Hello. Oh, now it is. Okay. Welcome to the September 9th, 2025 city council meeting. I hereby call the meeting to order. Members of the public may attend the city council meeting in person or may watch or listen remotely by viewing the meeting on channel 8 WCTV and at the city's website at wisetta.orgwv. Public comment during the public forum and/or public hearing portions of the meetings may be provided in person at the meeting in advance or by logging into the team's call and raising your hand during the public hearing. When your name is called in the meeting, you will be seen and heard in our council chambers. You'll be asked to turn your camera on. You'll also be seen on the Campbell channel and you will be asked to unmute and begin your comments. All public comments must include your full name and address. The second item on the agenda is the pledge of allegiance. I ask everyone to stand if you are able for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance >> to the flag United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Uh thank you for that. Um next on the agenda is our roll call. uh let the um record reflect that all council members are present this evening. Next, I need to read a um statement about our 4:30 closed meeting uh which was held earlier today. So earlier this evening from 4:30 to about 5:15 a closed door meeting of the Wisetta City Council was held pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D05 subdivision 3B the attorney client privilege exemption to the open meeting laws to discuss the following litigation. Lake West Development LLC 200 Lake Street East LLC and Kurt Freom plates versus the city of Wisetta defendant Dre Trustee LLC versus City of Weisetta defendant. The meeting was closed to permit the city council to meet with its attorneys to review and candidly and openly discuss absolutely confidential and privileged matters related to the above referenced litigation or previously referenced litigation. Um, also, uh, earlier this evening, uh, the council participated in a workshop, uh, from 5:15 till about, uh, 6:50, uh, to discuss a request from a member of the community about, uh, Clapric Park uh, art and designation request. And, uh, we also discussed the prelim preliminary general fund budget and enterprise enterprise fund budget discussion. Um, with all that said, the next item on the agenda is to approve the agenda. Um, I need a motion to approve the agenda as is or with any modifications. >> So moved, Mr. Mayor. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Uh, I'll give it to Miss McDonald. Any further discussion? Uh, all in favor say I. I. I. That. Moves on. >> The next item is the public forum. And just a reminder for those of you that are here, I think for one of our agenda items, most everybody, but um if you're interested in speaking either now in the public forum for things that are not on the agenda, you fill out a white card and hand it to staff. If you're interested in speaking on an agenda item, it's a blue card. Um and then again, you know, members, do we have anybody on teams that wanted to speak in the public forum? We do not. Okay. So, just to remind you, it's not your last chance, but if you want to speak on something agenda, fill out a blue card, hand it to Pete there at the end of the table, and then you will be called um when that agenda item comes up. Um, next is new agenda item. Um, council, are are there any new agenda items that uh any of you would like to propose uh for the future? >> Okay, hearing none, we'll move on from that. We don't really need to take a motion on that. Correct. No. Okay. So, next is the consent agenda. It's the approval of the consent agenda. Here is what is on our consent agenda this evening. Approval of city council workshop and regular meeting minutes of August 19th, 2025. Approval of the check register. Approval of municipal licenses. Adoption of resolution 33 2025. Approving the Weisetta City Council meeting schedule for 2026. Approval of amended memorandum of understanding with the Wisetta Conservancy for the funding related to Panaway maintenance and operations. Approval of the rightaway agreement with Intrepid Cohort 1 LLC. So that is on our consent agenda. I would accept a movement a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented or amended if needed. >> So move, Mr. Mayor. >> Second. >> Second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. Okay, that passes. >> Uh public hearing. We have no official items on the public hearing. Did we get anybody on teams or any anyone else that wants to say anything on that? Nope. Okay. So, now moving on to new business. The first item on our agenda is the consideration by council of adoption of resolution 312025 certifying to the county auditor the preliminary property tax levy for payables 2026. Um just for the education of the public um there's two steps in approving uh any city's budget. You have a preliminary budget that needs to be approved in September. you can go no higher than that uh guidance uh as a council in terms of uh raising additional tax revenues and then it clicks forward to the final in December where we have the right to take it down if we wish or leave it as is. With that, I will turn it over to the city manager to take us through where we landed. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. I will actually uh turn it over to finance manager Zimmerman to walk us through a beef brief presentation uh really based on uh the direction that's been provided to staff at previous workshops and uh including this evening's workshop. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Good evening. [Laughter] We'll get you just a moment. >> Well, no, I think um we should give you one of the microphones or switch seats with Alex so that uh people who watch online can hear you, Pete, because this is important stuff. >> Um this one works. If not, you can just switch seats, Alex Temp. >> There you go. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Pete. >> So, tonight we are only discussing the the levy that needs to be certified to the county. We won't be discussing the budget. We're going to do that at our our next council meeting just based on some workshops that we've had recently. So, and some budget decisions that needed to be made. So, now, oh, there we go. Um, our budget process, just as a little background, we started back on June 17th with a workshop to discuss the CIP and use of our excess reserves or our fund balance. and then had another workshop on July 1st where we talked about the general fund and our long-term plan. And then on the 15th, another workshop where we discussed our fee schedule and preliminary enterprise and general fund budgets again. And then on the 19th of August, we had a council workshop to to review general fund budgets, adjustments, and review some barn grill um budget budgetary items in the project. And then tonight, September 9th, we're here to certify the levy. And then at a future meeting on the 23rd, we will adopt the 2026 fee schedule and the preliminary general fund budget. Um, and then we will discuss the CIP again at a council workshop in November. And then finally in December, we'll approve the final levy and the final general fund budget and enterprise fund budget section. So that's kind of where we've been and where we're going. So this is the resolution that we that staff is presenting to council tonight. Uh you'll see there is a general fund levy amount of 7,421,212 which is a 7.5% increase over the general fund levy in 2025. I just wanted to point out um in previous years we've separated out the general fund levy from a um equipment or infrastructure excuse me line item levy that's included in this total. Um, we just didn't separate out this year for just mechanics basically. Some his history on our levy here in Weisetta from 2021 to this 2026 preliminary. Just a little graph to kind of show how things have gone. And then that bottom graph is a levy increase percentage over time from year to year. So, as you can see, we're at a 7 and a half% increase over 2025 as our preliminary. And then um just some little information on impact to residents. Assuming that property values stay flat, um if you look at that median value home of 1,152500, I think it says, um the city portion of property taxes would be a 39% incre $39 increase, excuse me. Um flat values probably aren't very likely. So um we ran just a little bit of a model for a 5% valuation increase. And again, looking at that median value home would be a $410 property tax increase city portion of the property taxes. Um, in comparing the tax rate to surrounding cities, as you can see over the years, um, we've pretty much stayed in line with Minatrista. Um, and you know, about the same from year to year, but there's really only one city in this table that's lower than the city than we tax rate. So just kind of comparing to your neighbors. Um and just as a reminder, the onlywhere way we can go from here is down in terms of levy. We can approve a reduction in the levy at a future meeting, but we can't increase it at all. So what the council decides tonight will be the highest it can be. So, in closing, the staff recommendation is to approve resolution 31-2025 certifying the preliminary tax levy of 7,421,212. >> Okay. Thank you, uh, Pete. Uh, questions of staff at this point. >> Okay. I mean, those for those you in the public, we start working on the budget as a council and staff, uh, in June. So, we've been working through both expense and capital and the implications. And uh as uh Pete said, this is a preliminary levy, which just means it can go no higher than this. This is not the final uh rendering or recommendation of this council. It's what we're comfortable with the information we have at this point to go no higher than 7 12%. Um and then we will go through another set of meetings between now and December and either will stay at 7 and a half%. It can go no higher, but it definitely could go lower. Um, and uh, I'll leave it at that. Um, so any comments from council before we move to a vote? Okay, seeing none, I would accept uh a a motion for adoption of resolution 312025 certifying the preliminary, not the final tax levy for tax payable 26. >> I'll make that motion, Mr. Mayor. Okay. Uh, can I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Any further discussion? >> Yeah. I'll just like to point out, uh, again for the viewing public and those that are here in the room, the, uh, original budget that we started dealing with was probably a twice as high as the current one in terms of percentage increase. So, we've already reduced it quite a bit. Um, I'm not alone on the deis here to say I'd like to see the taxes even lower, uh, maybe even substantially lower, uh, if we can ever get there. However, uh, this is a pretty darn good number to start with. And just to reiterate that we can go no higher than this, but between now and the final budget, we can certainly maybe find places where we can go lower, and I'm hopeful that we will. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. P. Mr. Parkill, >> I also have a comment. Um, I, you know, I I would like the surrounding communities to I I'm going to vote no on this because I think we can do better. And the reason I think we can do better is I think we can push our alternative sources of revenue. I also think we can be a little bit more fiscally responsible and more efficient with our spending. Um, I want the neighbor the surrounding neighborhoods and the surrounding community to say, "How did they do that? How did they get to five or six%? And then they can start asking the question, we have the ability to control $19% of our taxes, our property taxes. This is what this levy dictates. And you can just see it's going to be about $410 in increases on an average home. That's a lot. And I really think that we should really push back and really try and be as economical as possible. So I'm pushing for a 5% um target number. I think that's reasonable given inflation, given needs. Our needs are growing. We can experiment with that this year. And if people push back and say we're not getting the services we want, then we can go back up next year. But it'd be really nice to test the water to say, uh, we're going to cut this, this, this, and this, and see if people notice, and this is our opportunity to do that. >> Thank you, Mr. Park. Any other comments from anyone? Um, actually, the two gentlemen to my right, I think, articulated my position actually without me uh further ampl amplifying it. I'm going to ask for a roll call vote because I want to make sure this passes and uh I will vote for it uh if I have to. Um, so if I could have a roll call vote, please on on the preliminary le levy, which just sets no higher. >> Council member Parkill, >> no. >> Council member Pleish, >> yes. >> Council member McDonald, >> I. >> Council member Sorenson, >> I. >> Mayor Mullen, >> I'm going to vote no, but I I respect and acknowledge the work of staff and my colleagues to get here. And I think Mr. Pleish um perfectly articulated kind of the intent of of some of us. Um hopefully we can we can get uh to a lower number by the end of the year. Um with that um I'll move on. Um thank you for everyone's comments. Um now we're on to the big item that I think most of you are here for is to consider the approval of the first reading of ordinance 852 to amend uh chapter 815 prohibiting short-term rentals. Let me just outline the process for you a little bit. If for those of you who are uh rookies in this room, I know you all watch it on TV, but if you're here for the first time, um our process is fairly simple. Um we hear a presentation from staff with a recommendation. Uh the staff um then takes questions from from council. Uh and then uh we open it up for public comment. Um if you want to come out on this item, make sure you fill out one of these blue cards and hand it to Mr. Alex Sharp over here. Uh so that you can be heard um when it turns it over to the public for your input. We then bring it back to the council for discernment process to hopefully look and hear all the testimony we received to this date. Um all the new testimony that we would receive tonight. My reference to testimony is the emails, the texts, the calls, the meetings. We've had two workshops on this. We've had two community engagement meetings. Um it's an emotional topic for some and the only thing I ask um if you do come to the dis is that you do it with respect. Um no name calling, no shouting. Um you know and as long as we adhere to that you will be given you know at least 3 minutes to make your case. Um and with that and all are welcome and we do value you being here tonight and uh giving your perspective and we all come to it with an open mind uh before tonight and anything new that comes at us. So with that I'll turn it over to Mr. City Manager interim city manager. >> Thank you Mr. Mayor and council. I will be turning this particular topic over to community development director Sharp uh for his presentation. Thank you, mayor and councel. And mayor, you you took the words from my mouth. Uh this has been a process where we have wanted to ensure that engagement from all parties can be heard. Um we've attempted to have those engagement sessions and I'll go into a little bit of detail, but u much of this group uh both the council and the public has been