let's open the meeting with the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and
justice for all all right welcome to the city of St paul Park regular council meeting April 21st 2025 first item on the agenda this evening is approval of the minutes April 7th 2025 regular council meeting and wave the reading of the same so moved
second i have a motion and a second any further discussion all those in favor say I i motion carries 40 all right item number two items from the public is there anything on the sheet anybody have anything not pertaining to anything on the agenda
this evening all right seeing none we will move on to item number three the consent agenda this evening we will be acknowledging the receipt of commission minutes for parks and wreck December 12th 2024 public safety March 6 2025
um approving a pay increase for the chief of police approved payment of bills for the period April 9th through April 22nd we will sadly be accepting our finance director's resignation effective April
23rd 2025 and subsequently approving a proposal from MGDT to go out and hopefully find us a new finance director and item number F in consequence with
that approve an interim agreement for finance manager and uh approve services from Abdo Financial Solutions to help get us through those time
periods mr prayer and I want to remind everybody that just for a second here that we can pull anything off of the agenda at any time any council member um all you have to do is ask or
I'm looking for a motion mr mayor I see to member with H can um can we take be out of there and and talk about that a little bit more after tonight tonight or talk about it tonight
yeah we can talk about All right we will move item number B down to new business into item number four so we remove item number B from the consent agenda
i am move that we approve tonight's consent agenda minus uh agenda item B as listed second i have a motion and a second to approve approve the consent
agenda minus item number B any further discussion all those in favor say I i i motion carries 4 all right move on to new business item number
A well let's just go ahead and get uh item B from the consent agenda out of the the way first doesn't matter so I will be moving and pulling item number B approval of the chief's pay
raise onto new business mr mayor yes council member Spencson just to start the process to get to the the uh discussion site I move that we approve um uh the police chief 2025 pay increase
i'll second okay we have a motion and a second discussion no um I just did have we ever done like a performance review we have done a port is there any way that we can see the performance review
well Mr mayor and members of the council so the council typically doesn't doesn't supervise department heads you only supervise my position the city administrator's position so yeah typically the council wouldn't do performance reviews for anybody else
besides myself that's common practice this is a cost of living adjustment it's a 6% increase so it's not a merit increase i believe it's also a market adjustment right yeah which is Yeah a cost of living adjustment yeah and so And so the police
chief Yeah didn't didn't receive an increase of January 1 typically is that's when it would come forward with all the other employees and so it's being proposed now in April right also I believe I don't know we all received the
email from the chief correct Kevin correct when we sat down and we were going through all of that and uh the chief laid out her plans and um as far as I'm concerned the things that um were
laid out and and the issues that we um are facing as a city um have to this point been achieved for this year um so and I believe also that the percentage is also based upon we are
required to go out by law every two years and do a market rate study for these positions to make sure that we're in line um so this was the year we also had to do that um the chief has also agreed graciously that we will not be um
reimbursing for back pay to the time when the raise should have been implemented while we were doing this study and dealing with this other stuff so then there's three or four months of unpaid increase so if we were to stretch that
back out over the course of the year it would technically be a significant percentage reduction um but either way the approximate amount was budgeted um last year um and then knowing that we had to
hit these certain benchmarks right so that's kind of why where we're at with that okay any further discussion oh no no i was just going to remind uh uh that we can do a merit and a performance uh
assessment at any time right i mean we can bring it to the city administrator and have a discussion or not right no we can do that with any employee right yeah exactly yeah yeah so so so that's always right and then we
would leave that job up to the city administrator to Right to administer right and then more than likely if if if it was issue based then we would go to a close session and then discuss right right so that so so anytime that we want
to bring that forward we can do that okay all right any further discussion all right a motion to second all those in favor say I i i all those
opposed me okay motion carries 31 all right now on to Duffy's plan set modifications item number A Nate good evening honorable Mr mayor honorable members of the council we have
before you um a couple years ago in 2023 the city council approved a planned unit development and site plan for remodeling of the Duffy's site uh some of the there was some flexibility granted to some ordinances it was kind of a unique site
where they were adding a car wash uh on one lot and had to move the alley up the access point had to move for county requirements um so that was part of it and then on the gas station site they were adding onto the building including
