00:04:35,980 S1: Good evening and welcome to the. Monday, September 14th, 2026 Maplewood City Council meeting. Uh, tonight I want to do something a little bit different. I want to feature our communications department and our public safety department, specifically our fire department on social media. There was a post, a video that I looked at and thought, this is timely, it's practical, and what a great collaboration. I was so impressed that we're going to actually show the video. But behind it, I was talking with our communications director, Joe Sheeran. Uh, how did this video actually come apart or come together? Uh, and there's even more collaboration. Uh, so the video is on charging and the potential for fire, but I asked Joe if he would explain a little bit about how did the video come to be made, because that's really a cool story as well. So I'm going to turn it over to you, Joe. 00:05:41,820 S2: So, mayor, members of council, what I'll do is start out for logistic purposes. Let's watch the video and then I'll be back at the podium explaining. 00:05:52,110 S3: Almost everything runs on lithium ion batteries. 00:05:54,790 S4: They're light, efficient and make our lives more convenient. 00:05:57,990 S5: So what's the problem? They can overheat and cause a fire if not used properly. 00:06:02,510 S3: I'm Nick Danley, fire marshall, Oakdale fire department. 00:06:05,670 S4: Jiri Novak, fire marshal, Maplewood fire department. 00:06:08,670 S5: Ethan Johnson, fire marshal. North Saint Paul Fire Department Under normal operating conditions, when you're charging, these devices can become a little warm, but never use a power cord to plug your device into the receptacle. 00:06:21,870 S4: You always want to make sure you wear charging on a hard, flat surface. As devices get hotter, the picture becomes brighter. Never charge underneath a pillow, on a bed or on a couch. 00:06:34,390 S3: Never charge your device in front of a doorway, as it could block your escape if it were to catch on fire. Always use the. 00:06:40,350 S5: Charger that came with your device. 00:06:42,350 S3: So we recently had a family that had damage to their charger for their electric scooter. They went online and purchased one that has three prongs meant to charge three separate devices and is not UL listed. Because the charger is working so much, it could cause the charger to heat up, leading to fire either at the device or at the charger. Remember, when you're charging your device to check for any swelling, bulging, or excessive heat during that charging process. 00:07:10,950 S4: While you're doing that, you should always pay attention for any type of unknown chemical smells, hissing or popping from your device. 00:07:18,310 S5: Keep in mind also damage from dropping, crushing, or being soaked with water. If you see any of that, stop charging immediately and unplug the device. 00:07:26,670 S4: Never put a battery in the trash or the recycling. 00:07:29,190 S3: And make sure you take that battery to your local environmental center. If the device is smoking or burning. 00:07:34,310 S4: Act, get everyone outside. Do not attempt to carry it, extinguish it or touch it. 00:07:39,430 S5: Then call 911. These fires burn hot and give off toxic gas. Let the fire department handle it. Take a look around tonight. 00:07:46,320 S4: Where are your devices charging. 00:07:48,280 S3: Thanks for keeping your home safe. 00:07:51,240 S2: Okay, so at the next council meeting, we're going to show the blooper reel. Uh, they're actually more interested in the blooper reel. This is a unique opportunity because straining on the toilet. 00:08:00,560 S6: And I'm sounding the alarm. Watch this. 00:08:03,000 Hello? S1: I'm gonna add that to the blooper reel. Okay. 00:08:05,680 S6: It's an urgent medical warning. 00:08:07,560 S1: Thank you for that. 00:08:11,760 S1: That was a great video. And here, three. 00:08:14,400 S7: Years ago, we stumbled upon this old abandoned stone. 00:08:17,800 S8: Here we go. Okay, add it to the blooper reel. 00:08:21,400 S2: Factor that in. Next time we do our video upgrade. Uh, this is a really unique opportunity because the three fire marshals from the three towns were in close coordination with our school districts, and our school districts were interested in seeing some kind of messaging around charging, mainly computers and laptops for kids. And with the fire marshals decided to do was expand it because they were also seeing a lot of instances where people were charging those electric scooters with the wrong types of charging stations. So the three fire marshals came together with the idea for the video scheduled out a good 2 or 3 hours so we could shoot this. And then Kevin Schmitz and myself came up with sort of the they gave us sort of an original script. We kind of refined it to what would work. So this is a great opportunity to collaborate. This was shared by the two other cities communications departments as well as the school district. So it was a great opportunity. This is one of those situations where we talk about strong relationships, and this is a great opportunity for strong relationships. 00:09:18,000 S1: And thank you for putting this together because it really was excellent. And I think it it is so timely with kids going back to school and charging things. And, you know, I learned something new. I learned don't charge by your front door. So I think there's something in it for everyone. But thank you very much to our public safety folks, to Chief Mondor and to Fire Marshal Novak. Great examples of collaboration and I really enjoyed the video. You did a good job, so thank you for that. Um, hope you all enjoyed that. I hope you see it on, on social media because it really is excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So let us start with our Pledge of Allegiance, please. 00:10:01,770 S1: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 00:10:17,010 S1: City clerk, would you do the roll call for us, please? 00:10:21,010 S9: Council member K here. Council member here. Council member. Lee. Present. Council member. Villavicencio here. 00:10:27,730 S1: Mayor Abrams here as well. Thank you. 00:10:34,570 Uh, is there a motion to approve the agenda? S10: So moved. Second. 00:10:35,730 S1: Moved by Lee. Seconded by cave. The motion to approve the agenda. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Next, we have the approval of our August 24th, 2026 City Council meeting minutes. 00:10:57,010 Would someone like to make that motion? S10: So moved. 00:10:58,930 S1: Moved by cave. 00:11:00,690 Is there a second? S10: Second. 00:11:01,410 S1: Seconded by Lee. The motion to approve the August 24th, 2026 City Council meeting minutes. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. 00:11:13,010 S10: Aye. 00:11:13,690 S1: Any opposed? That motion carries. Next we have the August 24th, 2026 City Council special meeting minutes. 00:11:23,010 Is there a motion? S11: I move approval. 00:11:24,170 S10: Second. 00:11:24,810 S1: Moved by gunmen. Seconded by cave. The motion to approve the August 24th, 2026 City Council special meeting minutes. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. 00:11:38,050 S10: Aye. I. 00:11:38,940 S1: Any opposed? That motion carries. Moving on. Appointments and presentations. Mr. Sabol, this is your topic. 00:11:47,500 S8: Uh, good evening, mayor. Thank you. Mayor and council members. Um, just want to give a forecast to some items that are coming up on the upcoming agenda. Uh, so on September 28th, as part of our work session, you will see a public works facility study report from Kraus Anderson that I looked at some of the things that are potentially needed to remodel that facility. Uh, and then on the October 12th, we anticipate having a rental housing training. As you know, uh, a certain number of, uh, our ordinance requires that we provide training for both property managers and tenants. And this is an opportunity for us to showcase what that training will look like. Also, uh, it's hard to believe, but there were a next round of our charitable gambling, uh, applications are going to be due and you're going to see those reviewed on October 12th. I also want to forecast that on Friday of this week, we are anticipated to have our Friday fireworks featuring Touch a truck. If you have looked at a weather forecast at all this week, we're expected to get about four inches of rain between now and then, with most of it expected to occur on Friday. Having lived through last year's storm without an umbrella, I don't want to do that again. And so city staff are going to convene at noon on Wednesday and make a recommendation going forward. So we will have more better data on whether or not to proceed. And really, it's done out of respect for two groups. One, the participants. We want to make sure that people have a fun experience. Also, we're asking vendors to supply and buy food and set up tents. And so we want to make sure that they have ample time to modify it. We did learn our lesson from last year. And so we do have a backup date already established, which would be Friday, October 25th or sorry, October sorry. Friday, September 25th. The following Friday. And so we will make that determination on Wednesday at noon and share that out broadly. So, um, we will keep our fingers crossed that things will come together. But just in anticipation of that change, I just want to throw that out there. And then lastly, for anyone in the listening audience or in the room who didn't hear our presentation from the EDA, uh, and the council workshop just previously, um, there is about a 240 page market analysis of the housing market and commercial real estate market in Maplewood. And these pieces are really important. And so what I want to do is to showcase some, or at least share in advance what you can expect. Um, largely this is a tool for the development community and for the banking and lending community. So we want to make sure that we get these tools in their hands. And so, uh, we're working with community and economic development director Par, we anticipate having some developer forums coming up that we can get this information into the hands of people who want to invest in and make Maplewood invest in and help us grow. What is an exciting opportunity? Reading the report, it shows that we're going to likely be the job leader. Job growth leader in the East Metro in the next decade. So it's really exciting for what's coming in our future. And when there are more people, there are going to be a demand for more housing and going to be a demand for more retail. And it also will I'll just note it informs our service response in terms of city operations. So these are really useful tools. So we want to make sure that we get them in the hands of people who can make investments in the community. And so we will do that. And you will all be a part of that when it comes time. So with that mayor and council, I'll stand for any questions. 00:15:04,230 S1: Any questions for Mr. Sabol. 00:15:07,870 S1: Don't see any. And we don't have any council presentations tonight. We do have a strategic plan update for the second quarter. Uh, Miss Knutson, this is your topic tonight. Thank you. I'll say in advance for an excellent report. 00:15:25,910 S10: Thank you. Uh, good evening, Madam Mayor and Council. My name is Lois Knudsen. I am the senior administrative manager. One of my many tasks is overseeing the city's strategic plan. As you recall, we updated our strategic plan and launched a new plan in January of 2026. It is a three year plan running through 2028, and this is our second quarter of reporting on the new plan. I'm a bit later than I'd like, but some things happened I couldn't control. 00:15:58,080 S10: So first we'll take a look at a snapshot of our plan. By the numbers, we have three strategic priorities 16 focus areas and 64 performance measures. Our current plan progress is at 37%. And that's actually a pretty good place to be. Some of our measures are one year measures that we should be about half done with, and others are measures that may be 2 or 3 years in the making. So we're in a good spot, um, kind of a status across all measures. Most of our measures are on track 69%. There are 5% with some disruption. And I'll talk about some of those disruptions as I move on in my presentation. 