Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC WS PACKET 02242026CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE WORK SESSION AGENDA Tuesday, February 24, 2026 at 5:30PM Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person. Minutes Approval Of CC WS Meeting Minutes CC 02 -04 -2026 WS SP.PDF CC 02 -10 -2026 WS.PDF Work Session Topics City Code Updates Richard Sonterre, City Code Official, presenting. CITY CODE UPDATES COVER MEMO.PDF 1WS DRAFT - VISION TRIANGLE REDLINE.PDF 2WS DRAFT - ADMIN PENALTIES REDLINE.PDF 4WS DRAFT - FOOD TRUCKS - REDLINE.PDF 5WS DRAFT - IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION - REDLINE.PDF 6WS DRAFT - SCAVENGERS - REDLINE.PDF 7WS DRAFT - RODENT DEFINITIONS - REDLINE.PDF 8WS DRAFT - AMUSEMENT DEVICES DELETION - REDLINE.PDF PUBLIC COMMENT.PDF Future Work Session Dates, Times And Agenda Items Future Agenda Items FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.PDF Adjournment If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612 -782 -3334 or email city@savmn.com . People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay. Our Mission is to promote a high quality of life to those we serve through outstanding city services. 1. A. Documents: 2. A. Documents: 3. A. Documents: 4. CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGEWORK SESSION AGENDATuesday, February 24, 2026 at 5:30PMMembers of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person.MinutesApproval Of CC WS Meeting MinutesCC 02 -04 -2026 WS SP.PDFCC 02 -10 -2026 WS.PDFWork Session TopicsCity Code UpdatesRichard Sonterre, City Code Official, presenting.CITY CODE UPDATES COVER MEMO.PDF1WS DRAFT - VISION TRIANGLE REDLINE.PDF2WS DRAFT - ADMIN PENALTIES REDLINE.PDF4WS DRAFT - FOOD TRUCKS - REDLINE.PDF5WS DRAFT - IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION - REDLINE.PDF6WS DRAFT - SCAVENGERS - REDLINE.PDF7WS DRAFT - RODENT DEFINITIONS - REDLINE.PDF8WS DRAFT - AMUSEMENT DEVICES DELETION - REDLINE.PDFPUBLIC COMMENT.PDFFuture Work Session Dates, Times And Agenda ItemsFuture Agenda ItemsFUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.PDF Adjournment If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612 -782 -3334 or email city@savmn.com . People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay. Our Mission is to promote a high quality of life to those we serve through outstanding city services. 1.A.Documents:2.A.Documents:3.A.Documents: 4. City of St. Anthony CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION Minutes FEBRUARY 4, 2026 Present: Mayor & Council: Mayor Wendy Webster (via Zoom), Councilmembers Lona Doolan, Jan Jenson, Thomas Randle, and Nadia Elnagdy. Absent: None Staff: City Manager Charlie Yunker, Police Chief Jeff Spiess, City Attorney Jay Lindgren, and City Planner Steve Grittman. Call to Order: Councilmember Randle called the Special Work Session to order at 6:00 p.m. 1.Work Session Topics. A.Federal Immigration Enforcement Discussion. City Manager Yunker provided background information on the request for the additional discussion on this topic tonight. He briefly reviewed some of the topics covered within the memorandum from the City Attorney, including a separation ordinance; requiring law enforcement to notify the City when they are in the community, to wear bodycams, or not wear masks; an eviction moratorium; and a towing/towing fee moratorium. He recapped some of the additional community support items, such as additional official statements, advocacy by the City/City Council at higher levels of government, coordination with other local agencies, continued community engagement with those affected by the continued immigration enforcement activities, town hall style programs, and/or joining legal action in process with other agencies. Councilmember Jenson stated that last week he attended a Meeting in the Middle Zoom where 15 cities participated and discussed how they were helping one another. He stated that there was no discussion of restrictive ordinances related to ICE. He commented that the next day, he attended the Ramsey County League of Local Governments town hall meeting, hosted by the office of Representative Betty McCollum, where there was discussion of the serious actions of Homeland Security and Border Security. He noted that it was made clear that cities cannot stop ICE actions, and any restrictive actions will violate intergovernmental immunity and could be seen as a violation of the Insurrection Act. He stated that a recommendation was made to send any photographs of potential violations to the ACLU so that they can be efficiently archived. He noted that he would be reviewing this discussion from that perspective. Councilmember Doolan stated that she also attended the Ramsey County League of Local Governments meeting and commented that there was discussion about how constitutional observers can affect illegal enforcement by providing documentation that can be used in legal proceedings. She stated that she would also be of the opinion that, from a legal standpoint, she was unsure whether additional policy would be effective. Councilmember Jenson stated that at the town hall meeting, there was discussion about ICE reform behavior and how that would need to happen at the Congress level in order to be effective. Councilmember Elnagdy commented that she disagrees and was frustrated, as it appears they are approaching the situation from a status quo and forgetting that they are not operating in the status quo. She stated that the Federal government is not playing by the rules and was unsure why the City is afraid to