Please note those in attendance. >> All will be noted. Uh >> please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge algiance 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. >> Right. I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the regular city council meeting from November 25th. >> Second. >> Second. >> Motion to second. All those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Minutes are approved. Item three, adoption of the agenda. We have a few amendments. First one, we are going to move two items from the consent agenda. So items 4 H and 4 I will now become 8 C and 8 D respectively. and we are going to remove item 5A, the citizen police award. Sounds like one of the recipients um had some troubles with the weather. So, we're going to reschedule that and we look forward to giving him that recognition very soon. And with with that, are there any other corrections or amendments to the agenda? >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> Motion a second. All those in favor say I. I. >> Any oppose? Motion carries. Uh the agenda is approved. Item four, consent agenda. I'd entertain a motion to adopt the consent agenda as amended. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Motion to second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Consent agenda is approved. All right. Item 6A, the 2026 final budget, tax levy and truth and taxation hearing. Miss Crawford, whenever you're ready. >> Thank you, uh, mayor and members of the council. Um, tonight we uh I'm going to present the 2026 general fund and other operating budgets as well as the 2026 uh tax levy and 2025 revised uh general fund budget. After the presentation, the city council will hold the truth and taxation hearing. And finally, the city council will um adopt the budgets and the tax levy. I will just note we're having some technical difficulties, so the presentation's a little bit smaller on the screen, but at least we have it up there. Um so the purpose of a truth and taxation hearing or TNT uh is to provide a summary of the next year's general fund again or our operating budget, explain property tax implica implications of the budget and allow for citizen comment. Uh staff spends the entire year um monitoring the present year's budget and preparing and drafting the next year's budget. So, just that here's a timeline of our annual budget process and dates that are in bold um are where the city council is included. And throughout the year, the public is invited to engage with the city, its elected officials and staff through many different ways. And here's just a few of those ways. Um I know we've taken probably three uh phone calls um before tonight's uh presentation regarding next year's budget. So uh which is a little bit less than than last year. Um an important step in uh in financial management or long range planning is uh ensuring that both our um our capital improvement plan and our financial management plan and our operating budgets um align with core strategies uh of the city council and city leadership team have identified in our current strategic plan which was done in 2024. The city council and staff will update the strategic plan uh next spring, first quarter. And so the core strategies in our strategic plan are a safe and welcoming community, maintain small town feel, engaged community, responsive leadership, a complete community, support redevelopment to revitalize local economy and business districts, excellent services and values, and dedicated and supported city staff. There are several of several of the strategic plans goals and objectives relate to long-range pl uh planning and capital improvements. And I'm not going to go through the the other uh piece of the slide. Um but just to show you that several of our goals and objectives uh do align with uh or do call out for strategic or excuse me financial planning. And so staff has prepared a budget that does align with the strategic plans and needs of the community. Uh like every year, staff followed specific budget commitments when creating this year's budget and they include a um support a public safety model that is oriented to being proactive and preventative and prepared while meeting the staffing um while meeting the staffing support and facility needs. Maintaining a 10-year capital improvement plan to ensure funding is available for future projects and capital replacements. Maintaining a 10-year financial management plan. maintaining a fund balance of not less than 35% of the following year's budgeted operating expenditures and gradually eliminating reliance on local government aid to support uh general fund operations. Uh notable revenue changes in the 2026 general fund or our operating budget include uh franchise fee revenues um decreasing from Excel Energy as well as Ramsey Washington Cable Commission or SEC as we refer to it. Um and those are based on customer usage. That's uh nothing within the city's control. Um but those revenues are decreasing. non-b businessiness licensing and permit revenues trending downward with the completion of school district um projects and no new significant development projects that are planned. Uh local government aid funds have been retained in the general fund at the same level as in 2025 to help reduce the tax levy. I realize in the slide prior I had said, you know, we're trying to wean off of that. We did retain those um in this budget to to help offset a tax levy. the Minnesota DNR share uh should say shade tree grant. My apologies for that. Uh funding reallocation to match planned expenditures and 25 and 26 ambulance revenues have increased um which is a good thing based on 2024 actual and 2025 year-to-ate receipts. And then interest revenues uh based on the current year's receipts have slightly increased. When we look at our 2026 uh notable expenditure changes, salary adjustments per the city's compensation plan and labor contracts um which includes um benefit factors and a 3% cost of living adjustment. Um forestry management uh as outlined in the the DNR shade tree grant on the previous slide. Highway 61 median maintenance and required safety measures. uh that is to meet compliance with um Mandot standards. Required Minnesota family uh leave program expenditures added have been added with a 50/50 uh cost share between the city and its employees website hosting and federal ADA compliance add-ons and additional personnel that we will talk about uh in a further slide. So when we get to uh the discussion of a property tax um levy, the property tax levy supports operations in the city's general fund. Revenues and expenditures within the budget impact the general funds fund balance and it is it is essential that cities maintain adequate levels in their fund balance to mitigate risks of revenue shortfalls or unanticipated expenditures and future financial stability. So the city of Wiper Lake analyzes its fund balance uh through a few calculations. One is the state auditor uh recommends that city keep cities keep a minimum of five months of operating costs on hand uh and accessible to cover unanticipated costs. And so again that's 30 that's that bullet point of 35 to 50% of expenditures um for the following year. Our projected balance for the end of next year is 43.23%. So that's within that range. That's also within the city council's um policy of of that 35 to 50%. And then um secondly, the fund balance availability to pay claims in the first half of any given year. Um the city uh the city's 2026 budget um does meet that at 64.42%. Uh the city council adopted a preliminary levy at their September 9, 2025 city council meeting. Um just for those listening, once a preliminary preliminary levy is set, it may be reduced before final adoption, but it may not be increased. So therefore, the city council did set a ceiling and asked staff to uh sharpen our pencils and find any potential reductions before the final tax levy is adopted. Um this graph shows that that staff has worked hard over the past few months to do just that. Um so we started out our preliminary levy talking about it in percentages was 9.97 and tonight uh the final budget projects 8.92% um prelim preliminary or excuse me final levy um which is higher 8.92% higher than the 2025 final levy. um that proposed levy increase uh reflects a uh an increase of um 1,230,000 and it's attributed to everything that's on that slide. So, uh looking at it from a percentage standpoint, uh 6.33% of that is for general operations, including um existing personnel and benefit expenses. Um we are the city uh all cities are are very serviceheavy and therefore they're very employeeheavy and so that's always going to be the bulk of of any any budget. Uh 1.75% for debt service for the most recent street reconstruction project and equipment certificate for a fire truck replacement 0.27% 27% for the public safety facility debt service and 0.57% for one IT technician position. and the salary and benefits of that. Um, in addition, there are is an addition of two firefighter positions, full-time firefighter positions that u are also included, but they do not have an impact on the uh tax levy for next year or the addition of the tax levy because we have re reallocated um salary from part-time firefighter expenditures to um full-time. So to cover those costs, but just to be transparent uh to let you know that they are also in a budget in the budget. Um this uh I realize this is small and it's even smaller tonight, but this is an attachment in the city council's packet um reflecting a bunch of numbers. Uh the taxable market value in Wiper Lake grew by 3.31%. From the previous year, the net tax capacity grew by 3.79% and again a total preliminary levy uh is growing by 8.92%. Uh the bottom half of the sheet that is not on the screen, but it is in the city council's packet. Uh if there were no changes to a property's market value, and we'll get into this in a little bit, um but that tax levy would truly uh feel like 5.16%. So, uh, that's because, uh, it's 8.92% because our, as I just said, our taxable market value is growing. So, the city tax capacity rate, uh, will be at 31.97%. Uh here is this slide is a comparison of revenue collected per capita with some comparable cities that the city has traditionally looked at over the past several years. This includes the 2026 preliminary levies which of course are subject to change. Um many cities are are this month are required to hold the these final meetings. So these are preliminary numbers from September. Uh, White Lake has a greater population than some of these cities, yet a much smaller tax levy. So, this means that our total per capita revenue collection is at the bottom of the list at about $665. And it is worth noting that in 2025, 2024, and 2023, Wiper Lake was also at the bottom of this list. When we look at this in a little bit different way, uh the chart the chart on this screen shows five years of levy history for comparable cities including uh again including estimated preliminary uh levy increases for 2026. Uh so once again this shows that Wiper Lake remains right at the bottom with where we have historically been with our these comparable cities. And although we are catching up, our our our levy increase is still less than what New Brighton's was last year and the same as Shore Views in 2023. So when we look at um one tax dollar in White Bear Lake, you can think of this pie chart as $1. And so where does that $1 go? And so 22 cents of that $1 goes to the city of White Bear Lake. Uh 37 cents goes to uh White Bear Schools. 34 cents goes to Ramsey or Washington counties. And then seven cents of that $1 goes to other taxing in uh entities such as the Met Council or the Mosquito Control District. when we look at uh that the the blue section so the city's 22 cents if you will and drill down further and take the city's um budget. This is how the city's budget is broken out. We have um police and fire and other public safety uh areas spread out. Um, but if you were to combine them, over 60% of the city's general fund or its operating budget um is goes directly towards public safety services. So, police, fire, ambulance, um, and all of those very important things. Uh in 2025, the median home value for taxes payable in next year in Wiper Lake is $349,000. Uh which is set by the county auditor. Um the city, no city in the state of Minnesota um well, some may have the the um that person on staff. The city of Wiper Lake does not uh is not responsible for assigning property values um in in Wiper Lake, Ramsey County, or Washington County is responsible for that. But um in in 2026, um the median home value in Wiper Lake, as I said, is $349,000. So, next year, a median valued home would pay to the city directly um or the city would receive from that valued home one just over $1,000 for the entire year in city taxes. And so, for that price, that property owner receives exceptional quality of life um in White Bear Lake, if you ask me. Um 247 police response, 247 fire and EMS response, street maintenance, sweeping, lighting, snow plowing. Um, I guess a note they'll be out at like 3:00 a.m. tomorrow to plow roads, parks, access and recreation activities, election activities, access to city publications, access to city um, staff and its elected officials um, and everything else that that we work hard to provide an exceptional quality life in White Bear Lake. So, when we I said I would also present some of our other budgets. um our enterprise and special revenue budgets don't have an impact on our tax levy, but we're presenting um all of our budgets tonight. The city council will adopt all the budgets. So, in full transparency, we have many other funds that the city um uh the city operates, which include I'm not going to go through everything, but I I have them all listed here in the presentation. So water refu um surface water the city's marina which is managed uh separately from the city but is city marina equipment acquisition fund municipal building fund park improvement fund pavement management and uh economic development and there are uh a couple on here that I didn't include but um the council has talked about all of these funds which the other you know another one includes a sports center for example When we shift um back to this year to 2025, the council's also um being asked to adopt a revised 2025 general fund budget. And so shifting back again to talk about that for a minute. Our final 2024 budget reported a significant surplus uh due to higher than anticipated building permit uh fees and ambulance transport port charges, interest revenues, as well as several uh personnel um expenditure savings due to position vacancies. Those position vacancies were mainly in our public safety departments. And so that may appear successful. Um the reality is is that again those public safety departments um have been operating under staff understaffed which is not sustainable and hopefully we don't see that for the the end of 2025 and going forward. So, uh, the city council discussed earlier this year to, uh, what to do with that surplus and to help offset, um, the property tax levy. Uh, the city council um, uh, staff presented and council, you know, I think there was a consensus uh, officially will do it tonight, but, uh, retaining 750,000 of that surplus uh, to keep that in the general fund again to offset the property tax levy um, for next year. 100 and plus $150,000 of that surplus uh we do recommend transferring to the sport center fund to oper uh to support operations for 2026. Um you adopted a 2025 budget um with a planned surplus. The city council adopted that with a planned surplus of um almost $16,000. The 2025 revised budget anticipates a surplus of approximately $90,000. And again that's that is because of um well we 24 budget was because of vacancies. We have had some vacancies but we have also had some overtime because of those vacancies. So um that's a the summary of the the revised 2025 budget. Um there are several um property tax assistance kind of, you know, just speaking to to the community on this one, not necessarily to council. Um but we have this slide in here every single year. And we do have a handout that didn't make make it in time for the packet, but we do have handouts in the back um as well as in the lobby from Ramsey County and property tax resources. Um this is the final sign of the presentation. And I just I guess would conclude with you know no one staff doesn't get joy in bringing a levy increase to forward to city council. Um but so I would I guess I would just end there and and say that uh staff does recommend the council hold the truth and taxation hearing and subsequently adopt the three attached resolutions in the packet again for the 26 budget and revising the 25 budget. the 25 tax levy for taxes collectible next year and then uh resolution committing the fund balances for uh specific purposes. So, mayor, I will pause at that point and uh finance director and I stand for any questions that the council may have. