This transcript is from a **White Bear Lake City Council Meeting** (specifically Nov 9, 2021). The speakers identified include **Mayor Jo Emerson**, City Manager **Ellen Heinecker**, Community Development Director **Anne Kane**, Public Works Director **Paul Kauppi**, and various Councilmembers and residents. *** **[00:00:00] Mayor Jo Emerson:** The time that they've worked really hard on there so just I'm just giving you an advanced notice smiling because it's been are we smiling now smile yes so whatever that means I don't know it doesn't matter he's just gonna raise his hand yes or no thumbs up but I think I'm supposed to sign someplace or should we do a voice oh thank you okay as long as there's a clear indication of which way it's voting I'm just an ordinary member of the canvassing board here do I get a pay raise for that? Is there a stipend? I don't know. Do I have to explain why he's over there? I don't think no because I don't really want to do that since you could disease you could say yes yes okay there perfect okay do I pass these down? Yeah. **[00:00:40] Mayor Jo Emerson:** If your opponent's never showing up for a meeting Doug, it'd be nice if she showed up before she takes off. Hello well I think Carol left that for me so I think funny it's Kara's pan I'll take it I'll just get one out of the drawer I saw that so that'll all work elections go sometimes. **[00:01:00] Ellen Heinecker (City Manager):** There was an official stipend to that role but there was not there you go. **[00:01:05] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Are you giving a report from Germany are you just going to listen? I have I might who's I better sign it here we go something but I don't have anything planned yeah I always I was like the score for guys does everybody else I am the official conveyor now that Steve is no longer sitting. **[00:01:30] [Music]** **[00:01:45] Mayor Jo Emerson:** All right it's seven o'clock I'll call the meeting to order. Clerk will note those in attendance. I will be noted thank you. Would you stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance? **[00:01:55] All:** I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. **[00:02:10] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Next is approval of the minutes of the October 26, 2021 meeting. Are there any corrections to the minutes? **[00:02:15] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** I'll move approval. **[00:02:17] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Second. **[00:02:18] Mayor Jo Emerson:** All those in favor say aye. (Aye) Opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to approval of the agenda. I believe Miss Heinecker, you have something you want to end under new business? **[00:02:25] Ellen Heinecker:** Yes Mayor, members of the council. So on your dais was placed on item 9f. We would like to reschedule the public hearing for the issuance of our bonds to the December 14th meeting and it has to do with publication deadlines. So please, under 9f if we could add that. **[00:02:45] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Perfect, we will do that. With that, do I have a motion to approve the agenda? **[00:02:50] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Move to approve. **[00:02:52] Councilmember Steven Jones:** Second. **[00:02:53] Mayor Jo Emerson:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye) Opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to visitors and presentations. At this time, Samantha Crosby and Tracy Shimek are here to talk about climate smart municipalities. Welcome ladies. **[00:03:10] Tracy Shimek:** Thank you Mayor and council members. The city is fortunate to be one of six Minnesota cities participating in the climate smart municipalities program. The program is an international exchange program where each city is assigned to a corresponding city in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany. The city of White Bear Lake has been participating in this program, which is made possible through a grant from the federal German government and a partnership with the University of Minnesota, since 2018. **[00:03:40] Tracy Shimek:** The program has provided the opportunity to make connections not only with our partner city Lüdenscheid but with other participating municipalities, various regional and state agencies, and even private companies. It has been a privilege to be part of such a strong delegation and to forge regional and business connections across the state and overseas. The goal of the program is to the exchange of ideas and to partner on local actions in support of the global energy transition. **[00:04:15] Samantha Crosby:** This presentation is a brief overview of our 2021 trip. We are paying the costs of global climate change and we will continue to pay them, but those costs will only continue to grow exponentially if we don't act now. This was the informal theme of this year's trip. It was just an idea that kept reoccurring in the conversations we were having throughout the week—the idea not the cost of action, but the greater cost of inaction. We will all bear the cost of mitigating and recovering from natural disasters. We bear it in ways such as insurance rate hikes and ever-rising energy costs. **[00:04:50] Samantha Crosby:** But viewed through a more optimistic lens, analysis has shown that clean energy brings high-paying jobs to Minnesota communities. Many major companies are already pivoting towards decarbonization, such as the Ford Motor Company making an 11 billion dollar investment in electrical vehicle production and the refurbishment and recycling methods for EV batteries in an effort to put itself at the center of the electric vehicle revolution. A decarbonized economy is recognized as the path forward by a sizeable number of both consumers and industry leaders. The wave of transition is coming and we can either take advantage of the economic opportunity it provides or we can get tossed around by that wave. **[00:05:40] Tracy Shimek:** The CSM program highlights ways in which we can support local solutions to mitigate greenhouse gases while also spurring economic growth at the same time. While we were there we were definitely drinking from a fire hose. It was a constant onslaught of information at all levels. Some of it was above my head if I'm being honest, but I did learn a lot and I think Sam learned a lot as well. We left with more takeaways than can be contained in probably a council meeting let alone one presentation, but we're here to share some of those with you tonight. **[00:06:10] Tracy Shimek:** I think the main takeaways that we had is leaving with a sense of urgency but also leaving with the hope that Sam referenced. The urgency is that cost of inaction and we pay that cost. We're paying it both currently and we're going to pay it in the future. We pay those both on an economic level and on a social level. On an economic level, the cost of recovering from disasters and the frequency of natural disasters and extreme weather events that are occurring. And just the social cost of who's impacted—it's typically those who are on the lower end of economic means and it's harder for them to recover. **[00:06:50] Tracy Shimek:** We also left with hope because working in parallel with communities not just in Minnesota but across the globe we're able to make change. It's not just one small community making this effort. Also, advances in technology make the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions much easier to accomplish and there's as Sam referenced a lot of potential economic opportunities not just for our own city but that could be realized in our region and that us as a city as White Bear Lake can play a leading role in advancing this change. **[00:07:25] Samantha Crosby:** And so I think it's easy for us to look at these natural disasters as they occur, as we look at hurricanes and things like that, and think that we're not being impacted at a local level. But really we're seeing the impacts of those change. The health impacts—I don't know if you guys noticed it this summer but with the wildfires and the quality of air that we were experiencing down here. I run often; I had to cut back on my running. Not that that's the end of the world, but it is an impact that we're feeling. Water quality—I'm not able to bring my dogs to the dog park in late summer anymore because of the algae blooms and just concern over their health. **[00:08:10] Samantha Crosby:** We saw the drought and lawn watering issues that bring much consternation among neighbors and even just recreation when we have the fluctuating lake levels. The impacts on fishing and swimming—Ramsey County Beach being closed for nearly a decade is an example of that. Also we're seeing that in infrastructure costs. Our storm water systems—and I am not a storm water expert—but our storm water systems were designed to handle two-inch rainfalls occurrences, which at the time were 100-year rainfall events. We're now experiencing two-inch rainfall occurrences 10 times a year approximately. **[00:08:50] Samantha Crosby:** Also impacts to our urban forest and the cost of replacing trees. There's also economic impacts that we feel both at an organizational level, at a business level, and a personal level. The increased cost for heating and cooling as we experience more extreme heat and cold events. The local impacts we as Minnesotans are feeling for events that are happening across the country. I'm thinking about the natural gas surcharge that'll be on our energy bills for the next 18 months because of the failure of the energy grid and the natural gas cost surges that happened because of cold events in Texas. And even on a local level, the impact of the less predictable winter weather on event planning. It's harder to plan winter events when you don't know how long we'll have ice on the lake, if that ice is going to be thick enough to handle ice fishing tournaments or Bearly Open events or polar plunges. **[00:09:40] Tracy Shimek:** So again we were drinking from a water hose. This is just a small piece of what we learned. But what we saw Germany doing... we saw them working on kind of across three different levels: both at the regulatory and policy level, and these stretched across government levels. Some of them were local actions, some of them were regional interstate, some of them were federal, and I believe some of them were even EU on the transnational level. Carbon reduction mandates, climate action plans... Sam borrowed a copy from Lüdenscheid but they put this together and as soon as one of us learns German we'll be able to translate it for you! But I think it's even just looking at the breadth and scope of this document that represents a lot of work and it was done through community engagement. **[00:10:30] Tracy Shimek:** They have stronger building efficiency regulations and mandate solar on every new building. Environmental offset rules in their planning processes meaning that whatever the environmental impacts of a development, they have to be offset with investments elsewhere. They also work very heavily in community engagement and outreach... they work really hard at engaging their citizenry and their businesses and recognizing that this is a change that everybody needs to work on. It's not just done at the government level but we all have a responsibility in acting to make changes. Also an investment—they're investing in energy efficiency in their municipal buildings, in public transit, and walkability and bikeability improvements so people are less reliant just on individual car trips. **[00:11:15] Tracy Shimek:** They incentivize greenhouse gas reducing actions and investments. Münster has an innovative program that allows people to see the impact of their investment where people are able to invest in a project that installs solar on municipal buildings and they earn... it's not a huge rate of return, nobody's going to become a billionaire off of it, but they earn a risk-free rate of return and it allows them to feel ownership in that change. This is one example from Lüdenscheid—a state-of-the-art production company, Evoline. They built their new facility with energy-efficient construction practices and with systems that capture the heat generated from manufacturing machines and the computer servers to warm the building. Consequently, the building has virtually zero need to draw from external energy sources. The founder of the company had the vision to spend more money up front on the self-sufficient design in order to ensure reduced operation costs over the life of the facility. **[00:12:15] Samantha Crosby:** This is an example of public education and outreach. This postcard's bar codes shows temperature deviation from average for the city of Lüdenscheid between 1881 and 2018. The gray shading shows the increase in CO2 concentrations during this time. This graphic can be replicated to reflect local data. So a carbon sink is something that absorbs carbon such as a wetland or trees. If we measure the city's carbon sink and then measure our total city-wide carbon footprint we could determine where we stand. Having a starting point is an important place to be to know when you're trying to measure progress towards a goal. Cities such as Grand Marais, Red Wing, St. Louis Park, and other metro cities have all adopted greenhouse gas reduction goals. **[00:13:00] Samantha Crosby:** Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a type of city land use approval where an exchange happens between the city and the developer. We flex some of our regulations in exchange for enhanced design in the project. The city could negotiate so that all design enhancements are sustainable initiatives. The city of St. Louis Park has a green building policy that applies to all PUDs and whenever a project receives financial assistance from the city. During the winter months, the city of Warren took thermal images of the city to determine which buildings suffer from the greatest energy losses. This data helped them to determine where the greatest rate of return could be realized when applying loan and grant programs for energy efficiency improvements. **[00:13:45] Samantha Crosby:** The city of Maplewood has a program where neighborhoods compete against each other to reduce energy usage. 19 cities work with the Center for Energy and Environment to buy down the cost of Home Energy Squad visits for their businesses and residences. The city of Duluth is investing in building energy efficiency upgrades and I should mention that we are doing the same for the City Sports Center. The city of Hopkins has installed electric vehicle charging stations for public use in their downtown, and many cities such as Maplewood have at least one staff member dedicated to sustainability efforts. **[00:14:25] Tracy Shimek:** These are just a few examples of what other communities are doing. And what's our role? It's not to start cultivating mushrooms as the slide might suggest! But this is actually a metaphor that the Mayor of Münster put forth in one of his speeches to us. He was talking about how residents will come up, particularly when they first started these initiatives, and say "What does it matter that we're doing this? We're just one small city. We're a city of 300,000 people. There's a whole world out there. How can we really make a change?" And he told residents it was like a mushroom. One might pop up in a field, and then another mushroom pops up in a field, and as more cities become mushrooms adopting actions to address climate change, it becomes a field of mushrooms. And that's when you start to see the change. **[00:15:15] Tracy Shimek:** And so when Sam and I sat back down and processed everything we learned, what we came to is that there's really two spheres of impact that the city can have. And that is internally, where we address our own institutionally as an organization, we address our climate impact and how we can mitigate that. And then externally as a governing agency how we can work with our community and surrounding communities and higher levels of government. And so externally that can come through regulation such as the PUD green initiatives, through educating residents about their impact and how they can mitigate their impact, and through incentivizing energy efficiency upgrades and other activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and by partnering across sectors and with our business community and residents and non-profit organizations and with other government bodies to impact change. **[00:16:15] Samantha Crosby:** In early 2020 the city council approved a Level 1 action plan with broad objectives for sustainability. As a reminder, a hard copy of that plan was placed at your dais this evening. The Climate Smart Municipality Steering Committee, which is comprised of representatives from White Bear Lake businesses, education and non-profit sectors, was put on hold in 2020 due to COVID. It will soon be reconvening to continue drafting a more detailed climate action plan. We have conducted an energy audit of all the municipal buildings and have entered into a contract to execute the improvements. We have also begun to purchase hybrid vehicles in various departments such as building, police, and fire. The city is tracking the energy use in public buildings and we have been participating in Arbor Day for over 30 years. In conjunction with Ramsey County, a food scrap dumpster was installed at the Public Works facility. Our many outreach efforts include the solar power hour, the newsletter sustainability features, and the environmental resource expo during the last week of Marketfest. Finally, we are currently working on completing Green Steps Level 5. **[00:17:35] Tracy Shimek:** And so looking forward, there's some more immediate actions we think the city could consider adopting in order to address climate change. The first would be to adopt a climate policy lens which really means that we're evaluating all the city's activities, the programs, projects, etc., from the perspective of their impact on climate change and doing what we can to mitigate those impacts and lessen them. We can continue working with the businesses through the Climate Smart Municipality Steering Committee, but also forging new relationships in the business community to help bring ideas and information about financing these types of projects so that businesses can start reducing their impact if they haven't already started. **[00:18:20] Tracy Shimek:** Another idea is—and we can also use our own energy reduction efforts and projects to be examples to show best practices to our local community. Another idea that is happening in Duluth to a certain extent... but also Lüdenscheid is doing... is to use the cost savings from their energy efficiency projects to reinvest in a fund that's then