Mr. Johnson, we love you. No more life. >> You're good. I'm just going to wait this. You've been drinking that >> certainly not. >> All right, let's go ahead and get started. So open the meeting 30 October 2025. Let's start with the pledge of allegiance. >> I aliance 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. [Music] >> All right, Miss Johnson, we call the call, please. >> Let me do this first. Mayor Hib >> here. >> Member Glazer >> here. >> Rainville >> present. >> Member Swinson >> here. >> Attorney Albbright >> here. >> Nash >> here >> and myself Natalie Johnson. We'll call this. >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody like to make uh any discussion on the agenda or would somebody like to make a motion to approve the agenda? >> Mr. Mayor, >> council member >> make a motion to approve the agenda as presented. >> Mr. Mayor, >> was there a second? Was there a second on that? >> Not yet. >> Okay, >> I can't vote. I just have a comment on >> Okay, so we got a second. Any discussion uh before we put the agenda? >> Go ahead, Mr. Council member Rab. >> Um, under consent A, I would just ask that the council uh that we change the verbiage to say council approves accepting this additional money from the city. Um, so that we have an official vote on it. >> Are you talking for the consent agenda under 2A? >> Yeah. Yes. The consent agenda >> that we need to actually do a vote down. That's what you're saying. Well, if we just change the verbiage of the line, which then we'll vote on that verbiage change. Yeah. >> Mr. Mayor, >> council. >> Council member Wrangler, can you just read what what is your proposed change so I can at least get it written down? >> Yes. Um, that the council approves accepting of the additional grant monies for the recycling center. >> Got it. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you. And I apologize. cuz I didn't catch that earlier. >> Got it. >> But going back to the overall agenda, other than uh number two, you want to change the verbiage. Anything else on the agenda? >> All right. So, we had a motion. Uh we had a second. Um our vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Agenda is approved. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Member Brian, >> since there's only one item on the con consent agenda, I would um take take the change of the wording from Council Member Rainville and make a motion to approve the resolution to accept the to make a motion to approve the for a resolution to approve the acceptance of additional funds from Anoka County for non-malden resident users who reside in Anoka County. >> I'll second. Any discussion? hearing none. Let's move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. So, thank you uh Councilman Bryant for doing that. Summizing that up. So, moving into planning and zoning. Uh Miss Nash or Planner Nash, will you uh uh give us a brief overview on what we need to talk about here? >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, the first ordinance on the agenda is an ordinance that amends your cannabis portion of the zoning ordinance to change this retail sale of low potency hemp edibles from an interim use to a permitted use in the commercial zoning district. Um along with that then it also um your interim uses of cannabis have some buffer restrictions and such associated with them. As a permitted use there would not be buffer restrictions associated with it just for clarity. Um would ask that you consider approving the ordinance amendment along with the summary for publication. This was heard by the planning commission earlier this week and they made a motion to recommend approval on a 52 vote. >> So I'll just add a little bit to uh what planner Nash said. So it went to planning and zoning so which I attended which was very good to get a better understanding of this. Um so basically we in the past we've had to approve interm use because that's the ordinance that we approved last year or some was approved last year that was approved last year. We'll leave it at that. So, if we go with uh the recommendation that planner Nash is amending that uh zoning ordinance and you you call it uh it's just updating the ordinance. Is that correct, Miss Ash? Is that what you would call it? >> It's amending the ordinance and it's limited to changing those lower potency hemp edibles which are heavily regulated by the state to allow them to be a permitted use rather than an interim use. So, but people would not need to go through that interim use permit process to qualify to sell those >> with the low potency. I think the best comparison I heard the planning and zoning is you could compare it to um the control of cigarettes or alcohol. It's already regulated um and the city doesn't need to add additional regulations in the IDP process. So basically what we're doing is restricting um our retail sales um in the locations by having our current. Is that a good enough summary, Miss Nash? >> Yes, it is. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Okay, so that's what I took out of the planning zone. Uh but it did pass with a 52 vote. >> Mr. Mayor, Council Member Swinson, >> I see in the uh ordinance and in the IUP that's proposed that it limits the sale between to only between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Is that from the statute or is that something else extra that we added as a requirement? Um, you were allowed under the Minnesota um, rules regarding cannabis to put in hours of operation and it was consistent with what you were allowed to do. >> It just seems unnecessary. I mean, it's a liquor store. I I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to sell it saying beer. >> It's a great question. >> Great question. And that Mr. Mayor, may I >> planner next? Go ahead, please. >> So, that was also part of those IUP restrictions that if you make this ordinance amendment related to the low potency hemp edibles to allow those to be permitted would no longer apply to the low potency products. >> So, that was under the prior ordinance that that was added in. That was so if we amend it, that just goes away >> solely for the low potency. Yes. the the higher potency cannabis would still need that interim use permit, have the buffer restrictions, the hour restrictions, etc. >> And all we're talking about is the low potencies. Yeah, that that came up multiple times. People are mixing the two together. It's just the low qualification. Council member, >> Mr. Mayor, Brad, I'm literally referring back to what council member Swansson just said. The the wording literally says cannabis, cannabis flour, cannabis products, lower potency edibles, or hemp driven consumer products by a cannabis retail business, which is what we're referring to, shall be limited to between the hours of 10 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. And we're, as I understand it, the ordinance is saying in section two is that we're replacing the current section with the wording that's on here on this page. Which page are you referring to? Page seven. Any clarification on that Nash? >> Um, thank you for that. I would um propose then that in paragraph 9G that we also strike the wording of lower potency hemp edibles or hemp derived consumer products. catch, >> but I I don't know that it's totally necessary because there are actually So that's by a cannabis retail business and you have a separate definition for a um low potency hemp edible business. >> So your recommendation is just to strike the low potency from 9G. >> Yes. Is everything else would be the canvas retail business? It was in the original. Any other discussion points on this one? Council member, do you have any comments? Thank Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I guess I would say just remove the hours and limit it to their regular business hours and leave the lower hemp potency in place if that makes sense. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Miss Nash, go ahead. >> Thank you. So, um I'm not clear if um council member Rainville is speaking about what'll be the next item, the IUP for Burns Bottle Shop, but um the low under this ordinance amendment, the lower potency hemp edibles um if you remove the hours completely in there in that section G, It would actually apply to the cannabis retail business and you would eliminate your um restriction that you currently have on the hours for the cannabis retail business. >> Then strike what I thought >> in the M. Go ahead. May we address Becca and ask because is in the IEP she still has the hours? Um um >> can can we hold that until we get to the IEP? >> I was just wondering if we can sell it or not. >> I think it might be a question if you want Mark to take a look at it right now. So when we get to it, we can have So you want to ask your question mark? >> Yeah. Mark, can they sell it after 900 p.m. >> If the record open until 10? >> What is it? Are you referring to low potency hemp edibles? >> Yes, sir. >> Yes, they can. So, it's Minnesota statute 34213 subdivision uh it's parenthetical AB C. A local government of unit uh governmental unit may adopt reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner and operation of a cannabis business. Actually, that just defines it as cannabis business. It doesn't even say um retailer. So I would say yeah they certainly would have the authority to sell any hour that they're open. >> Check. So going back to uh so 3A it's the approval of ordinance amending the cannabis zoning ordinance. Is there any other discussion points on that? Uh one more one more note on this whole thing. Um, so one of I think it was mentioned in one of our meetings, but so they can sell low potency uh products right now. They've been doing this process. That was the other thing is so I went to I went to uh Burns Bottle Shop and I went and I asked the question, you guys sell it? Yes. I didn't even know that until I went until I brought up my account. So they've been selling it for the last well since they purchased the business, but it was sold uh prior to them buying the business. So I didn't even know that was happening. I just uh for my my know did you buy something? >> Uh no >> but they did ask the question. Any other discussion boards? Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion um for 3A approval of the ordinance? Yeah, I'll make a motion for the approval of 3A approving the ordinance amending the cannabis cannabis zone ordinance. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right, Mr. We're going to add we're going to add the publishing publication of the summary publication for said ordinance to >> we can or we can do it independent either way. So if you um recommended by the attorney, you could do a motion to include the summary of publication of ordinance which is 3B also if you wanted to. >> Sure. I'll add that to my motion to approve 3B the approval of summary publication for that ordinance amending cannabis zoning ordinance. Would you like I'll second the amended motion. >> All right, Mr. Mayor, Moro, go ahead. Um, should the motion not include the change to 9G on page seven? >> Yes. >> All right. One more time. Do you want to make a motion to approve changes on page seven removing the striking through the lower potency? >> Sure. Uh, have to repeat everything. >> No. All right. I would like to amend my motion and say like crossing out lower potency hemp edibles or hemp derived consumer products. It should be Yeah, I believe it's just the low potency but that can be products. Got it. You're right. So, it's got to be further than that drive products. >> Thank you. Would you uh Mr. Mayor I would second the amended amended motion. Perfect. The amendment. The amendment. >> Thank you that. All right. So, let's go ahead. Is there any other discussion? I think we've covered it all. Move ahead with the vote. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. So, 3 A and B are done. Now, what they've recommended is for 3 C and D, they can be combined as one the way it's written. And that was from plan evacuation she wrote. Let me just get to the right page. Uh Miss Nash, you want to start this one off? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, I'll start start by saying that it may appear that this is an unnecessary um action at this time with your approval of the previous item. However, um we still have that ordinance will not be in effect until we publish it and it there's some time involved in that and the applicants um across the state who are applying for these low potency hemp edible licenses need to make their applications by tomorrow with the state. there's actually a window that they had to make these applications within and as part of that they have to certify that they meet the zoning. So, we'll still ask you to approve this interim use permit. The way it's drafted um if your ordinance changes, which it clearly is going to at some point once this we get this published and that and it fully takes effect, then that IUP would um basically extinguish itself. So, um I will say that the planning commission looked at this um and made a motion to um recommend approval, but it was subject to an added condition that's not in your packet. So the extra condition that they would add is that if the city were to remove the fence from the park, um then a fence would need to be installed on their property line or within their property on that property line with the park within six months of when the fence would come down. >> So if you look at page 16, it shows the map where bird shop is and you can see the map from the ball or the fence from the ball field. and they requested that to add it in for the IUP. But again, we just approved A and B, which will null and void once this is fully published. Um, they were concerned if the ball field fence was ever removed, they would have access for people people to walk towards Bottle Shop, but the entrance is on the other side anyway. So, that was what they what they did recommend to include in the try to clarify that customer. And so I mean theoretically or ideally this IUP will only be in effect for like a month or two until the ordinance passes >> probably less >> and there's a six-month period in which they can build a fence under the >> it was only if the city removed the ball field fence >> if that happened and they I mean that just doesn't make any sense. I would I would not complete that. I would also um I note that in the IP it also limits it to the hours between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. We just strike out. >> Which page? >> Uh 14. >> Y mayor. Mr. Mayor, >> I I don't know who's asking who's asking. >> Dash. >> Miss Dash, go ahead. Um I would recommend that you leave the condition related to the hours of operation in that IUP. Um and that's related um to the fact that we did not do a variance application related to the hours and that was not um advertised for a public hearing. So I would leave that in the IUP. >> Okay, makes sense. I'll take it back. Yes. Again, those hour requirements will go away when it becomes a permitted use. Just so the council's aware of that and the applicants are aware of that as well. >> Correct. >> It'll be momentar in a few months. >> Agreed. Mr. Mayor Councon, >> I make a motion to approve the IUP um without the the extra fence uh idea that we discussed or requirement but uh approve it as written here as >> and then will you combine D also which is the variance or do you need to talk about the variance miss Nash? >> Thank you Mr. Mayor. The variance itself was related to the buffer distance required from that from the park. So that was um included. It's embedded within that resolution as well. The variance for that feature. >> So it had to be 500 ft. It wasn't quite 500 ft from where the I'll say where the people are located at the ball field. So that's what the variance is for. But again, there's a fence there. makes it very difficult if fewer locator are because all right does the proposed variance include building a fence if that is removed >> all right then I would >> no it was just the distance yeah I would amend my motion to approve both C and the u the IEP for the burns bottle shop and also approval variance the burns bottle shop um THC See says there be a second. >> Second, Mr. Mayor. >> All right, we got a second from council member Glazer. >> Mr. Mayor, >> any further discussion? Counc. >> Mr. Mayor, you were at the PNZ meeting, correct? Yes. >> Tell me more about the fence and and the and the the the discussion. I know exactly where the fence is. Been there. I've been there several times. >> Yes. Give you a quick explanation on the fence. We have the ball field fence right here. >> Okay. So what they were saying is because of the uh where the ball field is in relation this is less than 500 ft. So the concern was that came up they said what if the city somewhere down the road removes a ballfield fence. There needs to be some barrier right here. So that's what was brought up. Well one I don't think the ballfield fence is going to go anywhere probably for the next 30 years. But if it did they wanted it included in the IEP for that reason. Now, if you look, there's a natural barrier right here, but they said they still wanted to include a fence if this ball field fence was up. That was the intent. That make sense? It was kind of >> just because people can't get people would literally have to climb the fence. There's a gate right on the in the left field line corner. >> Miss Nash, you have anything to add to that? >> I I really don't. I mean, you if you do include the fence, the only place they could put a fence would be an easy enough place to walk around it anyways because you can't go onto somebody else's property and have them require them to fence on the property of others >> from from my perspective. >> You're trying to protect the city. I understand doing their job and and raising questions and obviously they passed including the fence. So that's why I'm just bringing it up. So the motion initially carried without it and they brought it up and they said, "Okay, we'll include it in um that." So I think the intent is good to protect the city in the long run, but I personally feel that it's not necessary. So again, you have a state regulated uh and they have to walk around the entire building to get to the front of the building. There's no entry in the back. I think it was just a very cautious approach. >> I think they noticed that the left fielder do ball. >> Again, that gate is open quite is open quite often. But >> where exactly is the gate? So if I just point up here right there, right where your finger is, there's a gate right there. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So the area we were talking is right in here. So if they had to build a fence, it would be somewhere I don't know. I don't know how you build a fence in the swamp, but it would be right at the back of the property. >> But it was more of a a redundancy than anything else. Yes, you'd ask him to build that cl give you enough clarification. >> Okay. Any other discussion? Council member Rego, did you have anything you wanted to add? >> No. Thank you for asking. >> Thank you. Are we ready for a vote? Okay, we'll do the vote. All those in favor say I. >> I >> oppose. Motion carries. Okay, moving on to number four. New business. Recycle center staff request our change for the winter. Who wrote this one up? Is this Miss Johnson or is this uh Council Member Rainbow? >> It came from the request. >> You guys are good to go. >> Thank you guys. You can certainly stay for the rest of the meeting if you'd like. >> Yes, >> Miss Johnson, you get to start us off. Mr. >> I just want to clarify something really quick. So, in this interimm period, I need to make sure that we are not sling between those like I need to follow the interm. >> Yes. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure that's what I got on that >> until the resolution is fully it's got to be published in the paper and then Miss Johnson how long will this >> so it will go to the paper uh tomorrow it will publish next Friday >> okay so when will I be >> Friday so next Friday next Friday from tomorrow she sees it in the paper it's been published right >> do you get the union >> I don't think do we Okay. Yeah. You'll see. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> Good question. >> Yep. Good night. See you soon. Great. >> All right. Miss Johnson, you want to lead us off? >> Sure. The recycling center attendance um because we've done this in the past has asked to move the hours back because the sun goes down and it's dark. Um they don't have much uh many customers. They did an average. It's between, you know, zero and two users. um they would like to just um move it from 10 to 4 instead of 11 to 5. >> We've done this in the past. >> Yeah. Mary or Council Member Rainville, could you give your opinion? >> Mr. Mayor and to council. Yes, we I I support this. We have done it in the past. Um and I think it's a safety issue. Um it's dark at early in the evening now. Um, and we are giving an extra hour in the morning. Um, opening at 10 versus 11. So, we're not changing the number of hours. It's just the structure of where they are. And I I believe this is a good idea. Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. close. >> I I would propose that based on, you know, the fact that we're moving into winter and people are doing less yard cleanup and just clean up in general that we just cut we just cut the hours from 11 to 5 to 11 to 4. Um, you know, say four hours a day a week. I don't think there's, you know, so much, you know, that much more traffic that we even move back an hour. People are accustomed to us opening at 11 already. Um, and then we just go back to 11 to 5. Okay. Um, I do appreciate there's some data here. We're talking 11% so between zero and two users. Um, I I don't know what the span of the data is, but it's got 13,000 users on here and we're talking a very small period. Uh, Council Member Rabo, would we have any data to to say that if we opened an hour earlier, um, that people would come visit us an hour earlier or as Council Member Glazer just said, I wish you could just cut that hour off. Do you have a recommendation on that, >> Mr. Mayor? Um I I do not believe we have any statistics because we only have tracked during our open hours, but I know that people are there at the moment we open that door if not waiting for staff to get there. So I think adding that extra hour um in the beginning of the day would be beneficial. we can track it through this period see what we get in that time period and at the end of you know keep those stats and then next fall when we are looking at the same thing we can make a decision whether or not the 10 to 11 was a value if it isn't then we would stay with the 11 but staff believes that they need that extra hour to um be able to process the items that come in and um so I I I I defer to staff. They're the ones that are staffing that center and know the client volume. And then we just would track