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Crawford, for the detailed presentation. Um council, let's hold on questions for now. Uh I'm going to open up uh this for to conduct the truth and taxation hearing. I don't have anyone's name on my list at this time. But anyone that would like to step forward and be heard on this, please step up here, state your name and address for the record, and give us your thoughts. Uh, my name is Michael McCertie. Uh, I currently live at 1973 Campbell Circle. I previously lived at 3764 Howard Avenue. Um, so I'm standing before you here today, uh, because even though your budget looks good on paper, I had to cut my 401k in anticipation for this tax increase. My property tax is going up $700 this year. That might sound insignificant. I don't know what your guys' economic position is, but $700 in my family is significant. With that said, as well, I don't know. I don't understand where now we're trying to catch up to these neighboring cities um as far as tax revenue. And I also want to state that the increases over the last 5 years have been significantly over the CPI. Significantly. So I I mean inflation is not an argument. Right now, I'm paying twice as much toward taxes as I am gaining equity in my house. And finally, I'd like to also take this time um to request PECard uh statements, vendor bills, and any other expendatory records that you guys may harbor under your authority pursuant uh Minnesota statute 1333. And that is my notice. >> Thank you, sir. All right. Would anyone else like to be heard on this subject? If so, please step up to the podium. State your name and address. >> I've got more paperwork cuz I'm a old accountant that likes paper. So, Pat Cob 3378 Orchard Circle right across from the Y. Um, so my analysis similar to his on on maybe not as much what this year's increase is, but what historically the increases been the last few years. So my schedule starting with 23, 24, 25, 26. So three years of increases in total, my total taxes 5,624 and 2023 is now going to be $7,34. That's $1,400 increase 25%. Ramsey County is in line with that 27% over those three years. The school district is kind of surprised me. They're only up 15% in that three-year period. But the city of White Bear Lake, so in 23, my taxes were $1,045. This year, they're going to be a $1,555. So, that's $510 increase or 49%. In a three-year period, that's too steep. That's a lot in a three-year period. The the pie chart that you had in your presentation, 22% is the White Bear component of the total for this year, but in 23 it was 19%. So, White Bear is becoming a greater component of the overall tax bill because White Bear is going up at say roughly 50% over three years compared to 25% in total. So, it's a lot. Um, my my biggest question because I'll give every single one of you, especially Carrie and Lindy and your staff, you guys do a hell of a lot of work for the city. Your packet 394 pages long. I doubt everyone in this room read all 394 pages and analyze the charts. I tried to read some of it and 24 pages of the capital improvement plan for 10 years of capital wishes broken out by fund line by line. There's a lot in there and you've got to do it for planning, but some of the things that are being requested when it says in the 26 column, I don't know if all those things are in this budget for 26 or if they're still wish items from when the capital plan was done or not. But I agree with the comment about the the slide that showed where city of White Bear Lake rates per capita $666. My my chart was the different chart where it showed 609. I just don't know if that's an accurate fair calculation. When you have residential tax rates at one rate, commercial at a different rate, apartments fall into the commercial rate, how much commercial space does White Bear have compared to New Brighton compared to Oakdale compared to how many residential homes compared to how many apartments? I mean, is is that calculation really just the residential taxes collected compared to the number of residents? Because if it's convoluted with how much is residential versus commercial versus industrial, every city's different. I I don't know how you compare city to city in that chart and say, "Hey, we're one of the best." And maybe we are. Maybe the math really does work out that way. But when I glance at that, I'm a little skeptical of that. But I fear that that makes it look like, hey, we're really low. We've got room to spend, so let's get caught up. I don't know if that's happening. I know prior administration we didn't bond. We had different ways that we financed it. We're getting caught up. There's a lot of pieces that go into this and 394 pages of a packet prove how complicated this process is. So my biggest question is when I look at some of these on the capital improvement program I question, do we need 225,000 for monument signs on County Road E? Is that going to make County Road E better? Do we need 250,000 for new sprinkler system at Lakewood Hills Park that I don't know that Lakewood Hills ball fields get used the way they used to? So, I don't know how many of the things in this plan compared to, hey, this ambulance needs to be replaced in year 10. This fire truck's here, this dump truck's here, this loader's here. Those things are easier. You need to be on a cycle to replace them. Those make sense. They're easier to understand. But my biggest question is, what's next year look like? I don't anticipate you guys voting any differently than yes on this tonight. unless someone comes up with an amendment. But I want to know what next year looks like because that puts into perspective of what this year looks like when when I go back to my homework. 16% 18.5% 8%. What's 27 going to be and what's 28 going to be? Is it going to be 8% or is it going to be back to 16%. because we can't keep going at a 49% over a three-year period rate. So, if anyone wants to talk to that, I'm I'll listen. But, uh I I think those are my three biggest pieces and I'm curious as to if if this goes forward, where do the next years come after this? Thank you. >> Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak to this issue? >> All right. Seeing none, I will close the truth and taxation hearing and bring it back to the council. Council, I'm sure you have questions for Miss Crawford, but I'm going to I'm going to make a few comments in response to the two residents that that spoke. First, I want to say thank you for showing up. This is the heartburn that it's given me for four years is taxes are a big deal. It is, but there's 24,500 residents in White Bake and two people showed up at the truth and taxation hearing. So, it's really hard from our from our standpoint to to gauge what does the general public really think? What what's the pulse of the city? So, while I'm disappointed, I'd like to hear from a lot of residents, good, bad, or otherwise. Um, we at least heard from two. So, I do commend you on showing up and you pose some questions and a public hearing isn't a direct conversation. So, I'll just generally comment and respond to those. You I'm sorry. Sorry, I forgot your name. But, uh Pat, you you said, "What are the next years look like?" I'm going to I'm going to paint a picture for you of what my thinking has been as the guy who a month from now no longer will be in this chair and will have zero influence over the next um tax levy. When I came into this role four years ago, I was looking at a history of 10 years of not raising the tax levy $1. And you said other administrations was able were able to get by. It's it was my goal to correct that because the way that they got by was to defer maintenance. And that's great until you've got a whole lot of fire trucks and a whole lot of maintenance that suddenly becomes due. And they did that by being in the 20th percentile or the 10th percentile for paying our cops and firefighters. And what's the result of that? We lose cops, the good cops. We lost one and it was so disappointed that we lost. But he took a pay raise for $20,000 more. They're not making 500, 600, 700,000 a year. That's a huge percentage increase that we cannot and will not compete with. I have supported over the last three years a 20% increase. That's a lot. That's the average. A 20% increase, a 15% increase. And now finally, we're getting closer to reality, just under 9%. So to answer your question directly, what my hope is next year as a resident of Wiper Lake, I'm hoping we continue that trend and we've went through the painful years. So now we can sustain the the graphs with other cities very helpful because you need to benchmark it against something. The ones at the far end of that, I think they're nuts. I think they're spend happy crazies. I'm not trying to chase them, but we do have to benchmark it against something to give us a scorecard. How well is White Bear Lake stretching its dollars? And I'd put our ability and our staff's ability to stretch a dollar up against any city. We have a fully developed city. We have our own police department, water treatment, public works. Shor doesn't have a police department. I don't or fire department or police. I don't know why they're getting to that tax levy. Um that's crazy to me. we do and we control it and we have great great police, great public safety. If you look at our increases over the last several years, the overwhelming majority of it has gone towards pay increases for our staff. That gets us to what I said I wanted to get to, which was just in the murky middle. We're nowhere near the top. Nowhere near. We're just at a salary that passes the smell test so that I can keep a straight face and say that's that's a fair salary and you're not taking a huge haircut by policing the streets of White Beer Lake or plowing the streets of White Beer Lake or cutting the grass in the parks of White Bear Lake. Um, and sir, to your comment, I don't know the exact math of your address, but I'll take you at your word that it's a $700 increase. >> 16.5%. >> It's 16 and a half%. That's a lot of money. >> It's a lot. >> On an individual basis, I I don't have an answer for you other than to say on a multi-million dollar budget spread out throughout the community, yeah, there are some winners and losers and and that a lot is has to do with how the county assesses your your value. We could line up several people where there's barely even changed even though the average is 9%. Personally, mine went up a significant amount. In the years where it went up 20%, it didn't go up that much. That's the That's the mystery that city government has to deal with. When your taxes are assessed, the property values are assessed by the county and then we set a tax levy based on a percentage basis. Uh we don't control that. I wish we I wish we did. I wish we had some control over it. So, I don't want to minimize the impact that it has on you. I don't want to see you have to cut your 401k, but I'll say for the for the fourth year in a row, there isn't a marble fountain that we can cut. You pointed out some irrigation things. I trust staff that they're as frugal as they can be. What I care most about is 6 and a half of that, almost 9% is going towards cost of living increases for our city staff, our cops, our firefighters, our public works folks. Um, and I will always defend the budget as long as I feel like the bulk of it's going towards those essential city services. So, um, not trying to stick it to you. I wish wish I had a better answer for you. >> One question. >> You sure can. as far as like the uh sidewalk uh improvements within the city itself downtown. Have any of the business owners been negotiated with as far as contributing to that expense? >> If you're talking about the the downtown reconstruction project that's coming, >> Miss Crawford has an answer for you. >> Thank you, Mayor Lewis Mitt. That project has not started at this point. We've not had any discussions uh with uh any property owners in that area. So the the the I'll just go back to it so I don't misspe that uh 1.75% related to the 2025 street reconstruction is a neighborhood street project uh not downtown >> and then a fire truck. I'm going to make one final comment because I want to echo what I said before about deferred maintenance. That public safety building was a really expensive but long overdue project. I can't stomach it when our fire chief says these are the fire trucks that we need that are a lot bigger than they were in 1962, early 1960s, and we can't have them. we can't have the proper equipment to fight fires cuz the doors aren't high enough and we can't even retrofit them cuz the building is 75 years old. So that that has contributed over the last couple years. It's also one of those things that I don't want to do a project like that on that scale for another several several decades. I hope I've got you know teenage grandkids by the time we do that. But that happened over the last few years that was set in motion. So there have been some big significant things and I really do believe that city staff after I'm gone and next the next councils will take heart to those big increases over a three-year period and realize that you don't get to do that. You can't do that and you can't sustain it. Which is why this year this council set a very very high priority on making sure that the levy comes back down to reality. I'll be honest, I set a target of 5% because it's always it's almost always going to go up a little bit. Everyone usually gets some kind of cola cost of living increase. Our expenses go up. We didn't hit 5%. But I can tell you city staff and this council work really, really hard to sharpen our pencils. We've come down a full percent over what was originally proposed last fall. And that I think is a testament to the constant finetuning to try and suck every last little bit of value for every dollar that we collect. We do take it seriously. So those are my comments. I do support this budget. Um and I'll defer to council now for if they have questions for Miss Crawford, Miss Kinser, or what they'd like to do. Councel. Council member Edbert. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I've been here 16 years gives me some perspective. Happy to respond to some of your questions. You're all valid. So the base years that you use for your comparison is a really important conversation. From 2009 to 2019, our tax levy was 0% increase for 10 years. No inflation. We paid for it with other things, other resources. We didn't levy for it. I my personal opinion. So for 10 years, your your data started in 2023. Completely fair game. I think your numbers sounded about right for that three-year period. But in my opinion, you also need to go back and think about so what were city taxes over the period going back to 2009 and what have those increases been over a 15-year period. So that would be another useful data point in kind of understanding or levvening the the conversation. Zero dollars for 10 years. As a result, we had I won't repeat what the mayor said, deferred maintenance and constrained uh staffing increases. We were to the point where we were losing staff that we ought not to have lost because they can go make a whole lot more somewhere else. And so as employers, we have the obligation to be competitive, to be reasonable in attracting and retaining uh staff. I personally think that our staff is outstanding. I'm there might be a a newbie out there or something. Our staff is outstanding and they go out and do stuff that the rest of us are happy that they are out at 3:00 a.m. plowing our streets, servicing our water breaks, doing all of the things that um um that they do on our behalf. And so we have a great community that people want to live in, which may takes me to my second point. All of our comparisons on how much how many dollars we pay need to be put in the context of what's happening to the assessed value of the property that you're that you either own or whatever you're looking at comparing. For me, my uh personal property tax, my personal property assessment went up 40,000 bucks this year. Now, my home is less than the median value, so it's over 10% in uh in an increased uh assessment. It is what it is. And I on other occasions in life, I've had an opportunity to go talk to the assessor about, hey, here's what your numbers say. Can you show me? And they've always been able to say, here are your relative uh here are the relevant properties to compare it to. Here's what they are actually selling for in the marketplace. And therefore, from that, we impute what the value of your property is. The good news is that I'm 40,000 wealth. $40,000 uh wealthier today because of the assessment. I actually believe their assessed value. Um now, do I feel rich? No, because to access the wealth, I'd have to sell my property. Uh that's not exactly my goal in life at the moment. So, the way we assess and pay property taxes is based on the value of the property. and we didn't hear how much the value of your properties were going up, but that is in my case, the increased valuation is driving over 50% of the increased taxes that I'm supposed to pay. I'm okay with that. It's like it that's the way the system works because last year my taxes didn't go up that much. They were far more reasonable. I think the assessor didn't uh pay a whole lot of attention to my house last year. It's been a So, he was catching up and that's okay. That's kind of the way the system works now. Sir, your taxes went up 700 bucks. We're accountable for 200 thou about 200 bucks of that, right? And for a median house, I'll go back to the numbers that M. Crawford shared, $349,000 medium taxing uh median tax income. And on that, the property tax is a little over a,000 bucks called 1,100. That's about a hundred bucks a month. And for that we get police and protect uh police and fire and ambulance and a whole bunch of other stuff for a hundred bucks a month. Now you can talk about increased costs. That's one way. Let's talk about value and is life in this city worth 100 bucks a month for streets and all of the stuff? That's a that's a different conversation that we uh uh that we can have to secure that good well-being. Yes, we've made some uh significant new investments in the last few years and the biggest one is the uh big little building over next door and that costs us 156 million and we are having to bond for that and so we have a principal and interest payment that has started showing up in your bills. So in the last two, three years, yeah, I think your numbers actually sounded really uh really really close to me. But you have to also compare, am I getting the same basket of goods or have I am I getting a different basket of goods? And I would argue that the having a better, more welle equipped uh building for housing our police and fire department adds value. It reduces response time and if anybody has a heart attack, we want our paramedics to be able to get there in about five minutes because if we can't get them there, that's a bad thing. So that's what we're investing in on your behalf. Whether you feel that's a value or not, legitimate conversation, >> not yet. I'm not done yet. The um so the increases that we have been seeing in recent years reflect 10 years of 0% increase. By the way, not a single person ever has come up to me and said, "Thank you for the taxes that you didn't levy. Thank you for a 0% increase." Not a single person. So be it. That's that's human nature. We uh cvet when we have an issue and when it's in our favor, well, lucky me. the um Mr. Cobb I agree with you that the dollars per capita number the 661 per capita that's not a precise measure. I don't think we extend it as here is the only measure but it is a reasonable and calculable kind of way of saying okay compared to everybody else how are we doing and there are other ways and you are correct in that if we wanted to be more detailed we should look at so what is our relative mix of commercial and residential and all the other property categories we don't do that that number uh takes the uh total tax levy and just divides it by the number of people. So, it's it's it's a rough estimate. It's not intended to be an accurate one. And you're completely correct that if we wanted to be more detailed about that, we should take residential taxes versus uh number of residents, etc., etc. But if we but we'd also have to do that to every one of those other cities as well. And I'm pretty sure we would still come out down on the bottom. So that's kind of the that's just the dynamics of of how things uh things flow. The last time I I'll mention um the question was asked about the downtown reconstruction process and and so forth. Um this past year we improved the city owns four parking lots downtown. We paid for those out of other resources um because the city owns them. So the city is responsible for its upkeep. We're going to need to do something about that over the next 5 10 years because in 20 so that amount that we paid was about 1 and a.5 million not necessarily on your property tax levy. We have some other sources of revenues but we're going to have to figure out how do we avoid putting another 1.5 million out of our expenditures in 20 or 30 years when those lots all need to be resurfaced again. So that's some other conversation that we're going to have to have. the street reconstruction process. Build uh building owners, so not necessarily businesses, but the owners of those properties will be assessed for a good portion. We're still working through exactly how much is that portion going to need to be uh what level of goodies are going to go downtown. Um, Council Member Hughes at our last meeting, uh, two meetings ago, talked about, okay, are there things that we can set things we can hold space open for and do them later? Can we spread out the rate of expenditure to try and