used to invest in additional energy efficiency projects but also to provide incentives to local residents and the business community to invest in their own. At the planning department level, we can look at reviewing our land use and building codes to find opportunities to improve sustainability measures in local development projects in the built environment. In the near term again we plan to publicize and promote the city's facility energy audit results in the next newsletter so people can see us as an example. We'll be reconvening the Climate Smart Municipality Steering Committee to complete the climate action plan and then we will be bringing that to council for your review and hopefully adoption. **[00:19:30] Samantha Crosby:** Circleing back in conclusion, we're ending up back at where we started—the cost of inaction. On the trip this hit me particularly hard as a parent. While I know the impacts of climate change will affect my way of life, I fear that it will make it impossible for my own child to enjoy the same quality of life I have. It is a reminder of an oft-used quote: "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, but rather we are borrowing it from our children." Truly we are grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in the program. We learned a lot; I hope that shows through this presentation. And we learned about how we can make change in our own individual roles in the organization. **[00:20:15] Samantha Crosby:** There's so much more we could have reported back on but I don't think you want to hear just us talking tonight! So we've tried to be concise and distill it down to a few points. But we're here in part to remind also that the city has members of staff that are enthusiastic to continue and expand upon the work the city is already doing, and we have the technical expertise and capacity to execute additional measures to meet the goals that the council sets forth in this matter. In addition to ourselves, council members Bean and Edberg also participated in the program and they may have other insights that they would like to share with you tonight. Thank you. **[00:20:55] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Members, anything you'd like to add? Councilmember Bean. **[00:21:00] Councilmember Bill Bean:** Thank you Madam Mayor. The presentation was extremely good. I thank you very much for the concise and informative presentation. One of the things I remember from the very first... so I've had the opportunity to go to Germany twice. The first time one of the things I remember most is Senator David Senjem and his saying: "You can lead, you can follow, or you get out of the way. If you follow, you lose." And we don't want to lose. We have to lead in order so that we can stay ahead. We don't want to be the ones that are losing in this race. **[00:21:40] Councilmember Bill Bean:** Leading it doesn't mean that we're going to be spending a ton of city's money, but we need to put some of the city's focus on this. You know some of the ideas that you brought forward as far as what the city could do... not a whole lot of time involved but not a whole lot of cost; a lot of cost savings. I mean I've got friends that believe it or not think that well if the city requires you to put a charging station in your house it's going to cost ten thousand dollars. I put a charging station in my house—it would have been half the cost if I would have done it when I built the house. You know it was a thousand dollars; it would have cost five hundred dollars to do it when I built it. Let's do that—a requirement like that doesn't cost ten thousand dollars, it saves hundreds and it makes it easier. So and then there's also the investment return. The sooner you start this, the sooner you start seeing the return on the investment. That's like the mushrooms. And that's like your family or investment advisors telling you: the sooner you invest, the sooner your returns become self-replicating and you have to put less into it because what you've already invested is producing those returns. We want to produce those returns. So again thank you very much. **[00:22:50] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Thank you. Councilmember Edberg. **[00:22:55] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Yeah thank you Madam Mayor. So we live in a society that is not entirely aligned but I think the leading sources of information and knowledge are aligned that we face massive changes in our climate and these are showing up in places around that we see in our everyday lives. Simple things—when I was growing up we never saw possum as roadkill. Why do we see them now? They're migrating north because our climate has changed and they're responding to a more amenable climate for their use. When I started growing commercial blueberries 45 years ago I couldn't grow some of the varieties that I grow today and it's because our climate has changed. This isn't just weather; it's climate. **[00:23:40] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** And there's all kinds of our everyday examples that I think we can all look at. I appreciated the mention about our city infrastructure and the capacity to handle two-inch rains... you know that being a 1 in 100-year event and now we're seeing them annually multiple times. It's like it's all around us. The planet is screaming to us if we but care to take a look and take note. Now that doesn't mean that all things are doable in the short term or in the medium term. I think it means sober thought and consideration is required. And so let's pick the places where we have opportunities, where we have energy, where we have local advantages that allow us to advance things that make sense for us. **[00:24:25] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** So in this council chambers last month we had representatives a local company who has a major division located in our city limits and they do this professionally and they have been engaged with us and with a whole bunch of other folks to say "what makes sense for you in a whole bunch of individual situations?" Those folks get paid in the real world because they know some things about how to make this transition. For those who might be thinking that government types are driving this conversation, I particularly appreciated the conversation about how real-world companies are investing billions of dollars because they see the handwriting on the wall. **[00:25:05] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** One of the things that was very clear—Germany is a car nation, whether it's well BMW or Mercedes... anyway every major German manufacturer is coming out with lines and planning to convert their lines to electric vehicles. We are seeing the same thing in the United States. They are states to markets; they are responding to people who are paying cash and they're making changes. So for those of us who look to the market for validation, I guess we could subscribe to Elon Musk's Twitter and find out what's the market value of Tesla these days! Anyway the point is we have lots of stuff going on. We need sober thought. Let's pick our places and let's be intentional and not hide our head in the sands. I value the opportunity to learn from colleagues in Germany and I valued as much the connections that we have made here in our own community in our own state for how Minnesota might play a role in that conversation. Thank you. **[00:26:10] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Now I have to say I hope this project will continue because I do believe that it's very important for our future for the city, for the people in the city. So I hope it will continue and the task force is a good group of people that have come together to work on potential solutions and things we can do. So Miss Heinecker and I went on the last trip to Germany and I believe they're coming in February? **[00:26:35] Samantha Crosby:** February. **[00:26:36] Mayor Jo Emerson:** So you will have visitors from Germany in February. Thank you both for presenting this tonight; it was very informing. Moving on to item 5, hearing in consideration of a proposed right-of-way vacation. Miss Kane? **[00:26:55] Anne Kane (Community Development Director):** Yes thank you Madam Mayor, members of the council. The current county records reflect a recording error with regards to Fifth Avenue right-of-way and vacation. Two resolutions were presented to the city council back in 1977. The first request was to vacate Fifth Avenue right-of-way between the south side of Highway 96 to the north side of Clarence Street. We'll call that Vacation A, highlighted in blue on the aerial map behind me. The second resolution was to vacate Fifth Avenue right-of-way between the north side of Clarence south to the north side of Whitaker Street. We'll call that Vacation B, highlighted in red on the exhibit behind me. **[00:27:40] Anne Kane:** The second vacation request was never approved by the city council; only Vacation A was adopted. However, Vacation B resolution was accidentally refiled with the county that same month. The error was realized fairly quickly and an affidavit by the city attorney at that time was soon recorded to nullify and revoke the misfiled resolution and then at that time Vacation A shown here in blue was recorded with Ramsey County. And this correction has been evident in the city's maps for many years. **[00:28:15] Anne Kane:** I'll just walk you through some of those. From left to right here in 2001 you can see that the Fifth Avenue right-of-way was still shown from the north edge of Clarence Street to the south. In 2003 again it's shown, the right-of-way is shown as white. And then I don't know if that green public use or designation of the wetland creeped into it but you can still see the right-of-way in 2003 as well as on the 2011 map and again on a utility plan from the engineering department as recently as 2014. Somehow staff believe somewhere in between 2014 and 2017 Vacation B was somehow recreated by Ramsey County and started to reflect on the maps. But still without city council approval of that vacation, it's our position that the county data has remained incorrect since that time. **[00:29:10] Anne Kane:** Tonight we are conducting a public hearing which has been published in the paper and notice sent to all property owners within the Remali plat between 5th and 4th avenues south of 96 to Whitaker. And so staff is requesting that the city council conduct the public hearing this evening, take testimony from those notified residents, and then continue the case until the December 14th meeting to allow additional time for the city attorney to conduct legal research into the matter. As noted, it is a complicated history to understand all the documentation and how this error was recreated and we would like to be able to the best of our ability provide that information to the council and to the residents of this neighborhood as to this vacation. So that really summarizes my introductory comments and be happy to answer any questions the council might have before the public hearing or afterwards. Thank you. **[00:30:10] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Council, any questions at this time for Miss Kane? If not I will open it up for the public hearing. I would like to remind everybody that we are here just to talk about the vacation. That's it, nothing else. So please try to address your comments to that piece. I see I have about four people that have signed up to speak. If you want to, I can either call you out by name or if you want to come up and just give me your name whatever works. At this time the public hearing is open. **[00:30:45] [Music]** **[00:30:55] Nathan Friend:** Sure... Time? I need your name and address for the record please. 1815 Clarence Street. I am... yeah last time I was here with the planning commission two weeks ago and I was last to go and this made it a point to say don't repeat yourself or repeat the people before you. So everything I wanted to say was taken away! So that's why you're first. **[00:31:25] Mayor Jo Emerson:** [Laughter] **[00:31:30] Nathan Friend:** So I actually am here to offer a proposal, a proposal solution to the issue at hand. Obviously legality speaking, the jurisdiction reaches far beyond this bench here. Right? Fair to say. So there's a couple things that I wish to do: I'm going to establish a timeline, I'm going to clear up some misinformation, and then perhaps offer the solution and then some other notes I might have. **[00:31:55] Nathan Friend:** So I want to make note of June 14th because 2021 and June 14, 1977, those are two dates that play a role in this situation. In June 14th, the request to vacate A and B as described by the city previously was heard and decided upon. It was passed and rightly so. B... it says here that the abutting property owners had not signed the petition as required by ordinance. Well I went ahead and got all of the signatures of the abutting property holders including others in the neighborhood after explaining the situation so I have that now. **[00:32:30] Nathan Friend:** Here's my thing: there's meetings every two weeks correct? The accident... I'm going to call it "the great whoopsie of 1977" when B was accidentally submitted was the day before the next meeting would have occurred. Which means if this had been submitted at that meeting, what would the result have been? So sit on that. Moving on—that opportunity was never presented because there was a mistake made and as far as I'm concerned, everything else that happened after that is irrelevant because according to the initial intent, it was to... a public hearing has been discussed. It appears to be in the public interest to vacate. And why would that be? Can we put that photo back up of the land plot of the whole? Nope those are just pictures. Okay right here. **[00:33:30] Nathan Friend:** When you look at this... can I go over here? When you look at this what do you see in all of this right here? And then this what do you see? I see a buffer which is exactly what they were just talking about in the meeting in the segment before. So we have natural habitat occurring and they want to take it away. Okay we'll leave that at that. **[00:33:55] Nathan Friend:** So in 1977 they found it was in the public's interest to vacate it but there was an accident that occurred and they never got the opportunity to see it through. What the city is trying to do and is pushing really hard—which I don't understand because they're supposed to remain neutral—but it appears as though... so this is where 2021 comes in. June 14th Rose Tice passes away. Ironically on the same date June 14th she passes away. A couple months later... last two weeks ago we're before you another night another panel discussing over producing. In fact, the panel said "this is ugly it's too much it doesn't fit the neighborhood" but they were waiting to see the outcome of this before they made a decision on that even though they said "no that's too much." In which it was. **[00:34:55] Nathan Friend:** And if you according to the Tice brothers, they were hoping to get 450,000 per unit times eight divided in half because he figured materials is 1.8 per brother. Now the family that lives there is the grandson and the great grandkids. They have chickens they have three kids. Essentially, Uncle Tice wants to push the family to a little tiny spot so that he can overdevelop this and then split the inheritance between his brothers. So they are using this as a free pass at a loophole that was created on a "whoopsie" so they can over develop that and who knows what else. **[00:35:45] Nathan Friend:** What's the bigger picture here? Why does the city want access there? What else do they want to do? Conflict of interest—last meeting as I'm walking in I overheard Tice Construction making plans to meet with a city representative for coffee the next morning. 11:30 that next morning I'm alerted by my dogs letting me know there's someone in the yard. It's Tice Construction truck switching out the City of White Bear signs for this meeting and the last meeting. Now why is the construction company representative doing the city's job? Conflict of interest in my opinion. Is there a commission if this gets passed through? Is there some sort of monetary exchange? I mean these are questions I think that should be questioned because if it smells funny it looks funny it probably is. **[00:36:30] Nathan Friend:** And and the lack of support that the city has for this... I mean they're creating a narrative that doesn't even align with the data with the information on the records! Okay they keep saying it was denied. Another accusation is that it was denied in July of 1977. And actually if you read the meeting notes from July 12, 1977... so tell me this, let me actually hand this over. July 12, 1977 resolution vacating right-of-way for city street Fifth Avenue from north right-of-way from Clarence to the south of Whitaker—no action was taken, denied. Next resolution vacating right-of-way for city street Hinckley from Fourth to Fifth—so they said we want a street here to here and here to here and the city council said no. **[00:37:30] Nathan Friend:** This was a month after June 14th. So June 14th vacate A and B. A passes, B needs more signatures. Whoopsie happens. Next meeting no idea what happened. Next meeting they tried to push a street through; Council said no. A month goes by August 30th affidavits written and signed notarized. Vacation is finally entered into record the 31st. Affidavit is created and notarized the 31st. That is then... I'm sorry the first of September is then entered into record. So in my opinion and this is just me: I see this was a loophole that was created to retain ownership because perhaps I knew Rose. I met her. Rose was very very adamant about her property markers. My property markers. She... that yard was to be for her grandkids. She was concerned about my dogs crossing the lines and interfering with her grandkids and I assured her we have invisible fence, it's fine. And it was. If she could knew what was happening she'd roll in her grave because I know how much she loved that yard and how much she wanted it for her grandkids. I'm trying to segue back on track here. **[00:38:50] Nathan Friend:** So without getting too much more into this, I think you guys get a pretty big picture. I believe the original intent was the interest of the public to vacate. They needed the signatures... well they didn't have them then because well 1977—what was happening then? I was being born in August. My house was being built. So they probably had a hard time getting signatures because they didn't have email, they didn't have cell phones, they had to snail mail it. So it's like well let's send them an email or send them write them a letter and we'll see if they come back