--------- All right. Thank you. We're starting the workshop for July 15th. Roll call, please. Council member McKenzie here. Council member Schwar here. Council member Nordby is absent. Council member Woods is absent. Mayor Mongi here.
Thank you. I get a motion adopt agenda, please. Some moved. So moved. Council member Schwar. I'll second. Second. Council member McKinley. All those in favor say I. I. I. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. We have one item uh on the agenda for topics tonight, and be
the 2026 budget, specifically the CIP and dealing more with the streets than any other part of the CIP. So, I'm going to turn that over to our finance director, uh Dan Wick. Start us off. Mayor, council member, uh thank you very much. Um, good news and bad news
tonight. Uh, bad news is you're going to have to hear from me for a little while. Good news is I'm not going to talk for the whole hour and 15 minutes. We got Morgan, um, our city engineer, and, um, Ron, our public works director, um, will
do most of the talking tonight. Um, want to kind of take you just kind of a reminder of where we're at right now, um, with the budget. Um my understanding is that we're not going to focus a lot on our operating budgets. If we look at our operating budgets outside of our
cost of living increases and step increases for personnel, we actually reduced um what I call our supplies, our uh our contractual um services um from our budgets. Um and so really the
biggest change outside of uh the salaries um is really capital and capital all comes from the CIP, the capital improvement plan. So really we need to focus on that because there's really a lot of tough decisions that city council is going to have to make.
Um and I'll kind of emphasize that as I kind of go through this and I'll go through it relatively quickly. But right now uh tonight we'll just kind of look at the 2026 proposed levy. We'll look at some other factors that potentially could have an impact in the future um on the city and then we'll look at where
the 2026 2035 capital improvement plan is at. Um there'll be a lot of discussion on streets um preventative uh pavement preservation and the utility infrastructural for the major reconstruction projects and then we'll
open it up for discussion. Right now where the proposed levy is at for the city portion of the levy we're at a 6%. Um right now we're we have no utility rate increases. This is kind of a breakdown of where the proposed levy. As you can see we part of
our levy components. We have the general fund, we have street maintenance, um we have park and we have asset preservation and we have debt. Um, and those are, you know, kind of the five components that make up uh the primary component for the city's uh levy. We also have leveies for
HR and EDA. And if you remember, we're keeping them um at this at this proposed moment um just to the same as they have been um in 2025. What that does is that reaches the 6% increase for the city levy.
Um if you remember to achieve this and we will have discussion on this um at a future date before we do the maximum levy. Um to achieve that 6% we had to do a penalty transfer from the electric remains. We did that last year for the first time um for the 2025 budget. We
would keep that in place. The EAB removal because eventually that'll go away. um that we're taking that advantage now and we're shifting the funding from the general fund to the asset preservation fund in the amount of $90,000. Um we're restoring some enterprise transfers uh in the amount of just about
$65,000. What those that what that total of $286,000 translates to is that it was able to reduce our levy about 3.7. If we don't take all of those, we have a levy of 9.7. Um, so that's how we achieve
that 6% levy. Um, some of the changes as you can see, uh, why we're not going to be focusing a lot on the operational side to it. Um, although we can answer any questions that city council has on that, but are, you know, personnel costs because cost of living due to the, you
know, the contracts. There's no additional SFTE being requested. Um, it's almost $300,000 or 3.8% of of the levy increase. Um, we see our supplies of contractual services and capital in our general fund are decreasing $337,000,
a 4.33% levy decrease. Um, you see there's a transfer um a reduction of $20,000. That's an item that we'll end up talking um about at a later point in time because that was what was needed to make
uh the um community center whole um for 2025. And then all other reduction or all other um changes are um $87,000. So our general our general fund itself only
increases $28,000 um or 0.4% of a levy increase. The other increases are really from those other four components. The streets, the parks, the asset preservation, and the debt. All of those are all four of those
categories are related to the capital improvement plan. That's why it really is important that we focus on that capital improvement plan um and really understand the impact of what that capital improvement plan does or doesn't do for the city.
Uh here's where the debt levy is at. As you can see, um, we have a new debt that's being added for 2026, and that was the bond that was just issued earlier this year for the 2025 street reconstruction plan or project.
Other factors just to keep in mind, if you remember earlier on, we kind of talked about uh that uh the state of Minnesota was looking at about a $6 billion deficit in their 2028 2029 fiscal year. um after legislation of this year in the
passing um there's been some reductions and now they're kind of projecting it to be about a $2.2 billion reduction. There was discussion in both the House and the Senate of making reductions in the local government aid if and I have a
slide here just to kind of show you some different projections on to that of what kind type of impact that could be for the city. But we have about a 1.6 6 million that we get in local government aid. Um in addition um the bill um and budget that was proposed or that was
passed by the federal um government um just recently that um there's funding in um that's going to be reduced uh for uh Medicaid and SNAP programs. um that doesn't necessarily directly those two
programs don't necessarily directly impact um the city um but it definitely will impact um the county Ramsey County um especially that SNAP program um and so if uh they don't make adjustments um
they're going to have levy increases on the county level um and they're going to see potentially some programs andor staff reductions uh moving forward to kind of look at our local government aid. We get uh a little over $1.6
million. If if there was a 1% reduction, you know, that's $16,000 or 2% increase in our levy. If you can see the the table there, two, three, four, five. If it was a 5%, you know, that would be
about a 1% increase in our levy. We're not going to see that moving into 2026. is something we need to be aware of that may end up happen to happening to us as we move into the 2027 budget and the budgets thereafter. So now we focus on the 2026 2035 capital
improvement plan and when we look at that capital improvement plan over 10 years it amounts to $100 million. That's a hefty price tag. And what you're going to see is that the majority of that money um is going to be in
streets um facilities um and parks. To be able to afford that plan um means that we're going to have to continue continually continuously levy about $250,000 for street and street
debt or about a 3.2% 2% levy increase. Parks um with the plan that's here right now um would require an additional $30,000. That's not included in that 6% figure that we had started with. So that's another discussion item that
we'll have moving forward in into the future as we set the maximum levy. It would bring the total up to about 70 6,000 or almost 1% of a levy increase. And then the asset preservation is requiring $142,000
annual levy increase about 1.8%. We total that. That's $467,000. That's about a 6% annual increase. That's not just one year. That's every single year for the next 10 years. We will start off with a budget to afford
this capital improvement plan of approximately a 6% levy increase. And in addition to that, there's going to be some needs and changes both in the equipment internal service fund and the building maintenance fund. Um we're
going to need to increase them um starting in 2027 of approximately 5% per year. Um that'll have a levy impact of just under 4%. And then it has a non-levy impact and where that impact is is is that that's hitting
our enterprise funds. Um, so that's hitting our electric, our water, our waste water, our solid our solid waste, our surface water. Um, the rates that are going to be needed to be able to capital or to be able to afford all of this in our enterprise funds is yet to
be determined, but we will um I will finish those calculations up and have them before we do our maximum levy certification. But there will be increases in our rates to be able to afford this capital improvement plan. That's why it's so important that we have this discussion because this is
really the biggest driving factor of what is driving our levy. When we look at the categories of the levy and this pie chart will show you can see there's one big huge component and that's streets and utility
reconstruction and it's approximately 44% over the next 10 years. There's also another little sliver over there to the right called pavement preservation. That's 6%. When we combine those two, it's about, you know, it's a $50
million. So 50% of what we're the funding that we're going to need for the next 10 years is really related to our street, one of our infrastructural components to it. So with that, we're going to just focus tonight um on the
street component to it. And that's what makes up the street components to it is the pavement preservation program. Um that has uh you know uh the maintenance overlays, crack ceiling, striping. Um
there's some parking lots that are included into that component. And then there's a street and utility reconstruction. And you'll see that we have had a plan that every other year we bond for major reconstruction projects. uh we currently did that in 2025. The
next one scheduled is 27 to finish up the project that is currently going on. Then there's 29 and 31. What this plan doesn't have at this point in time is 2033 and 2035. Um but there is pavement rehabilitation
dollars that have been put into there. Um that'll be information that will end up having to come, but it probably won't come until later part of this year. to put in there. So, with that, I'm going to turn it over um to Morgan, our our city engineer, and Ron to kind of
discuss and and they handed out a 2024 pavement management report. This was given to city council about two years ago when we started implementing that pavement rehabilitation um to have something in those off years from the major um project uh
reconstruction to get our road rating up higher. So, with that, I'm going to turn it over to Morgan. Um, he's going to kind of walk you through parts of that report, and really what we're trying to show is that there really is a need on
this infrastructure for the streets. Um, so there'll be time for questions and answers. Um, and you know, uh, you know, following what Morgan has, if there's any clarification and so forth that we need. So, with that, this is the good
news. I get to stop talking. You get to stop listening to me, and we'll turn it over to Morgan. Thanks, Dan. Appreciate it, Morgan. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. So, at at uh at your desk, uh you should have a copy of the latest pavement
management report, which is kind of the state of the city's streets. We do this annually. Um, this is something that I've presented past councils on, usually during the budget time, uh, just to give a an understanding of, uh, where we are
with our streets, what kind of changes we've seen from, uh, past activities like pavement preservation projects, some of the street and utility reconstruction projects. basically the significant capital reinvestment that the city and past city councils has
committed to in the past and be able to understand and hopefully measure and have some metrics behind um what we're seeing. This is a um it's a a very datadriven process. So every third uh of
the city's streets is rated each year. So every three years we have a complete picture of the condition of all of our miles of of roads and streets and alleyways throughout the city. Um and we have mapping that is a very important
tool for public works to be able to understand um where are how are our streets degrading over time? How f how quickly are they? How do those streets and the locations interact with underground utilities like water mane brakes? and they're very important to be
able to make decisions about well where is the next project going to be or where is the next maintenance overlay project going to be. Um, so and it takes some of the guesswork out of it, right? So the the ability for a city to have some qual uh qualitative data to be able to
understand the condition of its streets rather than just knowing well that neighborhood is bad or this neighborhood is good and how much better or how not. This on a scale of zero to 100 allows the city, city staff, city council to be able to better understand uh the
condition of its infrastructure and be able to understand and hopefully make informed decisions in terms of uh those significant investments that uh finance finance director Winnick has mentioned previously and that are certainly uh under consideration for the current budget and the current capital
improvement plan. So, just a couple high-level executive summary points um to be able to share with you what we're seeing this year compared to last year. And u for the benefit of the public and and there's some newer council members
on the council at this time that maybe uh weren't a part of my past presentations. Um I mentioned that we rate a third of the city every year. the last um rating in 2024 uh was mostly the downtown area
and the area kind of just south of that. So, and the reason why that's significant is that because of COVID and there's a little bit of a pause in there in terms of our rating activities. Um there was a gap in the ratings from 2019 to 2024. So, it was a significant update
for onethird of the city. Uh and in that downtown area, as you know, we saw several projects in 2020, 2022, uh 7th Avenue, um and some other areas adjacent to that. So, there were some investments
that brought roadways that were previously deteriorated and of a lower rating up to a rating of 100. Certainly, when they're brand new, they go to 100 and then they slowly degrade over time. So what that did is it actually uh provides a much more accurate picture of
the overall city and we did see uh an overall weighted average for the whole city of pavement condition for all streets uh improve from uh about a I think it was 56 on a 0 to 100 scale to 67 on a zero to 100 scale. So a 10point
jump there approximately. Um so that's a very positive um you know call it return on investment but a good indication that we didn't have last year where it was a little bit flat and I think we were kind of at the bottom of the inflection point and now maybe we're turning the corner
and based on some of these projects and ongoing investment we're hopefully going to be able to see an uh an improving trend over time. At least that's what I expect. Time will tell and we will have the data to be able to see that um you know year-over-year future budget
discussions, future considerations for the capital improvement plan is that always is going to be kind of an evolving document. What you approve you know this year doesn't mean that it's going to be the same capital improvement plan two years from now. Right? So this will on an ongoing basis this will
provide some information metrics again to inform uh not only the decisions this year but in the future. But that uh improvement is I think worth noting. Uh so as I mentioned part of the pause there and updating uh that particular part of town had something to do with
it. Um and we also I think based on those projects as I mentioned in 22 23 and 24 overall on the system are also contributing to that. So, um, that's the first thing I'd like to point out. On the on page three, which is basically
the second page of the report, is a graph, basically a bar graph that we have looked at in uh, the past. And what we do is uh, the far left grouping there. That's all of our roads, but we also can look at uh, these different
types of roads. So, collector roads would be um busier roads such as like Margaret Street um and uh that carry more traffic, more high volume roads. And you would expect them to be of a little bit higher uh quality or higher
rating than maybe just local roads. That's pretty typical community to community. um knowing that they carry more traffic and maybe just on a general ongoing basis um there's a preference to have them be on average higher rating than maybe just local roads on average.
The next category is uh termed local. So that would be all the other streets that are not collector roads throughout the um throughout the city. So you know neighborhoods uh residential streets including culde-sacs, right? So, um, the current average for local streets, uh,
citywide is 61, just over 61. And in 2024, the collector road average, which includes 7th Avenue, as I mentioned, several projects in the last several years uh, in this area that was just rerated in 2024, that's jumped up to 75. So, that's actually a really strong
rating for collector roads for the city. We also and the next two groupings can separate and look at what is our average for all our roads that are asphalt and then the next one is all our roads that are concrete. So that's mostly 7th Avenue but also portions of uh Margaret
Street are concrete pavement. So not a significant mileage of roads but uh we do maintain concrete roads a little bit differently and they're certainly more upfront costs to install or reconstruct them uh a little bit different than asphalt roads. So we like to group those
separately. And then finally um alleyways as well too uh are looked at. So um again you can see from the green bar which is the most currently rating across the board we're seeing some improvement there for the reasons that I've previously stated. Um I will note
that uh as stated in the report here and this was a trend or an observation last year as well too that uh you know the city has shown its ability to maintain the current condition of the pavement network and the roadway system and now ongoing you know we're looking at a
potential positive trend in terms of an improvement. As I said time will tell in future years we'll hopefully be able to bear that out for the benefit of the public and the benefit of the city. Um but just to point out as Dan mentioned to like you know the decision- making um in terms of budgeting or level of
investment it is certainly important. Last year we did run several test scenarios that did bear out the fact that at the you know generally speaking the level of investment that is included in the capital improvement plan now as proposed um is expected to at least hold
its own if not improve over time. Um, and that's my expectation moving forward. But once you start dialing that back or pause, putting a pause in there, it really doesn't take long for the portion of the overall city's street network that has not yet been improved
because that degrades day over day, year-over-year to pull the whole average down. Right? So just looking at the overall averages is just a tool. It's not indicating, you know, that one city is better than the other city. But in terms of the city being able to understand where it's at with its
infrastructure assets, roadway assets, which is a significant asset for basically all residents plus the traveling public, folks that visit North St. Paul, folks that travel through North St. Paul, um it gives you a better understanding of um of what is happening
and and what might happen in the future and how that relates to current levels of investment and future levels of investment for you know decision considerations by this council and future city councils as well. So um finally I think uh just in terms of you
know something that I mentioned previously that is a a reasonably good tool um to understand kind of ongoing investment. On page 12 is a graph that
kind of compares uh the the over time how the quality of asphalt roadways deteriorates over the course of 10 20 30 40 years. sometimes longer than that and uh and you know measuring that on a zero
to 100 scale. Um and the point that that graph is trying to make is that with spending very specific uh uh lower amounts at indivi interval periods throughout the life of a roadway rather than just leaving it alone for 40 years.