make this better? I think that's a wise idea. I'm certainly going to carry that on even though you won't be here to argue for that. I think that makes uh tremendous sense. How do we stretch out our payments and find some other ways of financing the the things that we want and need to do? With that, I will stop. But those all are examples of why you're seeing what you're seeing today. And you I only suggest look at it over a longer period of time and look at it from the city's value for what you get living in the city council. Any other comments? >> I'm to say another word, >> but yeah, you you're welcome to if you could just step step up to the podium here. >> Yes, sir. Uh, Kevin, may I ask how long you've been in your house? >> 20 um 93. >> So, you probably don't have a mortgage on it. >> I do not. I hate that. >> Okay. So, let me put it in perspective for you. I have a $418,000 mortgage. >> So, our finances are very different. >> Okay. So, when you're saying $100, you're happy to pay that. I get where you're coming from. But you've also benefited from that 10 years of no tax increase. >> True. >> So you you've already benefited from that. I have not. Right. I'm coming into this like now I'm paying for a lack of oversight from a previous administration or whatever you what what have you. But I suppose I I felt a little a sense of disrespect there um when you were trying to say that I didn't value our services because I do. I absolutely value even all of you guys for you know taking the positions that you have and being a public face like that in itself. I mean there's risk that comes with that and there is you know a lot of people to deal with a lot of people that get angry that get irate but I'm saying simply and I'm not saying that I rate and I'm not mad I am saying that in my financial position this tax levy is a drastic amount because I'm already riding a very fine on in my cash flows. I, you know, just like a business, a household is ran like a business. I have to watch my cash flows. They're starting to get tight. They're starting to get very tight. And with that, I'll I'll >> I appreciate it. Yeah. Council member Edber, >> I respect what you say. One of the challenges that this is probably the 35 35th time in my life when I've sat through a conversation like this in levying taxes. There are things that we get to control as policy makers and as your elected representatives. There are things we don't we don't get to make the decisions about how what individuals choose to value in terms of what kind of home they choose to live in, where they live in the home value that they find reasonable and necessary for their lives. That is entirely your decision. Our job is to try and say what is necessary for the community, what is necessary to protect provide public safety, what is necessary to make sure that we have water that runs and sewers that flow and all of that kind of stuff and do it at what we think is the least cost and that's what we're trying to do. And it's a tough match and it they don't always come together in an easy way. So I apologize. I'm I'm I'm not happy that that is your condition. We're doing I'm doing the best I can. I'm going to make assumptions that the rest of my colleagues are doing the best we can to try and make this as workable and livable as possible for as many folks as we can. >> Just one follow-up comment. I I appreciate that and we do have to end the conversation the back and forth because we got to move on to other business. But I'm going to pick on you and direct it towards you, but this is really for everyone when we're talking about value proposition because this is how I think about it. And when I think about how much I pay in taxes, I want to pull my hair out. But I think to myself, how much did I pay in federal income tax? Want to sit down and cry. And what was my value proposition? I appreciate the military, but there's a whole lot of stuff that I just don't know where it's going. And that's a way bigger percentage of the $100 a month. Then I look at what I paid in state income taxes, although less in the federal for what it's being spent on. I really, really want to cry. And that's a lot more than what you're paying at the city level. So, I don't begrudge you for coming here. We can take it. We can take the heat. It's easy to to get to the elected officials, uh, the local elected officials, and say, get your frustrations out. I'll take that all day long. But I will defend the value proposition for the actual dollars spent that are coming into the city of White Bear Lake for what we're providing than what the dollars that are going to the state of Minnesota and what you're getting or the US federal government and what you're getting. That's what helps me justify it. Otherwise, you just you'd go crazy. But if you look at the value proposition on a local level, it's better than any other level of government. Is it great? No. Is it perfect? No. But um we're providing essential services as frugally as we can. I don't want to lose cops. I don't want to see potholes all over the roads. Um I want to make sure that the water that comes out of the faucet is clean. I want to make sure that when you flush your toilet, it goes where it's supposed to go rather than into your house. Those are the kind of things that we're doing. Um we may not be perfect, but I think we're doing a pretty darn good job. So I again I defend the budget, but I thank you both again for for weighing in on this important discussion. Council, any other council member Walsh. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a couple questions. Um, you mentioned in the presentation ambulance revenue. I don't know if we need to get that that slide up as one of the earlier slides. Re ambulance revenue is up in 2024 and then up in 2025. We're almost at the end of 2025. So, what does that mean? How do you account for that in 2026? Did we just project a higher ambulance number? What what does that mean to me when you say ambulance revenue is up in 2020 and 2045? Uh what does it mean for 2026? Maybe Miss Kids is the answer. >> Um Mr. Mayor and Council Member Walsh in that we um increased our revenue. So, it's hard when we're trying to budget for ambulance revenues and some of it we're a little conservative because we don't want to be basing the budget on um revenues that we're not going to be getting in and it's hard to predict how many ambulance calls we will have and how many people will be paying their bills. You know, sometimes it takes a little longer to be getting that in. But when we factored, so 24 was conservative and we had more ambulance calls and we were receiving payment and then in 2025 it's been the same. So we increased it um by 3% that's what the rates went up. So then we had increased the revenues by that assuming that they'll hold on. So the we increased rates but but so but you didn't increase expected participation or does the is the anticipated revenue just match the rate increase >> or did you say we're going to have one more >> we're going through we estimate we make our calculation of the average cost that we receive for an ambul you know we take all of our revenue and we say that how many um calls there were we average it out we multiply it by an estimate of what we um charge. So the rate increase is in there and then we come up with an estimate of how many calls we think they're going to be. >> Okay. >> So it's there's some estimates to that, but it seems to be going up and I believe that that's going to hopefully stay the same. >> Okay. Um my other question is um and I'm looking at I don't know if this I don't think there's on a slide but the first page of the budget doc that you included in the packet kind of the big summary um just looking at that that last line or almost the last line revenues over under expenditures and so you can see the like like 20 25 budget as as uh we we heard was you know we budgeted for $15,000 to be over we ended up way more than that obviously. So then this this projected budget Oh, no. Then we revised it down to 90, which was the next step. So, it's just I just want to point this out and ask this question, I guess. But, so the projected revenue over under expenditures for the 2026 budget is is a negative 380,155. So, just just want to make this clear and you can help me if I if I mischaracterize this. So, we we are and I always struggle with this. we're we're passing a an unbalanced budget tonight tonight and we're we're we're using carry forward essentially from 2025 because it's in the bank. Um and I and I support that. We we as a council we agreed to do this and it's I think it's the right thing to do. Um so we're we're shifting some money from 2025 on the bottom line to help us through 2026. But but if you really look at expenditures and revenues, we're 380,000. We're going to spend 380,000 more than we plan to bring in. Good news is we have we have a surplus to to make sure that doesn't, you know, go go go over. But just just setting that up for next year's budget, you know, and and I've been I've been saying this for a long time. I I'm not happy. And I'm not saying anybody did a bad job, but and I know you're trying to budget for to be at 15,000 over, which is a really tiny number on the amount of the budget that we're doing. That's that's 01% I think. I don't know what that is. It's really small number. And I and I appreciate you trying to do that. And I just would keep continue to encourage to try to budget to that to that perfect, you know, money in money out as close to to even as possible because what we're doing is we're borrowing it from the citizens and and it's great that we have $900,000 extra, but we took that out of everybody's property taxes last year and we didn't use it. Now, we didn't use it for all the right reasons. You know, not criticizing the management. Um, you know, you give un positions that are left open. Um, and it's, you know, it's better to be under than over obviously, but I just want to continue to encourage you guys to try to hit that number right on. And we're 3 380 over. So, we'll make that up. But, uh, but if we come in at zero, close to zero, then we're going to have a $380,000 challenge right from the beginning at the beginning of the budget process next year, which is fine. I mean, let's just we'll deal with that next year. We have money this year to do it so we don't have to go back to the property taxes uh to get that in advance. I just want to make that point. Um, >> council member Walsh. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> To elaborate on your last point right there. So, um, 300 So, that 380 that we're budgeting under um is helps offset the tax levy. So, just to I guess for the those watching or in the audience to put in perspective, if we were to present a balanced budget, our tax levy would be probably closer to 12%. if if we did that. So, using cash and but trying to get as close as possible really does help um help keep the tax levy low. But just to put it in perspective, you know, about $150,000 is 1% of our tax levy. So, 380,000. So, just to add to what you said. >> Yeah. Yeah. I appreciate that. Yeah. And that's and that's a I think the right decision. We we could say certainly a city council could say, "Hey, there's a million left over from from 2025. Let's um it's onetime money. Let's find a capital expenditure to to because we have 10 year capital. As Mr. Cole pointed out, we have 10 years of wish list." We could easily have put that towards that. Uh but we chose to let's try to lower the blow as much as we didn't succeed in lowering the blow for some of the people in this room. And I appreciate that we did uh we did lower the blow a little bit uh with that money. Um, those are my questions really. Uh, just I'll just if I can add my comments in in defense of a tax increase, I guess is what we're doing. Um, the only thing I'd add is is and that comparison chart to the other cities is interesting. It's not it's not re it's not we don't have to have it in the presentation. I think it's fine that we do. We're certainly not chasing the other cities. There's no one in this das that is chasing the other cities. As a matter of fact, every year when we have this exercise, I think, man, we're going to move up into the middle of that list and we never do, which is sad. It's a sad commentary in the whole metro area. I think we're moving up and everyone's moving up with us and we're we're so we'll never catch them and that's fine with me. We are at the bottom of that list. I'm intrigued by Mr. Cob's idea that the mix of residential and commercial and and in the per capita number. I'd like to look into that. I don't know the answer to that whether that's a fair comparison. We've been using that a while. I think it is fair because here's the here's the thing. There's a lot of things we don't do in White Beer Lake. So, in my defense of of the tax increase, if if I support the like the mayor said, um we're a people inensive business. Government is people. We don't we don't sell a product. We don't have manufacturing. We're people. And so, when we have to pay people more, um it costs more. And that's that's the driving force behind this. And we got a building we built certainly and we we've got a fire engine to buy and we got firefighters, but it's people. So, so as we raise the pay for those that that we already have on staff, if if in a perfect world, I'd say, who can we cut? What are we doing right now that we don't have to do anymore in government, if you want to lower taxes, you have to stop doing things that cost money? And that means you have to get rid of people that do those things. And that's been the it's not a frustration because a frustration as a budget cutter. What do I cut? There isn't a lot of things in this budget. I've said this before, uh to to say, "All right, we have to do this. We have to add two firefighters. who can we get rid of to offset that cost so that your taxes don't go up $700. I don't know who those people are because there's a whole list of things we don't do that a lot of the cities on that on that sheet do. You know, we don't have recreation staff and know we're lucky because the school district does that. We don't have communication staff and the current staff wants communication staff and they've been asking for it for years and this council has been saying no and holding off on communication staff. But City Eaggan has a communications director that makes $150,000 a year. um and and then several people under them and they're they're bigger than us certainly they're they're bigger than us but lots of cities have communication staff. We have resisted. We really don't have economic development staff. We have a community development department but we don't really have what's called economic development. >> Well, not not in the not not like other cities do. We don't have huge departments full of people that do economic development. And we don't have a port authority, you know, we don't have a library, you know, and because you have the county library, we don't have an airport, you know. Um, we we we do police, we do fire and ambulance, we do streets, which has an engineering department. We deliver water, we take away sewer. Um, by the way, water and sewer is fee driven. There's a whole another presentation. We're going to we're going to approve the fee schedule tonight, too. Right. So, I did this last year. I think the average White Bear family household has about a $500. You can add $500 in fees that you pay to support what we do in the city that isn't in this general fund budget. that isn't part of your property taxes. I think it's another $500 you can add in sewer, water, all the other fees we do. Um, we have a license bureau that mainly breaks even. We have a sports center that has broken even for a long time. This is a a new thing in the budget. You saw that $150,000 that we have to support it with. I think we're going to be looking at that strongly in the in the in the near future, whether we want to keep doing that, what that means. We have a senior apartment that breaks even. Uh, actually, it it has a surplus and takes care of itself. So my point is if I could find something to cut to offset the increase, I would and I've tried and and some years have offered amendments to do that. Um and I think there's some there's going to be pressure in the future with some of the the new hires that is that are that are that are wanted. Um, but but we are on the low end of that uh uh property tax thing because we don't do a lot of things that other cities do. And and I want to keep that going and try to pay the people we have already. Like the mayor said, we've got them to the middle of the pack. It's been expensive. We've been hiring full-time firefighters. We've been doing that for I don't know, seven years, six years. That's expensive. We got one more year of that uh to do and that could level off then. Um, but uh we're we're doing we're doing the minimum in White Bear Lake. And uh I would add I would agree that we're getting good value. So I'm going to vote yes tonight. And and I've look I you guys know I' I've this is my 10th year on the council. I think I've voted five five property tax increases and I voted no five times. So this year I'm voting yes. Thank you. >> Any other comments from the council? >> Thank you. >> Council member Hughes. Yeah, I guess um Mr. Corb, you were kind of asking what's going to happen next year. And I guess I would just telegraph, you know, it's still going to be another I mean, I'm looking at a 9% increase just in order to keep things going. Um, you know, it's one and a half on what is going to be a downtown street reconstruction program, but it's not the downtown one. It's it's the residential right next to it. It's probably not one and a half, but it's probably one. And that's a yearly thing. Every year we've done that. So every year you need that add that on and there'll be another six, you know, around for for general operation. Um, and there'll probably be some other nickel and dime stuff in there. And so that's that that's without doing anything really. Um, which, you know, property taxes are public and so is my address. You can go look at mine. It sucks. I'm not sitting up here not I mean it sucks. I looked at mine this year and was like, who is voting for this? And here I am. Um because like Council Member Walsh, I can't find anything to get rid of that that makes sense. Um I mean there there just isn't anything there's not there's not a lot of extra there. We do go through that CIP. We go through that in the spring and we had a lot of good fun with that this year trying to figure out what some of that stuff was and how we could get rid of it. And I was asking a lot of dumb questions like what is this stupid thing because it anything that had a six figure on it. I was like what is this? Do we need it? Can we get rid of it? So it does get gone over all 350 pages of the budget. No, I got to admit I'm not going through and like looking at what what some of those charges are. But on the overunder, yeah, we're going through everything every single bit of it. And we spent four hours talking about it just a month ago, another four hours talking about it in August. And then again that CIP meeting was um was I mean those are the some of the stuff that you got to go in and listen and and because that's where we're really talking it up and trying to figure out like really where is the priority and where isn't it um you know we're we're a city as and and and what we the value we provide you can see it is in the road it is in the park um it is in the police and fire and so you start thinking like what do you not want done. And I did kind of bring that up once. How about we just don't do something? And you know, there wasn't a lot of willingness to not do something. And not because they want to do more, but because what they're doing is appropriate and right and is and is and is driving um it is driving what you ask for, right? I mean, this is this is a governmental organization, right? That gets paid for by all of us. And so in theory, all of us get together and say, "Hey, what do we want to provide for ourselves in a group format and what we want to provide is police. What we want to provide is fire." And so we all chuck money into it. And then we all get that back out. And so what they're providing is the thing that we have all in theory said we want. We want the city to provide that. Um, and yeah, there's not there's not extravagance. I kind of wish there was because I would I would go after that, you know, we would all go after that. Um, so I'm going to support it as well. I tried not to last year and um, you know, you just I wish I could find it. I wish I could find 3% to bring it down because that's real money. You know, it's 3% isn't like 3% off the cost of my shirt. That's that's $3. This is 3% is real money. I get it. And I wish we could find more of it. And I look forward to sitting in your seat next year and asking the remaining members that are up here and the new ones, what are you going to do to lower my tax bill cuz I couldn't get it done. So do it for me again. So >> very good. Any other comments? >> All right. I would entertain a motion to approve the resolution adopting the 2026 budget and 2025 revised budget. >> So move. >> Second. >> I have a motion to second. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. The resolution is approved. I have a second resolution. I'd entertain a motion to adopt the resolution adopting the 2025 tax levy for taxes collectible in 2026. >> So have a motion, a second. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. That resolution is approved. And entertain a motion to approve the resolution committing fund balance for specific purposes. So move >> second. >> Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. The resolution is approved. Thank you again, Miss Crawford, for the detailed presentation. And thank you for members of the public for weighing in. We do appreciate it. All right. Item seven, unfinished business. A second reading of an ordinance establishing the 2026 fee schedule. Miss Crawford. Thank you, uh, mayor and members of the council. We had a a thorough discussion at our first reading, um, at the last city council meeting. This is the second reading. I'm happy to go over anything again, but I thought in the interest of a snowstorm, I would focus on the budget escrow fees because that's what we spent quite a bit of time talking about. And, uh, redevelopment director Lindall uh, can help with with this piece as well. >> Sorry. Thank you. Sorry about that. Um, so on page 10 of your fee schedule um discusses uh proposed building escrow fees and we did revise the language from the first reading that's on your screen. It's also again on page 10 of the fee schedule, but wanted just to elaborate that this would come into play um for new construction for when um when uh someone needs a certificate of occupancy and that is new construction or re reconstruction a new um new uh house if you will. So um and again you know if occupancy is required to complete is required um prior to completion a temporary certificate of occupancy could be issued with an expiration date but once once someone is in that structure it's really difficult to get things finished. And so that's when these would come into play at the discretion of uh of the the building official. And again, escros just help ensure that property owners and contractors follow through in a timely manner and don't create a code enforcement issue in some cases. Um they will be collected um again only on unfinished items. The building official will evaluate the need of an escrow upon a final inspection and a permit holder would be made aware of of these at the time of a permit being issued. So that's before their project starts, but they wouldn't need to get an escrow at that time. It would be only towards the end and again only if necessary. So um with that maybe I'll I'll I'll pause there in case director Lindall has anything to add. Um otherwise we can go to your next slide or the next slide. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, mayor, members of the council, um just to again echo uh what Miss Crawford stated, um we did go back reddraft the language to try to make it more clear and concise and targeted. This is only addressing new construction of single or if you do a duplex because our residential neighborhoods a certain portion of them allow for a duplex and it's only in cases where um we get to they get to the end of the project and there are some outstanding um um item and generally these things are outside the home. It's just the list that's uh included in the fee schedule. And so what we did is we went back and looked at the city's record of new homes or uh tear down or reconstruction of homes um over the last 5 years. So this is 25 year to date back to 2020. And of that there were 32 total new homes constructed. And if you look at this list, um, six of those passed on the first time that they did a final inspection. So, we're really talking about, you know, those items that, you know, required two or more here. So in this case uh 26 required more than one inspection on that list and 16 or um 16 required more than three uh inspections to get to a final uh approved certificate of occupancy. So um again this is a tool to help provide um an escrow to ensure that those um uh improvements are completed. It is staff's hope that in the instances that this escrow is asked for that that helps reduce the numbers on this list which then turns into you know less in you know less instances where staff are following up on on new construction of those homes. So uh again what we did is we tried to sharpen the language to make sure that this was more clear uh to the to the reader um and uh we tried to give you some examples of the instances when this is would would have been used over the last 5 years and with that I'd stand for questions. So I just want to clarify when would this escrow come into play in the context of these first, second, third, fourth, the hierarchy of these inspections? Help me understand practically how that would play out. >> So mayor, members of the council, the the way this is the escrow um is proposed is it would not be required at the beginning of when you issued a permit. It would only come up in those instances where the applicant or the the permit is requesting a a temporary certificate of occupancy or the building official decides that one is necessary to keep the project moving along. And so it's only at that point that they could ask for an escrow. And what we will have on our permit form is an indication that there's a potential for an escrow if you need a temporary certificate of occupancy and but it won't be asked for until that point that it h that would actually be required. >> So I don't know if I'm following I guess I'm looking for more of a practical example. I'm build I'm going to build a house and it's all good and I'm ready for inspection, but darn it, the contractor for the driveway didn't quite get out there. Hey Jason, come on out. Inspect my house. Not you, but you know what I mean, >> right? >> Um well, sorry you don't have your driveway poured. So here here's your here's your temporary certificate, but you have to you you need to put up this money in the esro account. Is that how it works? Or is it well, let's have a conversation. When's the contractor going to be out? Well, he said 2 weeks. All right, why don't we why don't we hold off two weeks um and we'll see where we're at then and we'll come back again in practice in the real world because this is just stuff on a sheet which I I know that's what we're passing but I want to understand what it means in practice. >> Mayor Lewis, I'll take this one. Um so yes to everything you said that's when it would come into play at final inspection. Your driveway is not done. It would be situational based on the building official if it's you know they're okay say we the building official issues is issues you a tempo and you can say here's my schedule they're coming tomorrow to pull it or you know to pour it and it's going to cure and won't park there and all these things I highly doubt an escrow would be required in that situation if it's 6 months um or or something falls through I mean it it's hard to answer because this will be very situational um as we said and I think you even said in the first during the first reading, we're going to work with our our community members and we're going to be very reasonable as we always are um with with our with everything, but it it's going to be situational at the building uh officials uh discretion. Um and you know, we don't this is one more thing for us to follow up on too, right? So the the goal is that thing things are done when they say they're going to be done when when they're needed to be done, but ultimately we don't we need them to be finished so we don't create code enforcement issues out there in the community right off the bat. >> Okay, that's helpful. >> Council member Edward, >> thank you, Mayor. So I get the scenario and I appreciate the mayor's questions about in the real world. So we assess we we impose the escrow. How is the decision made that the escrow is no longer is going to be kept by the city because it hasn't been done or there is some other resolution? What what is it that triggers release from escrow and what happens if that doesn't occur in the real world? >> Okay. Um so from my experience um uh there let's say we have to uh use that escrow to get that driveway poured. >> Oh. >> So that's so we do it >> when we would that's that's the point of the escrow of that cash is if it's not going to get done then we have this escrow and we're going to go out and get it done again. So there aren't code enforcement issues right off the bat. Right. A driveway is a little bit tricky because it's >> just it's a little tricky situation, but um that would be an example. We don't want again it's another thing for staff to follow up on. We don't want to have to do that, but this would be in cases where we absolutely have to do that. >> Okay. So the idea is they either get it done in which case they get the escrow back or if it's not done and is in danger of becoming a code enforcement issue then we secure a contractor to do the work whether it's to their liking or not it'll meet it'll be done to a level that meets city code and we spend escrow and if we need more we send them a bill or I'm just trying to understand the how does this really how how does money really move. >> Yes. >> Okay, cool. Thank you. By the I appreciate the clarity that was brought to this through this language and the the work that's been done since our last meeting. We had a a wide ranging conversation. I appreciate the clarity and it it meets my test for for uh knowing when it is imposed. >> Council member Hughes. >> Okay. Just so I'm clear because I'm looking at this list. We're going to do final landscape. We're going to bring somebody in to put in trees. We're going to bring somebody in to put in a rain garden. I I guess I'm not real excited about that. I I mean, I I get maybe the sidewalk and um curb cut and some I I don't know. I don't know. Final grading. I don't know why we're doing that. I just feel like some of that stuff is, you know, you're sitting on their private property and um I don't know, some of that kind of is a little squidgy for me. >> Mayor, Council Member Hughes, the grading and uh just the couple examples that you listed, grading and and uh rain gardens would be to correct storm water issues so we're not so the property is not creating flooding the neighbor's yard. That would be a code enforcement issue that we would have to go in and deal with. So uh and again these are all things that the applicant has been has said submitted in their plans that they are going to be doing some of which they're required to do for uh to meet you know to to get their permit issued. So that would be the only reason it's again none of this is for fun. We hope we never have to use it. Um but we would be in communication uh with the permit uh with the applicant if we had to use it if we had to obtain the escrow and then had to use it. I I appreciate the clarity because it was unclear the last time we discussed this. What certificate of occupancy? Is that just a guy who just wants to read his driveway? No, it's new construction. It's when you need your certificate of occupancy. Here's where I struggle with and I I want staff to push back and say, "Ban, you're just totally wrong." I get this as a tool for undeveloped communities where a builder comes in and specs 50 homes and that builder just isn't getting around to putting the driveways in. And you know what? If that was the case in Whitebear, I'd say absolutely take 50 driveways times $8,000. You want your certificate of occupancies, you better get those driveways poured. We don't have that in White Bear. It's a guy or a family who's building a house and the statistics are helpful because it sounds like we don't have a major problem with this. This isn't this isn't a huge thing. So, I'm just wondering while this is a tool and it's used in other communities and it really applies well for new developments and new neighborhoods, we're we're building in a solution to something that isn't really a problem. It's nice to have for those extreme situations, but there's not a lot of those extreme situations. And I can see the average resident one, not fully understanding it, and two, creating unintended consequences for the many situations where a person who's just, you know, doing new construction, buys a tear down, wants to build a home, and is having issues with the contractor, and wants that driveway put in just as much as anybody else. And now we're forcing the homeowner to put up the escrow. And it might not be their fault. They may be pulling all the levers they have to pull. And I don't know if they just have 8 grand sitting around. I don't want to just assume. I understand contractors, it's a business. But we're putting the burden on a homeowner. And I don't just want to assume that because you tore down a $300,000 home and spent $800,000 on the construction that you just have cash flowing all over the place and you can just put that up. So that's what gives me the heartburn of this. I understand everything you're saying, but before we go and pass a a tool for onesie twoosies and not a huge problem, I don't know if I'm convinced that this is a a big enough problem that it requires broad sweeping solutions. I will note that I have every confidence, like I said at the last meeting, that staff isn't going to come in heavy-handed and use this as a club. That's true today. Is it true 5 years from now? Is it true 10 years from now? This is a big change. and staff changes and conditions change and cultures change and once it's on the books it's harder to scrape it away. So those are my concerns. >> Mayor, I will respectfully push back on you. >> Um we have about 30 homes or so. I'm I'm bad at math. That's why the finance director as we've we've talked about before about 30 plus homes up there and you know thankfully only one of those homes required seven inspections. That's at least seven hours of the building inspector or building officials time plus all of the permit technician's time to get all of that scheduled. And no home should take that much time for a final inspection. If we could issue them a temporary CO, get them in that home and get the process started to get the final things worked on. Um what's not shown up there is is the amount of staff time that is paid for by all the other tax payers. Um once you issue a certificate of occupancy, there's no teeth. I've been the person issuing the CO certificate of occupancy in the past in other communities. There's no teeth. And so we have we are automatically in in 30 situations. It's not broad sweeping because it'd be about 30 homes, you know, without understanding are some of these gravel or what is it? You know, it's not broad sweeping. It's at the end of their permit. Um, but we're creating unintentionally code enforcement issues for the neighboring properties depending on what some of these things are. So, I I I didn't think I needed the building official here tonight. I he offered I wish I would have taken him up on that because he could tell you, right? Um if if council doesn't want to adopt this, that's fine. I probably will be brought back and in and at the end of 26 to ask again because it is that important to our building official. Um but I respectfully would push back. It's not broad sweeping. It is situational only and again it's only when it's absolutely necessary. I'll stop there, >> Mr. the windows the council again uh like Miss Crawford I completely understand the perspective that the council is bringing here and I would offer for context that um maybe just to emphasize a point that I think that was made a few m moments ago. Many of these improvements relate to conditions that could affect adjacent property owners. And so, um, the intent here is to certainly simplify or minimize the followup necessary for staff, but to also what what unfortunately what I what's much more difficult to quantify is how many other neighbors did we talk to in um who were living next to these construction projects that were ongoing for this long or had conditions that maybe where they had a silt fence up for an extended period of time because their final grade wasn't completed or their landscaping. And and the landscaping in this context is really making sure you establish landscaping so your runoff stays on your property and you're not running mud into the public streets and sewer systems and to your neighbors property. So um what these things I again I certainly understand the perspective that the council was bringing here but this is this is really a tool again to help us um ensure that projects continue in a timely manner and we to the extent possible minimize the extent of an ongoing construction project next to other people who are living in an established residential neighbor. neighborhood um and may have a project going on for you know I guess I don't know how long five or six inspections was over what kind of period of time but I would wager that's years so a followup to that it's over a period of years the other lever that the city has to pull is to not issue a CO right I mean that this is this is contingent on the CO. You can tell someone, I get it that you need a place to live, but you didn't do what you said you were going to do. You don't get your CO right until you get this done. That's a that's a bargaining chip. That's a leverage point, is it not? So, don't we already have that, mayor, members of the council? Yes. um you know and it's it's difficult to get to all of the scenarios that might be occurring in that point of time. But they're also the context is that often times when you're constructing a home, you're living somewhere else and carrying those expenses. And um maybe you're moving from a distance or changing schools and your kids, you know, you want kids to start school at a beginning of school. I mean, there are there are a lot of reasons that a a move a new house and a move in could be necessary for someone. Um and again we're trying to balance here um all of those kind of competing interests. Um and what I I I and I would just say in that context is the the permade is in control of this process. If they're controlling their construction project in a timely manner, they can completely avoid this process. Um, and I would also emphasize to you, yes, that staff would be would try to work as extensively as possible to say that, you know, if someone comes in and tells us, you know, my builder is telling me I can get my driveway poured in the next 30 days and that 30 days is, you know, November 15th, then we'll talk about that 30 days. But if we get to if we get to December 15th, we know that the batch plants aren't open anymore and they're not going to be bringing a truck on the road until weight restrictions are off in the spring and the batch plants start up again. And so there's there's just that then extended maybe three-month period of time where it's an undetermined project. Um, Council, hey, I just one followup then I promise I I'll leave it on the help me understand this. Here's how I'm seeing it. When we when we require an escrow, we actually have no desire to then take that money and go fulfill the work and complete the work for them. We want that as a leverage point so that they go and do it and give them the money back, right? That's our goal. That's the home run scenario. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. I I say that because to message to everybody, if we go down this route, we don't want to be in the business of putting people's driveways in or going going onto their lot and building fences around their pool. It's it's a leverage point in the worst case scenario. If we have to push it to the extreme, we're going to do it. That's why the escrow is there, but we really want them to just get on the ball and do it themselves. Okay. Just want to make that clear. Council member West. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I, you know, I appreciate also the clarity. I had questions about what this was all for, when it was used, how we were going to use it, and and all of that. So, um, this makes sense to me how it how it could be used now. And, um, thank you for all the questions beforehand, too. That helps. The way I and I also don't want to increase an administrative or financial burden on anybody who wants to move into our city. um that is not ideal and I'm sure not like our goal. I do take a look at all of the different houses that required a multitude of times to actually um pass their final inspection. And it may not be a lot, but we're a like a builtout city, so we don't have a lot of new construction. Um, so this that's a pretty pretty significant number of houses. Only six passed the first time. So, so I'm just thinking if if it were my neighbor um that was having this issue. I mean, they're already done with the internal. This is we're talking about the external part where everybody sees it and again it it affects um neighbors. So, I, you know, I think it's reasonable. The way you're talking about how it would be utilized is reasonable. Um, it's an encouragement and potentially even an assistance. I catch your point though, mayor, that we don't want to be the ones that are subcontracting to get stuff done. Um, that's not the purpose. Um but certainly another lever to help the city get the work done so that the homeowner is happy, the neighbors are happy, the city is happy. So I I would support this. >> Any other thoughts on this >> or on the proposed fee schedule? All right. All right. I would entertain a motion to approve the ordinance approving the 2026 fee schedule. >> Second. >> A motion and a second. Any further discussion on this? >> Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Ordinance is approved. I'd entertain a motion to adopt the resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance we just passed. >> Second. >> Have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. That resolution is approved as well. All right. Item 8A, conditional use permit for variance request at 4496 Lake AB South. Mr. Lindall, >> mayor rooms of the council. Thank you. Um, as you mentioned, uh, this application comes from the VFW Post 1782 um, located at 4496 Lake Avenue South. The request is for an amendment to their existing conditional use permit um to add 14 bolt stalls to their existing uh uh bolt slips, excuse me, to their existing dock. Um that necessitates a also a parking variance request to accommodate the additional parking that's needed as part of those boat slips. Um the planning commission reviewed this at their last meeting. comments from that uh summary. Both minutes um from that meeting and comments summarized in your are summarized in your packet. The comments were really only from the applicant during that public hearing. The planning commission and staff are recommending denial of the application. The variance vote was 3 to one. Uh the conditional use permit vote was 4 to zero. And in this case, uh PC member Bill recused himself uh from this vote. uh uh because of his relationship with the VFW. Um the property in question again is located at 4496 uh Lake Avenue South, which under our recently updated zoning code is G zone GX6 or general mix uh corridor. um the existing this uh slide illustrates both the existing dock and the applicant's proposed expansion um again to include um 14 additional uh boat slips. So to provide you a little bit of history um on the site um the site original building the original property was platted and the original building was constructed prior to the city's uh zoning ordinance. So expansions over time in an historic site like this have brought along a number of variances with them. Um in 1996 there was a variance granted to reduce the parking stalls from or parking from 94 required stalls to 33. Um in 1994 there was a variance granted to reduce the parking requirement by five stalls. In 1995 there was an additional variance to reduce the parking by uh six stalls uh for various expansions and additions to the building. In 1998, there was a variance granted to reduce uh the parking requirements by 10 stalls. And then in 1990, there was actually a conditional use put in place for the uh boat dock uh their boat slips um from expanding that from 22 to 28, which is the number they currently have today. And in that case, um, the records don't indicate any variance request, but that but the conditional use permit required that additional two additional stalls were striped in their existing parking lot. Um, from this slide, uh, I would just highlight to you the 1986 and 1995 variances were for a port for a building that no longer exists on the site. It was a building that was on where their existing parking lot exists today. So, they really aren't part of their current parking needs, but we're showing them just for his to give you an historic view of what's been happening on the property over time. So, um this slide summarizes the parking analysis of the existing conditions. It's detailed in your staff report, but I'll just try to summarize it here for you quickly for the context of our uh review tonight. So, the parking standards that are in place um um that we're going to be using for this site is one stall for every four boat slips um and one stall for every three restaurant seats. Note the at I'm sorry, it's probably hard to see, but there's an asterisk by that particular park parking requirement. Um because in your staff report it notes that the actually under the recent um zoning code update, we looked at our parking standards and tried to modernize them and rightsize them to the community. And so there was actually a slightly a slight decrease in the parking requirements for restaurants. It used to be one seat for every or excuse me, one stall for every two and a half seats and we increased that to one stall for every three seats. that we think is a more accurate depiction. So, that's a s, you know, a slight change um um that that um is in the applicant's favor um as we reviewed the site in the the current request. So, um, under the and and then also the parking, um, uh, standards update that's part of the zoning code acknowledge really what we think, uh, is a reasonable assumption that most people think is a reasonable assumption that happens naturally in that parking that's in the public right ofway or street parking next to your business um, is most often utilized by patrons of that business. And so it doesn't allow those public spaces to be exclusively reserved for that business, but it acknowledges that there's parking there that can be credited towards their parking requirement. So in this case, there are 12 stalls uh four along the north side adjacent to the building and another eight along the west side of the building in Lake Avenue. uh that provide a total of 12 stalls for a credit for this site. So based on those numbers, then looking at existing seats in the restaurant, the plan shows a maximum seat capacity of 139 seats in on the inside of the site. Um and then 28 uh that were shown on plans for the outdoor uh seating portion of the site, which brings us to 167 total stalls. If you do that at 33 or one per three seats, that's 55 stalls for the restaurant portion of the site, the existing restaurant portion. If you look at the existing boat slips, 28 boat slips at one per four gets you another seven stalls. That gets us 55 stalls required for the restaurant, seven required for the boat slips. That totals 62 stalls. Um the total existing parking on the site that's provided that's that's available to the site are 35 stalls in the applicant's parking lot and then another 12 that we mentioned that are now credited towards the site as the new ordinance allows for adjacent parking. So we say that they have 47 stalls for existing parking. So um if you look at the uh total required uh parking uh stalls with the variance that also happens to equal 47. If you take 62 that were required and you reduce that by the two variances that are noted there the five stalls in 94 and the 10 stalls in 98 that also gets you to 47. So, um, just as a, you know, kind of a random test case for how, uh, we did with trying to rightsize the parking standards in the under the new code is for this site, we kind of hit the numbers right on. But, um, if we now start to look at an analysis of the proposal, you know, all the first couple lines here are the same. They just know what the parking standards are. the the total uh required parking um under existing conditions is still 62 stalls. Um the total uh existing parking stalls that are out there is still 47. The proposed boat slips they're suggesting to add or requesting to add are 14. And so that would get you 3.5 stalls. The code says if you're five or more, you round up. If you're four or lower, you round down. And so the 14 stalls requires four or excuse me 14 slips requires four additional stalls. So that moves their parking requirement to 66 stalls. And so under the proposed addition of the 14 boat slips, the site would have a parking deficit if you look over and from an overall perspective of 19 stalls over its history. Um the analysis that staff also did looked at the uh looked to the U Marina Triangle master plan that talked about how improvements and and and expansions would be handled in that area. Um in this case again the park the required parking uh cannot be accommodated um on the site as it's proposed. Um the parking stall deficit can lead to an increase in congestion in the area impacting uh pedestrians and vehicles is a staff finding. The variance uh would create an overburdening and reliance on the public parking facilities or other private parking in the uh general area. The remand triangle master plan uh sought to uh improve access and circulation and intensification without required parking undermines that goal. The Marian Triangle master plan also looked to guide uh cohesive redevelopment with complimentary uses in the area to help limit that parking requirement. And past parking variances have already been granted uh for the current uh improvements on the site and which is an indication that uh the site is nearing its you know development limitations. So, um to provide some other context um um about the surrounding public parking um if you look at the Boat Works uh public parking ramp staff went back um and looked at those uh uh uh the original plans for that and how um spaces in that um ramp were allocated to the surrounding businesses under both the previous zone zoning code and the current zoning code there is um the there was and is the ability to do you know shared parking. So in this case, this past project used a zoning tool uh to look at the parking to say um these uses can share this public parking and based on the fact that there are sharing this uses and they all don't share the same peak parking demand, there was a shared parking rate or reduction that was used. So if you look at the businesses listed in the first column, then you looked at the size of them in either seats or square footage, then you looked at the required parking based on the standards that were in the previous zoning code. So the um when this project was done and you multiplied that requirement by 87 um they then created an uh because of the reduced need for the shared nature of the parking. Um they then created an allocated parking standard uh that totaled out to 114 stalls which is what's built in the ramp now with the exception of a few stalls that are on the outside portion um that are have signage that are exclusive for one of the restaurants down there. The interior parking stalls are just generally open and to be shared by those uses and they generally cover the parking requirements for the uses that are in that area from the restaurants to the community room and boat works to the city's marina to Thally's marina and the other restaurants that are down there. And in addition to that, um the individual um businesses paid an assessment fee to um help finance that parking of 30 basically $3,700 times the number of stalls that they uh needed to provide under the zoning code. And so that last column just lists the numbers that were associated with that assessment fee. So the idea here is is is you know this is really to try and provide some context about what the parking requirements are for the other uses and how they were handled at the time. So the and it also demonstrates that there was planning done to meet the parking requirements of the other businesses that are around there with the understanding that there was a slight reduction because of the shared nature of the parking uses and that they had complimentary times um and peak activities. Um so then in your staff report um it we went through this in more detail at the planning commission level but it's also detailed in your staff report the various findings that uh staff made uh to come to a recommendation of denial. Um and so I'd be happy to uh answer any questions on that if the council uh has those. But with that, um, I'd stand for questions and the motions for the resolutions that are in your packet. >> Thank you, Mr. Lindel. Um, I do understand the applicant does have a representative here, but we typically hear from them. So, if that representative would like to offer comment, you're more than welcome to come forward now. Please state your name for the record. >> Mr. Mayor, council members, um Justin Frogner, senior vice commander of the Wiper Lake VFW and a resident of Wiper Lake. Just wanted to share that the Veteran of Foreign Wars Post 1782 is a nonprofit organization made up of military veterans who served in overseas conflicts and their families. We advocate for veterans interests in Congress, host community events, provide a place for veterans to connect, support their families, and access benefits. The VFW provides scholarships including the Voice of Democracy and Patriots PEN. We have donated over $49,000 locally this year to veterans organizations in the White Bear Lake area, including $7,500 to the White Bear Lake Area Food Shelf, $2,250 to the White Bear Lake Area Public Schools and Recreations, and among other local organizations. We performed 10,654 hours of community service last year, receiving a national recognition. We facilitate Ramsey County Sheriff's means to contribute to the safety on the lake. We partner with Bear Boating for an efficient means to continue offering seniors, military service members, veterans, and people with disabilities something to enjoy and look forward to. The White Bear Lake VFW's operations allows us to contribute to the community as mentioned and be able to assist veterans and their families during hardship, which is largely funded by our slip fees. Our slips are in high demand and our members who are are or become slipholders are expected to participate in community service projects throughout the year. The Wiper Lake Conservation District has approved the request. 19 independent en environmental studies were conducted without issue and the DNR's approval is pending. Extending the dock to 300 ft brings the VFW in line with the conservation district's allowable ordinance and the rest of the marina. It allows us to offer more of the only transient boat parking spots in the marina. During the last planning commission meeting, two members commented that they were supportive of the extra boat slips but wanted to push it to the city council to make the decision because of the parking. Following the planning commission meeting, we took another look and found some discrepancies in the math we would like to like considered. For example, our outdoor seating chart was overestimated and our transient slips were included in the total boat slips which are meant for boers to come directly from the lake to eat and do not necess necessitate parking accommodations. Also, some slip holders are local and further mitigate parking constraints by choosing to bike or walk instead of drive. Parking in many areas of White Bear Lake are tight. Very few businesses and parks have appropriate parking which leads people to park in nearby neighborhoods in the area. Others have been able to make it work. We ask that we are offered the same chance because we are more than just a restaurant and bar. We are an established organization with a long history of giving back and want to continue to grow with community. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Frogner. Council, we have questions for staff comments on this. Council member Wall. >> Um, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just on the a couple of questions on the public parking ramp uh in the boat works project. I couldn't see my my it's getting late. My eyes aren't working anymore. I couldn't see your your slide. The VFW doesn't have any spots in that public parking, right? They weren't part of the one of the businesses that bought slots in that space, right, >> mayor, members of the council. That's correct. >> And then there's there's no one of the things that the planning commission said, I happened to attend the meeting sort of the one of the messages was we love this, but you're four you're four spots over. Please go find four more spots like in the neighborhood and then come back to us. And I guess that sounds good, but I don't know that there are four spots out there to get. And so so the my other question would be we've accounted for every single spot in that in that parking ramp, right? There's no there's no extra that they could take advantage of. mayor, members of the council. That's correct. >> And then and then if you could if you can bring the map back up uh with the you have red boxes over Keep going back there. So the new zoning code says we can count parking adjacent or I think abudding is that the word we're using abudding the property. So you've got the west side circled with or with a red square and you've got the north side c square. So we're counting those. What about those directly north there? There's four more to the north. Now, I get it. Technically, they're not abudding the VFW. They're abudding the park. That's our park, right? Or is that our park? Yeah. Um uh I mean, I guess I guess while technically not abuing, um if we counted those in the mix, we'd add four more spots right there uh to the north. It's a little it's a little parking lot that people just park in. um not necessarily for the VFW. Certainly, you can use you can you can park there and walk around. You can go the public dock is there. The public swim the the fishing pier is there. Um I I'm just I guess I guess I'm getting I'm sympathetic to the request. I'll just I'll just say that. Um um so maybe I'll just ask a question. Maybe it's a question. What what what do what does staff think about those four? Is am I is it just they're not abuing? So, mayor, members of the council, the the way the ordinance reads to consider um public parking adjacent to abuing a business is that the parking, like you said, abuing the business on the same side of the street, you know, within the property, you know, along the property perimeter of a business can be counted towards that credit. It then also goes on to state that if there is parking across the street um in an area that is um can reasonably it is not going to be used for development um that if there was parking across the street that could be credited um as well towards a business. In this case, what staff looked at this and that um that provision of the code and said, "Well, there is a public park there that does have some use to it." And so, we determined that those weren't eligible to be counted as credit towards this business. >> Yeah. Thank you. Let me just say from the from the outset, um I'm glad the staff has the recommendation in this packet that they do. I think they looked at the letter of the law and followed it and gave that recommendation to the planning commission and that's what I expect and what I want. Frankly, I tell people all the time and they say, "Well, we talked to staff and they said no." I said, "Well, they said you didn't meet the requirements. That's their job." You know, now now we're different. We're a political body and we can make a decision that's different than the staff recommendation. But I don't want to discount the staff recommendation. I expect and appreciate the recommendation that says you didn't meet the requirements. Um, we said no. Um, now I'm going to ask that we overrule that tonight. Uh, but that but uh I I appreciate the recommendation. The planning commission was was interesting and I just watched but uh they're sort of supportive it. It was like one of the comments was we're we've got troubles with parking in this area. Obviously um a lot of people are over. we've had we we've tr we've struggled here with parking before and um we've ignored it and we've approved things that have been over parking limits and one of the comments was we just just don't want to add to that anymore and I appreciate that. I mean that was a reasonable position to take. Um I guess I disagree though. I'm I'm comfortable with this very small addition to that problem and that challenge of of too much uh too many cars for the spots that are there. and and uh I'm willing to do it especially I think I think in my mind I could count those four to the north uh or some of them I think the other point that's new from planning commission is the transient n the transient spots in the the slips that are for transient uh for boats to come from the lake that have no parking by definition you're driving on a boat from you know Mameidi uh and docking there and coming to eat at the VFW or or maybe going to Kalskis or doing anything else so I that could help the formula. I don't know if it gets us all the way to four new spots, but when you start adding those two things together, we're getting really close to being actually in compliance with the previous variances that are already there. So, I guess that's a long way of saying I'm comfortable with it. Um, and I the one the only thing I else I'd add is that um I have a hope that not in the in the not too near distant future, maybe the next three to five years, we're going to be working on the the this boardwalk some more. Um, and so we can maybe solve some of those problems, you know, if we can ever develop that other property. So, I know that's not a good policy basis to make a decision today, but I think this could be a temporary problem of parking, you know, in the uh in this area if we can there's there's there's potential, I guess, is all I'd say. So, >> Council Member West. >> Yeah, I guess um thank you very much, Mayor. Um I wanted to follow up a little bit on that the transient um slots and kind of what that actually looks like. I mean is that kind of like a hope and prayer or is that like a there's going to be a sign that says this can only be for transient um for people who are here for eating or kind of what what exactly does that look like and can I Yeah. >> Well, we can ask from the applicants or Mr. Lindall, but I think there's a there's a clear answer. you're either going to lease it to someone for the year or you're not. So, if it's if they're requesting 14 doc slips, you get some kind of commitment that we're going to do 10 or 12. But Mr. Lindel, maybe you have some background for uh what what the applicant represented at the planning commission. Um, mayor, members of the council, um, the applicant really only brought up to staff tonight to try the difference the difference to make a differentiation between the boats of the slips that may be leased and the ones that they are saying are transient. So that's that that wasn't calculated as part of the conversation or the analysis that was done or part of the of the of the conversation that the planning commission had. Um in just a brief discussion with the applicant you you know before the meeting here uh staff just clarified that the zoning code doesn't differentiate in the parking requirement for a transient slip versus a leased slip. It just asks for a total number of slips and and provides a and and provides a parking requirement based on the number of slips. >> Okay. I guess that that's surprising to me and I'm not saying we did anything wrong in the zoning code, but just think logically you think, well, if you're going to lease it to someone that ought to trigger a parking requirement, that makes sense. But if it's transient, it's just by its very definition, a boat in that spot shouldn't accumulate a parking a parked vehicle at that location. It's boat traffic. Council member West. >> Um, thank you. So, so in your brief conversation this evening, was um was it clear how many of those would be transient? >> Uh mayor, members of the council, I'm sorry, not not to me. Um but I'm sure the applicant can uh uh help us with that. And I guess I would just say it seems like the context of the discussion here is um if the use was different there's that could help impact the parking requirement which talks about if the number of seats were a different number or the number of boat slips was a different number the parking requirement could also be less. So, >> well, I just I mean, so sorry um Council Member Hughes, I'm not quite done. Um I So, there is that part um that I am curious about and wondering about because if there was something that there was a guarantee that people, you know, wouldn't regularly be there, I might think about it a little bit differently. But I'm also kind of looking at the pattern of of variances, too. And I'm not um unlike Council Member Walsh, I'm not thinking that this is a a temporary issue um if there is redevelopment in that area differently, there could be even less parking than there is now. And I mean actually significantly less parking. And so like I um >> we could build a >> I just kind of I I appreciate everything that the VFW does. I I support veterans. I support everything that you do in the community and appreciate it. I'm just I'm I'm concerned about like a lot of creep and um going beyond like at at what point do we stop and what precedent are we setting for other people who are asking for variances who are looking back on this and going okay you changed the code but you gave a variance and so I want a variance now too and where where does that end with our city >> council member Hughes >> I just wanted to respond back to the your initial question of where of of the transient slips and I would just note that in their own written narrative that is in our packet and as part of all of their paperwork they've written they wrote in here originally that four of the slips will be reserved for short-term parking of the initial 12. So, it wasn't like this came up tonight that they decided, "Oh, we're all of a sudden going to do short-term." But, this was part of their original plan that four of those slips would always be for um short-term parking for the general public or for VFW members. >> Mr. Lindel, to your knowledge, when the when the conservation district approves the dock lengths and therefore slips, do they distinguish between transient versus uh lease slips? My understanding was that they do because they assess a fee. based on how many leased dock lease slips they have. But and if you don't know, that's okay. You're not the conservation district. >> Mayor, members of the council, I'm sorry. I don't know. >> Council member Edward. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Lindal. So, we've council member Walsh raised the idea that we're we're talking about four slip or four parking spots, which is kind of the ones next to the park. Um, I'm not following the math. And even if it were four transients, if I'm reading, and I I may be doing the math wrong, but that only saves you one spot, and uh I'm still not seeing where they all come from. Can can you help me understand what our real number is and even with the tangents um and why four is the gap >> that we've that we're discussing now as opposed to >> mayor members of the council the the variance request is for four parking stalls >> based on the parking requirement that would come along with 14 additional boat slips. So if the city's code requires one stall per additional for four additional slips that calculates out to be for 14 stalls that you need four addition >> counted as four. Okay. >> So all of our calculations are based on assumptions about use. We estab when we did the boat works project and the the public parking ramp, we made assumptions about the relative use of that parking space at different times of the day, different uh months of the year. And we came to a a proposal um that said, here are how these businesses that are in the in in this area of the triangle um can share these spots. And if our assumptions are right, we're not going to have we're not going to have tons of empty spots, and we're not going to have people circulating forever waiting for somebody to to to pull out. What's the current status of parking at uh at the B Boatwork uh ramp? Do we have excess capacity uh or were the uh assumptions that we made 10 years ago um reasonable and have proven themselves over time or uh are did we actually underestimate the the necessary use and and parking in that area? >> Um mayor, members of the council, I'm sorry I don't have hard data to give you an answer to that question. Do >> you have an observation or a guess or a intuition? Mayor, members of the council, I would say, you know, I would want to be able to give you some data that supports any um suggestion or finding staff might make. >> The the only one that comes to mind that is kind of the lowest hanging fruit would be complaints. Does the city receive complaints about that area? Um I think we have kind of um we are a listening partner to kind of ongoing conversations between property owners down there that there is a perception that parking is not adequate. Mhm. >> And so, uh, but that's, you know, that's being a third party listener and it's it's an it's anecdotal. >> I can appreciate your desire to use actual data. I appreciate that. Thank you. That's a that's a good standard to hold to. So drawing a parallel to the conversation we just had about the escrow accounts. Originally the the the focus of our conversation at council level was what's the impact on the homeowner who needs occupancy. Tonight we surfaced that and said you know what it's not just that homeowner that's impacted. We have enforcement uh issues and um compliance issues that get foisted upon unwilling and unwet on uh folk neighbors who didn't volunteer for that gig. All right. And the parallel strikes me here that by allowing expansion so first of all the VFW had an opportunity to purchase more uh stalls in the in the ramp 10 years ago. That choice was not exercised. That's okay. That's fine. People make choices. We live with them. Um but the we already have a full parking location. And when we borrow for it's for people that can't get to the park. It's for people that can't get to as easily get to the uh um any of the other amenities in the area. We're already giving them full credit for the 12 spaces that are directly affiliated and the ones across the street. And there's a part of me that says um enough is enough. Um we have bent and used and um used our flexibility not unreasonably but expanding that imposes burdens on other businesses and uses in the neighborhood and and deprivives citizens and other users of e as easy access to other amenities as it would to slips. the the restaurant, etc., etc. That's what I'm kind of balancing or trying to balance in my uh in my mind and saying, I don't know that this one is is the right place to stretch one more time. Council member Edberg, you can take this with a grain of salt, but you asked Mr. Lindall to uh d glean some information from intuition or observation. Um, and like I did with you when you said you spent a lot of time at the dog beach this summer, you're you're as good as how often you spend time there and how much time you have in. I actually happen to frequent that area quite a bit during the summer. So, it's anecdotal, but my observation has always been the ramp can get busy. You can have to hunt for a spot. I've never totally struck out, but it's you might get the last one or the last couple. Sometimes you got to go over to um Docks of White Bear, which technically is their own parking lot. They have far and away the most parking and that parking is used by all the other patrons. I I doubt the VFW cuz it's just a proximity thing and it's so far away. The times I go to the VFW, I can always pull right into the VFW lot because they always have someone out there during the busy times and they patrol it and police it because that's supposed to be for the VFW patrons. So, it's anecdotal. It doesn't neatly fit into the the the code application, which I agree with council member Walsh. Staff did it right. That's what you're supposed to do is apply it. But there are some discretionary points like the four parking spots. So I think as a practical matter, totality of the circumstances, you look at all this together, there are some practical difficulties, some unique things, and I'm not concerned that 14 more boat slips and potentially the need for four more based on our code parking spots is going to upset what is already a busy area. I think in practice, it's reasonable to speculate that that parking will probably already be available at the VFW. just the es and flows of the VFW and uh how often I see available spots there. So that's my my anecdotal observations. I also appreciate that we didn't in the staff's interpretation count those four spots. I I get the rationale in the code and that you you count you can count it across the street and you have to look at whether that can be developed and all the circumstances. I can tell you as someone who's lived in the Hulk community up until very recently, I just figured those were owned by tallies. I didn't even know they were the city city uh spots >> owned by the VFW. I'm sorry, rather the ones that the north. Um I would have up until recently never even thought, hey, that's fair game to park there if I'm going to go bring my girls to go fishing on the pier. So, I'm okay counting that because I think that's just a reasonable extension of the analysis of counting the parking spots that are immediately adjacent to. If you do that, I mean, if you can be convinced of that, we're already home free, right? Based on the addition of four parking spots, do I have that correct? If we counted those towards the count, >> mayor, members of the council, yes, they need four. That's four. That would satisfy their parking requirements. So, in terms of a land use analysis and not totally upsetting all the good work and in redoing the zoning code and rethinking this and taking a holistic look at it, if we analyze this and say, "No, I think we can within the context of our discretion of the code count those four spots, we're home free." >> Mayor, members of the council. Yes. >> So, that's where I come down on this. It makes sense. I recognize concerns about a slippery slope and we're kind of already carving out little exceptions right on the heels of passing the zoning code, but all land use comes down to uh you know try and make a good decision based on the totality of the circumstances. Look at everything holistically. Um, I would want confirmation from our city attorney to opine that this all makes sense in the context of what our quasi judicial authority is and that we're not getting sideways from that standpoint. Um, but as long as the city attorney says that um we're reasonably within our our purview to do this, I'm convinced that that we can grant this. >> Uh, mayor and council. So, if I'm hearing this correctly, I'd like to make sure what you just said, mayor, is is what you're suggesting and what I think you're suggesting, but it sounds like um if the council is in favor of interpreting the code language to make that reasonable extension of the four that the four parking stalls across the street would fall into that category of parking that can be counted toward the VFW spaces. um even though it's not maybe directly adjacent on the same side of the street um there would be no need for a variance either. Um and so I think the CUP and correct me if I'm wrong uh