starting at 10:00 a.m. versus 11:00 a.m. So going forward, we would have detailed numbers. >> Okay. Thank you, Council Randall. >> Mr. Mayor, Council Member Swanson. >> Um I don't disagree that that is a reasonable idea. I guess my concern is sort of surprising the staff by cutting their hours by two hours per week. It's already sort of a part-time job. And I don't know exactly what their situation is, but if there's any chance that would cause them to want to quit, I think that's a tough position to fill cuz it's part-time, weird hours. And so I guess I don't I don't mean to over refer to staff, but I I would like to be reassured that they wouldn't move on from the job if they're losing two hours of work that week. But I I just want to add my piece on here. Um I do agree it's it's definitely an option, but if we look we just took in some additional funding, so I think we've got it covered from a funding standpoint one. And also our if you look at our recycling center as a whole, we're looking at serviceability for the community. Um and we've reduced from more days down to less days and we truncated now we're every other Saturday. So I think we we keep the hours as is. We collect the data for this year and if it's not valuable then it's something we bring up next year. That would be my recommendation because we I do want to service the community with our we are two days a week pretty and then every other Saturday so it's it's a pretty limited amount of time. Brand do you have any input on this? >> No, I like the Well, I like the idea of of working through the hours, but I'm also going I'm just got three or four different things going through my head right now, but nothing that's going to be relevant right now. M >> for this. >> Um I originally wrote this as 11 to 4 and both staff members came to me and asked it be changed to 10:00. >> So they would like to still work the same amount of hours. Yes. >> Just shift it. >> Yes sir. >> Any other discussion? >> Would anybody like to make a motion? Mr. Chairman, >> I'd like to make a motion to change the recycling center hours from 11:00 to 5:00 to 10:00 to 4:00 for the months mid November 2025 through midappril 2026. I'm going to second your motion. Very straightforward. Any other discussion? >> Mr. Mayor, >> Mr. Uh, Councilman Rainbow, >> as as part of that motion, would council member Glazer um be willing to add that staff as they do for the all hours that they do track the hours uh the users from 10 to 11. So, we have statistics at the end of the period. >> Mr. Mayor Councer, >> I'd like to amend my motion um to approve and the change of the recycle center hours from 11:00 to 5 to 10 to 4 for the months of mid mid November 2025 through midappril 2026 with the additional request that staff track um traffic of the recycling center for the sake of um re-evaluating the the winter hours in 2026 27. Seven. I'm going to amend my second because that is very very nicely clified. Thank you. >> Any other discussion? Hearing none, let's move forward with a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. We're moving on to 5A. Approval of the repeal replace chapter 1 section 5 administrative enforcement. Is this uh is this Mark leading this one or >> I'd be happy to, Mr. Mayor, >> please. >> So, uh, what you have before you is an ordinance repealing and replacing chapter 5, section or chapter 1, section 5 of now then city code with respect to administrative fines. Uh, there are a few things that have been modified in here. I'll start with the least significant, move to the most significant. Uh the least significant is minor modifications to correct city administrator to city clerk to properly reflect uh the current organizational uh nature of how the city uh is operating with its employees. I also um have addressed let's see just trying to um small provisions in here. Uh one of them would be in section 157. I'll jump there before getting to kind of the meat and potatoes of the changes. Um, this modification says that in the event that an administrative hearing officer who's a part of an appeals process, if somebody does appeal an administrative fine that is imposed on them, if there is any finding that there is a violation of the city's ordinances, that the individual who is violating is responsible for the cost of paying for the administrative um, hearing. However, I do think that it should be clarified that if the individual is found by an administrative hearing officer to not be in violation. Uh it would not be advisable for the city to impose the costs of the administrative hearing upon the resident at that point. So, I just wanted that carve out to be in there. I think it's pretty logical. Um moving on to kind of just the big picture. Um the the question that's before the council today rests within section 153 under the definitions of an administrative offense. Uh it's a question of how the council would like to impose its offenses. And what I will say in terms of guiding the council is my my advice is pick something that is reasonable. Um, I would say instances where you're finding somebody on a daily basis in a high amount for a violation and not giving them an opportunity to cure that violation would not be deemed reasonable by a court should the ordinance ever be challenged. So, what I've put before the council here is three different options. They're not meant to all be options available. I would like the council to pick one option and run with it. Um, the three options are as follows. One would be a graduating increase. Uh so for a first violation it would be $250. For a second violation with the same calendar year 500 and the final being $1,000 and that could be imposed on uh a weekly basis if the council so wanted a monthly basis etc. The second option would be a flat penalty of $250 for each week that a violation continues up to a cap. Again you can set that cap amount here. I just have suggested $2,500. And then option three, setting a base fine. Um, that is set to double from 300 to 600, 600 to,200, 1,200. You know, at that point, you've imposed $2,400 worth of fines. That's where I would cap it. But these are three different possible options that I just like to put forth before the council as um different methods that you have. Really, you've got how how often do we want to impose the fines and in what amount do we want to impose the fines? and that's up to the council. The last thing that I would say is there is another provision um in here that was cleaned up in consultation with uh Rum River and uh speaking with them. It is 157D. So the language that was originally in this administrative fine ordinance contemplated a doubling of the fine. So the fine doubled doubled doubled and then we would stop doubling after a few times. And then there's this provision that says if we've done all this doubling and somebody's paid and they reaffend within the same 12 months or violate again within the same 12 months, no notice is required. We can double again. And it was unclear of what amount we were actually doubling. So here I'm just suggesting that you impose a flat and larger administrative fine. So, if somebody has hit their cap, they've, you know, had three violations, they've paid in $2,500, which is what you set the cap at, they've paid it off, but within the same 12-month period, they're back to violating again whatever that violation is, uh, that you may impose and just put a flat amount in there that you will impose uh, one more time that is not subject to the cap in the 1-153 provisions. So it would go above and beyond the cap that you set at 2500 2,000 whatever it may be. So that is what's before the council for consideration today mainly. Um you know the minor stuff I think everyone will be on board with but the discussion to be had is the frequency and the amount of the fines. I will caution to not go too high on the value of the fine and to not set a cap. Um again, if we're put in a position to where the um fine is being challenged, we want to show two things to a district court. One, that we are following a process. That is why you'll see in here is built in an appeals process for individuals um who seek to appeal the fine and have their side of the story heard. Uh and then two is just making sure that the ordinance appears to be reasonable in its nature. And then once we get through the conversation on how much we want to set the fines for and the frequency of them, uh, city staff has developed a helpful uh, diagram that is on page actually I didn't doesn't have a page number on this page, but it is in the packet for council uh, review today. All that this flowchart is that's in your agenda packet for today is a visual representation of section 1-5-4. That's the procedure that Rum River Contracting would uh go through with the city to provide notice to the individuals uh and to kind of start the complaint process uh in a relatively hands-off way so the council is not babysitting every single step along the way and Rum River is able to effectively go out and enforce the city's ordinances. So I will note that this while it is a great visual representation and I think it really will help you understand the process. This is not policy. what is in your ordinance and what will get published uh is policy. And so I do just want to make that clear that if you like something here and you don't see it in section 1-5-4, it should be consistent. But when we're modifying things tonight, if we want to modify procedure, it needs to happen in the language of the ordinance, not just on this or chart. >> Okay. Um, Mark, can you also clarify uh if you look at 1-5-3, out of the three options, is there one that you recommend over the others? I know we got to talk about frequency, the amount, and the cap, but is there one process that you would recommend over the other? >> To be honest, we have clients who do them all of these ways. Uh, Mr. Mayor, I think that it's just a question of how much process does the city council want to afford someone. Um, so obviously this option two, I think option two is expressed as being the preferred option by uh, Rum River Consultants who you're contracting with to do this enforcement. They like the process and procedure of it. It fits more so with the model that they generally apply. Um, I see absolutely no problem with with this process. Keep in mind that if you're doing $250 a week all the way up to $2,500, that's could be 10 months worth of fines um to get to your cap. So, you can change kind of that that the speed and how you impose them, if that makes sense. Um you you I I wouldn't make it faster than a week, right, for that reasonleness purpose. But you could maybe make that amount $300, $400, etc. you can make it higher so you get to your cap at a faster rate. One thing I will just make you aware of is you do not need to exhaust administrative fine penalties prior to commencing an action against somebody in district court. So you don't need to hit this maximum fine amount before you say, you know what, I'm done messing around. This property owner is not paying the administrative fines. I just want to bring an enforcement action in district court. We could do that at any point um so long as we have sufficient evidence that we could bring to court to to do that enforcement action. >> Thank you for the clarification. So I think the first thing I would like to bring up is frequency. Um you we have weekly as Mark had recommended that is as fast as we want to go. We don't want to do a daily one. Um or do we look at a monthly