow access to edibles by our zoning strikes me as not realistic. [1:52:22] **Councilmember Jones:** I'm going to make a motion. I'll go with option two, but removing Article Two (the cannabis piece) for now to let the rest wait. [1:53:08] **John Gilchrist:** If you adopt some of this, the rest has to go back through the first/second reading process. If we don't act tonight, we won't have zoning for edibles in time before the temporary state moratorium expires on September 27th. [1:58:26] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** I have a motion and a second to table this definitely until the next meeting. All those in favor say aye. **Council:** Aye. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Motion carries. [2:03:46] **Lindy Crawford:** Mayor, I do not know what to bring back, so I'm going to bring back the same ordinance. The onus is on the Council to come prepared with amendments. [2:05:41] **Lindy Crawford:** All right, item 8A, the 2024 preliminary budget and tax levy. Maintaining a healthy community is like a sailboat. Each department is a part—the Mayor and Council are the captain, Administration is the rudder, Finance is the keel, Police is the mast, Fire is the boom, Public Works is the mainsail, and Community Development is looking to the future. [2:11:00] **Lindy Crawford:** For the 2023 revised budget, we originally planned a deficit of $670,000 using surplus cash. However, due to positions remaining vacant, we actually anticipate a surplus of $55,000. But this means our departments have been operating significantly understaffed. For 2024, significant changes include a decrease in building permit revenue (as school district projects finish) and the end of federal COVID aid. We have a 3% COLA adjustment for staff and the addition of two full-time firefighter/paramedics. [2:14:25] **Lindy Crawford:** Our local government aid (LGA) increased by $467,000. We also received a one-time Public Safety Aid payment of $1 million. The proposed preliminary tax levy reflects a 22.5% increase. While this sounds high, White Bear Lake remains at the bottom of the list for per capita tax levy compared to our neighbors like New Brighton or Shoreview. A median home value of $312,000 would pay about $840 in city property taxes for the year. [2:22:08] **Councilmember Walsh:** Where did that $670,000 surplus go? Is it still in the bank? [2:23:40] **Lindy Crawford:** It remains in our fund balance. We chose to use the new LGA money to balance the budget this year instead of dipping into that cash reserve, because using reserves is not a sustainable practice. [2:30:52] **Councilmember Edberg:** We have been shielding our taxpayers from the full burden of our improved fire and ambulance services by using federal aid and one-time grants. Those subsidy dollars are coming to an end. We are moving toward a full-time professional fire department, and that has a cost. [2:40:33] **Councilmember Jones:** We have underpaid our staff for a long time, and now we are seeing the "churn" of losing employees. We also have to address the Emerald Ash Borer—it's a $3 million problem to save our urban forest. We've held our taxes low for too long, and now the bill is here. [3:02:02] **Councilmember Walsh:** I'm going to support the resolution today. We have a few months before the final levy in December. If you want to cut government, you have to tell us what not to do. I've looked at the org chart; we are not staff-heavy. We are growing into a city that is taking on debt for necessary buildings and professional services. [3:11:14] **Mayor Dan Lewis:** All those in favor of the preliminary tax levy say aye. **Council:** Aye. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** Any opposed? Motion carries. Item 10, Communications. Ms. Crawford? **Lindy Crawford:** I have nothing tonight. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. **Councilmember:** So moved. **Mayor Dan Lewis:** We're adjourned.