Call the city council regular meeting from Monday, March 2nd, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. to order. I'll rise for the pledge of allegiance. I >> pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Moving on to item number three, roll call. Administrator Pus. Um, council member Jensen >> present. >> Council member >> present. >> Council member Scott
>> present. >> Mayor Roen Campam >> present. >> And council member is absent. >> Thank you. Number four, open forum. The city council invites residents share new ideas or concerns related to city business not already on the agenda. However, individual questions and
remarks are limited to three minutes per speaker. No city council action will be taken, although the council may refer issues to staff for followup or for consideration at a future meeting. The mayor may use discretion if speakers are repeating views other already expressed
or ask for a spokesperson for groups of individuals with their similar views. Speakers should state their name and home address at the podium before speaking. And before opening the open form, I'll just say if you are here to address the short-term rentals, please hold your comments until that item on
the agenda. I will be giving the public an opportunity to comment at that time. So again, uh if you're here for short-term rental and want to make comments about that, please hold it till the agenda item is up and once staff has gone through the discussion, I will open
it up to the public for comment. So with that being said, is there anybody here that wishes to address the council in open forum? Is there anybody here that wishes to address the council in open forum? I'll ask one last time. Is there anybody here that wishes to address the council
in open forum? Open forum is now closed. Moving on. Item five, consent agenda. 5 A, approve city council meeting minutes from February 2nd, 2026. 5B, approve strategic planning meeting minutes from
February 3rd, 2026. 5C approved claims totaling 319,14.95 for checks 14904 to14984 and e checkeks 4082
to 4104. 5D adopt uh County Road 11 and Eagle View Elementary site circulation study. 5E accept strategic plan summary. 5 F, approve animal control enforcement
control contract with Lakes Area Wildlife Control. 5G, approve revisions to job description and authorize advertisement of planning and zoning administrator. 5H, approve sale of 2024 Explorer and vehicle purchase of credit agreement.
5, approve sewer rate study proposal. 5J, approve resolution 09-2026 to establish a 2026 polling place. 5K, adopt resolution 10-2026,
accept donation of defibrillator to the police department. And 5 L, adopt resolution 11-2026, excuse me, supporting and authorizing application for Sourcewell internship reimbursement funding. Having read the
consent agenda, are there any items or discussion by council? Hearing none, do I have a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> I have a motion from council member Jensen. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I have a second from council member Moroni. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those
in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries. Moving on. Item six under business items 6A, short-term rental licensing process
discussion. Administrator PFU. >> Yes, thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm going to summarize a lot of information, so bear with me here. I'll try and keep it as brief as I can. Um, in your packet, I've included a brief timeline of the short-term rental ordinance discussions over the last 5 to six years. This conversation is being brought back to
the council tonight because the at the city council meeting in December, the council heard from short-term rental license holders regarding a proposed updated process for 2026 renewals. The city council did not approve the proposed increased fee and directed staff to return to a future meeting with
additional information for discussion. The purpose of tonight's conversation is to receive direction on the administrative process associated with the short-term rental licensing, not to revisit or amend the ordinance itself. As reflected in the timeline in your packet, this ordinance was evaluated
extensively by the planning commission, city staff, a separate task force, and the city council. Staff is not proposing revisions to the ordinance tonight. We are aiming to have a conversation and get directions on two items. The first one is the revision to the license application and the second is whether
the council would like to include a basic safety inspection prior to license approval. So for the application, the current short-term rental licensing process involves completing a one-page application as seen in your packet along with paying a $300 annual license fee.
Under the current process, it is very difficult for staff to verif ver verify compliance with the ordinance prior to issuing a license, particularly in regard to occupancy and guest limits. Staff proposes a revised application that requires the applicant to provide a
few additional items including the legal number of bedrooms as ordinance states um the legal size of bedrooms, the size of the bedrooms offered to guests. In the ordinance, it states that a license holder shall not advertise the property as containing more rooms than identified
in the license. The maximum number of guests allowed. The ordinance states that a license holder shall not advertise the property as available to more guests than the occupancy limit identified on the license. And um plans identifying rooms and structures on the
property. These changes will help staff better determine compliance with the ordinance prior to issuing. As for the inspection, um during the original short-term rental ordinance discussions, a basic safety inspection was discussed multiple times. Language
was included in the ordinance allowing the city to conduct inspections. The ordinance states that an owner shall permit access to the property for the purpose of an inspection. However, an inspection program was never implemented. The goal of this inspection is to ensure the safety of the
properties in Breezy Point and the safety of those renting within the city. The intent of the inspection is not to be overly burdensome, but to confirm that minimum public safety standards are being met. Staff has received questions about wine inspection is necessary when
license holders are required to provide proof of insurance covering their short-term rental activity. Insurance carriers are responsible for managing the financial risk to the carrier. Their inspections, if completed, are designed to assess the risk, determine premiums, and confirm coverage related items. The
city's responsibility is quite different. Our responsibility is to ensure the public safety and code compliance. A city inspection would focus on different elements such as fire safety, code compliance, occupancy limits, and emergency items. We are the
responsible authority for our local code and regulations and we cannot delegate that responsibility to insurance companies. Staff has met multiple times over the last few months to streamline a rental inspection checklist to focus on life and safety components. As you'll
see in your packet, the cost of the inspection would be $200 per property. If the council directs staff to include an inspection, staff recommends increasing the annual fee to $500 to account for the inspection costs. If directed, staff would implement this process for 2027. We would begin
accepting applications in the fall of 2026 and allow a grace period for renewals in 2027 to ensure property owners have enough time to complete the application materials and inspection. So tonight, we are looking for direction on
one, the revised application, and two, the implementation of the safety inspection. We have Scott Seduski, the city's building official here to speak um and answer any questions related to the inspection. And we also have Jerry Bonesac, the city's planning and zoning administrator, to address any questions
as well. >> Thank you, Administrator Puss. >> You're welcome. >> Mr. Sunduski, how are you this evening? >> Good. How about yourself? >> I'm doing good. Um, so any further information you may want to add to what uh administrator PFU shared with us in
regards to inspection and some of the things? No, I thought she did a a tremendous job on explaining what we're going to really be conducting if you guys so choose that you want us to go out there is a basic life health safety inspection and then to really the other
reason we're out there is to ensure what they put on their application is on site. >> Okay. Council, do you have any questions for staff regarding the information that was shared? Um maybe just looking for some
clarification. So this was in front of the council >> December meeting. >> At the December meeting. >> Yes. Correct. >> And at that time was there a proposal to increase the fee?