more of a convenience store and more uh service bays and one of the things was that the where the parking was supposed to go on the site versus what they built is not doesn't match the approved site
plan some of the landscaping has changed so some of the items that were placed on the site do not meet the terms of the approved site plan because it was modified without coming back through the city approval process and so what the
applicant the property owner is seeking is to have that site plan now approved by the council and basically that would be then endorsing the adjustments that they've made to the site which um
include the parking being made there's like parallel parking across the from the building on the drive through the site and that uh the landscaping plan was modified some of the plantings aren't going to be put in and
then that they put uh trap rock down along the curb so people could drive over the curb and get through the site and these things weren't part of the approved site plan so that leaves you
with a couple options one you can just accept that two you could send it back to planning commission for a hearing three you could uh identify things that you want them to change on the site to bring it more into conformance with the
site plan so those are your basic options i should note that the building official is uh going to be meeting with the representatives from Duffy's to discuss a couple of the issues because there are some code compliance issues as
well with the site namely the handicap parking space they have to prove that that meets uh ADA requirements and that the uh site layout as it currently is formulated meets fire code but we can if
the council wants the building official just to address those issues and work with that then uh city administrator can reduce the letter of credit to the amount that would be necessary just to resolve those issues if you'd like to
see more extensive changes made you could uh request that as well or you could send it back to the planning commission for a hearing if you would like to do that those are your options essentially at this point all right thanks Nate so let me run this by maybe
a little bit quicker or so these guys might understand oh thank you um the planting that's bushes in between the two buildings is that what we're
talking about yeah they which is like a three-foot area right between the two buildings between the building and the car wash or between the building and the house next door the building and the house next door building and the house next door i drove by and looked at that there's it's like three or four feet
right now i mean I guess I don't I I don't want to get into too much of where this went south and and who's to blame on some of this stuff as far as like um plan designations and building
representation type things but um the parking it's all the couple slots on the one side where the cars are parking one behind the other correct correct right that's the only parking
issue we're talking about other than the handicap which we can address later right and so in in totality you know the landscaping plan changes so when you think about it one of the things that
was related to the approval was people wanted to see some plantings just for the benefit of like the house next door and the things next door around the site right there isn't a lot of space for it and they designed something that they now say doesn't work and that was on the
approval and if it doesn't work it doesn't work whether or not it was required landscaping by the code or was just required as part of the planned unit development I mean that's a whole separate issue right but the the properties in this area along there are
zone transit mixed use so it's supposed to be kind of an intense development pattern like in the downtown area right so then with the the parking the parking is supposed to be like against the building and like you know you would
traditionally see anything they moved it to the other side we don't traditionally allow parallel parking next to a drive through a site so it probably would have been something that would have gotten a lot of discussion when this went through originally but they've uh moved it over
there and um the handicap spot needs to be fixed so some of these things we can resolve but in the big picture of things if you I mean if you want to have a more extensive auditing of this you might
want to send it to the planning commission for discussion if you feel that it's um generally acceptable but you want to have the building official continue working through that process right that's why I'm just trying to get to the the questions on just the issues here so the the planting is the bushes
the parking is the backtoback parking on the one corner and then the other one is the P rock along the one along Broadway and along um the county road right which I believe the county said they're really not going to do anything about is that correct Kevin
well the the county said it's not allowed and they may remove it right and that would be in their right away and their right to do but okay and then as far as the code compliance issues we can separate that and deal have the building official deal with that later that's
right accurate summary does everybody have the gist of it any more questions for Nate thank you Nate so what's your suggestion mayor um my suggestion would be to go with
Nate's how eloquently he put that out i mean honestly I feel like some of this you know probably wasn't done right and as a business owner dealing with having dealt with um especially years ago in Wisconsin