one with and then if you go monthly you can go bigger amounts instead of less. And how much paperwork does that affect by the staff if we're doing >> um Rum River is actually taking it all over once we've verified once I've sent it to them. Um as you can see kind of on the visual representation is a complaint comes in and either I or the deputy will go out and verify and then if we choose to move forward I will send it to um Rum River to start to take care of. Um, I will say that that Kerry has stated that once they start their process, they have very little that get to a point where they have to pay a fine or go to court. It was a very small percentage of the numbers that they've done in other cities. >> So, most of it's resolved private. >> Correct. >> If I'm not mistaken, I think she said something, Natalie, correct me if I'm wrong. It was to the tune of we had like 700 that we did for our clients and two resulted in imposition of fines. And I believe that was what she said when we spoke. >> So we're talking less than 1%. >> Um Mr. Mayor, >> less than half%. Go ahead. >> I would also like to let council know that this is really for nuisances. This is not for zoning violations and zoning violations need to be the next thing that we start to work on. >> So nuisances, couple examples. So like if a dog is barking or a rooster is something do that affect >> anything that violates the ocean as far as like maybe unlicensed vehicles, trash around. Um, what else? We got the rooster. I'll have kids on dirt bikes, you know, stuff like that. The more it's more of a nuisance to your neighbor, but anything that's zoning has to be taken care of a separate way. >> Mr. Mayor, responsive, if this were just zoning, I would be okay with your thought on the monthtomonth uh fine, but given that a nuisance. I mean, if it was me and my neighbor and my neighbor was driving me crazy with something, I wouldn't want to allow him a whole month to correct something. >> If it's a nuisance, it's a nuisance. >> Your re your recommendation would be weekly. Then >> my recommendation would be weekly and I like option two because it keeps pressure on the thunder to fix whatever is going on. I mean, it just keeps adding to it. And I, you know, I agree that it's got to have some cap. You can't pursue a fine a million dollars. >> Mr. Mayor, if I may just jump in quickly. >> Yes, please. >> So, one thing that Rum River was explaining to, and I think this is reasonable, is that the reason that they resolve so much of uh so many of these notices that are sent out and never impose the fines is because they will at their discretion be flexible on when they're going to actually start doing the collection. So, there's this whole notice process before you can ever go through to start collecting, which can take some time. Um, and I think that to what council member Swinson is saying, there are certain instances to where uh a nuisance by definition, it's injurious to uh public health, safety, and well-being or enjoyment of property. And sometimes that's something we want to put the pressure on ASAP. Sometimes though, uh a nuisance can take longer to resolve. For example, if there's a fire at a home and it becomes a hazardous building, we can't have Joe Blow from, you know, off the street or the property owner tear down the building itself. Arrangements will need to be made to have a licensed contractor come in to remove the building, etc. And so, in that instance, it may take a little bit longer to actually abate the violation just cuz you got to get some ducks in a row. Uh, and so I think that Rum River was indicating that their method of doing this would give some discretion to them on how aggressive they would want to be based upon the nature of the offense. >> Thank you for clarification. Going back Swson, we talked frequency, the amount 250 a week. Does that make sense to you? And the cap 2500. >> All three of them make sense. Just option number two is the way to go. I think they all make sense because it takes a bit to even get at this point, right? There's already an ongoing fight. So I I don't see 250 as being >> Any other discussion on that? Council member Brown was fine. I'm just trying to go through the litigation or go through my head about litigation um with the enforcement in the future and what happens if they start repeating because we I've known we've had some repeating offenders and it's been the past especially the um you know if somebody goes well I'm just going to pay the $2,500 and not worry about it and and this just continues >> and we'll get to that when we get to page 33. So that's the next one. If we can kind of nail this one down and get alignment, then we'll go right to there to talk about that flat fee and also the ability just as Mark said, we can stop this process and take them right to to court. So that was the other option. >> Yes, that's >> Mr. Mayor. >> One one second. Option two. >> Option two. Um was that council? >> Yes, it is, sir. Um I would favor option number two for the um reasons stated. >> Okay. later. >> Yes. >> Any concern? Correct. >> Okay. All right. We got on that one. Can we move on to page 33? Mark, can you give us a little bit of clarification talking about this flat fee? So, say they they get to the 2500, they're capped out. Can you give us a quick summary on that flat fee you recommended? >> Of course. And so this flat fee would just be an amount uh that you could come back if an individual has violated and has already paid and they're charged with the subsequent administrative offense that is the same or similar substantially similar in nature uh within a 12-month period that you skip the notice process and you go straight through and you just go to an imposition of fine. Um that fine that will be imposed I'm recommending again comes in a higher amount just to act as a deterrence. At that point, you'll know the individual has already been compliant with the fine process because they would have paid um to get to this point. And so that $1,200 amount is it is just a number. I think that number was pulled from uh to be honest option three as one of the proposed options because 1,200 was the final of the three tiers of escalation. And so I just said impose that one more time here. I think that something in the ballpark of 1,200, maybe $1,000 to $1,500, uh, is as high as I would advise going for imposing a fine. Uh, there needs to come a point, as you said, Mr. Mayor, uh, to where the imposition of administrative fines stops and if it is truly just a problem that we bring an action in district court seeking an injunction or a court order that an individual abate the violation. Uh, and so this is just something that I would say is um a last last wall of defense before we get to litigation >> if it hasn't already began before that. >> All right. So going what Mark said he said between 1,000,500. Can we just make this 1250 as a flat fee? >> Um any discussion on that? Would that be okay with everybody? >> I do have a question. Sorry. What >> when we were discussing the new the you know repeated emergency calls adding that as a nuisance I recall that the fine we discussed it it couldn't really be I thought it couldn't be like you know punitive I thought it had to be based on the actual cost to the city of of the you know using those resources is this fine similar and if it is is that flat fee too much >> a little bit different because it operates under separate budgets under separate statutory power rather. So the purpose of the uh excessive use of law enforcement services collection of fees is simply to offset uh the cost of law enforcement services. Uh the statute makes clear and I'm sure courts would rule this way as well um that you do not want to dissuade the calling of police. And so having um an imposition of a fine that creates what is in essence a sanction for calling the police above and beyond the cost is is should not be the intent in that instance particularly because of the statutory bases and and limitations for how we use those fines with respect to law enforcement services. This is a bit diff this is a bit different um because it's housed under kind of a a different theory. It's not underneath the same statutory authority, etc. >> Great question though. >> Yeah, in light of that, I mean, that was my only concern. I'm good to 1250, but anybody else for discussion on that? >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor, >> what's that? >> Mr. Mayor, >> or uh Mr. Johnson, go ahead. >> Mark, I have one question for you. Let's say it's a a barking dog >> and we have it set up with the sheriff now that or a dog at large that we will get a report of them um when they're written. And we were discussing whether or not we would use this ordinance after three times of it being a nuisance to their neighbor or would we use the excessive uh use of police services? >> There would be authority for you to do both, I would say. Okay. >> Right. But remember that the costs that you're recuperating for whatever that cost to recuperate the law enforcement is, I would keep that towards, you know, your uh funds for that purpose. And then this fine is is subject to what you want to do with it. It's above and beyond. >> Thank you. That's one of the main complaints that we get. >> So follow option too. So >> y >> if it got to that point where it wasn't resolved and they started imposing it would be $250 a week for not resolving 5. Okay. So are we ready to any other discussion on um 58 approval of the ordinance? So we talked two things. We'd select option two um under five3 and then under57 we put $1,250. Mark, was that everything that we needed to talk about? I would just like to bring a couple more things to council's attention with respect to this. So, there was some uh conversation and uh comments that had come from council members uh with respect to the language in here using may instead of shall in terms of uh when to impose fines and fees. The reason that I had included may as the language is because uh kind of of those situation that I gave earlier where uh you've got somebody who has a uh house that just caught on fire. Their life is in shambles. They're trying to figure out how to put everything back together, get somebody lined up to come and take care of the uh structure so it's no longer a hazardous building, etc. or you've got an elderly woman who's in the hospital and she can't take care of her grass and her grass is in violation of the nuisance ordinance if that's in your nuisance code. Those are just examples to where I would just say that having discretion uh would be important, but I also understand the concern to want to keep the ball rolling so that way we don't have to come back to the council every single time or rum rum river have to come back and ask the council mother may I essentially. And so the way the language has been drafted now is to change to using those shalls. But if you look at page and I'm looking at a redline copy, so it's a little bit different for me, but I believe it would be it's section 1-5-7 C. I've included the language here that the city council may adopt a schedule of fees paid to the administrative hearing officers up to and including the actual cost to hold the hearing. Nope, that's not the provision. Oh, here it is. Pardon my lack of clarity. It is 1-5-4 and then Roman numeral five. The city council may at its sole discretion choose not to collect fines in cases where it determines extenduating circumstances prevent the violator from abating the