>> Yes. >> To include the life safety inspection. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. And can you refresh? >> I can recap that. So around the renewal time of 2026 period, staff had discussions about implementing the
inspection that was always intended. So we're like, this is the year to do this. Uh we talked internally, revised the application, um put the new fee in the fee schedule. When we sent that out, um to the license holders for renewal, we
got some push back on the fee and the proposed inspection. at the meeting in December. That's when you guys all heard from the license holders in the um open forum. So, it was not an item on the agenda. >> So, then you guys directed us to come back with information so you could look
at this comprehensively. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I appreciate that. Um so, a lot of that for me goes to, you know, what are what are we really accomplishing with a short-term uh license?
uh happen to be maybe an outlier on the council. I I tend not to, you know, favor a short-term rental license. Um I tend to favor more of an approach where people are allowed to do with their property what what is legally allowed
for them to do. Um I still am a little unclear in terms of what the short-term rental license is getting at. Um, I think early on it was mostly to do with making sure we don't have incompatible
uses of properties, basically adjoining properties or within a certain uh area. And now I'm starting to understand it's maybe some of that along with really looking out for the well-being of the occupants of these properties as they're
being rented. Um, I am fully in supportive um of doing what we can to ensure people's safety. I just don't know that I would support the additional fee. Um, $300
uh seems like a reasonable amount to charge u for a license in this way. Um, at the end of the day, we got to support uh what we're charging. And I I can get I can get around 300. I
I don't know that uh an additional 200 to me is um something that makes sense. I I think whatever additional cost the building inspector is going to have um and going out and taking a look at things should be able to be covered
within that $300. Administrator Pulfus. Sure. >> So when we look at the licensing fee and the inspection fee, what is that covering? Can you give us an overview of what that covers as far as cost to the city? >> Sure. Yep. So the current fee $300 is
the application process. That's intake of staff time associated with the licensing process. So that's Deb staff time, Jerry's review time, the issuance time. Um the $200 additional fee is the inspection. So that will be an
expenditure for us that is either one covered by the short-term rental license person or taxpayers. I mean that we have to pay them that. >> Right. >> The $300 I mean you can go ahead Scott. So, like for the
inspection fee, it covers for us to send a letter to schedule the inspection, then to go out and do the inspection, and if there's any corrections to go out and do a correction inspection. Um the the other thing is what people don't
realize is they, you know, like Jerry would have time into checking the septic system if it's not on city sewer. Um there there's a lot more to it. I guess I I'm not here to justify all the fees, but I'm just kind of saying what they're
getting out of it. Um I know for me the the one thing that's kind of important, and I think Brad will empathize with this with being a former city employee, but if if we do have a problem at one of these properties and it's it's owned by
Breezy Point Holdings LLC, we don't have a phone number to call. And we are accomplishing that with licensing, but we're also like I looked on VBO and like they had the Point Condos, there was a unit for rent there
and those aren't very big units and they had sleeps eight. I'm really curious on how that's going to sleep eight. And those aren't I mean, last time I was in one of those units, they're about 600 square ft. So, that's the the thing that we're accomplishing with the inspection
is just making sure that everything is correct that's on the on the uh application itself. >> Great. Thank you for that additional information. Other comments by from councel? I I'll I'll guess I'll I'll I'll state I
think when we look at the short-term rental ordinance we have in place, it now calls for an inspection. It's been in there since the inception of our ordinance. Um, I think what we're we're looking at is trying to get that ordinance fully enacted. Um, and I think
also when you start to look around the at at at cities in the area, outside the area, whatever, and we start looking, and I know staff did some research on that, what do other cities charge? What do they do? Do they have inspections? Do they not? What are those costs? We've
done our due diligence and homework to look at that. I think it's important from my perspective is that we have a responsibility as a city to make sure that what's that everything is up to code and up to snuff. Whether it be an
inspection, whether it be that we make sure that people aren't having more people than they're supposed to have in that place. And let's say for instance there's a fire and now we find out the occupancy was way over what it was supposed to be. I mean, there's so many different factors
that I think as a city that we have to be aware of and look at. Um, and when I look at the cost uh of the license fee and I look at the cost of the inspection fee and I go on VBO and I look at what somebody gets for one night,
I'm be quite honest. I think that's a cost of doing business. And some people may not like that for me saying it, but I I'm I'm saying it because I think that's important part. And at the same time, we're taking care of what we need to do for the city from this perspective, which is we have an
ordinance. It was approved. It is in place. It is active. We need to follow the ordinance. The ordinance calls for an inspection. We need to have that. Um, I think also we're looking at it as we're not trying to put it on this year. So, we have the opportunity to give
everybody as STR owners a chance to go, okay, we know this is coming. We're going to need to be prepared for it. and it gives everybody an opportunity to get what they need done, whatever that may be, or just be prepared for the fact that they're going to have that extra cost going into next year. So, um I know
that uh you know it's it's tough at times when you look at these types of things and some people would say, "Well, that's overreach." I think it's us doing our due diligence as a city to make sure that we're doing what we're supposed to do. And that's not only the people that are the short-term rental owners, it's also for the other citizens of the city