4% are completed. We leave those in there because they're done. They're part of what we plan to do. And having them done is like checking a box in your list of getting things done. And then 18% are upcoming. So there are a lot of things that the different departments are working on that we have either just barely started or about are about to start. So lots of excitement coming there. I'd like to go through each of our three strategic priorities and talk about there are several items listed on each one, but I'm just going to highlight 1 or 2 of the things that are working, and maybe 1 or 2 of the things that we're having some problems with, things we're keeping an eye on for strategic priorities, safety. And that is has been defined as enhancing community well-being through proactive systems and infrastructure. So this isn't just public safety, it's resident safety. It's staff safety, it's safety. With our internet and all of our different programs we use. Um, one of the highlights is the workers comp mod factor came in at 0.75 and our target is 1.0. So that's really great. This is a number we get every year at the end of June. Um, it's based on workers comp claims that are filed by our employees. And it also has some well-being on what are some impact on what our workers comp insurance amount is, as well as possibly what our regular health insurance quotes might be. But I'd like to draw attention to that and then also give some credit to the safety committee, because they are work with training staff, made a safety manual. There's different trainings throughout the year because it's not just about getting the work done. It's about getting the work done safely. And then on our areas to watch, what I'd like to highlight is three nuisance properties under a common owner remain unresolved despite a full cross department response. Well, we're working on it. We're getting towards it. But the thing I'd really like to highlight is the cross department response. Um, most of city staff has had HPO training, high performance organization. That is what we're striving to be. And one of the things we learned there was called a parallel organization where you bring people from all different departments together, not just one department. Everybody who's got kind of got a piece of this pie, and they worked together and came up with a resolution of how we're trying to get this done. So again, it's not about just about the work we get done. It's about how we work and the things we're trying to do to make this a better organization. 00:19:24,290 S10: Sustainability is defined as building long term resilience and organizational strength. This includes such things as environmental sustainability, but it's also sustainability of all things within the organization. One of the things I'd like to highlight is that staff got a new broadcast server live in the council chambers that allows for real time closed captioning as well as instant replay. And that is one of the things we've been working on for several years. And there are more steps to come, but it's a very significant step in what we're trying to do here with our broadcast abilities. Um, Solid Waste Guide has been distributed in the community, and there is a recycling pilot that has been launched at Wakefield Park. Some areas we're watching citywide wellness participation and by citywide remaining city employee wide is is low. It used to be really high 80 to 85, it has dropped to 73%. So we need to figure out ways to get people involved. And I'm sure part of it is there's a lot of newer employees, and we just need to communicate and communicate so that they get on board with all the benefits that are part of our wellness program. And then the fire department did a fatigue study, which went great. But now the next step is to take the findings from that and translate them to possible operational changes. Development shaping a thriving, inclusive and forward looking community. And again, not just community development, development of staff, development of resources, development of the community. What's working? Council approved grant agreements for Beacon's redevelopment at 1375 Frost. And then, in reference to the community, the police department logged 42 community outreach events in the first half of the year. So January through June, and they reached over 4300 residents. Something we're working on, community and economic development is working on matching developers to Gladstone housing sites. And that is still in progress. And then we're also working on trying to monitor our community satisfaction level. We do a survey of the community every other year. So that won't happen until 2027. So we're just trying to figure out different ways that we can kind of get some more input during those years than we don't have the full survey. 00:21:57,900 S10: Um, this is looking ahead, some focus areas for quarter three and quarter four. Um, quarter three is almost over, I realize. So some of these things we've done and they are almost completed, such as the first one, bring key studies to council. So that is what happened at the workshop earlier tonight where um they the Maxfield studies. They share their results on housing needs as well as the commercial real estate market. Close persistent compliance gaps. That's referring to such things as the rental housing, which, as Mr. Sabol mentioned, is some training on that's coming up. So we know we're falling behind on some things, but there's progress we're being made. Fleet maintenance improvements, as well as the nuisance property resolution complete the 2027 budget cycle. Again, we're right in the middle of it. Tonight, you will be asked to approve the preliminary levy for the 2027 budget. Um turn wellness data into action. That's referring to that fatigue study by the fire department and what they're going to be doing with those results and operational changes they may make, as well as the employee wellness participation we know we need to work on deepen community feedback. I also mentioned that, again, one thing I didn't highlight was the Maplewood Forward Survey, and that is where the finance team has been going to some of the community events and getting input from residents on what they feel are budget priorities for the coming year. And then keep redevelopment moving, begin active grant pursuit, and continue matching developers to priority sites within Gladstone. So that is just a brief picture of some of the things that are going on in the city. I would be happy to answer any questions or hear any comments you may have. 00:23:52,710 S1: Anyone else have anything to say? We really appreciate this. Thank you very much for the report. It's nice to be able to quantify for our residents and for our businesses, what it is that we're doing and what we plan to do, and that we actually measure how successful we are and that we keep all of that information. So thank you. And you are the keeper of the information. So thank you very much for that. 00:24:19,560 S10: All right. 00:24:20,760 S1: Yeah. 00:24:20,960 S8: Mr. Sabol um, thank you, mayor and council members. I do this every quarter because it's, it's it's the it's the one public moment I get to thank Lois for wrangling all of the staff to provide us with the updates and the data. Uh, I get a firsthand account of all that goes into it. I appreciate it very much. The community I know appreciates it. So thank you. 00:24:39,680 S10: All right. Thank you. 00:24:41,040 S1: And I have to say, for those people watching, too, this is not something that every community does. Uh, the fact that we actually measure our success and point out things that we're working on and things that we need to change, I think that, uh, we hold the mirror up to ourselves in a real, I think, reflective way. So thank you very much for that. Council members, we need a motion to accept the strategic plan report. Would someone like to make it. 00:25:09,520 S12: Motion to accept the Strategic Plan report for the second quarter of 2026. 00:25:13,240 S11: Second. 00:25:14,000 S1: Moved by Lee. Seconded by Junemann. The motion to accept the Strategic Plan report for the second quarter of 2026. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. 00:25:27,440 S9: Aye. 00:25:28,160 S1: Any opposed? That motion carries. And thank you again, Lois. We appreciate it. Moving on to the consent agenda. Would someone like we've got eight items. Would someone like to make that motion. 00:25:39,840 S11: I move consent agenda items G one through eight. 00:25:43,200 S1: Second moved by gentleman seconded by Lee. The consent agenda items G one through eight. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed that motion carries? We have no public hearings, no unfinished business. We have some items of new business tonight. 00:26:11,770 S1: Uh, we are going to start out with the ordinance amending chapter ten, regulating the number of dogs and cats per dwelling unit. I think we're going to start out with you, Miss Parker. 00:26:27,330 S13: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the council. Um, I just wanted to take one minute. We have a milestone coming tomorrow. We're losing, um, a wonderful asset we've had here all summer long. We've been fortunate to have Alex Zapata as our community and economic development intern throughout the summer. Alex is an urban studies and sociology student at Augsburg University. He just started his last semester. He is going to be graduating in December. In addition to school, Alex has been working as a ramp agent with Fedex, which has exposed him to team management, FAA compliance and safety oversight while serving as an intern. I'm going to actually read because I don't want to miss any, because he had a lot of stuff that you worked on During that time, Alex worked on the creation of a new development project map that's going to be going live on the city's website in the near future, which we're really excited about. Helped with health inspections at the Asian Night Market. He reviewed several conditional use permits this summer that actually were on your council agendas previously, as well as tonight. He worked with our rental inspector on creating a training program that will be rolled out in the coming months. It was mentioned earlier by City Manager Sabol, and it's kind of a big deal. We're kind of excited about it. And then worked on the ordinance amendment that he'll be presenting to you tonight. We really enjoyed having you, Alex. We know you're going to go on and do amazing things. So we just feel lucky that we were able to be a small part of that this summer. With that, I'm going to turn it over to you, Alex, and you can talk about the ordinance. 00:27:59,250 S1: Welcome, Alex. 00:28:00,610 S14: Thank you. Thank you, city Council and mayor, thank you for letting me present tonight. So some. yeah, some background on the topic on August 10th of this year. Uh. 00:28:17,420 S14: Um, members of the Maple Hills Homeowners Association came forward and asked if the city could review the current city limitations regarding pets and dogs. This is due to the fact that they lost a sale because the current ordinances, um, did not allow for the amount of pets that this person wanted to have when moving to this homeowners association. Uh, staff was then tasked to investigate the ordinance to see if the ordinance required any updating. 00:28:43,300 S14: So currently, Maple City ordinance limits number dogs, cats per household by the zoning of the property. Uh, single family zoning has no more than three dogs over six months of age and two cats over three months of age per dwelling unit. Double dwelling zoning has no more than two dogs over six months of age, and two cats over three months of age per dwelling unit. Multiple family zoning has no more than one dog over six months of age, and one cat of any age per dwelling unit. There's also an exemption already existing for service animals. 00:29:11,260 S14: When I was reviewing other cities, many limit the cats and dogs, which is kind of commonly referred to as domestic animal limit. Two. 3 to 4. They also offer licenses and permits to exceed that limit, which is something that Maplewood does not currently do. Um, most commonly accept animals that are under the age of three months of age. This is so that animals are properly able to develop and be safely rehomed. Um, very rarely I think I only came across one other city that included language around zoning when looking at pet limitations. My proposed recommendations would be removing zoning based limits, allowing up to three dogs per dwelling unit over three months of age, and allowing up to three cats per dwelling, eight over three months of age, um, as well as updating and standardizing language in the ordinance. And then here is the updated ordinance. Um, so just updating ordinance and also adding a definition. So defining what a dog is defining what a cat is. The recommended action is to approve the ordinance amending chapter ten to regulate number of dogs and cats per dwelling units. I'll now open it up to questions. 00:30:14,390 S11: Okay. 00:30:15,030 S1: Thank you very much. How exciting as an intern to be able to come to the council. So thank you very much for that presentation. Uh, thank you for, uh, your supervision and your assistance with this. Um, we've got, uh, we'll start off with some, a few questions and they may be for Danette or Mr. Sable too, but um, Council member Villavicencio. 00:30:37,310 S15: Um, my question is about the recommendation of the motion. Um, you mentioned before the, that, that um that there are some cities that do um extra licensing after the, the three, um, is there a reason that you didn't include that in your recommendation? 00:30:58,870 S14: Um, I from what I'm aware of, um, the city wants to be less involved with the restrictions implied on housing units. Um, my purpose was to kind of expand it so that this allows for property managers, um, rental licensers to instill their own requirements. 