violation. And so that in essence, we keep the notices rolling. We keep the process going. And if we're at the point to where we're going to collect the fines instead of doing a certification, the township, if somebody comes in and says, you know, this is my grandmother. She's been in the hospital for a long time. She hasn't been able to take care of it. we'll get it taken care of. You could stay the imposition of those fines and just kind of start the process over again with Rum River if you want and just kind of reset the clock for them. Um, so the way I've tried to write it is in such a way that the ball keeps rolling, but the the council does have discretion to in extenduating circumstances not impose the collection of the fines or certification to property taxes. Um, there was a question as well that came from one of the council members, I can't remember whom, uh, that said, "What are the criteria for us to discern whether we should give that type of break or not?" And I would say don't overlegislate it cuz the moment you overlegislate it, you confine yourself into a box. Um, the council is comprised of five intelligent individuals um, who can use their contextual clues and circumstances to determine on a case- by case basis whether or not it's appropriate to grant an an extenduating circumstance because somebody could not, you know, abate the violation. And so I I would side for and advise the council to not overlegislate the criteria uh because that is just going to confine your discretion. >> Yeah, thank you for the summary on that. Uh I thought it was written very well and uh you clarified as I read through the packet. So I'm very I'm very pleased with how it's written. So moves to shall things keep going forward, but the council has the discretion to um as you use the term basic. >> Yeah, the council has discretion to stay the imposition of the fines. That's kind of more of a court term. You hear it in court, you know, if you stay somebody's sentence or stay imposition of the fine, all it means is that you're conditioning it. You're you're you're extending their ability to abate the violation on a condition, right? We're giving you another 30 days, but get it cleaned up and then we won't impose the fines. Otherwise, we will. >> Okay. Any other discussion on this? >> Mr. Mayor, Brown, can we go through the what happens if the the violations isn't resolved and with what's going to court and how that gets gets resolved? I mean, I'm just thinking of I don't want to know the exact specifics, but when the foundation needed to be filled in and it just wasn't done and wasn't done and wasn't done and finally we said, "Okay, fine. We'll go do that and this is what the city's going to, you know, we put that out for bid to to fill that in." Does that even apply in here anymore? >> With this partic I'm sorry, Mr. with that particular incident. Um, our attorneys sent a letter out to them and let them know that we were going to abate it and then they worked with us to take care of it themselves and they had to provide us the quotes that they received and then verify that it was done. >> Right. So, that would that literally is still possible that that if if if the um the the violator of the complaint is not addressing it that it is and it's determined because it's a this was a safety issue, I believe. that that if you're not going to take care of it, we're going to take care of it for you. >> And then we went out to bid. Is that does that is that still a option and a possibility under this scenario or do we only have the um charge the fines, charge the fines and um then go to the point where um we put a lean on the property or however that works. How does that how does that play out if it's if it is could be a health or a safety issue that needs to be addressed immediately? >> Mr. Mayor, if I may. >> Yes, please. >> So, council member, that's an excellent question. I would say there are aside from the administrative finds four paths forward, one of which is truly the advisable path. Once I go through those four paths, I'll kind of jump back to your specific scenario. So, the four paths forward, one is a fix and assess. So, a fix and assess is we say we have an ordinance. Statute gives us the authority to adopt our ordinances. I'm going in and I'm going to abate the nuisance. I'm going to remove the junk from your property and I'm going to assess it to your property taxes without ever going into court. We highly advise against this method. We have had clients get sued uh under both trespass theories and prosecuted in that regard uh but also sued from a civil perspectives for takings of property from an individual's property uh without uh court order or consent of the property owner. So if you go the fix and assess route, you need a crystal clearar ordinance that affords plenty of process to the property owner and you must abide by it to a te but it subjects the city to the most litigation. It is not advisable. The second option would be uh bringing a an abatement agreement uh to the property owner and seeing if a deal could be struck. The abatement agreement is pretty much an offer to say that you can continue to do X that is in violation of our ordinance, but in exchange, what the city is going to ask for via that contract or agreement is that you're going to give us everything that we would ask for in a district court order. the right to enter your property with law enforcement. The right to remove the property that is constituting a nuisance if it's a pile of junk or a junk motor vehicle, whatever it may be, that we can go onto the property, remove that, that you're also going to admit that we get to or agree that we get to certify any cost of that to your property taxes, etc., etc. The abatement agreements are a powerful tool. We try and push them anytime before we go into district court just because it it's a cost-saving measure. Uh the third option would be going into district court. Going into district court means that we formally serve someone with what is called a summons and complaint. If you've ever heard that phrase getting served with papers, um that is the formal way of initiating a lawsuit against an individual. We would be in district court and we would engage in a process that uh is guided by the rules of civil procedure called discovery. Both sides would exchange relevant information proportional to the needs of the case and from there we would make a motion to enforce the uh city's ordinance via what's called summary judgement. Summary judgment is a um motion hearing that is called it's a dispositive motion meaning it can end the case. You can win or lose in summary judgment. Uh and the standard there is uh whether or not there is a genuine dispute of material fact. So we would need to show the court that there is no dispute of material fact, there's clearly a violation. Uh and that if we win that there's no dispute of material fact, the court would rule in our favor and grant us the relief that we are requesting. Um the fourth option is going in criminally and trying to prosecute criminally. Again, we don't advise this option. It can be a misdemeanor uh offense to be in violation of municipal ordinance. Um however, a you have a higher burden of proof here. you have beyond reasonable doubt versus clear and convincing evidence. So, it's harder for us to prove up our case. Uh B, uh you will more often than not end up in a jury trial. And C, judges and juries really don't care to listen to petty property things, uh you know, nuisances, etc. Uh and D, it is very hard for us to get the relief that we want because if somebody is convicted, it doesn't mean that they have to clean up their property. So, all the judge can do is say, "I'm going to make you serve, let's say, 30 days in jail on the misdemeanor, but I'll stay that jail time, meaning you don't have to serve it if you go clean up your property." It's about the only way we actually get to abating the nuisance through the criminal approach. Uh, so in short, we advise if the fines aren't working, try an abatement agreement. If they tell us pound sand on the abatement agreement, we go into district court. Um, and to answer the specifics of your question now, just to get back to your scenario, there's a severe public health issue, we have two ways of going about this. We can do the fix and assess and we can go under the theory that there is a uh public health risk. If it is something like uh somebody's position something in our rightway, we've got clear statutory authority for it. What we're going to do is we're going to take that item from the right ofway. We're gonna go into the rightway and move it back onto the person's property. We're not going to take their property, but we'll just move it back. That's something that, you know, on a case- by case basis, call us. We would advise you on. Otherwise, if we go the civil route and we go into district court, um, a lot of people are just like, why do they get to keep violating when we're in district court? Like, they don't have to listen to the court until an order comes down. It's kind of ridiculous that they just get to keep doing this even though it's obviously wrong. Well, there's uh part of the rule is called a temporary injunction. That temporary injunction is what all our clients want us to bring, which is while we're litigating this, tell them to stop doing whatever this thing is that's, you know, really dangerous. Uh in your instance, maybe there's that big hole in the ground or or whatever the description was at a residence. It's not filled in footers. Put up a fence around it. You want the court to tell them to do that. Um the only way we get to that is if you are able to show irreparable harm. So injunctions very high standard. Courts don't grant them often. So I hope that kind of gives you a picture of the options that you have outside of administrative fines. But no, pragmatically the two options that we would advise trying are your uh abatement agreements and then moving into from there a civil action in district court. >> You answer that question much better than I ever >> Good. >> Good. I'm glad you uh chimed in. Did that answer question? >> Yep. >> Okay. Any other discussion on the 5A? >> Hearing none. Would anybody make a motion? Anybody like to make a motion? >> Mr. Mayor Council Brown. >> I'll make a motion to approve the ordinance repealing replacing chapter 1, section 5 of the Nland City Code to amend local statutes for administrative enforcement. Are you going to identify the option >> with using option two >> and then we also touch base on the flat fee >> and setting the flat fee amount at 1250 second. >> Council member Swanson beat it. All right. Council member Swson second. Any other discussion? >> Hearing none. Let's move to vote. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. Motion carries. 58 complete. All right. Going to 5B. Oh, >> Mr. Council member make a motion to approve the publication of the ordinance you just passed. >> Second, >> which is the exact in one just the publication of it. >> Yes. >> Okay. Any discussion? Move the vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. 