you can actually extend the life of a roadway out much further. Um, and you'll be far ahead on money and investment versus just doing nothing and waiting till it's time to reconstruct the road. So, I mean, the little note on the graph is spending $1 on preservation
uh earlier on and several more uh frequent times throughout the life of a roadway eliminates or delays spending$25 to $30 on rehabilitation or reconstruction later on down the road. And that is the strategy that public works and myself have tried to adopt and
have tried to implement since the implement or the the initiation of the current um pavement preservation program which started uh approximately 2014. 2012 2014 was when that initial capital improvement plan was developed. And so
public works does stay on top of doing things like sealing cracks every two to three years. I think some of you have been a part of authorizing some of those contracts. They're smaller expenses, but they go a long way to kind of keeping that graph up high as opposed to just
kind of let it fall off over time. And again, you know, if you do nothing and we can expect 40 years out of a road or maybe a little bit longer if we're lucky, but if we can do some of this ongoing uh regular investment and make that 60 years or 75 years, I mean,
that's hopefully good investment and benefit for the public um and the taxpayers as well too. So, with that, I'll finish with just letting you know that at the back and in the appendix, there is that city-wide map. Uh, that's um current as of last year and last
year's improved roadways. Certainly, the city is involved right now with uh the 2025 street and utility improvement project, which is up around Casey Lake. There's also a maintenance overlay project that is going to be hitting several roads kind of throughout the city, both north and south. Um, so those
are not included here. We would expect that when we rerate the roads roads this year and we improve the qual the rating for those specific streets um that we'll see some improvement again on that overall network uh average. Right. So I'll be back probably if Dan has me
again at a future meeting, you know, next year to kind of report on uh what we're seeing in 2026 uh based on the ratings that we would be doing this year. So, with that, I'll stand for any questions the council might have. But that is um our current most up-to-date
uh qualitative or quantitative, I'm sorry, information that we have with respect to uh our roadway uh infrastructure network uh throughout North St. Paul. Thank you, Morgan. Appreciate the report. It's good to see those numbers jump. That was quite a It was quite nice
to see for where they were a few years ago. So, it's uh it's good to see that the effort we've been putting into it and the money the city has that we're we're getting it back like this. Thank you. Anybody else have any any questions? Uh thank you so much. Really appreciate
very informative. Um is WSB or does WSB does North St. Paul fit any of the demographics or qualifications for any of the pilot programs for roads? Is that something we should be looking at? Um I know some of the smaller outlier, you
know, towns. Um I didn't know if that was something that WSB is aware of and if North St. Paul would fit any of those programs. Yeah. Are you uh um referring to like the local road research board kind of uh research projects or that sort of thing?
Um North St. Paul May. A lot of the research uh currently right now revolves around like emerging um I guess I'll call it emerging technologies but it's really kind of you know rehabilitation techniques right so
um uh not a lot with the more major kind of like overlay or milan overlay or rehabilitation not much research is going on there but there is a fair amount with respect to um road rejuvenators or I don't know, you know,
I'm g start going to sound really like technical here, but micro slurry, uh, you know, which is kind of like a very thin overlay. Um, for me, you know, and I'm a I'm an engineer and I'm all, uh, into technology and and research and new things, but I also there's a big part of
me that um, feels very strongly that uh, unless somebody else is paying for it, I mean, experimentation is sometimes um, tough, especially with the with construction costs, right? um tough to just take those kind of risks because you don't don't really know if it's going to work or not. So,
it's certainly something that staff can look into. Again, it probably wouldn't be on more major projects, but it might be on alternative ways to deliver some of those incremental um uh like sealing andor surface sealing or rejuvenating
type of chemicals or operations that are out there that are more emerging that are not more widely adopted. Um, but may that may be beneficial. And the reason why some of those pilot projects are happening is that there's just not enough data. Like nobody knows how they're going to perform.
Some might perform well. I mean, I think it's hard to believe that some of the products or technologies out there will be detrimental, but some might not show much benefit. Some might show some benefit, and we just don't know yet, right? So, I am WSB is always kind of
monitoring those. there may be an opportunity to, you know, fold in a neighborhood or a street or whatever. And so that's something that public and work works and I can take a look at and see, you know, what we might be able to bring to bear to North St. Paul um in the future, whether that's a standalone
pilot project or it's uh something that we look at and explore as an opportunity to just try something different and see if we get better results than what we're doing right now. Awesome. Thank you. And you're absolutely right. It is a risk versus
reward, but I do know some of those pilot programs do have a little bit of um financials attached to them where you know it might take a little of the burden off the project. So, but it is a riskreward. I appreciate that. Yeah. No, it's certainly something to look into.
How often have you done a micro black top style road and how thin is the material that would go over it? And is there a trial and demo that the city could do to
see in an alleyway that is in terrible shape to find out how long it would last and not bear a lot of cost to the residents? But is there a grant available as a
trial basis? We're doing some alleys that are really bad that are have been appro approved or improved in the last 25 years. Yeah, I think I mean that's exactly I think the question that we need to look into and potentially answer there to the
point of council member Nordby, right? So, if there is a grant or if there's a pilot project that provides some funding assistance, I'm certain that we can find a road or an alley that hopefully is a good candidate to see
see where and how long it lasts per year or two years, whatever. And then also, are there any plans on the preservation of doing uh putting the black sealer down and putting the gravel over on any of our
streets to preserve it for another three to five years? I can address that specifically. Um I've been a part of a lot of conversations over the past 20 years related to chip seals or, you know, using trap rock. Um,
seal code is kind of like a common industry term for that. Um, I am not a big fan. I've seen either massive failures. Like to throw rocks. Yeah. Oh, yeah. I've There have been massive failures uh city of Woodbury uh
to the tune of uh $2 million a year to repair pop outs and failures of seal bad seal coats over the top of asphalt roads. the going back to riskreward many many many years ago I got to the point after seeing basically how bad it is in
certain communities and how expensive it is that it's just not worth using that as a a current um uh rehabilitation or maintenance I guess activity. So for many many years I've been very upfront with public works. It's certainly not up to me. That's just
my preference. We've talked about it. Um, unbeknownst to me, but further bolstered of my opinion, the city of Maplewood kind of placed a moratorium on seal coats back to I think it was like n the '9s, 96 is what it stuck in my head. So, it's not just me. It's many many
other communities have kind of taken a pause on that particular application or call it a technology. um used to be much more common in you know prior to the 2000s and earlier 2000s and then there
is just a lot of disagreement in the community about why it was happening. But again, you know, we could talk all day long about why or is it the oil emulsion or they do it on a day that was too humid or whatever. Basically, it's just pointing fingers, but somebody gets
caught holding the ball and spending a lot of money to fix these things. So I think that our personal um at least for now in terms of public works and myself our approach has been to focus on sealing the cracks. So sealing the cracks in the road or at the edge of the
road. And our current specs for building roads actually builds in edge sealing like underneath the gutter pan which is where the water runs to be able to fully try to keep as much moisture as we can out of the subbase which is key, right? Especially if you've got poor soils uh
like we do throughout the city. Keeping the moisture out helps to prevent uh tenting, helps to prevent salt from getting in there. Um, and I think we're certainly North St. Paul has been much more on top of um, trying to keep those cracks sealed. You know, usually
standard practice is like every two to four years. You know, that that sealer which goes down is kind of like tar and they put toilet, it's literally toilet paper. They put toilet paper over the top of it. Um, and we've been doing a really really good job. And I think, you know, roads crack. Just because a road
cracks doesn't mean it's a bad road. But sealing those cracks is really really important. And I think we've seen good results from that, right? And so our expectation is that by doing that and not necessarily um not saying that it's wasting money, but there are others out there that have
said I'm not going to spend on seal coats. I'm going to save that money and I'm going to put it into that mill and overlay project in year 15 or year 20. and and people have done their own analyses in other cities and they feel that that's there's money ahead in that strategy as well too which is kind of
similar to where we're coming at it. Um now we haven't gotten to that point where like if the first reconstruction project was done in 2014, we haven't gotten to that point where that street would be overlaid in year, you know, 15 or 20 or
somewhere in there. uh I think the table in the report says maybe like 18 to 22 or something like that but uh we're not there yet but you know again in terms of the progression of the ongoing maintenance and preservation and protection of significant investment in
roadways and asset management call it you know the management of these things as your as your assets as your infrastructure assets uh I would expect that you know again if we can continue that um process of maintenance that we will see better than average lifespans
on our roads that have been reconstructed in recent memory. Um, and hopefully again like be money ahead because of that by using like those incremental investments over time to to hold off and prevent the next time you
need to reconstruct that road. And Dave, excuse me. Um, and Dave, so we do have some roads in town that have been chip sealed. We haven't done them. There were roads that were done previously and they had been done multiple times and people would have called them in as potholes actually
where these where these failed and for us going out to when we usually go out patching we blow the road with a blower, clean the dirt out of the holes, fill the holes. Well, some of these roads we can't even use a blower on because it'll come out in big sheets um for it and
there's multiple layers. Yeah. So, too Yeah. because we we talked about that, you know, for like Morgan said for years about doing that. Does that help? It it almost actually covers up the problems and it doesn't allow you to actually, you know, repair what what is there and
you actually have to be careful how you maintain it or how you try to patch that road because it, you know, how it aderes or it doesn't or over time if salt gets underneath it. Um, so I agree with Morgan, you know, with that and just talking with other cities. A lot of
cities don't do it. You do still see it done out there, but from my experience, I mean, I agree with Morgan. How we're doing it now, I think, is the the best bang for the buck. I think our alley was sealed probably about eight, nine years ago,
and um now it's starting to go to that uh pothole city. Yeah. And what's really hard with alleys is that we have so many roads that are bad. We we know that a lot of the alleys are bad, but it re is really hard to go into
an alley when someone is like, "My road is, you know, bad." So, it it is on our radar and we're going to try to sneak some in here and there um to do it, but it's definitely appreciative of the roads. Yeah. I'm just I'm just happy to have blacked up in my alley.
Yeah. So, we know, you know, and you know, along with what Morgan said with the pavement uh index scores and all the engineering stuff that goes into that. Um, also with these with these ratings, we also sit down with the people that go out and walk every inch of the roads and
we talk about and yep, with our guys, we sit down with Morgan and his his group group and we have our guys have heated discussions about which road should be done next or which should be up because of the pothole. So, we do use all that
information that WSB provides, but we also Morgan sits down with the people that go out and walk every inch and we kind of come up with, you know, what the next plan or where we think the next uh project should be. So, one thing I appreciate is the guys
throwing the black top down, raking it out, and then they rolling it in so it sets in there. Yeah, that's huge because when you just throw it in there, track cars track it down the street, gets on their tires, and then it's It's gone within a day. Yep. And you will see that happening.
That happens at usually at the beginning of the year. Um when we're just going out and filling like the big wheel busters or whatever and we don't have the roller out yet or we don't have the people to do that. But as we when we that summer help starts, that's when we go out and like I said, we spot do that.
We do that as little as possible because that is does make a mess and people do complain about that. But no, I appreciate the fact I don't have an alley, so you got to forgive me a little bit. In North St. Paul, my understanding is heavy trucks
cause a lot more damage than the passenger cars in North St. Paul. Do we allow or do we have the garbage trucks go down the alleys? Um, I do not allow to go down our alley because I know we only have a two two and a half inch micro base under it. Um
the the garbage rig does go down the alley between Helen and Margaret. That's why one of those alleys is really bad and they should be shut down and all the residents should actually put their stuff on the street. And I guess one of the reasons why I was asking about this now is because I know
we're going out for a bid for a different garbage company. Um is that something you know weighing the pros and cons? Uh is is that um universal? Is that how is that decided? There are some companies that or requirements of bids
that go out that they'll say you can't have dual axle trucks. You need to have the single axle truck. So they don't bring that heavy weight because most alleys are 2 in as opposed to a road that might be four plus. So yeah, you do get issues over time with that. So that's something to look at as we're
going through this process. All right. Any other questions on that? I I do want to take a moment and I want Ron to kind of talk a little bit about uh the Margaret and the first reconstruction project and he's got some some stories
of of uh the number of water main breaks that have occurred in that area. um and kind of wanted him to talk about that. And then uh Ron, if you could also talk about what kind of projects you're looking at um that may need a major
reconstruction for 2033 and 2035. Okay. Um is this Margaret in First First Avenue? Thank you. Just wanted to clarify. First Avenue. Um, so if you see in the CIP, um, you'll see like from 2030 out
to 2034, it was all pavement rehabilitation and there wasn't any like major projects in there. Um, when we first started looking at this years ago, sitting down, we were because our road ratings were so low and there were so many bad roads and just talking with
residents and we're thinking, how are we going to get we won't get to some of these roads for 10 years and these people are like, we want it done, you know, now or they're looking at getting it done now. So, we looked at this pavement uh rehab and going out there
and trying to cover as much roads as put it down as much black top as we could get the most bang for our buck. And we knew we'd get to a point where we'd start covering up roads that probably we shouldn't or because the utilities are, you know, bad. Um and so anyway, over
over the course what happened over last year, um we had a water main break on First Avenue. Um, and the water man breaks was running into one of the residents houses. And so the guy was standing in his basement, water's going into his house, and I got to tell him,
"Hey, give me I got give me an hour. I got to notify people, let them know before we shut this water man down." And he was down there frantically making a dam and bucketing and doing, you know, what he could to, you know, stop this. So anyway, we got the water shut off.
Um, fixed the water mane break and then we Randy and I were talking and we're like, man, we've had a lot of water mane breaks on First Avenue. And, you know, we're like, well, let's go out. We're going to the records that we have for the ones that we know. We sent
the guys out looking at patches in the road. And basically from First Street to Highway 120, 1 Avenue, we went out there, we counted and with all of our records and we have 24 water mane breaks on that road within what period of time?
Um I guess since I've been here. Okay. Um that the period of time that I mean so it's they've probably happened over the past I don't know 25 years let's say. But as I was talking to the insurance company for the resident, you
know, in his house, and we didn't know where that was going to go and how that was going to work out, I woke up one night, laying in bed, and I'm thinking, at what point do I am I being negligent at not replacing a water mane on a road when there's that many water mane brakes
on a road? You know, if that person came to me and said, "What's the deal, Ron? There's 24 water main brakes on this road and you are not you don't have any plans to redo this road or you know replace this road. So, um, it just got me thinking or, you know, Randy and I
started talking about it and going, I don't know that we can stop doing these big projects or these these road projects with uh, you know, replacing the utilities. And there's another place in town where there's I don't know there's quite that many, but there's probably 15 on a road um, you know, in
another area in the other side of town. So, just got us to talking about we really can't stop doing these full reconstruction projects. We have to address some of these problems because they're just going to keep it's just going to keep happening. You know, it
shows that. So, um I know they're they're expensive to do and you know, we can say this about multiple different parts of town where, hey, we have to start working on or starting replacing these these water manes and utilities
because, you know, we have to do our due diligence and be able to have a serious conversation with the residents about, you know, why, you know, you know, so we basically had WSB put together. They went and looked at doing Margaret
because Margaret's a main thoroughfare. You can see all the dead ash trees that were taken off on Margaret. Um Dan made a comment. Dan comes into on Margaret every day. And we cut down a bunch of the dead ash trees with electric on Margaret. And Dan's like, "Hey, I think
the road got worse when the trees got removed." It's just you noticed notice how bad the road is on there. And it's, you know, it's a main thoroughfare through town and the road is very wide. It's a, you know, it's it's expensive road. So, uh, Morgan and his crew put
together some, you know, numbers for doing Margaret and then all of First Avenue. Um, and, you know, it turns into a two-year project for something that we could afford. So, that's where it would be at 2931. Um, and then out looking out further,
um, you know, 7th Avenue, the rest of 7th Avenue was on for a road reconstruction project. basically um from Charles up to 120. Um but again, that's another expensive project. Um so that's an area that we're looking. And
then also um up in like the the Msabi uh what are the other roads up there? Shi Shaunie Navajo. Um that's another area where we have a bunch of continuous water main breaks up there. So,
like I said, I I think Dan brought it up or Morgan brought it up. Um, for 33, 35 or 33, 34, 35, we have to look at some of these other areas and get some, you know, rough numbers in there. But it's
going to be something that I think I feel that we have to, you know, keep doing these kind of projects every other year for what we can afford, stay within what we can afford, but and do as much as we can with them because this water mane, you know, it just keeps breaking.