involved as we moved through. So I will move through the presentation relatively quickly and then go back to any slides if you have any questions for the action this evening. Staff is recommending uh approval of the first reading of ordinance 852 which would amend chapter 815. Apologies for the tongue twister prohibiting short-term rentals. The background and history of this is something that I'll go through briefly, but this has been discussed by the council multiple times and has been a strategic priority for the council in 2020 first established in 2023 with initial discussions occurring as far back as 2018. Uh in 2024, October of 2024, the city adopted a short-term rental licensing ordinance. What that did is expressly require all short-term rentals to obtain a license in order to operate within the city. Short-term rentals were also defined during that ordinance provision as any rental of 30 days or less. I'm not going to go through all of these dates. As council and the public is aware, this has been an item of discussion. The main piece that I wanted to get out there for the public record was all the dates that you can uh go to the council agenda items, look at discussion, look at the materials. There's a short-term rental page uh weisetta.org/shortterm rentals that has all of these with links available for you. Also includes all the materials in uh for all of the engagement sessions that were presented and the notes from those engagement sessions from the general uh from the public's response. So, in the interest of making sure that all materials are very publicly transparent, we've created that page. And this is uh intended to serve as a reference point for the public and council to remind the public and council for your discussion on what the current ordinance requirements are. A rental license is required for both short-term and long-term rentals. Long-term rentals being those of longer than 30 days. The license is issued and renewed annually. There's yearly inspection with uh if you didn't have any issues, you may be able to not do that inspection after a year, but we don't um require you to uh come back over and over again for the same items. What we'll do is check on those specific pieces that required correction. There is a requirement of upkeep and maintenance, criminal background check, and leases to contain a crime-free, drug-free pro policy. The council and public will be familiar with this map. This uh was included to allow council to see where some of the clustering that brought up the original concerns for short-term rentals was. And really what we tried to do here is be both respectful to the actual locations of the short-term rental operators and owners to not locate the exact location while still discerning on a map that there is some general clustering into set areas that had initially brought up the discussion and placed this as a strategic priority for council. Again, most people are going to be familiar with this uh graphic. I have updated it once during our discussions to include some additional information, but it does show that uh where Weisetta is sitting is um on some of the least restrictive side of things right now. This ordinance would move it to be on the far opposite end of a more restrictive for the short-term rental. during our last uh council workshop discussion. This is where council or where staff is bringing back all of our information from the two engagement sessions. Uh the research that council had asked staff prepare and just trying to present all of that general information so that staff could meet the direction of council of trying to develop an ordinance before the end of this year. We brought all of this back and sought direction from council to craft an ordinance. We presented the draft pro provisions that staff had prepared uh and shared with both at both of the engagement sessions and ultimately uh what council ended up directing staff to prepare at that meeting if we heard correctly was that est short-term rentals should be prohibited for all residential housing types. Short-term rentals should be prohibited even when the owner lives on site. The current short-term rentals should be allowed to continue through their current license period and uh complete a short-term rental operation by March 31st, 2026. Council was very explicit in their reasons uh linking why they felt this way, at least in staff's interpretation from that meeting. And these findings were based upon that the regulations should sh serve current residents first and foremost rather than visitors. That homes and residential neighborhoods should be dwellings, not a transient lodging operation. That neighborhood character was disrupted by short-term rental operations which negatively impacted neighbors. and that all housing types, whether it's multif family, town homes, or single family, were impacted by short-term rentals. Again, this is a staff interpretation from a discussion, not a uh direct finding of the council at this point. However, these have been incorporated into the draft resolution uh I'm sorry, ordinance to ensure that the ordinance is aligning with the findings council had at the time. The new ordinance brought forward by staff uh ordinance 852 prohibits short-term rentals in Y Zad by specifying that rental licenses must be for a minimum of 30 days or longer. It would take effect April 1st, 2026, one date after the March 31st, 2026 when the licenses would expire. Updates the language slightly within an ordinance. Again, when we first brought forward this ordinance in October of 2024, uh it was reiterated that this was perhaps not our final iteration. This was meant to uh help us document how many short-term rental operations we had and that the uh license and ordinance may grow through time as we learn more. So, there were some updates for clarity and consistency and then include some enforcement enforcement provisions for violations and an appeal process. With that, we have the proposed motion before you this evening and I stand for questions and uh then we also have quite a few public comments that I passed along to the mayor as well. >> Uh yes, questions of staff at this point. >> Go ahead, Mr. Fleish. >> I have one that just occurred to me while you were doing this. What if a landlord were to take in a renter for say a long weekend but gave them a 31day lease and charged them 3 days worth of rent. How would the city handle that? >> Uh council member uh mayor and council member Plecus, you bring up an interesting enforcement mechanism. Um first we we would work off of a complaint basis. So, we would need to know that this is occurring. Uh, essentially the city would need to be notified. So, that would be the first part. Once we're notified, we would need to perform some level of investigation and work with our attorney to determine how we might begin an enforcement mechanism on that. I'd say every case with that is going to end up being a relatively unique case. Are we determining it from the parking? Are we determining it from finding it online and seeing the posting through a website? And that's a kind of choose your own adventure style of violation. So, I think we'd need to figure out what the violation was before I could adequately answer every iteration of that question. I apologize. And let's It appears the city attorney may have some guidance. >> Uh, mayor and council member Pleish, you know, the only thing I'd add to that is it would be a violation of the ordinance to do that, even if there was a a lease of more than 30 days. The way the ordinance is written, it's just a violation to do short-term rentals. So whether regardless of what the lease says, um if a short-term rental was happening, it would and we could we had evidence of that, it would be a violation. >> Okay. >> Uh I have a couple actually, and I'm going to start with you, Alex, but I'm going to give you time to research it and I'm going to pivot to our uh outside counsel. Um we have a long-term rental policy in place, which if this was enacted tonight, that would remain. And I'd just like uh you to review what the long-term regulations that are in place because by by you know banning this then the property owner that may have a license would have to either pivot to long-term or find another use of that property if it's primary short-term. So I'll give you time to research that. Just I'm looking for the long-term rental what the regs are. Okay. Now for you, Mr. Outside Council. Um my question to you is um you know can you explain a little bit more the difference between um a permit versus u granting um sort of a right like a a property right. I mean this is this is much like I mean in my simple little brain it's like you have a liquor license you grant them you don't grant them. talk a little bit about what what did we grant last year and why can we take it away if we choose to? >> Mayor, um good questions. Um so we're amending our rental dwelling license chapter of city code. So what we're talking about are licenses um that uh someone needs to apply for. Uh they need to be a qualified applicant and and meet the standards of the ordinance in order to get a license. And those licenses last for one year and they have to go through that process every year when they renew and if they can't meet the standards they don't get a license and there is no legal right to a license um if you don't meet the standards of the ordinance I think uh so that's the idea and the concept of a license and your your example is a good one I mean a liquor license there's no right to a liquor license you have to be qualified for it and get it and if you know the the rules change change around that license you have to comply in the land use area by contrast and we sometimes call these entitlements. If you get a conditional use permit or a variance, those those will run with the land and you have a right, you know, that that runs with the property and the property owner has all the rights associated with those land use approvals. So, that's not what we're talking about here. We're not amending the zoning ordinance. We're amending the rental dwelling license ordinance with these changes. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. My third question, hopefully Alex has had enough time. It's the jello effect question, which is, you know, if this recommendation holds, we're not allowing short-term rental. So, in a commercial area, you couldn't, I don't know, take a commercial building and put a structure in it and call it short-term rental and somehow get around this if you know. So, I'm asking for, you know, we had a lot of discussion about how we'd regulate it. We're kind of moving towards discussing an outright ban, but there's no other opportunity in the commercial district to Airbnb a condo or to Airbnb something in another area of town that is not residential. It's a hypothetical. Just want to make sure I understand. >> So, the jello effect, which is you close out one wall and it pops out on the other side. The way that this rental ordinance is uh written is specifically to not allow short-term rentals in what would otherwise be deemed residential. So commercial areas such as hotels, things of that nature. Condos are considered residential. They're a dwelling unit. >> That would be prohibited. Commercial would still allow it because that's a permitted use within that zone potentially. >> So So let me just be really explicit. So I mean I know the answer, but I just want to be really clear about it. >> Yep. The landing has a hotel. The landing has condos. Um, the hotel could use Airbnb to sell hotel inventory if they choose to. Actually, a lot of hotels do that. But the landing, forget about if it's in their homeowners for a second, just as a hypothetical. The landing condos because they're in commercial could not Airbnb under this ordinance. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Thank you. And then my last question is again, uh, thinking about if this passes and you know this click forward some might go to long-term what are the regulations for long-term rentals >> I've brought up the entire code for a rental dwelling license >> yeah just just summarize the best >> the summarize piece is you need to obtain a yearly license you need to have those inspections every year you need to renew your license every year uh you need to maintain the property uh so there's a whole sections on maintenance here you need to have the lease of 30 days or longer you need to um have a crimeree drug-free policy as part of that lease provision. >> And is there not a background check uh for uh people living in the property? >> Yep. There's a background check required as part of that crimefree drug-free policy. >> Yep. And the enforcement thereof is by our building inspector and our csos who would do an annual inspection. If they were to find any violations, they would try to get the uh property owner to remedy that. if they chose not to, we have enforcement inspections, for lack of a better term. I don't know if that's the right term, but we go out there and say, "Well, you were you were allowing drug dealers to come in. We found it out and you need to cease or we're going to do something about it." >> The remedy uh would be because we've looked at this uh recently is do we need to pull a license and then you can't legally operate as a rental within the city of Weissa. So that's the first step in the mechanism and then there'd be further steps that the city would pursue after that. >> Okay. Uh thank you for that update. Other questions from council, Mr. Sasonson? >> Yeah. Um just a real quick question. Do we have any non-compliance issues now in the city that we're dealing with >> for short-term or for long-term? >> For short term, >> mayor, thank you very much for clarification. Um, we there is currently one case that the city is pursuing in short-term rental non-compliance where they have not obtained a line a license. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, it just means you have found evidence that they're Airbnbing, but they don't currently have a license. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Other questions of staff at this time? Okay. Hearing none, we've got several people that want to talk. Um, when I call your name, just approach the dis if you give your name and your address. Um, and then you're offered uh threeish minutes to to speak on the topic. If you haven't turned in your blue card, I'd recommend you do that now. Um, to Mr. Sharp. Uh, first I'd like to call Penny Sherry to the dis, please. And again, welcome. Um, just state your name and address and and offer us uh your comments, please. My name is Penny. >> Um, hold on one second. We just got to get your mic on. Alex, can you maybe help her just >> I think I've got it. >> There you go. I just want to make sure some Thank you. >> Uh, my name is Penny Sherry and I live in the Weisetta East neighborhood at 1053 Lake Street East. I'm here to express my strong opposition to the growing number of short-term rentals in our community. This is affecting me personally because we actually live right next door to one of the short-term rentals and we have a cluster of five of them within a block of our home. With a 3-day rental minimum allowed next door, we for sure see new people every 3 days, many weeks. My husband travels frequently for work, and being home with a constant flow of strangers, feet from our windows, is a weird and unsettling feeling. We've started closing our blinds for privacy on that side of the house and setting the alarm every night and whenever I leave the house. I can't rely on these neighbors being someone that I can talk to because they are not neighbors at all. They're tourists. This is not what we expected when we bought our home. It feels like we live next door to a mini hotel. I do not want to live next door to that. I want to be clear that most of the guests have been friendly and respectful. My concern isn't about the individuals. It's about the hotel-like business model operating next door to us. There's a financial motivation driving this issue. Short-term rentals generate significantly more income than long-term. For example, the property next door charges $2,100 for a 4-day stay during peak se season. If rented continuously, that could amount to over $15,000 a month. In the summer, this home is booked nearly every day. That is not a simply a homeowner renting out their house occasionally. This is a full-scale commercial operation in a residential area right next door to us in an area that's not zoned for it. I ask each member of the city council, how would you feel if the next the house next door to you was a short-term rental with strangers coming and going every few days just feet from your windows? Would your sense of home and community feel the same? >> Just want to give you a 30 second warning. >> Okay. Um, all right. Well, we're extremely concerned that if the council does not act, the many remaining small, charming homes in our area will also be bought up as investments and turned into short-term rentals. Weisetta has a designated business district. Our residential streets were never intended to be part of it. I respectfully urge the council to adopt the ordinance banning all short-term rentals and also not allow any grandfathering in of current short-term rentals. Our neighborhoods should be places where people know each other, look out for each other, and build lasting relationships, not short-term profit zones for absentee landlords. Thank you for all of the time you guys are putting into this. >> Uh, thank you, Miss Sherry. Next up is um going to ask um that we don't applause one way or the other. I I understand everyone wants to, you know, show their love, but um let's just try to keep it even and stick to the facts, please. Uh Mr. Dave Larson. >> Hi, my name is Dave Larson, 158 Benton Avenue. >> Welcome. >> Uh thank you. Thank you, council. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, I've lived in Weisetta for 7,390 days. And if you do the math, that's over 20 years. And what I will tell you is one of the things I'm most proud of is that when you talk to people about Weisetta or in Weisetta, they talk about the community and the community feel. But more importantly than community, what I think is so incredibly valuable about being a citizen of this community are our neighborhoods. And I'm really proud of the Benton Avenue neighborhood. I can walk up and down our street and talk to all of my neighbors and feel very welcomed by them each and every day. But we've seen a change recently at the end of our street with some short-term rentals. And the reality is that change in my view has not been a positive one. We don't know these people. They don't have a strong commitment to the community and certainly not to the neighborhood. And so it's my view that when I read about who we say we are as a community, we take pride in our history and we relish our neighborhoods. I believe short-term rentals are deteriorating our neighborhoods and I really hope that the council considers uh not going forward with short-term rentals. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Mr. Jeff Nelson, please. Again, just uh welcome. State state your name and address, and you have three minutes, sir. >> Thank you, mayor and councel. Um Jeff Nelson, 1037 Lake Street East. Um my wife and I moved here a little over three years ago. Uh right across the street from us at the time, uh there was a unit that we found out was a short-term rental, but in this last year or two, the house next door to us went from being uh great neighbor to being a short-term rental and a very very different feeling when you are sandwiched between uh two businesses. I'll just reiterate what has already been said that I think the council strongly needs to look at the idea of what will be for the future in the neighborhoods. Will it be a place where people feel comfortable living or will it be a place where uh it's business across the entire community? I I support I love the businesses in Weisetta downtown, the restaurants, hotel landing, etc. It is a wonderful community. It's simply that I don't believe that businesses should be operating in the midst of a residential district and having the impact that was described where you see somebody different every day and you don't have any idea if they should be there or if they shouldn't be there. So, it's really the issue of safety and comfort for residents of the neighborhoods of Weisetta. And again, I understand this is difficult with the competing interests that you all have to take into account. So, we very much appreciate your time and thought on this. Thank you. >> Um, thank you, sir. Uh, in case you're wondering, I just randomized these. I can't really shuffle paper, but I did randomize them. Next person, uh, to be called to the DASIS, Mr. Scott Trips. Welcome. Uh, thank you. Scott Trips at 245 Walker Avenue North, which by the way, for many, many, many years of used to coming to these meetings, I'm still going to advocate for not having to give someone's personal address here, particularly given the things that are happening in today's society. I think it's appropriate if we just change it to why is it a resident uh going forward. So, that's a suggestion. >> No, thank you for that feedback. >> I'd love to start my three minutes now. >> Yes, sir. You're you're welcome to, Mr. Trips. >> Right. Um uh I appreciate those who have already spoken. I too am a neighbor to a short-term rental. I've been in Weisetta for over 30 years now. I happen to own the short-term rental that's right next to me. And short-term rentals are actually working extremely well in our neighborhood. And by that, I mean we're the direct neighbor. We're super particular about how our neighborhood responds to a short-term rental. Um, in fact, all of the neighbors that are basically within sight distance of our short-term rental, um, support it, and actually multiple have used the short-term rental. So, for us in our neighborhood, and we have neighbors who have written to the city council indicating that they're in full support of short-term rentals, and again, these are very close, direct neighbors. I'm sorry for those who have not had a good experience, but what I can guarantee is that it's possible to have a good experience. My concern is we're swinging like the graphic that Alex showed from the far right side, not politically speaking, sorry. Um, but just the far right side of that graph to the complete opposite side rather than looking at having good quality discussions and finding ways that we can meet the challenges that exist, which I believe we can respectfully do as a small town and with the city council um, overseeing that. I had a chance to speak with every city council member. All right. In person or on phone individually, and you guys, I believe, can all attest that a 100% of you said that you would prefer to find a win-win solution, that you don't necessarily think this is the ideal solution to prohibit. And I would call us to the integrity principle that we have as our number one uh value for the city council. Integrity is doing the hard things. uh that are right and right now I don't think we're doing what's right we're doing what's reactive to as you said Alex we're in a using the mechanism of complaint when we have an issue that's what we're addressing and rather than operate that way I'd love to see us use integrity and go about it battling in a in a challenging way to find a right solution that can work in all the neighborhoods and please understand I I recognize the challenge all of living next to one because we live next to one and we've had one complaint and we addressed it right away and we haven't ever had one since. Um so my my ask would be that the council would say we're going to press pause on saying no and we're going to have actually a good discussion on finding ways to address the challenges. The list of and I'll wrap up here in 10 seconds. The list, Alex, that you gave on the regulations for long-term rentals, I would argue is actually too short, and I've suggested a much longer list of regulations for short-term rentals in order to ensure quality short-term rentals. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Trips. Um, next up, I hope I'm pronouncing this correctly, Mr. Mr. White Lee or White Leg. Whit Lee, I apologize if I got that wrong, sir. Uh, welcome. >> Thank you. And I do appreciate the council uh cont taking up this issue. I'm Chad Whitley. >> Okay. >> Chad Whitley. >> Thank you, sir. >> I think I'm probably overstating >> your your address, sir. >> I'm sorry. 1050 Lake Street East. 1050 Lake Street East. >> Thank you, sir. >> Yeah. Uh I hope this is the obvious. To me, the issue uh is really in the name or the discussion we're having. They're STRs, but they're STS. STR businesses. We now have an invasion of businesses into a into a residential area. And the consequences are intrinsic to the nature of a business versus a neighbor and a neighborhood. And I think I've said this before, I'll try to keep it short, but a good neighbor is friendly and approachable, respectful of boundaries, respecting property and privacy and personal space, and mindful of noise levels and potential disruptions, considered and helpful, willing to lend a hand when needed. Whether it's helping uh remove a package or offering a favor, uh active in the community, voting, participating in neighborhood events, getting involved in community decisions, trustworthy and reliable, tolerant and understanding, mindful of noise, clean and tidy, maintaining property and yards in a way that contributes to the overall aesthetic and cleanliness of the neighborhood. an S str business and a good neighborhood and good neighbors are diametrically opposed in their goals and the way they operate. Um in contrast the business is there for one reason to make money period. When you look at what a good STR business is, it's a strong potential return on investment. investment. A a guide is at least 10% of a benchmark. In some of the highest performing markets can be 12 to 15% higher. These are things that make for a good STR business as you pull it off the internet. They're high and sustained income. They choose a location consistent with tourism or business travel ideally year round. Look, if you're going to start an STR business for areas where booking demand has risen gradually over the past few years, emerging markets with high demand and low competition, you want someplace that's got good effective marketing and listing management, and that the short term is businessfriendly in its regulatory environment. Check for permitting requirements, zoning laws, occupancy limits, and tax obligations. be aware of potential restrictions on how often you can rent or if you need to be present. So businesses are not consistent with neighborhoods and being a good neighbor. >> Uh thank you sir. Uh next to the dis is Mr. Bruno Silicowski please. Uh welcome sir. Just state your name and address and you'll have your full three minutes. Sir, >> Bruno Silakoski, 173 Huntington Avenue South. Um, you know, I kind of tend to wanted to follow facts and then follow the logic with that. So, I'm going to be stating a few things that you might already know, but I'm going to restate it for for all of us. So, by Wes Weisetta's own code and charter chapter 9, STRs fit squarely into the definition of logic. lodging defined in the state of Minnesota and I'm going to read this any building or portion thereof occupied as the more or less temporary abiding place for individuals used designated or intended to be used let or hired out to be occupied whether the compensation be paid directly or indirectly the Minnesota Department of Health and the Department of Revenue recognize them as lodging/ retail service operations. Those are the pages I gave to Alex for reference. Um, from Weisetta's own code, lodgings are prohibited in R3A. And right now, I think the majority of that map you put up with location of the STRs was really helpful. You can see where those those are mostly residential R3 areas, especially the east neighborhood. Whether uh whether it's a B or B, the regulations and enforcement is a big deal, right? And I think the biggest issue we're going to run into is um after reading a lot of things and without going along you know long diet tried about it seems like we is kind of figuring things out as of around 2024 and started putting in rules about getting a license and things like that. Anyways that takes it takes expense takes people and to uh Mr. Barill to your point about trying to find ways to cut cost. We should be charging the people who are profiting from these kind of operations whether it's a BRB whether it's a long-term rental or whether it's these STRs that we're currently dealing with. But the bottom line is costing every taxpayer in in Weisetta money for somebody else's profits. Not fair. Um, summarizing, it's really a shame that the people who didn't follow the rules and regulations on these STRs suddenly figured it out and now a sudden it's our problem and we're having to have these meetings. How many people have have spent countless time talking about this and trying to find an equitable way for all. But I do appreciate the council, the mayor, the staff. Alex has done a lot to uh to help with this, but I really appreciate you guys looking into this and trying to find an amicable way. I do u believe >> 30 second notice. Sorry. >> Thank you. Um I'm really done. I'm basically I don't agree with the STRs and I think going forward with the approach that you're going really will help eliminate that and control it. So thank you. >> Thank you sir. Uh next I'd like to call Janet Baker to the DAS please. Welcome. >> Good evening. I'm Janet Baker. I reside at 324 Hampton Street in Weisetta. And again to reiterate, but you just can't say it enough. Thank you so much. As has been said, it is we're passionate. We're emotional. It is time consuming. I've lived in Weisetta for 10 years. I would be happy to never come to a city council meeting. I just want to pay my taxes, go on the lakewalk, love it. And now I have been to the community engagement. I've been to the workshop, the city council meeting tonight. And most importantly, if you haven't heard, I've been talking to all our neighbors. I did not realize, especially I'm in the Lake East neighborhood going across to Benton. We have not been just asking you to solve our problems. We have talked to the owners of the short-term rentals. We have tried compromises and there is nothing left for us to do. If I thought getting on my knees and begging for three minutes would help, I would do that because I do not like being dependent. the city has the sole resource and ability