to the next meeting. They were never given that opportunity. So I present it to you today: will you please accept it and vacate this? You literally have to do nothing; it already legally says everybody who owns it owns it. You just have to vacate it officially from 1977, correct that error first because that was the first error, and then everybody's happy except for them which is fine because the people that live in the community matter more. Thank you. **[00:39:55] Mayor Jo Emerson:** All right who would like to speak next? I just want to money come to the microphone and state your name and address sir. **[00:40:05] Patrick Kenny:** This is my title my property title. My name is Patrick Kenny, 1800 Park Street. Thank you. And it very clearly shows right there Fifth Street being vacated and those portions of that land being next to my property. This document is from 1994 and you guys... the original document was barely 1977 then there was a document shortly after that going to the county to say that was an error. Well the county in 1994 recognized that vacation and I just... I'm sure everybody along there has the same thing. So there's a big muddled up mess with the paperwork that's gone through. Thank you. I want you to be aware of this. **[00:40:55] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Thank you so much. Who wants to speak next? **[00:41:00] Paul Rhodey:** My name is Paul Rhodey and I live at 1823 Park Street and I've been there for 40-some years, about 44 or something like that. And I've known like when this went through... Neil Charter, Brian Mann—his father—and Louis Markle. I known them for all this time too. They went to the thing and they were notified that this was vacated. So they went, they paid their money, they paid the fees, they got the paperwork all done and they paid taxes on that since 1977. **[00:41:40] Paul Rhodey:** So how can you say now that you're taking back something that you sold in 1977? How can you sell something and then two months later decide "oh we've made a mistake"? Well we make mistakes in our life and we have to live with them. How can you do this to these people? They've been paying taxes on this for 44 years. Now you come and you say you're going to give them back the property they own but you're going to keep part of it to where the streets were. **[00:42:15] Paul Rhodey:** I could see that was a real bad mistake to vacate the right-of-way for Park Street and for Clarence because it cuts out a block you can it's hard to get to but it's not landlocked. People say it's landlocked no it's not. Whitebear Township has Dillon Street that's been undeveloped it says but if they were to put that street back through they'd have right-of-way through to the side. But I know you guys don't work very well with Whitebear Township! But but that's what I've heard. But the county would also says they need the right-of-way at Park to get through to do the work on the holding pond there. Well they've never been stopped for doing work on the holding pond. The only thing that they did there is one time when they went through they left a pile of rocks sitting there. The city came out, hit the pile of rocks with their snow plow, and then they wouldn't plow us out for the rest of the winter. We got plowed out one time. We went to the city and we said "what's going on?" they said "well the contractor's supposed to plow you out now." I said "well who do I pay taxes to to get out for?" **[00:43:20] Paul Rhodey:** So you talk... and then they wanted to have the snow at the end of Park Street pushed out into the city's lot that's there on the thing right there and the city said "no we cannot do it because that you've got to go across private property." Well the only private property they could have been talking about was the Mann's property and Pat's. So you're talking about it both sides your mouth that sometimes you say you own it. Now how can you take it back just... you know I just don't get it. And I haven't heard any offer of money for all the tax money they paid in or even for this right-of-way for the street for Park and Clarence if they want to build there. You know? But I mean they still have to offer something back. These people own it. I cannot see how you can take back something we've already sold. I really can't. It really irritates me because I'm all about precedence and if you can do this to these after 44 years what the heck are you going to do to me next? **[00:44:15] Paul Rhodey:** You know? And I see the other thing that I would like—it has nothing to do with this—but but I do see where they could if you talk to the county and Whitebear Township they could put that Dillon through for two blocks and that would give them a hell of a lot more parking for that park there too and when they have big soccer tournaments and stuff there they come and they park on our on Park Street there are both and you can't even get an emergency vehicle through. So for us it would make a hell of a lot of sense where they had the parking over there. I'm gonna get out of here before I get... but I mean it irritates me after 44 years how you can come back and say "oh we made a mistake." Well we all make mistakes and we have to live with them. Thank you. **[00:44:55] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Who's next? **[00:45:00] Karen Doyle:** Hi, Karen Doyle, 1801 Clarence. I'm not going to be up here super long but I had a dry mouth last time so I brought my water. I forgot to hit print on my computer for my little notes and speech today so luckily Google Docs are on your phone and that's what I'm going to use here really quick. Like I said 1801 Clarence is my... of course it's not going to come up now. Oh I don't know why this one worked bear with me once again. All right I live at 1801 Clarence which is the first house to the east of the Tice property. You can see it up there basically right where the Blue Vacation A ends. So on the north side of Clarence to the east of Tice property. **[00:45:55] Karen Doyle:** I'm standing here again for the second time in two weeks—first two times in my whole life I will probably have to do this. I'm not super experienced in this. October 25th we're here for the planning commission meeting and I know they said this is just for the vacation issue, the other meeting was just for the planning commission and the proposal of the development. But these are intertwined and I got to speak a little on the vacation issue when I was at the October 25th meeting. So I feel like if it's a little intertwined in here bear with me because it to me it's all one huge mess. **[00:46:40] Karen Doyle:** A little bit about me: I've spent 20 almost 20 years in the fire service, 14 of those years with St. Paul Fire. I have four hours off of work tonight; I'm going to go back to my shift right after this. It's 10 hours I already did, I'll do another 10 later tonight. When I do that kind of work I looked for a home that would keep me calm in my home life. So I was looking for something in a quiet area near nature... it had a calming sense to it. It was at the end of a dead-end street. It was private. On the MLS description of my home it reads: "Gorgeous home that has been wonderfully updated nestled amongst mature trees at the end of the street. Really gives you a sense of privacy and peace." That's what I bought into. That's what I thought I had until this summer. **[00:47:30] Karen Doyle:** This is my property lines that was researched during my title work. Two pages of that. I had a shed built and it was... had it approved by the city. The city gal that came to approve it walked the property lines with me and said "make sure you know you own this section because if the city ever tries to come through here, you own this." She told me that. She printed off this sheet for me. Ramsey County's sheet—same dimensions same things. I will leave you guys a copy of all that for your records up here. I will leave you a letter from a neighbor who could not come tonight for a work conflict. There was two more neighbors on our street that could not come tonight; they were out of town. They were here at the planning commission meeting so there's there's been a lot of concerns over all this in what it would entail if it were to happen. **[00:48:25] Karen Doyle:** So I buy my house, I trusted the documents, I trusted the title process, I trusted everything about it to purchase what I purchased. The MLS like I said, the land surveys, the city inspector, the physical site, the lot lines... I base my purchase and the purchase price off of what I saw at that time and what I see today. I don't feel like it's fair to take that all away after there's an issue with an error from 44 years ago in 1977. This is a long time ago. I was in diapers then! I was born but I was in diapers. This is a long time ago to have come up now. And you hear from others that they've thought that they've owned this the whole time because they've been told that numerous ways and times. **[00:49:15] Karen Doyle:** And now all of a sudden one family member of one household or one family member of that family wants to develop this. The other ones from what I'm told do not want to see this develop. They want the grandson to have the property and to have it for themselves. They have two purchase agreements from what I'm told in limbo trying to figure out which one they go with... just the house and they're going to lose more of their backyard which is already pretty minimal or they're going to buy all of it. So that's where we're sitting. The amount of time and stress and money that I have had to put into this is enormous. I had to seek legal advice with an attorney and there's thousands of dollars in that. I didn't sign up for that when I purchased this property and what I understood I had and it's just being taken away to develop that land. **[00:50:10] Karen Doyle:** So I talked about the family and how one wants to develop this. They want to cram in eight dwelling units and they call it four duplexes but it's eight dwelling units. If you think eight dwelling units, two people that drive per per unit... that's 16 cars. These proposed developments are single-car garages, single driveways. There's not a lot of parking. That was an issue for the planning commission. They were just like "where are they all going to park?" Tons of issues with this. The units are 10 feet apart, 10 feet off the property line. They're going to take my natural tree line out per the plans to just butt this right up next to my house. I'm going to stare out instead of looking out into the park area and trees and see the sunset—I will look out and see someone's kitchen window. Again not what I signed up for, not what I purchased here. **[00:50:55] Karen Doyle:** The proposed plan on the 25th, there was four members here. What they came out of that meeting with thoughts were: it was too much, it didn't fit the area. They didn't want... one of them was like "we don't want to build another township parking lot." Putting a cul-de-sac in would give them another parking lot which already fills up now. Like I said, one-car garage is cul-de-sac... they think they're going to be empty nesters that buy these places, they don't know who's gonna but I can't say it's an empty nester. Our street is 22 feet wide, no curb, no gutter. That's narrow. At the planning commission the bus driver—one of the members substitute bus drives—and he was like "this is not safe for these children I'm here I drive these streets with with the bus." **[00:51:50] Karen Doyle:** There's one way in and out. They don't want to use Dillon Street; they want to just come in off Clarence and that's the only way in and out of there. It's already hard enough getting out onto 96 and turning to go to the west. It's really tough. Like I said the grandson bought the house, they want to have it for themselves... it's like a conflict between the family and I know that's not the city council or planning commission's issue. I know that like I said they said it was too much. The neighborhood will be the one that feels the ultimate blunt change in this in all the traffic and whatnot. They're going to take down all the trees. So before this we're talking about nature and trees and all sorts of things and it's like they're just gonna take all them trees down, put up buildings, asphalt cul-de-sac, asphalt driveways, four buildings 10 feet apart... just stuff them in like sardines. That's what it feels like and that's kind of what it feels like for all of us. And they said it was green. I don't know how green that seems. It seems greedy to me as we talked about some of the the money they're trying to make out of this. **[00:52:50] Karen Doyle:** So in a letter that I received from the city dated September 22nd, it was talking about Rose Parkview addition, the proposal. It had the project plans, what they will look like, it had this map that they kind of have up there. On this map they say they want to access Clarence Street, Park Street, Hinckley Street. In this resolution that's not numbered yet but is written up for I'm assuming this meeting here, toward the bottom says: "Whereas the City Council desires to preserve the portions of Fifth Avenue at the end of Clarence Park and Whitaker." There's an error. Nothing lines up with any of this. Flip the page—it says in 1997... what what's going on 1997? That doesn't make sense. Let me scroll down my notes here. **[00:53:50] [Music]** **[00:53:55] Karen Doyle:** One of the Tice brothers walked out to my neighbor and I in June and said "your property values are going to decrease you might as well sell now." I mean that's what he told us. And I mentioned that to city staff and I was laughed at and said "no they didn't say that." I said "yes they did" and they said that's like walking outside and shooting yourself in the foot! Like they knew that that was probably what's gonna happen. I didn't pay over market value for a home to be next to a bunch of duplexes a couple years later. So two different times on memorandums it says there is one for today's meeting and then there's one from the 18th of August. And back in the summer I said I was told I'd be kept in the loop on all this and I'm kind of skipping around here but September 1st I read about the vacation issue in the newspaper. Not kept in the loop, not not mentioned at all. In that memorandum for that time frame in August it said... where is it here... it said sometime in the last 10 to 15 years they think that the issue is recreated. And then for the memorandum for today's meeting they say "somewhere between 2014 and 2017." So many errors in so much that seems to start from the 70s and just keeps compounding through to today. **[00:55:10] Karen Doyle:** Like I said I was not kept in the loop like I said I would would be. I emailed the city on September 15th, didn't hear anything back until I received this in the mail. This was dated the 22nd of September. I work 24-hour shifts; I don't get the mail every day when I'm not home. So the next time I got the mail I had all also received them a phone call from city staff so there was multiple days and times to send me an email call me by phone say you receive my emails with all my questions but that was not presented that way it was just mailed out to me. So again not kept in the loop. **[00:55:40] Karen Doyle:** I was asked one time "what will it take? You have 30 feet by 30 feet that's yours and we all have that much but together it's 60 by 30 and it's not the size of the area it's what that opens up into." What happens if that's opened up? I was asked "what do you need? What will it take?" 30 by 30 is 900 square feet... "You need that much back in taxes?" And that's not the case. I'm not looking for that kind of reward for this. **[00:56:10] [Music]** **[00:56:15] Karen Doyle:** I know it was talked about at the council meeting in August, it was discussed. Maybe I don't need to know about that but again like that was kind of like not kept in the loop on something that I'm assuming that I owned. Ramsey County I've talked to them, they said this is a legal issue it's going to be hashed out legally. The city staff writes that they express doubt in leaving a mistake in place and you can see that it's dated back many many years of where this mistake is and suddenly it wants to be changed and fixed. I know at the planning commission they talked about the dump and contamination in that ground area. The water issue in there. There's a lot of water stuff going on over there. Number of years there was a fire in the ground that burned for days. I mean that hasn't been searched or talked about or discussed in any way. **[00:57:05] Karen Doyle:** Almost done here. Like I said I had to get an attorney involved. This is his letter and I'm sure you guys have seen that and and obviously from his take I agree with what he says. Today this afternoon during my shift at work I find an email that that he sent me with the city attorney's letter. Again two different things two different sides. They outline a bunch of records and documents and numbers and and you can go back to Nicole's speech and put things together and see what's missing and what's not. I guess that's the gist of my concerns here. It's not what I signed up for. It's not what I assumed would be developing down the road with all the information, the paperwork, the title stuff, the lot lines. Over and over all that stuff is not true anymore if this is what we're taking. And if we are trying to vacate a street to put in four duplexes which was already presented... put in the cart before the horse kind of thing. They've talked about that—it was done in October and it was not voted no but it was voted to continue because they didn't have this information to say what do we do with the situation but they all agreed that that was way too much for that area. One of the gals lived and grew up in the area; she doesn't fit the area. Numerous reasons like I discussed in here. So I think that's all I have. I don't need to take more water I'll just drink it at my table there. But can I give you these? I just have one copy of something so thank you. **[00:58:30] Mayor Jo Emerson:** All right who's next? **[00:58:35] Melinda Monigold:** Good evening, I'm Melinda Monigold. I live in 1819 Park Street. I can't help but wonder why this has come to be an issue now. Our part of the Remai Park Addition has been living apparently in blissful ignorance for 44 years. We haven't had a problem with it. We've been nice and content over there. Personally, my husband and I have been living in blissful ignorance for 32 years over there. We live in a dead-end street. Our streets are narrow as mentioned. We do have a wealth of wildlife... some of it we don't want so much right now because we have a family of wolves or coyotes that have moved in! But we have turkey and deer and it's a