And I, you know, I just want to show that we're doing the best that we can with what we can afford. So, when you did that water mane repair this past winter, did you do it as a only or
is it going to be a permanent fix? So, if they went in and did that project, they wouldn't have to redo go into that guy's property. No. So, it was our water mane in the road. Um, so all the when we do a repair, depending on how the brake is,
we put it, we call it a band-aid, but it's a b it's a basically a 15 in to 20in steel stainless steel rubber coated band-aid. It's got, you know, probably a dozen bolts and on it and, you know, and squeezes around the the repair or if we
have to do a replace a piece of pipe, you know, depending on how the crack is on it. Um, but that's basically it's a repair. I don't know how many of these band-aids are in town. There's probably hundreds of them um you know throughout all the years. But when they come in to put a new water
man in, that all gets replaced and then the service gets replaced um up to the the curb stop in the in the resident's yard. Dan, I don't know if I hit on everything that you So, circling back to that, we are
patching we we're just going to use First Avenue right now because it's clearly a trouble spot. So, we're patching the water man and then fixing the the piece of the road that needs fixing. So, ideally what we need to be doing is take
First Avenue and then Shaunie Msabi, right? Am I saying these right? um and figure out, all right, we're going to start with this project first. We're going to get the every we're going to fix all the main water manes there instead of patching it and then we're just going to continue working our way through the worst areas.
Yep. So, these would be some of the big deciding factors that we use for where the next project area is going to be. And like I said, what's what's tough about it is that I understand each resident, you know, their 100 ft of their property, you know, is the most important, you know, in their eyes. and
that road that they drive on every day is, you know, the most important in their eyes. And that's what's tough about it is that we have these things going on that's underground that no one no resident thinks about after the road is dug up and that's buried and they
don't think about it again. But like I said, it really resonated with me when you know there's a resident standing there. And again, the resident was great with how we dealt with it and how the whole thing turned out. I mean, it was a a great person to deal with and very
understanding for a a a really bad situation. And when you're, you know, when you start stop to think about it, like I said, that resident could come back and say, "Hey, there's been 24 breaks on this road. When are you guys going to do something about this?" And if I don't even have it on a plan or
we're even talking about it, you know, at some point I I'm like, "All right, that falls back on me." you know, hey, we can't afford to do it, so you're going to have to live with it. And, you know, it's Yeah, it's just we just have to keep planning for the future, live
within our means in doing it. And um just so you guys know and the residents know that there is a lot that goes into these decisions on where these projects are. There's a lot of factors in there. And we talk about it all the time. Uh Randy
and I with with our guys, our crew, I mean, we have heated arguments on where the next project area should be. This road, that's ridiculous. And it's not someone there where they're like, "My parents live on this road, so I think we should do that." It's more this road's worse than that, and this, you know, so
there's there's a lot that that does go into it. Um and these water manes or the utilities are a bigger factor in these in these project or in these decisions when we make you know for what roads this might be. And like I said first
avenue that road is really bad. Uh the water man is really bad. Margaret it's really bad. Uh there's not a ton of water man that runs down Margaret but the road is you know really bad. And like I said that so just um you know when we're talking about these projects
and uh deciding on areas or bringing up areas or picking areas you know please ask the questions if you guys are why why are you doing this? Hey you I'm sure you have all had residents my road needs to be fixed because it's so bad. Um you know ask us the questions. We'll there
is a a lot of thought we just don't throw a dart at the board even though we could with a lot of the roads. Um, but you know, we'll we'll definitely give you the explanation for it. And you know, we can definitely tell you that um it's been walked. You know, Randy has
walked every every inch of our pavement uh pavement uh preservation for this year. Every inch of it, multiple times. And then he'll be, you know, because we do spot curb replacement and hey, this gets taken out. We're not doing this. We're just doing this. And we do that to
stay within the budget. And what about this? Oh, we can stop here. You know, so people will complain, why don't you replace my curb here and we're working within the budget that we have. But there is a ton of effort that goes into what we do um for spending the
money that we have and we really try to maximize that as best that we can. So you guys have questions on it, I please please ask. I you know I can it's not going to be well we just thought this might be a good place we can give you some details behind it and
I think it's helpful presenting it the way that you did tonight and letting us know about all these water main breaks. I also think it would be helpful as we continue to move forward to know all right this is the seventh water main break on first avenue in the in the within the past five years or whatever
that looks like. We don't want to be beyond that. And if that's the case and we're continuing to be beyond the seven and we're getting in the 20s, then we have a real issue and that that f that street should be one of the first to get done and or what whoever is treated. It doesn't matter whatever street it is,
but that should be the next concentration. Yep. Now, when you were Oh, excuse me. Go ahead. Go ahead. When you were talking about Margaret Street, was that from all the way from south down to the new addition there by that whole stretch?
Yep. Correct. We're going to be we're going to be doing a little from uh 19th Avenue to 17th Avenue this year and our in our pavement preservation. Um that black top there can't be patched anymore. The ground is actually pushing through the black top.
So, with these pavement preservations, you know, on the off years, um, from the big projects, you know, we're going to try to do some of the roads that we haven't had utility or water mane problems on, you know, water mane breaks on. Um, and, you know, to try to cover
up, you know, as much as we as we or get some road replaced and, you know, hopefully that's a 10 to 15 year fix that'll buy us the time that we need. Um, you know, so we can get that pavement index score up higher. um you know and
you know uh meet some of the people's needs you know for some of these roads that are that are bad. Right. Cool. Um I have another thing. When we're factoring in these reconstruction costs, are we evaluating areas that we want to put sidewalks or that sidewalks are
being considered? And are sidewalks included in the installation of these new roads in in these reconstruction projects? If there's sidewalks in the in there already, um it is we're basically
replacing what is there, you know, basically in kind the entire thing. So that's the sidewalk as well. Well, while we're talking about First Street, let's talk about First Avenue, let's talk about First Street. So if we're going to redo I'm just using this as an example because I know it has sidewalk. Um if you're going to do First Street, then you're going to also
reconstruct the sidewalk, correct? Okay. So I'm that's a that's a great street to bring up. So, we just did a an overlay on that on First Street last year. Yep. And we didn't go. So, the pavement rehabilitation
that we're doing, we're kind of focusing on the road and the curbs. So, unless it's a major reconstruct, we're not going to go and do the sidewalk, okay, at that time. So, we re overlaid the surface on First Street and we didn't do anything with the sidewalk. We did some
uh spot curb repair and we did some manhole and structure repair and ped ramps. Oh, and and the and ped ramps when we go and do that, but we didn't go and do the sidewalks. Now, sidewalks, I know exactly where you're going with that. I mean, there's a lot of bad sidewalks in
town. We do do spot repairs, sorry, spot repairs on some sidewalks in town um from tree ruts growing. A lot of times the sidewalks are bad. The the sidewalks that are bad around town are usually from tree roots, boulevard trees. And a lot of times when we go to
do that, we have to remove a tree to repair that sidewalk because the roots are growing under it. A lot of times residents don't want the tree removed. So a lot of sidewalks are stay that way, you know, that have the big trip hazards on them because the sidewalk uh doesn't, you know, they don't want the trees
removed. So for us to repair the sidewalks, but we do just do kind of spot repairs on the sidewalks. But if First Street was a full reconstruct project, all the sidewalks would have got redone on first. Yeah. And just to add on that, I think
that's consistent with um past conversations with this council and past councils as well too, that uh for the benefit of the public, benefit of the city council to remember that if it's a full reconstruct, that's an opportunity to reset everything within the rightway,
including things like sidewalks, right? But when some of these pavement preservation efforts, they from a budgetary standpoint, they're really focused on the asphalt and the quality of the roads. And if there were additional uh budget that were available that maybe were associated with concrete
or with sidewalks, that could be a future consideration. But really the way that the program is built right now is just to focus for p from a pavement preservation is to uh maybe do some spot repairs but not look at new sidewalks or not look at major sidewalk improvements
but we are committed to making ADA improvements at the intersections with like ped ramps. That is something that typically will go along with not necessarily a maintenance overlay project. Maybe sometimes we might do that, but with kind of a like our 2024 street maintenance uh project, that was
more of a robust overlay project. And we did have some ped ramp improvements, some ADA improvements, some spot concrete uh curb and gutter repair, that sort of thing. But again, just focusing on the asphalt, not necessarily out beyond the curb and gutter, just kind of the roadway itself.
Do we have a sidewalk preservation plan? We do not currently have a sidewalk preservation plan. That's an opportunity for the future. Um, and I guess I can't speak to whether or not you even have a line item for sidewalk. No, no, it's just a m it's a maintenance
item that we we use. We don't have a sidewalk plan that I know of. I'd like to make a recommendation that we consider something like that. Yeah. It's not to say it's non-existent because it's part of our 2040 comp plan that when we get into areas where we
need to make improvements for uh especially for children and our own schools and our own parks to be able to have that transportation for that without them having to go into the street to have that that has been talked about many times at the council level and that is something that is looked at at these jobs.
Are we also doing it down at uh by Casey? There were some sidewalks that ended in the middle of nowhere. Now we're extending them. That's correct. It didn't even make a full loop into like the park. So, now we're fixing things along. Correct. And that and that was identified in the comprehensive plan as Brian mentioned. Yeah. So, that is a
part of it. Um, but in terms of like rating or evaluating sidewalks, existing sidewalks similar to what uh we're doing for the roads, that hasn't been broached yet. And is that something that we can start visiting? I'm not sure where some bad
sidewalks are in the city. If there's a not even a section, there could be just a square itself that needs to be fixed or that needs to be lifted because it's sagged or whatever it is. Yeah. I I don't have a specific like
line item for that. Um it's just I use out of uh like the maintenance money that we have. We usually look at that towards you know fall and then see if we can go out and and do some of those spot repairs that are really bad that are really bad. Mhm.
Notice on the one Margaret, you're talking 19th to 17th. There's a I forget the name of the house on the corner there with the horse tire upper. Their sidewalk on that Margaret side has must have been a lot of tree roots over that time because you're up and down quite a bit.
Yeah, there's a there's a lot of um bad sidewalks in town. But both the Margaret Street and the First Avenue areas that we've been discussing here, those would be potentially full reconstructs. And so that would encompass some sidewalk work
uh as well once we get to that point. Are they on both sides of the street or just one side? Just one. Margaret's on just one. Yeah, Margaret's on one. Yeah. Right. Okay. West side. Okay. I'd like to make a recommendation that
we talk about the sidewalks further at another time, but and having some sort of preservation plan. Thank you, Morgan. Thank you, Ron. All right, we have a little bit of extra
time um here. Oh, thanks, Dan. So, uh yeah, I didn't know where our bathroom was. I wasn't going to let you go quite yet. um you know so the next big categories in the capital improvement plan are facilities is about 17% and then vehicles and equipment is
about um 12 and a half% um our next meeting we will start to get into some of those other components but for for tonight I just want to bring to your attention I won't take the last 14 minutes but I'll just take a little bit just to draw your eyes to some of the
bigger components that are um that are in um our CIP and that is and and from what I've been hearing um these numbers really should should have been adjusted when all the department heads um had their opportunities to uh review and
complete um the plan. Um for equipment, there's a there's a a sizable one in 2030 and that's the the ladder vehicle for the fire department. You know, it it's um out here in 2030 at under, you
know, $1.6 $6 million. Um so that that's a a huge one. The remaining kind of components in there are, you know, the plows, the all of the vehicles. Um we're seeing a pretty consistent, you know, um public works, many of their vehicles are
10 to 15 year uh replacement cycles. Um I think our uh police is at a six-year uh recycling piece, but that's one of the big um gotchas. um coming up. Um that's in that vehicle and equipment category. When we look at utility
infrastructure preservation, um again, I'm hearing um just recently um after this that the the numbers probably significantly higher than this, but there's the new uh tower park water tower um and it's in 2028 at $4.3
million. Um, and I've kind of heard that that number probably should be higher than that. But again, I'm just trying to draw your attention to some of the bigger components that are really driving um some of those because we covered a lot. you know, 50% underneath
the street and utilities. And clearly, I mean, from the discussion of city council, I got the the feeling you completely understood the need of of that infrastructure of the streets and then going even beyond that component and absolutely fantastic suggestion that
we really do need to start having a line in there for uh sidewalk preservation. In addition to it, we're making that investment. we want to make sure that it's it's good and we want to make sure that it's safe and that we're preserving it to the best of our abilities. Um, and then when we start looking at, you know,
kind of the parks and the playgrounds and, you know, there's a number of significant components that are in there right now, there's the 1.1 million for Third Street uh concept design, a downtown open space in 2028 of just
under 800,000. um you're seeing in 2027 their flex field at Mcnite of just under 900,000. So there's some big huge items that are that are in that playground. Um and then um you know the the um the next
biggest facility or next biggest category at just under 17% is the building and facility improvements. And um you know there's three major facilities. They're all pretty much in the same age group. Um but um so you'll
see some of the big expenses that are that are there, you know, between the public works, city hall, um and the community center. So I kind of want to bring your attention to some of those bigger items. We in our next meeting, we'll be covering into those and having more of a discussion and we'll have
other department heads here. Ron will be here, of course, because Ron is responsible for so much. Uh so Ron will be here to kind of discuss some of those other components. But I wanted to draw to your attention that we do have a number of them that are really big
drivers into that cost. Um because that'll be we'll try to get covering the next 50% of what the CIP so you have your um understanding. Now kind of want to give everybody at least a fivem minute break. So it's 6:20 right now. Um, I I'd really like to hear from each
one of you your thoughts right now just on the CIP. We've presented, you know, $50 million worth, half of half of the the 10-year CIP. Kind of want to hear your honest um thoughts, feedback. Um,
it's needed and I appreciate that Ron is bringing up these water main breaks. This is he's acknowledging it. He's going out there. Residents are seeing it. res he's facing and his staff are facing these residents. Um so to be here tonight and share that I I appreciate
you and I appreciate that you woke up in the middle of the night we're thinking about it. I mean it's you our employees have the best interest for the city in mind and um it's important that the public
sees that as well. So thank you Morgan for being here. I mean, having uh the graphs, and I don't know if this is I know we've published this in the past on the website. I don't know if it still exists on the website, but I I think having it still post on the
website is um is good. And overall, these, you know, numbers are staggering. We have to take them in. I mean this is a lot of a lot of things that are coming up in the next 10 years that we have to have to keep the city running and focus of course on you know
public safety, roads and you know infrastructure. Those are the three main things and we say 50% the roads and we got the rest of it still firetruck we got the other things that are coming up. So, it's definitely, you know, when we look at it, there's a lot of decisions
to be made and there's a lot of things that go into this budget in the city. And we appreciate, you know, all the information to go out 10 years to, you know, to get an idea of what's coming. You know, things will change here and there like you said, water tower maybe for, you know, and also fire truck, you
know, how much they gone up, you know, 20, 30 for the ladder truck, maybe more, but at least we have them on the radar. So, and we're trying to focus on try to do the best we can. Well, and Dan, like you said, if we need if we need to inflate these numbers, especially with the water tower around the corner, we need to look at that now.