5B is complete. uh 5C ordinance amending the fee schedule. You would like to discuss that? >> I'm happy to run through it quickly, Mr. Mayor. >> All right, perfect. Please leave us off. >> So, if everybody turns to page 43 of the agenda packet, the request for council action gives a very uh kind of quick and detailed explanation of what's changed here. So, it's adding escrow language that was previously removed. Uh, in working with city staff, I was trying to have city staff find section 1-2-3 of city code, which establishes an escrow. Um, that was not found until recently. It is found. We know that it was enacted. It is in place. So, all we're doing is restoring the escrow language that was essentially rewritten and put in here and now just citing back to the city code that already exists on this matter. So, nothing groundbreaking there, but just bringing back the old language to be consistent with existing city code, adding a fee for card, stock, and paper to recoup costs, increasing a fee for various reservations to be uh consistent with the historic town hall fee, and then changes for fees for animal control effective January 1st, 2026. In reviewing this, there are a couple of things I do just want to bring to the city council's attention. If you could turn to page 46, it would be whatever section we are in 1-2-3E. Um, the failure to provide both E3, I should say. So, middle of the page, E3. The failure to provide both the cost of reimbursement agreement and financial security required in this section shall make the application submitted incomplete pursuant to Minnesota statutes 1599. and the city shall not be required to review and process such application until the requirements of this section are satisfied. Um this is with respect to zoning applications. The rule 1599 is a rule that says you must process request for zoning action within 60 days. And there is also a component of that statute that says you must reject incomplete applications in writing specifying why they are incomplete uh and send it to the applicant within 15 days of receipt of the request for zoning action. So this provision while it's nice and it sounds like on face if you don't pay your fee with your written application we're rejecting it. um you still need to send a letter in writing rejecting that application within 15 days detailing why it's incomplete, which would be there's no um cost reimbursement agreement or financial security. So, I do just want to make you aware this doesn't um alleviate the city of their obligation under that statute to still send written notice to the applicant. >> Does that need to be added in there or is that implied? or it's covered under another statute that requires that to happen. >> Covered under 1599 that requires it to happen. And I can let Cindy chime in if she has any further comment just on that provision. I just want to make sure everybody's aware of that. >> Um, and I'll just chime in that that is the practice that we've been doing is making sure that we get those written letters out. Even if this was the only reason, we would still send that letter. So, >> great. Perfect. >> Yeah. Mr. Mayor, >> can I ask a question of both of you then? Um, so if we don't accept it because it's incomplete and the city's not accepting it, then does this does not apply. Correct. >> You, my advice will always be to accept every request for zoning action complete or incomplete. The statute doesn't allow you to say on face, well, we're in a face-to-face conversation when somebody sends you something, hey, this is incomplete. The statute would say, that is not sufficient written rejection, and you would still need to process the application then. So, it must be in writing and specify the detailed reason why the application is incomplete. >> May I also uh chime in that um we frequently receive partial applications via email where somebody sends one or two small pieces. And um I treat those the same way. Even if there's no application form, if they send an what's clearly a site plan, say, and I know they're applying for maybe an IUP or something, I will still send that letter to be conservative about it. >> Yeah, it's great practice to do that. So then, if I could have council turn to page 57, as you can see, the language that we pretty much tried to reddraft to include escros has been removed, and we've just reverted back to the old escrow language. the the two provisions, the one that's deleted and what has been put back in have the exact same intent. Uh we just reddrafted it last time because we thought that we could not locate that section of city code and I didn't want to site something that we couldn't find. Uh the last thing that I'll say here is um I I want to point out I can't remember if this is new this time or not. I don't think it is. Um but at the bottom there's the certification of unpaid costs and expenses. This is the provision here that allows uh the township to use the certification powers under 366012 uh and other statutory provisions possibly um possibly 429 as well but 366012 is the main one um to be able to do certification of unpaid service charges to residents. The last place that I want to direct the council's attention is to other fees on page 58 for the administrative enforcement fees. We have kind of come up with a different fee schedule now a little bit based upon the last ordinance that we just talked about. So, I would just um indicate that these fines or fees uh should reflect the fee schedule that we just addressed in the administrative fine uh ordinance. >> So, at page 58 on the red line, it also says fines double with each offense in one calendar year. >> Right. And that was contemplating the old language, Mr. mayor that was in that ordinance that we just went with option two instead of. So my suggestion is doing a plugandplay of the option two language into this box here. >> So remove that option two is where it goes. >> Exactly. Any discussion discussion from the council member you want to start? Do you have anything? >> Yes. I just have a I just want clarification um on the item we previously spoke to on the accepting an incomplete complete or incomplete um request. So is it my understanding that Cindy is making that determination and she is responsible for sending out that letter to the resident or to the applicant? >> Mr. Mayor Nash, >> thank you. Um yes, I have been doing that. Um it does take some review of the applications to make sure that everything is actually complete in terms of what they need to submit. And so it it is not quite as simple as um just checking for certain documents because it's also some of it is related to the content of documents to make sure things are really there. >> Thank thank you. And it's a really a pivotable pivotal moment. Uh the work that Miss Nash does when she does that because if she deems something is complete, you must then process it just based on the information that you have. And then you you may be missing key information that you would want to use if it's a permit request to impose as a condition, for example, or to know whether or not they're truly meeting the setback requirements, the ordinance, whatever it may be. So it's it's important work. Mr. Mayor, >> Miss Johnson, go ahead. >> Um, Mark, can you clarify the class A zoning at 200? Do we just leave that until we get through a zoning violence violation? >> Which page are you on? >> Uh, 58 where the administrative enforcement fees are. >> Yeah, I I I would say that's fine. You can leave zoning at at that amount for now. Um, you know, it's the administrative fines that you care to impose, we can plug in underneath and do that escalating scale and just leave zoning at 200 um until we get to addressing zoning at in a more detailed level. >> M Johnson, go ahead. >> Is it um council's desire to move forward with the uh zoning us or zoning violations next? That would certainly be my recommendation because that's our next big opportunity for enforcement on I'll say multiple things that are happening in the city of B. Won't bring up specifics but I think it's on 189 to 190. >> Is that a council consensus mark? What do I need for that? We just need a consensus >> to have us begin start working on that with um the council. Yes. And Cindy, I would imagine, right? >> Yeah. I I would just have a a motion authorizing work on the issues related to updating uh zoning enforcement um zoning ordinance and zoning enforcement methods. >> We'll put that after we complete this one. Is there anything else for 5C? Uh also 5D is the summary of publication of the ordinance. So I would I would ask that they be uh when we do a motion, we do them both together. >> Mr. Mayor Council Brian, I'll make a motion to approve the ordinance and publication of said ordinance amending the fee schedule with using the uh fees updated based on the updated administration enforcement ordinance that was just passed, >> which is option two. All right, I'll throw a second out there. Any other discussion? >> Um, I made a message. You mentioned the summary publication also. remember this time. >> What's that? >> I remembered it this time. >> There you go. >> We got them both. >> Let's move on to vote. Uh, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. So, C and D are complete. All right. So, going back to the what you just brought up there, Natalie, uh, or Miss Johnson, can you read that one more time? Uh, and we'll just do a quick push vote to make sure we're in alignment. We just need a motion authorizing um subcontractors to work with staff on uh zoning enforcement or zoning code enforcement. >> Zoning code enforcement. >> Is that correct? Is that how we would say it? >> I believe so. >> That's fine. Yes. >> So, I will make a motion um make that one of our key priorities to work on with our subcontractors, which is zoning code of enforcement. Would anybody like to second that? >> I'll second for discussion. >> Second for discussion, Mr. Mayor. >> So, is this literally going back through and um and looking at the IEPs and CUPs and who does have them and who shouldn't have them and who should have them and enforcing said things. >> I think it's a piece of it. Um so, we've got Well, I'll let you >> there. There is a piece of it. We've got a couple of different complaints that are out there for businesses in a residential home that are not don't have an IEP, right? >> I have um some building that's going on without that isn't permitted. You know, I have a few different things that are going on that we need to be able to address, but we don't really have a process other than I think on the building one, I've got a stock order from Rome River, but after that because that one is covered by the building code. >> So, like I c would be a part of this as a part of this >> would be a matter of going through and that will probably be a 2026 goal to get through all of those >> depending upon planner Nash's time with us >> and I think it ties into our initiative to look at not only the planning and zoning our first proposal that Nash is going to help. >> Yeah, because there's a couple >> enforcement of it. >> Yeah, there's different pieces of it. >> Correct. So, good question. Any other any other discussion on that? Got no discussion. Let's move to vote. So, we already have a motion and a second. >> Um, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Motion carries. So, that'll be a key priority for us. Then we get to the last one which is 5e and this is on the personnel policy. Miss Johnson, you want to take us through this one? Yeah, we've had some um updated on the new family and medical leave that's coming up through Minnesota. Um we are actually considered a small city, so we get a discounted rate from that 088 down to 66. So we just kind of repealing and replacing with the changes. >> You also are uh eligible as a small employer. That thresholds 30 or fewer employees and the state