This transcript is from the White Bear Lake City Council meeting held on January 28, 2025. Based on the context provided and city records, the primary speakers are **Mayor Dan Louismet**, City Manager **Lindy Crawford**, Assistant City Manager **Rick Juba**, Parks & Public Works Director **Luke Copy**, Police Chief **Dale Hager**, and Council Members **Bill Edberg** and **Dan Walsh**. [0:28] (Silence/Background noise) [0:58] (Silence/Background noise) [1:28] (Silence/Background noise) [1:58] (Silence/Background noise) [2:55] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Okay. [3:02] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Order arms. Present arms. City of White Bear Lake, the flag of your nation and a pledge to follow: 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, liberty and justice for all. Post colors. [4:28] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Please be seated. All right, we'll jump into item 2A: minutes of the regular city council meeting from January 14, 2025. I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes. [Second.] I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say "aye." [Group: Aye.] Any opposed? Motion carries, minutes are approved. Item 2B: minutes of the city council work session on January 21, 2025. I would entertain a motion to approve those minutes. [Motion and second.] I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say "aye." [Group: Aye.] Any opposed? One abstention. Motion carries, those minutes are approved. All right, item three: adoption of the agenda. We have several corrections and changes to make. So, first item: what is currently item 4E, resolution ordering a public hearing regarding the operations of a dog beach at Matoska Park, will be moved to what will become item 8C. We will be adding a new item 4E, resolution approving memorandum of understanding with the international firefighters, and a new item 4F, resolution certifying miscellaneous private property assessments. And finally, item 5B, legislative update from Representative Keeler, is removed from the agenda and we'll be adding a new item 5B: Ramsey County Commissioner Kelly Miller will be joining us and introducing herself. And with that, let's see, we have—yep, okay. Would there—I'd entertain a motion to approve the agenda. [6:01] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** So, I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say "aye." [Group: Aye.] Any opposed? All right, we have an agenda. Item four: consent agenda. I’d entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended. [Motion and second.] I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say "aye." [Group: Aye.] Any opposed? Motion carries, consent agenda is approved. All right, item 5A: visitors and presentations. We have a swearing-in of a new police officer. So Chief Hager, whenever you're ready. [6:48] **Police Chief Dale Hager:** Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, thank you once again for the opportunity to share another one of our police officers, Zach Henen, with you tonight and to celebrate with he and his many friends and family that are here as he takes his oath of office. I also want to say I think that Captain Tuma, Sergeant Gadboy, and Officer Yi did a great job again with their duties as an Honor Guard, and I also appreciate you letting us kind of show them off here every time we have one of these swearing-ins. On to the reason that we're here: Zach is another hometowner. While we're proud of all of our officers, many of them that are in the back of the room tonight, when we find a local to serve their fellow citizens—oftentimes family members and friends—we take special pride. Zach was raised in the White Bear Lake community by his father Jason and his mother Donna. He attended elementary school in Hugo and the majority of his schooling was here in White Bear Lake School District, ultimately graduating from our high school in 2012. Zach's early life was harshly influenced by the unfortunate passing of his mother when he was a freshman in high school. He credits his mother and father as well as this traumatic experience itself as the reason he has learned to focus on what truly matters in life: how to be resilient, compassionate, and dedicated. After high school, Zach started down a path that wasn't obviously aiming towards law enforcement. He began a 10-year career at Wilson Tool here just north of us in Hugo, where he was employed full-time for ten years. While working at Wilson Tool, he concentrated a lot on education. He attended Anoka Technical College, he enrolled in a machine trades program, and he attended multiple continuing courses. When getting to know Zach a little bit better as both my student at Century College and more recently as our newest officer, I found he's a very driven person and he continuously is looking forward to improving himself through education and embracing new opportunities. Even after this success that he had in the private sector, Zach still felt the deeper calling which was to serve others and improve his community. He took it upon himself to investigate the potential cause of this calling, so he scheduled to ride along with his hometown Police Department in 2022. He rode along during a night shift with his friend and one of our newest officers and one of the people on Honor Guard tonight, Eddie Obby, after which he started to pursue a new career and enrolled in Century College. In the spring