Yes, absolutely. Yep. Other comments or thoughts? I'm in agreement with starting roads, the ones that are worse. Get rid of them. get rid of them to get them done and proceed year to year to year and just start work and work our way through
it and follow the plan that you've got and Margaret Street is one of the number one roads that needs to be done and also first avenue the first street firstly avenue on that one should be done with that many water mane breaks and those
residents are all deserving of a new road and black concrete curbing and sidewalk if they have it and then we'll go from there each year after that. Thank you. Yeah. And I really appreciate all the detail um that you give us and also that
you send us so we can you know dive into it. I appreciate that detail. Thank you. Yeah. So that that'll conclude this this section uh for tonight in the workshop of 50%. Remember moving forward with this plan on just
the streets is a 3.2% levy increase every year for the next 10 years. So with that I thank you very much and you look too I mean you know when you have it's that way but it's it's it's sharing for everybody when it comes to that you
know because right now people were getting you know $8,000 you know for you know adding that plus they're paying interest on you know assessments and things like that. So, it's one of those things where it's spread out, but we're getting a lot done and we've accomplished a lot in the last year. Yes, we have. And and I personally want
to thank uh Morgan and and Ron and and Randy. Um I get to hear these stories and I wanted to hear I wanted him to bring some of those stories in front of city council because they really did have um they they really hit me. They was a quite of a a big magnitude
especially with the water main break. So, I wanted him to to tell those stories in front of city council. so you understand what's happening on a day in dayout basis. So I thank you very much for your time. Look forward to the next meeting and uh we'll try to cover the other 50% of uh the CIP. And then in the
first meeting in September, we'll have some options of some items that we need to talk about for um decision from city council to get prepared for that maximum levy. And then in the second meeting in September, we'll set that maximum levy. Doesn't mean we're done with the budget,
right? because we've got plenty of time. It doesn't become totally approved until um sometime in December. So, I thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks, Cand. I have a call for adjournment and we'll have a fivem minute break before we start. Some moved. So, moved. Council member Schwear. Second.
Second. Council member McKenzie. All those in favor say I. I. See you in five. Part: 2
He's muted right now. All right. Please, let's stand for the pledge of allegiance. To the standy for all. Thank you very much. Roll call, please.
Council member Derby here. Council member Woods. Here. Council member McKenzie here. Council member Schwar here. Mayor Mongi here. Thank you very much. Can I get a motion
to adopt the agenda, please? So moved. So moved. I'll second. Second. Council member McKenzie. We're going to be reading off the Is that just at the end or is that now when it comes to roll call? Because we do have somebody that's that's um out. So, we going to read off for everything or just
when we get to voting on things. I think when you vote. Okay, that's good. All those in favor say I. I. I. All right. Thank you very much. Consent agenda. All right. Thank you, mayor. Uh first up, item A, July 1st, 2025 workshop and regular meeting minutes. Item B, general
claims of1,652,31.36 cents. Item C, H claims of $6,3151. Item D, approve proposed ordinance amending chapter 112, bingo and charitable gambling. Item E, application for a temporary onsale liquor license and an application for charitable
gambling for exempt permit for Church of St. Peter fall festival uh to be held September 20th through the 21st of 2025. Item F, special event permit for the VFW P and MIA uh remembrance walk. Item G, special event permit for the wilderness
inquiry uh canoe mobilebile event. Item H, resolution accepting donations for June of 2025. Item I, a building permit report for June of 2025. And item J, approval reision revision to AT&T tower lease agreement with related
exhibits. Thank you. You can always tell summer's starting to fly by when we're talking about the fall festival over at St. Pete's. So, would anybody like to pull any at this time? I would like to pull item D, please. All right. Item D, that's pulled. Can I please get a motion
to accept the rest? I'll make a motion. Council member McKenzie. I'll second that. Second. Council member Schwar. All those in favor say I. I. I. Should I take individual? Yeah. Okay. Council member Nordby, I. Council member Woods.
Approve consent agenda. Council member Woods. I you. Council member McKenzie. Hi. Council member Schwar. I. Mayor Mongi. I. Thank you. All right. Next is going to be meeting open to the
public. Um we have three that are going to be talking about the the one you pulled. So, that will be coming up there if you want to look. Those are the names for that one, too. Also, we have one here. I'm going to do a little bit uh different when it comes to um coming up just to give your name as far as that.
We already have the address. Just say name and resident. That way, we can uh so that we do have the if we need to get a hold of you, we do have your address on there. So, Dave Nelson Your time's already started. [Laughter]
We'll hit the clock again for you. Okay. Dave Nelson. I'm a resident in North St. Paul. Uh how is he parked? That's great. You know, they got the pickle ball court and and that in that park gets a lot of use in that building.
I don't know what uh uh occupancy or how many people supposed to be allowed in there. I was at the park and wreck meeting. They kind of told me 47. Well, there was 51 vehicles there. I'm sure not everybody had more
than just one person in per vehicle. And it's hard to get up the street because some of these trucks had the mirrors extended because I suppose they had bigger trailers they were pulling. They never pulled them in. I had 12 inches on one side, 14 inches on the other side. Then I had went up because I go to
Charles North. I had to back up and then go again. There is four other residents that are complaining about the parking there. when they lease out the the building should be parking only that
surrounds the park or uh I have noticed there is people that come in and they drive on the lawn up to the building. They unload their gas grill because there's only charcoal there. They unload the g their gas grill and they do their cooking and that they
unload into the building. Why don't you put a small parking lot, black top parking lot, and right in front of the doors, two handicap spots for the people that are handicapped that are renting that building. And if you want in the wintertime, that
could be part of the ice rink. I don't know. But it does get a lot of use. And that that's because it's a lot cheaper than Casey. Casey, I helped put in the playground there. I helped at Silver Lake. It
helped that one other playground to help put it in and that's so they get used a lot and I would like to for the residents there should be no parking for people that are renting the
park or the buildings on the resident side because the people have a hard time and there's no way a firetruck or an ambulance would have got through at the time when I went through and I had to back up and and and go ahead and back up again to get out. If I made a car, one
of us was would had a backup. That's that's how tight it is. But it gets a lot of use because it's cheaper to rent. The the people that rent it just need to be notified. You cannot park on the resident side. You only park
on the park side and that. But if you put a parking lot down below, that would be great. Right with a door. two handicap spots and then other people it would lighten the load on the street. So,
but no, I appreciate everybody all the city workers what they do in the park and that they mow the grass and stir up the mosquitoes for me and have a good day. Thanks. Appreciate it. Thanks, Dave.
All right. Um I think for convenience sake for our audience members that are here this evening uh we will pulled item we'll make that item A and then we'll just bump everything down. Okay. Um so item A will be item D pulled from the consent agenda which is the approved
proposed ordinance amending chapter 112 the bingo and charitable gambling. And I'll turn that over to council member. Um thank you. I pulled this item because um I feel that it's unclear and I wanted some clarification hopefully. Um so I have many questions but we're going to
start with um the first one. Um, the beginning of this ordinance reads, "It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct lawful gambling regulated by this chapter directly or indirectly upon any premise or by any device without
first obtaining either an annual premise permit or a temporary local permit. Jack, if you would could you please tell me how to read or where to read um where it says um
h how does that first statement how do we read it? Who is this affecting and who is this regarding because it it doesn't really clarify it. Uh yes and um I do agree that the laws around this are a little bit unclear and they use a lot
of very similar terminology. Um so uh this is kind of a basic um premise statement. The intention of this amendment is to clarify but not really change any of the current regulations. So this is saying that you need to
either get a a premises permit and that is a state level permit um or uh obtaining uh a temporary local permit that would be through the city. Uh so this does not affect uh other than some
changes to the fees later on. Um clarifying there was a mismatch between what was on the books and what we were actually doing in practice. Uh, and so this is just clarifying that you must be licensed by um either the state or the
city to conduct charitable gambling. Okay. So, you're saying if you currently have a gambling license through the state, you are not required to get a temporary or an annual license through the city.
Uh, yes. So, you are required. So the um the city is allowed to and what this is um to clarify on um you get a uh license through the state annually. Uh the city
is conducting a background check to make sure there are no violations on that. This is there is a cost associated with that background check. That is what this is clarifying. So there is still an ongoing involvement. Um So, so let let me So, I'm going to
just pick a random member of the audience. I I know some of them are from the VFW. They currently get their license from the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. Right now, my understanding is there is no city involvement with that license. Will this change that or is that a
misunderstanding of this ordinance? Uh, yes. So, this will sort of change that. So the city is and there's a a specific statutory provision on we are not allowed to require further licenses or permits but the city is
allowed to require an annual background check. So this would and it's in the code already and it's just not something that we have been doing in practice. It's um technically in there as um $150 a year uh which is more than we are
allowed to charge under the statute. And so this would be to um keep the requirement that is currently in the code but turn it into something that we are doing and are allowed to do. It is not to potentially head off a further question something we are required to
do. So, so just just to be clear, I if I'm reading the intent of this um is it code? What's the name of the correct or ordinance? Thank you. So now every single person or I'm sorry,
every single organization, charity or not, no, I I I apologize. Every single charity organization that conducts gambling within the city of North St. Paul would now be required to submit to the
city a permit for the annual license. No. Would be required to undergo a background check once a year. Um which is again just like where this
cleanup is coming from. So, there is a specific statute that lets us require that background check. It was in the code already, but in what we felt was an unclear and unclear way and was charging more money than was allowed under the statutes.
It would be within the council's power to just not require that. The again, the intention behind this as drafted was to take what was already in the code and harmonize it with the statute. If the council wants to make a change and not
require you to to have the code not require that um then the council could could do that. Uh the intention behind making charitable gam you know organizations undergo a background check once a year um is to make sure that um organizations are not um you know uh
there aren't violations that are occurring elsewhere in the state. uh since some of the requirements do involve um you know whether or not the there have been violations before and again I I defer to council. I understand there's some some feelings in the
audience. I defer to council whether the the city wants to require that and again this is drafted as what was already in the code um but harmonizing it with what is in the statutes. So, I'm going to talk for a while. Um, and and try and
clarify all my questions because I think otherwise they're going to want to come up five times. Okay. So, the the background check, we'll we'll table that for now. So, the ones that are licensed through the state of through the Minnesota Gambling Control
Board and pay their fee and are bonded through them. Is there any license fee associated with this ordinance that they would now have to pay to the city? No. Okay. So, so there's no fee for those
that are for those that are regulated through Minnesota Gambling Control Board. The ordinance just states that um there was a background check. Now, for those that conduct charitable
gambling who are not licensed, because there are three l I'm going to use this in the loosest um possible. There are three ways you can get a permit license through the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. You can get a regular license,
which I believe most of these people have. You can get an exempt permit, and you can also get an excluded permit. for those three permits. I'm assuming by the way the ordinance reads that they would still be required to get the
background check. Is that an accurate statement? So the um licensed organizations undergo a background check through the state through the state. Uh that would be the city. So that's the $100 annual background check through the city. So,
this would be licensed organizations get a an annual background check when there was a $100 fee um cost associated with getting the background check. Again, whether the city wants to do that, up to you. How much we charge for that. Um
capped at $100 by statute. Could charge less if desired. Uh for exempt or excluded, um for excluded, um there is very little regulation. It's a very narrow category. it is specifically, you know, it's excluded under the Minnesota
statutes. Uh and um city code says that it's not subject to any requirements under uh chapter 112. So excluded um which again is mostly limited to um bingo at senior living facilities. Um that can just be hosted and there's very
little government involvement with it. There's certain caps they have to follow to qualify uh but there's basically no regulation. um exempt. Uh an exempt permit is basically a that's the sort of temporary special one-time event
gambling permit. Um that would require a permit from the city. Again, that's not a change from what we have been doing or how we've been processing. It clarifies um what the fee is. Again, I think there was um a $150 fee for that and it wasn't clear whether
that was for every event in a year or for one or whatever. So, that that's been clarified. So, uh a licensed organization, they get their license from the state, they get a background check from the city, they're good to go. Excluded, they're just good to go.
Exempted, they have to get a permit from the city. Uh that would be uh I believe it's $25 a day. Okay. I I do appreciate all this. Do you mind if I ask a quick question? Yeah. So, as you're putting that decision up
to council to say whether or not they need to do the background checks, part of the decision that the city has to make is to find out if they have made any violations before that is given out. Correct. And we would not know that if there wasn't a background check. That is the the the point of doing a background
check is to um dis discover if there have been any violent because again um you know lots of charitable organizations do gambling in um multiple lo jurisdictions uh and we might not know if there have been violations
without performing a background check. And so that's and then um it's done annually um again just to see if there have been any new violations that have come up. Okay. Um, and then the other one of my next questions is
um well, I guess at this time I do have more questions, but I'm going to pause and at this time I'm going to invite some uh just so we're all on the same page. Um, I'm going to invite um some some of our local uh business
members that do participate in this so they can explain their process and how this pro new process would affect them if that's okay with everybody. Sure. Fine. Who would like to go first? Yeah. Okay. But but I got confused so I needed a minute.
Good day. Good day. I'm Dan Bronc, non-resident, but I am the gambling manager of the North St. Paul American Legion. Um, so in order for me to be a gambling manager, every year I have to go to gambling classes, get reertified by the
state, get a background check, pay my fees, and then get issued my license. Under this new city ordinance, he wants to charge do another background check. Even though I'm getting one done by the state of Minnesota, I carry a $10,000 bond on me. So, it's just kind of redundant. as a person who's already
certified from the state of Minnesota who gets a background truck every background check every year to pay another fee to the city council to do the same thing. It doesn't make sense to me, you know, because the people that get temporary permits don't have they don't do the gambling classes. They're
required by the state law. They don't attend continue education. They don't go to the conferences. They don't carry bonds. They get a one-day permit. They do their event and they're done. for the VFW. Myself, we do everything that's in accordance with the state law. $10
conferences, carry $10,000 bonds, and do a background check every year. So, this is kind of redundance for us to pay another fee when you're going to get the same outcome. So, you've never done a city one? I have never done a city. I brought my past past commander, gambling manager, Randy Bastier. We have never paid us a
fee to the city of North St. Paul and we have never been in compliance or any non-compliance. our our lost charitable cash loss last last year was only $800 out of a $5 million industry, you know, but we have never ever done a background check to the city of North St. Paul. So,
it seems redundant to me that I do everything on the state side to stay current and they do a background check. Now, you guys want to implement this and have us do it again. We're going to get the same outcome from the state of M. If I didn't pass the state of Minnesota, my gambling license would be revoked right away, you know. So, that's all I have to
say. Thank you. Thanks. I didn't that doesn't make that doesn't make sense. All right. Did a member of the BFW wish to speak as well? Good evening. I hope you folks know that
you are keeping us from watching the All-Star game, but we're more than willing to give up that. Uh, my name is Pete Olson. I am not a member of North St. Paul, but I belong to the BFW post 1350, which is a resident of North St.