that live in and amongst these short-term rentals. Um, so that's what I that's my comments. >> Anything else? >> You know, I I know Mr. Jensen um I agreed with him. I believe it was in the December. We were under the assumption that the inspections were already being
performed um when this was passed the first go round. Um so we were unaware that that was not actually being done. Um I agree with Mr. got that, you know, we should be inspecting these for livelihoods, making sure people are safe staying in our community. Um, with respect that I do know the short-term
rentals have some kind of responsibilities of showing in showing insurance, but insurance is one thing, but making sure that everything is suitable is another thing. Um, and I agree, we've we've looked at other communities. We're we're not the highest, we're not the cheapest, but you
know, this is like as you alluded, cost of doing business. And um you know, for us to consume the the additional rate, you know, to to still perform the uh safety wellness checks um and pass it on to taxpayers doesn't make sense. So, it
should be up to the applicant to pay. >> Um I agree with what Mayor Rogenamp and Council Member stated. Um, this is these discussions and to get the ordinance implemented, it was a six-year process. Um, it always was understood
that inspections were going to be part of it. It's not to prevent property owners from renting their property. It's strictly for safety. Um, I agree with the option two that staff proposed uh
with the $200 inspection fee, but I would like to see renewals go out in September around September time frame of 2026 so that property owners have plenty of time to get inspections if there's
issues, correct it, and so they're not blindsided. this. I would like to see that as the timeline. And I think last in the December council meeting, Mayor Rogan Camp brought up a good point. Originally, short-term
rentals were only allowed inside the main gate in that area of the city. The council agreed to open it up to the entire city. Um, the VBOS's, they bring in a lot of money to the community and
that's a good thing. I mean, if it whatever businesses within our city benefit is a is is great. Um, the surrounding communities, too. Um, you know, we realize that that is, you know, part of it. You know, it's we're a tourist. You know, with the lake and all
the golf courses, we get a lot of visitors in the summer to the resort and VRBO's and all over. Um, that's really about it. I >> Okay, >> thank you for the comments. Um, what I'd
like to do now before we go any further, um, I'd like to open it up to anybody that's here that would like to address the council regarding the information that's been provided. Again, this is going to be operated just like we would an open forum. So, once I open it up, if you are interested in coming forward and
and making some statements, you can do that. You you need to state your name, your address. you will be given three minutes. I do ask that if somebody else is in the crowd and they've heard the same comments made already to please um you could just simply come forward and
said I agree with the first speaker or something like that so that we don't get the same redundancy of information going forth. Um so again I will state that I will open it up to uh the public now to come forward and and and give us any
comments uh thoughts surrounding what this is. At the time, please state your name, your address, and you will have three minutes. So, at this time, I'll open it up for comments. There's anybody who likes to come forward. >> Thank you.
Dennis Felch, 8950 Breezy Point Drive. Uh, most of my comments, actually, all of them is pre-prepared. So, some of the things that I want to talk about were kind of sort of addressed, but it's way easier if I can just read it. So, >> that's fine. You have three minutes. So,
>> so 25 years ago, I started coming to Breezy Point to enjoy snowmmoiling, ice fishing, etc. during the winter months only, renting a property on the lake. Fast forward, I purchased a home a few years ago to enjoy and continue the tradition and invite others to make a
few memories. On Friday morning, I received an email informing me of this meeting agenda regarding short-term rentals. I wonder how many people received this email. Being such a point of contention topic, why such short notice? If the objective was to get real
feedback from residents on this topic, it surely would have been put out well ahead of time for all interested parties to prepare. The short notice this time along with the same type of short notice the last time brings to question the transparency and honest willingness of
the council to truly listen to the public regarding the topic. There are roughly 200 plus private properties for rent and breezy. Was this agenda item emailed to all of them? The inspection proposal under the guise of
safety and life concerns is overreaching. The draft provided reads like we are slum lords. I doubt any of the licensed people will have any problem passing the inspection. We would not be able to rent our place if some of these things were as
described needing attention. No one would book it after a couple reviews. And since we use our home also, it stands to reason the hot water works. We advertise our home is sleeping as many people as allowed under the rules, though it easily sleeps more. I see all
the time advertising for seven people in a two room tiny cabin, while our home supposedly only sleeps seven. While the size of room limits the occupancy in general terms, it does not accommodate for trundle beds and bunk beds. Regardless, we don't always have control
of how many people show up. It appears the city would like to penalize the good actors and reward the bad actors. What I am referring to is the 150 other properties that are unlicensed, unaware of this meeting, and
have no plans to comply with any of it. I personally know of people that even held the rental license once and did not renew or never paid for a license, and they still rent every single day and are mostly absent. Has a city tracked complaints and issues as they are
related to licensed rentals? If any of my licensed rental partners are running a slum house with loud parties and bodies everywhere, then by all means, they should be chastised. But is this what the city is going after? What is the actual purpose? to inspect 40 to 60 nice properties that
are well-kept and make a couple tiny changes and then charge them, then sue the other 150 properties that are not licensed that will keep renting and continue to receive complaints. I do not feel we should police our renting neighbors and how will the city do the
same? In my opinion, the city does not have a life and safety issue with licensed properties. It has an unlicensed property issue. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to come forward?