of 2024, he finished at Century College, he spent the summer at Hennepin Tech for his skill training, and we were lucky enough to snatch him up this last September as our newest officer. He had a very active FTO experience over the fall. One of the incidents he was involved with earned him a unit award for his participation in a peaceful resolution of a very serious event at our high school. Zach completed FTO training with flying colors and had an unprecedented first day on patrol—I'll let him explain that all to you guys later. Due to recent staffing issues, while he was at nights he got moved to day shift just recently. It's not always a welcome transition for a new aggressive cop, but I have a feeling he will attack it like he does everything else in his life with a positive attitude. So tonight, as I said earlier, many of Zach's family members and friends are here to help us celebrate, including his father Jason, who will be pinning on his badge very soon, his stepmother Carla, his partner Melanie, and of course one of his stepdaughters, Gwen. Nolan wasn't able to make it tonight. So Zach, if you would please go up front and join our City Clerk so she can issue the oath of office to you, after which your badge will be pinned on. [10:21] **City Clerk:** I, Zach Henen, do solemnly swear... **Zach Henen:** I, Zach Henen, do solemnly swear... **City Clerk:** ...that I will support the Constitution of the United States... **Zach Henen:** ...that I will support the Constitution of the United States... **City Clerk:** ...and the state of Minnesota... **Zach Henen:** ...and the state of Minnesota... **City Clerk:** ...and will discharge and faithfully execute the duties devolving upon me... **Zach Henen:** ...and will discharge and faithfully execute the duties devolving upon me... **City Clerk:** ...as a police officer for the City of White Bear Lake... **Zach Henen:** ...as a police officer for the City of White Bear Lake... **City Clerk:** ...without fear or favor, to the best of my judgment and ability. **Zach Henen:** ...without fear or favor, to the best of my judgment and ability. **City Clerk:** Congratulations. **Zach Henen:** Thank you. [11:46] **Police Chief Dale Hager:** Cheers. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, thank you very much. I think the our group is going to leave here to give you some peace for the rest of your meeting and we're going to head over to the Public Safety building. So after you, Zach. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Very good, thank you. [12:21] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** (No problem). [12:33] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** (Say...) [13:08] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Well, I don't know why everyone didn't stick around, we've got a lot of interesting stuff to talk about, but fine, they can go have cake, I understand. All right, item 5B, we're going to introduce our new Ramsey County Commissioner Kelly Miller. So please step up and introduce yourself. [13:53] **County Commissioner Kelly Miller:** Well good evening, Boozhoo. My name is Kelly Miller. Good evening, Mayor Louismet—got it!—and Council members. My name is Kelly Miller, I'm the newly sworn-in Ramsey County Commissioner for District 7, and I'm honored to be here tonight in front of you. First and foremost, I want to express my excitement about working alongside you to support White Bear Lake and ensure that our county and city relationship and partnerships continue to be strong. Over the past several weeks—it's only week three right now—I've been deep with the onboarding process, getting to know the county more, getting to know my committee appointments, and also getting up to speed on key initiatives. But as part of that process, I am going to reach out to each of you individually to request meetings to get to know you and your priorities and how I can help support White Bear Lake along the way. Like I said, I look forward to collaborating with each of you and ensuring that we're working together to serve the residents of White Bear Lake and the broader community of Ramsey County. Thank you for having me and I'm happy to answer any questions. I will also introduce Kathleen Murphy; she is my Principal Aide. So if you ever need to get in contact or if you have any residents that have any concerns, please do not hesitate to reach out to our office. We're willing to help step in and help where we can at the county level. Yeah, that's it. [14:41] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Very good. Well, thank you for being here. We appreciate you giving us a little introduction. I don't have any questions, I do look forward to maybe grabbing coffee with you in the near future and chatting in substance. So I'll just offer my congratulations on your new position and again, look forward to working with you. Council, any questions? Council Member Walsh. [15:28] **Council Member Dan Walsh:** Well, thank you Mr. Mayor, welcome. What committees, what's your focus? What committees did they put you on? **County Commissioner Kelly Miller:** Yeah, so I always joke about this: I am on the Mosquito Board, which is great. **Council Member Dan Walsh:** Somebody has to do it. **County Commissioner Kelly Miller:** Somebody has to do it! So Commissioner Moran and I are on there and I hear great things about it. I already had to take a Mosquito Board oath, which was pretty exciting. **Council Member Dan