Paul. Uh, I think I just want to repeat what the uh American Legion fellow said. We do the same thing. We have a state gambling license. We do uh have to go through all kinds of paperwork for that. We pay the
license every three years. We get audited by them. Compliance review uh uh things. So, it's not like we're running fast and furious. We are very highly controlled and it's not that we don't necessarily
object to this uh background check thing, but we think it's already being done. So, you have any questions of me? Thank you. Okay. It almost reminds me of the food truck thing we had going where it was the license worked its way down. if they didn't have one. If somebody just came
in to here and didn't have anything, almost kind of figures that out. Doesn't make any sense to do it twice unless Yeah. As long as somebody has it above, then why would we as a city have to do it? Unless there's something we're not
thinking about, Jack. But so is there any case where somebody would Did you I mean again it's a um it's it's a riskmanagement thing. Uh the the the
statute allows us to require this annual investigation fee to perform this you know a sort of a background investigation on gambling within the city. The idea behind that is that that will allow the city to have a better idea of
if there are, you know, violations occurring outside of the city or if there's other, you know, illegal activity associated with an organization that would be cause for concern. Um, there are other regulations uh as well.
Of course, they all they still have to get the license through the state. Uh, and so I think it's it's just up to the city of do you feel that the state background check, state process is um is
enough guarantee for the city or would you like to conduct your own investigation? So it sounds like you're we're cleaning it up, but nobody's ever done it. That's exactly how I'm reading it is that it's the verbiage isn't clear in the current
um ordinance. So you cleaned it up, made it clear the city isn't currently doing that right now. We're not practicing it. We fix what is in the ordinance. Excuse me. Should this occur and we have to
complete or we feel it's necessary to complete a background investigation on this. I would say that what we did was correct by cleaning up the ordinance and just restating it. [Music]
So, so I guess my next question would be for Brian. To the best of your knowledge and maybe Jenny, to the best of your knowledge, has any charity in the city of North St. Paul paid us a $100 fee ever?
This was just recently implemented uh with the last community development director that we had that is no longer here. It was one of things that she did before she left uh and it was implemented and it was above what the statute uh would even required. So as we
looked into it and said saw that it was already on the bill because yearly we go through the fees and rates and uh we picked it up after the fact and saw that we had not charged for that at this point. Um, so we are readressing it coming forward, but I guess I didn't realize there was redundancy with the
state. And just out of curiosity, when you guys get your license and pay for that, is that at like at the beginning of the year or is there a certain date? And then do we do it at the same time the state does when you guys turn in your information? Dan Brock, now resident. Um, to answer
that question is it's done by when you were appointed as the gambling manager, the charitable manager. So mine ends in March of every year. So, it's when you get you take your classes, you pass the gambling test, you then you send in your bond, you get a $10,000 bond, then when you get all that
submitted, that's when your license is issued to you. You can do a one year, a threeyear, and that's about it. But on another note is that most of us that are charitable gambling in North St. Paul, we all have CPAs that do all our auditing. So, we have another check and balance. We have we use Landon Scott.
So, we have our own internal controls, but we also send it out for an independent person to inspect our records to make sure there's no fraud or abuse going on. So, we're doing multiple checks and balances to keep off the radar to keep our organizations going. So, we just don't do it in internal
house. We a lot of us send it out to CPAs to do it all and make sure our all our stakeholders like Mayor Collegi, we have 600 stakeholders. So, they all get the sand they get the annual report of how we did. So there's a lot of checks and balances and you know and to just to
clean you know I would look at the city ordinance say hey if you've been licensed through the state of Minnesota then you're exempt from paying the $100 city fee you know if you've gone through everything to get certified and carry the bond and all that then you're considered exempt from paying this the city background check. And then on that
note I don't I got like three minutes less than three. Um if you guys deny it then do we lose our charitable gambling license? If you say, "Hey, you you guys don't because how I read it is you guys have the approval or non-approval who gets to do charitable gambling in your city." That's all tied
into that. So, but somebody to say, "Hey, we don't like the veterans organizations. We're not going to approve it. We lose. Why would we be in the town then?" You know, the verbiage is not really clear in there. You know, it's not it's came up out of nowhere. It was tried a couple years ago and it got didn't go nowhere. Now, we're back at
we're back at this again. So, I think it needs more staffing and more better outlining. I know you guys want to try to make right what was correct the process that you you guys weren't doing, but I think we all should sit down and kind of work through it and come up to a good understanding on that. You know, it
just I don't like when somebody can say we'll approve or disapprove your gambling license, you know, because the state of Minnesota's already approved us. We fall in compliance with the state that oversees the cities and the counties and all that. So, I do think we should a little bit more time on that, you know, but that's just all I got to say. Does everybody have a manager like
you, a gambling manager? Most or each organization has a gambling manager. By law, they have to have one. By law, they have to have a gambling manager. Now, if it's like Merit Corporation that comes in from out of the city that run does charable gambling, Max Diner, they have a lot more facilities. They have one person that oversees all the facilities like
still American Legion Bayport, they have about 40 different locations. They got one gambling manager and CPA firm that manages all that. the VFW, American Legion, we're single house. We don't have anything outside. We're all controlled internally. So my question for you is, Mr. Bronc, if
you were to leave the Legion, we're just figuratively speaking. Yep. They no longer have their gambling manager. So therefore, they cannot they cannot operate until they put a new person in place. They have six months to get a new to get. Thank you for the clarification.
Thank you for the clarification. We do have two assist I do have two assistant gambling managers under honor me. So we do multiple checks and balances. The same person doesn't do all the data entry. Doesn't do all the deposits. We rotate through. So everybody's touching the money, everybody's checking the book work and stuff. That's how we operate at our
post. But yeah, you have six months by law to get somebody certified. And if they don't get they don't pass the test, then you don't get your gambling license and you have to exist stop and assist all gambling operations. So we learned a lot on this. Thank you. It
is it's a it's you know it is it's a weak course just to get certified. There's a lot of testing, a lot of different avenues and a lot of things you have to go through in order to pass the test and if you don't pass the test you get another retry. So there's a lot to do and then you got to go through a background check with the insurance company to get your bond. You know they do a background check on
everything your family to make sure that hey we can put a $10,000 bond on you to make sure that you're going to something happens we'll pay you'll pay back the charitable organization. So there's a lot of checks and balances and again I just think it's redundance that we get certified the state and the city wants to add another background check on it.
It's just they got more things to do on their time than we're doing a background check that the state has done already. So thank you. Any other questions? Yeah. Yes sir. Do we have a is that public information that we can pull that up online? Yeah. So you can go to um Minnesota Gambling Control Board's website and then you can pull down and you can
search right organizations, who's the gambling managers, when their license expired and all that. You can see everything that each organization done and how many facilities they have on the offsite premises they have. It's all public acknowledge on the state of Minnesota gambling control board. So there's any pending violations.
That was my next question. Yep. Yep. All the family violations are out there, but lucky for us nursing we have never had a a violation. So we plan to keep it that way. So Dan, before you go, I do have one more question. Um I'm sorry, Mr. Bronc. That's okay. Mhm. Um I have before me the permits that
someone like to the best of my knowledge and I I would like to ask Jack for clarification. Um someone who was doing a bingo event or a um a exempt permit would require these permits do require
um a a a city someone from the city approval before they are submitted to the state. Um, so, so would someone that's doing a temporary bingo application, they they have to get this signed by the city.
This then goes to the state. Do they also get a background check by the state at that level, too? I'm seeing some nodding of of the head for Yes, they would get they would get a a background check regardless of if it's just a temporary because it's charitable
gambling. They don't want to give a license to anybody that has a felony or background. So, the city would still do it fill out the application and it would still go forward for consideration and then be approved by the chairman of the gambling control board. So, it would still get to validate it from them
first. So, thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? So the only time we wouldn't need that is when it's the bingo situation where they're not really monitoring that per se. Otherwise everybody else old folks bingo. Yeah. Old folks. Yeah. Mhm. So otherwise
go for bananas. So unless it's a senior living assisted facility or or something of that nature. Um everyone else is already getting background checks from the state. Uh no money exchange. That is my understanding. Although I am not as familiar with what the state how
the state processes those applications. You know I know like for um you know for liquor licensing right the city does the background check and once we sign off on it and send it to the state it's pretty proforma at the state level. I don't know exactly how much additional for an
exempt permit where it's not a full license. I don't know how much background the state is doing on that. Um, obviously for licensed organizations, it's a full background check. It's very tightly regulated, but for the temporary permits, I'm not
personally familiar with that. Yeah. And temporary permits, you're only allowed five per year. So, you can come into a city, you can only do five five charitable gambling events per year and then you're you're capped out. So, you can't come keep coming back to a place and doing it nons every month. It's
regulated by five times per year and that's it. If you're not l fully licensed and everything. So, uh, five times per year and I I believe there's a dollar amount. Um, I think it's 1,500. Um, uh, so it's, uh, five or fewer days in a
calendar year. Uh, no more than $50,000 in prizes in a particular gambling year. Uh, and then there's a um uh $100 application fee to the state for each um uh event,
each permit that they receive, each event that they're holding gambling at. So then on top of that, there would be a $25 a day city fee and there would be some review that we're doing with that. So, it's, you know, it's it's fairly minimal um
review that the city is doing on these exempt permits. And this is just clarifying that the the previous code seemed to sort of conflate some of these things and sort of had the had the permitting review for everything. Uh,
and we don't do as much review on a licensed organization other than if we want to do a background check. That's sort of the one lever that the statutes give us. Um and that's again um that's only if we want to use it. We are not required to do a
background check on anyone. Yeah. My concern is when you talk in your state statute where it says the the city council can the city ordinance can approve or deny a gambling permit, you know, and I just worry about does that is that just in
people coming in to rent a premise or is that just for those or is that does that affect organizations that own their property that it's it's it's their own building? You know, I can again a premise permit is a person coming in to Max Diner from outside to do a
but when you can approve that, I just want to make sure the clarity is that the city council can't deny a licensed organization from charitable gambling when the state has already approved it. You know, I can understand if you're doing a temporary permit, you don't know, we don't want this going on at
this date because we have fall roundup prey going on. We don't want somebody coming and selling stuff or doing a raffle. I can understand that you want to be able to deny something like that, but how it's worried right now is that it's up to the city council can approve or deny any gambling permit and I'm just worried about the the verbiage on that
from a licensed organization to a temporary. Uh and that is the current existing city code. That language is not changing. Uh it currently states that the city has that power. Uh the city, you know, has some say and again it's it's for one of the specified reasons. Um, so, uh, may
deny an application for, uh, violation of gambling statutes, uh, or, um, failure to comply with, um, fire code, uh, or if it's, you know, other, um, health issues. And that isn't changing
with this ordinance. That is the current city code. Um, and that is currently a power that the city has. Uh, so it would have to be for one of those specified reasons. It's not just because we don't like them. Um, but there is some degree of city oversight. It's a good thing.
Yeah. Any other questions? Thank you for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Learned a lot. I'm just kind of curious of the unique situations that you might have. So if if the background check shows there's been no violations, but what if the violation
is what if the violation is here and going on now and but if you didn't have the ability of saying no, you'd have to wait until the state. I mean, I'm this is an out there idea, but just I'm trying to think why this would be in place for something like that.
If if the violation was happening now, but yet their state background check, they were clear. But if the violation happened here and now, then we wouldn't have the ability to say, "Look, we we can't give you that because of that, or would that be why something like this would be in place?" Yeah. So, I mean, it would be um you
know, you're you know, it's not a violation until the process of establishing a violation is completed. Until that point, it's an alleged violation. So, there is an alleged violation that hasn't been
resolved yet by the time that the city would need to approve or deny the permit. Um, then it's still only alleged and we'd have to approve it and then it would be an after the if it, you know, turns out to be, you know, if someone says that they're breaking the gambling rules, you know, obviously that we have
to go through and establish whether that's true or not. So, then wouldn't this assist us in providing the background check, right? Just want to regarding violations. So you could be cited for a violation but it comes with the corrective action. It
might be to fix that violation within one year, could be within 20 days, you know. So each violation could be tied up for about a year depending on how the gamma control board assesses that violation. It could be a wrong accounting and they might say, "Hey, you
got to you got one year to go send your gambling manager back and your commander back to get reertified." So, just want when you talk violations, they can go on for about almost about a year before they can get actually get resolved. So, if you run a background check and that person comes up because he has a
violation, you might say, "Hey, you can't do it." But he's actually got state laws gave him a certain period of time to correct that action. So, I just wanted to interject on that one there, too. All thank you. Mhm. Thank you. So we didn't have this before the the um
community director the last one or before Randy was it that did it? So this was new at that time then this the fee was new at that time. It was new is my understanding. But we didn't do the the check. So I mean it wasn't no no check no fee right
because we didn't do any background checks. I would have to ask uh the admin assistant that are running that for to know if they did the background checks, but the fee was not collected. I know. And my understanding based on some conversations is that we have not really
ever done this in practice. And again, the purpose of this was just to not change what we had on paper. Uh and if the council would like to change what the code says, then that's, you know, an option that is before you.
Well, I mean, my feeling, and I I'm one of five, is that this is something that's going to affect every charitable gambling operation in the city. None of us, to the best of my knowledge, did this intentionally. Um, everyone that
I've contacted seems surprised by this. I don't think this is the right way to enact an ordinance um that that affects all the charitable gambling organizations in the city. if it's something we truly discuss, vet out, and want to do in the future, um,
that would be a different conversation. But to surprise the the gambling organizations by this, that was supposed to be a worded clarification and all a sudden no one knew about it and no one was doing it. I don't feel that this is a right way to uh enforce a regulation
or a fee upon all these organizations when uh in my my opinion one of five like you said is you know sounds like something's working and we're just stepping into it. So I think there seems like by the information we were given there's a lot of checks and balances
already above as far as uh with the state and everything else. So I mean is this you said it's either you and you didn't write you didn't you know this is us trying to figure out you know do we go back and and take care of it like you say make it the correctly even though we
you know we were kind of not trying to change something but you know does it make sense to look at it again as far as changing uh Mr. Mayor I think that's certainly an option. Uh, I guess I would just suggest that uh I think we need an ordinance one
way or the other. Um, either to clarify the language that we are requiring a background check like the current code says or to clarify that we're not doing a back to remove that requirement from the code. Uh, and so I I think we will need a an ordinance one way or the other
to clarify what the current we're pretty much saying this as a city, the state's going to take care of that and we're depending on their judgment with the gambling board and the state and everything else to take care of all that. That was what that would be. We we could do that. Yes, that is one that's one of your options.