>> Hello, Mara Lundquist. Uh 3050 Airport Road, Breezy Point. Um first of all, a couple things I noticed on your inspection. You uh have titled it life and safety. Yet there is no um mention of smoke detectors, carbon monoxide,
fire extinguishers, first aid kits. Um I think that would probably take precedence if you're going to call it life and safety. Um I think you would want working smoke detectors and things like that. Um I think a fee of $500 um
in my opinion is a bit overkill. Um, I'm not opposed to an inspection by any means. You know, to my predecessor's comment, I think all of us that are licensed and have been licensed for I've been at this for 10 years now. Um, I think our properties all would pass
inspections because we're we take this seriously. This is our livelihood. This is our business. This is something we're proud of. um you don't get I think I'm up to 300 and some five-star reviews now by being delinquent and not
paying attention to details, but um I think having to have a annual inspection is probably overkill. I wouldn't be opposed to a one-time inspection. I think um my egress windows are still going to be egressed after years two and three. I think my doors
aren't going to change size and I think everything's going to, you know, probably stay up to par. Um, I'm assuming that if there is something wrong, um, we would have an ability to fix it. I know if you have like a damaged roof right now, your roofing
inspector is not going to go up on your roof and look at it. So, I don't expect, um, Mr. Saddowski to go crawl around on my roof, but, you know, I would appreciate an opportunity to I don't know how those things are going to be handled. Um, but I don't know how that would work. Um, I would like to know how
these penalties are going to be enforced for those who are not licensed. I know I read something in the um packet about misdemeanors and fines and some sort of penalties, but I'd like to see how that guideline is going to work. And um to the point in my research, I came up with
a about 140 plus um sites that are not licensed or not, excuse me, that are not um that are listed on VBO. And there is a substantial amount of those that are listed through like um Capital Vacations and things like that that they're
listing theirs on VBO, VBO and Airbnb. And they also have um the little two-bedroom, one bathrooms, and they list those for up to eight to 12 people. So, I don't know how, you know, how we can compete. I mean, to their the people
that are renting theirs their properties, they're lives not as equally as valuable as our people's lives. So, you know, thank you for valuing our guests lives more, but I don't know, you know, how do you justify this? You know, what is the true problem we're trying to address here?
at the end of the day, you know, what what what's the true problem? So, do you have a lot of complaints? I mean, do you get complaints that our water's cold or our pipes aren't working properly? I guess I don't understand. So, I'd appreciate, you know, again, a little bit more guidance and a little bit more
clarification as to how all of this is going to proceed. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to address the council? Please come forward. Hi, my name is Emily Bidder. I live at 18693 Oak Circle, Brainard. And uh yeah,
I would mainly agree with what has been said. I I agree. I think an inspection can be beneficial. Um, when I lived out of state, um, we were renting out our primary home and we used a company and they had someone come and do an
inspection, but they were primarily looking at the smoke detectors, carbon monoxide, fire, you know, like is there a fire extinguisher, those things where this to me seems a little um, just tedious. And um, again, we're all the owners of the property, so we want these
things to be working. So, I just think that this is maybe a little overkill. And then also the the fee just seems a little high. I again I we pay, you know, we want to pay the 300 the $300 application fee. What I would say too is
the first year we we submitted an application. I had to be very forthcoming in like was the was the license submitted? like I had to call um and so I felt like I had to do a lot more work even with the 300 like the $300 that I paid didn't really even um
help me a lot with what I needed to accomplish with the with the license. So, um those are kind of my primary concerns. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to address the council? Yes. Come forward, please.
I'm Scott Group, 30001 Channel Heights, and u I've licensed my house the last two years. I've never rented it out. Um I think the license fee, I believe it was $300 the last two years that I did it. And I don't think there's
anything wrong with that. And as far as Scott Saduski to come out, he's got to pay his guy to come out. 200 bucks is nothing for somebody to come out and for a piece of mind for the city to know that these properties are in the condition they're supposed to be in. I
think everything that you're saying as far as the fee is reasonable. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that wishes to address the council? I'll state again. Is there anybody else that wishes to address the council?
Please come forward. Jerry Schroden, uh, Breezy Point Dime Share. Um, there were two references made to some of the vacation properties that are under capital vacations right now. Um,
the 12 to sleep 12 uh 600 foot thing is totally inaccurate. Uh we do have I think three properties that have legitimate three bedrooms. Some of them are well over well over 1,200 square f feet. Um so yes there are
some properties that are 600 ft² onebedroom that sleeps too. So that's incorrect. And then also the properties that are inside the Gator Resort um they're all state inspected. They're state licensed. They're inspected by the fire marshall every year. They're
inspected by Minnesota Health Department every year. Um, and there's inspection fees and license fees for all of that. So, for the city to sit there and say, "We have a property that we're licensing." There's an implied safety
standard that is put upon the city and we would love it if our properties will get by for the little bit of money that is being asked for these VBO owners. and not picking on the ones that are licensed because I agree that probably all of them would pass a license with
maybe one or two little check marks at the worst, but it's a huge amount of unlicensed stuff that's not being done. And until we have an ordinance that's being enforced, you can't go after the ones that are not doing anything. So, I think I think you guys are in the right
path. And I think once we get something done where licensing is being done, the inspections are being done, then there's enough teeth to go after all the ones that are avoiding the law. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to
address the council? I'll ask one more time. Is there anybody else that wishes to address the council? Okay. I will now consider the public comment period for this issue closed. Thank you for everybody's comments, your thoughts, and your concerns. They're very much appreciated.