step over the line. She believed that aggressive behavior calls for an aggressive response. She commented that separation ordinances have been enacted in Minnesota, New York, and a few other states and explained that those ordinances codify what the City already has authority over. She commented that they have no idea the impact that could have and was horrified that they are contemplating doing nothing. She stated that they cannot agree with what is happening now and place that burden on residents. She believed that at the least, they could make their position known, and if there is concern with Federal backlash, she was unsure how the situation could get worse. She commented that Mankato is a good example and provided information on the ordinance adopted by that city. She commented that the City could file an amicus brief, joining the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Councilmember Randle commented that he disagrees and stated that trying to restrict ICE from coming into the community will bring legal liability on the City. He stated that he would never ask the officers of this community to stand in front of ICE. He commented that ordinances and policies will not stop ICE because of the rights they have by law. He stated that they can educate people and share information, but believes that it is wrong to get in between federal law. He stated that staff cannot enforce this and recognized that tempers are high, but they need to take a step back and see what is going on. He stated that he does not believe half of what he sees or hears, as this has been worked into a hysteria where people do not know what is right or wrong. He prefers to stay on the side of protecting the City. He commented that St. Anthony Village is not Minneapolis, and they cannot do everything that community does. He stated that these actions have not worked in other cities, and this is a small city. He stated that he received an email from a resident, but has not seen or heard of much ICE activity in the community. He stated that he is not willing to put the City’s officers in front of that. Mayor Webster stated that she is of the mindset of what the City can do. She was concerned with the most vulnerable residents, where the City has authority, and what can be enforced. She stated that they asked a lot of questions and received feedback on where the City has authority. She asked that the focus be on what could be done to protect those most vulnerable residents. Councilmember Doolan stated that while she does not support this particular language, she still believes that there are things that can be done. She commented that she has spoken with representatives from many other communities and there are opportunities for collaboration with other communities and counties. She noted that she recently signed on in support of the County position. She commented that while she understands why Minneapolis and St. Paul are adopting ordinances, she wondered how effective they are, as they have not stopped ICE from going into their communities. Councilmember Elnagdy recognized that they could not stop ICE from coming into the community, but stated that the ordinances define what is and is not acceptable behavior. She used the example of prohibiting ICE from staging on City property and asked how they would be afraid to ask the police to approach the ICE vehicle, and instead ask residents acting as constitutional observers to do it. She commented that feels insane and suggested that the City consider ordinances that regulate City property and City employees. Councilmember Randle stated that fighting fire with fire worries him. Councilmember Elnagdy clarified that it would be a moral show of force. Councilmember Jenson stated that if a separation ordinance were implemented and asked how the language would be worded to prohibit ICE from staging on City property, as he did not believe the language shown would do that. Councilmember Elnagdy stated that she could propose language, but it would need to be done with the assistance of the City Attorney. She recognized that the Trump administration is challenging separation ordinances, which is a risk, but commented that there are also risks related to the loss of life. City Attorney Lindgren stated that one of the most legally defensible positions the City could take would be to say that no assembly is allowed on City property except for specified events, such as birthday parties. He stated that enforcement would be beyond his role. He stated that they would not specify that ICE is not allowed, but that any assembly of officers would not be allowed in order to be neutral in the statement. Councilmember Randle asked what would happen if something happened and officers could not respond on City property. City Attorney Lindgren stated that is why he separated it into two pieces, because there would be challenges. He stated that he would think of assembly as a gathering rather than enforcement actions to ensure that the police could still do their job. He stated that this would be a neutral statement, and it would be the job of the Council to decide if it is good policy. Mayor Webster asked if all parking lots for parks could be shut down to any community member for a period of time. Mr. Lindgren replied that is correct. Councilmember Jenson referenced the town hall meeting he participated in, and Roseville stated that they would be going down the separation ordinance route, but believed that in order to make it effective, they would need to make it so that no one could use the parking lot or park in order to