very quiet area. **[00:59:15] Melinda Monigold:** So why all of a sudden does this need to be vacated? I don't think anybody has any idea what's underneath that area... the dump, how soggy the land is. You look at that part at the bottom between Park Street and Hinckley and it's wetlands. It's soggy and it's foggy. You could not put a road in there without building up a lot of that and I'm not even sure you have room next to the pond to do that. They put in that retaining pond a few years ago. My husband and I also were at the planning commission meeting. We did hear from the representative from Tice Construction that they had asked Ramsey County to access the back property from Highway 96 and they were told they could not do that. So the only way they can get into that property is from Clarence Street. **[01:00:05] Melinda Monigold:** Again, our roads are narrow. We have a lot of children in the area. We thankfully don't have much traffic over there except when there are activities in the park. I would tell you that our snow plowing has been abysmal for 32 years. We're usually the last ones plowed and believe me some days we don't get plowed at all and sometimes we have two or three snowfalls before we even get plowed over there. Again, I would just like to know why this is an issue now. Why have we been happily ignorant for 44 years and why does this have to come up now? What's changed that we can't stay blissfully ignorant over there? Thank you. **[01:00:45] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Thank you. Is there anyone else? **[01:00:55] Nathan Friend:** So my name is Nathan Friend. I live 1815 Clarence... actually next to Karen. Interesting neighborhood on property lines. I had my land surveyed because I put a fence up. Everybody's like "well it was wrong" but I'm like "well I went off my plot so I said screw it I'm a pay surveyor." At that time I ran a landscape business, I run a concrete business... that's gonna roll into here in a minute. He goes "I spent an extra hour." He goes "I couldn't figure out these pins." I mean everybody that's been in construction knows all those things get hit, buried, disappear, aliens pull them out of the ground... whatever happens. **[01:01:30] Nathan Friend:** He ended up finding him but he he couldn't go naturally... you know let's go the neighbor, let's go to the neighbor, pull pins. He had to end up going all the way to the corner house—I can't remember the street or the house number—but the one Clarence and Fourth and back way. He charged me extra 150 bucks for overage. You know he's like "500 bucks a couple hours we'll drop every pin." He couldn't find him. Then he emailed us... I don't have the emails anymore except with my landscape business closed it got rid of it. Sad story. And he goes after I looked at he goes that land actually jetted as a corner... it was never staked properly but he goes that is owned by that house. He goes that's why it took the extra hour and a half because I'm like "why am I paying an extra 150 bucks? I don't get it." Everybody would question that right? **[01:02:10] Nathan Friend:** So just every time you pull a survey I mean it's weird. And when Ramsey County... I mean I look at it you got the main government, they got the state governments, then you got the county governments, then it's us peons in White Bear that we try to keep everything going. Well why is Ramsey County saying one thing when it's our "mother" if you look at it that way saying "hey this is the way it's supposed to be survey and all that stuff." **[01:02:40] Nathan Friend:** Here's my piece about this development. Actually backtrack—so I pulled into the neighborhood I came off a job early for once in my life, spent 10 minutes out. I seen the surveyor guy and I'm like "hey you know what's kind of going on?" This is before I was in the loop. He goes "that's kind of weird down there." I go "okay." I said "did you find my pins by chance? I just want to pull them back I'd like to keep them to the surface so if something did happen I guess oh right here and right here you know keep everything happy with the neighbors and whatnot." He goes "there's something weird down there." This comes from your guys's surveyor with the White Bear truck and his apprentices. He goes "this... something weird down there." So it's like everything's documented. **[01:03:30] Nathan Friend:** And now everything comes up to this guy who wants to build a bunch of houses that: A) our streets can't handle, B) our sewer system is probably not set up for it, C) our water system's not probably set up for, D) is our gas even enough to handle that? So it's like this. And the lady that used to own Karen's house always knew she owned that property. She always... we got in a fight right before she sold the house. I'm like "I don't know who's buying the house." Luckily it wasn't Karen... really nice people. I'm like "it could be a jerk." I said "let's..." she goes "well my property's over here 10 feet." I go "no I laid everything out" and she goes "oh I own this here." I'm like "well that's you're not pulling your tape measure off of this." She even knew and she's on that house way before. You know her kids are my age and they grew up in that house and she always knew that that end of that road was hers. She'd have dirt, rock delivered, she'd dump her right there. It was her property she could. So that's kind of my piece about it. I mean just leave it. It's vacated street back in '77. I can't remember what I did three years ago! '77 that's a long time ago. Here's my piece about it. Thank you. **[01:04:45] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Anybody else? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Bring it back to the Council. As you know we are not taking any action tonight so this was the public hearing for this proposed vacation. **[01:05:05] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Well thank you Mayor. Just a couple questions. One... well I'll just we're going to debate this later. I mean it is a mess. I mean Nicole called it a whoopsie... I mean it is. It is a mess. And I'll just say I mean I've looked at all the documents many times and I was at the planning commission meeting too. And honestly this... the city is in pretty clear. We never vacated the land. It was a mistake sent down to the county but fixed immediately in 1977 as far as the city is concerned. It's been our street end and you know we've we've put in utilities and there's a fire hydrant over there always thinking that we owned it. That's clear. **[01:05:55] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** The county on the other hand has completely screwed this up and and really harmed the property owners. You know both Karen and Nicole on one side and then the Tice family on the other. I mean they're both property owners at the moment harmed by this. And my I guess I have a question: have we as the county said anything? I mean I guess I feel like they're lawyered up like they're not gonna say anything to to hurt themselves. But have we heard anything from the county? Do we get any answer on on what they say about this mistake? Because I feel like we're in good shape as a city—you can follow the paper trail and it was not vacated the land. But but how it ends up in the county file 20 years later... have they got any explanation for that? Have we heard anything from them? **[01:06:50] Ellen Heinecker:** Yeah Mayor, Councilmember Walsh. I'll let Anne respond to that and also tried... they've been working more closely on it. But I can say that that's one of the reasons that this is being continued until the 14th of December because there's clearly some more research that needs to be done on that in the "whys." But Anne I don't know directly to this question related to the county? **[01:07:15] Anne Kane:** Yeah Madam Mayor, Councilmember Walsh. I I don't think that the county representative has had a very clear explanation. It's been more with the surveyor's office rather than the recorder of deeds that city staff has had conversations. And simply I believe the note was not to simply rely on an error that was done years ago even if it was recreated in the maps... that the the message was that would not be sufficient enough to demonstrate that there was a vacation of that right-of-way. It you know it was a I don't want to call it a scrivener's error but it was a mapping error. **[01:08:00] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Yeah and it's fine to say legally not to rely on an error, but the landowners relied on that error in in making a huge decision about purchasing and and now trying to sell and develop. So there's harm here. And I honestly the county's going to have to answer for this. This is a county issue. Huge. **[01:08:25] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Just something else just to clarify for folks in the room: the Dillon Street issue. It came up in the planning commission too and I wonder if we can just get some clarification on Dillon. You know we talk about Dillon a lot in this chamber because you know with Dillon's ditch and Dillon as it runs all the way through the city... Dillon and water. So maybe if you can, Paul, if you can just explain for us why Dillon doesn't work as a street and kind of the access we need all throughout the city as it goes through? **[01:08:50] Paul Kauppi (Public Works Director):** Yeah Councilmember Walsh, members of the Council. As far as Dillon Ditch goes, it's a major drainage way throughout the city, including in this area. We have a major drainage facility within that area. There's a right-of-way on the township side; we only have an easement on the city side of the the corporate boundary. As far as putting a road in that area... again we have that major drainage through there and then obviously the for the township to come in and and give up their land and whatnot would be obviously a different path we would have to take. And I don't know what if Anne wants to... **[01:09:40] Anne Kane:** I just want to clarify for both the Council and the Mayor as well as those in the audience that Dillon Ditch runs along the western portion of the Tice parcel. You can see half of it is dedicated as as Paul said in the township. When that plat was subdivided, the the Tice parcel was not part of the Remali Park Plat and therefore that 33 feet was not ever dedicated as right-of-way. However, in 1978 I believe a 33-foot easement was granted to the city and that is when the storm sewer was installed to allow for the Dillon Ditch to drain through the Tice parcel as well as sanitary sewer and water that runs through the Tice parcel down parallel to Clarence, makes a 90-degree turn and then serves the Clarence Street right-of-way as well as providing services to all those residents. So presumably Mr. Friend asked a good question—if the water and sewer was sufficient to serve these additional homes, presumably it was it was sized accordingly. Otherwise I don't think the Tices would have granted an easement for those utilities. **[01:10:55] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Yeah I just think the bigger point on Dillon is not so much negotiations with the township or anything. From a practical matter we can't put a structure or a road or anything on top of that. We need access to that for water and that's true all along Dillon's Ditch until we hit Dillon Street over around Fifth or Sixth I guess. Yeah so thank you. **[01:11:15] Councilmember Steven Jones:** Yeah a hot mess is coming to mind. Just reminding procedure: we're on a clock. There's the reason why now. Okay something to us we have to react within X amount of time. I don't think I haven't gotten any money have you Mr. Edberg? Because I haven't. We've been paid! Don't like the accusation but appreciate it... it comes with the territory. **[01:11:45] Councilmember Steven Jones:** But I mean it's ironic if you're a historical society member... we just did a presentation of "What's in a Name?" on your Bromely Park neighborhood on why the names are the names. Clarence was actually a guy, just to let you know! But I'm looking at maps I did the presentation 1882, 1874. There's a reason you can't find the pins... where is he? Good luck. There's a reason it's 22 feet—there weren't any cars! All right that's was platted over a long long time ago. **[01:12:15] Councilmember Steven Jones:** But for me personally I I wish we didn't have to deal with the second part. But I just want to let my other council members know we need to fix this with the county saying what it is. Whatever that result I guess is what we need to decide on: vacation or not. That is not dependent on whether I am supportive of the future development of that. It's like let's fix this and even if it's... I mean I'll say this, I have to represent the 24,950 of everybody else. I need to fight just as much if that is our property. We need to fight for that. We need to legally fight for that; that is our job up here. So if you lose that vacation argument of the street... I'm sorry, I'm not saying you would I don't know how mess. I'm just saying that's our job to fight for that for all of our residents just like you fight for every single foot of your land and I appreciate that. So that's what I'm trying to get. Don't have the answers; I'm going to be looking for those answers in the next two weeks. I I'm sorry that this seems kind of like well not finishing up... it's not gonna it's nothing easy. So that's just my point on that to the Council is like I want to fix this vacation but I know there's a clock coming. And and I'd rather not have that clock coming. Let's fix this. Let's do it this right for the homeowners. And it's not just because of a mistake. I I also would say Councilmembers we need to look at that... that if there was a mistake made by the county or us or the city whether it's '77, '87, whatever it doesn't matter. We need to look at that seriously and say do what's right for what those folks that are living there now and what they believe they purchased. Thank you. **[01:14:15] Councilmember Bill Bean:** Thank you Madam Mayor. So as we were going through all of the public statements I took down some questions. I don't need the answers to these questions now but I think they actually would have a bearing at some point. I believe a couple of the speakers mentioned that they bought the property or they paid for the property—is that true? Did they actually pay for the property? How was the error rediscovered? I know it was discovered and how was it rediscovered? Is there a legal responsibility to not remove potential access? There's property, a developer wants to develop something... do we have a legal responsibility to not remove their access or do we have a... is there a penalty if we were to remove their access? When were the utilities installed? Is the property zoned for the proposed development? And does the county have any legal liability with us? Okay all right well those are all things we have to get answers. **[01:15:20] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Thank you Madam Mayor. So Mr. Bean's list was planning along. I'm curious about timelines and I would like somebody to explain what are our obligations. I don't want this to come to a last-second kind of conversation. So what do we need to do to have an orderly conversation? Lots of... so there are different parts and they some of them are connected in whole bunches of different ways. Which pieces of the decision do we need to make and in which order so that we can be intentional about whatever decisions get made? **[01:16:05] Ellen Heinecker:** Madam Mayor and Councilman, I might actually defer to our city attorney because I know that in terms of the timeline for December 14th I think we're at that meeting... is there opportunity to further continue the action pending more information? Or I guess that would be a question to you, Chris? **[01:16:20] Chris Gilchrist (City Attorney):** Thank you Madam Mayor and Council. As I understand it, so we have obviously two things that are going on as you mentioned: the zoning application for the development of the Tice parcel and then this vacation issue that arose as a result of them seeking development of that land. I mean that's where this came up; no big surprise there. You don't look at something until something prompts it, and this prompted it. So now you're looking at it. There is a... we all know about the 60-day clock and that is ticking on on the development side of it. I would argue the 60-day clock does not apply to the vacation side of it, but I have advised the city to consider as though it is just because it affects land, it affects access to land, and so let's get this done as as properly as as we can. **[01:17:15] Chris Gilchrist:** As a general kind of guidance guiding principle, I understand the city has extended the 60-day rule for another 60. And so that should put us sometime in January was it? So there is... December 14th is not a drop-dead have-to-make-a-decision-then. My goal is to provide you additional information about... my office did research each of the titles of the properties along here. We just didn't have a chance to pull them all together. So my goal is to put a memo together to explain our findings from a real estate perspective on each of the parcels. I suspect... I mean that's not going to change the opinions of I'm sure of what you heard today but I want to work to a position where I can give you some advice you know from my findings I think you know here's here's where you're at. **[01:18:15] Chris Gilchrist:** One thing I'll keep and I think the Council needs to keep in mind is that it's pretty clear that the city minimus made a mistake in 1977. You know they recorded the wrong document and they realized it and fixed it with the affidavit or attempted to fix it saying "yep that was an error." Both of those documents are entitled to to the properties. I mean they you search through and both of them pop up. And and so my position is that you can't rely on one and just ignore the other. They're both there and and it just shows that in fact the Council didn't act on this and it was recorded in error. And so if that's the case, if if you're a property owner in this case the Tices... I mean there is an issue for the city about "okay City, you made a mistake now you're saying I can't get to my property because of a mistake you made back in 1977." You know? So that's something I would encourage you to keep in mind as well. I haven't fully explored that but I mean that is something that has occurred to me in in looking at this. **[01:19:15] Chris Gilchrist:** So as one of the speakers said and as you know you have a copy of it, I did get a letter out today. It was a little bit later than I hoped but it took a long time to piece all that together and it'll take more time to piece the