Walsh:** White Bear Lake, we’re anti-mosquito. **County Commissioner Kelly Miller:** Well, that’s good to know, I will take that in with me as I go into the meetings. I'm also on the Workforce Innovation Board, which is pretty exciting because that works directly with our business partners and helping drive the workforce. And also on the Ramsey County and Washington Recycling R&E Board. I'm an alternate on the JDA Board—so the Rice Creek Commons project as well—and an alternate on the Purple Line and the Gold Line. So just a few boards. I have a full list of appointments that's on my website, I'm trying to get them all, but those are the key ones that are going to be keeping me very busy. **Council Member Dan Walsh:** All right, good. Yeah, thank you. [16:13] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** All right, well thank you again for being here, we appreciate you stopping by. **County Commissioner Kelly Miller:** Yep, thank you, take care. [16:33] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** All right, item six: public hearings. We have nothing scheduled. Item 7A: the St. Patrick's Day celebration. Mr. Copy, is this you? [Staff points to Mr. Juba]. Mr. Juba. [17:19] **Assistant City Manager Rick Juba:** Mayor and Council members, Corey Roberts of The Minnesotan in downtown White Bear Lake has applied for a special event application to host a St. Patrick's Day celebration in the city parking lot at Banning and Third. If that sounds familiar, it's because we talked about it at the last Council meeting and this item was ultimately tabled to allow Main Street a little additional time to review some changes in the setup and teardown schedule that had been proposed. So Main Street did do that and through that discussion Mr. Roberts has amended his plans and is now planning to set up the day of the event, so Saturday March 15th, and teardown the day after the event which would be Sunday March 16th. So the event—and now Main Street does support that with the amended schedule—and the event again from noon to 10:00 p.m. on that day on the 15th. Again, this requires City Council approval because they are utilizing a city parking lot, so city property, and they need approval to extend their liquor license into that parking lot for the event. There's several conditions of approval, including police and EMS presence, then some outstanding plans yet to be finalized regarding sanitation, electrical, heating, liquor control, and the such. And we've got a little bit of time to work that out between now and the event with a check-in with Mr. Roberts here in the middle of February to make sure that stuff is all finalized. So with those conditions, staff recommends approval and I can stand for any questions, Mr. Mayor. [18:05] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Thank you, Mr. Juba. I'll just say that I support this. I think it's a cool idea, a cool event. We'll try it—like any "firsts," you never know how it's going to go—but I think we've got a good game plan. It sounds like Mr. Roberts was receptive to some of our reasonable concerns and he addressed them at the last meeting. So I'd like to see this go forward but ultimately Council, what would we like to do? Council Member Edberg. [18:53] **Council Member Bill Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Juba, how will the city—first time, I think this has positive opportunities for us, I'm interested and clearly wanting to support the recommendation—how will staff evaluate the success of the event? I'm going to guess that there's a desire that it might happen again next year and maybe every year after that, or at least for the foreseeable future. How do you think about how we will evaluate this first inaugural outing? [19:38] **Assistant City Manager Rick Juba:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Member Edberg. I think first and foremost, compliance with the conditions of approval. Those are items that we as a staff believe need to take place in order to have a safe event and a fun and orderly event as well. Obviously we would review any calls of concern that day that involve our police and EMS services, and then along with those conditions of approval, just general cleanup and takedown and how that process goes and returning our property and the downtown into its normal operating situation as soon as possible after or on the Sunday after. I think those are the things that come to my mind as we've had this correspondence with Mr. Roberts and with Main Street and with City staff. [20:25] **Council Member Bill Edberg:** May I continue, Mr. Mayor? **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Please do so. **Council Member Bill Edberg:** Thank you. I agree with all that. An encouragement is that—we don't have to do it, Mr. Roberts and the team of downtowners—I'm curious in saying, okay, what do we learn about economic impact? What do we learn about attendance? What do we know about the portions of the day and when attendance is higher or lower, etc.? Those kinds of observations I think would be useful to us in trying to get our heads around where might this go and what does any of that say about our continued engagement support, etc.? So just some thoughts about any of those other kind of quantitative or qualitative events, but that might be suggestions to the organizers, not necessarily an obligation to staff. [21:11] **Assistant City Manager Rick Juba:** Mr. Mayor, if I could please. Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council Member Edberg. On that note: so because of the capacity requirements of the tent, that's one thing that is delegated to Mr. Roberts throughout the day as to track attendance and be able to report that to the Fire Marshal at any given time as to how many people are there at that time. So I think we should have something in place to get decent numbers on that. And then I think having that discussion with Main Street on trying to do a debrief rather quickly afterwards on what folks in the Main Street organization observed during that day, so we don't lose that prior to consideration next year should it come back. **Council Member Bill Edberg:** Awesome, thank you Mr. Mayor, I'll move approval. [21:56] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** All right, very good. I have a motion. Do I have a second? [Second.] Motion and a second. Any further discussion on this? Seeing none, all those in favor say "aye." [Group: Aye.] Any opposed? Motion carries, the resolution is passed. All right, item 8A: Minnesota Public Employee Association for Patrol Officers union labor agreement. Mr. Juba. [22:42] **Assistant City Manager Rick Juba:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. On January 21st, City staff and representatives from the Minnesota Public Employees Association representing our patrol officers attended a mediation session and successfully reached an agreement on a two-year labor contract. The current market in the metro area for police officers is incredibly competitive and mediation was required after our normal negotiation process reached an impasse over wages. The agreement that's in front of you tonight was approved by the union and will keep the city competitive through 2026. Some of the highlights of that agreement include matching the insurance premium increases and contributions to the rest of the city that have already been approved; increasing their holiday hours for patrol officers from 96 to 112, which is consistent with non-bargaining staff; wages for 2025 include a 3% cost of living adjustment, a 4% market adjustment, and then regular step increases for the officers; for 2026, wages again a 3% cost of living adjustment, a 1.5% market adjustment on January 1st and another 1.5% market adjustment on July 1st of 2026; slight increase to the uniform allowance from $950 a year to a $1,000. And then, Mayor and Council, if you'll recall in April of 2024, the Council approved a memorandum of understanding with the union for hiring and referral incentives. That was put into place using Public Safety Aid that the city had received and designated $36,000 to that program. That MOU or memorandum of understanding expired at the end of the year in 2024, and the way that that was set up was that it would expire upon exhaustion of the funds or the end of the year. So the end of the year came first and there's still $18,000 of those designated funds remaining and so part of this agreement is putting that memorandum of understanding back into action with the same sunset clause that once the funds are exhausted it would then be expired or at the end of the year 2025. So those are the highlights of the contract that we have in front of you tonight. It's recommended for approval and I can stand for questions. [25:02] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Thank you, Mr. Juba. So the first year increase is a total of 7% and then in year two it's a total of 6% although the market adjustment is staggered 1.5% for the first half of the year and another 1.5%. So those are significant increases. I support those, I think our officers are more than well-deserving of that, and I would hope that the Council would move this forward. I would like to know, does that make us competitive? Where do we fall with other cities in terms of where this brings the current salaries for our officers? [25:49] **Assistant City Manager Rick Juba:** Thank you, Mayor and Council members. This certainly makes us competitive and that was obviously our goal was to stay within that range, right? The first-year increases I think are well in line with all the like-contracts that we compare to and that lines up right in the "sweet spot" where I think the Mayor and Council wants us to be. In 2026, that average or that range is a little less certain because there's not as many settled contracts, but from what we can see, yes, I believe it's a competitive contract and as I said, the union voted to approve it, so I think both sides in this came out okay. [26:36] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Very good. A follow-up on what you mentioned there: there are other contracts that are not settled. Are those contracts in other cities that are tracking roughly with the same timeline as what our contract tracks? **Assistant City Manager Rick Juba:** The—sorry, Mr. Mayor—again, the—there's a good number of contracts, most of them that we compare to settled for 2025, and then from what we can see for 2026, yes, I think that's still within line. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Okay. I guess what I'm getting at is this one ultimately went to mediation. Not terribly uncommon in the bargaining world. Are you seeing other cities that are really grappling with this? There's contracts that end in one of two ways: you kind of get there relatively quick, or this one was maybe a little more drawn out. Are we sort of on par with other cities where these contracts maybe have been a little bit longer in terms of slogging through the negotiation and getting to a ratified CBA? [27:22] **Assistant City Manager Rick Juba:** Thank you, Mayor and Council members. I know everybody has been grappling just with the market and so some of them have taken a little while. The number that have gone to mediation, I'm not certain. I am certain in the results because we get to see those, and the market adjustments and percentages that we landed at have been fairly common with what's being settled. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Great, thank you. Council, any questions for Mr. Juba, or would someone like to move the approval of the resolution before us? **Council Member Bill Edberg:** Move approval. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** I have a motion. [Second.] Motion and a second. Any further discussion on this? Seeing none, all those in favor say "aye." [Group: Aye.] Any opposed? Motion carries and the resolution is approved. All right, item 8B: the 2025 legislative priority agenda. Miss Crawford. [28:08] **City Manager Lindy Crawford:** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. Beginning in 2021, the City Council has annually adopted a legislative priorities agenda, and the 2024 agenda we talked about at a work session on January 21st. It moved forward with some success following a lot of hard work by the Mayor and Council and staff and building rapport with our area legislators. As I just said, you met on January 21 to review potential legislative priorities for the upcoming year and requested that the following be brought back for further consideration tonight. In your packet is a narrative kind of explaining all of the proposed legislative priorities agenda, but I will just list the five that we have brought back and they include: oppose legislation that would limit or preempt a local government's zoning authority; support legislation to allow chief law enforcement officers the ability to access the National Crime History Database; support legislation providing funding for law enforcement training; oppose legislation that would allow for a single stairway in a multi-family residential building; support legislation providing funding assistance for building capacity for urban forest management and meeting the cost of preparing for and responding to Emerald Ash Borer. The city is part of the League of Minnesota Cities as well as Metro Cities, and both of those organizations also create their own legislative priorities agenda. Most of ours, if not all, really do align with either one or both of those organizations as well as with the Chiefs of Police Association, the Fire Chiefs Association and those things. So with that, I can stand for any questions. [29:41] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Thank you, Miss Crawford. Council, any questions? Seeing none, I’d entertain a motion to approve the resolution before us. [Motion and second.] Moved and a second. Any further discussion on this? Seeing none, all those in favor say "aye." [Group: Aye.] Any opposed? Motion carries, the resolution passes. All right, item 8C: resolution ordering a public hearing to receive public feedback regarding the operation of the dog beach at Matoska Park. Mr. Copy. [30:26] **Director Luke Copy:** Mayor, members of the Council. Before you tonight, we have, as the Mayor stated, a memo and resolution to order a public hearing as directed—or as Council directed staff at the November 2024 workshop—where we had discussions on the dog beach. This would provide that opportunity for the public to weigh the pros and cons, the fors and against, for the dog beach and allow Council to be educated on what the community wants and make a decision how to move forward with the dog beach for future years. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. [31:14] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Thank you, Mr. Copy. I don't have any questions, I'll just say: in the three years now that I've been Mayor, I have not received more emails or phone calls than on this issue right here. Rightfully so, people are passionate about it on both sides. We have been working through this for many, many years, long before I was the Mayor. We dealt with this issue when I was on the Park Commission for five years, and it's gone kind of back and forth. We've tried through trial and error for many, many years to make incremental improvements. What I said at the work session, what I'll say tonight: one way or another, we just need to make a final decision and realize that that's where we're going to be and then we're going to move on. That's not to say it can never come up again or that we're not going to make improvements if it stays open, but the point of bringing this up in a somewhat uncharacteristic fashion on an agenda, letting the public know that about a month from now we're going to have a public hearing on it, is so that it gets published in the White Bear Press and that people feel like they have ample notice to come to a public hearing, voice their opposition to it, or their support of keeping it open. We're going to have a good dialogue on it. I'm confident that staff is going to come prepared with the additional information that we need as well as the Park Board and we'll ultimately make a decision. So I hope that this is not an unnoticed gesture on the part of this Council to recognize how important this issue is to a lot of