The other one is for us to go forward with what we have. And and just to clarify something too, um the ones that do it annually and are forced to through the gambling control board, we're asking currently uh $100 for the temporary
ones, the ones that are doing a one-off. Um and this might be uh cleaning up the language a little bit more, but under 112.09 09 on the temporary local permits. Um, this organi or the organization may be subject to a
background check conducted by the city police department at no cost to the applicant. So, so we're charging uh organizations that are going through all these checks $100 to do something
similar. We're but the ones that want it for a one-day issue that don't have the full necessarily weight of the Benua Emily control board we're doing for free. That seems a little counterintuitive and and I I um council
member Norby I would tend to agree with you. The reason it's written like that is because that's how the statutes are written. Um, we have authority to charge. Um, it's actually the amount you can charge for the investigation fee depends on the size of the city. Um, based on the population of North St. Paul, we are allowed to charge up to
$100 a year. We are not allowed to charge for background checks for the exempt permits and that's the way the statutes are written. Uh, and so this is um the ordinance is written to conform with the statutes and again um defer to
council if we want to make any changes from that. But that's the um that's just kind of where we're getting some of these numbers from. Perfectly legal and okay though if we chose not to charge either group. Correct.
Uh yes, Council Norby, that is correct. uh we have the ability to charge a background fee. It is not imposed that we must. So is the issue the money or the fee? I mean in all of the background check you mean?
Yeah. What's what's what's the issue? And I'm sorry Jason, you're very close to Yep. Agreed. this organization and I know um personally and both professionally, which I appreciate your professional background in it as well. Um, I don't think I mean this is again
one of five of us. This isn't I don't believe that this is a personal attack on anyone in the city by any means. It's cleaning up an ordinance that we have and I know at the time the community development director that was here was
cleaning up those and um we were talking about fee schedules and what other additional fees can we have to um trying to think of the word off top my head anyway it's not gonna it's not coming to
me but overall Well, we're rewarding an ordinance and making it a little bit more clear and charging the $100 fee for all charitable Max, BFW, Legion. It could go
to um Rody's, Sidewinders, you know, anybody. I'm just throwing these out as an example, please. Thank you. Um, that said, I'm just using those as examples. Thank you.
That said, are we determining whether this is we want to get rid of this or change the ordinance? Are we saying that we don't want fees anymore? What are we address one more time? No. One second. Okay. Um, part of it I think is is it
falls underneath kind of like the food trucks if we're we don't charge for that if they already have it from another license above. Correct. We count from the state. Correct. So that's that's what we've been doing if there's already a state license and it's precedent because with the food trucks, we don't make them do the city
one because that was a big thing. So we're kind of following that with this whole process is if they have the state one, they fall in line. We don't have to do the city one. So that's where I see it. If anybody correct me if I'm and I agree with you. I am very close. And the way I look at it is if we wanted
to charge every group of business, let's say we wanted to charge every bar $100 for a you know umbrella fee for I don't mind doing it if we all talk and go this is what we want to do. We think this is a smart choice as a city. We want to
impose this fee. Then we give them all notification say this is what we're going to change. This is what we're going to do. Um my issue I don't know if I agree with it or not. Um honestly I'm fairly close I probably not. But to me the right way for these people to find out they all of
a sudden have a fee and an application they're supposed to be submitting isn't a at a council meeting where we're just supposedly cleaning up the language. Yes, sir. Uh I have a question for you. Uh,
North St. Paul does not operate in a vacuum. So, my question for you is how many other cities are enforcing this background check thing? You know, no. Uh, I mean, is is this something brand
new that or have other cities already incorporated this? Um, you know, I I I'm not aware. Um, I think Brian is more aware. Yeah, if I could interject. they uh they did look around and whenever we look at fees or we look at new laws, I mean, we look at neighboring uh communities and
surrounding cities to see what they are doing. And yes, there are other cities that are um charging for that and there are actually some other cities that were charging above and beyond what they should have been charging as well from my understanding. So, and there are y some who have decided not to.
You're right. Okay. Absolutely. Thank you. Uh and again just one more time, one of the issues, one of the sort of the reason for this ordinance is uh the current code says that we require an annual
application, an annual background check, and an annual, it actually says $150 fee. Uh and we have not been doing that. And so um you know that that sort of that mismatch between what it says we require and what we have been doing in
practice will require cleanup of some kind. So right now the the manwork and the liability is on the state to do the background check and take care of all that and it's all done by the state. if we have that ability to look that up. I mean, there's value in
that. And when we do uh process uh paperwork, I mean, there is, I believe, an admin fee for that, which is a minimal. It's like $10 or $15, which if we're just looking up on a state website to say that, look, the background search is done. They have passed. Yeah.
I don't know why that wouldn't be sufficient, but that's up to you guys. Uh and again just to to clarify the situation as written right now the code says that we are assuming the duty to do that background check. Correct. We have not been doing that and so that's again that's a problem that we
say we're doing it but we're not 100%. Um so either we don't do it or we do it. So obviously we have to do Yes. And and either is an acceptable a legally permissible decision to either do it or not do it. My opinion is it's already done with the statewide we have to get into it.
Yeah. or confirmation that it has been done. I mean, we're doing that with like the food vendors, you know, so and it's not unprecedented what we're doing. If they got a license higher and they get that's where it goes and then from there it works its way down and if there's a violation they'll know they're going to know about it and
they're going to get slapped with their fines anyways through the state. Yeah. So, I think we should go that route where we're not doing it. That's my opinion. Mhm. It's already taken care
of everybody else thinks. Jack, did you want to Is are we in our timeline with this? Is this something that we could rewrite up and bring to the next council meeting or is this something you could word now that that they could vote on and we could write it up? Let's see. Um, not to put you on the
spot, but I think I would I would probably want to um uh take it back to the next meeting. If we decide to remove that background check, I'd probably take it back because we do so they they they should still be
providing their license to the city kind of on anformational basis. Um, so we're not going to delete the entire thing, but then I will be I would be removing the background check and the sort of approve deny language. That's that's Yeah, that's We didn't think we'd throw out something out
today. It's just I think we need to take it back and, you know, be able to get it correctly. So, not on the fly, but be able to re it up and be ready to go for the next one. Does that work for everybody? Yeah. I mean, and to Cassid's point
before we got to avoiding I I actually need to ask Jack if I can vote uh I guess I [Music] uh to a degree um it comes down to you generally speaking um it is not considered a conflict of interest to be
voting on something that affects all members of a community equally. if you feel like you are more closely connected to this. Um I I admit I don't know your specific connection to the these organizations. Um but if you feel
like you have an unusual degree my significant other works for one of them to be fully transparent and Uh yeah, I think probably most likely that would be a conflict of interest and you would um not be voting on the ordinance
amendment. Okay. We don't want you sleeping on the couch. Well, no, but I mean it's about doing the right thing, not you know. Mhm. I appreciate you guys coming out. Um because you're here and we've already
had you coming up back and forth. Is it the background check or is it the fee that's bought I mean that you're really here and passionate about? For me it's for me it's the fee. Dan Bron North um Scandia Minnesota non resident. For me it's the fee. Last year
I donated uh $49,000 back in the city of North St. Paul youth sports high college uh the churches and all that. $100 is $100 in my eyes. I rather give it to a charity of kids sports, baseball teams, girls choir. I'd rather give it $100 to
them, not to the city. You know, everybody's hurting for money. So to me, if you want me to pay $100, that's fine. I'll pay the $100. It's just $100 I can't give back to my community by the regulations. I have to spend a certain percentage per year by the gamma control board or I get flaked. So I can't hold
money and keep it in my account. I have to get rid of it. So to me, I give it to the city or I give it to the church or the baseball team or the choir team who's want to do trips and stuff. That's where my money goes to. $49,000 last year. That's what that's just me. I
don't know what they BFFW, but that's we're putting a lot of this money back into our community. I get a lot of donation requests from outside organizations, Moax, all that. I deny every one of them because it's not my community. I support my community here and that's what we're about. We are the Legions and
the BFWs are a community- based program. we survive because of our veterans and our organizations and our community members. I'd rather give that $100 to this community versus Thank you. So, thank you. So, in the grand scheme of things, it's the fee. Yeah, it's the fee. It's really the fee, but I would pay the fee, but then as
somewhere down the line, it's not getting $100 for when I get a donation request in or a veteran in need or community member needs $100 for the grocery bill or their rent. Last year, we did about five rent requests for non-residents that are looking for money to pay the rent. That's amazing. They come to us and they
ask us and we vote on it and we give it right back to our community because we can't we're a nonprofit so we really can't control a lot of money. So, so it's all about for me it's all about giving back to my community, not giving it to the city or the state and stuff like that. So that's just my opinion again. No, I appreciate I appreciate that. I
appreciate the clarification and the question at the end of the day it's the background check or it's the fee. Yeah. Yeah. It's just uh it's the fee. I'd rather give it to somebody else. Okay. So, thank you. Yeah. Yep. And as a city, how much time does it take us to do that as far as the background check? What do we have to do
on the city's side? It's not a lot of time if we're looking up and just confirming that they do have the license. Um, so staff just does that, right? Okay. But I mean, staff was Cassidy made a good point. Staff was directed to find other fees for the city as well. So,
I get that. Yeah. I just wasn't sure what the how long she time was in the project. Yeah. So if we feel it, this again just brainstorming, if we feel it necessary to conduct a background check on any
facility that has a charitable gambling, do we charge them a fee for having the investigation itself that we feel that we have to conduct this investigation? Do we go to again you guys are here so I'm going to use you as
an example. Do we go to the Legion and say, "Hey, Mr. Bronc, we understand that you are doing we've received a complaint that you're doing this. Based on our ordinance, we feel it necessary to conduct a background check with you in regards to
that background check. We you will need to pay a fee of $100 for that. Again, brainstorming. I I like the idea of waiting like uh Jack said, just for the sake that there may be some steps that I may be missing.
So, are they actually if they're actually doing the background check starting over even though the state had done it and as opposed to pulling up the state website and saying, "Oh, they've already got it and it's done." Two different deals. Um, so yeah, I'd like to find out some more information as well.
So, it says if you're in good standings on the website and everything else, right? Yeah. Are they just going to the website or are they actually doing a background check? So, yeah. Uh, and if I may, Mr. Mayor, again, the the ordinance that we currently have on the books says that they will undergo a full background check conducted by the
North St. Paul Police Department. So, that is what is currently the ordinance that the city code says. Okay. Uh is that it's a a more robust, you know, full background check on the organization. And again, we haven't necessarily been doing that, but that is
um the current city code that would exist without any ordinance amendments. All right. I was just to say if you walk into any uh charitable gamma organization their licenses our licenses are posted by law in plain sight for everybody to see. So
you can walk in you can see that this establishment is licensed and it's certified to this state. So it's public knowledge you make and can see if it's chair it's been approved by the state of Minnesota. It's all visible for everybody. So thank you. All right. Um, are you going to Well,
now we have to figure out how to motion this, right? I mean, so you still have the charge in front of you. Do you are you wanting to wave that and um are we going to change the language that we are doing a full background check as required and through our police
department. So, couple issues to address. Jack, you probably address it better if you want specific topics to hit on as we're motioning through this. Yeah. So just kind of um procedurally I think what we'd want to do right now. Um
so there's the sort of um yeah kind of the three issues. So are we doing a background check on licensed organizations? Number two is are we charging a fee for that background if we're doing the background check are we charging a fee for it? Uh and then number three there
were also a couple of language clarifications on the exempt permits. That's those temporary permits that won't affect the Legion of the BFW at all. Um, and um, are we going to go through with those? I think what I'd be looking for right now is council direction on those three points and then
it would be a motion to table to next meeting to allow me to go amend the or to reddraft the ordinance um, to conform to whatever that direction is. Do we still have Troy on the line? Yeah. Okay. I just gone off there. I wasn't
sure. Okay. So, the first one, read the first one. We got to do say it again. So, the first one is, are we going to do a background check on licensed organizations? Are we I would say I don't feel like we need to.
Okay. Yeah. All right. I don't think so. I agree on with Troy on that one on that piece. So read it one more time or say it one more time. So are we going to do background checks
on a licensed organization? Next one was are we going to charge a fee and then and clarification on exempt? Yes. Um so yeah so the second issue are we going to charge the fee? If we're not doing the background check we're not charging a fee for it. Correct. So that one's also no. All right.
So now the third one is um it's uh section three of the ordinance um which works out nicely. There's just a couple of clarifications on the exempt permits which is the temporary
um sort of you know one-off temporary event gambling permits. Um just clarifying what those are. um clarifying the fees on those, clarifying how long those events can be for uh and um
um clarifying some of the criteria that the council uses. The third vote would be to vote to clarify the issues. So though that language is in front of the council and so basically do we need to change that part of the draft ordinance? thoughts
and I can I can walk through the the changes that are there if the council would like. Yeah, let's do that. Uh so the sun already came out again, so we're already cooking along here. So uh the the first thing is it would change it the the title from local
permits to temporary local permits. That is just to clarify what this part of the ordinance applies to. That it applies to temporary events and it does not apply to licensed organizations like the VFW. Mhm. Um
it would then clarify that uh a temporary event can be no more than three consecutive days. An organization may conduct no more than five days of gambling in a single year. So, no one event no more than three days
over the course of the year, no more than five total days. Um, that's from the statute and this is just to make sure that we're following the statutory requirements. Okay. Uh it is then um stating that
um uh one adding in the we right now we have a fee for those in the fee schedule. But it does not the ordinance does not say that there will be a fee. Okay. And so just clarifying that there is a
fee as set by council. Mhm. Um and then it is limiting to that for um no more than four days of fee per year. So right now um with the change in the fee schedule, it would be $25 a day.
Mhm. For the first four days, if they use all five, it's still only $100 total for the year. Okay. Is everybody okay with what he read off for the changes for that part of it?
Question three. Yes. Also, okay, I think so. Yeah. All right. About that. Okay. So, the first one is So, we are not doing a background check. Yep. Okay. We're not charging for the background check. We are going to clarify the exempt.
The first ordinance is permits. Uh, and so I would, um, hearing where we are with the discussion, I believe what we would be looking for is a motion to table to next meeting um, so that I can make those changes to the ordinance. Okay.
I would motion that we Go ahead. I would motion that we table this till next meeting. Then can I ask a quick question, please? I'm sorry. Uh, what is an event? So, I mean, if somebody's places will sell raffles and they might sell raffles for a month, you know,
is that an event or how does how does that work when you when we're specifically talking about days? How does that fit into that? That is spelled out. It is um Okay. Uh in the Minnesota control board about um how many days you can sell it for and
um so I I can give you that paperwork. Oh, thank you. Sorry. There's Yeah, there's a lot of state regulation on how that all works, right? Okay. I'm sorry. Troy made a motion.
Motion to table. Do I have a second? Second. Council member Kenzie, would you do a roll call, please? Council member Nordby. Jack, how do I answer this? So uh I is you would like to table it to next
meeting relationship. Oh right. How do I answer this? You will be abstaining. Okay. Thank you. All right. Council member Woods. I thank you. Council member McKenzie.
Hi. Council member Schwar. Nay. Mayor Muggy. Hi. All right, we'll get everything cleaned up. Is that everything? All right, we'll move on with the city
business action items. U so item B is now the comprehensive land use plan and zoning map. Thanks everyone. Thank you. Thank you gentlemen. Uh and the city for the city of North St. And I will turn this over to our committee development director, uh, Ken Roberts.