having dealt with developers and contractors and not always getting potentially told or knowing or not everybody knowing i mean personally I remember a situation where when I had that business in Wisconsin and we were having so many problems and the
contractor was like yeah but I'm using the updated code book the the building official in um the capital of Wisconsin is using the 1998 codebook right not to mention he wouldn't accept emails he would only
accept um phone calls right changes to the plans by um certified mail so it would be 3 days there however long to review 3 days back and then by then you're just out of luck um so I don't
know i wasn't here when all of this started i know that the building's built um a lot of money has been dumped into it by one of our local business owners some of this I I just don't know what to do but I I want to see it move forward but I also want the serious issues dealt with
code compliance issues fire safety issues things like that handicap issues so I guess I don't starting off i don't understand the handicap of the ADA compliance for the It's just a convenience store for the most part it's a drive-through gas right but it's still required to have a handicap because of
the convenience store just like when you pull up to Speedway there's a handicap parking right there by the door the first two I think on either side of the door handicap this was you know a very contentious before you got here like you stated and it was a contentious issue um
and that's why I would I would like to see some form of it go back to the planning commission to be reviewed and come back cuz I would like to hear what they have to say to get their on all of it or just the the issue the the code
compliance issues the two serious issues i mean the other things that sound like they're being handled what about the parking on the street has that been better has there been complaints they the signs have been up everything like that right the signs are up okay so the street the street parking is I think for
the most part I did get receive one email that there was an issue but I guess that's correct for those people that you know don't want the parking there than to call it in and have tickets required but the signs are up the county did put up the signs um every time I drive by it appears like it's
being adhered to so okay much improvement so well do you need a motion or do you need anything from us kevin do we need a motion on that what's that no not at this time do you want to see the map Jeff
i mean I would entertain a motion i I guess I don't know what motion is going to be put forward um but either moving this along and having the building official deal with the parking issues um or I guess a motion to return it back to the planning
commission is it just a consensus not necessarily a No I we should take We It should be a motion okay motion what you're thinking i'll make a motion to the the first three issues as stated
by Nate the rock the backto-back parking and the planting um be reduced from the letter and sending the co-compliance issues uh to the planning
commission would it go to the planning or will it just go straight to No I I think what I think what Nate was talking about was we just have the building official work directly with Duffy's and and they do have to resolve the the handicap parking and ADA issues
the city shouldn't shouldn't move forward with accepting a a parking spot that doesn't meet ADA compliance but I think the other things again are it's a and then have that brought back to us once that's complete at least for an update um sure i mean an update for sure but I
think we'll just Yeah I think staff and the building inspector was just going to work with the applicant to get that done make this easy clarifications yeah so if the direction you're saying as I understand was that your motion was to
just pursue the issues with the code compliance and then the building official will do that before the permit and is closed out and everything and we can report back to you on that if the other matters don't require further further use so you could just motion to
uh accept the site plan with the exception of those matters which we will follow up on as Nate stated second all right motion second any further discussion
all in favor say I i motion carries 40 all right item number B adopt ordinance 778 amending residential parking want to give us a brief update on that Nate uh at the end of last year the planning
commission took a look at the parking ordinance in response to some uh issues identified by the uh community service officer related to things that weren't uh working out between our our staff and
the prosecuting attorney they wanted some more specificity added to the language of the code when it comes to things that we get complaints about and when we follow up on those complaints they try to issue a ticket and then the prosecutor will give them feedback that
they can't do anything because language in the code's too vague and so these are in reaction to code compliance issues so the planning commission dug into this section of code and came up with some tweaks to it that were in two different
sections one's in the nuisance code and one's in the parking section now when we get parking complaints about people storing stuff or parking on their lot the the main issues are like when they let's say for example you just park your car just in your yard in front of your
house that people get upset about that or like it's in the driveway like next to the driveway in the grass you're not supposed to be doing that you get you get contacted by our cso and they tell you to move the vehicle right and then secondarily it's also when you put stuff
in your backyard right like let's say you put a a motor home or or something where you're parking in the backyard then when the grass grows up under it then that's something that that's how we have enforced that traditionally is that it's the weeds growing up around the