people on both sides, and it deserves a good full airing in front of the public and giving people an opportunity to be heard. That's exactly what we're going to do February 25th of next month. So with that, Council, any questions for Mr. Copy or comments on this? Council Member Edberg. [33:33] **Council Member Bill Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I was the Council member that asked that the item be pulled from consent. I support the calling of a hearing as the resolution does. My reason for asking for this to be taken from consent is I request that this Council direct staff—and encourage the—that we not schedule action that same night as the hearing. That we wait at least one meeting so that we can fully hear citizens on both sides. If there are any questions of factor history that are raised, we have opportunities to receive that information, and that we have time to fully reflect as Council members on what we've heard and that we come back and make that decision or take up that action, if we choose to, at a subsequent meeting, but not that night. And if that is amenable to the Council—I don't know that we need a motion on that—but if there's opposition to that, then I guess we need to have a little more conversation, but that would be my request. [34:19] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** You know, I'm open to what the Council has to do. My knee-jerk reaction is I don't think it's necessary. Having said that, whether we approve it or take an action on it at the meeting or not, anyone's free to make a motion to table this to the next meeting or whenever they'd like, but I'm open to discussion on the Council. My only concern with that approach, although I think there are valid points in doing so, is one: we're giving people a month notice to show up at this meeting. Two: this has been going on for many, many, many years. And then three: it always inevitably leaves the risk of when we're taking action on something, the misconception that that is another opportunity to speak to the Council, which it won't be. We're not going to have two public hearings. Those are my concerns. Having said all that, I don't feel that strongly one way or another. If the Council sees value in only holding a public hearing and then having a couple weeks to gather more intel and reflect on it, I won't stand in the way. Council, any thoughts on Council Member Edberg's proposal? Council Member Walsh. [35:51] **Council Member Dan Walsh:** Well, I don't know. My initial reaction was it's a good idea. The only thing I'd say is a lot of times when people come to a public meeting and they're heard, if they walk away with no decision, it's sort of frustrating. You know, it's like "well, was I heard? Did they listen to me? I don't know, they're not going to vote until two weeks from now, I'm not coming back. Maybe I'll watch it on the TV, read about it in the paper." So I don't know, that's the only thing. Do you want to give people finality that night? That might be a reason not to do that. But I don't feel strongly. We're not in any hurry on this decision either, so maybe we just kind of go with how we feel that night. But then the question would be, like, when do we have a discussion? I guess we could listen. That's the other thing: like when people speak in a public meeting then there's no reaction. That's also kind of—I don't think very good. Sometimes a lot of public bodies around the state do that where they have a public meeting and then there's no reaction, so you get no feedback from the elected officials, which I don't think is the best either. So maybe we should have some discussion at least after the public meeting so we can show that we were listening and react, and then maybe, yeah, hold the vote for another couple weeks to get more input. So I'm rambling on without giving any really good advice, except I feel strongly on both sides of the issue. [37:24] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Okay, thank you for that vanilla approach to this issue. I have a question for Council Member Edberg—it's not a "gotcha" question, I honestly want to know—what do you think would change your mind or what would prevent you from feeling like you're fully informed after the public hearing and then after us discussing at the dais? I mean, we don't put time limits on anything, so if we want to sit up here for two hours and debate it, we're welcome to do that. So that's my question. [37:24] **Council Member Bill Edberg:** A few observations. Number one: there is no state law, there's no ordinance, there's no written Council policy that says we have to vote on the same night that we hold a hearing. That is the judgment, and frankly it's the judgment of the Council—we get to decide the Council's agenda. I would say that for me, I expect that this decision is not going to be unanimous either way. I have no sense of where that center of gravity is. I sometimes walk away from some of our hearings where people perceive that they are not being heard because we come in with our minds made up. And it's a playful counterpoint to Council Member Walsh's point, which is as valid as mine. Because it is so contentious on both sides and there are good and honest reasons on both sides for whatever that outcome might be, I personally don't know what I want to do and I want to be able to make sure that I am able to make that vote knowing that I've heard, listened, pondered, and analyzed what I've heard