Mr. Lindal, but I think the CUP could be approved then because the variance is the only thing hanging uh in the balance of approval or denial of the CUP based on all the other analysis and requirements of the conditional use permit. Um, so I guess I would just ask for clarification. Is that what you're suggesting? Um, and if so, I you know, I don't necessarily disagree with it. I think the city code is is words on paper. Words need to be interpreted in order to be applied. Staff, I think here took a strict interpretation of that uh provision in your code. But if the council looks at it and says that's not what we intended, what we actually intended was maybe a little more flexibility. And in this case, that flexibility is warranted and we believe that is more closely aligned with the spirit and and intent of that um of that provision, then I think again the variance becomes unnecessary and the and the conditional use permit can be approved. >> Okay. So, if we were inclined to go that route, that would be, I guess, in the form of a motion to resolve that uh council's interpreting the code as it pertains to how we count parking to nonadjacent spots. That in this context, we're going to count those four spots towards the credit, I guess, if you will, um towards the parking requirements. That's effectively what it is. I might have made a hash job over the language, but uh that's the sentiment. I think that's fair. U mayor and council and if if again it's certainly the council's prerogative to opine and and interpret its code and direct staff and and how to to do the same. >> Council member Walsh. >> Well, thank you. And I I don't even know that we need all four of those. Frankly, I mean, if you another decision we could make as a body is to recognize the transient nature of two really two. I mean, there's four. If I have this right, maybe the applicant can help. But there's four that they're not going to lease. One is they allow the Ramsey County Sheriff to put their boat there. Uh, which is nice and a good service. And the I can tell you as because I live there, the sheriff parks on the sidewalk or parks wherever they want, frankly. Uh, so um, that's one. The other one is for the the volunteer boat for seniors, right? We have the pontoon for that. So that really leaves two transient spots. So you can count, you know, three of the four slips could be removed from the calculation. That could buy us a spot right there. You also heard that we've got issues with counting seats in the restaurant. Um, and I think that could be revisited. That could get us another spot, too. So, we may not even need all four of those. So, but combination of there's there's there's a there's different uses for those slips. And and by the way, I mean I think look, I think the the code is actually right just to make a more broader point. Uh we always say this, you know, we're making the we're making the decision today for the property, not for the current current owner. Uh the the they they could change the use the nature of those slips could be leased in a few years if the if the BFW decides to lease them. So we we do have to make a decision based on I'm I'm ruining my own argument here, but I'm just saying that's that's why that's why but you asked, Mr. Mayor, you asked why if they're transient, why would we have that in our code? We have that under code because the use the you know doesn't necessarily today's use might not be tomorrow's use. >> Yeah, I'm I'm trying I don't mean to cut you off. >> I'm still comfortable even with that, but because I know today's use is going to be they're going to allow it for transient slips and and I'm comfortable with with we are so close. We're close at four over and and I'm comfortable there, but we're even closer because we've got transit slips. We've got four parking spots to the north that aren't we could account for. We've got more seats in the restaurant if we did or less seats in the restaurant that we could we could re revisit. Um, so we are really close. The only other thing I'd add too is that I'm not worried about a slippery slope in the neighborhood because one reason is that this maxes out the marinas in the bay. this this extension of the VFW dock. Essentially, everyone's out to the fullest they can go per the DNR and per the conservation district. So, these are the last slips that can be added really. There's no more room for any more slips in the marina. So, I suppose anything's possible, but we kind of are finished with slips if we allow this today. Uh if we allow the the parking. So, I don't in this area. And then just my own observations as somebody who lives there. Uh you can park there right now. There's no problem. I mean, there's no problem in winter for most of the year. There's no problem. Busy summer nights, you know, it's a great problem to have. We have a lot of people that want to come down to all of those spots. Um, and so, yeah, there's some challenges on busy summer nights and we're going to marginally add to that problem and we're going to do it because we're going to let the VFW uh get that slip rental. By the way, it it leads they didn't mention this. I would have made this point from the VFW's perspective. It does allow for a financially stable VFW on in the in the coming years. This is revenue slips are revenue in these marinas. Everybody knows that. We know that as as an owner of a marina. Um so it helps a really successful VFW uh remain stay successful and continue to do the things they're doing in the community. So all of those reasons tell me we're so close and we're even closer than I think the math says. I'm I'm comfortable uh granting it and I don't know what form that takes you know in terms of resolutions. >> Council member Edward. >> Thank you mayor. So if we adopt the interpretation that our that the uh city attorney kind of rounded out um and we now have a different inter interpretation about non-abudding spaces. Do we have where else does that argument come to play in the city, the downtown, other places in the community? Um and has it Where does the rest of the um community fall if we start changing our interpretation about abudding spaces? And what are the the unintended consequences of making a favorable interpretation in this situation only to end up mcking up other situations in other places? And I'm sensitive the the idea that we're having some intellectual horse trading going on. That's fine. That's part of our job. But we're doing it without having given our staff an opportunity to investigate, to research, or to come back with some of that specific information. So, I'm actually not expecting Mr. Lindal to be able to tell me that um hey if you do if you make this interpretation it's going to show up on this that or the other location and you're going to create issues somewhere else and we should be knowledgeable about that before we make a decision. So at in this horse trading sense we should not take action on this this item tonight. um we should have more thought going into okay what are the consequences of what we're doing. >> Um Mr. Lindol, if you have an answer, otherwise I have some things to say. But the question was asked to you, >> mayor, members of the council. Um, you're right. I don't I can't tell you every place it would occur and what the impact would be, but >> I'm going to I'm going to pose what I'm about to say to make sure I'm understanding what I think I'm hearing from the council. So, the code does say that stalls across the street from a business may be counted if um the site ac across the street won't be developed. And so if in this case the council is saying because uh it's a public use or a park that that is not development um then the research I would do for you if we choose to bring this back would be to look at other places where there's parks across the street from other businesses and and to apply that same standard and I could show you that. Um, my guess is that that's a fairly limited number of situations, but I can't tell you for sure until we look at the numbers. >> So, I just want to elaborate on that. Just reading the code language. The code language. Only space on the same side of the street is a subject. Use may be counted except that the opposite side of the street may be counted if the property on the opposite side of the street does not have the potential for future development. Now, I think we can split hairs and make reasonable arguments on both sides. This is a long-standing park. There's the pier there which is highly used. It's not going to get developed. Does it have the potential to be developed? Maybe. But I think we can fairly count those four spots. I also think in terms of precedent setting and does this kind of jam us up for other things, that's a little dead end in a boat launch there that people that frequent that park, it's anecdotal fine. Nobody's driving their car saying, "I'm going to go to the that park's four spots right next to the VFW, unlike Podvin or Raali or any other park where there really is dedicated parking that you associate with patrons of that park. So this is a unique circumstances stance. I'm not troubled by saying now we can reasonably interpret our code and say we're not we're not handcuffing ourselves for future whatifs as they come along and say we're going to count those four uh as part of the credit and we're home free with the condition of use permit without requiring the variance. I think that passes the smell test. I'm reasonably convinced it passes the legal test, but I'm not council for the city, so I'll defer to council. And I also have uh the opinion that as a matter of public policy and us doing our jobs, this just makes good sense for that area. And I think Council Member Walsh brings up a really really good point. You can just pull up an aerial of of Commercial Bay there. Everybody but the VFW is out to 300 ft, which is what the DNR allows right now. And this brings four more 14 more slips, maxes out Commercial Bay in what is already really really busy. 14 is a drop in the bucket and potentially four more cars, though I'm of the opinion you're going to get walkers and bikers that are going to use those. Um, and doesn't upset anything. So, this just makes sense all around. >> Council member Hughes. >> Yeah. I just want to say I was an idiot and didn't realize that we were talking about those four spots right there. I thought when you were talking about four adjacent spots, you were talking about the ones that were on the street there on 61. There are probably half dozen public spots right next to the park, but just up the block as well. So, this isn't, you know, if you're going to go fishing on the pier, half I mean six, eight, six, eight spots that you can see on the aerial that are right there as well. So, this doesn't take away parking opportunities. um for the park and and actually those spots in some ways are probably closer than if you were going to park, you know, on Whitaker to the VFW, those um adjacent public parking spots. And there are two businesses that are there on 61 that have their own parking lot. Council member Walsh. >> Thank you. Uh just just responding to uh Council Member Edberg's uh comments. I I think what we're doing is I don't want to change the policy. I don't want to make I don't on the on a you know spots north that aren't abuing the property. I don't want to make a policy change that can be that's not my intent. It would be a presidential thing. We would be doing it once which is precedent and it certainly would allow people to point to that hey you did it there you know but that's my thought just I think the mayor said the same thing I think it's a one-time we're going to allow it here as a president you know we're going to do it and I think it might be in within the policy to do it. Uh so that's just comment one. comment too is I I um I think there are a few outstanding issues including this what you just asked for in terms of getting some research done on unintended consequences where this where else in the city this might be. I'm not averse to the tableabling this. Um I'd like to get to a yes. I'd like to convince you and if that helps to do that. Um I think there are there are there are issues that have been brought up tonight that are new. the the the the transient issue of the some of the slips, the seating in the restaurant that could be revisited. We don't have the benefit of staff actually taking a crack at that. So, we're really flying on. They said they have fewer seats. It'd be nice to know that we have fewer seats and that could change the formula right there. So, I guess I mean I'd be happy to get a yes vote tonight and and move on, but if it's better to wait, I don't think we're going to be breaking ground on slips this week um in White Bear Lake. I mean, I don't know. We can do this in January. Now, granted, that's a different council and a different mayor, but uh um fortunately those folks are in the room listening, so that that helps. Um so, anyway, I just throw that out. I mean, if we can if we can get to yes, I'm yes. But if we if it's smart to wait and get more data and get better data, I I'm happy to wait, too. >> I mean, >> because a no is a bad vote tonight because that does preclude them for a year if I'm not correct. Right. That if we give them a no tonight, um that it's another year to come back and ask for that kind of a variance. Am I am I wrong on that? >> On that specific question, Mr. Windle, >> Mayor, members of the council, yes, our ordinance does say that if you're your application is denied, you're prohibited from asking for substantially the same application uh for one year. Um I'm sorry, one other just quick point I would make uh for you, mayor, to to kind of give some context to Council Member Walsh's statement. So to your point, I believe what you were you where you were going with this and again correct me if I'm not reading you uh correctly. Um is the council can interpret the code um and you're making an interpretation about that section of the code about parking spots across the street. And so, and that is true because what our code says if you is if an applicant and staff um differ on an interpretation of the code, the appeal is to the council. So, that is a specific process that we could have gone down before this, but we would have basically ended up in the same place. The applicant chose to go the variance route and that's where we are now. >> Yeah. So on that point, I don't know what other fair interpretation there is. So council member Walsh to your point, how do we get to yes, as Mr. Lindall has just laid out, if if we count those four spots, we're home free, right? So it says if it says you get to count the spots on the opposite side of the street, if that area does not have the potential for future development, does anybody think that that little nook that's historically been a park and is used widely and has uh World War II monuments and different things that has the potential to become an apartment complex. Anybody think that reasonably? I don't. So, I think we interpret our own code and say count the four spots. >> That's pretty simple. And I don't need to get into a headcount of how many people they can fit in to buy cheeseburgers and beers. I we don't even need to get there. You count the four spots. If if people have an appetite for that, I don't want to shove it down the council's throat, but there seems to be a willingness to say this just makes sense to grant this, but we want to be mindful of precedent setting the code. I really don't want to go down a variance route because that makes me more nervous with the legal standard that applies. This this makes more sense for all the reasons that were outlined as concerned concerns if it is the will of the council to ultimately grant this. >> So, if someone has a >> what does that look like legislatively? What? What do you What do you Is it just the the one and not the other? That there's two motions in front of us, right? >> I think I I I def I'll def >> Well, I was going to defer to the city attorney in terms of how to how to queue up an action item. >> Sure. So, I I think what I'm hearing is the first motion, if if the council wish to go on the path that the mayor um has just proposed and that we've been discussing and applying that parking credit standard to those four stalls across the street would be um a motion to apply the on street parking credit that's in section 13 09.040.3 040.3 of the city's zoning code to those four stalls across the street um and to the VFW so that they get that credit um based on the language in that provision. And if the council approves that um then I think by virtue of that approval and that interpretation, you are clearing the path for the conditional use permit to be approved because the variance again no longer becomes um at all relevant or necessary from the VFW's standpoint. Um, and then, you know, I I would assume if that happens and the CUP is approved that the VFW would withdraw their variance application. Um, but I I don't want to speak for them um in that regard. I I don't think you want to deny it because we're not talking about it. or you I suppose you could dispose of it by denying it um as well after you do that for all the reasons that staff has recommended. Um but I think those are the two paths you can go down. I guess I would be interested if if the council wishes to and the mayor is interested in it to hear from the applicant about this and and find out if they're willing to withdraw that variance uh uh application in the event that that other motion was approved. Can I just can I just talk through that process of what I'm hearing? Just to just to recap, it'd be a motion resolving that we're interpreting the code how we said we're going to credit these four spots. We could then move and approve the conditional use permit as it stands before us. >> Correct. >> We could table the variance and then if the applicant withdraws, it just isn't taken up. Do I have that correct? From a process standpoint, >> that all works from a process standpoint. Yes. >> Okay. I don't I don't want to hear from the applicant just yet because I don't want to just pre-ordain that that's what the council wants to do or or ask for that votes, >> but >> um well, you know, here's a route we can go down. You can bring that motion to interpret the code with the four spots. And if that dies, nothing happens. We still have these these things before us. So, I would I would ask for a motion. >> I'll make that motion and see where people are at. >> Okay. motion as as laid out by the city attorney a minute ago >> accepting the four spots to the to the north across the street as a credit towards the parking. Okay. Do I have a second on that motion? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? I assume there will be some. Council member Edbert. >> I'm not going to support the motion. I'm not willing to make I'm not interested in necessarily saying no. I am interested in understanding more about consequences and and other interpretations. And so that's where I'm at. >> See, see, this gets me back to where I was five minutes ago. I'm I'm more comfortable tableling the entire discussion. Um >> I would second a motion to table. >> I I I'm much more comfortable doing that given where the where the council was tonight. Let's not let's not make this decision until we have more information. There's more information out there. doesn't the only it it kicks it to January. I get it. It's a different council, different mayor, but um the issues are all the same and we have better information and um I lost my train of thought, but that but so I'm going to withdraw the earlier motion I just made. >> Okay, Mr. Lindle, you had a comment. Um, mayor, members of the council, I I'll suggest a path a path forward that I think is getting to where the council is. I would suggest that the council um have general conversations to see if there is a consensus on the interpretation that the mayor is asking for about the parcel about the parking stalls across the street. If there is that, then the council could direct staff to interpret the code that way. That would be on the record that the applicant would hear. And then they could um have a motion to table both items tonight. That would then allow the applicant time to withdraw with with the understanding that the applicant has now an understanding of how the council is going to interpret the code that they then withdraw the variance and um agree to uh well staff would then draft a resolution for you for approval of the conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of the stalls that then would note the council's interpretation about the stalls across the street and then could also you know ask for um the applicant to designate the transient stalls or if that was important Mr. Mayor. >> So my sense is we do not have that consensus yet and that we need more information before we get there. So my sense is we we have I at least my interpretation is we we are not there uh on counting those four spots. we need more information, better information to get there. So, I think just tableabling the entire discussion to the next meeting in January um is the is a better motion. And then and then yeah, we can do all of this research. We've got time to do some research on the unintended consequences um the precedent we're going to set if we do this. And then I think also get some better numbers from the applicant on seats in the restaurant and the maybe get a little better explanation the the use even though It's not technically something we have to take into account, but we can take into account the use at least the use at the moment of those trans slips. >> Is there anyone else on the council? >> I think it's I think it's a motion to table the entire discussion in January. >> I just want to make sure we've heard from any everyone on the council that has a thought generally on the four spots and whether that's a reasonable interpretation to credit them. Anyone have an opinion or want to offer it at this time before we decide which direction we're going to go? I say we count them. >> You say we count the four. >> So you mentioned that you wanted to draw it. It's you can you can bring that motion for that interpretation right now. And if it if it passes or fails, we still can take up the other ones and you can still table something to table the two things that are before the council. But if you withdrawn, then there's no motion before us. And I'm going to sit here until the council decides to do something cuz I don't vote. So, >> well, >> did you just withdraw? >> Well, look, my my memor is there's a motion to table on the on the in front of us right now. >> Who made it? >> I made it and Edber second. >> I'll second it. >> That was That's I thought that was already on the table. >> Technically, Mr. Walsh, I didn't hear the mayor recognize the motion. Okay. >> I heard you say the words. >> It's because technically I didn't. >> Yeah, because technically I didn't. the >> recognition of the motion. >> Yeah, cuz I didn't. But if you want to remake it, it's >> maybe I'm misreading. Maybe Mr. Linda is more correct than I am. I mean, in terms of where where the council's at on this. I mean, so maybe what? >> Well, then go ahead and make a motion. >> So, we have to vote on the We have to vote on the tableing. I'm declaring tableing and then we're back at back and then we're back at where he listen we have the three votes to move forward and then we're done with this for the evening. >> Here's what we have before us. There was a motion by council member Walsh. It was seconded by Hughes for the interpretation of the four spots that was withdrawn. There was a motion made by council member Walsh, not recognized by the chair, nor was the second by council member Edward. So right now we have nothing before us. I would entertain a motion to interpret the code that the four spots across the street are recognized for purposes of the parking credit. >> So moved. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second that. Any further discussion on that? >> No. Oh, yes, Mr. Mayor. just to say that I would I was trying to get five votes for this, but if we if we can get it done tonight in 2025 and not bring this back in 2026, uh then we'll we'll take the three and get it done. So, let's let's vote for it. >> I don't know how many are going to vote for it. I just know that it's properly before us. Any further discussion on this? All those in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? >> No. >> No. >> So, by a vote of 3 to two, it passes. I believe what's before us is we can pass as is the resolution >> well then we would need a motion to either amend the resolution before us or uh a motion to approve >> bring it back >> well we don't have to direct bring it back I mean we can approve the the applicant um based on a motion to to approve the the application for the conditional use permit to amend uh 446096 Lake AB South. Can we not? >> Historically, this well always this council has approved land use applications by resolution. There needs to be a written document with findings that gets recorded against the property. Um, however, the council has acted on an interpretation of the code that staff now can take back to its desk, prepare a resolution to be brought back to council that based on that interpretation no longer requires a variance. And so I think the appropriate action would be um to well first I think you should table the variance decision because that isn't going to any longer be required and then after that um I would recommend that the council make a motion to direct staff to bring back a resolution approving the conditional use permit for the applicant in light of the interpretation of the code that the council directed staff to to make tonight. Understood. So I would entertain a motion to approve the variance application >> to table to table the denial that's before us for the variance. >> Mayor, members of the council, I would just like to remind you um that the 60-day clock is ticking on this application and because we don't have a second meeting in December, um the 60-day note on the applicant's application is January 4th. So would just we just want the applicant to acknowledge publicly that they allow for an extension to have this process play out. >> Would the applicant like to step up and offer an opinion of whether or not they would like to grant an extension that would behoove their position quite a bit? >> Uh Justin Frogner, senior vice commander, White Lake VFW post 1782. Uh we do accept that to offer to extend to see this play out. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Just to clarify, I assume that's the initial 60 days that expires at in early January or has it been extended pursuant to the 60-day rule that allows the city to extend it one time for up to 60 additional days? >> Yes, it's been extended by the city. >> Oh, it has. Okay. >> To this date. >> Okay. >> So, are we good? It's still timely. Well, it as as long as we get a written extension from the applicant, which it sounds like they're willing to provide, um, then yes, we're we're ab we're fine under the 60-day rule. >> Yeah, we need that written extension by January 4th. >> I would ask for it by tomorrow so staff doesn't have to plan a special meeting to dispose of these applications. I would I would get it as soon as possible because we have technically until January 9th, but if we don't get it soon, it'll be um it'll be an issue. It's on us the 60 days. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I believe we have a motion a second to table. >> Yes. Move. So move to table the variance. >> We have a motion to second. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Do I have a motion to direct staff to bring back a resolution with findings approving the conditional use permit application? >> Move. >> Second. >> A motion. Second. Any further discussion on that? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. That res that uh it's approved. Okay. That was a fun one. Go to last council meeting for me. All right. Where are we? 8B. Resolution approving the 2026 classific classification and compensation plan. Mr. Lindel, >> Mr. >> Juba, sir, >> council members, good evening. Uh, each year the council reviews the city's classification and compensation plan in conjunction with the budget. This practice uh aligns with the city's strategic plan, specifically the strategic objective that aims to maintain a desirable and collaborative workplace environment with competitive pay and benefits. For 2026, a 3% cost of living adjustment is proposed and budgeted for the affects uh this affects all non-bargaining employees as uh union employees wages are approved separately in their contracts. Also in uh the plan this year, we have one new job classification which is uh or proposed to be added which is an IT technician. Uh it's an additional position. We currently have one uh city IT full-time employee who supports all 140 employees at the city over 600 IT assets and uh supports the 247 operation. So this is proposed to support and bolster that internal service. Uh one reclassification is also proposed for 2026 and that is reclassifying the GIS technician to a GIS coordinator position. Uh this is one uh one position that's already here. It's just a reclassification. Uh the position was hired as an entry- level position in 2021. Uh it's now operating much more independently and has become a valued resource for all city departments. So we are proposing to reclassify that. Uh staff recommends approval of the 2026 classification and compensation plan and we'll stand for any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Juba. >> Uh any questions or additional comments? Miss M. Crawford. >> Thank you. Uh, mayor, members of the council, I just want to add we put this packet together before you adopted the budget. Everything that's in this compensation plan, including the IT position, uh, is in the budget that you just approved. Thanks. >> Move to approve. >> I have a motion to approve uh, the resolution approving the 2026 class and comp plan. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Motion to second. Any further discussion on this? >> Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. class and comp plan is approved. Uh item 8B, resolution approving the labor agreement for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49. Mr. Juba, I believe this is you too. >> It is correct. Uh thank you, Mr. Mayor and council members. Uh city public city's public works uh maintenance technicians, mechanics, and working foreman are all represented by local 49, and their current agreement expires at the end of this year. The city and the union have met on five occasions and came to an agreement on a two-year contract that will cover 2026 and 2027. The union has voted and approved on the proposed amendments. Highlights of those amendments include settlement on health insurance and benefit contributions which were at the same levels for uh the rest of uh the unions that have been approved for 2026 and the non-bargaining staff. Uh increase in minimum call back time from 2 and 1/2 hours to 3 hours. uh for wages, a 3% cost of living adjustment in both years, so 2026 and 2027. And then also for wages in uh on July 1st of 2026, uh there's a slight wage uh and scale adjustment for all the maintenance tech positions uh on July 1st and then also a step adjustment for the working foremen on July 1st and the lead mechanic. Uh these are small moves to keep them competitive in the market. Um, additional items in the agreement of note are the implementation of Minnesota paid leave at a 50/50 employee employer uh contribution split, which is consistent with the rest of the city. Uh, and then some nominal increases in their clothing and tool allowances for both years. And with that, staff recommends the approval of the agreement with local 49 and can stand for any questions. >> Thank you, Mr. Juba. Council, any comments? Council member Walsh. >> Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I asked to pull this off the consent agenda. I didn't quite anticipate where it would fall. My goal was to have this fall before we discussed the budget. I I didn't think that through very well. So, and the only point was that, you know, this is this is why we raise taxes tonight. I mean, this is this is this is the same for for I think I think all if all of our bargaining units um are in this range or even not this number, the 3% 3%. So, this is just indicative of what we're talking about for the bulk of the increase in the levy when we talk about people. Here's an example. Here's a contract we've we've we've just agreed to with our some of our employees. Uh with this, you can see it. So, that was my point. Uh just didn't didn't quite time it right. Uh uh but that was why I pulled it off the consent and I'll move to approve the uh resolution. >> Second. >> Have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. Resolution is passed. Item 4D, resolution approving an agreement with Ramsey County for the jurisdiction and ownership transfer of a portion of Otter Lake Road and Wiper Parkway. Miss Crawford, >> thank you, members of the council. Uh, just quickly, in 2024, the city began working with Ramsey County uh to reconstruct uh on a reconstruction project of Otter Lake Road from County Road 96 to 4th Street in White Beer Lake. Um during that project, development concerns were heard through public engagement uh regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety along the corridor with the trail proposed to be constructed right behind the the back of the curb. Um we also heard uh from the community. I know a couple council members um um also received feedback regarding truck traffic. Um so as a result uh you know the best solution that the staff uh city staff and county staff came up with is that a jurisdictional transfer would be best. Um the city has uh you know more authority than the county to restrict truck traffic on its roadways. Uh there's the best interest of both parties uh is to trade county to trade outer lake road from county road 96 to 9inth street for uh white bear parkway from county road 96 to lake road. So currently um that portion in blue that's up on the screen of White Bear Parkway is uh maintained and and operated by the city um I suppose on the township too because it does go through two jurisdictions which further proves it shouldn't be a city uh roadway. And then the red uh portion of Utter Lake Road is currently county. And so that's that's what we we are looking at um taking back um from Ramsey County and I guess just trading the two. Um and again we we have the more authority for uh to restrict truck traffic on roadways. Signage will be placed on Otter Lake Road following the exchange which would shift truck traffic to White Bear Parkway um which has a better design suited for all that traffic. So the proposed agreement between the city and the county will transfer all ownership and maintenance responsibilities respectively. So, we will be uh if the council approves this next year, we will begin plowing um Otter Lake Road and uh the county will take White Bear Parkway. Um the official exchange will occur early 2026. Um at which time, like we I just said, we will we will do the signage at that time and the county will work to have the designation changed with entities such as Google Maps and other mapping entities for that truck traffic. So, with that, I'll stand for questions from the council. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Crawford. Council member Walsh. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I I pulled this one off the agenda as well, just to highlight it. This is this is really a victory. I mean, this is um uh government listening. I mean, the folks in this neighborhood, the truck traffic going on down that road, there's just no way to fix it. This this will fix it. Not right away. It's going to take a while for, like you said, for Google Maps Maps to catch up. But, uh this is just great work. Uh great county city collaboration. Uh uh Ramsey County Commissioner Victoria Reinhardt spent a lot of time on this. Um and I know our staff did too. Uh staff and staff. So just I didn't want this buried in the consent agenda and get all we we vote for it and without recognizing it's just a really good uh project. So I'll move approval. >> Well said. I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? >> Council member destination of what size truck we're going to advan on there? Just cuz >> some of us drive that. Just Just wondering >> how many how many tons >> I'll get back to you on that. >> Nine ton nine ton >> whatever you driving up. Just kidding. >> The big 18-wheeler is the one that really is is causing the conration. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. Any further discussion on trucks or otherwise? Seeing none, all those in favor say I. I. >> Any opposed? Motion carries. That resolution is approved as well. Item nine, discussion, nothing scheduled. Item 10, communication from the city manager, Miss Crawford. >> I do have a slide tonight. Uh, Winterfest in downtown Wiper Lake. Uh, the last uh Saturday is this weekend. Um, so go check out all of the all the happenings in downtown Wiper Lake. I'll be there. Um, fire safety with Santa is this Sunday at the North Fire Station just next door. um uh uh from 1 to 3. Again, sign up is required. City offices will be closed on December 24th and 25th for the holiday. And uh the next city council meeting is January 13th uh 2026. And at that time, we will honor um Mayor Lewis Met and council member Hughes. And we will also swear in our mayor elect Mary Nlowski and council member elect Ellen Gerola. We will also swear in council member Kevin Edber again to his fifth term. Um, so, um, we'll invite the community to come to celebrate all of those, uh, good things that we have going on here. Thank you. >> Very good. I know I've I made the speeding longer than it should be, but I have one just additional announcement. It fits in this area. I'm attending a um a corridor management committee meeting on Thursday uh for the Met Council for the bronze line. Now, you may say, what's the bronze line? So, we had rush line and then we had purple line. It's been rebranded as the bronze line, a bus rapid transit project from home St. Paul depot uh up to Maplewood. And so just up just that's an update for y'all and then uh I'll I'll be at the meeting representing our our interest um on Thursday at the M council. >> Very good. >> Thank you. Anything else for the city manager? All right. I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. So move. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. I. I. We're ajourned.