rest of it together. But I commit to have that information to you before your next meeting again not with the idea to push to have you make a decision by this on December 14th, but at least we should be able to take a hopefully a big step forward. **[01:19:45] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Perfect, thank you. Councilmember Angstrom, you had anything? Okay all right thanks. Councilmember Edberg? **[01:19:55] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Thank you Madam Mayor. So Mr. Gilchrist, when you put this information together I'm looking forward to that. Would you make sure that you put the two issues side by side? What's the implications of the decision on vacation or not vacation and what does that entitle / not entitle? What options remain available to the Council with regard to the development? And my understanding is that that issue has been continued by the planning commission, so presumably at some point they will deal with the development conversation after we settle the vacation conversation. Is that... and then they will make a recommendation and then the Council gets to have this more discussion / decision? Have I got that right? **[01:20:45] Ellen Heinecker:** Yes. So we're looking at if we make a decision... okay so we're not going to get the vacation information until the December 14th. There is no planning commission meeting at the end of December. So the next time that they could act is sometime January to make a decision if they choose to make a decision at that point in time and then we might be running into those 60-day etc. So we're likely not as a Council to not have that coming back with a planning commission recommendation regarding the development until sometime in February / March-ish depending on exactly how long that takes. Have I got the general timeline correct? **[01:21:40] Chris Gilchrist:** Yes please Madam Mayor and Council. What you said makes sense but I want to put it kind of a big asterisk next to it that I haven't gotten together with staff yet to talk about timing. Because generally speaking a planning commission has a limited period of time to make the recommendation and if they fail to make a recommendation within that time it just comes to the Council. You know? And that makes some sense if you think about it. Not saying that the planning commission's doing anything wrong here but you can't have things being approved by default because the planning commission isn't forwarding them to you. So we have to watch those timelines and and see where we're at there. There is an opportunity for the developer to extend the timeline beyond what the city has available to it so that might be an option as well that I understand the developer has indicated a willingness to do. But we haven't seen it yet. And so there are some things to be worked out from a timing perspective. But I guess let me leave it with I will need to get together with staff, talk about the timing of those two issues as you've indicated, and talk about what it makes sense to bring back and when. **[01:22:50] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Madam Mayor, I'll just close by saying I don't want this issue to be resolved by inaction or a failure to act and therefore we slump into an outcome. This requires using the best information, the best counsel available to come to a decision and not just end up with something by default. So whatever is required on the part of the city to make sure that that happens would be my hope expectation. Thank you. **[01:23:20] Mayor Jo Emerson:** All right. Well then we will move on. I know this wasn't the answer you wanted to hear but with all the legal questions still out there we have to make sure we have all the information to make a good decision. I thank you for your comments tonight and stay tuned. Moving on to land use 6b, consent consideration of a planning commission recommendation for approval of a request by Brian Cox for a set back at 2323 Lakeridge Avenue. Do I have it's on the consent agenda? **[01:23:55] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Move approval. **[01:23:56] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Second. **[01:23:57] Mayor Jo Emerson:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye) Opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to 8, Ordinances. First reading of an ordinance to amend the sign code to allow billed words. Miss Kane, you're up. **[01:24:15] Anne Kane:** Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. This is a request that was initiated by Division 25 LLC, the developer of the former Landy parcel where the Pillars of White Bear Lake and Lunds & Byerlys are currently located. As you may recall there was a two-sided or two-faced billboard that Mrs. Landy had on that property for some time. Its condition... it was a static billboard, it was dated. And a couple of years ago at the request of many of the residents of the Pillars that dated billboard sign was removed from the property. And so this application is seeking to amend the city's sign code to once again re-establish regulations for both static billboards as well as dynamic billboards as the city had in place back in 2007 when a more detailed and thorough research was completed. **[01:25:10] Anne Kane:** The planning commission examined this matter for a number of months over the summer and ultimately reached conclusion of recommending approval of the regulations both for static as well as the dynamic billboards. Some of what they looked at was this map—just shows the orange dots are existing billboards in the city primarily located along the interstate highways that border our south and our western property lines or corporate boundaries, as well as one near the marina triangle district. It does not reflect the former billboard that was removed from the Lunds & Byerlys site in 2019. However the red dots on this do indicate billboards that are in adjoining jurisdictions in close proximity. **[01:26:05] Anne Kane:** So that was one question that the planning commission delved into, concluding that many people probably already think that White Bear Lake allows for billboards since we have them within close proximity to our jurisdiction and opening that up opportunity up for property owners as well as the city because one change that staff made to the application was to include public zoning districts as a possibility for future consideration for revenue streams if the City Council at some point in the future is interested in exploring such. **[01:26:45] Anne Kane:** Also included in the Council packets this evening is a comparison chart from the previous regulations to what is being proposed by the applicant to what staff had recommended and ultimately the planning commission had recommended here in the far right column. I think the biggest debate was on the the length of the message hold time. As the City Council may recall back in 2007 when the billboard dynamic billboard regulations were adopted there was a 20-minute hold time. At that time there was a lot of concern about motorist safety and distraction of dynamic billboards along the highways. SCH, I believe, or one of the local engineering firms had done a very detailed study for the City of Minnetonka and that report was shared with the commission this summer as well as a more recent study completed I believe in 2013 or 2014 which demonstrated there was not a difference in distraction of motorists with a eight-second change time for the dynamic billboards. And so happy to share that with the Council moving forward as we get to the second reading. But again tonight is the first reading. I wanted to provide a little bit more information and background on this for the Council's consideration. So if there's additional information that staff can provide an advance of the second reading which would be scheduled for the December 14th meeting as well we would be happy to do so. But the planning commission did forward a unanimous recommendation for approval with those slight modifications as represented on that chart and happy to answer questions or take any suggestions for additional information to share with the Council before you reach a decision. Thank you. **[01:28:45] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Council, any questions or thoughts for Miss Kane? Otherwise we will hear this back on the 14th of December. Thank you. Moving on to 8b, first reading of an ordinance setting the 2022 fee schedule. **[01:29:10] Ellen Heinecker:** Yes Madam Mayor, members of the Council. This is again as Mayor indicated first reading. It's scheduled so that you can give final consideration to this at its second reading when you adopt the budget at our December meeting. Just real briefly I'll highlight what is under each of the categories and then certainly if there's any questions or some redirection before we present this at the December 14th meeting that would be helpful. You'll note that we're making a a a modest increase a recommendation for our ambulance fees at three percent. Council and staff had considerable conversation about where we're at with our ambulance fees and we feel fairly confident in where they're at relative to other communities. And so an increase is just basically the three percent to help for some increased operational costs. **[01:30:10] Ellen Heinecker:** With Pioneer Manor we're looking recommending a four percent increase that would be effective April 1st of 2022. There's been a more significant increase in our management contract and also just to maintain some current operations so that is included in the recommendation and certainly we have staff here that can represent any questions that you might have related to Pioneer Manor. For outdoor activity rentals we are recommending that we increase fees for our non-resident fees. We have a lot of competition for use of those and so it isn't a significant increase... it's enough that we want to create more of a differential between those who are residents of our community and those who are not. Court fees we're simply removing those because we no longer use the rackable courts as had previously been used. **[01:31:10] Ellen Heinecker:** The water usage rates as outlined in the memorandum: we are recommending a quarterly meter replacement fee for the commercial accounts. We've had a discussion with Council about that when we looked at adding that onto our project for the water meter replacement program and discussion about the need to make sure that that would be you know paid for by our commercial customers. And in the memo and certainly we can go into that detail tonight or we can wait until the next meeting describes how how and why that fee was based and what we planned to do to credit accounts that had been had meter replacements and had been paid for by commercial users in more recent years. **[01:32:05] Ellen Heinecker:** Let me look here. We also have our sewer rate increases are at 3 percent. And then our storm water management infrastructure fees: we are looking at having a two-dollar per quarter increase for both resident and commercial. And if the Council will recall, we had considerable conversation about our stormwater management fees last year. That was when we introduced that infrastructure fee was the first time actually actually last year. And there continue to be considerable costs associated associated with our surface water management operations and we had recommended last year something that was more significant than the five dollars per quarter but because it was a first-time fee there was consensus among Council to start with five dollars but each year thereafter look at a modest increase which is why that's highlighted this year at seven dollars. So there's a variety of staff members here to respond to any specific questions you might have unless you want to hold them until our second reading in December. That there's no action being requested. **[01:33:15] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Some fees went down! You didn't even mention why wouldn't you mention the fees that went down? Give us give us some good numbers here. Give us something to chew on. **[01:33:25] Ellen Heinecker:** True. There are... and as highlighted in the resolution there are there's several fees that every year we tweak some and we take some away that are no longer relevant. **[01:33:35] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Good. Anybody else? Councilmember Edberg. **[01:33:40] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Yeah Madam Mayor. So along those lines I want to point out just five things about how the city manages its finances since I anticipate that that's going to be an ongoing conversation over the over coming months. We have tangible experience here and I just want to kind of pull out five bullets. Number one: not all fees go up every year. There are several of these fees that have not been changed in two, three, four or five years because they generate sufficient revenue to justify to pay for the expenses that they are interested to pay for. So yeah we could increase fees but we don't. **[01:34:25] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** The numbers... the second point is when we do increase them it's based on a financial analysis. We look at "how much are we do we have available, what is necessary to appropriately manage resource and make sure that it's available to do the work that's needed" and then if if it passes that test then there's a conversation about what's an appropriate level of increase. Sometimes in fact fees go down. And there are more than it's more than just eliminating ones that are no longer relevant. The courts are nice but there's actually examples of "hey we've achieved efficiencies or we've had other we have not experienced the cost increases that we had historically experienced. We don't need more money we actually should give our taxpayers a break or our our service users a break." So that's number three. **[01:35:15] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Number four: that we actually when possible we provide preference preferential treatment to residents over non-residents. Now that usually that's in the case of the use of particular city facilities. We give preference to the folks who have actually helped pay for those things in the first place and so when it comes to using them sometimes and especially if we need to ration we try and give preference to to our residents. And the last one is: yes we are adding new fee categories in some cases. In every one that I saw, and maybe I missed one or two, they are... these new categories are addressing needs and we are the last ones to the party. Everybody else in the metro has been dealing with the same issues and we have chosen to hold off and use our other resources as long as possible. That's no longer possible and yet we have an urgent need particularly for infrastructure. So I just want to kind of lay out this is the philosophy that our city has used. It's been that way for at least the 12 years that I've been on the Council and I just want to take this as an opportunity to say that's just the way we roll. **[01:36:20] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Okay if I could add one? It's not a substantive but a process thing. The last thing to say is that we discuss this in work sessions and you folks don't have the benefit of... we're not going to redo the complete argument. But like for instance the surface water management infrastructure fee that we added—that was the subject of a long debate and a lot of discussion and a lot of staff work. So it may look like we just don't say much and just approve it but we actually worked really hard on that and had a long discussion and decided to do that. So and that happens a lot up here with decisions where we don't redo the argument... maybe we should do some of that argument! But a lot of work went into that. So please. **[01:37:10] Ellen Heinecker:** Yeah thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. And so yes I appreciate there was a lot that was not mentioned in that report. So I appreciate both of you highlighting things that were gone and I'm just going to use one example that comes to mind without going through that whole fee schedule... but you know that in past years we've had or more recently I think it's been three or four years we've had to add on a recycling fee for instance. It's just an example because the cost we were actually having to pay for our product to be recycled while the market took a downturn. And we assured Council and put that out there that you know as long as we are paying for that service and paying to have things recycled for the processing fee basically we're going to have to add on a sort of a surcharge. We are now happy to report that the market is flipped and now we no longer have to pay that! So that's been going to be removed from people's bills next year. And then as we can as that market continues to get more lucrative hopefully that will then have an impact on how we adjust our refuse fees. Just as an example to articulate something specific that you were I think trying to point out related to how we look at each and every fee related to our operations. So one point thank you. **[01:38:30] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Okay well then we will see this on the 14th. It's gonna be a long night! Moving on to New Business, 9a: a resolution canvassing municipal election results. **[01:38:45] Ellen Heinecker:** Yes Mayor, members of the Council. There's a memorandum put together by our city clerk and it's declaring the results of our 2021 general elections for the positions of Mayor, Council member Ward 2, and Council member Ward 4. The city clerk also prepared and put together what the official abstract had was provided to us by Ramsey County after the packet was put together. So that's why we're not able to put it out to you until tonight but that's also there for your review. And we would just ask for approval of the attached resolution which officially canvasses the votes for our 2021 general election. Thank you. **[01:39:30] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** So much just a note on the vote: high voter turnout which is you know I think I think good. I think it's easy to say that participation is good. My quick calculation: 30 percent turnout in the mayor's race of eligible voters. That's that's a lot. Looking back at recent competitive mayor's races: 2005 we got to 27, 2009 15, 2017 18. So 2021 30 percent high voter turnout. I'll move the resolution to well I got the mic. **[01:40:05] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Second. **[01:40:06] Mayor Jo Emerson:** I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If not all those in favor say aye. (Aye) Opposed? Motion carries. 