I've got some maps she's working to get put up, but there we go. Thank you. Uh, as city manager Brian introduced, this is a proposal brought to you really by city staff for two areas along
7th Avenue and South Avenue, east of Mcnite Road that staff would like council consider changing the comprehensive plan and the land use designations for each of these
two areas. So I kind of clumped them into two areas here along south and then up along 7th and on Oakhill Place. The little bit of background. The plan commissioner reviewed this just last
week. It had a public held a public hearing regarding these proposed changes. We had uh probably six or seven property owners come out, ask some questions about it. The commission held the public hearing. The residents in the
area were concerned if the changes would affect their property taxes and it will not. And there was some confusion. The neighbors thought we were trying to change the designations to commercial which they already are. Clarified that
no, we are actually proposing to change those back to residential. And after that, plan commission made motions to recommend approval of both the proposed land use plan change and the zoning map for these two areas. So,
in more detail, sort of up on Oakill here and the comprehensive plan and zoning for both these areas are the same. So, the future land use designation
for these areas is corridor mixed use. And that's the same designation that is to the uh east going up 7th Avenue into downtown. I think these were put in place with that commercial designation.
Well, I know they were with the 24 2040 comprehensive plan update. Uh they are in both these areas all developed primarily with single family homes and there are two vacant lots as well in
these areas. And here's the other area aerial photo just showing the affected properties or proposed properties. And in the Oak Hill neighborhood here, there are two vacant lots that are also uh included. this lot here on the corner
of a third and then a vacant lot up here on the corner of second. So the proposal is to change the land use designation uh to a residential designation which would be consistent with those land uses
that are there. The challenge right now with the zoning and the land use designation is these properties are legal non-conforming. They're single family homes primarily, but with commercial land use designations and commercial zoning,
which means by law and by our city ordinance, city has very the city and the owners are very limited on anything they can do with the properties. And in fact, the two vacant lots could not even be built on with single family homes
because that or twin homes because those are not approved uses in that zoning district and by comprehensive plan. So the change would be again to change the land use designation
uh to a residential a low density residential. Uh and another reason for the my idea, this is really a staff staff generated idea is for a development to occur
which would do a commercial development or a mixeduse development. It would require a developer to assemble six, eight, 10 properties all together, all at once and put a big proposal together and have it go through the city review
processes. My sense is that that's not likely, at least in our foreseeable future, in either of these areas. And because of the legal non-conforming status, again,
it limits what these property owners can do. So the change would be to a low density residential and comprehensive plan and then of course and go to this map. So this is the current zoning. Again, it's all the mixeduse corridor
and the zoning map amendment that I would recommend is if we change the comprehensive plan, we should change the zoning map to be consistent. And that change would be from the corridor mixed use to an R2, which is our mixed residential district, which allows
single family homes and twin homes. And the reason for the R2 district for zoning is that has a minimum lot size of 3,630 ft. And the lots in these two areas
range in size from about 4,800 square ft to 19,600 square ft. So all the lots with the R2 zoning would be conforming with that minimum lot size in the R2 zoning district.
I outlined in the report code language that the city is supposed to follow when considering a zoning map amendment, a resoning such as this. There are five criteria listed there. And these the change to these two areas meet all those
criteria again for this area and this area they're highlighting on the screen. So tonight I have two recommendations for you. One would be there's a resolution that approves the comprehensive plan amendment for the
future laneous map and that change would be from corridor mixed use to low density residential. If city council supports that then there's an ordinance for your consideration that changes the zoning map to make that consistent with
the new comprehensive plan designation. And again, that would be from MU3, which is corridor mixed use, to R2, which is our mixed residential zoning district. With that, I will stop and take your
questions. Well, thank you. So, at one time, they're all single family homes, so one time it had to be single family homes, so somebody had to change it down the line, I would imagine, right? Yes. You know how long ago they did that? I don't. I have a feeling that it was done when they built the pen place back
20ome years ago, close to 20 some years ago because at that point there was approximately four or five homes from the first street up partway up that block that was taken for the pen place uh project
and I imagine that was when it was done and then it was the pen place was located in and then it was probably changed at that point. So that would be 25 years ago. So it sounds like it's really not fair how it's zoned right now for the residents because you said they have a
higher criteria and they it's harder for them to do things. That's my opinion. Yes. Okay. Makes sense. Uh Ken, uh super happy you're on the planning commission. Your attention to detail has been wonderful. Um thank you so much for all this.
One of the things unfortunately I was able to miss the last meeting, but the meeting before that you you had mentioned and and please correct me if I'm wrong. Um, but the way it's currently zoned, if we didn't change it, if if a structure built down in the fire, they wouldn't be able to
rebuild some of these. Is that not exactly? it there is language that they can rebuild if they start within 180 days and build the similar size structure. What the non-conforming
language gets more involved with is if they want to put an addition on or do a significant change of more than 10% of the floor area, then the city code says we can't allow that. So, even if let's say they had didn't have a detached
garage and wanted to add a garage, probably couldn't do that because of the way the zoning language is and the non-conforming rules. Okay. So, okay. In the area, I would say the upper right
there is up here park plan in that area. We have a park plan developed in there. Is this going by reszoning this would this preclude um a park installation? No. Thank you. I actually asked that question in
planning. I thought of I appreciate you. All right. Any other questions? If not, why don't you read the first one who wants to vote on? Sure. So, it's on page three of this report, which is page 48 in your packet.
It's the resolution approving the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for the future land use plan map for the residential property shown in the study areas. Uh and the change would be from corridor mixed use to low density residential. Okay. Can I get a motion for that
please? I'll make a motion. Council member McKenzie. Second. Second. Council member Norby. Roll call, please. Council member Nordby I. I. Council member Woods I.
Council member McKenzie I. Council member Schwar I. Mayor Muggy I. Thank you. And then second one. Thank you. The second action then is there's an ordinance for your consideration. And again, it's the
ordinance approves the zoning map amendment to change again the zoning of these same properties from uh MU3 corridor mixed use to R2 mixed residential. Thank you. I have a motion, please. Motion.
Council Mayor McKenzie. Second. Second. Sorry. Council member Norby. Roll call, please. Council member Nordby I. Council member Woods. I. Council member McKenzie. Hi.
Council member Schwar. I. Mayor Muggy. I. Thank you. Moving on to the next city business action item there. Ken, Metropolitan Council pre-development grant application. Got another map that I Here we go.
Mr. Mayor, members of the council, this request is to uh for your approval of a resolution that would be supporting city staff working with a developer to apply to the Met Council livable communities pre-development grant
program for the Nature Point Townhouse Development. This site, I'm going to switch is this property here along South Avenue. uh gateway trails to the south side and
seventh is here on the east side. The border with Maplewood is right over here. Uh Mr. Hong Kong Vang has been working with city staff actually even before I started with the city on development plans for this site to
develop up to eight units of townhouse developments or townhouse units something like this fashion. And again, this is a preliminary plan, but to give you a feel of what's been looked at to
date, uh, two four unit buildings and then a storm water ponding area here. Uh, two driveways going out to kind of B or south depending on which side of the border you're on. Uh, again, showing the gateway trail to the south.
Mr. Vang is requesting that the city uh council approve the resolution to apply for the grant which would be for up to $300,000 in grant funding uh through their pre-development
program. And what that does it if approved and the Met Council approves it, it provides the city a grant and then they're a sub recipient of the grant. the developer is to further define or redefine and finish their
development plans. Again, these are preliminary. There's some engineering to be worked out. Uh this end unit here may not fit because it's a tight squeeze with the grading and drainage is one example. We don't have all the final architectural landscaping plans, those
kind of things. The intent of this grant program is to help support low to moderate income housing being developed in the metropolitan c the metro area. And the Mr. Vang is proposing these these would be for sale units again for
low to moderate income uh families of four or more in the city in North St. Paul if the grant is approved. So the process is if you support the resolution that gives me the authority and the city
and to work with Mr. Vang to submit an application to the mech council for the grant funding. They may approve it. They may approve part of it. They may not approve any of it. We don't know. Uh there's no guarantees. If the city is
granted the grant, then we work with the developer on finalizing the project plans with the understanding there's an agreement between the city and the bank council and then there's an agreement between the city and Mr. conveying the developer for per who performs what,
who's responsible for what and to ensure that whatever grant funds are received are used for developing the final plans for the project. Again with the understanding that the units would be uh for the low to
moderate income folks, families of four for and for a point of information uh according to the uh housing and urban development, 60% of the area median income for a
family of four right now is $79,440. 80% of the area median median income is 104 uh $14,200. So in my past lives at other cities when people have mentioned low to moderate
income folks they get concerned that it's somehow could be a bad thing or negative thing at those income levels. They're very workingclass people, if not even middle class people by many people's standards. And any buyer of
these units would have to meet those income standards for at least 15 years. So, it's to help get more housing for more affordable, which is kind of an air quote thing, into the city and help develop a site that's one of the less
really vacant sites in town. So, Ken, are you saying when you say that it's a Vanet site, is it city-owned site right now? No, it's privately owned. It's privately owned. Can you go back to the map? I am having a trouble trying to see where this is located.
Do you know where that Pine Creek window washing place is on? It's like two two down from there. There's a house and then there's this vacant lot. Thank you. Okay, that's helpful. Oh, yeah. The border of Maplewood's right here. Okay, now I I can see it. Okay.
So again, the resolution is supporting staff applying for the grant and then if we are granted the grant, there's a whole bunch of contracts and things that need to come back to the council for final approval. All the project plans would still have to go through the planning commission through the council
for final approval. This is just step one of many potential steps down the road. Uh Mr. Mr. Vang is here also. If you want to ask him a few questions or have him come up and introduce himself, he'd be happy to do so. Otherwise, there
is a resolution in the packet uh authorizing city staff to submit uh apply for the livable communities grant program for this project. Would you like to come up and introduce yourself? Sure.
Yeah, exactly. you sat through the a long process. So, at least you can come up and say hi. Yeah. Well, no, thanks. Uh Ken, I met with Ken. I know he's new the city. Uh it's been great to work with. Why give your name and address? Hong Kong Vang. Um I'm a non-resident.
Uh but uh no, it's been it's been great working with the city of North St. Paul. I mean, as a kid, I used to drive on 36 here and I see that snowman. So, it always brings back a lot of memories. Uh my first investment property as a real estate investor or agent was actually in
North St. Paul. So that's back in 2012, you know, with the real estate market was down here. You know, I graduated from the U of M with the masters in HR. And then I took a a side role on into real estate. And the passion with real estate was uh to see my parents being able to come as
refugees and purchase homes through Habitat. And so, you know, back in 20 back in 2001, my parents were able to purchase a home through Habitat in St. Paul. And so, a passion of mine has always been obviously uh just beyond making money is obviously putting people first. Um I'm a former Ramsey County
social worker, financial worker. So, you know, I work in nonprofits with youth. Um so, you know, my my passion is people, but you know, as a as a young developer, I I I will admit I'm really green. This is new to me. I'm learning this whole architect. I'm learning this whole civil engineering this whole city
process. Um I understand that when you have someone who's so green on the side there's a lot of you know uh uncertainties but um I want to reassure you all that I am a go-getter and if I make things um down I like to go forward and make it happen. I know this has been kind of a back and forth plan and you
know every year we've got setbacks but you know this is the year I feel like hey you know what if we've got the M council in support this is something that we can actually bring a lot of opportunities in the city of North St. Paul and I think affordable housing is still something I am passionate about. You know, when I work with you, I'm a
beyond that I'm a real estate broker. I run uh Partners Realy off in Little Canada and um I've see a lot of first-time home buyers um that are going through the process of buying homes and um we live in a really great state. Uh we have a lot of great cities that do a
lot of great work to allow home ownership and I think this is a good opportunity to be able to do that. I know we're very farfetched from the the you know the final plans but I hope that with the support we can actually get things moving a little quicker and like what Ken mentioned it's not a guarantee with M council but it's worth a shot.
How long have you had the property for? So I actually don't own the property. It's actually currently owned by my father. Okay. And so he had purchased this property back in 2019 right before co and his plans were to be able to build himself a house there. And obviously with the zoning, you know, I
don't think it was zoned for single family. Um he's a retired postal service carrier. So he decided to build not too far from North St. Paul right his house is actually just a little bit west on the Mapwood area. But u my intentions is to be able to purchase this through my dad. We did verify with Met Council that
there should be no conflict of interest. Great. Okay. Thanks for your introduction. Thank you. Any questions or All right. I think I'm good. Appreciate it. Thanks for coming up. Thank you. Good to hear background. It's good
story. Thank you. Sorry. Go ahead. I was just triggered. So, um, these units that you're looking at, how many square footage? What are you looking for? Square feet. Obviously, um Ken, you had indicated that the one to the far
right as we're looking at the screen that may not obviously occur just given the um what is it? There's some water the drainage the drainage over there and and that's if I may reason to if we can get the grant funding or if he
can get into the weeds into the details on the civil engineering this is enough to talk about it but there's a lot more work to be done but yes this unit here is a
maybe a 50/50 at best that could be so it might only be seven units instead of the eight And when we're discussing the units, how big of units you said family of four, right? Square footage or 738 is shown here. 738. Sorry, my There we go. I need
Would it be a slab on grade then? No basement or would it be basement? That's slab on grade. Yes. And then on top of the garage should be about I would say 15 to 18.
So it's like the M&I where you got garage building on top. Okay. Would you uh do underground parking then or is it street parking? It's going to be garage right in. Garage right. Okay. Each unit has a twocar garage. Yep. Oh well. Okay. It's kind of like the MI up there.
I've never been in there. All right. Nothing else. Do you want to read what we need to There's other questions? No other discussion? Yeah. No, I'm good. All right. Just want to make sure we're not cutting you off. No, you're good. Thank you. So, before you is a resolution of
support to apply the to the mech to support to apply to the MEC council livable communities development grant program for the proposed Nature Point townhouse development. Okay. Do I have a motion?
Can I ask a quick question? Oh, yes. Um, so Troy had logged in before. Uh, unfortunately his battery is dying on his computer. Can he call in or is that not an option since it's supposed to be
visually and audibly heard? Uh, he can call in and listen. Uh but if he wants to be um a participating member under the open meeting law, he does have to be um seen be seen is one of the requirements of participating by interactive technology.
Okay. Yeah. I was just now is he gone now? I was just wondering. Okay. So he's off already. I think he's okay. Just wanted to make sure. All right. Can I have a motion, please? So moved. So moved. Council member Norby. I'll second. Second. Council member McKenzie.
All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. He's not going to be able to do it anymore. All right. Next item up is uh item D, city code text amendment. That's one
more for Mr. Roberts. So, speaking of code cleanup, that's what this item is. Last time was in about an hour, so we'll see what happens. We're not we're not messing with the gambling. All right. As long as uh there are three
sections in section 110 of the code that staff brought to my existing staff brought to my attention that are unclear and inconsistent of primarily how we uh license or don't license contractors.
And so there are three sections that have a series of revisions that we are proposing to help clean up. So in section 11025 which is regarding heating, ventilation
and air conditioning installations, we're proposing to remove that entire section of the code. It's not necessary. The state requires each contractor to hold a bond and provide their own insurance which staff checks when
licensing these contractors. uh our Rum River Consultants, our building inspection service believes that having this requirement on the books now is it's essentially double dipping. And it really the current language adds an
extra step when the city approves permits because again we're similar to the Gerald will be gambling. They're checked by the state and then we be checking by the city of North St. Paul. So, we're proposing to strike that whole part of the code.