at the hearing. I don't know that we're going to hear anything different, I'm not clear that we're going to get questions that we can't answer that night, but I want to give us the chance to say to our community: "we listened, we asked, we thought," and then we come back and we take up that action at our subsequent meeting. And I would be happy to defer to the Mayor and the City Manager in terms of how they schedule that, whether it's the next meeting or whatever, certainly before ice out, before the park seasons get active. But I would defer to your judgment on when to schedule that. [39:43] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Okay. My only comment on the process, if the Council wants to go that route, is my recommendation tonight with this resolution is for us to decide on a date certain, whether it's the next meeting or a month later, for when the action item will come on just in the interest of fair notice. Because it will get misinterpreted that if we have a public hearing, there will be a decision made. And if we're going to signal that to the community, I'd also like to signal: "and also it's going to be a different date where we're actually going to make a decision on that" just in the interest of making sure people are fully understanding what the process is going to be. And I personally have no issue with that at all. I would be totally comfortable. I don't know what is already teed up for the following... it'd be the first Council meeting in March. I don't know what that agenda looks like yet, I'm going to guess it's not all that long, but maybe I don't know. But I would have no difficulty saying discussion in February, action first meeting in March, and we can communicate that in advance so that we can help set expectations about "listen, reflect, act" and a date certain. [40:30] **Council Member Bill Edberg:** Second. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Anyone else have strong opinions one way or the other on process and when we actually take action? And I'll put it this way: if there aren't strong oppositions to what was just suggested, then I think that's the route we go. I would entertain a motion to amend the resolution before us that would—I think it's March 11th is the first Council meeting in March. The motion can be in the form of another "whereas" that lets the community know that we'll be taking action on this at the March 11th city council meeting. Would anyone like to make that motion? [42:02] **Council Member Bill Edberg:** So before we make that motion, my understanding is that the last action we took requires a majority vote to overturn. I may be wrong on that, there might be a different interpretation, but when we last acted, my understanding of that resolution was the dog beach is open and it was not conditional—it is open until the Council decides otherwise. Now, the question might be... I think it's wise for the Council to actually take up an issue and vote. We've had lots of conversation, we should settle it with a vote. So I'm not trying to duck the decision, I just note no action is an action, and no action would leave in place the current status as an open park. That's my interpretation of our last action, but I'm open to fair and reasonable discussion about the impact of past precedent. [42:47] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Yeah, it's a fair point in terms of process. I mean, it's kind of pre-ordained then: the action would have to be a resolution to close the dog beach. And then if it fails, then by operation of law we go back to what it is today, the status quo. Otherwise there wouldn't be a proper resolution before us. We don't bring resolutions saying "ditto on the one we passed a couple years ago," right? Miss Crawford. [43:33] **City Manager Lindy Crawford:** Mayor, Council Member Edberg. The last motion that you took on the dog beach was a motion to make improvements to it. And in your staff report, the Park Board's recommendation is that you make further improvements to it. So that would be one option: to have a resolution making further improvements to it. This could be another reason why it would be a good idea to have the public hearing and then maybe comment back to staff on which direction—or to bring both resolutions and then you take one. This is what we've been wrestling with internally at the staff level is how do we handle this. But there is that outstanding recommendation from the Park Board that should be acted on, and no action is also an action as Council member said. [44:20] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Yeah, I think I like that approach. I think following the public hearing, anyone on the Council is free to suggest that staff further look into or go this direction. And I'm amenable to bringing two resolutions that are in conflict with each other, knowing that one will prevail and one won't. And one can be "we're going to close the dog beach," and the other one can be "keep it open with maybe improvements." And that's maybe something we can glean from the public hearing because I suspect—I suspect if it's the will of the Council to keep it open, there inevitably will be some modification to the improvements that we made. I could be wrong, but that lends itself to a resolution that does then modify the previous resolution that put certain restrictions, rules, and different things. I think that actually is going to be the recommendation in the memo of staff and then