All right, council. So, we've heard from the constituents that are here. Um, I do have one that we got an email, so I'll read into record. Um, this comes from uh Shellyley uh Smith, and she does not list her address, but she says this was
addressed to administer PFUS, and uh she had two topics. She said short-term permit. We 100% support the short-term rental permit and believe in respecting all parties as discussions continue about inspections etc. Mutual consideration is also important.
Currently 300 is allocated to process and support the permit program. And then under review tonight is adding an additional health and safety check. What concerns have led to this need? As part of this permit, we are required to include and pay for a rental writer insurance policy with the city of Breezy
Point. These policies require codes to be in place otherwise claims and policies will be denied. And then everyone's goal is to keep the community safe. We all work hard and more than ever I feel we need to be mindful of the impacts on manpower and resources. So that was from a constituent Shelley
Smith. So I just wanted to read that into record as well and so the council is aware of it. So council, we've heard comments. Uh we've had discussion points. The staff is looking for some type of direction. So, there's a couple different ways we
can do it. We can actually take action on this and make a motion to implement an option that was offered to us. We can redirect staff once again uh to do more work on the area, which I think they've they've put all the work that's needed into this. I think we've got all the
information we need. Uh they've given us good pieces. I do have a question. I would like to have uh Mr. Sunduski come forward and talk a little bit more about the inspection process. We heard a couple comments about not really understanding the inspection and why is
it that some of those things have to be checked off. >> So, uh, as someone brought up earlier that we are going to be checking smoke detectors, carbon monoxide proper placements. Um, we're also going to be checking to make sure that the bedrooms
are legal, that uh there's egress out of the bedrooms. Uh, we're going to be checking guard rails, handrails. uh just make sure that everything that they are advertising on their or that they're putting on their form for the city is out in the field. That's what
we're really there for. Um we are going to be making sure that there's hot and cold water obviously and again I I agree with some of these people tonight. This just isn't in place for them and
penalizing them. It actually levels the playing field of the people that they're competing against. And uh I know if I had a short-term rental in town here, I would want it to be fair. And um the one thing too is we have to
make sure as a city if we do enforce this ordinance that there is a strong penalty for not getting a license for this. but you know to make sure that everything people have benefited in this city in my
opinion because of the building codes been in place and it's a great town to begin with. I mean you got a great lake, you got great golf courses. Um Neil and his company do a great job on their on their uh time share rentals and uh but
the city has also benefited from having building code inspections. That's why our price per square foot is higher than Peekquat Lakes is higher than Cross Lake Off Lake and so on and so forth. And this is just an extension of that in my opinion. We're not looking for little
minor items. We're looking for major things here. And frankly, the when you have short-term rentals, you can have a tendency to have people that get a little excited. they're on vacation having a few drinks and they
break a window and we understand that. That's not what we're really going after. We're just making sure that things are safe. But it can change in a hurry if you have a bad rental group when they come in and they're rough on the place. And the the inspection is a
snapshot of time just to make sure that the the playing field is all level across all parties, not just the people that are here tonight or the people who are are getting licensed currently. It's more to compare to what the other ones
cuz it might not be fair. We don't know because we haven't done any of the inspections. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the extra information. I do want to make the comment, it was brought up a couple times about the unlicensed people that exist in there. And I'd be the first one to say absolutely we need to do
something about that. This helps us with that. And why I say that is because it does level the playing field and gives us the opportunity to start enforcing it. which is one of the things that we I we've had discussions with staff about the idea that if we're going to have ordinances we need to enforce. So you
have to take baby steps to get to the end sometimes and I think this is one of those steps in the right direction. I also think we have a current ordinance that calls for an inspection. That ordinance is in place. It's active.
So if we're going to have it, then we need to make sure that we're doing what's in the ordinance. and if the ordinance calls for an inspection, we need to have that. So, that's kind of my last comments in that. So, I'll turn it back to council. And what do we want to do, councel?
>> Um, just one quick comment in regards to capital obligation properties. If they review the ordinance, time shares and the resort are exempt. >> Correct. >> The ordinance does not apply to them. I
mean, they both have, as Jerry pointed out, their own inspection process they have to comply with, but that's right in the ordinance. And again, this dis these discussions started in 2020.
It's been a long time. The ordinance was passed January 2023, as you know, Alli's memo stated that's in the packet. And um the city did not do the inspections due to staff turnover. That's on us. That you know, we own
that. It was intended from day one that there was to be inspections. Um I'm in favor of taking action. Um we've talked about this going on six years. Um and I wholeheartedly agree with Mayor Rogenamp's comments. We need
to enforce the property the the ones that are not licensed. It needs to be enforced. The city has known that yes, there's a lot more people renting um that don't have licenses and the l the playing field should be leveled. I mean,
uh thank you to the people that license, you know, their properties and are willing, you know, to pay the fee and go through the process. And you know, the inspection is not to prevent you from renting your property. Um, all property owners have rights. It's their property
owner's right to rent their property, but it also the neighbors and the property owners that abut these properties have rights as well. >> That's all I have. >> If I may, >> Mr. >> Um, just to speak to the enforcement.