00:31:17,470 S1: Thank you. You know, one of the questions, um, that I had were trying to balance this out and I've been on the council and I've been the mayor for some time. And I remember when we used to have pet licensing and we used to have a limitation as to number. And if you wanted more, then you needed to have a, they called it a kennel license back then. Uh, and that was all changed. And now looking at this, the issue that was brought to us by residents of Maplewood, um, one of the things that I, I wondered about, including in an ordinance is adding language about property Managers or. 00:32:03,350 S1: Anyone in an HOA that they may be able to set their own limit based on the size of the units, the number of people. Um, one of the things that's one thing, whether or not we could add something like that so that there is some flexibility. And I'm looking at Mr. Beatty for maybe some questions about that. But my other thing too, is that the way I read this is that people would be permitted to have three dogs and three cats. That means six animals in, you know, and we're not differentiating between any type of housing. That's pretty overwhelming to think about having six animals living in. Uh, you know, we have a variety of, we talked about it earlier about the types of housing that we have. Um, It's a little concerning to me. I want to hear what the rest of the council says, but I think that six is a lot. I would be more interested in in a number that's a little bit lower than that. And then if there's going to be an exemption that, you know, the city could approve an exemption. And the other thing back to the and I'll ask Mr. Beattie about including some language so that a property manager or an HOA would be able to set their number, have some flexibility, because this really came forward. Uh, um, some, uh, residents that live in an HOA. 00:33:37,520 S16: Sure. Madam mayor. Council. Well, having thought about it for seven seconds, I guess my my thought is this. Uh, I think it's fine to have flexibility or discretion in an ordinance, but it's important to set some parameters or Guidelines as to when you would grant that discretion. I don't think that it would be a good idea to defer completely to an HOA or, you know, or a building management as to what the ordinance might be. My recommendation would be to think about, under what circumstances might you allow more than a minimum? I mean, I think the difference in numbers in the current ordinance sort of reflects the, the, the density of the residential unit with single family people are further spaced apart. And presumably the impact of animals is less than if you're in a multi family dwelling. But multi-family dwellings come in a number of, of shapes and sizes. So there may be some circumstances under which more pets would be allowed. I would suggest that we think a little bit about that, build some flexibility into the ordinance and may say that in addition, that a building management or HOA would have to approve but not defer completely to let them, you know, make that decision. 00:35:05,010 S1: I appreciate that, because what I was thinking, council members, is we were reading as I was reading this this weekend, if we have an apartment building that has 20 units, we have those in our city. And if we permit six animals in 20 units, that would be 120 animals in a 20 unit complex, which I think under any circumstances. I mean, we're talking about dogs and cats. That's a lot of animals. It makes me a little bit uncomfortable, but I want to hear what other people have to say. Council member cave. 00:35:41,970 S17: I would agree with you. I think the last time we talked, I asked Mr. Beattie to about the HOA and property management and that our ordinance is there, but they can an HOA can decide what they want in an HOA, correct? I mean, they own the. 00:35:58,130 S16: Yes. Madam mayor, Council members basically, somebody would have to clear both hurdles. In other words, you'd have to comply with the ordinance and you'd have to meet whatever the local regulations are. They could be the same, which would sort of ease people's decision about what they had to do. But they don't have to be. 00:36:22,890 S1: Anything else? 00:36:24,050 S17: No. So I guess I'm, I just think leaving it as it is, I don't I don't see us having a problem. I know we used to have licensing in Maplewood. We removed it. There was reasons why we didn't have to go to staff. We don't have issues with it. And I think HOAs and property managers do have a strong take on what goes on in their property. So I think they if you're in an HOA or property, you have to deal with with that situation, not city council on the ordinance. You know what ordinance we have. So I'm fine just leaving it as it is and not. 00:36:56,580 S1: Changing. 00:36:56,900 S17: Anything. Correct. Not changing anything. 00:36:58,820 S1: Okay. Councilmember Villavicencio. 00:37:01,740 S15: Um, I think that I'm, I'm okay with the recommended motion. Um, and, um, because I think that it, um, if and if I'm wrong, please correct me anyone if that it's triggered by neighbors. Um, for yep. I see some nodding. Um, and then the other, I have a. 00:37:24,020 S1: New triggered by neighbors. What are you. 00:37:26,300 S15: So, um, it's only going to be a problem if your neighbors complain about it. Correct. 00:37:34,460 S1: Mr. Sabol. 00:37:35,700 S8: Um, thank you. Mayor, Council members. Council member. Villavicencio. That's correct. Traditionally, the. We only understand if there's a violation, if there's it's a complaint based regulatory environment. So we. In fairness, I presume there are people who are in violation of the ordinance, and we just don't know that. And we'll never know unless someone complains about it. And so it is a complaint driven ordinance process. And, uh, community and economic development director is wanting to say something. 00:38:04,540 S13: So thank you, city Manager Sabol. Madam mayor, members of council. So we find that even though we have these, um, this ordinance in place. Most commonly it, it doesn't come into play for us. What really happens is we'll have a situation of a dog. We'll have a situation of a nuisance situation where it's, it's not how many, it's for whatever reason, the personality, the barking, whatever. It could be a number of things. Um, an irresponsible property owner. There's a lot of things that come into play with that. So more commonly in talking to others, it's really about um, that not so much the number of. So it could be one bad actor. Um, that could be the problem for that. And that's when we respond typically. And that is a neighbor. But typically it could be others, it could be the property manager for that matter. 00:38:52,310 S1: And then in one of those circumstances where it is one animal, this isn't triggered at all. Correct. 00:38:59,070 S13: Correct. 00:39:00,390 S1: Okay. 00:39:01,110 S15: Mayor, I have another question. Do we limit the number of lizards that are in the city? 00:39:10,390 S11: Uh. 00:39:11,950 S1: Miss Parker, I'm stumped. 00:39:13,350 S13: I am. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of council. I don't, I did not I do not believe we do. I do not believe we do. 00:39:21,830 S1: I don't know who is next. Councilmember Councilmember Lee. 00:39:24,670 S12: Thank you. Mayor. Um, I actually think it's fine as it is. Three dogs and three cats. I think a lot of time with a lot of homeowners and a lot of pet owner, they're very responsible owners. Um, I have a neighbor who have, I've seen them have three dogs, two cats and bunnies and everything else. And they are very responsible owners. So I think it's fine. I think we have to leave it up to our constituents to make that determination. People have different circumstances and I don't imagine a 20 apartment complex having six dogs in each. You know, the reality of it isn't. And so I think it's fine. I would like to stay out of the HOA component of it. I think we just set the high level components of it. And for Councilmember, you mentioned that piece of it. I think HOA. They have regulations and rules that they can set in place. I don't think the city should be barging into any of that at all. 00:40:07,710 S11: So Councilmember well, I'm I'm fortunately, I'm with you. I'm swimming upstream. Six seems like a lot of animals to me, even in a normal household. 00:40:20,950 S11: So I don't know where we are with that. But I think if you had three of each, well, I'd move and leave the animals behind if I had that many. But I mean, really, that seems like a lot of animals and I, I understand that it's complaint driven, but that does throw a lot of responsibility on a neighbor who is being driven insane by the amount of noise or whatever. 00:40:49,320 S1: Okay, so let's have some further discussion about it. Right now, what is being proposed? What I hear you saying, Councilmember Cave, is no change at all from what we have currently, correct? Okay. Uh, and so. 00:41:10,400 S1: Basically that distinguishes between single family homes, double dwellings, and multiple family zoning and assigns different numbers. It would be. 00:41:23,640 S1: Five animals for single family homes. It would be four for double dwellings and it would be two for multiple family dwellings. Um. 00:41:41,560 S1: And can you restate your position on, you know, property management or HOAs? 00:41:48,520 S17: Sure. Um, property management and hoa's control the property. So when we're being asked in this particular one, we're being asked from an HOA property. Um, it just seems moot because we can't, we can't make decisions for an HOA and we can't for a property manager. And in this case that's coming in front of us is based on an HOA. So it's only being brought to us because someone in HOA unfortunately has a situation, but their HOA controls, um, the regulations there, you know, they, they have it above our ordinance to control what happens at the, at the property and or the townhouses. 00:42:31,920 S1: So maybe a little clarity might help us reach some type of a conclusion. The HOA would fall under the R3, the multiple family zoning so that they would be able to have, according to our ordinance, one dog and then one cat. So basically it's two. Uh, and then Mr. 00:43:07,090 Beatty, would it be possible for the HOA since that's what we're talking about, just the, the R-3, if they wanted to increase that number, would the HOA be permitted to do that? S16: Madam mayor, Council not. Under the current ordinance, both. The city establishes a hurdle in the ordinance and the HOA establishes its own regulations in order to comply. As a resident, you have to meet both requirements. So if the city's ordinance stays the way it is, the HOA could increase their number to 12, and it doesn't change the city's ordinance. Similarly, they could lower it to 1 or 0. And that doesn't change the ordinance either. They're independent regulatory schemes. So in order for anybody to comply they have to meet both their requirements. And those could either be single family or multifamily. And they have to meet the ordinance requirements. 00:44:01,090 S1: Okay. 00:44:01,370 S17: I have a follow up to that. Sure. Mr. Beatty, how when there is a property and they do not allow pets at the property, the property manager does not. 00:44:13,850 How does that fall into place then? S16: Then they can't have pets under the, uh, the local regulations. They could have pets under the city ordinance. But if they're also living in a situation where the HOA has either a lower number all the way down to zero, they would have to comply with that. They have to meet both tests. 00:44:38,100 S1: Both tests. Okay. That helps clarify things. And I think that that that removes my concerns. Uh, um, Councilmember Lee. 00:44:48,460 S12: Thank you mayor. Uh, that was a similar question. I had to Councilmember K too. But so then my, so then if we were to move forward with the three dogs, three cats, HOA then can set their own policies on their end, different from what we are doing here. This is just the overarching policy at the city level. 00:45:05,100 S16: Then council, mayor and council. Yes, this is that's the city's ordinance. The HOA could have a higher or lower or the same number. Okay. 00:45:16,660 S1: You know, I wonder then if the HOA that came to us was clear on that, because I understood their concern to be that they thought that people were not going to be able to move into their building because of the city ordinance and that wasn't actually the case. So maybe there was some misunderstanding on their part because they could set their own rules. Uh, you know, they could have more than one dog or one cat. The HOA would have to make that decision. 00:45:56,860 AM I stating that correctly? S16: Madam mayor, the council, the the HOA can establish the limits for that building from a private standpoint. They don't control the city ordinance in order for for a homeowner or renter to be completely compliant. They would have to meet city ordinance, whatever that is, and the HOA and the HOA regulations. So if if you know, again, if the, the HOA said they could have five dogs and cats and five cats. That's fine, but that doesn't change city code. They still have to comply with the code. Similarly, if they dropped it to one. 00:46:46,830 S16: That doesn't change the city's ordinance. They need. They need to comply with both. The two sets of regulations are independent from one another. 00:46:57,310 S1: Mr. Sabol. 00:46:59,870 S8: Thank you, mayor and council members. I'm going to ask the city attorney a question, and I and I'm I'm asking this delicately because I'm going down a rabbit hole of hypotheticals. Is the city ordinance the upper boundary of the number of animals allowed. And an HOA could put a number lower, but they couldn't put a number higher. 