certainly the Park Commission, that if we do keep it open, they are recommending changes. So if the Council is agreeable to that, we wait. For purposes of this resolution, it will be "we are taking action"—I don't know how to word that—but we will put whatever you want in this resolution. We're deciding the fate of the dog beach on March 11th, good, bad or otherwise, so that again, the public is aware of the process. Council Member Edberg. [45:51] **Council Member Bill Edberg:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So we're dealing in a world of hypotheticals and there's multiple options. I would bifurcate the question about further investment and the Park Commission discussion. I don't see a need for us to deal with that on March 11th. I think we should first have the motion to: "are we going to close?" And I think that is the proper motion to be made and voted up or down. We can deal later with a financial conversation. I don't feel a need to wrestle with that at the same time. There are other budgetary issues that we have to wrestle with over the course of the year and preparations. I'd like to get clear around: do we see the necessity of keeping the park open or closing it? That needs to happen, and I think that should happen on March 11th. I don't feel a need to take up and dive into that and prepare for the conversation about budgetary expenditures at the same time. We haven't had that discussion. [47:23] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Yeah, I mean, that's fair. There's no right or wrong to this. I guess I would take a different approach and here's why: if it's the will of the Council to say "we're going to keep it open," there are a number of people that are in opposition to it. I think their concerns are valid and I want to hear from them along with everyone that is in favor of it. My preference would be that if we are going to keep it open, to that group of people that have their concerns over the dog beach, I'd at least like to be able to say: "we've made a decision for yes, we're going to keep it open, but we've heard you and these are the things that we're willing to try." It's not to say we can't do that later on, so it's not necessary that we do that; it's more just—we'll call it a goodwill gesture if it remains open. And I don't mean to pre-ordain that it's going to stay open, but I also don't want to minimize that there are a lot of people that have concerns—they've called me as well, they've sent me letters as well. For that reason, I don't see a problem with doing this, but I also think that we don't need to make that decision until that night of the public hearing. The point of a public hearing is for the Council to be educated, and maybe through that public hearing someone will glean some wisdom and have an idea or have a sense of which way they want to go, and that will help inform what action item, what resolution we bring at the March 11th meeting. I don't know if we have to decide that tonight. [48:57] **City Manager Lindy Crawford:** Mayor, may I suggest: if you choose to amend the resolution, another "whereas" could simply say no action will be taken on February 25th—or whatever the date is—and that action may be considered on March 11th. Something along those lines to leave it open but to clearly state that you won't be taking action. [49:44] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** Yeah, I think if that's the direction the Council wants to go, I think we should say both. Make it emphatically clear: no action will be taken. I don't really want to say we "may" take this up on March 11th; I want to take it up on March 11th because it's been years and years and years. So I think we should do that. I would entertain a motion to add a "whereas" that says no action will be taken at the Council meeting on February 25th and we will be making a decision at the March 11th council meeting as to whether the dog park remains open or closes. **Council Member Bill Edberg:** I'll make that motion with a slight modification: the item will be brought back for action on March 11th is the phrasing I would use. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** There's no guarantee that we'll find an answer on March 11th... I mean, it will come back for action on the 11th and then we'll figure out what happens. That's fair and that's certainly the proper form. What I'm getting at is I want to communicate as clearly to the residents what's going on, but I can live with that. So I have a motion, and I'm going to look at our City Clerk and defer to her that she's got this all correct—that Council Member Edberg made a motion to amend as aforementioned said. Do I have a second on that motion? [Second.] Any further discussion as to the motion to amend? Seeing none, all those in favor say "aye." [Group: Aye.] Any opposed? Motion carries, resolution is amended. I would entertain a motion to adopt the resolution as amended. [50:29] **Mayor Dan Louismet:** [Motion and second.] Motion and a second. Any further discussion on this? Seeing none, all those in favor say "aye." [Group: Aye.] Any opposed? Motion carries, the resolution is passed. We have a game plan. All right, item nine: discussion, nothing scheduled. Item 10: communications from the City Manager. **City Manager Lindy Crawford:** I do not have an update tonight. Thank you. **Mayor Dan Louismet:** All right, thank you. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say "aye." [Group: Aye.]