9b: resolution approving final design and authorizing the preparation of plans and specifications for the South Shore Boulevard Trail. Mr. Kauppi. **[01:40:30] Paul Kauppi:** Ah thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. As you are aware back in February of this year, Council approved a memorandum of understanding with Ramsey County to move forward with a preliminary design and layout for this project which included redoing or adding a trail with legislative money that the county received from White Bear Avenue to Bellaire within the city of White Bear Lake. That memorandum of understanding also included a turn-back of South Shore Boulevard which would be turned into a one-way through the study process that's occurred over the last several years from McKnight to Bellaire. It also laid out the funding the project funding between the city and the county. **[01:41:25] Paul Kauppi:** At this time I'm going to invite up Greg Brown and Joey Lundquist. Greg is with Kimley-Horn who was the consultant that the county hired. Joey Lundquist is a project manager from Ramsey County. They're going to walk us through the corridor and the design work that Kimley-Horn did, kind of just walk us through from where we were at in February with kind of that preliminary just visual layout to kind of the actual final design and where we're at. And then I also want to mention that also in the Council memorandum there's some information from a resident in the area, Scott Costello, who provided some information on the undergrounding of the power lines through Snyder's Bay. We'll take that after the county presents the project and Ellen and I will give some further background on that afterwards. So I'll present Greg and Joey to walk us through the project slides. **[01:42:30] Greg Brown (Kimley-Horn):** Up Madam Mayor and Council members. We'll just try to walk through here briefly. I think hopefully most you have a pretty good sense of the corridor already from past discussions of just familiarity. Starting from west to east the project does start at White Bear Avenue. That first can a half block will be very similar to its current configuration but we will be adding a trail and a crosswalk connection across White Bear Avenue to the existing trail on the west side of our towards Goose Lake there. Then the main trail is going to tease in there an old White Bear and we pick up the the trail that's going to run along South Shore along that entire north side of the corridor from essentially this point all the way to County Road F. **[01:43:20] Greg Brown:** A couple changes to note here on the west end: we'll have a curb and gutter that's going to be installed along the northern side of the roadway and that's going to differentiate between the northern edge of the road and have a green boulevard turf or grass boulevard. Then the trail will be some separation between the trail and the roadway which is a little bit different than how the trail relates to the roadway kind of further up to the northwest. So that relationship essentially continues really throughout the corridor in the western end of the the project. We'll also have a curb and gutter on the southern portion of South Shore Boulevard and that's going to continue just a little bit east of Hazel and that will then transition... you can see on the southern or the the lower view there that transitions to a shoulder just a little bit east of Lakeview Avenue on the south side. So the typical section from Lakeview Avenue to McKnight is a shoulder / parking space or parking bay on the south side and a two-lane roadway as the main road and then the red line is a curb and gutter and grass and trail. This particular section because we've added the trail is slightly wider than the existing roadway so it's it extends three to four feet to the north northerly of the existing asphalt edge and about three or four feet to the south it kind of varies a little bit because the existing roadway edge varies. But that's the general relationship up to McKnight Boulevard or McKnight Street. **[01:44:50] Greg Brown:** The next view here gets us to McKnight and at that point we transition from a two-way roadway to a one-way eastbound roadway and in that case both the trail and the road generally exist within the existing footprint of the asphalt roadway. So that's kind of the the whole impetus of that is to to mitigate the narrowness and the topography of that part of the roadways... very challenging slopes as everyone knows and making a two-way road east of McKnight would have some pretty significant property impacts. So that typical section really continues on through the remainder of White Bear Lake. **[01:45:30] Greg Brown:** The image here shows as we get to Snyder's Bay. We have a small parking bay on the north side of the the roadway and that's been kind of modified and adjusted over the course of discussions with residents and property owners to its current configuration which suffices for I think everyone in that area's needs as well as people that have docks that don't live along South Shore Boulevard. Further to the east as we get towards Bellaire again that typical section is the same but there is some city utility work that's going to take place—primarily sanitary sewer work that's going to be installed it in an area that doesn't currently have sanitary sewer. There's a little bit of water main work that will be incorporated with the project as well and the city is working closely with our our county project team to incorporate those those improvements in the overall project. **[01:46:15] Greg Brown:** There are a number of easements associated with the project primarily due to driveway matching just kind of blending grades in as best we can. Also there are some easements associated with the sanitary sewer work and I think maybe not for water work in the city but those easements are being procured by Ramsey County. That that process is going quite well. I think we might be down to just a handful of property owners that will be that are remain to be signed. The process will by eminent domain if it gets to that for any any parcel will be resolved by February 7th I think. So those those notices just went out but I think based on the progress to date the expectation is probably no no properties will actually get to that point. So that's good news. **[01:47:05] Greg Brown:** There's generally been very positive support among the residents in the corridor from you know my whole experience if you will along the project. So that's that's refreshing and pleasant as a engineer designer and I think we've been we've met with very significant number of residents and have made quite a few kind of modest refinements to the plan over the course of the summer. And I think that's been well received and it's been good input frankly. So I think it's a better design now than you know where we were here just a few months ago and that's a product of of input from from the residents. So that's been a positive experience as well. **[01:47:45] Greg Brown:** I think we'll just briefly kind of continue on for the sake of Council or for for maybe interest: but the project does go into the township. So east of Bellaire will be continuing the same essentially the same section as we have in that McKnight to Bellaire one-way eastbound parking on the south or shoulder on the south. There are a couple parking bays right in the vicinity of Bellaire Beach Park and those have been coordinated with the township and the township's also planning to do some improvements along the way. Most any streets that we intersect—there's a little bit more of this in the township than in the city—but anything that we intersect we're looking at improving the crosswalks making the road and pinch points at that point so it's a safer facility to get across to the main trail. Those are improvements that are kind of occurring throughout. The township is actually proposing to replace the entirety of their water main so that's going to be a significant amount of construction in their segment of the roadway. Similar to the city, that work's being done by the township incorporated into the plan so it will appear as one project to the public but it's a township generator project similar to the city's sewer and water work. **[01:48:55] Greg Brown:** The roadway just continues on. I think Paul maybe the last slide there shows our connection to County Road F. We're making some improvements to that curve and the trail that's coming down that hill—you might know that it's quite a steep hill, it's about a nine percent grade and we're getting the trail close to five or six percent. So we're flattening that trail out by kind of pulling it a little bit away from the road. So that's a positive embellishment or enhancement that we're able to achieve in the final design. The roadway will stay pretty close to its current grade because it needs to tie into driveways and others intersecting streets but all in all where we've had opportunities to do things like that and enhance the experience of the the people using the trail as well as the safety of the the cars we've been able to incorporate a few of those items. So with that um I guess we'll open it up for questions if there's any questions and could you go over the schedule just a little bit before we... **[01:49:55] Greg Brown:** So from a design perspective we're looking at wrapping up plans here this late fall. We mentioned the right-of-way process will be finished no later than February 7th. Yeah we were told the date is February 7th that we'll have right-of-way so we can go out for bids right after that. We need to have the right-of-way in hand so we would anticipate given those dates to be able to start construction hopefully in early April or mid-April and have next year's construction season as a a place place to work. We anticipate closing the roadway except for local traffic of course during the entirety of the construction process. **[01:50:35] Greg Brown:** There will be some final cost sharing agreements that will be kind of worked out here as we get to the final details and final quantities. I think Paul I'm not sure if that's going to come to Council if that date has been set yet or the the next step from a city standpoint or at least council approval standpoint will be entering into a cooperative agreement once we have those final costs for the project as we we haven't decided yet if we're going to bring that to Council before or after we receive bids. I'll be close with estimates once we get the plans complete probably early in 2022 or we can wait until after we get actual bids to enter into that. So time will tell over the next month or so when we feel it's most appropriate to bring that to Council. **[01:51:25] Ellen Heinecker:** Yeah Mayor, I Counsel. So Paul could you remind Council because I I'm afraid I'll hatchet up if I give the wrong estimate but we did review with Council earlier on what we what were estimated cost participation was you know probably about a year ago before we entered into this design phase. I believe it was around 350-400 with all of with all said and done... is that accurate? **[01:51:50] Paul Kauppi:** City Manager Heineker, I'll just kind of briefly go through those costs. So from White Bear Avenue to McKnight, through the county's typical roadway cost participation policy kind of decreased by some of the legislative funding that was received, we're on the hook for about a hundred thousand dollars. We also as part of that memorandum of understanding in negotiations with the the county as far as taking back South Shore Boulevard between McKnight and Bellaire, we're getting a credit for future improvements. So they would... we said we would take that over if they would provide us with funding to do a mill and over a future meal and overlay. So if you incorporate that into the project we're on the hook for about fifty thousand dollars for roadway improvements. **[01:52:45] Paul Kauppi:** The major cost above and beyond that that the city will see is for decorative lighting that would continue similar to how we have on the last segment along Old White Bear Avenue. So it'd be that similar style of pedestrian lighting that would be along the trail and that I believe was in the neighborhood of about 350. Yeah round numbers just south of 300 yeah so 300 current number. So that brings us to about 350,000. We'll have about 150,000 worth of sanitary sewer work. The majority of that will be assessed back to those benefiting property owners. So the total out-of-pocket for the city is going to be like Ellen said in the neighborhood of 350,000 to 400,000. **[01:53:25] Joey Lundquist (Ramsey County):** I wanted to add I was just talking with Tom Nash this week and he said that there would be a cost sharing right of way for White Bear to McKnight and I think it's the total is 128,000 which I think is half the city due to the cost share for right of way. Okay so we'll have a little bit additional in in that right away aspect but... **[01:53:45] Mayor Jo Emerson:** All right. Any questions? **[01:53:47] Councilmember Bill Bean:** Question Madam Mayor please. The how wide is the grass green space buffer? **[01:53:52] Greg Brown:** It's essentially six feet from the curb to the edge of the trail. That does include the curve so the curve's eight inches so it's five foot four inches as a... okay pretty it's not universal but that's pretty... **[01:54:10] Councilmember Bill Bean:** No right. Because um you probably know why I'm asking because it usually winds up dead if it's narrow. You know you get those two strip two-feet strips of grass. So that was my curiosity that it's got a better chance to survive. **[01:54:20] Greg Brown:** We're using a low-maintenance low-grow grass that we got a grass seed mix from MnDOT that they use. **[01:54:30] Councilmember Bill Bean:** As long as it didn't come from the U of M or any test grass that's supposed to be supposedly working! The idea I get it. No no I understand the people there might not want to mow it. **[01:54:40] Greg Brown:** Well that's just it. I mean right. I mean some some wanted a golf course out there, some don't. And so I know that the smaller strips tend not to survive very well. So thank you for that. **[01:54:50] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Councilmember Edberg did you have something? **[01:54:55] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Yes. Mr. Jones should not knock the University of Minnesota Department Horticulture! **[01:55:00] Councilmember Steven Jones:** Well we can just go out to Highway 61 and see how good a success that was! [Laughter] **[01:55:05] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** So the um my question would be: in the design phase, how confident are we that the water quality impacts to the lake will be minimized, non-existent, improved? How do we how do we think and and what are we doing about that? **[01:55:20] Greg Brown:** Good good question Councilmember and I should have spoke a little bit to this. There's probably two elements of the water storm water and water quality that are really key to the project. One is just management of stormwater. It's a big problem as maybe a lot of the council members know on South Shore and I've you know learned this over the course of our our design and most of our conversations frankly with people have had to do with storm water. So one of the key design elements of the project having that curb on the north side handles that along with the drainage infrastructure will manage water that in most cases or many cases today is kind of making its way into people's yards. So that's one element. **[01:56:05] Greg Brown:** But the other element is also then as we manage that water collected we're providing places to filter it and infiltrate it into the into the ground. We're generally you know we're not changing drainage patterns per se. The water out ultimately gets to the lake if it just doesn't get infiltrated. And we're also sensitive to Lily Pond you know which is just to the south of the road and we've had discussions with both residents there and city staff and we work closely with city staff on the scope and the placement of water quality features. So we really have kind of a two-pronged approach. I think most people that have issues today with water that's kind of basically coming into their property mostly on the north side not so much on the south that should be largely mitigated. You know as we're talking earlier storms are bigger et cetera et cetera but today there's really nothing stopping it unless someone kind of took it upon themselves or the city of the county built some makeshift dikes or berms but this will be a much more systematic approach to that and then that we that the fact that we're kind of collecting it allows us to treat water too. So we're treating it to the standards that the city requires which is actually a little bit more robust in the watershed as maybe you're familiar with Honorary Council. Thank you. **[01:57:15] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Sure. **[01:57:16] Councilmember Steven Jones:** So with that sorry Madam Mayor and thank you for asking that question Councilmember. So the not having a surmountable curve is because direct a testament to that and right yes of you know advantages / disadvantages for whatever reasons but it primarily has been water treatment whether it's been storm water or diverting the water to where it can go because it'll be Lily... I mean Lily Pond is not a man-made pond. I mean that was there, it's been on maps forever and a day dating back to 1870s. It's not the typical let's-dig-a-hole-and-divert-all-the-water-to-it. So it should be predicted. Thank you. **[01:57:55] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Anybody else? **[01:57:58] Paul Kauppi:** The only thing I was going to add quickly is when Greg was talking about water quality, one thing that is kind of a a little bit of a perk from the project is the area that we're in a one-way roadway we're going to be separating that trail from... you know if we had just a full 20-some foot wide roadway that drains directly the lake. Now we're going to have those buffers adjacent to the trail so it's going to be filtered and buffered before it gets to the lake. So we're going to have some kind of added benefit from going to that one-way through that area. **[01:58:30] Ellen Heinecker:** And Mayor, members of the Council. Thank you. Outside of the work that's been done by Kimley-Horn also included in your packet is some information provided by Scott Costello who is here with us tonight. Scott has been very passionate about this trail and an advocate for it for decades along with our council member to my left here. It's so we always appreciated your enthusiasm for it and have had ideas about different design elements to it. But one more most