00:47:26,630 Is that a easier way to say that in my brain? S16: Madam mayor, Council, I. Yes, Um, I guess the way I would say it is that the lower number, whichever it is, will control. In other words, if the city allowed three and the HOA only allowed two to be compliant with both regulations, they would be limited to two. If the city allowed three and the HOA allowed for three would be the maximum. They could have to comply with both ordinances or both. Both regulations. 00:48:05,470 S6: Okay. 00:48:05,910 S1: Okay. Councilmember Lee. 00:48:07,150 S12: Thank you mayor. Um, I don't know who this may be addressed to, but just a question around resources in the city, um, in pertaining to the zoning of the family homes, you know, how often on a yearly basis are we getting calls and complaints from constituents and residents about maybe a neighbor having too many dogs or too many cats that are out of the ordinance that we have here? I don't know who would be the best for that one. 00:48:31,230 S13: Madam mayor, members of the council. Um, we don't get many. Um, very seldom do we hear about this. As I mentioned before, it's if we get a call, it's not about the number of animals. It's about a nuisance animal. That's that's those are the calls we feel. And I don't even think we get many of those. I don't know if public safety or anybody else deals with them, but we really don't have many of those calls at all. Um, and like I said, it's usually a one off of a dog or something that a hoarding situation. And it's not really about how many they have. While they far exceed the ordinance, we're dealing with much bigger issues than how many dogs are there. 00:49:05,270 S12: Thank you. 00:49:06,510 S1: Council members might. One way to, uh, maybe, uh, look at this creatively is, you know, I noticed that some other cities, they talk about animals. They don't, you know, they don't talk about, uh, a total of Dogs, uh, and slash or cats so that if we were to say, uh, three dogs and, or, you know, so it's a total, you could have two cats and one dog or two dogs and one cat. Uh, so that we're talking about, you know, if someone, they can, they can decide what they want, you know, this is a little bit, um, we want to set some guardrails, but we also want people to be able to enjoy their pets. And so with that help, uh, kind of reach some kind of consensus. If we were talking about, you know, it's a, the number we're talking about cats and dogs. We're not talking about lizards. Uh, but just or what? Iguana. 00:50:12,240 S15: Iguana. 00:50:12,920 S1: Oh. Oh, no doubt, no doubt. But that's a whole other issue, I think, than, you know, we're only talking cats and dogs, but if we were to just lump them together, as you know, total, you can't have any more than this. But basically, you know, you decide how you're going to make that split. 00:50:35,360 Does that make this more appealing to anyone I know? S17: I think we're looking at are we still looking at R1, R2, R3 though, because there are differentiations, you know, and somebody has a single family home. I'm fine with that. Um, double dwelling and maybe having, um, in R3, you know, if you were going to do the three, then three of a combination of dogs and cats for. 00:50:56,800 S1: Three fine doing that. That would be a, I think certainly a reasonable, uh, resolution to it. So that keeping what we have, but making it cats or, you know, using the language three total dogs and or cats per, uh, you know, household for our unit. 00:51:18,960 S17: For our three. 00:51:19,960 S1: Uh, for our three. So make it three. 00:51:22,360 S17: So really the R3 is the one that gets the change, right? 00:51:25,090 S1: And otherwise, we've got five in single family homes and four in double dwellings, and then three in multiple family or I'm sorry. Yeah, in the R3, multiple family zoned units. And we aren't going to legislate. If you want to have all three cats, you can have three cats. Because right now, I mean, some of it doesn't make sense that we distinguish. You can have one dog and one cat. What if you want to have two dogs? What if you want to have two cats? So why are we distinguishing that? So that would be my suggestion. Does that help us kind of come together a little bit. Councilmember Councilmember Lee, thank you. 00:52:07,290 S12: Mayor. Um, it comes up over there a little bit. I'm just thinking now in terms of like for folks who have birds or like, I mean, you bring up a really legitimate question for folks who may have lizards, they can have 100 lizards. And that doesn't we don't have an ordinance against that at all anywhere. So I mean, I get the amount of care that that's required for lizards. And cats are very, very different in circumstances. But I think in terms of pet, I think like I believe that people have the goodness in their heart to make a determination on how many they need and how I'm looking at this is how are we being competitive as a city to other cities? And, you know, one of the questions that I, that I came across with, one of the constituents was one of the property that they were the Home Owners Association restricted them. Someone wanted to move in. They didn't want to move in because of the pet policy. So I think part of this, this is then we're restricting our constituents and restricting potential constituents that may be coming into Maplewood with an opportunity of having more pets. And so that's those are the things that I think it goes beyond just the pet piece of it. I think this goes into people wanting to come into Maplewood, people wanting to find opportunities here in the city. So that's why I think part of it is we're not being competitive with other cities. We want to bring people, good people here into our city. So this new ordinance that has been proposed, three of each. I think that gives people the flexibility in the HOA can certainly then go back and say, you know what? We don't want three dogs or three cats. They can go and do their own thing on their end. They get to decide as HOA on how many dogs and cats that they may want. So we, as a government entity, we set the overarching ordinance. The HOA then gets to figure out what they want to do. We should not have to depend on what HOA should or should not do. So that's my thought process. That way it makes us competitive as a city. 00:53:52,900 S1: Thank you Councilmember. 00:53:54,100 S17: I just want to comment on the HOA, um all cities with HOA and and which we do have some cities everywhere. They have restrictions. That's why their HOA is that's why when you move into them, you see that because there are very protected, you can't even change colors on things. There's so many restrictions. So it's a, it's a plus and a minus when you move into an HOA. Um, and I think it's one of those give and takes I don't really want to get into a HOA what they can do and what they can't. And I feel like we're just hitting on this like hour three, where it would be an HOA or a project or a property manager situation. So for me, I feel I don't want to get too in the weeds with this ordinance and make it too broad. Um, so for me, I just, I'm willing to go the R-3 with a total three pets combination, but no further for me. 00:54:47,500 S1: You know, I would say that in looking at what all of these other cities that were researched are doing, I would say that we are very competitive. Uh, I think that if we'll move into being, I think more flexible, if we aren't telling people dogs and cats and distinguishing between dogs and cats, it's just those animals. We're only doing dogs and cats. So I don't want to legislate if people want. I know you have birds. We don't have that birds. This doesn't apply at all to birds. This doesn't apply at all to lizards or to rabbits or to goldfish. We don't want to get in that business. We want people to enjoy their pets. But for, you know, I would say the majority of cities here that are listed that are neighboring cities in some respects, uh, they are it seems that dogs and cats seem to be more of a common pet and may create, uh, they may need, uh, a little bit of guidance in that respect. So, you know, in looking at this, uh, if we were to modify this, uh, so that we don't distinguish between dogs and cats and, uh, in our three, uh, you can have three cats if you want. You can have three dogs if you want. You can have, you know, from the city perspective and then the HOA will do their own thing. HOA will have their own board. Uh, they will make determinations, what they want to do for their community. They have guidelines and policies, but this would be something that would be, uh, I think certainly in line with other, um, what other cities are doing. Uh, maybe for your concern, council member Lee, if we were to, if there is an R3 multiple family zoning, do the three. But then if someone wants more, they would have to appeal to the city. They'd have to come to the city for that. Uh, that might address the concerns. I think it would address the concerns that you just raised. Uh, but we're still going to cap it at three from the city, and then they would have to make that. We'd they'd have to come forward with an exemption. It's a way of bringing this together without getting into, you know, the hose. They're going to set up their own thing that works for them and the size of their properties. Councilmember. 00:57:28,400 S12: Thank you. Mayor. Um, I'm just curious then if they were to do more than that, what is that process then? I know you guys got rid of the kennel requirement previously already. Then how much work is it going to take to get into that process again to get that started up again? Because now I feel like we're getting back into something that we got rid of, then the kennel situation. 00:57:47,840 S1: Do you have any comments on that, Madam mayor? 00:57:49,640 S13: Members of the council, that's something we have to look at. I mean, obviously that takes more resources. Um, we sort of dismantled that piece and the zoning sort of, um, remained because it was something people could look to and it provided that guidance, but largely when it was handled previously in the clerk's office, many of those things have gone away because we didn't want to be in that business anymore. It wasn't highly effective. We didn't find Mr. Sabol. 00:58:14,240 S1: Do you have any comments on that? We certainly don't want to create more work. 00:58:18,120 S8: I don't not not. Mayor. Thank you. Mayor and council members. Um, not on that particular question. I have other thoughts. 00:58:25,320 S1: Okay. Well, do you want to tell us your other thoughts? Let's go to those part. 00:58:30,720 S8: Thank you, mayor and council members. And and Alex, thank you for kind of putting this together. So the ordinance that is in your packet, uh, contemplates the elimination of the zoning standards. The conversation that has happened at the table keeps the zoning standards, but changes the number and configuration of animals. It's one can have three. You can have one, one and two. You can mix that. So regardless of whatever direction we get today, it seems likely that we will have to redraft this ordinance to keep the language for the ordinance for the zoning segments and then alter some of the numbers and the configuration of number of dogs and cats. So what I and I will say that's what I've heard. I also have not heard a consensus. I've heard a trend of altering the number and keeping the zoning standard. So but I do think it would require another look at the language because the ordinance proposed ordinance as it's drafted and talks about saying dwelling unit rather than defining what dwelling units they are. So a rewrite does seem likely based on the conversation. And also there are certain things like definitely definitionally we would want to keep because a cat means any, right? Like the, the definitions do need to stay because those are good enhancements. And so, um, I think what I am going to propose that we do, and I'm going to look at Mr. Beatty to make sure that I get it correctly. Um, I think the proper motion is to lay over this for staff to redraft the ordinance based on the discussion, and then we can take it up at a future meeting and then refine. So keep the zoning code rules and also then modify the number some number greater than two. But less than six is how I'm interpreting this conversation. 01:00:32,770 S1: The process. 01:00:33,290 S16: Mr. Beatty madam mayor, Council, I think that that's exactly right. The only thing I would add is the other thing that I've heard is whether you want to build in some sort of flexibility or appeal or something, that's a more complicated issue, because again, you're going to need to come up with the criteria by which either the staff or the council is going to address that. It can't be because we like you and we don't like you or because you asked. 01:01:03,730 S1: You know what I since I brought that up, I'm going to withdraw that because I do not want to make this more complicated. I want our residents to have the flexibility to enjoy their pets and have a very simplified way of knowing what our guardrails are. And then if it is an R-3 dwelling, then their HOA or the property management is going to be able to then make their own determination based on their property needs. And how much property do they have and how big are the units and all of those other kinds of things. So for me, that sounds like a very good idea to have to lay this over. And then I take it we'd have to do that by emotion and direct staff to go back and redraft based on our conversation. But I want to hear what everyone has to say. 01:01:58,900 So, Council Member Villavicencio, what do you say to that idea? S15: Um, I, I agree with us going back and looking at all this and and re readdressing it. Yes. 01:02:07,740 S12: I'm open to you. I look at it again. 