Second part moves into section 11027, which I've never seen this before, but there was a special section about trenching licenses and ordinances and requirements. We're proposing some revisions to that. First, that licensed plumber plumbers
doing underground work would not need to get a separate trenching license from the city. Hopefully, if they're digging in pipes, they know what they're doing. They don't need a separate license for doing the same work. Uh, also proposing that we drop the requirement that sewer and water
contractors working in North St. Paul submit a corporate sur bond because yeah maybe that's a good idea but similar to the last uh the charitable gambling this has not been something the city's been requiring for several years
and we don't necessarily see a value in it and it puts an extra burden expense on the contractor so okay we're proposing to drop that and then the last section is 11028 which is about general contractors in general eneral. There's a whole list of general
contractors are outlined in that section. There's masonary, roofers, sign uh installers, excavators, plasterers. I never knew plasterers would need a license, but that's what codes currently says. and for driveways and fences
and uh tree trimmers. We're proposing that the city remove the license requirements for all those general contractors except the tree trimmers. And we want to keep the tree trimmer license as a city license because we
want to make sure if they negatively affect our public infrastructure like our power lines that we have a way to go after them if we need to. All the other ones again most of those work all those types of work are covered under
building permits that they would be getting uh for any kind of project that they are working on. So it seems redundant again primarily and most of those are also licensed by the state. So the what's before you this evening then is
an ordinance that makes all those changes with all the pretty strikeout and replace and repeal language. And so if the council so inclined, we're recommending you adopt the ordinance in the packet. And that ordinance approves the ordinance text amendments. This is
city code language relating to the contractors and contractor licenses in North St. Paul. All right. Thank you. I have a motion, please. Can you repeat all that again? Exactly. I'll make a motion. Motion. Council member Schwar. Second.
Second. Council member Norby. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed? None. All right. All right. Next up is uh item E, 2025 street and chilly improvement project uh city project number 25-01, which is
approve a change order. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the council, this item before you is uh to consider approving change order number one for the 2025 street utility improvement project. You may recall that's a reconstruction project
happening in the Casey Lake uh area uh which includes full reconstruction of streets and utilities in that area. So upon um consideration of the contractor and some suggestions on the part of the contractor review by engineering and
also for public uh works we have this change order which um change orders are not always bad things or things that increase costs on project. This in fact provides some cost savings to the project. So what this uh contemplates is deleting some of the uh trenchless sewer
lining and sewer service lining from the contract and replaces it with open cut open trench uh sanitary sewer replacement and service replacement. Um, based on the numbers provided by the contractor, there is a cost savings uh
to this change order of $108,493.65. So that would be a cost savings to the contract and to the overall project. uh and public works and myself agree that uh based on uh contractor's proposal uh and the reason why there's some savings
here the soils um access to the project and we feel that um the ultimate end product would be a better final product. Uh we have been using some of these trenchless technologies on past projects to be able to limit disruption and to improve access to the neighbors in the
neighborhood, but for this particular project, it seems to make uh reasonable sense and there's significant cost savings to contemplate this change. So staff, public works, myself, engineering, we all support and recommend approval of change order number one uh in the amount of a
deduction of $108,493.65 65 uh for the 2025 street and utility improvement project. That's city project number 251. And so with that, I'll stand for any questions the council might have.
Okay, we're good to go. I get a motion, please. So move. So move. Council member Schwar. I'll second. Second. Council member McKenzie. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed? None. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council.
[Music] All right. Last item up on the city business action items is item F. Uh council direction on community multicultural outreach center feasibility study and grant funding. Um I have some explanations to do on this. But overall, this is being brought back
again um due to the EAPC when they brought their presentation forward to give you guys an update on this study and how it's been moving forward. Um some of the costs uh were eye opening that and they confirmed and we did see some of these costs um for the
redevelopment of the building uh was done by the wool um study and now they did confirm those numbers and probably even added to some of these costs. Um, so since they were here uh back on June 17th and went over that uh I did receive
a bit of feedback um both from public um and council concerned about the excessive cost for this which would be above and beyond uh the funds that we received um grant money for on both state and federal level which uh that
totals 5.35 million. Um the study that they had uh put forward explained that the city would have to come up with $3 million more than $3 million above and beyond what the grant money accounted for. So
that was the reason in bringing this back to you and the information um it's just confirmed from their study. Their presentation is also attached on here. Um, one thing I'd like to go over though is so in looking into some of this information and trying to find out what
options might be available for uh either modifications to the grant or uh any way of repurposing. So, the way the grants are handled is they turn that over to DED. Um, DED is just an acronym
for Department of Employment and Economic Development. the state puts that responsibility on them and we are assigned a person that uh is in charge of that. I did reach out to this person trying to find out what options we might have. Um I had heard that you can make
modifications to the um bonding money on you know try to shift things around a little bit but make it still work. Um I didn't get very good answers there. Uh so recently uh we reached out to our
local legislator who got us got me in touch with um the woman who is the DFL committee administrator for the capital investment committee. Um she came back with some really good answers. Um
so different ways to move forward with this. We um well you have you have two votes in front of you this evening. First one is to not continue with the EAPC feasibility study for the community center. The second one was to are we
going to reject the grant funding just for the sake that the costs were so overwhelming that the city it'd be a pretty large financial burden on our residents to take on this kind of debt. That was the concern. Um,
but we found out that you can do modifications. And if you take this back to uh the legislation, I think through their committee, you could do modifications. And when I was talking to her on the phone, one thing that uh uh lessons learned of with our lobbyists
that when we put this forward, there were all sorts of things that we covered in there that uh that we were going to address whether or not it was uh for the vets, for seniors, for kids, for um all these different items plus uh fulfilling
objection um um you know having green power and all these efficiencies. and she said, "Well, I can see how you guys were having trouble, you know, checking all these boxes and all these requirements." Um, we got a little more specific than maybe what we should have is from my
understanding. Um, so the one option is also, uh, there's repurposing. So what you do in that case is you take your grant, you um go through your legislature, you cancel it, and then you turn around at the same time and you ask
for a repurpose of that money to do something different. Um which then really opens it up. Um you could do a road project, you could do a water tower, you could do um any number of things. um which would be something to be brought back to you guys for
suggestions on which direction you'd want to go or how you'd want to handle it. Um but that comes with a caveat. You're not guaranteed that money. So you can cancel it and you can turn it back. And she did explain though that this because this money was uh cash and that
not a borrowed sum that it is easier to manipulate and move around which made it sound like it would possibly be. It's easier certainly than starting from scratch as far as it being repurposed and try to do something else with it. Um
so those that needs to be known as you guys vote for uh these two resolutions that are in front of you tonight. It was brought in as a single resolution. I I feel it should be brought separated into two resolutions. Um I don't know if you
want to add anything more to that or clean it up any better, Jack. Uh no nothing in particular for me. So and also this grant was gotten uh in 2023. There are four years for you to
use these funds once it's given to you. So here we are two years later. Um now we still that uh timeline comes into play too is if you're going to go back to them and ask them to repurpose it. Um, so as you
saw in Dan's uh information this evening that we are in a small surplus this year. It is looking like it is not going to be a surplus after this year moving into the following years. So if we would do it, we would want to do it and be get it ready uh to hit this next legislative
session coming up in the fall. Um just a FYI. Thank you. I know I was I reached out to Leon Lily a few times. we were playing phone tag but he got a hold of you today as far as so then he um you want to tell what the conversation was about that?
Yes, thank you. Um so clearly that's an important part of it that uh you need a legislator to back you on this process. Um our local legislature happens to be on that committee. So that is u to our benefit and I did ask him if he would support if we decided to come back and
ask for a repurposing for another project and he did say he that he would support that. Okay. So the first vote is the first vote I would before we vote I would like to bring I would like to have a discussion.
Um we've made we've created a environment where the public in our community can have updates regarding the feasibility study and um we've made that dedication to
those. We have not held a public hearing. The last public event that we had, it was closed and it was discussing um the community center where EAC is with it, right? Um unfortunately, we
lost Troy given just electric issues on his computer. I um this is a very big topic, a very passionate topic I believe with everybody that either wants it or they don't want it. Um, but I would I
would like the council to consider tableabling this for the next meeting and have Troy here. That's all I have to say. Any input on that? I could text him. Well, no. It's
the first thing that comes to mind is right now is anyone help me with the date. Um, the next one we have is or excuse me, 19th of August. Yep. It would be August 19th. Does anyone know if they currently have a conflict with that meeting?
Please. not going against what you're saying, but um so I did have a conversation with Troy. Um he knew this was coming forward. Um he was aware of the situation. He did not ask me to relay that to you guys for a table. So just want to put that out
there. He didn't ask, but uh you're certainly in the you're right to ask for that. Yeah. Yeah. I just I I am asking because I I personally would like to table it. That's just me speaking on behalf of myself. I personally would like to table
it and wait for Troy to come back in in the past. We have a history of asking for the same thing um of trying to get all the council members together for it. Um I I I don't have an issue with that ask. I would support that.
I would prefer go forward myself. I That happened the last time to me. So I I I know. But you didn't enjoy it. Yep. But that's where I'm at. Any thoughts? Well, any thoughts? What you prefer to do? That's That's what we're
Yeah. No, I I I um no matter what's going to be, I think we should just table it, wait for everyone to be here to make it fair to everybody and uh but I think it should be at the next meeting for sure.
Yeah. And we should have a definite outcome at that point. Uh if we do table it is that incurring a cost. No.
Uh so for all intents and purposes EA EAPC we would just still leave that on hold. It's it's paused. Yep. Okay. I asked them to pause that. Um and it's not costing anymore. So it can still be paused until the next meeting. So that
that's not an issue. That's cool. Well, that's a majority. Yep. Do I have a motion? I would like to make a motion to table this for the meeting of August 19th. Okay. All right. Seconded. I'll second that. Second. All those in favor say I. I.
I. All right. Next meeting. All right. Thank you. Uh moving on to reports from city manager. Um so we had our staff meeting today. Um, electric department's been busy with the road
reconstruction project because at through that process they are uh rewiring overhead underground when it comes to the primary work and they're getting all that transferred over. Um, they were getting prepared depending what kind of weather was going to come in this evening for anything severe. So,
they're good about that. Uh, also working with Cowin's school and the addition that they're looking to put on the school come next year. So, they had met with the um electrician there for that job just to make sure that their loads aren't going to increase enough to where they'd have to upsize their transformer.
Uh community development has been, as you see, reviewing uh outdated code regarding contractors uh pulling uh and pulling multiple permits on things that maybe they don't need to. So, that's a work in progress. Communication's been busy. We have
national night out coming up pretty fast here already that we have 11 block parties registered. We usually have some coming uh towards the end there. We had 14 I believe last year. So it should be good. Um deadline for the final registration is
July 31st. Uh we have Silver Lake Beach party which is this Thursday. They have a really strong showing. Uh so there's a lot of people that have already committed to it, but there's been over a thousand people that have said interested. So it
could be big. Um we are doing our part. We're going to have PD bring out uh the extra trailer camera that we have in place from Casey and put it out there. Um we've asked PD to be on standby as well as fire. So we're hoping for a nice output. That's good weather.
Yeah, absolutely. Yes. Cooler. Yes. Um, actually tomorrow too for you guys, uh, we have staff appreciation for tomorrow that we'll be having out at Casey Lake. Um, what is that? From 11 to 1. 11:30 to 1:30. So, you guys certainly welcome to
swing by, please. Um, finance has been certainly busy with the ongoing budgeting. Um, we also are looking at the implementation of our Paycom, which is underway now. Uh they've had several meetings with Paycom and getting close to start doing some of
the transition work. So looking forward to that which Jenny will certainly benefit from and be happy about. Police department. Uh they got the fish with the cop coming up which is this Saturday which is awesome. They usually usually get 80 to over 100 people there for that. So that's always a fun event.
Um public works is always busy. They uh working at cleaning up uh some of our restroom cleanups, which has been just unfortunately very messy lately. So, to the point that we are actually changing
the uh hours of operation on them. We're going to start closing them earlier. We're going to close them at 6 p.m. Uh the vandalism is just been really unfortunate. And the one out at uh Silver Lake found bags of used hypodermic needles out there. It's just
absolutely unfortunate. um seen so many places that just get shut down because cities just get sick of dealing with it. Um but they've been busy also with the mowing, massphalt patching, uh fixing uh basin repairs and uh doing street
sweeping, of course, tree work all the time. Uh student build house in progress. We're getting really close there. The counter countertops are in. Landscaping will be in next week. Carpet and fence is scheduled for early August. uh plumbing to be completed yet this
week. Um Bule project they're staying on top of which is moving along well. Nothing major as far as items happening. Sewer line is in uh in the but the Bule area and then uh new water man is going to be starting to installed this week as well.
Uh fire department did find out and I know I just told you guys this yesterday. This is how much this changes. Now they're saying the fire engine will be here by July 30th. So it will be here for the national out. until tomorrow. We'll see what they say. Daily updates. Yeah. Uh they assisted Maplewood with a
water rescue. Uh no injuries, which was good. Uh they have their live burning uh training tomorrow out at the training center. And uh we had our first property abatement um this year, which was just uh trying to deal with very long lawns.
So they were staying on top of that. But uh that's all I got for you. All right. Thank you. Commissions. Committees. Parks and Recreation um had their first
meeting. Sorry. Parks and Recreation had their first meeting in June at Howy Park. It went really well. Um it was the day it unfortunately it rained pretty hard so um it was a little wet but it was nice to I've not had a park meeting
out in the park so this was my first and it was fun to have that. Um we will meet uh next Wednesday the 23rd and I'm really sorry I don't know the park yet. I got to reach out to Sarah. So that one's on me. But where are they going to have them?
Yeah the next park. Yeah I don't know off the top of my head. I'd have to reach out to Sarah. I apologize. No, definitely. No, we're meeting in a park. That's good. Summertime, you should be meeting in parks. It's nice. Yes. And I invite everybody to come. It's cool to have a meeting
outside of council chambers. Yeah, sounds good. Uh the EDA won't meet until September 9th. Okay. Thank you. The last planning commission um met uh
uh on uh July uh 9th. Unfortunately, I was not able to make it, but you got to see most of what was discussed here today because we voted on it and um just want to welcome Ken and say say super happy with you being on the team. Thank
you so much. Great. Thank you. Any general business? Just want to remind everybody that there's no council meeting um on uh August 5th and encourage everyone to try
and make it out for the night to unite national night out or Yep. Okay. Anybody else? Nothing else. Um I was I was uh sent an email um about uh
the disability pride month. So I figured the dyslexic mayor will read this. So, we'll go from there. Disability Pride Month is celebrated every July in honor of the history, achievements, and cultures of people with disabilities, making the anniversary of the American
Disabilities Act signed July 26, 1990, and promotes ex acceptance, vis um visibility, and ideals of disability and then the part they play into our community. So, just wanted to say congratulations. I know your daughter's
disabled and there's quite a few and that was uh just wanted to bring that up too. So if nothing else I'll ask for a German. So moved. So moved. Council member McKenzie. Second. Second. Council member Norby. All those in favor say I. I.
See you August 19th.