So, under the current ordinance and fee structure if a property is reported and determined to be operating without a license, the city may issue an administrative citation and they can go through that process. We can also report it to the county because they are in violation of their short-term rental ordinance. And if compliance is not
achieved, we can kind of go down that path. If the council would like a more aggressive penalty for violators and people operating without a license, that's almost in the fee schedule discussion. So, you'd have an
administrative citation associated with the short-term rental and I'd have to work with specifically on Langle if we need ordinance language revision. Um, but I know Cross Lake for example, I think it's $1,000 for the first
violation and up from there. So, if that's something that would be kind of in the fee schedule time with the finance committee. So, >> okay. >> Um, and I also wanted to speak to the short notice comment. Um, so the the information that's in the packet tonight
was mailed to all 2025 short-term rental license holders. It was emailed early Friday morning. I did not want to give short-term rental owners information that the council didn't have. That packet was put together that week. We didn't even have all the information put
together before that week. So, um, just to speak to that item on the short notice. >> Thank you, Administrator Pulfus, for that information. >> So, Council Member Jensen, I heard you say something about you feel that we need to take action.
Are you ready to move forward with that? Yeah, >> if if I may, may may I ask a question of Mr. Seduski first? >> Um, and this is going to be a broad question, but um you spoke on that you would be looking at fire carbon monoxide testers, etc. Are there other
items on the that safety punch list? I'm not asking you to go through it, but are there other items that may not be on that list that you are already considering looking at? >> Well, there'd be other glaring items that, you know, it would have to be pretty pretty substantial before we're going to
comment on them or, you know, hold up a license on, you know, if a furnace wasn't was put in without a permit, let's say, and put in incorrectly, you know, where it's back leading carbonoxide or something like that, it would have to be a true life health safety issue.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, and for my other council members, the reason I was asking that is is we did hear about the concerns about that punch list. And as if I were um a short-term rental, I'd want to be able to say, "And I've achieved this punch list." And one of those items would be the the health and
safety items being listed out that those were items that were reviewed. So, if we were to move forward with it, I would I would ask that we amend that punch list to to include at least a number of safety things. So that way as a short-term rental owner business operator, I can say I've achieved these
things. Maybe I'm offkilter in my thinking, but it just kind of puts, you know, part of the permitting process and as you advertise that I've gone through these things. This is this is part of me doing my business and I've gone through these items to get these punch list items done.
>> Thank you, Michael. Yeah, >> point. >> That may be an administrative error. This went through a few iterations, the list itself. So, we'll make sure to have the list fully flushed out before we send it for renewal. >> It was definitely on there,
>> right? I know. And we had a lot of people reviewing it. >> I thought there was another part of it. >> Yeah. I'm wondering if I'm missing a page or something, but we will make sure that it's a complete list before it's sent to for renewal.
And so, Council Member Moron's comments really kind of get to, I guess, my thoughts on on this whole area at this point. Um, you could say the city adopted an ordinance and really didn't
have the key things in place and clarified arguably like we should have, right? Uh, as mentioned earlier, I think we're all under the impression inspections were being done. uh ordinance clarity states they're to be done. Uh we have a $300 permit fee.
Uh I don't feel good about uh short of taking the time to go through and amend the ordinance to include a specific fee for the inspections to now all of a sudden say and by the way it's 300 plus 200.
Um, to me it feels like we should really revisit the ordinance, make sure that what the ordinance is laying out for items to be inspected are on the checklist, that we're very clear on what the fee is going to be going forward
and to identify what is going to be a penalty or the fine for non-compliance. I guess that's an extremely valid point. Uh we got the majority of people here and in the community that are wanting to do the right thing and they're going to
get a license before rent to their property. What about the properties that choose not to? Right now in our ordinance, unless I'm missing something, there's nothing in there that addresses um what is going to be the find if anything
>> that's in the fee schedule. So it's it's the administrative citation within the fee schedule. That's how all city fees are approved. So to change the fee, we'd change the fee schedule. >> Yeah. It wouldn't be in the ordinance. >> Correct. Yep.
>> So right now there currently is in the fee schedule >> for an administrative citation. Yep. >> Which is on which? >> Oh, I want to say what is it, Brian? Not >> first violation is $50, I believe.
>> And that's for all city ordinances. So, we'd have one specific to short-term rental ordinance if the council wanted to pursue that. Um, so that would be during the next year's fee schedule discussion, probably like October, >> right? And it again would be addressed
through the fee schedule, not the ordinance. And I correct I would state >> that yeah, that doesn't go in the ordinance. Ordinance is a separate thing on its own >> with regards to the fees. And we currently have in the fee schedule an inspection fee for
short-term rentals. >> No. No. So in October when you approve or October, November when you approve for next year, you'll approve all city fees which would now include this inspection. So it doesn't currently know, but it
will >> cuz whatever we decide with this is not being affected until the 2027 renewal process. That's correct. >> Which will be the end of quarter of 20 2026. Correct. Y >> and that goes in front of the finance committee. Correct.
>> First. >> Yep. Which then would make a recommendation back to the council as a part of the budget process to have that included in the fee schedule >> and at which time the council can either approve it or change it or modify it, amend it or remove it. >> Yes.
>> So because we've had that with other pieces within our fee schedule in the past, so I'm well aware of how that process works. All right. So, we've heard again comments, discussion, we've heard comments from the public. Um, we've we've this council's got a job in
front of them and they need to take some action or do something. I think the staff has done their due diligence. So, there needs to be something done moving forward with this. What action item that is that council needs to decide what that is.