01:02:10,620 S1: Councilmember. 01:02:12,620 S11: I'm open to as well. And I'm sure Alex is thinking, thank God I'm done here tomorrow. 01:02:18,540 S17: No, he has to stay until this is finished. 01:02:20,940 S18: Until this is done right. 01:02:23,180 S17: You never leave. 01:02:26,060 S1: And Councilmember case. 01:02:27,340 S17: Yes. 01:02:28,100 S1: Okay. Would someone like to make a motion to lay this over, please? 01:02:32,100 S17: It'd be great doing it. 01:02:33,660 S1: Mr. Sabol. 01:02:34,540 S8: Thank you. Mayor and council members. Um, to whomever will make the motion, please make the motion for the next council meeting on September 28th. 01:02:42,900 S12: Motion to table the ordinance. Amending chapter ten. Regulating. Tabling it. 01:02:48,260 S8: Um. Thank you. Mayor. Council members. Councilmember Lee, if you could say lay over, lay over. 01:02:52,020 S12: Okay. 01:02:52,260 S8: Please. 01:02:53,100 S12: Motion to lay over the ordinance. Amending chapter ten. Regulating numbers of dogs and cats per dwelling unit until the next council meeting. 01:03:00,500 S17: Second. 01:03:02,060 S1: Moved by Lee, seconded by cave to lay over the ordinance. Amending chapter ten to regulate the number of dogs and cats per dwelling unit until at our next council meeting on September 28th. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Good discussion everyone. I think we will land on something that will be clear and concise and will provide flexibility, and yet also provide some direction for people. So thank you very much and thank you for all of your work on this. This is how local government gets things done, trying to make things better for our residents. So thank you. I really appreciate it and good luck with. I don't think luck is really the thing. It sounds like you have, um, a very bright future ahead of you. 01:04:00,150 S18: So thank. 01:04:00,990 S11: You. 01:04:01,590 S1: Take care. Moving on. The conditional use permit resolution for Payless tires. 01:04:12,310 Uh, who is that? S13: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the council. All right, we're moving on. We'll get the overhead up. 01:04:21,990 S13: So the property we are going to be talking about next is at 1955 County Road D. Um this particular property is guided for commercial. The for the future land use supports a wide variety of commercial activities. Industrial uses including. This. However, it needs a conditional use permit. I should point out the reason that this is before you this evening is because of the fact that, um, they came in for a business license and we just noted you need a conditional use permit to do that. The site is actually largely being used how it has been used previously, but we just want to make sure they're in compliance and that they're good to go. 01:05:00,790 S13: So the property is zoned for motor vehicle maintenance garage and approved with approval of a cup. As I mentioned, um this permitted use in the zoning district was has not changed. Um we've had some changes over time, but not since this originally came about. The type of business did not require a cup at the time the building was initially constructed. And a cup is now required under our current zoning ordinance. Um, similar auto oriented businesses have historically operated in this area. We've got Midas right there. We've got tires, plus we've got other service garages. This is an area just north of, um, our north end area. And so we see, we see a number of these types of uses kind of fall in that spot because they can't be in the north end. The site initially developed as an automotive service repair center in 1988. It was later repurposed as a used car dealership and has been vacant for several years. Payless tires recently purchased the property and began using it for commercial minor auto repair. The major primary operation is retail tire, and they do some light automotive repair as a part of the cup. Some of the things to keep in mind is all repair and vehicle service work will occur inside the building. There's no exterior work being done at all. And then the hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 9 to 6, Saturday 9 to 5, and Sundays they are closed. You can see, um, what we just talked about in regards to the primary aspect being sales of tires. It rings true with what you see in the interior of the structure as well. 01:06:37,160 S13: As far as review, there was a public hearing notice sent to 17 properties with 500ft that we had no calls or comments in regards to it. Um, we have had our staff take a look at it. We have no concerns. We have a few things we're looking at in respect to um our fire marshal, but we have no concerns in relation to that and having talked to him about it. We we have heard there's no concerns and that will be dealt with prior to issuance. Um the recommended motion is to approve a conditional use permit resolution for a vehicle maintenance garage at 1955 County Road D East, subject to certain conditions that were in your packet. And with that, we're happy to answer any questions you might have. 01:07:14,440 S1: Council members, any questions for Miss Power? 01:07:19,400 S1: I don't see any. Would someone like to make the motion? 01:07:22,960 S17: I motion to approve a motion to approve a conditional use permit resolution for a vehicle maintenance garage at 1955 County Road D East, subject to certain conditions of approval. 01:07:35,480 S15: Second. 01:07:38,320 S1: Moved by cave. Seconded by Junemann. The motion that is written in our packet. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Next, we have another conditional use permit concerning Strauss gates and bicycles. Miss power. This one is yours. 01:08:03,970 S13: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the council. We are talking about 71751 Cope Avenue East. You're probably all very familiar with it. Um, currently, it's a one acre site. Uh, it has operated a sporting goods store and equipment repair shop on the property since 1970. It's a, um, a really important business in our community. A lot of people come from outside of our community to be a part of that particular establishment. And, um, I think many of you probably have had dealings with them and they do a great job. In 2016, the business became a licensed dealer for Old Hickory Buildings and began selling portable residential storage sheds from the property. This is a light manufacturing zoning. The property zoning permits. It does permit exterior storage yard with approval of a cop with certain conditions, and it currently does not have a cup. It is existed that way for a while, and as part of the code enforcement, we made them aware that you need to have a cup. Um, the applicant is storage shed since 2016. So this is somewhat sales but it's also storage. Um, and they are asking for a cup to be in compliance with the code requirements. 01:09:18,250 S13: The sheds have been stored in vacant or unused areas of the parking lot. As you can see from the the arrow, the arrows on the overhead, um, they have been relocated behind Strauss Gates building. Now when you drive by, you'll see them consolidated right behind the building versus on the adjacent areas that are um, they were previously located at. 01:09:41,810 S13: The, the site plan shows as far as the storage in the future, all sheds must be kept on a paved or gravel surface and on the north side of the building, as shown on the site plan that you're seeing on the overhead. The owner is requesting permission to store up to 16 sheds at a time. It's a little bit tricky because when you drive by, you'll notice there are different sizes. They have a great assortment and it's a little bit difficult to be. I sound like a salesperson, don't I? Sorry. Um, it becomes a little bit problematic in regards to regulating the number of them because it varies a little bit based on the size of them. So we're saying between 12 to 16 typically. And in going by the site and having been there recently a couple of different times, I can see that that is modified down from what they previously had across multiple areas. So that seems to be an improvement. The proposed display area is north of the existing Strauss building. You can see that in the the dashed yellow line. As I said, it's going to depend on the size and the mix of the models on display. They have an example of that to the on the overhead there. 01:10:51,340 S13: Here you can see the view of the south towards the Strauss building and Cope Avenue, and then north towards highway 36. 01:11:04,540 S13: As far as the planning review, they need to maintain fire access to the north side of the building. They need to screen trash dumpsters currently on the north side of the building. And that requires trash containers and dumpsters to be located within an enclosure. They need to review the existing striped stalls and access aisles to make sure they're compliant. It looks like some repainting of space will be required and necessary to repair the deficient pavement areas. Now, staff recommends screening along the north side of the property. This is standard. Obviously, this is a corridor where there's a lot of site views as people come through this gateway to our community. So as typically is the case, we would ask that there be some screening from the storage aspect of it. From a staff perspective, the area between the sheds and the property line abutting highway 36 right of way at least 80% opaque. A six feet in height that can be done either through landscaping vegetation or they could put a fence. Um. As you get further along along 36, you can see there's a fair amount of growth and vegetation that blocks that area beyond this property to a great extent. Um, the Planning commission discussed the screening requirement at their meeting and did not agree on the sheds that they need to be screened. So they recommended approval of the cup. However, they struck the fourth condition that spoke specifically to the screening. Um. 01:12:28,710 S13: The public hearing notice was sent to 35 properties within 500ft. We didn't hear from anyone in relation to that. There were no public comments and we had no other concerns um by staff. Um and then on August 18th, the Planning Commission. As I said, they held the public hearing. They recommended approval with the striking of that fourth condition in regards to screening. 01:12:53,150 S13: The recommended action is to approve the conditional use permit resolution for a storage yard related to the sale of portable sheds at 1751 Cove Avenue East, subject to the conditions of approval within your packet. So if you didn't want to have the screening requirement, you'd want to note that to have that stricken because it still shows as a condition with. Just be really clear about that. It still shows as a condition, as staff recommended. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. The applicants here as well this evening and is happy to answer questions as well. 01:13:24,910 S1: Would the applicant like to come and say anything? 01:13:34,150 S19: Hi, I'm Sean Hastings from Strauss Skates and Bicycles. So Madam Mayor and council members appreciate you taking the time to review the application, and I'm here to answer any questions you have. I don't think I have anything particular to add to the to the review that that Miss Barr has given. 01:13:52,600 S1: Okay. Thank you. Um, well, you can wait for just a minute because maybe some people will have questions for Miss PA or for yourself. Um, I had a question, Miss PA. 01:14:14,440 The cup then would, um, contain the storage units to the rear of the building, the north side of the building, is that correct? S13: Madam mayor, that is correct. 01:14:15,640 S1: Any place else? 01:14:16,280 S13: Correct. That is correct. 01:14:17,720 S1: Okay. In terms of the discussion from the Planning Commission, I know the note says that they didn't agree that the sheds should be screened. 01:14:35,680 What was their discussion like? Uh, in terms of believing that the that the sheds didn't need to be screened? S13: Um, madam Mayor, I don't know if there was specific um comments made in regards to why they did or didn't. I know um Council member Bailey was at that meeting as a liaison, but I don't know if they were specific about it didn't appear that they were specific. I wasn't at the meeting, but I did watch the meeting. 01:14:51,840 S1: Um thank you. You know, in terms of my thinking on it, uh, I mean, I tend to agree with the planning commission. I'm not sure why the sheds would need to be screened. I mean, I have driven by there hundreds and hundreds of times. And the sheds look very nice back there. And I think it's certainly a selling point that there are sheds for sale. But, uh, Council member Lee, your you attended the meeting. 01:15:16,640 S12: I did thank you, mayor. And that's exactly what was the, uh, the, the planning commission had a really good, robust conversation about it and talked about why we, why it was even required in the first place. And so part of being on 36 is having that as a billboard, having people drive by the hundreds of people that drive by it. So taking that out would benefit the business significantly. So that's why they struck. 