specifically and that's applicable to I think Council's deliberation tonight is a proposal to bury the underground or to bury the the power lines that that extend in the Snyder's Bay area. **[01:59:15] Ellen Heinecker:** And I can say that we at the staff level we touched on this a bit with Council during a work session where we were talking about South Shore Boulevard. We still despite some of the great arguments that are extended by Mr. Costello we still you know continue with our recommendation to maintain the precedent that we've had been established by the city because the cost is not inconsiderable. I think it's about another 400,000 is what we're estimating to do those power lines and then some concerns about where you start and stop unless it was just very selected to Snyder's Bay which I think is what Mr. Costello had proposed. But I just wanted to make sure that I highlighted that we did add that to it and he's been awaiting an opportunity to present that and so we put it in the packet for Council to consider and just to acknowledge that on behalf of his interest in this project. **[02:00:10] Councilmember Steven Jones:** Okay. Madam Mayor I do... would it be possible to address the question directly to Mr. Costello? Sure. Is it all right if he addressed you because it's your meeting? Army no it's just specific because I'll be honest his memo changed my mind. And it really surprised me that it did. And that surprises me I I know but it's like you know when you hear when you hear phrases "once in a lifetime" specific areas you actually walk it, drive it, look at his pictures, look at those telephone poles. But I just want to set the stage of why because it's like you know again I'm a history historical society guy I'll give a plug to them again and by the day we did another program "What's in a Name? Part Two." I know well we actually did this area too just definitely. So it was it was fun. No but we're talking about the gateway. We're talking about the gateway there should have been no dry ice. We're talking about a gateway that starts at Old White Bear Avenue and White Bear Avenue and South Shore... I mean that's where White Bear started. This is it—first school, first frame house, first school, first cemetery that is. Yeah this is the gateway to this area that I think deserves special attention. Do I want to play the South Side card? Yep I do. So I'm just playing that, not him. And I want to make sure... so I I just want to know why I mean specifically he felt so strongly. I think he yeah he laid it out beautifully in this memo. But with the with the precedent thing that's that's the problem that's the tough one. And I'd like to say specifically ask him specifically okay why Scott? Why do you think this precedent thing is not a big deal? If I could invite you could invite him I can do that please come up Scott. Thank you. **[02:01:45] Scott Costello:** Thank you Mayor. I had to stand back I got this device here. Okay a little bit feedback. Yeah I've got a few pictures to answer your question Member Jones. Next one. Scott speak up please I'm having trouble hearing you. Okay maybe I'll have to take this off or just speak louder. You just yeah you still oh okay. The city has three areas where there's open views of the lake: we have Lake Avenue, the marina area, and Snyder's Bay. And all three of these areas it is the case that the most of the lakeshore property is privately owned but the roadways, the trails, and most significantly here the views of the lake, the experience of the lake as people walk, bike, run, motor around these areas are public. **[02:02:40] Scott Costello:** And the first two have been completed in recent years and the results have really been outstanding. Speaking for myself, my wife and I spent a lot of time in the marina area along Lake Avenue is really superb. One of the things that we really love about living here in White Bear Lake is these kind of kind of things. But there is a third area in Snyder's Bay that will be developed next year as part of the Lake Links Trail South Shore Boulevard project and this becomes our really our once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something with Snyder's Bay to elevate it to the level of these other two areas. And as we consider investment in Snyder's Bay, we want to make sure we don't underestimate the value of these kind of lakeside spaces. **[02:03:30] Scott Costello:** Next slide. You know just as an example of this you know consider the example of Theodore Wirth was the visionary who developed the Minneapolis park system over a century ago and it's all based on views of lakes and other water features. And now a hundred years later this is the heart and soul of the city—something of immeasurable worth. And the neighborhoods that were built up around this ring it's called the Grand Rounds have heightened property values so they contribute much of the city's residential tax base. But it's not just for the people who live there; everyone in the city uses these spaces. If you walk around any of these lakes on a summer weekend you see a huge diversity of people. The point is that these lakeview areas are intrinsically valuable and that with vision, design, and investment you can create something that will provide huge pay huge dividends like 100 years later. **[02:04:25] Scott Costello:** Next so this begs the question: will we have the vision like Theodore Wirth when we are investing in our lakeview areas around our namesake lake? And I think the answer is so far so good. I think we've done a very good job with Lake Avenue, we've done a very good job with the marina, but the next tests of vision our vision test will come next year with the development of Snyder's Bay. Next and it will just like the other two has value to the entire city and but especially to the neighborhood south of the lake. We have a long-term plan for sidewalks and trails and with the completion in the next year of the sidewalk and half and the trail on South Shore Boulevard it will be largely complete except for this little piece going through Hidden Hollow. **[02:05:15] Scott Costello:** But Snyder's Bay is where this whole system connects to the lake and thus investment we put into Snyder's Bay and in the completion of the trail system... that investment will benefit all the neighborhoods south of Southwood Lake. And you consider that these neighborhoods are comprised mostly of ramblers and split levels are 60 years old and if this area is going to be a desirable place to live a hundred years from now when these houses are 160 years old it's going to take a huge amount of mostly private investment. And homeowners will make that investment if it's a desirable place to live and that's where public investment acts as a lever to keep the property values up, to keep the tax base up, and encourage private investment. So in that sense these kind of investments really will pay for themselves I believe you know over time. **[02:06:10] Scott Costello:** So what kind of investments are we talking about? Next please. Ah I can get back there see if it get back there because I'd like to see that picture because it sort of demonstrates what what we're up against here. The... it does get down to the issue of the power lines. And when you look at this picture okay we're coming up again there we go thank you. The... there must be something it doesn't like about that. Like what you see here is what it looks like today and in order to make this as attractive as the other two areas we need two things: we need to add the decorative lighting and we need to underground the power lines. **[02:07:05] Scott Costello:** And you know you can say that well you can still see the light between the power poles but that kind of misses the point because the beauty of these kind of areas are about the experience of people walking, running, biking, driving through the space. And that's why it is so important to do. There's two big issues that would might prevent us from doing this: precedent and cost. Those are the big ones that you know we can't hide the in terms of precedent the other two areas were based on the precedent that the city never pays for undergrounding. In the case of the marina that was a joint public private design effort and the cost of the undergrounding which is quite important for the public use of that was actually paid by private interests. And on Lake Avenue there was a section a few hundred feet of overhead power lines; the city declined to do that and some neighbors picked up the cost. So that is the precedent. **[02:08:05] Scott Costello:** Now in the case of Snyder's Bay there is no private money that's being offered to pay for this. So what we see is that the precedents that help make those other two projects possible will necessarily make the improvement of Snyder's Bay impossible. And this precedent in this situation is really flawed because what it's saying is saying the equivalent that there is no that there is zero public value in this view. It's saying that it's not even a public view it's actually a private view owned by the people who live across the street. And if those people can't or won't pay for it, it just can't be done, period, end of story. **[02:08:50] Scott Costello:** But as this trail is completed there will be dozens, maybe hundreds of people moving through this space day after day, year after year, decade after decade. And we would be saying to all these people "well sorry it's ugly but our hands are tied it's precedent we can do nothing else." We're saying to everyone who lives south of a lake "well sorry you don't get anything as nice as what's on the other side of the lake but it's a precedent nothing we can do about it." We would be saying to the future White Bearians of the 22nd century "well sorry we flunked the vision test back in our day but it was a precedent and besides by the 22nd century we're all dead anyway so who cares!" I say that we need to set a new precedent which is entirely within your prerogative as the Council to do—a precedent that recognizes the inherent value in these kind of spaces and encourages investment for the future. **[02:09:50] Scott Costello:** The other big problem is cost. It's not cheap. You know it's what three or four hundred thousand dollars somewhere in that and we don't have a whole lot of choice other than to budget for what Xcel Energy wants to charge. We don't you know we can't go out and get a cheaper estimate because they are the monopoly. And some might say you know this is just an extravagance that we can't afford but I say that we need to distinguish between what's an expense in the short term, an actual investment in the long term. And you can't get any longer term than this because once those lines go underground Xcel will maintain them in that state in perpetuity. They'll be undergrounded next year, they'll be underground 100 years from now providing I think exceptional value despite the cost. **[02:10:45] Scott Costello:** And I know that this city has a reputation for being very frugal. We have some of the lowest taxes of any city around and I have to say as a homeowner I really truly appreciate that frugality. But I also appreciate living in a place that has vision and is willing to invest in that vision in the future. Now one final point is that some of you might be saying "well we I understand what you're saying Scott about the public value of dealing with this but shouldn't we be assessing something to the people who live across the street from the benefit they might get?" It turns out that state law and assessments only allows you to assess for city-owned property and Xcel's power lines are not owned. There is one exception and that's if the effective property owners, all of them, petition the city saying "we want to pay for it please assess us." And it's this exception that Mark Sather and I pushed through the legislature in 2005. Mark sat next to me as I testified at four separate committee hearings down at the state capitol. We got that bill through; Governor Pawlenty signed it. And we used that on the north side of Joy Avenue to bury the power lines behind our houses. And in that case it was a private view, not a public view like this, and the neighbors were organized and willing to pay for it. None of those conditions exist on South Shore Boulevard, which is why we need to be more creative to get this done. So ultimately my request to the Council is that you support the vision... one more slide there we go... is that you know it is to support the vision that these areas are intrinsically valuable we need design and investment to produce long-term benefits to our city. And at the top of the list is getting the dark power lines buried by hook or by crook. So that is my position. Thank you. **[02:12:45] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Any any questions on that? **[02:12:50] Councilmember Steven Jones:** Your vision Scott... sorry about that. Where in your vision would the undergrounding begin and end? Does it begin at the top of the hill at the you know basically midnight or a couple of houses down? And then we go underground until the lake goes away from you know the South Shore and the lake diverge? Is that the portion? **[02:13:10] Scott Costello:** That's what I always conceived to be the areas where it's actually open which would be two houses east of McKnight and then going down to the first house that starts. I mean that would make sense to me because you can see if you could back up to that previous slide... not that one the one after... no the summary slide because there's a picture there too. This is the view like right after that second house where it opens up towards the lake. So you really have like when they say here's a "diamond in the rough" view. Thank you. Thank you Scott. **[02:13:50] Councilmember Steven Jones:** Okay. So Madam Mayor if I may. So with that, Scott you dropped an ear bud on the floor. That's city property! [Laughter] My request and I know we went through this in a study session but I'm like this: we don't have firm costs, we don't have firm "it's from X to and Y." And I do think this is important. This is something different. This is the precedent before... what we're looking at really is just those houses along Lake Avenue that didn't have the road by the way between... there was those houses along that commercial bay area. So it's again a different set. **[02:14:35] Councilmember Steven Jones:** Yeah I know it's expensive. But Scott to me made this point of: it's it's a hundred-year journey. And with the windfall... I mean I sat here eight years ago and going "I am going to do my best to stay on this council to see that this trail happens" and I don't care if we pay every single dime for it! And then we've got the amazing group with the Bike Round Lake Trail around lake... amazing with what they did. They got us state money again taking part of it out of the left pocket right? I get it because we're still going to reach into the right pocket. I'm saying let's do some investment. We are looking at 350-400,000 already to match our existing trail, which we should do every we shouldn't cut one corner. And so this is a... I'm not going to... it really I think it needs to be reassessed. **[02:15:25] Mayor Jo Emerson:** No we want to look at it I'm certainly not gonna vote against this. Well that was my question. If we don't approve this do we have so yeah that's kind of we do. Can we approve this and still look at that and on what timelines? Right exactly. It's like I mean I gotta ask the experts because I have no idea. We're kind of at the last hour as as we said. Maybe we've waited right? He has anything to add to that? But we're kind of like we need we would need to know now in order to if we're going to say put it in or not you need to know tonight. **[02:16:05] Paul Kauppi:** Very very soon. **[02:16:07] Councilmember Steven Jones:** No we can't do that. **[02:16:10] Paul Kauppi:** Very soon we'd have to know that just from the standpoint of we would have to get Xcel on board. Their schedules can be months many months out. So if we were to act tonight you know there would be a chance we would get it in with the project. I don't know Greg's probably done some more recent stuff but fees has anything to add. I think very soon you know he's not sure exactly the definition of that but absolutely it has to be Xcel has a lot of work and we have some coordination work on our direct directly served by that power either have to get that for their power underground and Scott knows all of this but that needs to be coordinated as well. That might be as much of a logistical thing as other elements. So there's a lot of moving parts if the Council's leaning that way or head that way we need to know. **[02:17:05] Councilmember Steven Jones:** Well I mean sorry not well I'm waiting to hear from anybody else's guy know where you stand on this I want to be fair to the Councilman because I can't I would say if this could wait 30 days and even I know it will be a Council and if it can't wait 30 days I can't ask the Council that I mean they don't have the information it's not a fair question if it can't wait 30 days. **[02:17:35] Councilmember Bill Bean:** Thank you Madam Mayor. I while I understand that it's not a decision that we can make today I understand the reason be behind it and I would see it as an investment into the city. And sometimes you you have to invest. I think I mentioned that earlier and the and there would be some payback because the the surrounding properties I believe would go up in value even more so there'll be some property tax advantage to that. Then what do we do when the next neighborhood comes by and says "let's put us underground"? I don't believe that there is a similar neighborhood. **[02:18:15] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Well it won't have to be it could just be I'm playing devil's advocate it could just be any neighborhood it could be my neighborhood! **[02:18:25] Councilmember Steven Jones:** Right specifically for a trail with a view. **[02:18:27] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Yeah I don't think so. How about Old White Bear Avenue about two years ago? Those residents wanted... I'm sorry those residents wanted the power lines underground. There's a huge Comcast cable thing I think it's about this thick right in their view it goose lakers right across their view. I mean those those folks really wanted it. There's more precedent here than just this the lake precedence here. What I mean you're exactly right man. I'm thinking that you know and and don't get me wrong I like this idea but I I just think it is it is a precedent. You open a whole can of worms. I mean because everybody's going to see how you know I mean I like power lines underground don't you? I mean I think we all do. And I think just make