Um, I will make a motion uh to direct staff to um revise short-term rental application with a $300 fee and life and safety inspection uh fee of $200 to be
effective in January 1, 2027. Is that going to suffice? Yes, I think we um Yes, that would Do you want to add in there anything about when the notice would be sent out? You made specific comment to that
>> if we need Yeah, if you want that in the motion that it staff will send out the renewal uh notifications to license holders in >> last quarter or last quarter of 2026. Okay. >> September 2026. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
So, I have a motion to go ahead and basically amend the application fee as as uh provided to us by staff um including the inspection for uh health and safety or wellness um with that uh
process to be enacted in January 1, 2026 uh with notice. >> Oh, 2027, excuse me. Yeah, we're in 2026. Sorry, I'm year behind. I feel that way some days. Um and then to also go ahead and have um staff make sure
that uh notices are going out in the last quarter of 2026 so that um owners have time. So I have a motion on the table. Do I have a second? >> A second for discussion. >> Okay, we have a second. So I have a
motion by Council Member Jensen. I have a second for Council Member Discussion. The the one thing I was going to ask is is does it need to be part of the motion about adding those additional um life and safety items punch list and have staff review that? >> We'll ensure all all items that will be
inspected are on the list sent out. >> Okay. Thank you. Other discussion hearing no other further discussion I will call this motion. All those in favor signify by saying I. I opposed. >> I
>> abstensions. The motion passes. I staff, you have your direction. >> Thank you. >> Yes. You're welcome. All right. Moving on. Item 6B, resolution 12-206,
approve plans of specifications and authorize advertisement for bid for 2026 street improvement projects CP-02 and I'll turn it over to Nick. Nick, >> good evening council. Uh, in your packet are the construction documents for the
2026 street improvements project. Uh we've proposed a full depth reclamation of Bluebird and Piney Way with supplemental aggregate to raise the centerline profile as well as some locationational ditching as part of the drainage improvements we discussed in the feasibility study. Uh we looked at
some different ways to complete the improved turnaround at the end of Piney Way and utilize the rest of the city's rightway in that area. Uh the layout that's in these plans was the one we chose to move forward with and it was reviewed and recommended by the streets
committee as well. Um for Ren Drive, we proposed a mill and overlay that was discussed in the feasibility study and we also included an area of pavement removal uh and some ditching to fix a drainage issue at the intersection of Dove Street and Ren Drive.
Um, passing this resolution would allow us to advertise for bids in March and hold a bid opening on March 31st. U, we'll continue with the 429 process from there. Um, so far this year, we've had a couple bids come in already and numbers have been looking really good. So,
>> that's good news. >> Yeah, >> that's always good news. >> Yes, it is. >> Uh, any Thank you for the information, Nick. Any questions from the council on this information and resolution? >> None for me. >> None.
All right. Hearing none, do I have a motion to approve um resolution 12-2026 to approve plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bid for 2026 street improvement project CP-2. >> So move.
>> I have a motion from council member Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Have a second from council member Jensen. Further discussion hearing? None. And all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed.
Abstensions. Motion passes. Thank you. Moving on. Item 6C, approve local road improvement mailbox policy update. Director Zeren. You can see on u our current policy, the addition is uh on the bottom in red.
Essentially, all it is is when you're doing a road project, frequently mailboxes have to get pulled. When you're doing uh subgrade work, um ditching, whatever. U this would allow in uh to upgrade nonconforming
mailboxes, which are basically your 4x4 posts, um plastic, whatever. um to the conforming which is a it's a metal um it's anchored by U channel um it's
more resilient to snow plowing um it's probably outside of slippery roads the number two thing we talk about is is mailboxes getting hit um the swingway mailboxes once you have them um any
problems the city covers and they don't break I mean we don't have problems. Um, this would allow that as each road project. Um, you know, if the residents would like that, it'd be included in the project so they wouldn't have cost
because right now, if you want to upgrade on your own, it's believe $135. Um, give better service. Um, prevent problems down the road. Um, it's pretty common in the area for, uh, neighboring
cities, do something similar. So Nick brought it up as a question um because he's has other cities doing it and uh I think it's a good way to uh avoid some problems for residents and and the plow drivers going forward.
>> Okay. Thank you. Director Zorden comments or any questions for Director Zern on this? >> No, I think it's a good idea and should be implemented. >> I would think so. I would assume that annual budgeting is in place for that as well. This would be covered like in the when
we're reconstructing a project. So, >> got it. Yes. Thank you for the clarification. >> Any other comments? >> That clarified my question. >> Okay. All right. So, basically what we're have in front of us is to approve a local road
improvement mailbox policy update to include the uh print as as so stated and and discussed by director Z. Do I have a motion? >> So, move. I have a motion from council member Scott. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second from council member Jensen.
Discussion >> hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries. Thank you. Uh number seven on the agenda, departmental updates and council reports.