01:15:35,280 S1: That makes sense. And the sheds look nice back there. Thank you, Councilmember Cave. 01:15:40,850 S17: And I would concur my my comments were to remove that number four. Because if you are in a business and you're selling those, you. That's a. Like you said, a billboard in itself is just right off. 36. So yeah. 01:15:58,410 S1: And there's still going to be screening for the garbage, right? Yeah, yeah. Okay. Would someone, anyone else like to make any comments? Otherwise, would someone like to make a motion. 01:16:08,610 S12: Motion to approve a conditional use permit resolution for a storage yard related to the sales of portable shed at 1751 Cope Avenue East, subject to certain conditions of approval. Striking, uh, condition number four. 01:16:21,370 S11: Second. 01:16:23,970 S12: Yes, sir. 01:16:24,330 S1: Good by. Lee. Seconded by Junemann. I believe, uh, the recommended action, the motion to approve a conditional use permit resolution for storage yard related to the sale of portable sheds at 1751 Cope Avenue East, subject to certain conditions of approval. Striking number for the requirement for screening. Uh, is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? It passes. And thank you for being here for all of these years. 01:16:58,650 S19: Thank you. Hopefully many. 01:16:59,890 S1: More. Yeah, we appreciate it. 01:17:01,210 S18: Yes. 01:17:05,490 S1: Uh, next we have the resolution ordering the abatement of conditions, creating a public nuisance and hazardous property at 1852 Walter Street North. Miss Parker. 01:17:16,090 S13: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the council. We unfortunately have the next two items. You are very familiar with these situations. More commonly than maybe previously, but we, um, we really are making a concerted effort to move forward with these complaints and get people compliant so that we have safe neighborhoods. The city has received numerous complaints. Um, I'll we'll draw our attention to the overhead has received numerous complaints about the property conditions, um, at the subject property at 1852 Walter Street North. We have worked diligently. Our code enforcement staff has worked diligently to try to get some compliance. We have had a fair amount of success with this site in getting compliance. And then we get two steps forward and two steps back kind of situation. So, um, we can't get much further on this one. Um, for that reason, to restore the property to its safe sanitary and code compliant condition. Staff's recommending that the city Council approve a resolution ordering the abatement of this hazardous. Um, it's noteworthy to say that we will continue to try to work on this with the individual. That's always the best outcome as we can get them to, to do it and be in compliance. At the end of the day, if they are not, we need to look at doing otherwise. A resolution has been prepared by the city attorney that finds the property is both hazardous and a public nuisance pursuant to state law and city code, and it authorizes staff and the consultants to serve an order on the owner that requires abatement of the unlawful conditions within 21 days of performing the cleanup work. Should the owner fail to comply with the order, the city will initiate formal proceedings and request a court order authorizing the city to abate the hazardous and nuisance property conditions and the statutory and city code provisions authorize abatement proceedings. Basically all costs incurred will be assessed against the property. We've had to do this a number of times, and luckily we've had success throughout, and we just work to help them maintain that over time. So I think always, as you know, the pictures tend to, to, to say, to tell the story. These are ones that were in your packet. It's not all of them, but it's just some that give you an idea of what the neighbors continue to deal with on this site. 01:19:36,540 S13: With that, we're happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, we recommend a motion to approve the resolution ordering the abatement of conditions, creating a public nuisance and hazardous property existing at 1852 Walter Street North. 01:19:50,660 S1: Thank you. Any questions for Miss Parker? 01:19:56,180 S1: Would someone like to make the motion? 01:19:57,660 S11: Then I move to approve the resolution. Ordering the abatement of conditions. Creating a public nuisance and hazardous property existing at 1852 Walter Street North. 01:20:06,940 S1: Is there a second? 01:20:08,740 S18: Second? 01:20:11,060 S1: Seconded by Lee. The motion is written in our packet. 01:20:19,260 Is there any further discussion? S1: Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. 01:20:22,180 S18: Aye. 01:20:22,980 S1: Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much, Miss Parr, and thank your staff for all of the work that they've done. And thank you for trying to work with with residents to come into compliance. 01:20:35,990 S1: Next, we have another abatement at 1587 Grandview Avenue East. 01:20:42,990 S13: Draw your attention to the overhead as soon as it's pulled up. Um, very similar situation to the one we just discussed. Just a different address. 01:20:54,630 S13: And as you know, in your packet, it's very detailed, meticulously detailed by our code enforcement staff in regards to what the items are. So it's very clear expectations that are presented from the beginning so that there's an understanding of expectations. 01:21:09,230 S13: Motion to approve a resolution ordering the abatement of conditions. Creating a public nuisance and hazardous property existing at 1587 Grandview Avenue East is our recommended motion. And with that, happy to answer any questions you might have on that one as well. 01:21:22,350 S1: Any questions from the Council concerning the Grandview Avenue East address? 01:21:29,230 S1: Don't see any. Would someone like to make a motion. 01:21:32,430 S18: To approve the. 01:21:32,910 S12: Resolution? Ordering the abatement of conditions. Creating a public nuisance and hazardous property existing at 1587 Grandview Avenue East. 01:21:40,750 S11: Second. 01:21:41,790 S1: Moved by Lee. Seconded by Junemann. The motion is written in our packet. 01:21:50,350 Is there any further discussion? S1: None. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Next, we have our preliminary property tax levy. Mr. Roob, this is your topic. 01:22:21,790 S11: Thank you. 01:22:22,590 S18: Thanks. 01:22:27,280 S1: Thank you. 01:22:29,560 S12: Thank you. 01:22:32,040 S20: Thank you. 01:22:36,800 S19: All right. Thank you. Mayor and council. I would have handed these out beforehand, but I was worried you would be distracted by these PowerPoints and wouldn't pay attention to the rest of it. So, um, you will receive them now. Um, just what you're all excited for as we cap out the evening. Uh, Mr. Odero has offered me some extra funds in order to get out of here quickly, so, um, I won't delay anymore. All right, so tonight we are discussing the 2027 budget and capital improvement plan. Our agenda for the evening is to discuss the stakeholders survey results. Levy history 27 2027 considerations, Levy options and scenarios. The levy for Ramsey County, the capital improvement plan, the budget resources, and then our next steps. So who has a stake in our budget? Our residents do because they are both taxpayers and they rely on our services as well as the businesses who pay taxes and rely on our services. City council has a stake in it as they set the priorities the budget, the levy as well as policies. City staff, um, have a stake in it as they are asked to provide the services that the residents and business rely on. 01:23:58,320 S19: The survey results I went over this two weeks ago, but just as a quick reminder, um, this display or similar real life display is at the community outreach events. And the last time we were at one was the July Celebrate Summer event, where each resident is provided with ten chips, um, at about say $100,000 each so they can vote on their priorities with about $1 million. Um. When it came down to it, trails and natural resources came in at number one at 48 votes. And then community and economic development came in at 42 votes. And then, um, weather permitting, this Friday we will be at the Friday fireworks event. 01:24:47,250 S19: As I recap, the 2027 2026 levy impact was a 7.9% levy increase over 2025. It equated to just about $2.5 million. The annual impact on a median home at the time was $136 annually, or $2.62 per week. The total levies. The levies for 2017 to 2026 are included here, with the lowest one being in 2021 at 0% and the highest at 12.5%, noting that the average between this period of time is 5.7%, and also noting that with 2021, it was during Covid. I'm glad I'm not the first one to bring up Covid tonight, but ultimately, uh, it deferred some of the expenses to future years. 01:25:41,970 S19: So when it comes to the rest of the county and the cities within our county, Maplewood is not an outlier city. As you take a look at this and keep in consideration, Maplewood is the second largest city population. Um, not all cities in Ramsey County have their own police and fire or EMS departments. And, um, when you take a look at 2025 and the 12.5% levy increase, which has to do with the significant, um, investment in public safety overall, Maplewood sitting at 40.9% over a five year period is actually pretty good. There's 19 cities here listed. So at 40.9, I think we're doing well. We set the median percentage about among all those cities. And then the average is 42.8. So we are sitting below the average. 01:26:36,500 S19: This chart just goes through the same information just a little bit more visually appealing, showing us right in the middle there at 40.9%. 01:26:50,580 S19: This chart shows us that Maplewood was at or under the county average every year except for 2025. 01:27:00,020 S19: And then moving on to considerations, as you recall, in 2025, we had a building tour to take a look at all several of our facilities. Um, wanted to take note of a few items for the building considerations. Looking at our roofs and exterior building exteriors. Some of them are at the end of their useful life, and so we have to make investments into our buildings. We have aging Hvac systems, um, need to do additional Ada and accessibility improvements and then structural and safety improvements for the Maplewood Community Center. Um, as you all are well aware, it needs over $20 million worth of improvements. The roof alone for the flat part and the barrel part of the roof is about just over four or over $4.5 million. The mechanical system is over $600,000. The interior interior renovations, um, for just the pool equipment alone is over $1 million. And then for resurfacing and drainage improvements on the exterior of the building. And the property is over $500,000. 01:28:15,950 S19: So for capital considerations, first we want to assess the condition of our buildings, which we have been working on. Prioritize the risks of those improvements that are needed. Figure out a funding source, whether it's debt reserves or levy schedule and execute the improvements and then reassess the buildings on an annual basis so we don't fall behind by proactively planning for improvements. It gives us the opportunity to minimize risks and then prepare for any potential emergencies that might come up. 01:28:50,950 S19: For facility assessments, we have had a third party do those assessments on our properties. The community center has been completed, and then the public works Park Maintenance and nature center is in progress, and we'll be hearing about that soon. 01:29:08,550 S19: So the first consideration, um, and building off of it with the buildings, Council could consider an additional $150,000 levy. It doesn't go very far, but over a period of time it does add up. And any investment is better than nothing. So that $150,000 would be about an increase of about 0.44% in the levy. And then ultimately, over a five year period, you're looking at $750,000, which can actually do a pretty decent project. By preparing ahead of time, it reduces our potential need for bonding in the future and which is good. Council has made it a priority to keep the debt as low as possible. And any time we have to take out additional funds and issue more debt, it just increases that cost. 01:29:58,390 S19: Consideration for the Safer grant. As a reminder, the city's matching portion is 25% for 2026 and 2027. It then jumps up to 65% in 2028 and then 2029. We are responsible for the all the wages and benefits for the employees. That leaves us with 75%. That is paid for by the grant for the first two years, and then 35% for the third year. How that kind of plays out when you take a look at the six firefighters that we were able to hire with the safer grant. It's just over $1 million for those six firefighters. The grant share is 756,000 for 2026. And then the city's portion is 252,000. We did put in a 3% inflator. So when we take a look at 2027, the city's portion only raises or increases by $7,560, which is pretty modest. But then when we take a look at 2026, when we or excuse me, 2028 budget, when we're jumping from the 25% that we're responsible for to the 65%, It's an increase of $435,000. And then again, we'll have another big increase going to 2029. And that will be about $406,000. 