to ban short-term rentals. There is nothing I can do as a resident. So, I am happy to hear where this is going. And after reading last week's uh Wall Street Journal, I since you're probably aware there may be litigation coming, the profits at stake are real. It's very few individuals that are making a lot of money. So the neighbors, if you don't ban it, we can do GoFundMe. We can try to get resources together. We can try to litigate, but I'm just asking, please, after everything you've heard, put the ban out, support the ban, support the residents, and know that you're doing the right thing because we can't do this without you. So, thank you so much for all your time and attention. >> Thank you for your comments. Uh, next, I'd like to call to the dis Jenny Sergeant, please. Welcome. >> Hi, good evening. My name is Jenny Sergeant. I live at 215 Chicago Avenue North. I am just here to reiterate in person my desire for the complete ban of short-term rentals. I would reiterate everyone else that's come up in favor of them. Neighbors should be who's in your neighborhood. It shouldn't be people that you don't know. You shouldn't wonder if the people next door should be there or not. I appreciate I think you're a minority that you live next door and that you're watching. I do think if you want to do long-term rentals, those people I've rented many times in my life and that they they do become part of neighborhoods, but short-term rentals are not part of the neighborhood. And I would just ask, I know at least three of the city council members at a previous workshop stated that in like thinking about it, you're pretty ambivalent, but then you thought if it was next door to me, what would I do? And you, three of you at least said that you would not want it. So, I just ask that you listen to the majority of the people so far this book and tonight that have been in favor of the ban. You think about how you would feel if it was next door to you, not just someone else's issue that they're dealing with. And I would ask you to vote for a complete ban and not grandfather anybody in to it. Uh, thank you for your comments. Uh, last chance to fill out a blue card because this is the last one. So, last chance if you want to fill out a blue card. Uh, last up is Miss Anna Bader, please. Welcome. >> My name is Dana Bader. I live at 123 Benton Avenue. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council, and staff. Um, my husband and I have lived on Benton Avenue. It'll be 30 years in December. Um, maybe we moved in when I was three. I mean, I don't want to date myself or anything. Um, but, uh, I can just, um, echo some of Dave's comments about the feeling of our community. Um, you know, our kids have grown up together. Uh, we have book club together. We have bonfires together. We have parties together. You're not going to do that with somebody who's living in a short-term rental. And so, really, the fabric of our neighborhood is made up of the neighbors. And so, I'm in full support of the changes to the ordinance. and um neighborhoods are for neighbors and it's not a commercial enterprise. So, thank you for your time. >> Yes, thank you. Um okay, so before I bring it back to council for a discernment process, I just want to make a couple comments. I mean, in our packet, we received feedback from people that aren't here for it and against it. Um you know, all that's in the public record. All of the qualitative feedback that we received in these open houses is in the record. Um so all of us up here I think uh met with or had calls with uh people on both sides of this issue. So you have to put faith in the in the process of uh we're trying to you know sort through this um in a balanced and professional way. Um with that I'll bring it back to the council for um discussion and deliberation. So I guess I'd look for someone to start weighing in. Yeah. Mr. Mr. Senson. Okay. >> Yeah. Go ahead. Um, so you know, we talked about this 5 weeks ago at the workshop and uh I had a fair amount to say about it and you know it's 5 weeks ago since then and there's been a lot of discussion about it. Um um and I I guess what I'd like to do a little bit is take more than a little time and um maybe try to declutter some of this conversation a bit. You know, we have uh so many issues on the table that we could talk about. But I think a lot of what I uh intended to say has kind of already been said one way or another. But regardless of where we end up, I mean, it's good to see people here. It's good to see people engaged, passionate, having an opinion, uh being able to come up and express it because that's what we need to really uh make them the most informed decision possible. Um and and also just a quick note uh to staff. I mean you guys have been doing this since May or earlier. Uh cons I know you spent considerable time reviewing this, talking to people. People told me to have been responsive. So uh thank you for that. Um I also just want to acknowledge um I mean you're not going to see me uh up here promoting more regulation very often. It's just kind of not my thing. Um, and I have great respect for property rights. My whole life I've been a builder, developer. Um, I think property rights play a part in this discussion somewhere. But, uh, we need we need to keep that in in uh, mind. Also the the other kind of premise of this whole discussion that we I think can't forget is um in in in none of this discussion have I heard anyone say that anyone can't continue to rent their place more than 30 days at a time. So we're just talking about uh short-term rentals, you know, lease periods that are shorter than that. The the other premise I think in this whole topic is um this isn't to me about you know good operators or not so good operators or respectful guest or not respectful guest and I'll tell you a little bit why I think that in a minute but you know we we I think we probably all committed Mr. Crisps reminded us we committed to be open and try to uh hear all sides of this. I think that's a bit of the of the challenge here because the fact is, you know, we have stakeholders on a lot of sides of this. We have um we have um and with that in mind, there's, you know, things we need to recognize about the positive things about short-term rentals. Certainly, uh, it provides diversity in housing. Um, people want to come stay in our community. They like it. Um, it gives them options. Um, there's certainly an economic benefit to operators and owners. Um, these are for-profit enterprises. It's all about maximizing your profitability. And you may argue or say that they enhance economic benefit. I'm not sure it really does or not, but I think it's only fair to acknowledge that uh there are some positive things about short-term rentals. You know, on the other hand, um I think we need to acknowledge um some of the other aspects of what uh short-term rentals have uh h how they've affected our community. And and I'll say it again. Um the thing that you know I learned pretty quickly in this discussion is that when you talk to someone in our community, if you don't live near one, it's kind of like, well, what's the big deal, right? Um and that's, you know, on my street, there's none in my street. There's plenty in my neighborhood, but I'm not directly affected by it. Um and I think that's the general premise. you know, if you if you just that's kind of how you how you feel about it. But it's significantly different if you live next to one. And um you heard a lot of the issues that came up uh about uh firsthand experiences. Um to me like the negative impacts fall into two categories. One is, you know, more the nuisance issues which we hear a lot about and which some communities have tried to regulate, you know, but things like noise and disturbance and parking and traffic and strangers in the area and more activity and cleaners coming every week and then maintenance people and don't keep their places up. I mean, those are real issues. Um but by far by far the biggest issue is um loss of neighborhood character because the fact of the matter is um you no longer have a neighbor. You have a business operating in your neighborhood or next to you. And like we've heard from some of these direct testimonies, uh it's not a very pleasant thing and it's not what you anticipated when you uh buy a home here or live here and you have a for-profit business operating next next door. So, um so I just have a a question if that's okay to staff. >> Yeah. Um, so I'm probably heading your way, Alex, but um, so Alex, do we allow hotels in residential areas? >> Mayor, Council Member Sorenson, no. Uh, they are not a permitted use in any residential zone. >> No, we >> No, >> we don't allow hotels in residential areas. A hotel would not be permitted in a R3 residential zone or in any residential zone. >> Okay. So why not? >> As others have pointed out, the definition of lodging is uh defined as a commercial enterprise and therefore within commercially zoned areas. >> Okay. So, so I'm trying to help hope you you can help me understand this, but a hotel is for guest and you mentioned where residence is, you know, so a residential areas are for residents. So, hotels are places where people go stay maybe a shorter period of time. Maybe it's a business trip, maybe it's a pleasure trip, maybe it's a wedding, you know, maybe it's a family event, maybe it's a maybe it's a bachelor party. Um, but that that's kind of how they use a hotel, I presume. And and you're saying in residential areas, they're more for our residents. dwelling unit traditionally is how it would be referred to with an IA zoning ordinance versus lodging. >> Yeah. So, I was going to ask you what the definition of a resident was, but to save time, I looked it up myself. Um so you know a quick look at AI says um an overview legally a resident is an individual who lives in a specific place with the intent of making it their permanent home for indefinite period and a key aspect of that is um in is intent to remain. So you must have a conscious decision to make the place your home, not not just a a temporary site. So this conversation is helpful because I think I think uh we're it's kind of helping understand why we have zoning regulations and you know in this case if I understand this right we have residential areas where people want to live and stay living there and that's kind of what you get when you live in one of these areas but a hotel which are not a lot of these areas are more they're not residents are guest. >> They're coming for a short period of time. So, is that did I have that right, >> Mayor? Council member Sorenson, I believe. So, yes, >> I think we get the rhetorical. >> Okay. So, so really I think what I'm getting at is, you know, we have a we've had a slow conversion over time, consciously or not consciously, um, converting homes to many hotels and and you've heard a lot of issues here associated with that, but I just want to uh I just want to put different words to it and I think someone got pretty close to to what I'm going to say, but you know, Another way to think about it is um what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court uh said when they upheld the decision to deny Airbnb Airbnb rentals in residential zoning districts and their rationale included amongst other things and I'm just going to read this. Short-term tenants have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of citizenry. They do not participate in local government, coach little league, or join the hospital guild. They do not lead a scout troop, volunteer at the public library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor. Literally, they are here today and gone tomorrow without engaging in the sort of activities that wield and strengthen a community. The permanence and stability of people living in single family residential zoning districts creates a sense of community, cultivates and fosters relationships, and provides an overall quality of a place where people are invested and engaged in their neighborhood and care about each other. It's a place where children play together, neighbors know one another, look out for one another, and people enjoy the quiet seclusions of their homes. So, I just want to I just want to point out clearly that um in this case, we're talking about an operating business in a in a residential neighborhood. And I don't think that was ever the intent of what we intended when we put our zoning plan together. The other thing just to um just to remind people, I mean, most these short-term rentals are in our three areas. Is that right, Alex? Or I mean, yeah, Alex, >> uh, Mayor Council Borson, that is correct. >> Yeah. And so, you know, if you don't live in one of these areas, these are most these lots are less than 100 ft wide. They're 60 to 80 feet wide, maybe, but the point is they're close together. So, if you have a short-term rental next to you, it's not like, you know, you're in a uh estate lot. So, so how do we think about this? I mean, I I would I would say there's a couple different things we could look at in terms of how we analyze this. One is one is the graphic that was put together. And um you know if you just look at the communities that have had the most restrictive policies include Deep Haven, Greenwood, Edina, Woodland, Shorewood, Minitrista, Prior Lake, which has a 60-day minimum. Uh Bloomington, Apple Valley, and that's just a a really quick look. you know, the other communities that I think we can relate to well, um, including Orno, Excelsier, and Tonka Bay don't allow rentals less than 30 days, but they do allow rentals if you're homesteading and occupied in that home. And I think that's a good idea. Actually, if you live in that, if you live and own that facility, if you're homesteaded there, I think you should be able to rent that out under a under a short-term basis. But what's interesting is that in none of these communities did they try to split the baby. Did they try to come up with a compromise that kind of works for for for everyone? And in talking to a couple mayors and a couple city managers, um they just said it it it's got way too complicated. Um it was impractical to really manage. It was it was costly. So the point is I think we can learn about what we want to do with this issue based on some of our peers. The the other issue is you know is and it was mentioned a bit but the whole concept of you know what do we want our community to be? What do we tell people? We tell them look at our comprehensive plan and and you know we all know the words that we come up with in our comprehensive plan in tuming of small town feel and charming and friendly and walkable and quiet. Um not having a business in your residential community is certainly supportive of that and it's also consistent with our strategic plan. Our strategic plan, one of our primary priorities is sustain community character and safety. And our vision statement for that is focus on what's best for those who live here. So I think the punchline of that for me is our highest priority and our most sacred issue is to do what's best for those who live here and and that is to have a very strict ordinance on short-term rentals. I'm almost done, mayor. >> Okay. Okay. Um, another thing to think about in this context is, you know, we've spent a lot of money. We've done a super good job in supporting commerce here. We brought a lot of people here and almost