not be discriminatory against ICE. Councilmember Elnagdy stated that the vast majority of questions from residents are related to the Police and what their response can be. She recognized the statement from Councilmember Randle that he would not want to put police officers in the position to confront ICE and suggested that they receive input from the Police Chief on whether the department would have issues enforcing no assembly on City grounds. Police Chief Spiess replied that he would have a lot of hesitation with that. He explained that as a police Department, regardless of what any other police department does, they cannot operate out of what the moral thing to do is, as they swore an oath to uphold the laws, and residents appreciate that they follow the law and do not have the authority to deviate from that. He was unsure of any city that has passed an ordinance and charged its police to enforce that ordinance. He provided examples of lawful behavior when it comes to interaction with Federal authority and immigration enforcement, as well as unlawful behavior. He stated that if an ordinance is adopted, they place themselves in the position of having a confrontation with ICE agents that could be seen as unlawful. He stated that he does not want to put his officers in that position and would expect that the officers would have a lot of questions about being asked to do that. He stated that there is a reason that local law enforcement is not enforcing the ordinances that have been adopted by some communities. Councilmember Doolan commented that having a perspective does not mean they are negating the thoughts and fears in the community. She asked herself which actions would be most effective in protecting the community, how they balance their personal thoughts versus the position of the City, what is government and what is activism, and what is performative versus what is effective. She stated that a neighboring community has chosen not to do this because of the fear in that community that they could be targeted. She wanted to be cautious of the legal frameworks of what could be adopted and enforced. She stated that an outstate community City Council had a discussion the previous night about being supportive of Minneapolis and St. Paul, recognizing that it is not just a city problem. She stated that there was discussion about what was happening in that community and how they want to welcome, protect, and engage, recognizing that there is value in more communities stepping forward. She stated that those communities recognize that the city process takes time and asked the City Manager and City Attorney to collaborate with other cities and counties. She supported that type of action, where the City can sign on and partner with others to have a stronger position. She recognized the concerns from community members and believed that it would be helpful if there was more information available as to what can be expected if they call the police. She stated that other cities are using this as an opportunity to strengthen the bond with the local police. Police Chief Spiess stated that public safety response does not change; if people feel unsafe, they should call 911, and there will be a response, although they will be limited in what they can do, and provided examples. He did not want to give the impression that they can do something they cannot. Councilmember Randle commented that they cannot act out of emotion and recognized that emotions are running high right now. He stated that they need to leave emotions out of it and make sound decisions. He recognized that is hard because these are hard times. Councilmember Elnagdy stated that she is emotional but believed that you can feel strongly and still act within the bounds of logic and reason. She asked the definition of effective in the context of Councilmember Doolan’s statement, recognizing that there is not much they can do. She stated that people are trying their best and changing very little. She was unsure there was anything they could do to change ICE activity, but still wanted to respond to the stated needs of residents. She stated that the position of Columbia Heights is not working. She liked the idea of authorizing staff to work in partnership with other cities and supported anything they could do to expedite actions. She recognized that there are already actions the City takes to make residents feel welcome, and they could be more explicit about that through a sanctuary statement. She believed the City should take a stand, recognizing that it may not have practical impact, but it could show support to residents. Councilmember Doolan commented that another community already shared a similar position and reaffirmed that support. She stated that the City can help residents find the support they need rather than simply making statements. She believed that was more effective in assisting residents. She stated that she has heard from people who have seen ICE in the community and who have had ICE show up at their doors. She has also heard comments in other communities that ICE is showing up at bus stops, and parents are organizing to provide assistance. She agreed that information is sometimes presented in ways that are not accurate, which makes it hard to distinguish at times. Councilmember Randle stated that he does not believe anything he hears at this point because there is so much out there. He stated that he has not seen the activity as he is working during the day, but noted that he can still relate, as he also has employees who do not feel safe showing up for work. He