01:31:22,840 S19: So one of the strategies would be to do a step up approach or a gradual increase in the levy that can help us with building capital, but will also make it. So we're not doing two years of back to back $400,000 increases for these employees. 01:31:44,000 S19: Taking a look at this chart, the orange bars are the city's requirement. The blue is the suggested gradual approach to it. So you can see the first year we're doing exactly what we need to do. 01:32:05,160 Looking at 2027, adding about $260,000 S19: to the levy that could potentially go to building capital. And then in 2028, we are responsible for $700,000 looking at doing $800,000, which would be another $107,000 that would go towards building capital. 01:32:25,250 S19: But here's another way to take a look at it. Just trying to find multiple different ways, hopefully to help illustrate this. Um, when it comes to 2027, our minimum requirement is the 259,000. The budget could potentially be $520,000, which would put $260,000 towards additional capital for buildings. That would just be a small increase going from 25 to 50%. And then when we go to 2028, we'd be going up to 75%. The city's portion minimum requirement is 695,000 budget for 108. Excuse me, 802,000, which is the $107,000 that would go towards building capital. And then finally, in 2029, you'll see that it's 1.1 million for the required and 1.19 1.1 million for the city's budget. Ultimately, in the second to last column, you just see that taking this approach, it's a gradual approach, increasing the levy each year, but then it also contributes $366,000 to building capital. 01:33:38,810 S19: So consideration for the ambulance revenue restructure as discussed. Um, a few years back we started using some LGA funds. Um, which is local government aid in order to offset the needs of the ambulance fund. Um, ultimately we don't want to use potential one time revenues and aid for operations because that aid can go away and then we have a problem to solve. So part of our proposal tonight will be covering the majority of this in the proposed levy increase. And then there's a small portion that we'd have to still address at a future time. But I'll discuss that in a moment. Um, currently our structure for the ambulance operation is funded by service revenue. LGA and the levy we treat that LGA funds as operational revenue, which we don't want to do. And again, the concern is that the LGA can be reduced or eliminated at a future time, and then we'd have to make up for that. So the proposed would be to have ambulance operations funded strictly by service revenue as well as the levy. And then that would help us reallocate that revenue to one time capital needs in the future. 01:35:00,700 S19: So our levy options. So tonight we are bringing forward a proposal for an 8.48% levy increase. The total levy would be $37,262,726. 01:35:16,700 S19: How that breaks out here is our base would be 7. 01:35:22,380 53%, S19: mostly covering just regular operational costs. And I'll break that out here shortly. And then um, a 0.95% levy increase for the ambulance revenue restructure. Again this covers most of it but not the full portion of it. So there'd be about 50 $55,000 left of that. 01:35:44,340 S19: So the drivers of the levy impact or levy increase, the majority of it at $2.1 million, is going towards salaries, wages and benefits. The second highest portion is for professional services. And that a significant portion of that is going to public work. Excuse me please. Subscriptions, as well as the contracts that we have. Third highest is the debt levy increase at 600 and $363,000. And that has to do with the $6.1 million of bond issuance that we issued this year. And then the fourth biggest is the ambulance revenue restructure at $324,000. 01:36:29,860 S19: So as you can see, the 8.48% levy increase is just over $2.9 million of increases. And the majority of that, the 2.1 goes to salaries and benefits. 01:36:45,100 S19: So it's always very important to take a look at how this impacts our residents. The 8.48% levy increase will impact the median home by about $115 annually, which is $9.58 monthly, or $2.21 per week. I wanted to note that the market value for a median home in Maplewood went from 353,000 to 357,000, which is a 1.3% increase. 01:37:17,910 S19: So some of those considerations I previously previously mentioned just summarized here before we get into some scenarios for the building capital replacement, if we wanted to add $150,000 to the levy, it would be a 0.44% levy increase to do the step up approach for the Safer grant, it'd be about $259,000 or a 0.76% levy increase. And then to completely remove, um, restructure the ambulance revenue and remove the LGA from operations would be about an additional $50,000 or 0.13% levy increase. 01:37:56,670 S19: So here are all the scenarios similar to what you've seen before, slightly changed. And we also added a column at the end so you can see what the annual impact would be. So the 8.48% is what our suggested levy is, which is the base plus ambulance revenue restructure for most. You can see on the second line it's scenario B, it's $115. If we stuck to the base levy, it'd be $97 annually. And if we included all options into it, did a full option. That very last bar for scenario H, which shows us that it would be $141 annually. 01:38:38,150 S1: Mr. 01:38:41,950 Sable? S8: Um, Councilmember. 01:38:44,590 S17: Councilmember question. Joe. Um, on the on the scenarios. A through G where is the one that is the suggested levy plus the ambulance. Just the ambulance. 01:38:58,080 S19: Thank you. Mayor and Council. That is be so. It's just. That's what our suggested levy is. Um, so it's the 8.48% at the $115 annually. 01:39:08,600 S17: Okay. That's taking the the. 01:39:11,600 S19: The majority of the ambulance revenue restructure. 01:39:13,920 S17: Yes. Thank you. 01:39:15,720 S1: Mr. Sabol. 01:39:16,720 S8: Uh, thank you, mayor and council members, I think this chart is is accurately describes the challenges of this budget. There are more demands than there are resources to to do that. And so to council member caves question um, what we are proposing a scenario B, which is the base levy plus 95% of the ambulance revenue restructure. If you wanted to do 100% of the ambulance revenue restructure, that would be option C, so about $3 a year difference. Um, so what we are proposing, just based on the conversations that we've had and what makes for the appropriate balance we're proposing. B but identifying that if you had a 100% solution, it would be H. And so that is the full range of choices that are available to you. And we are comfortable and confident that the 8.48 is what is we would recommend at this point, but we did want to give you the full array of concerns that we're going to have to address eventually. 01:40:19,120 S1: Thank you. 01:40:20,520 S19: Thank you, Mayor and Council. Um, and to City Manager Sable's point, um, you could set this levy anywhere you want. So we're suggesting 8.48. You could set it at the 9.81 and have us come back over the next few months and adjust that. However you want, pick any option you want and we will make it work. 01:40:40,920 S1: Councilmember Villavicencio has a question. 01:40:43,600 S15: Does the option B include the building capital fund though? 01:40:50,010 S19: Thank you. Mary. No, it does not. So it is just taking the majority of the ambulance revenue restructure. So it does not factor in any additional funding for the Safer grant. And it doesn't factor in any additional funding for buildings. 01:41:07,170 S15: Thank you. 01:41:08,130 S19: And eight for eight is just one of those conversations that City Manager Sable and I had. Um, last year, that's where we started at 8.48. So it's not some magical number. It's just that's where we started last year. So I figured we'd give it a shot there. 01:41:26,650 S19: It's always important to take other factors into consideration. So Ramsey County has provided some information on their proposed levy increase for 2027. They're proposing a 8.25% levy increase. 2026 was 8.25 as well. 01:41:45,810 S19: Taking a look at the average over the last five and ten years of all the counties in the metro area. Um Ramsey County was the second lowest for both five year average and ten year average. So by no means are they, um, exceptionally high when it comes to the five year average. They're at 5.2%. Um and that was the second lowest out of all the counties. 01:42:16,570 S19: One thing that impacts our residents is the fiscal disparity tax contribution. So this has to do with the amount that the city is contributing towards fiscal disparity. So each year there are calculations on this um for 2027 Ramsey County. Overall, the contribution to fiscal disparities has decreased by $1.6 million. On the flip side of things, because of that, partly because of that, almost every city in Ramsey County is receiving a bigger distribution. So these distributions directly impact how much actually goes back to the, um, the properties in Maplewood. So you'll see here that Maplewood received an extra $134,000 worth of physical disparities, which ultimately decreased the impact on individual residents. 01:43:14,500 S19: Ramsey County provided this. It's always interesting to see what the shift is and how each sector is impacted in the last few years, if you recall, we've seen that residential properties have made up a bigger portion, and so it's been a shift one way this year, industrial properties, there's a shift from 9.53 to 9.87. So they're seeing a bigger portion of the taxes commercial properties going from 16.8 to 16.93. Apartments 11.57 to 11.78. And as I mentioned, residential is decreasing from 59.76 to 59.11. So ultimately this is just showing that although it's not much, the shift is going backwards a little bit. And the past few years we've seen the bigger increases in residential. Now we're seeing a little bit more of that shift to commercial and apartments. 01:44:14,940 S19: Overall, the tax values in the city have increased yet again. For 2026, they increased by about 2.25%. 01:44:29,620 S19: Capital improvement plan for 2027 to 2031. The majority of the investments that we're making for the capital improvement plan are in streets and equipment. For those that five year period, it's an investment of $61.2 million, 18.1% of that is going towards equipment, and 72.7% is going towards streets. Taking a look specifically at 2027, 25.6% is going to equipment, and then 63.4% is going to streets. So it's quite a heavy investment in both equipment and streets. 01:45:13,430 S19: The largest items for this year, for 2027, is a fire engine replacement for $1,550,000. 01:45:22,790 S19: The Hazelwood Park improvements at $500,000. The 2027 Street improvement projects at 8.35 million, and then a single axle truck at $365,000. 01:45:37,630 S19: When it comes to that $14 million, how it's broken out for funding sources. 74. 70.4% is paid for by the enterprise funds or capital funds that we have. We will issue debt for about 8.8%. And that's mainly just the street project that we have coming up. And when we're factoring that towards our debt levy, as I mentioned, that was one of the biggest increases for 2027. We issued $6.1 million. We're looking at issuing $1.2 million in 2027. So it's quite a bit less, which is great. And then for the levy, 20.8% would be paid for covered by the levy. One thing that's not included completely is the fire engine at $1.55 million. That is part of the 2.9 million on here under the levy. However, it's one of those things that we have to take a look at. What that approach is, is if we're going to levy it all in one year, it's very significant impacts. So we can look at doing a step up levy increase as we might order it in 2027. We probably won't get it in 2027. 01:46:49,840 S19: So uncertainties that come up the federal state government are potentially big impacts on the city. Um, and with the upcoming election of that, you just never know what's going to come through. And then local government and aid. We currently receive over $2 million of that that could also be impacted future. Um, or factors that are impacting expenditures would be inflationary factors, insurance premiums. This year, we're seeing over a 10% increase in insurance premiums and then severe weather and emergency response. And that's where building up that building fund gives us some reserves as well. So if we need to make some improvements, we can. 01:47:35,480 S19: Our budget calendar. I've gone through this many, many times with you. But just as a reminder, the. At the on April 25th, we did a budget engagement at the spring clean up event July 8th. We had the budget engagement that celebrate summer September 14th. Um, tonight Council is being asked to set the preliminary levy. And then September 18th we plan to have the budget engagement at the Friday fireworks. And then on December 14th, the city will hold a public hearing to get input from the residents and then set the preliminary, excuse me, the final levy and adopt the budget for 2027. 