all of it is really good, but there's things about that that have impacted our community that we still need to to work on. I think we're at a bit of a point, a bit of maybe an inflection point where now it's time to kind of tip the scales a little bit, look out for what's best for those who live here and and and not subject them to, you know, the type of in and-out transit environment we have with the short-term rentals. So, um, so I I don't think grandfathering makes sense. I think we have the problem today. That's why we're sitting here talking about it. We had the problem two years ago. So it doesn't make sense to me that we're grandfather because we're not dealing with the issue we have in front of us. And I guess what I worry about maybe even the most is you know thinking we can find a way to compromise on this. And you know Scott's right. I mean I think we all committed to try to be open to a different solution here. But, you know, we've been working at this since early May. And I haven't been presented a solution by anyone that I think is going to satisfy everyone. I really don't think that's probably going to be possible. Unfortunately, I think someone's not going to be happy with with whatever we decide here. So, um, so I guess in the end, I mean, I I'd be supportive of the ordinance that we have in front of us, but I would suggest that if the council would want that we that we also allow short-term rentals in in your home if you're homesteaded there. And um and but maybe with one exception, that's if you have a shared driveway because I don't that just doesn't work, I don't think. But um anyway, those are some of my thoughts about it. And um And uh I'll let someone else speak for a bit. >> Fair enough. And please no applause. Um so thank you Mr. Sason for that very detailed review of your position. >> I appreciate that. Um I would welcome uh the next council person that would like to weigh in. Who would like to go next? >> I'd love to go next if I may. Go ahead, >> Miss McDonald. >> Um appreciate it. >> Kind of a tough act to follow to be honest. Really um council member Swornson really well said. I'm gonna be a little bit more brief because um I think so many of the points have already been shared and um so many that I really agree with. But just my own personal journey with short-term rentals started probably around 2022. And when I first heard of them, I thought, great, this is great for town and great for downtown. I have a business. Um, business community will be in favor of it. Brings new people to discover Weisetta. My feelings have really evolved in the last few years. I I I haven't heard from any of my peers on Lake Street that this is moving the needle in their business. Um, I have heard from more residents specifically and it really does come to an boiled down to an out of sight, out of mind situation. And there was one particular resident who came to me and explained her um experiences and I just started to think h I wouldn't want to live next door to one either. So, um, going back to 2023 in, uh, Director Sharp's presentation, um, additional regulations was identified as a strategic priority. Um, in 2023, I thought, yeah, let's let's find a a good way to regulate these and and make sure um our neighborhoods are preserved. Uh since then we've had as you uh put on our slides five workshops, two council meetings, two engagement sessions and um over multiple years I've had many many conversations with um residents and um a couple with a few operators. And what I have realized is what um council member Sorenson explained too, which is how I feel is um I just couldn't figure out how to put so many regulations in place that made it make sense. Basically, I I wished I in in another world I could just pick a winner and a loser and say you're okay, but you're not. and that is just not our role up here. So, um I thought the finding and basis from staff that you took from our most recent workshop in this item summed it up very well. You all summed it up incredibly well and um I really applaud you guys all for for being here and getting up to the podium the few the the the some who did because it's it is brave. It's hard to get up and plead your case where you may feel a little bit powerless and um just know that you're not and that's the whole um purpose cuz there are but we're always available to you and you know when you're I imagine an operator and you ask your neighbor how do you feel about it? um that neighbor is going to be really put on the spot and they don't want to disappoint their neighbor and that neighbor then may go and text their council member on the side and say I actually don't support them. So there's a lot of layers and nuance I think people should keep in mind. Um and um one one final point is um Council Member Sorenson mentioned that he um is a big proponent of property rights. Well, I would argue all of you have the right to live in a residential neighborhood and know your neighbors and feel really safe and not feel like you have to hide behind closed blinds. So, I um I uh uh support the proposed motion as written and um look forward to voting in favor of it. >> Uh thank you, Miss McDonald. May I ask a clarifying question? Just I'm trying to draw out the feedback as we go here. Um in Mr. Sorenson's closing remarks, he made a comment about um living on site. Um I'm not just asking if you're comfortable weighing in on that. If you're not, that's fine, too. >> Yeah, that's uh fair. Thank you for that followup. Um, I guess I'd want to know what could you just define homestead for me so that it's it's very clear. Does that mean someone What exactly what exactly was that? Um, >> mayor u council member if the city were to uh include that type of provision. We looked into this because it was a discussion point for council in uh past and in the proposed policy. We would likely include an affidavit uh with the license application that you lived on site that and uh potentially other means other than just the homestead uh at the county quality. That way we'd have multiple forms of uh verification that it was a homestead and then we would respond on a complaint basis. So the city attorney and staff would work together to ensure that homestead would be a potential provision within that as a classification with Henipin County, but we'd also include other provisions to make that uh so the city could enforce uh more effectively. But is this, you know, um, person who lives there and who homestead, are they, what if they're a real vacation person or a traveler and they like to be gone two weeks out of the month and those are, you know, so I I'm a little wary to say, sure, go for it. So, um, at this moment, I don't think I'm going to, unless you have answers to those specific questions. >> We could certainly define it to something like must be on property, uh, 10 months of the year or 9 months of the year. We could look into that a little bit further and define it as tightly as we needed to, or we could go as far as what tax law would require for where you live on a property and how that would be defined. So, we've got the provisions to be able to craft that if the council wanted to be able to include it in the ordinance. We would just want to present what those were to you uh at a future date to make sure that they align with what you'd want it to be defined as. I think we've been I've been asking to hear what an additional regulation that would make sense for um since 2023 and bringing it on the fly day of isn't something I'm going to vote on. So, I would say no. >> Yeah. And that's fair. And just to be clear, um I'm just trying to draw out everyone's perspective. I don't even know what we're going to vote on yet. So, um just to be clarify why I'm trying to draw it out. >> Of course, I get it. And I I think maybe at this moment I don't feel comfortable. I don't think I have enough information and um a better under an understanding of what some unintended consequences would be. So I'm going to I'm going to just say no. And >> Oh, that's that's very helpful. That's very helpful. Um who would like to go next? >> Mr. Parkhill. All right. >> Well, thank you all for coming tonight. It's a big deal to get up there in front of the dis and express your opinions and your views and you are putting yourself in front of your peers and that's always a little uncomfortable at times for some people. So, thank you for doing that. Um, thank you for staff. You guys have been so incredible about dealing with the complaints and dealing with this situation and a lot of unknowns related to it. And thank you for an incredible amount of hard work. Um I I came here tonight thinking that um I wanted to find a compromise. I wanted to find a way to make this work for everybody to get the two parties together and find something that worked. And I think um so anyway, I I um I was thinking that I would that the motion is a little bit rigid and uh it should not go through. I want ST STRs. I would use STRs. I do use STRs. Um maybe there's things that we can work on like two week minimums, number of rentals per month, uh limits by neighborhood, um self-governing body, somebody that you know the STRs get together and really manage tightly their their their group. Um I've heard the impassioned discussions from my fellow council members. Um, very well laid out. Thank you for that. Uh, provided some clarity to me. Um, I'm concerned that we have done so much for our guests and this was long before STRs came up. I just felt like we've done so much for our guests and visitors to Weisetta. Um, much to the community's deficit, I believe. Um, much some of it's good. Businesses are thriving. Um, it's really nice to have a vibrant community. Um, I typically think of, uh, VBOS's and Airbnbs for highly touristy areas um, in a place that are more transient than, um, Weisetta is typically. We are a beautiful, nostalgic, and charming community. Um, I believe we are on the precipice of becoming a community that is really focused on tourism versus on the community and that concerns me greatly. Um, I'm feeling like we need to solidify our community and uh give one back to the neighborhoods. um sustain community character and safety. Um that's where I'm standing right now. I would like to hear my other council members. As I said, I came here with both arguments in my head hoping to find a solution, but honestly, we've been talking about a solution for several years, and there hasn't been a viable presentation of that. Um, I even requested from several people that they present one tonight and I didn't hear it. So, um, anyway, that's where I'm leaning right now. >> Mr. Parkill, if you're if you're comfortable, um, and it's okay if you're not. Um, Mr. Sorenson introduced another tweak to this about, you know, homestead living on site. Do you have an opinion on that? And it's okay if you don't. You know, I think the uh you know, there was a woman who rents her place because she has some health health issues and goes to Florida. You know, I don't I from my understanding the homestead is if you're living there on Jan or at least from our tax perspective, you're living there on January one, you are homesteaded and you are um I think there's another term for it, but um and I know the federal tax is you can take the federal tax deduction if you've lived there two of the last five years. So, I feel like it kind of needs to be better defined. >> Okay. >> But I'm not opposed to that at all. I think, you know, somebody gets into a pinch, somebody has health issues, um they need to find a way to, you know, make ends meet, but um I think there needs to be very strict guidelines on that. And, you know, somebody renting an ADU in their yard is very different from somebody renting uh a house next door to them or down the street. >> Yep. Fair enough. Thank you for that clarification, Mr. puckage. >> Well, I guess it's up to me before you. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh to to echo what Molly said earlier, it is a hard act to follow with uh council member Saenson at the end. A lot of research there and I appreciate that. Uh just as a matter of backdrop for me, um I have now lived in Weisetta for 31 years. It is my home. This is the place I intend to stay. Uh I am not a snowbird. I don't intend to be a snowbird. This is my home. And that's significant when you think that when I moved here in 1994, this was literally the 12th different state of the union that I'd lived in since college. So do the math on that. Uh so notwithstanding does at least one STR owner who was impassioned uh articulating a case of ethical and caring uh STR ownership with neighbors that supported it. Uh we are here tonight because that's not always been the case. Uh if there weren't issues in town that probably would not have percolated up for us to be sitting here tonight. So I have been taking notes uh throughout this evening. Uh if you bear with me, I'd like to read them because I I I think it captures everything that's in my my head. So the fundamental issue is do SDRs uh benefit the city or not? Uh is it simply a zoning consideration or something more? Are there any benefits to the city and its residents, both tangible and intangible, for allowing them? What are the downsides of prohibiting them? What has been our experience with the STRs in Weisetta to date? Short-term rentals or rentals of any length, frankly, were never anything I had pondered until the subject percolated to the council and I took an interest in it. We have had lots of input from many different constituents and stakeholders. I have personally met with, talked to, or at least communicated with many people on all sides of this issue before today. There are many who have weighed in on this issue with two entirely different sets of outcomes desired. There are those who simply don't wish to see STRs allowed whatsoever on one end of the spectrum and STR owners who would like to continue operating at the other end, albeit with thoughtfully crafted constraints. Then there are the visitors, many of whom have been former residents or family members of people in town who have found great value in having STRs available. Sadly, there are also many who have caused problems, which is likely why we are here discussing this issue tonight. We have looked to other communities nearby and considered how they have handled STRs, which go from no rules to outright bans. The question is, should we simply hit the easy button and prohibit STRs entirely making a clean break or craft an ordinance that takes into account and balances the concerns of both the neighboring residents most affected by STR rentals and also that of the owners of STRs? Is it possible to craft an ordinance which adequately addresses the concerns of neighbors and still allows for STR options without also keeping the door open to potential problems caused by inconsiderate visitors or worse who are unconcerned about such things. In my interactions with people, I have been given good arguments on both sides of this issue. Here are some of the pros I heard from allowing or for allowing STRs. It gives larger families who are visiting relatives in town or perhaps senior citizens in places like Folkstone a more convenient and economical alternative to a hotel. It gives visitors an option. It gives owner occupied STRs a financial benefit to the owner, possibly playing a key role in allowing them to continue living in Weisetta. Visitors to Weisetta may add to the diversity and vibrancy of the city. And then there are some cons. A good renter one weekend could be followed by a bad renter the following week. STR renters come and go with little ability to correct behavior issues. They could p pause uh pose safety, security, and parking concerns for neighbors. Erosion of a sense of community. It degrades the sense of a neighborhood. allowing short-term rentals in in an otherwise longerterm rental property does not add anything to the city in terms of property taxes. Now, stripping away personalities and cogent arguments from people who have a vested interest in the outcome tonight, I'm left to ponder what is the best long-term solution for the city and its taxpaying residents. Some residents have indicated they want no STRs. Others have indicated an openness to having them with sensible and enforcable restrictions. Going from the least restrictive to the most restrictive seems dramatic, but is it the right thing? Weisetta has become a destination city for the panoway retailers and restaurants. Do we want to turn it into a tourist town? To me, the views of the residents in closest proximity to STRs who have witnessed the pros and cons up close are the most important because those views represent the people who are most affected by what we do here tonight and that matters to me. Thank you. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Pleish. Um, if you're comfortable, um, Mr. Sors introduced another element about the on-site uh, you know, homestead. If you feel comfortable commenting on that, I'd welcome it. If not, I I respect your decision. >> Well, what I can say is I think what homestead means is fairly clear in law. You know, you pray property taxes based on homesteading, but like council member McDonald, I think uh and in Park Hill, I think it's it's just too quick to to react to that. So, I would say at this point, no. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you uh all of you for an hour's worth of u u feedback on on this topic and thank you for your thoughtfulness all of you. Um so um I've lived here I guess 30 years next year. This may be unique may not but I've lived on four different streets um in those 30 years. I started on Baton Avenue and then some of my neighbors remember we were neighbors on Baton Avenue. Then I lived in Huntington Avenue. I see some of my neighbors that were in Huntington Avenue when I lived there. Then I moved to Circle Drive. I see some people from Circle Drive. Uh that was a rental, long-term rental. Uh then I moved up to Chicago Avenue and Park. I see some of you there. And I'm now in my hope, my last place, which is a little tiny 1600 ft cottage on uh Barry Avenue. Um right next to West Middle School. Although don't don't come and throw eggs at my house, please. Um I uh struggle with this. Um, Berry Avenue has four long-term, sometimes flipped to short-term rentals on Barry Avenue. Um, and I've seen the positives and the negatives of it flipping from short-term to long-term. One of those houses just sold on September right right after Labor Day. So, it'll go back to an individual home and and and won't be rented anymore, but that leaves three. Um, you know, I struggle with this. I I am I like Mr. Sornson and generally a pro property rights individual and and my my position on this is is stayed consistent. It's going to stay consistent tonight. I I I would support uh you know common sense regulation and continue to allow them in a very regulated fashion. Um I'm not going to waste everyone's time and and kind of go into my arguments behind it. But I do feel as the mayor to offer a balanced uh set of perspectives in this dis which is is my responsibility right regardless of my opinion. I just want to read a couple of the common sense regulations that were proposed. I don't think it's going to move anything but I just want to put it out there and then I have some some other concerns about the finer grain details if this was to pass tonight as presented. So I'm just going to read a few of these. Again, it doesn't necessarily that represent my position personally, but it's my responsibility to have balanced perspective for for everyone to consider. So, I'm just going to do that. Um, and this came from um at least one maybe two uh current operators. Uh put a limit or a max on the number of licenses, so no more than 20. Um allow only one STR per block. um require an annual license requirement with a significant additional fee. Um annual owner operator compliance training and orientation. Um create a STR owner governing body. This is something you brought up Mr. Parkill to help uh take off the administrative burden on city if you had a long list of regulations. Uh a maximum of six days per month uh verse, you know, or uh 52 rentals per year. Um it goes on and on. Um, I felt compelled just to put that into the record to so that the record shows, you know, all sides of this in a in a more balanced way. Um, so, so here are my concerns. It looks like, you know, a ban may prevail. Um, I I have some concerns in in two ways. One, um, I would support uh some definition to live on site and to um, you know, allow living on site by whatever definition we come up with. not tonight, but if there's if there's some consensus to move that, I would recommend tableabling to get council outside council and staff a chance to come back to us. And I'm not saying there is support for that, but if if that was to if there if it was to be a ban, I would like to see that added if there's consensus for that. The one area that we haven't talked about is is along with the ban, the uh staff is pro promoting a sunset period that I believe Mr. sharp is it would sunset out uh by April 26th. Do I have that right? >> Correct. March 31st, April 1st is when the ordinance would take place. >> So if it prevails that we're going to ban them, I think that's too short a period of time. Another set of our responsibilities um up here is to be fair and reasonable to others that you may you know harm, however you want to define it. Um, and I'd like to see that period extended uh because uh I don't remember who made the comment. Litigation is in the air on this topic. Um, regardless of what we do tonight, um, uh, not just locally, but nationally, and we have to take that into consideration in this regard. Um, I am not afraid of litigation. I'm afraid of litigation where you're going to go in the ditch and lose and make it worse for the community. And I'm not saying that's present here, but we need to be mindful of uh when we license something recently and then we abruptly pull back. We we believe I believe um that we we should have a responsibility to have a reasonable sunset period so that they can adjust and and move on. So, with all that said, I uh don't think there's consensus for my point of view, but I wanted to at least introduce uh that into the record. And then I'd ask as we as we go through this together now, um do we have all the information? Right. And I'm looking for yes or no on that. And is there consensus to add this clause or however you want to additional language that that would allow for um you know, someone to live on site? If there's consensus for that, I'm going to recommend tableabling. And then the last point would be if anyone's willing, does anyone else share my concern about an abrupt pullback and how how that may be interpreted in the courts? How that might be interpreted if we do get sued? I'm not asking for a legal perspective. Our certainly our city attorney can weigh in with a legal perspective, but I have a practical business perspective on it that uh common sense. You know, judges when they look at what you do, they look at the legal side, they also look at the practical and reasonable side. and I don't want to be interpreted as being not reasonable in changing our mind. We have every right to change our mind, but let's be reasonable about the period of time that we pull back. So, those are my comments. I think this is going to pass in some form tonight based on the testimony of of all of you. But um I guess uh I'll walk us through a process, but let me first let the city attorney weigh in on some of my comments about um you know from a process standpoint if there's consensus to add something. Should we table it? Should we up or down vote it? I mean how how and I'm not saying there's consensus. I'm just trying to understand how we might go through this if consensus appears for adding that provision. >> Well, Mr. Mayor, um on the uh sort of suns setting aspect of this and and a potential change to the ordinance as drafted before you right now, as uh Director Sharp pointed out, the the the effective date of the ordinance is April 1 of next year. So, I'm not good at math, but what is it 7 months or so? uh for a sun setting period. And the reason staff went with that date is because all of the current licenses will expire on that day. So, it seemed to be at least a natural place to start. I think we we talked about that a little bit at the workshop. >> Um that if you wanted to change that, say give it one more year, uh that would be a pretty easy tweak here uh to just, you know, move this forward with the ordinance becoming effective April 1, 2027. Um, uh, if we went for a shorter period, uh, you could also specify that date. I think we'd have a little bit more of a challenge in thinking about how to administer six-month licenses. >> Can you moratorum it and then allow no new but allow sunset? >> That would be a little bit more complicated. I'd have to think through that. Um, I did want to address your other question though while it's fresh in the mind. So, in terms of building in um an allowance for short-term rentals when the uh it's owner occupied or it's a homesteaded property where the owner would be present. Um, you know, I I I'm not as concerned about the definition of homesteading as some of the finer nuances. You know, I think the idea is that it's owner occupied, someone's there. Um, we we can check on a homestead status pretty easily and I think confirm that. We can even, as Director Sharp pointed out, ask for an affidavit. Some cities do that. Um, but if if if and if that's all that was required, we could do that. But I don't think it would necessarily mean that someone's always going to be there. Um, if someone vacations a lot, I think one of you brought that up. >> Yeah, they might be away, >> you know, one day short of half the year. >> I'm not I'm just pointing that out as as something you'd need to think through. And for that reason, I think if council, if there was a consensus among council, yeah, we like that idea, then I think you have two options. One is to table, as you suggest, and direct staff to work on that, bring it back at the next meeting. If it's really worthy of discussion, we could even workshop it again, just that narrow topic. >> The other thing you can do is, I mean, if you pass this, uh, it doesn't come become effective for a year. I mean, you can always pass this and then amend it, you know. to address that certain thing if >> mortorium thing. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, well, actually, we would continue as we are now until till uh April 1st. Um but between now and April 1st, if there's things you wanted to add or fix, that could be done, too. So, I just I think there's the tableabling option, there's the adoption with further refinement option, too. >> Just to be clear for the public before you jumped on my throat because I can see some of the look in your eyes. I'm trying to understand process so that we make a solid decision that we can stand up on. Okay. So now I'll turn to my council. Do you feel like you have all the information, you know, to make a decision that is there anything missing for you for you guys right now? >> Anyone? Yes, sir. >> Mayor Fitz. Okay. Um I think maybe just a brief chat amongst us about what an appropriate sunset date might be would be helpful in the terms of making a motion. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Um, Mr. Mr. P, >> I was going to actually make a point about that. That doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, the ordinance uh is crafted to take effect April 1st simply because the licensing all they all expire March 31st. So, if we were to extend that, that would mean that all these license holders whose licenses would be ending March 31st, we'd have to contemplate renewing them, which doesn't make sense if we're going to ban them. So I I don't think that makes any sense at all. I think it it stands on its own the way it is. >> Thank you, sir. Um others that have any information needs or Mr. >> I think there should be some sort of um reasonleness as you mentioned and what's reasonable, what's right, what's fair. And um I would like to see maybe those licenses renewed for 6 months uh a limited amount of time so that there is you know 6 to 12 months before these things expire to allow somebody to deal with their property in a way that's appropriate for them. >> Sure. >> Either rent it long term which you know if that's their intention they can do that right away. um sell the property. Um um I don't know, but it seems like something a little bit more reasonable. Three more months, six more months or something would be a reasonable thing to do. >> Sure. >> And maybe a right thing to do. >> Thank you, sir. Um anyone else want to weigh in on more information? Then I'll try to draw out if there's consensus for adding either of these two things. >> Uh respectfully, completely disagree. I think nearly seven months is plenty of time to get your ducks in a row. And if the license expires, it's clean. Um, and I can I just can imagine what one more summer would do for all of these people. I think that's too much. And and just one more thing that I want to add on, you know, with is there a way to regulate and you know, you you listed off this list and those were things I had thought of too, but what it what what kept coming to my mind as you read that list was who does enforcement fall on? I think that means it falls on you guys and us as neighbors. um now we're the ones who have to call and tattle on our neighbors or god forbid get it wrong and then you're embarrassed and I just it and made me I hadn't considered if we did find a way to regulate who would be and I I just think that's um too much of a burden to put on staff which was really my initial feelings but I also think it's an it's an unfair burden for um for the for the residents So, sidetracked there. No, >> that's fine. >> 3:31 26. Plenty of time. >> All right. Thank you for that. So, just so we're clear, it's been a long day. We've been here 5 hours. I think some of us have been up in our other day jobs since 4:30 this morning. I just want clarity here. Um, 4:30 this morning, by the way. Um, so, so, uh, I'm going to go through and just again get you to weigh in on I I think I've got it right, but I want to make sure it's crystal clear and then we'll go to a motion. So, just weigh in on I'm supportive of an adjustment that allows the I'll just call it the homestead provision. I'm supportive or not supportive about tweaking the date for um extension and then we'll go to a vote. Mr. Sorno, if you wouldn't mind starting. >> Yeah. So, I'm supportive of the amendment as stated, meaning the sunset date would be as stated in the