average annual wage of your employees all combined. your employees average wage is less than 150% of the state average annual wage which I believe was $107,000ish dollar in the year 2025. Um so that qualification not only gets you the discounted payroll tax rate from88 to86 but it also means that uh the city who traditionally as an employer would be responsible for 50% of the total payroll contribution is subject to a reduced rate of 25%. So if you think of this like a pie, the city is uh paying 25% under the small employee contribution. Um there is then 50% up in limbo that either the city or the employee may pay and then a remainder 25% that because you're a small employer, the state of Minnesota will eat the cost from the premiums it collects statewide. Um so here uh as drafted as a benefit to the employees the policy has been drafted in such a way where you are covering um the payroll premium for the employees as a benefit to the employees. In reality you can crunch the numbers on it. I've done it at um the88 number. So I'll speak to that but just know the numbers will be a little lower than this. I'm not that fast with math on the spot. But if you have a $50,000 employee, uh, a payroll tax of 088, that's $440 that will go to the state as a part of this payroll tax. So then you think of it, pieces of the pie again, 25% coming from the city would be $110. The 50% in limbo that either comes from the city or the employee would be another $220. And then the state is eating the remaining $110. So for each employee, you're looking in the ballpark of, you know, paying them paying for them instead of taking it from withholdings from their paychecks. A $50,000 employee, you're looking at like 200ish bucks if it's 666, maybe a little less than 200 bucks per per head. Uh at an employee who earns $50,000 a year, >> but it states right here that the employees responsible for covering 50% of payroll taxes through regular withholdings from the paycheck. So during the budget discussions, it was brought up because it is a benefit and most of the cities are paying for that and it is included in the 2026 budget that we preliminarily approve. >> As a matter of law, Mr. Mayor, if I may just address that point really quickly. >> As a matter of law, the employee is not responsible for covering 50%. They're responsible for covering up to 50%. So the employer then has the discretion to say I will pay any portion up to all of the employees 50% instead of taking it from withholdings from their paychecks. So it is 100% within the council's discretion as an employer to do withholdings of up to 50% of the total premium that will be contributed to the state from the employees payroll. Um but it as Miss uh um Johnson just indicated, it has been common place or common practice for a lot of cities to contemplate uh just paying that premium. Uh it's not a large amount as the quick math example I gave you. Uh probably about $200ish dollars on a $50,000 employee. Uh and it is a benefit that can be advertised. Council member Brown, you got something. I'm sorry I missed it. >> No, I was just you were you were you had the same thing that I had. The the the part in the the second paragraph about the 50% that's the previous text. Replacement text starts on paragraph 3. >> I was reading that same thing. >> That's a great point. If you're looking at the RCA, it is the kind of three paragraphs that start after the new suggested text is. >> Okay. >> So, any anything else you want to add, Mark? >> Um, I can answer any questions council may have regarding the paid family medical leave program, but the other uh you know, the kind of things that I want specified in the policy. There are three things that the city needs in their policy. One, notice to the employees of their right to take this leave. Two, establishing the percent of the premium up to 50% that the employee will pay. And three, a statement on whether paid family medical leave will run concurrent with the federal program or not. Uh if you do not specify that it runs concurrent, it will run by default consecutive, meaning that you can take the state program and then the federal program as an employee. And so most employers have aired on the side if they want it to run concurrent with the um family medical leave program uh at the federal level. >> And I see this one runs concurrently. >> Yes. >> I see also we discussed the premium that's already written in here. And what was the third thing you said? >> The final thing Mr. Mayor is notice requirement. So, state law requires very similar to the earn sick and safe time law that we notify all employees of their right to take the leave. Uh, which is the first paragraph that is in here. Uh, I would also indicate uh that the Department of Labor and Industry has packets on their website that has all of the statutoily required notices to post in your city hall um on the on a bulletin board, corkboard, anywhere in city hall. Um, one of those notices will be the new paid family medical leave uh notice. Uh, it is simply just a notice again of the employees um that of their right to take the leave. Other than that, if there are questions about how to do the backend uh the data entry with the state agency that oversees this using the unemployment insurance portal uh or any other questions about eligibility for leave, etc. I'm happy to address those with Miss Johnson. But just for the council's basic understanding of this, this policy is a lot more handsoff for the city than is the earn sick and safetime policy because you as the employer in earnick and safetime are responsible for administering tracking those hours and also paying your employee. Um this is more administered by the state. They're responsible for the approval of these leaves. And then also because the state is essentially the insurer in this insurance program, the state is the entity that's responsible for paying uh the uh employees who take the leave. So it's a little more hands-off. You're still in the situation where you're going to be without an employee. A couple practical tips uh with respect to that. Um and I don't want to keep the council too long, but I actually think that these are some important practice tips just so you're aware. Um, so we talked about the notice of the right to take the leave. Um, the state will process everything, the obligations that you're responsible for for policy. There were a few more things that I wanted to say and it's slipping my mind. If I can have just one second. I've got a cheat sheet on this and I just want to make sure that you all aren't missing anything. Uh, oh, here we go. I I popped back into my head. Um, make sure you're starting your withholdings if you do any from employees. You're not doing withholdings from employees. So, you'll be doing payroll contributions quarterly. So, budget for that. Um, deed will set the rate for the payroll tax annually. So, right now there is a cap of 1.1. So, for budgeting moving forward since you are covering the whole uh it sounds like if that is what the council is so inclined to do. um the highest that payroll tax will jump from is 66 to 1.1 and that cap can get moved or lifted in in subsequent years. Um but in short, your employees are very likely to take the leave if they can. It's up to 20 weeks of total leave and it is a progressive pay scale for this leave. um meaning lowincome earners are going to get a higher proportion of their paycheck than will uh low income earners or or than high income earners. It's kind of a convoluted formula for how they come up with that number, but just conceptualize it like this. For an individual who makes about $1,000 a week, they on leave will still be making approximately $824ish dollars. Uh and so there is a strong incentive to take the leave as an employee. Um it's you know pretty broad. The really important thing that triggered me to go on this little bit of just explanation is I wanted to tell you all you cannot retaliate against an employee for taking this leave or earn sick and safe time. Meaning when they come back they're coming back into their same job their same pay or very substantially or similar pay and job description. Um, the reason that that matters is if somebody's going to be out for 20 weeks, um, you are going to need to find a somebody to backfill this position. And backfilling it with an individual who is part-time. Part-time employees can get paid family medical leave benefits if they earn up to $3,700. So $3,700 in 2025 would have been the cut off amount. It's 5.3% of the state average annual wage for when somebody can apply to the state and say, "I want these benefits." And so once you hit that amount, if you've got a part-time employee who comes in, hits that amount, backfilling for your employee who's already out on leave, your part-time employee could now request paid family medical leave from the state. And so the one way to get around that is working with independent contractors. They're not subject to paid family medical leave. So keep that into consideration. just anybody that you let go on the leave or that the state approves to go on the leave, you can't change their pay or job classification or discriminate against them for taking that leave. Um, so the last thing to note, elected officials, this is probably most relevant for Miss Johnson, um, elected officials are subject to the withholdings from paid family medical leave for pay. Uh, that is something that it's not the same as earned sick and safe time. you're you don't get earned sick and safe time, but you are subject to uh the withholdings. Um so the city will be paying whatever portion of that premium that elected officials would be responsible for. Uh the first version of the bill exempted elected officials. The version that passed removed that exemption. And then also uh it's the position of League of Minnesota Cities and Department of Labor and Industry and our office that your election judges will also be subject to this. So it then brings up the point a lot of our city council members and a lot of our election judges are never going to hit $3,700. So why do they have to pay into the program? And it's because it is a tax. The legislature did not create a carveout that says if you don't hit $3,700, you don't have to pay in. So just about everybody except for your independent contractors are going to be paying into the program whether or not they're ever eligible to take the leave or not because they might not hit that $3,700 uh threshold to be able to take the leave. >> Mayor, >> Miss Johnson, go ahead. >> Mark, can you clarify if League of Minnesota is still working on trying to get that exempted? >> Yeah, League of Minnesota cities and Minnesota Association of Townships has tried. Uh, so this legislation was first passed back in 2023 and only goes into effect now in 2026 and there's been little to no movement. The only concession that we've gotten from the legislature in terms of lobbying in favor of municipalities or small employers is they reduced the payroll premium cap from 1.2% to 1.1%. Which is kind of just like a slap in the face to be honest. Um, it's really not a concession whatsoever. And so, um, that exemption for elected officials, it's, uh, it's not a thing. Um, if we get dragged into court and anybody argues this, even though it doesn't say elected officials are subject to it, the inference that any court will draw is the old legislation said they were exempt, now they're not exempt. That means they're subject to the withholding. Um, so Natalie, on your