Um I will just start off with any council reports and then we'll go into A, B, and C. So, I think we had a road committee meeting. Is that correct? Do you want to give us a report on that? >> Yeah. Um, Nick pretty much covered all of it. Um, one of the agenda items was
Pelican Township, Breezy Point Shared Roads Agreement, which Mayor Rogen Camp and Administrator Pulfus are working on. Um, the current 2026 road projects timeline, construction, July or August,
Piney Way, Bluebird Lane, Ren Drive. Um, other than that, that was really about it. They'll be looking uh starting to discuss uh 2026 or 2027, excuse me, project possibilities. >> Excellent. Thank you, Council Member
Johnson. Uh PNZ, I don't believe that. >> Nope, that meeting got cancelled. >> That's right. >> Uh personnel committee met um one of them was in front of us tonight um about the job posting. Um few other things that we have another follow-up meeting for. So, >> okay, sounds good. Thank you. I think
that was it. Park commission did not meet uh this last month. So, we had no no park board meeting. Uh we're still waiting to get the final master plan from Woods and before we decide to have another meeting and at that time there'll be some final decisions and then I think that'll be coming forth to
the council to to look at. So, um all right, moving on then. Uh 7A reschedule May 4th city council meeting. Administrator Pulpus. >> Yeah. So I've been made aware of a few attendance issues with the May 4th
meeting. There will be some important items as far as the street projects are concerned both Bushman Street improvement project possibly some development applications. So I think it's important to ensure as much of a quorum as we can just because there will
likely be public notices sent out for that meeting. So um I spoke with Mayor Rogenamp and we thought rescheduling it to May 11th would it be a possibility. So, we just wanted to get everyone's take on that. >> Yeah. So, uh I think it's really
important that we have as many as possible at the May council meeting and and when administrator PFUS talked to me about it. Um and then I started looking at my schedule, I realized that unfortunately I will not be here at that and I feel it's very important that I am
and I would be unable to get uh remote and I do know we have the capability to do that if we need to. Um, so I'm kind of looking to see if the council's okay with us pushing it to May 11th. Um, and and have the meeting there. I don't want
to go any later than that because now it puts staff in a compromised position as as regards to billing processing and I and I do not want to upset our finance people uh and make sure that we can get the bills paid to everybody too on time. So, we would either have to do we'd have
to bump it to that Monday. I would prefer to keep it on Monday if we can do that just because it stays consistent with what we've had. And that's for the constituents as well. And then the other thing is we could potentially go backwards, but then I looked at that too and I don't think that's really going to
work very well either. So, kind of looking at May 11th, so I don't know what everybody has on their agendas or if that's going to work. So, let open it up. Yeah, May 11th will not work for me. I'm out of town from the 7th through the 13th.
>> Okay, that's good to know. Okay. >> Uh the 11th I'm it may be remote may be here, but for sure the 12th through the 14th I would not be able to. >> Okay. Uh the 11th uh works for me. I may be
remote. >> All right. So let's look at this calendar here then and see what we have. So, the 11th is not looking very good. And Council Member Scott, you said 7th through the 13th, you're out. Is that correct? Right.
>> 7th through 13th. Okay. >> Um All right. >> Well, what about the 30th of April? Can we do that? Can we Can we do that? Yeah, >> that's a good question because it's in the same month
>> because we >> that that shouldn't be the problem. I'm more >> timewise. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, what what is it >> that would work for everybody the 30th? I think so.
>> Council member Scott, does the 30th work for you? >> I'll check with Rebecca, too, after all of this. It's looking like it. >> Okay. So, let's look at the fourth again just for a second. >> Okay. So, right now, Council Member
does the fourth work for you? >> Mhm. >> Council member Scott, does the fourth work for you? >> May 4th. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> The original. Does the fourth work for you? >> Yes. >> Okay. We're going to Yep. We're going to keep it on the fourth. We're going to
keep it on the fourth because >> the majority of the council is able to make it for that date. And >> do it. I may still be able to make it. So, just let me do some thinking on it and I'll see. I might pull a rabbit out of the hat. So, we'll see what I can do. Um, and then that stays with Council Member Ball. I'm sure could make the
fourth as well because that's our schedule. So, let's just stay with the fourth and we'll make it fly. With us this far out, do we want to still have the 30th as a backup? Since sounds like the four of us could make the 30th, let staff review and see if they feel that
that's comfortable and make a judgment call with them the next week if >> that way the five of us can still be here. >> Plan B. >> Okay. >> Could make that work. Yes. Yep. Yep. We can do that, too. So, does that 30th work for you? >> Um, >> yeah. See, that's
>> Yeah. May or may not until Thursday. Well, coming >> once you've established whether or not it would just let administer a pulpoo snow and go from there. >> I know. Sorry. Rescheduling is always a >> I know, but we had to give it a shot. So, at least it was a good discussion. So, all right. So, we kind of got
direction there. 7B schedule joint meeting with planning commission. Commissioner Poose. >> Um, yes. So, at the strategic planning, we spoke about code revision and direction was to schedule a joint meeting with the planning commission. We have a quorum of the commission on June
1st. That's before your June council meeting at 5:30. So it' be 5:30 to about 6:15ish would be the joint meeting hopefully to get >> going be enough time. >> Say that again. >> Is that going to be enough time? I do not want to push it and make people feel
like they're rushed because we're trying to get to a council meeting. I'm just I'm just putting it out there. I'm fine with that. should I mean I guess it should be enough time. They're looking to get some direction from council on what what the priorities are.
>> Okay. Well, as long as we can keep it to the the task at hand, then we probably can do that. >> Five 5:00 p.m. >> We'll talk about it. But yes. Okay. So, June 1st, you're talking before our coun schedule council meeting. Yep. >> Okay. >> I think it needs to be I mean I think we
would be real pressed for time. I think so, too. That's what I'm saying. prior to council meetings I'm not a big fan of personally >> okay that's good to know >> um because I think it you're so limited I mean look at the strategic planning session
>> we rushed to the end and that was what three hours 5 to 8 I mean there's not as much to discuss but there's I think the topics >> so maybe I'll send out a poll see what dates are available go back to the planning commission okay gotcha hard to
get that many people in a room at one time. So, I figured I'd do it on >> When is their normally scheduled meeting? >> The second Tuesday of each month, >> right? H Well, that's a consideration, too. >> Mhm. >> But we put we do it on their meeting time.
>> Yes, I' Yes, I'll send out a poll. >> Yeah. And let's find out. So, it's another option to consider. >> I can do that. >> Okay. Uh 7C uh basically is just in financial investment statements informational I believe only. So, okay.
All right. Well, we've reached item eight in the agenda, which is adjourn. So, do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> So, move. >> I have a motion from council member Scott. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second from Council Member All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I.
>> I. Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned at 7:35