ordinance, which is what date of April 26, end of March. Okay. And this issue of the homestead, I think um I think our attorney's suggestion made sense to me and that is uh pass this tonight and we could also and we could take a little time if we want to see if we want to amend it later because I made this suggestion. I'm okay with it. >> I the way I think I understand it, but it's probably a good point. We probably should be really clear about it if we're going to include it in a motion. So give us a little time to do that later. But um but you know I I think I think I think we should pass this this evening. >> Thank you Mr. S. Miss McDonald. >> Uh similar same with me as um as um council member Swornen. Just write it as the proposed motion works for me. >> Thank you Mr. Fleish. >> I really don't need to elaborate. I agree with my fellow council members. >> Thank you Mr. Parkill. I agree except that I would like to see a little bit of leniency on the sun setting maybe another three months. >> Yeah. And I would support uh making tweaks in both areas. So I think it's going to prevail to to pass it as is. But let's have someone make the motion the second and the further discussion and see if it passes. If it does, uh I'll I'll make a comment about the further comments. I would accept a motion to accept uh the first reading of the ordinance 852 prohibiting short-term rentals based on the findings of council at this meeting and the purpose set forth in the ordinance. Do I need to add any additional detail, Mr. Shelzel? Okay. So, I would accept that motion. >> I'll make that motion, Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. Uh second, second. That's motion. Second. Any further discussion? Um I am going to vote no. Um, but my no vote should not be interpreted that we didn't hear you, that we don't uh hear your concerns. This is going to move forward. For the reasons I stated tonight in my responsibility to have balance and, you know, litigation, everything else, this is why I've reached this conclusion. Uh, for those of you who know me pretty well, um, it's not, you're not going to be surprised by this vote. It doesn't mean that I don't uh, acknowledge that there's issues with this, that I don't listen or hear what's going on. I have been consistent on this since I returned to council. So, I just wanted to explain my no vote. Um, I'm still your neighbor. I expect to be neighborly with you um when we're done. So, it's been motioned and seconded. I had further comments. Any further comments from anybody else? Okay. So, I would accept a roll call vote so we get it done. >> Council member Parkhill. >> I. >> Council member Pleish. >> I. >> Council member McDonald. >> I. >> Council member Sorenson. >> I. >> Mayor Mullen. Uh, no. So, um, I'm going to, uh, respectfully request a fivem minute, uh, recess because this whole room's going to dump out and there are going to be chitter chatter. So, let's just take 5 minutes, let the room clear. We'll come back in 3 to 5 minutes and, um, continue with our business. Uh, short recess, please. Okay, we're returning to session after a brief break. Um, we're still on new business. Item B. Oh, nope. Sorry, flip the page. Item C. um consider approval of the first reading of ordinance 853 amending chapter 805 subdivision. I will turn it over to Mr. City Manager, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Again, I will turn this over to Community Development Director Sharp for a presentation. >> Thank you, Mayor and Council. In the interest of uh expediting the meeting, I'll go through relatively quickly. If there are questions, uh, please feel to interrupt me as I go through. This is a topic that has, uh, been discussed at two different workshops. So, the council is familiar, uh, with the general provisions of the ordinance as, uh, they've helped craft them through the process. Staff recommends approval of the first reading of ordinance 853 to amend chapter 805 subdivisions. In terms of the background history, uh, subdivision ordinance was identified in 2023, similar to, uh, short-term rentals as a strategic priority. On June 17th of this year, uh, staff brought forward the first discussion on amending the subdivision ordinance and then brought back a more robust discussion with examples of recent history of subdivisions and how they were completed on August 19th, 2025. At that time, staff was able to uh obtain very good direction to be able to draft a uh the ordinance before you this evening. Um, and I will go through the criteria and provisions of where that would uh where the proposed subdivision ordinance would apply uh as crafted through a combination of staff research and council uh direction at that August 19th, 2025 meeting. Um so council's uh direction at that meeting was that staff should craft a subdivision ordinance amendment that would allow for alternative R uh right ofway RO uh requirements under certain provisions or criteria listed within the ordinance that would allow for flexibility for specifically smaller subdivisions within the community. Uh, and again, this would be for the smaller subdivisions where a roadway would be required of some kind, whether that be public or private, not for those that would be minor subdivisions of two lots, just to add clarity. The other direction was that fire code minimums would be maintained. So the basis and findings for the new ordinance were that reduced requirements should be permitted when they protect and preserve natural environments, that smaller roadways can help preserve community character, but that uh those reductions should be limited to specific zones where they can help preserve that community, that neighborhood character, and that reductions will enhance and preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the community. the ordinance drafted. Uh there are going to be two slides on this. One is the criteria in which it will apply and then the second will be the right-of-way provisions that could be produ uh reduced subject to the property meeting these conditions. I'm going to go through these. I know that the text is on the screen, but I want to make sure that this is uh spelled out very publicly. So subdivision must be of five lots or less. That also includes uh connections for future. Property must be guided estate single family. The property must be zoned R1 or R1A. These are the estate zoning with minimum lot sizes. They're on the screen. Property n must not have been subdivided within the last 5 years. This was added to protect and ensure that somebody cannot take advantage of this provision by multiple subdivisions over subsequent time. And the property must present unique circumstances that protect and preserve natural fe features without compromising the general health, safety, and welfare. Under these conditions, specific criteria that would allow uh reductions in rightaway requirements subject to state fire code would allow a 40 to 50 foot rightway, unless it's a private road, in which case uh obviously rightofway would not be a requirement. 20 to 26 foot wide roadways with curb and gutter encouraged. 8 to 10% maximum roadway grades, multiple fire turn around options. These are detailed more uh in enhanced detail in the actual fire code and private roadways may be uh permitted subject to approval and final or subject to review and approval of the city engineer and city council. With that, the proposed motion this evening is the approval of the first reading of ordinance 853 amending chapter 805 subdivisions based upon the findings of council at this meeting and set forth in the ordinance. >> Okay. So, uh any questions of staff at this moment? >> Yeah, we've got a few actually. >> Please, sir. >> Uh if you want to back it up, uh two slides. I'll start with that one. >> Okay. Here, I'm a little curious about the uh the third bullet point there. It says property must be zoned R1 or R1A. I'm okay with that part with a minimum lot size of.9 acres. But the 21.8 acres number intrigues me. Why would this not apply to properties that are say 6, seven or eight acres? >> Uh this is the minimum lot sizes in R1 and R1A. >> Those are the minimum lots. >> Those are the two different minimum lot sizes within those zones. It's not meant to be the upper limit. So if you were a 10acre but R1A you that you couldn't it was the minimum lot sizes within those zones. >> Okay. If it had been and instead of two it would have been clear. And go to the next page which is actually a little bit more interesting to me. Uh the um there three the first three bullet points all have a range. >> And I'm curious why there's even a range. Are we saying that the rightway must be a minimum 40 and a maximum of 50? What is that supposed to mean? The range is meant to allow for additional flex uh mayor council member pleish the range is meant to allow for additional flexibility in some instances 40 a 40 foot rightway may appro may be appropriate in other instances because of the design say curbon gutter or utilities a 45 uh foot rightway may be more appropriate or may go all the way up to the 50 >> okay >> similar with a 20 to 26t wide roadway um >> so the number that's set is dependent on the property. >> Correct. We're attempting to mimic uh PUB ordinance requirements or flexibility within the subdivision ordinance. So, here's a perfect example with the road uh wid roadway width. Actually, if you were to do a ditch format rather than curbon gutter, you may need additional right ofway because it's going to be a larger section because curbon gutter actually allows for well a wider wider roadway, potentially less right of way. So the two can compete with one another and therefore the range fits the design and the property. >> Okay. And I assume it's the same for that third bullet point that in some properties 8 8% for reasons of what's unique to that property can be no higher than 8%. But others might go as high as 10%. >> Abs mayor council member Fleckish that's absolutely correct. He >> called me mayor. He >> sorry >> mayor pro referring to mayor first then council member to be clear. Oh, for a moment I I had my moment of fame. So, uh Okay. And that's uh So, right now the maximum is 8%. Is that correct? And so, we're just extending it by Okay, very good. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Pleish. Other questions? Mr. Parkill, >> I have a question. Yep. Um >> I don't think your mic is on. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, on the 40 to 50 foot rideaway, unless it's a private street, what does that mean? Uh, mayor, council member, what that means is you don't need a public rightway for a private road. So, a private road would have its own design features. It could be 20 to 26t wide, 8 to 10% grade, but you don't need public rightway. You would just need an easement for access. >> So, if it was a private street, you could have a 26 foot wide road and that's it. Is that what you're saying? >> Uh, no. If it were a private road, you could have a 20 foot wide road. You could have a 26 foot wide road or anything in between that. >> It would just be whether it's publicly owned, >> okay, >> and maintained or privately owned and maintained. >> So private, they could just have the road but not anything on the sides. >> Not any depending upon the design. It wouldn't be maintain. The essential difference between public or private is who's maintaining over time, not the design. The design would vary based upon whether the city wants to uh obtain that right ofway due to maintenance or whether it might benefit as you as we presented on some of those historical contexts. There were several of the PUDs that were insistent that they wanted to maintain their own roadways even if they were building to very close to city standards simply because that was part of the character of their neighborhood. >> So are you all okay I'm still lost on this. Are are you still um required to have a 40 foot wide um area around a 20 foot road? So 10 10 extra feet on either side. >> Uh would that be the minimum? >> Council member Park Hill. >> No, the design would dictate the roadway, but you wouldn't be dedicating any right ofway. >> So private road doesn't necessarily have to have rightway. >> It does. Not as though. Okay, let me clarify that >> with a public with a private road, you would never have rightaway >> and that would probably not meet state fire code, right? Because you have to have a rightaway with fire code. Is that not one of their requirements? >> Uh, mayor, council member Parkill, no, that is not a state requirement. Only the roadway designs are fire code minimums. There isn't a minimum for a private roadway, driveway, or public roadway requirement within state fire code. >> Okay. State fire code requires the design of the roadway to meet fire codes. >> Okay. Thank you. That's great. >> Thank you, Mr. Parkle. Any other questions of staff? >> Okay. I I don't have any questions, but I want to just try to summarize my understanding of this. So, we tweaked this to design for flexibility based on the workshops, based on um past experience. Um it is allowing public or private. It's allowing up to five lots um or five Yeah, five lots. Um, it's 20 to 26 ft public or private. The 40 to 50 foot rightway applies only when it's public, not private. We're allowing flexibility in the grade because it gives us, we know from all the stuff we looked at, there's varying topography and and such. So, it gives us flexibility there. Our fire truck turnaround options goes to the fire code. So it has several options that we would work through and a private roadway would be permitted. So uh with that I would accept a motion to approve uh ordinance 853. >> I'll make that motion. Mr. Mayor, >> do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Mr. Puckish. Any further discussion? >> All in favor say I. I. >> That passes. So that's unanimous uh support of that text amendment. Um, next on our agenda is um, consider approval of reading of ordinance. Nope, next one. Sorry, I have to turn my page. It's getting late for me. Consider approval of the first reading of ordinance 854 amending chapter 810 of swimming pools. Mr. City Manager. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Councel. Again, I will direct this particular topic to community development direct sharp director Sharp uh for a presentation. >> Mayor, council, thank you. This will be my favorite one from the evening because this is the staff initiated ordinance. Uh what I am going to start this off with is whenever staff is going to bring an ordinance like this forward where we're looking to clean up code and I'll tell you a bit of the story with it. We aren't looking to bring forward something that could be controversial or require significant amount of time, resources, or effort. We're trying to do so to reduce staff time, resources, and effort for ourselves because we're running into a section of ordinance where we're regularly having to make either a very odd interpretation or that there has been considerable amount of variances coming forward due to uh requests from neighbors. So, there's an overall context. You will see me do this uh uh several times. It was something that I've been known for throughout my career to try to expedite code review and ensure consistency and not require variances where they are very consistently granted. So in this instance, staff is recommending approval of the first reading of ordinance 854 amending chapter 810 swimming pools. I'm going to move through this very very quickly, but this is a example property that helps tell this story. So this is 420 Highraftoft. We had a permit review come in. I'm very new to the city and I'm doing my initial permit review on this property. They're going to build tear out the existing foundation you're seeing on this and they want to build a single family home and they want to put a swimming pool on the property. The issue being presented, as you can see in my notes, there's a front and side noted on this. And where my initial review comes up is our code requires around swimming pools a fence of at least 5t in height. And then within our fence ordinance for any uh side property line abuing a public rideway, it must be treated as a front. And in that case, we don't allow any fences that exceed 4t in height. So now this property needs a fence variance in order to have a pool. These are the types of conflicts that when staff identifies, we either need to make an odd interpretation that often could be subject to litigation or we need to come forward with a code amendment. I had worked with the with the uh proposers of this project said that staff would bring this forward. We have done so and the reason why I wanted staff to bring this forward is upon further review of the ordinance you'll see that there's a couple of other provisions that I've wanted to change to help clean up this section. Most of these are intended to be of uh very low significance and meant to be ancillary to the primary point of cleaning up that conflict of 4 foot and 5 foot. So this slide was intended as my summary of that. Um so I'm going to move through that quickly. We have four different amendments essentially here and there's only one other one that I'm going to go into any great detail on. But there's that conflict between the 5 foot and 4 foot. There's also uh mechanical equipment setbacks. We want to align that with the zone that you're in. So whe that's 10 foot or 5 foot. Right now that's 50 foot. There's a lot of properties that can't meet a 50-ft setback for their mechanical equipment for the pool when the pool is only required to have a 10-ft setback. Uh we did add provisions that it must be fully screened and not uh visible from nearby properties and that that screening must meet our screening requirements. So as we've looked through past permits, that has been what's been required. The third item that I'll go into a little bit more detail on is the ASTM compliant pool covers in lie of fences. This is an item that if council uh that council has been presented before and if there are significant concerns, I'd want to drop it from this ordinance amendment and move forward with the other provisions. And then the other aspect is simply so that uh we get common concerns from outside parties of where do you find the setbacks and it it was a confusing wording a confusingly worded provision that we're amending. You'll see that in the draft ordinance. I'll go into a little bit of detail on that ATS ASM standards. I've tried to leave this really really high level. So, I'm just going to go through it and if you have questions, we'll be able to answer them. But essentially, there are there's a professional organization uh the association that has developed the pool ordinance uh and the ICC has since council last discussed this come up with provisions for pool covers in lie of fence requirements. They have to test these pool covers. They're an extremely expensive for their installation. They have to be custom installed for the pool. And what they allow is instead of a fence around a property that has a pool, it allows a pool cover that allows uh by their standards, two adult individuals and one child to be standing on the pool cover without any danger. They also have to be able to self- drain from snow and rain. This was proposed to council a number of years ago. council expressed concerns due to safety and wanted either insurance or other standards to uh so that the city didn't need to come up with the provisions for what's safe and what is not. Since that time, the ASM standards have been developed. We get a lot of concerns about this particularly along the lakeshore properties that where they don't want to uh see a fence. And as you'll see from your packet, the example provided is our code actually does not require that a fence goes all the way to the lake shore uh or all along the lake shore. So a lot of times what ends up happening is a fence goes down to the water line and stops. So you can walk into the lake to get to the pool. And these are the types of ordinance amendments that I like to bring forward as potential solutions when I'm able to find them. If there are additional uh questions on that one, I can certainly elaborate, but I've worked with our building official and our city attorney to make sure that this uh would meet those st or this standard would uh not reduce safety within the community. With that, I stand for questions and uh staff is looking or the proposed motion is available for council. >> Uh questions of staff at this point. Mr. Senson. >> Yeah. So, um my question pertains to pool covers and low offenses. And I get it. H ASTM has created this standard that supports a lot of weight. I get that. Um but if we do this, then we could have a the cover that meets this standard but no fence. Is that right? >> So what's >> Mayor Council member Sonson, that is correct. >> So it seems to me like fences are for safety. Kids, dogs, they have to run around fall in a pool. What's to stop someone from not having a covered, no fence, and you have the same issue? >> So, the the code would require either a cover that meets these standards or a fence. And these covers actually have timers that require them to auto close. They have uh self- draining mechanisms. The uh they're heated in the winter to make sure that snow drains off. So, you either have to have one or the other. It's not a uh you can't have a cover and you can't have a fence. >> And this has been widely accepted in other communities. >> This has been accepted uh primarily in communities that are in tropical regions. It is less common in snowy regions due to the snow loads, which is why they started adding the requirement for them to be heated in the winter uh widely. There are other examples um and other communities surrounding us that have adopted this. They Candidly, uh, one of these pool covers costs between $50 and $100,000. And so they are not widely used. They're intended for very very large estates and pools where the fences and the aesthetics are less important or are the high highest important. >> So I guess the punch line is do we think there's a safety issue here? >> We do not. >> No. Okay. Thanks. Other questions of staff? >> I have one um just a process question like why did this not go to the planning commission go directly to us? Or maybe it did go to the planning commission. >> Mayor, thank you. >> It may not be required to, but just curious. Th >> this is uh actually within the same chapter as the other two provisions you've been working with this evening. Uh chapter 800 that does not require planning commission review. Um, if the council does first reading on this, I will be presenting it to the planning commission along with the other items to keep them apprised of development activities. >> No, that's fine. Um, any other questions of staff? >> Okay. Bring it back to the council for discussion. Um, who would like to weigh in? Any concerns? No concerns. >> Postcons. >> I'll go. >> Please. M. >> Director Sharp. I appreciate you. Um, Excuse me. Um, I appreciate you cleaning up our code and making it easier for our residents. Um, who want swimming pools. Um, not an expert on a swimming pool. I've never installed a swimming pool or had one. So, I'm going to defer to um you and other experts about safety with covers. Um it's a little difficult for me as a kid who was raised to fear a pool, you know. Um but I know that's been um many many decades. So I will uh support this motion as uh presented. Thanks. >> Thank you, Miss McDonald. Who would like to go next? >> I will. >> Mr. Parkill, >> um I think these these covers have um been proven. I've heard about them a lot. I've seen even an ad where there was an elephant on top of one of them. >> Really? >> Proved that they could actually withhold that much weight. >> Sure. It wasn't me. >> I'm sorry. >> No comment, mayor. >> Yes. >> Um, so I have no problem supporting this. >> Thank you. >> And thank you for cleaning up our code. >> Anyone else like to weigh in? Mr. >> Yeah, I don't have a problem with this either. And I may be the only one up here that this actually came before me some years ago and I think it was on Central Avenue, the pillar homes. Is that right? >> And um they they didn't want to have a fence and they proposed this cover which was proposed as an alternate even safer method than having a fence cuz you leave you could leave a gate open or kids could fiddle it and and covers they really can't. So uh but I guess it wasn't as established a safety measure back then or at least we didn't know it. So I've seen this before. I think they're probably pretty good and it only makes sense to clean this up. The 4T 5 foot U discrepancy just didn't make any sense at all. So, fully support it. >> Okay. I have nothing further to add. I would accept a motion approving the first reading of ordinance 854 amending chapter 810 swimming pools. >> So, may move moved, Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. I >> that passes. >> Okay, we're getting to the end here. Um before um we go into city manager report discussion, um I just want to read something that you know we have often done at this time of year and has been out in our official city communications. But um as we move from the final days of August into midseptember, our community's heart turns to a solemn remembrance. This time of year marks the tragic loss of two Wisetta police officers, Sergeant James W. Anderson and Officer Bill Matthews. Their service and sacrifice were se separated by 35 years, but they're united in our memory. On August 31st, 1982, on his 36th birthday, we lost Sergeant Jame W. Anderson. He was killed in the line of duty while responding to a domestic disturbance. On September 8th, 2017, Officer Bill Matthews was killed by a distracted and impaired driver as he cleared debris from the highway. Both of their tra tragic deaths serve as a powerful and enduring reminder of the ultimate sacrifice. Our police officers are prepared to make every day to keep us safe. On this Thursday of this week, September 11th, our fire firefighters, uh, like they have done for more than 20 years, will honor the victims and the first responders of September 11th, 2001 on the Broadway Bridge over 394. as we have done since 2021. We will also have a brief flag ceremony in the morning uh roughly 7:30 um and in the evening roughly 7:30 p.m. at the 9/11 memorial uh along Panaway. Um in I'm going to try to get through this. um in light of the recent threats of violence right here in our town today um at the Wisetta Library uh which happened last week but announced today and the tragic events of Annunciation Church in Minneapolis last month. I want to honor all victims of senseless acts of violence or threats. And based all of this, I I would offer with profound gratitude the citizens of Wisetta honor all our peace officers. They are the keystone of our safety, the enforcers of our law and order, and the first responders in times of crisis. They are our peacemakers who risk their own lives for ours. And I invite all citizens to reflect on their courage, their devotion to duty, and the sacrifices they and their families make in their commitment to public service. Um, and thank you for allowing me to read that. That was um in our city communications um and has been for for years. Uh similar versions to it. So, thank you for letting me read that. Um, with that, I'll turn it over to the city manager for his official report and any other items. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, in light of the time, I'm going to keep my comments brief as well, and I I appreciate your, uh, noting the recognition of our fallen police officers as well as the activities of upcoming September 11th. I was going to note those myself. Um, I do want to provide a heartfelt thanks to not only the council but our uh, police, fire, public works for participating in the activities of the James J. Hill Days uh, activities this weekend. Um, it was a beautiful weekend for the most part. A couple little spits of rain at the end of Saturday, but for the most part it was amazing. So, thank you for all your efforts and participation. Uh pancake breakfast for the fire department will be this coming Sunday starting at 8:00, goes till around noon or until they run out of pancakes and sausage and French toast. Uh and then lastly, I just wanted to update the council on uh the city manager recruitment. Mayor Mullen, Council Member Sorenson, and myself will be meeting tomorrow morning to evaluate the five proposals that we've uh received and try to narrow those down to a smaller group that we can then present to the council for further action uh and consideration. And with that, that is all I have. >> Go ahead, Miss McD. >> You don't mind? Sorry. Um >> yes, please. >> Can you tell us how many applications we received for the vacancy? I believe that closed today. >> Closed on on Monday, actually. >> Oh, >> yes. Yes. No, but great question. I have one. >> Uh, thank you for that good update. Uh, we've received five applications for the council vacancy. Um, see if I can remember them all. Adam Al, uh, Bonnie Schwabby, Charles Yansy, um, Claio Hostetter, and Dan Cook. >> Correct. Yep. >> And they were all complete. >> They were all complete. >> Great. Thanks. Um on that topic, so the plan current plan of record is to interview those candidates on the 23rd um before our council meeting. Mr. Park will have to recuse himself from those interviews and uh potential action that night or clicking two weeks forward from that. Um and uh also Mr. Park Hill will be honored that evening um at 5:45. So, I'll I'll need um to huddle up with each of you um if you want to speak to make sure there's time on the agenda, you know, to honor our colleague. Um if you wish to speak, want to make sure you get that opportunity. Um I am going to try to get a hold of Mr. Parkhill's uh spouse to see if I can dig up anything interesting to say in addition to what I already plan on saying. Um but Jeeoff, you know, I mean, is it nine years, 10 years of service? I mean, it's a long time. Eight. Okay. Eight. And um >> almost a full eight. >> Yeah. And I know um this is hard. Uh but we're going to honor you um you know on the 23rd and we're going to start the process of picking your replacement. Uh just kind of have to keep moving on, right? Mushing on. So thank you. Any other questions of staff before we adjourn? Okay, hearing none. I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you very much. >> Oh. >> Oh, wait. Motion to the meeting. Sorry, it's been a long day. >> May I have a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting, please? >> So moved. >> Can I have a second? >> Second. Any further discussion hearing? None. All in favor say I. I. >> The meeting is adjourned.