one other point too I mean we keep saying "in 100 years, in 100 years..." I I hope we're not using power lines like this seriously! I mean I gotta believe technology is gonna advance the wind that we don't know about right now we'll be we'll be in play and I I think we'll be we'll be cutting those things down it'll be a great day and we'll be figuring it out differently. **[02:19:40] Mayor Jo Emerson:** So the problem is the past precedent not even a future imagine precedent. I can tell you just was a few years ago on Old White Bear Avenue with a bike path with lights decorative lights actually looks nice you know with those lights. So it's the same trail. **[02:20:00] Councilmember Steven Jones:** I know I mean it's it's it it's a hard thing. But I mean we did discuss this at a workshop as I recall and I know you you've since been swayed I understand that and he makes a very compelling argument. But I'm concerned that we're at the point now where we're ready to to pull the plug here and get this thing moving forward and I really don't want to delay that. I don't want to see it delayed either you know. So yes I'm not buying the precedent. I get it I understand it. Every time we vote on a variance we risk that. So that's just garbage to me; it's it's what's on each project and we have the right to say yes or no. **[02:20:45] Mayor Jo Emerson:** So I'm not generally when you vote on a variance we're not cost enough foreign right exactly. And I can't ask the Council to go in blind with staff doesn't have the information that they can't give us today. Although I would have liked to know in the timeline that it's that tight Paul that I wouldn't have spent this much time... I mean if I don't have 30 days would you guys consider 30 days and that's okay if you say no too. I'm not gonna you know if it's no it's no. It's like no it's certainly over three hundred thousand dollars we know that I know. Yeah that's fair though. So so where do we go then? We let it die? **[02:21:25] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Well no. I'm gonna motion to approve the resolution before us authorizing preparation of plans and specifications for the South Shore Boulevard Trail. **[02:21:40] Councilmember Bill Bean:** I will still move. **[02:21:42] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Second. **[02:21:43] Mayor Jo Emerson:** I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If not all those in favor say aye. (Aye) Opposed? Motion carries. I'm sorry Mr. Costello but it it's important to keep this project moving forward. We've we've been waiting a long time for this. All right moving on to 9c, resolution authorizing the city manager to enter into a joint powers agreement with the town of White Bear. Miss Heinecker. **[02:22:25] Ellen Heinecker:** Yeah members of the Council. So speaking of trails, this would be on the other side of the lake. It obviously is related to the trail that that would run along Highway 96 on the north side of White Bear Lake. As Council recalls, the Lake Links folks were also successful in getting some assistance for a trail to be constructed along 96. I think it's in total 500,000 each for both the township and the city if we were to get a plan and a design that was workable and acceptable to the city in in cooperation and coordination with the residents that live along 96 along that corridor. **[02:23:15] Ellen Heinecker:** So as part of that discussion, I think that was it was back in 2019 that we first contracted I think it was with SEH to do some a design concept for the south side of that roadway right? So that it would abut the lake. And at the time the work that was done was predicated on some right-of-way that wasn't yet totally confirmed yet by MnDOT. The best way to describe it but it's since been... there's been a lot of discussion about territory the territorial road versus prescriptive right-of-way. We can give you a lot of information about the let's just say it's a bit messy just like some other things are that we've been talking about tonight. **[02:24:05] Mayor Jo Emerson:** It's a hot mess. **[02:24:08] Ellen Heinecker:** Yeah yeah exactly it's a hot mess. So so having said that, there there has been design work for that south side of 96 that would go alongside the lake. But that does in fact in following the prescriptive right-of-way as described by MnDOT and as is we also support at the staff and we've had many conversations with both MnDOT, the the county, and also with legal staff about how to proceed with that. We do support the prescriptive road whereas defined by MnDOT. And having said that the trail that's been designed that has to date on that south side would be conflicting with private property that there would have to be other you know eminent domain or purchase or whatnot. But there's it would not be a simple as simple as it has been and it hasn't been easy even with South Shore. **[02:25:05] Ellen Heinecker:** So what we're proposing and we've talked to the township about this as well as MnDOT and the county is that we go into a joint powers agreement with Whitebear Township to do a similar to similar work for the north side of 96 which would not necessarily be an ideal alignment but the north side of that of 96 on the opposite side of the lake. There is right-of-way... I was just going to add it would not move the trail to the north side it would merely move I'm sorry road to the north side sorry my yes my because we had talked about the trail at one point but you're right. So if the whole road moved north and we realigned it we could then accomplish keeping the trail on the south side of 96. **[02:25:55] Ellen Heinecker:** Yes thank you and in order to do that we would need to engage we'd re-engage the services of SEH to kind of continue with the work that they've done and obviously look at the realignment and the township has agreed at least at the staff level to bring this forward to their Council. And so depending on the outcome of both elected boards you know if the cities goes along and the count in the township board is an agreement then we would split the cost of this study which is about for our party about twelve thousand six hundred dollars for our share of that. So we would first need to give consideration to joint powers agreement which is very similar to the one that we had engaged in back in 2019 it's just that we would this time be the principal. At the last joint powers agreement the township served as the principal and then the second resolution under a different action then would be approving a contract with SEH for that work. So I guess we would ask Council for consideration initially for the joint powers agreement with the township and if that would be approved by Council then for consideration of an agreement with SEH to proceed with some preliminary design work for a realignment of 96. **[02:27:10] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Okay. Any questions? Is there enough money in the deal to take 400,000 and put it on the south side? **[02:27:20] Ellen Heinecker:** I don't think so. I don't think so no. Madam Mayor and Councilmember Edberg, in in actuality we do suspect that the project whether it's a realignment which would be a much more expensive proposition if that ends up being the option or even if it is within the prescriptive provided way and not realigning the road either way the project is probably going to exceed the what we've received from the legislature. So there will be a city participation but we won't know any of that until we start doing these studies and we really need the next step is to be able to work with the neighbors and look at some options. After we would get this study done with SEH we would go back to the property owners along 96 and also engage in their get some feedback from them as well before it would come back to Council. **[02:28:15] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** I'll move approval of the resolution. **[02:28:17] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Second. **[02:28:18] Mayor Jo Emerson:** I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? **[02:28:20] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Yeah Madam Mayor so these these conversations are getting really expensive. And I don't have a picture of where that money's coming from. When you tell me now that that's going to take more than what what the state has provided, there's a part of me that says "okay so when do we start getting frugal saying you know what you don't want it blah blah blah." That's like when do we when we keep that money in our pocket and find some other uses for it? **[02:28:50] Ellen Heinecker:** Yeah Madam Mayor, Councilmember Edberg. I don't disagree. We don't really have cost estimates for the project yet. We are concerned that the pros the project would cost more than that's been provided by the legislature. So at that point once we have those numbers the Council will then have to decide whether or not it makes sense to proceed or to go back and ask for additional monies. **[02:29:15] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** At this time learn to do without or learn to do without. This is not a project that the neither the Council nor staff had initiated a conversation with the legislature for that funding. It's funding that came to us from the work of the Lake Links folks and so it's there and it has to be we'll have to decide by end of 2024 I think is that the time frame whether or not we're going to proceed with the project. But currently we don't have enough information to even make a recommendation on what that cost would be. So this is finishing that work so that we can bring the staff can bring forward here are some options: one's really expensive or not so expensive and the other one we could do this but it's going to impact property owners in this way and here's how many people are excited about it and not excited about it. And those are the types of so you have to look at it so that our our recommendation is aligned with... we haven't we have an opportunity if the Council is interested in ever moving forward with the trail on that side or the town board because it would be a joint project. We have an opportunity for some legislative funding to assist with that. But it may it has not been on like South Shore Boulevard that has been a Council priority for many years. This has not been something that either staff nor Council has been having a lot of conversation about it until we received some funding from Lake Links and we engaged in that first study as a result of that funding. So this is a continuation to identify what those costs would be and what's possible I would say. **[02:30:55] Councilmember Steven Jones:** Okay. Any other discussion? Yeah I mean this I I would support this but Councilmember Edberg's points are very valid. But it is where where the township to me in support of the difference between this area and South Shore was South Shore had a good length. This isn't very long length right? I mean we're really talking about from Ramsey County Beach just to to to the county line. Right? We're not talking up to 61 or anything like you know as far as developing all that that that stretch. I just can't believe that there's not some other alternative even if it's a six-foot path that's right in the shoulder that something can't be done. **[02:31:40] Paul Kauppi:** Madam Mayor, turning back members of the Council. One thing I will add is Washington County also received funding for the portion of the trail east of the county line. So I believe it was 2.5 million dollars that they received. So it does it is part of a much longer segment of trail. **[02:32:00] Councilmember Steven Jones:** No under understand that thank you I'm sorry but I'm looking at will that municipality spend it? Well that's that we know. But look at this: the City of White Bear Lake and the township will have done their complete trail and that's why I support it. I think that's an important consideration. What what goes on in Washington County we have no control over but you know we'll we'll get our trail done. **[02:32:30] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Call the question. With that I will... all right is there any further discussion? If not all those in favor of the Joint Powers contract say aye. (Aye) Opposed? Motion carries. Next we have the resolution authorizing the agreement with Short Elliott Hendrickson for the completion of the preliminary design, which I happen to think is pretty important. We need to know what that is. So I I think this is a key piece that we need we need to know how much we need a preliminary design so we can start actually looking at the project. **[02:33:10] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Move approval. **[02:33:11] Councilmember Steven Jones:** Second. **[02:33:12] Mayor Jo Emerson:** I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If not all those in favor say aye. (Aye) Opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to 9e, resolution approving the 2022 union contract with Local 49 Public Works. Miss Heinecker. **[02:33:30] Ellen Heinecker:** Yes Mayor, members of the Council. So the second to last contract for the year: we have sergeants left and then we'll be done. But we don't where that's going well so this just like the ones that we've reviewed with Council the past few meetings this would be a contract for our Local 49 which they represent our public works folks. It would be a three percent increase January 1 with the one percent adjustment mid-year. And again an explanation to help move that that salary scale up a bit. And secondly it also addresses a position that's already it's not adding position of lead mechanic but it's taking... we have two mechanics now and then we had changed some FTE around and reorganized some of our positions. So with two mechanics, this would place one of them as the lead mechanic and that's also addressed in the contract. With that... oh I guess lastly I'm sorry we also have the health benefits and without going over them again they are same and similar to those that were provided for other unions and also for our non-bargaining employees. With that I would recommend approval of the attached resolution. **[02:34:55] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Move approval. **[02:34:56] Councilmember Bill Bean:** Second. **[02:34:57] Mayor Jo Emerson:** I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If not all those in favor say aye. (Aye) Opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to 9f, rescheduling the public hearing on the issuance of bonds to finance renovation of the public safety facility and the related capital improvement plan. Miss Kinsell? Right you've waited all patiently all evening. **[02:35:20] Anne Kinsell:** Madam Mayor, members of the Council. As you remember the Council approved resolution 12,870 at the October 26th meeting to call for the public hearing on the intention to issue general obligation capital improvement bonds and adopt a capital improvement plan for 2022 through 2026. State law requi requires publication of the notice 14 to 28 days before the public hearing in the official newspaper of the city. There was a timeline timeline that was prepared that we had shared that evening that listed the publication date would be November 10th as for the public hearing in the White Bear Press to give notice for the public hearing on November 23rd. **[02:36:05] Anne Kinsell:** However after recent review of the timeline and we were counting the days, it was noted that there's not a full 14-day notice based on the publication and the delivery of the paper and when the public hearing is on. So to ensure that proper notice is given to all, we're just recommending that the City Council reschedule the public hearing to your December 14th meeting. So we will publish the public hearing notice on November 24th so that we have more than 14 days. There's no change to any process in the timeline or the related bonding approval of this resolution tonight; it is only to change the date. Therefore following the public hearing on the 14th of December will begin that reverse referendum 30-day period that will end on January 14th of 2022. So staff continues to work with the legislatures to get this project and the state's bonding bill for 2022. So we're asking that you accept this approve this resolution so that we can have the public hearing on December 14th. **[02:37:10] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Move approval. **[02:37:12] Councilmember Dan Edberg:** Second. **[02:37:13] Mayor Jo Emerson:** I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If not all those in favor say aye. (Aye) Opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to the Consent Agenda. **[02:37:25] Councilmember Bill Walsh:** Move approval. **[02:37:27] Councilmember Steven Jones:** Second. **[02:37:28] Mayor Jo Emerson:** I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Aye) Opposed? Motion carries. Moving on to communications from the City Manager. You're on. **[02:37:45] Ellen Heinecker:** Yes Mayor, members of the Council. I will keep this brief. I am announcing that there is no work session next week. I'm sure you're all very sad about that! [Laughter] Actually there's a good reason for it. I'm not gonna be I'm not gonna be here... no we're we're not having it. We hadn't planned to do to review the housing study... we want to spend more time with Council than just the presentation that would be we will still plan to present the Council on the 23rd of November but the consultants that have been integral and into in this process are not available that evening. So we will save that presentation where Council has an opportunity to really dig in to some of the recommendations for the beginning of 2022. So that is why that's rescheduled and we just didn't want to fill it in with whatever. **[02:38:40] Ellen Heinecker:** And then also just lastly and importantly because we are leading up to a pretty significant transition, we have some meetings on the calendar with our mayor-elect and council members-elect to start sharing some of the things that we've been working on and looking at how we transition into the next year. And we also have one of our staff members met with our new manager last week and I'll be meeting with her this week and we've been in communication with her. So we're all just really trying to stay in touch and and try to make things as smooth and possible as possible, which I I know they will be. So great staff, great people. So all that's happening behind the scenes. **[02:39:25] Mayor Jo Emerson:** Okay is that it? Anything? **[02:39:27] Ellen Heinecker:** I do not have anything to add. **[02:39:30] Mayor Jo Emerson:** And I do not either. Well then I guess I can call for my into a jerk [Laughter] was funny you.