end, for your elected officials and your election judges who do not have uh an unemployment insurance portal set up through the state, you'll need to go through that same portal and set up individual paid family medical leave accounts for them. All of your employees who have an unemployment insurance portal, the state has already converted that automatically into a dualpurpose portal. So, they're going to pull the information from there for PFMLA as well. >> So, sorry for the bit of a tangent there. >> Have to do that for the elected officials or election judges. I thought that they were still working on trying to get them exempted because it didn't make sense. >> It does not make sense, but come January 1st, um you're going to be doing withholdings from them would be our advice. And then uh the last thing is technically this notice of paid family medical leave is required to be provided to all employees by November 30th. So Natalie work on a way to disseminate this not only keeping it in our personnel policy but making sure that all employees are notified of the right to take this leave. That can be done either by supplying them this policy or the notice that's on the Department of Labor and Industries website, preferably both. and then having some form of signed acknowledgement that they've read the, you know, policy that entitles them the right to take this leave. They understand their right to take the leave and then keep that signed acknowledgement in a personnel file. >> Okay. They've all been emailed and it is already posted. Is a email acceptable? >> Yep. Just save the emails and put them in the personnel files. >> Okay. >> So, it doesn't need to be a signed letter saying they've received it. An email is fine. It's an email to an email address that they've provided the city. I'm fine with it. >> Clarification. >> Just a just a curiosity one. >> Other than council member Glazer self-employed, have any of you received any from your employers yet? >> No. >> Just curious. >> It's okay. Uh my bosses still haven't notified me either. But then Mike looked at me and says, "Mark, you're giving a presentation on this every other weekend as we travel the state. That counts as notice." And I said, "All right, Mike, that sounds good." >> Is there a income where it stops like social security tax? >> No. There comes a point though to where the returns are so diminishing based on the formula that they've created. But there is not a point at which it stops uh from what I recall and reading. If you're interested in the formula, I can I've got it on a PowerPoint slide. I could pull it off and email it to you if you're curious to see how it works. Any other questions for for Mark? Mr. Mayor Brian. >> Mark, could you go through the the the formula one more time? Was it 0.88 total and that would have would have been split up to 50% between employer and employee. >> That's correct. So that's your baseline. If you're a traditional employer, no small employer discount to the premium and no small employer discount to the percentage that you have to pay in. It would be 0.88 88 split 50/50 between employer and employee unless the employer picks up the tab for the employee essentially. Uh you're in a bit different of a situation. It sounds like in consultation with your financial consultant you've made a determination that you qualify for the small employer discount. So in essence now what you're looking at is a 66% payroll tax and you'll be responsible for 75% of that by adopting this policy as drafted and then the state will pick up the remaining 25% of the tab because you get that small employer discount. So, uh, Natalie, we you said that we budgeted for the city budgeted for the point for the 044. >> No, the city budgeted for the 0.88. >> So, the city bud So, we put in the budget to pay for all of it even though we said at the time that the city would be covering that the employee would be responsible for 50%. >> I don't recall that. Lorie said it was 08. >> Okay. I didn't attend all of the budgeting meetings. So, >> right. So, I'm just trying to understand it because because I don't have in here the math and I'm just trying to look at this now and going. So, now we're saying we're going to cover all of it, but I don't see where that money is in the budget. So, I'm missing some. >> Oh, it is in the budget with the under the bike of Medicare, all that where she lumps all those into one. >> Right. But was but wouldn't we have budgeted if we're saying the employer's employee is paying half, then wouldn't wouldn't we have only put in44? >> No. She said when you guys talked about it that you said that you would pay the whole thing as most other cities are. >> I don't remember that. That's all I'm trying to get. >> We can change it back. >> No, I don't know whether So, it just isn't covered. That's what we need. >> It is covered in the budget as of now. >> I just kind of don't see it and that's where I'm challenged right now because I don't see that a report where it's in the budget or the specifics about what the budget is. That's my concern. Well, yeah, we're doing this next budget meeting again at the end of November, and I can have Lorie show you where it is, >> where things are in the budget itself specifically. I can't speak to what's been allocated or not, but I was able to recrunch the numbers taking just a $50,000 employee at 66% that would be $330 of annual total contribution. Remember that you would be taking on 75% of it. The state taking on 25%. 75% of that 330 is $247.50 is what you would have a ahead for a $50,000 employee. Just for frame of reference. >> Any other questions or discussion on this? >> Mr. council. >> I'm just I'm curious because I'm going I I would like I would like to at least see something coming from the from the staff to pay to pay for at least part of it since it's a benefit that they're getting. Um even if it's $10 a month, it's something. But I'm I'm trying to balance in my head the where the numbers are and how it balances out. that if we we're if we put in the whole88 or we're putting in point4 and how that justifies now even though we're getting the discount to the 66 I just don't see how that's being covered. So I'm >> if they put in 888 it would cover it if you're saying that the city's paying 100%. It would be covered in the budget. Question is we don't know that it was covered 100% or 50% of the8. So I think it's a valid question. I I don't I'm going tell you I don't remember. Mr. Mayor CL, >> I think the one thing that I that I am concerned about and take issue with is that I don't recall us ever having a conversation saying that the city was going to cover um you know the employees portion of the premium um and that it was budgeted for. So >> I I don't bother >> I and I I'm on I'm on the same uh camp as council member Brian that that there should be um some shares sharing in cost but I'm sorry >> I was just wondering if if Mark knows I mean you've given this presentation I'm sure quite a bit. I mean, what percent of cities are covering the full cost versus splitting? >> So, I we had this exact same question last time. Uh, Council Member Swinson, I think it's an excellent question. It's hard to say because the notice requirement coming up is uh the 30th of this month. So, most of our clients are just finalizing their decisions on this. Um, I can tell you the idea has generally been wellreceived and admittedly this is by more of our town clients who I interact with uh more often on this issue in particular. Um, but they have been open to the idea of covering the premium given it is about the cheapest sounding benefit that you can give to somebody that sounds significant. So if you're saying I'm going to cover your entire, you know, um, withholding nobody likes that word. It's a scary word, right? Withholding from your paycheck. Um, I am going to cover your entire withholding from your paycheck. So, you get 20 weeks free every year. That That sounds like you're doing something much more significant than paying let's see uh what would $247 you'd be responsible for 20 something to the effect of like 180 190 bucks is what it costs for a $50,000 employee. So, it if it's something that you care to tout to your employees as a benefit, it is a place that I advise. It's about the cheapest way that you can tout a benefit. That sounds as big as it is, 20 weeks of leave. Um, but that is 100% a council policy decision and the council 100% has discretion to make a determination on a number anywhere between zero and 50% that the employee is responsible for. One more question. Does this one have to be resolved tonight? >> I don't believe so. We can resolve it at the budget meeting and we can charge the employees. >> Yeah. And I So I think one thing is what was budget? I think that's one question that we we're not going to be able to answer tonight. But the other question is and I think we can have this discussion is what do we think we do you want to charge the employees? Do you want to charge them what percent? Do you have a recommendation on what that is or should we just table it and come back and visit it in the month of November? Um, and look at it that way. So, we understand. >> Mr. Mayor, I've got options in my head, but I don't think I bring them up right now before I see the actual numbers to get an idea to what the differences between what we would have paid if we paid all of it, we paid half of it, and now that the numbers change. So I think we it would be in our best interest to just um carry this over table until next another meeting. >> Miss Johnson, could you bring back um the total amount for our city employees at 888 and 66 so we understand the difference and then what was budgeted? I think that's the two. >> Good. Council Spencer, >> can I also ask you ask your network of other city people what they're doing? I'm just curious. I don't want to be the only city driving employees if everybody else is doing it. >> Um, >> so the ones right above us, the St. Francis, the Oak Groves, there's up here a different county. So that's the question. >> And Mr. Mayor, >> go ahead. >> You did uh say, "Is there any deadline that we're up against or anything?" And that answer wasn't resolved. And you may have walking away to get a sip of water or something when I mentioned this, but you must provide notice to your employees of the right to take this leave and the amount of the payroll contribution they're responsible for by November 30th. >> Okay. So, perfect. We can we can take care of that. Thank you for the clarification. I did miss that. >> Yep. No problem. >> So, we can resolve it in November. Everybody's going to do that. Okay. To table it, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Council Rainbow. I'm wondering I I I hate to admit this, but the budget sessions just kind of end up being one big one for me. Um I remember us having the discussion and that the city would pay. I don't know if I'd find that in my notes or not. I'm wondering if Lori could tell us when she made that change in in the in her Excel files or again maybe it just all ends up being one big meeting. Um but I remember a discussion that the city would pay it's a minute dollar amount and we budgeted it for 26 going forward. >> Thank you for the clarification on that. >> Anything else I cover? Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> Second. Thank you very much. Have a great evening. >> Thank you all. Take care. >> Thank you, Miss Johnson. I'm going to put my packet in your bin if you're okay with that.