things that you have parked in your yard so the idea was was that if you're going to be storing stuff in your yard in a location where it's not prohibited to that you'd have to put a surface down so the weed issue doesn't come up right and
so that was what was added to the nuisance section the parking or storage of vehicles on private property on an approved unapproved parking surface which would mean that it's just essentially on the grass the weeds will grow up and then that becomes a violation so just saying that you have
to park it on something that's that was added to the nuisance code right and then secondarily in the parking ordinance itself we the the language that we used to say that you can't park in the front
yard unless it's on your driveway uh it was part of a larger paragraph of other stuff and so it was confusing and hard to follow so the prosecutors wanted us to make that more explicit so what we did here is we just added a section that
just took it out of the first part made it its own section and the planning commission parsed over this language and and made sure that it read correctly and it just says that you have to be parked on something
on your driveway or something attached to your driveway it isn't changing anything that is no change at all it's just that it's in that same spot and then we added something for multifamily like sometimes the issue
will be like the multifamily places will have a parking lot like behind the building and sometimes what somebody will do is they'll park in the grass next to the parking area so we just say you can't park outside of the parking area right so those two are pretty simple and then the the nuisance code
section is intended to catch the situations where somebody goes into the back or comes off an alley into their backyard and they've got something sitting there that the weeds are growing up over but we had used that like the length of the weeds as being what
governs that in the past and that was deemed to be insufficient so it's cuz it was a parking thing but if that causes concern you can just strike the nuisance code section and revisit that topic with
the planning commission to maybe more delve into where things can be stored in general if that's concerning to anyone otherwise the the the part that's in the parking section section two of your ordinance form is straight up just taking your
existing code and parsing it out to be in different sections to more succinctly address and give them something that they can put on a ticket when somebody doesn't comply when you give them an order to so that's that's the gist of it
and to be honest like the former cso told me that this was the most common issue that they have is like cuz what what what people will do is they'll park something off to the side in their yard by the driveway and that's what gets the
neighbors calling a lot you know people don't like that it just makes the front look a little clunky sometimes so it's a common thing it's something that part we have to clear up because um of the fact that that is a common
complaint and we've been having some issues with the tickets on that so by breaking that out they can just cite that one section rather than the big paragraph which was confusing everyone and then the other part was in the nuisance code to cover those other
situations more succinctly but if you you know if you want to maybe more broadly talk about that at a future date we can you can take section one of the ordinance out and just do section two what was the planning commission
the planning commission went through this and felt that having the 2632 the section in the nuisance code would help them cover the situations i mean the plan commission was receptive to the cso's concerns and the prosecutor's
concerns and so they wanted to put that in there so if there was a complaint like if somebody had a bunch of stuff in their backyard and it was like junk vehicles and stuff that they could do something about it um but then the way that they parsed out
the they talked in in detail about the number two and number three in section two just u making sure that that was worded correctly and got the point across so So before I have to flip through all these what was the vote on the planning commission they were
unanimous okay the planning commission chair is in attendance as well i see him over there i didn't want to yell across the room just yell at you instead yeah it was it was a lively discussion there was a broad consensus on uh fixing this issue
so that was the recommendation is what you see reflected in that ordinance i just note though that the part in the nuisance code section I'm bringing that specifically up because I know there are situations where people do store stuff
in their backyard and they may you know you maybe want to like examine how you regulate that more broadly whether or not you approve this or not you know both ways like you may want to have a broader discussion about that because
that is something that um you know we don't get as many complaints about that because it's behind and it's out of sight and people do sometimes put things next to their garage our number one focus on code enforcement has always been the stuff in front of the garage towards the street and so that was the
part that we were really focused on cleaning up and this other part was related but it's just when things go into the back we end up getting complaints when the weeds grow around it and just using the weed language wasn't sufficient to get any action taken