01:48:19,040 S19: Some additional information that we'd like to provide to our residents um, is based on tax refund resources. So there's a property tax refund program. So we have the information listed here. And we can put this on our website under the finance budget page as well. And then the homestead credit for homeowners? It's important for our residents to take a look at their statements, to make sure that they are getting the homestead credit, if it's applicable, and if it's not, they can call the county and discuss it with them and make sure that that's all properly taken care of. 01:48:54,730 S19: And then additional resources, there's veteran assistance. And then there's are some videos that are provided by both the Ramsey County and the state Department of Revenue that residents can go take a look at to better understand how it works. The property tax system works at both the state and the county level. 01:49:15,930 S19: So a summary and our next steps. So as a reminder, the 2027 2026 levy increase was 7.9%. The 2027 preliminary levy is suggested to be at 8.48%. However, there are multiple scenarios that we could take a look at. Key considerations for 2027 were the Building Capital Fund Safer grant, and then the ambulance revenue restructure. Major drivers of the increases for 2027 are wages, benefits, fees for services as well as the debt levy. The CIP for 2027 to 2031 is $61.2 million. And with that, Mr.. AM I good on time? With that, I'll open it up for any questions that you may have. 01:50:05,890 S1: Council members, any questions for Mr. Roob? This is kind of the culmination of many months of discussion and, uh, resident input. And, uh, tonight's the night, the preliminary levy. 01:50:34,410 Any questions? S1: We're all going back to our options page. Just a minute. 01:50:39,050 S19: At least you're awake. I'll take that. 01:50:41,010 S1: What page is it? Option 26. Okay. Thank you. 26. 01:50:50,170 S1: Yes. 01:50:53,250 S1: Mr. Sable, did you have something? 01:50:54,970 S8: Thank you. Mayor and council members. I just wanted to say, just as a reminder to the audience at home. So this is the opportunity for the City Council to set the preliminary levy. This is the maximum number that you can set. And if you recall from last year, you set a maximum levy at 8.48. And then over the subsequent months, um, found, um, savings within the budget and going through. And so one of the things I often say is that we just get smarter as the year goes on, we get more refined numbers, we learn more things, we are able to refine that. And so, um, this is for the audience at home. This is the maximum number that you can set, but we will consistently and continually work between now and December to make that number lower, if at all possible. So, um, this is but this is the number that residents will see on their truth and taxation statements later this year. 01:51:51,820 S1: Council members, uh, it seems to me, you know, we have this is the way I'd like to maybe characterize the choice. Uh, we have the staff recommended, uh, the suggested levy only at 8.48%. 01:52:09,420 S1: Uh, in looking at the annual impact, uh, we're looking at $115 for the average home. If we were at this point to say, okay, at some point we're going to have to deal with the ambulance Restructuring the building capital fund, the Safer grant. These are all things that are coming at us, and we're going to have to grapple with them. These are the hard questions that we have to have to be prepared to address. If we were to go with section or option eight H, excuse me, which would be $141, that's a difference of $26 per year. And I know I've been talking about this, that, you know, we have to take a look at, you know, the impact on our residents. Uh, we still have to provide city services and trying to do that in, uh, the most effective, efficient way we can do it while providing because, you know, our city residents and businesses expect excellent service. And so nothing comes cheap these days. Uh, one way to look at it is to go with the staff suggestion or to go for the full suggested levy, at which is H of 141, and ask staff to take their pencils out and look at some other options. Uh, somewhere down the line we're going to have to deal with the ambulance revenue restructure. We're going to have to deal with the building capital fund. We're going to have to deal with the safer grant. These are things that are not going to go away. And so in looking at it, uh, recognizing that the difference is about $26 a year for that average home. My inclination is to look at the full suggested levy and then ask staff, go back with your pencils. What else can we where else can we find some savings? Because you know, we cannot kick these things down the road. We have to be resourceful and creative. Um, that's kind of where I'm leaning right now. I mean, what what is everyone else thinking? Um. Let's start. 01:54:42,910 Councilmember Villavicencio, what are your thoughts? S15: Um, well, I appreciate your comments, mayor. And, um, these are all things that we need to do, right? Like you're saying, um, originally I was thinking, you know, um, number D or number D letter D, uh, the, the building capital fund because I know that's very important. Um, but I think, um, I think I would um, go along with what your suggestion is, is h Councilmember Lee. 01:55:13,030 S12: Thank you mayor. Uh, h is also a good option to and I agree with that. I think we've kicked the building funds down the road long enough, and we have to start thinking about what does that. The longer we kick it down the road, the more is going to cost us in the long run. So I think starting with H and having staff go back to the table to really draw out and coming back to us. On what makes sense in a few weeks, sir. I think that would be a good option. My biggest concern is our safer grant that's going to hit us really soon. Three years is not a long time away, and I think in a couple of years here, when we tell our constituents that it's going to cost them $1 million, that's going to be a pretty penny. And I don't want our constituents to be surprised with that. So I think that's a good option to go with this age. 01:55:48,800 S11: Councilor Junemann what they said, oh, I agree that these are the hard decisions. There's no way out of it. But there is nothing here that we can, if I read this correctly, sensibly kicked down the road because they'll just land on us more heavily if we let them go. So it isn't. You're not saving anything if you go, if you go that route. So I guess I would say H for now and ask staff to really hit it hard. 01:56:25,200 S1: Councilmember Cave. 01:56:27,080 S17: I would agree that the enterprise fund was a large one for me. I knew this was coming to a head and we had to do something this year. So I am really happy that in in letter B, scenario B that you handled 95% of that. That was my initial before this meeting. I really like how you put everything out in graphs. And so we can see that and it is crazy the dollar amount change because um, like Shawn Berry said, we, we have a building fund that just, we're accumulating. We know it's going to happen any day and even waiting five years to get 500,000, that stuff's going to happen in that time. So by taking a proactive approach on the building capital fund, I really I really appreciate you put that in there because you talked about it. It is something we have to really take seriously. And the safer grant is another one. If we wait till the last minute, we're going to get caught with 100%. I mean, we can say forget it, don't do anything for two years and then deal with it then. But if we start dealing with things now, it's not as big of a deal in two years plus. Um, so I would go with H and like everyone said here at the counter, I believe in staff can, can lower that. Um, I don't believe we're going to be at 9.81. Um, it's another challenge we're giving staff, but if that's our starting point, that's the highest we can go. Let's see what we can do to get down. And you know, for our budget. 01:57:59,010 S1: Would someone like to make that motion. 01:58:01,970 S17: I motion to adopt the resolution setting a preliminary tax levy for taxes payable in 2027 of 37,262,007. 01:58:13,290 S1: A different number. 01:58:14,890 S20: Let me pull it up. Yeah. 01:58:16,570 S1: For H it's going to be a different number. 01:58:18,410 S8: Yeah. Uh, thank you. Mayor. Council members. Um, Mr. Roob is going to grab his computer and get the precise number. 01:58:29,210 S1: Or could we establish it at 9.81%. 01:58:33,370 S17: Instead of the dollar amount. 01:58:34,730 S1: Of the number? Mr. Beatty, could we do that, or would you prefer we find that Mr. 01:58:43,930 Roob do the math and come up with the number? S20: Um. 01:58:45,850 S19: I should have it here. 01:58:53,890 S17: Done. 01:58:58,090 S20: No pressure. 01:59:01,130 S1: A lot of pressure doing that math. 01:59:12,970 S17: If I can just comment. I just want to. say it's nice that this is such a hard thing, and we've gone a long process, but that everybody sees the same thing. You know that we have to do. 01:59:27,620 S17: I was trying to buy you time, Jo. 01:59:28,940 S19: Sorry, I didn't actually have the scenario 100% in there, so. 01:59:34,380 S20: Okay. 01:59:34,820 S18: $20 million community center. That's really what was eye opening is we can do this. It's going to be not $20 million. Mhm. 01:59:43,220 S1: Mr. Beatty. So could we just do the 9. 01:59:49,980 81 rather than be breathing down my neck? S16: Uh, Madam Mayor, I, I think you should get a specific number. 01:59:53,740 S1: Okay. We will wait for Mr. Rube. 01:59:57,820 S19: All right. Who would like the number? 02:00:00,620 S17: Yes, you can read it to me. 02:00:02,820 S20: Just read it out loud. 02:00:04,380 S17: Okay. 02:00:05,460 S20: Um. 02:00:07,340 S19: $37,719,577. 02:00:12,780 S1: 500 and. 02:00:13,420 S11: 577. 02:00:16,060 S17: 37719577. 02:00:19,220 S17: Okay. 02:00:22,420 S17: I'm going to start the motion over then. 02:00:23,740 S20: Okay. Go ahead. 02:00:25,700 S17: A motion to adopt the resolution setting a preliminary tax levy for taxes payable in 2027 of $37 million, $719,577. 02:00:40,580 30 S17: 7 million. Did I say that? Okay. Um, and setting the 2027 budget Hearing for December 14th, 2026 at 7 p.m.. 02:00:52,180 S15: Second. 02:00:53,180 S1: Moved by Villavicencio. Uh, the motion, uh, that is written in our packet, with the exception of the amount being $37,719,577. 02:01:08,340 S1: Uh, is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes. Next we have the preliminary EDA levy. Mr. Sabol. 02:01:25,710 S8: Uh, well, uh, we buy some time for Mr. Mayor and council members, I, I. Number one, I want to say thank you for trusting staff to put forward the budget that we put forward and the thoughtfulness of the conversation. And I heard loud and clear the pencil sharpening requirement. And so we will we will honor that. And we will we actually have built that structure into the budget process. So you will be a part of that each step of the way. And I think I created enough time for Mr. Roob. 02:01:56,150 S1: Good segue. 02:01:59,470 S19: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and Council. I'll make this one quick, quick since you've already heard it tonight. It's the exact same slides as you saw before, but I also need to from a council side approve it. So the 2027 EDA budget suggested 2027 levy is 636,000, so no change from 2026. 02:02:20,470 S19: Again, this is a summary of the overall budget, including actuals from 2025, estimates for 2026 and then the budget for 2027. 02:02:33,510 S19: The scenario one basically, with no change at the 636,000, reiterating the $5.2 million worth of funds that we'd have available in 2034 if we removed the $636,000, that would bring us to $5. 02:03:04,150 1 million in 2036, bumping us back two years from our goal, and then adding in an additional $343,500 S19: to the levy for 2027 and going forward would help us meet our goal of over $5 million by 2030. So four years sooner than where we're currently planned to be. 02:03:18,040 S19: For the comparison purposes. Again, the takeaways no levy change. There will be no impact to residents. Um, however, by 2036, we'll have $7.75 million in the EDA fund balance. If we remove the levy in 2027, we'd have $5.11 million by 2036, and it would save $0.70 per week for median home value. Maplewood. And then if we added the $343,000, we'd be at $9.18 million by 2036. And that would cost the residents an additional $0.35 per week. 02:03:56,080 S19: With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. 02:03:59,720 S1: Any questions for Mr. 02:04:04,040 Roob? S1: Then would someone like to make the motion? 02:04:09,880 S12: Motion to adopt the resolution. Setting a preliminary tax levy for tax. Taxes payable in 2027 of $636,000. And setting the 2027 Budget hearing for December 14th, 2026 at 7 p.m.. 02:04:22,520 S11: Second. 02:04:23,400 S1: Is there a second? 02:04:24,480 S11: Second. 02:04:25,720 S1: Moved by Lee. Seconded by Junemann. The motion is written in our packet. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. 02:04:36,760 S20: Aye. 02:04:37,480 S1: Any opposed? That motion carries. A lot of work tonight, Council members. Good decisions. I want to thank everyone. And hopefully if the weather holds out, we will see all of you at the fireworks on Friday night. If not, thank you, staff for coming up with an alternate. Uh. The rain that has been holding off for weeks has decided to happen this week. Uh, but we will make the best of it. So thank you, everyone, and good night. We're adjourned.