no I think I would agree with you there um for one I would say after pass if this passes like you better be nice to your neighbors because it probably we don't go looking in your backyard but your neighbors do and they're the ones going to be calling for the complaint and that might be something we want to
address because I'm also a firm believer a little bit as long as I'm taking care of it to somewhat of a degree my property is my property i pay for this and I pay taxes on it and you know but there's more issues you know but if it's against ordinance that's why we have to revisit potentially down the road I mean
don't we have like a beautifification ordinance also um well we see what we have is I mean not garbage doesn't have I mean yeah I mean you've got an ordinance that's like a nuisance code which is like things that
like if you put something in your yard like you're storing and trash in your yard that's a nuisance right and then you you got to take it out we if you don't then the city can come take it and assess it on your taxes right um but what we typically do is we try to give
people tickets first and so it's like oh boy the city's going to hassle me if I don't take care of this takes less staff time that way and when the prosecutors tell you hey your language isn't written good enough to actually make this stick
then that's when the planning commission gets involved and audits the the ordinance and comes up with ways of dealing with it and and that was the best that we could do on this topic thank you Nate thanks Nate
let's let it sail so I move that we adopt ordinance number 778 amending the residential parking as stated with inclusive of the nuisance clause my second motion and
second any further discussion all those in favor say I i i motion carries 40 all right fee schedule amendments is that you Kevin mr mayor yeah so we have some fee schedule updates uh ordinance number 777 essentially there's two topics for
these updates one of them is one of them is an amendment one of them is new uh the first one is just updating our fees for rental inspections and essentially that's just a pass through to Rum River who does our rental inspections so this is what it's this is what it costs them um to do the
rental inspections unless the city wanted to subsidize people that have rental licenses in town otherwise this is what um they recommended be charged and then the second part of that the new part is um use of the city ball fields and this came about because of the St paul Park
Athletic Association disbanding and then us immediately getting calls from the Cottage Grove Athletic Association for uh baseball and softball use and they want to use all the city fields and so our public works supervisor put together a draft uh fee schedule in order to
charge for their time and equipment and chalk and everything else that they do to to maintain the fields for use i'll move that we adopt an ordinance number 777 which is amending chapter
42 yeah I'll second that a motion in a second to adopt ordinance 777 discussion mr mayor um I normally do read through these pretty closely but I'm not aware of this time if um there's any language in it that allows for if
there is the reestablishment of the uh athletic association here in town that they wouldn't be charged and that that's correct Council Member Swinson Mayor Frankie there's uh we actually still have there's still two teams that are local um I believe they're both softball younger softball teams and so if they're
purely St paul Park um then they wouldn't be as they wouldn't be charged fees as part of this fee schedule all right thank you another thing um I will just add is I did work with uh Tony Brinkman our
supervisor and we had a discussion we are also going to be charging on if you look at the fee schedule here charging our neighbors less than others okay um to kind of keep that um you know Newport Cottage Grove others um our cities that we usually work with on all kinds of
other issues um their rates will be lower than let's say somebody who comes from far out of town and just might want to host a tournament or say "Hey there's some ball fields." Because you never know how that's going to be handled so we have we're doing two separate rates
one for people from farther away and one for our neighbors which are a lot of our kids part of my thinking too was if our kids have nowhere to go they're going to be going to Cottage Grove they're going to be going to Woodberry or Newport or others closely around us to be getting
these services and being able to enjoy these sports so we wanted to make it more accessible for them and not punitive so all right we have a motion second any more discussion
All those in favor say I i i motion carries 40 item number five reports council member Swenson public works thank you Mayor nothing new to report from public works uh our next meeting is set for June 3rd i believe that this
Tuesday here at city hall at 5:00 and we are a full vote we don't need any new members which is unique thank you Council Member Swenson council member Hagerty yeah our previous meeting was March 6th and our uh next meeting is June 5th and we did change the time to
6:00 p.m uh so uh please come on uh June 5th 6 p.m we do have two openings on the public safety uh commission so please consider coming down and volunteering thank you Council Member Hagerty council member Whippred Hemson Parks and Recck
um we have a meeting on May 8th next at 6 o'clock um and we do have our garden party may 3rd everyone put it on your calendar we have lots more events come added daily we have lots more vendors
added daily so May 3rd 10:00 community garden thank you Council Member Whitson and for myself we've just been dealing with uh hiring employees
um working on some potential developments still and others and that's about it anything further nothing further before this council this meeting is adjourned