commented that the City cannot fix this issue, and he does not support enacting ordinances. He stated that he would support communication and directing residents to the resources they need. Councilmember Elnagdy asked if Councilmember Randle would have a different stance if he saw ICE activity with his own eyes. Councilmember Randle stated that he still would not change his position on what the City should or should not do. Councilmember Doolan asked if Councilmember Randle would be comfortable authorizing staff to take action to partner with other communities. Councilmember Randle replied that it would depend upon the action. He stated that he would not be comfortable with the City being involved at all. Councilmember Jenson stated that he would like to see objective evidence where a City has taken a strong stance to codify something preventing certain behavior, and it has allowed them to perform to that stance without resulting in violations. Councilmember Elnagdy was unsure if ICE had tried to stage on city property in communities that have adopted separation ordinances after the ordinance was adopted. She stated that the City and its police department already have policies in place to not ask or document immigration status. Councilmember Jenson asked why the additional action would be needed if they are already doing these actions. Councilmember Elnagdy replied that it would be a public stance in the face of tyranny. Councilmember Doolan stated that Representative McCollum and her staff spoke about State and Federal policies and what could or could not be governed, noting that the only thing that can move right now is community action. She stated that the statements of Mayor Frey and Governor Waltz may make people feel good, but those individuals are also being sued by the Department of Justice. She stated that as a governing body, they need to ask whether the risk of that happening is more than the effectiveness of the action. She believed that there were other things they could do that would be more effective. She believed that this is an opportunity for the City to move forward and continue building trust between the police department and the most vulnerable residents. She asked if the Police Chief has been in conversations with other departments and asked how they are supporting their communities. Police Chief Spiess confirmed that he is in conversation with others almost every other day as they are all dealing with the same things, trying to maintain strong relationships with community members during difficult times. He stated that overall, the officers feel that they still have a strong relationship and connection to the community and continue to do what they have been doing, visiting businesses and having one-on-one conversations with community members. He could not speak to what other departments are doing community-wise, but recognized that other departments and communities are having these same discussions. Mayor Webster stated that, in thinking about what they can do, there is a coalition of communities coming together to provide a bipartisan state-wide front. She asked if the Council would support her, and the City Manager responding to these types of requests when they come forward to partner with others. The Council expressed support for that. Councilmember Jenson asked if there would be a way the members of the Council could participate and/or observe the Zoom meetings when they occur. Mayor Webster stated that a Zoom meeting had taken place the previous day, and she could send the recording. Councilmember Doolan stated that she has received information from County representatives and believes there are a lot of opportunities to learn more. She asked if she should be forwarding that information to Mr. Yunker and Mayor Webster. Mr. Yunker confirmed that can be a good approach as things pop up quickly and cities are asked to respond quickly. He recognized that there is not always time to wait for a Council meeting. Mr. Yunker stated that in listening to the discussion tonight, rather than going down a path of ordinances and policies, he asked if the Council would be interested in a drafted resolution that states the stance and communicates without obligating the City to something that could not be fulfilled. Councilmember Elnagdy agreed that she does not care about the format but wants to see the statement being made. Councilmember Randle agreed that would be a nice compromise. Councilmember Jenson stated that he also came here with that mindset and supports that. Councilmember Doolan stated that she can send staff some examples that she has seen. Councilmember Elnagdy stated that she could also draft some language for consideration. Councilmember Doolan referenced the concept of an eviction moratorium, recognizing that is not something the City could do, but they could voice their support for a request to the Governor. She was unsure if that should be done on the Council level, but noted that she would be doing that on her own personal level. She referenced the potential execution of a towing moratorium, or fees collected, and had concerns with public information requests and how assistance would actually be provided. She stated that there are private organizations in place that can provide resources and assistance, and perhaps they just help people find those resources. Councilmember Randle stated that he previously managed properties, which included a budget. He noted the impacts that rent freezes have on the ability to maintain and upgrade units. He stated that there are always consequences to actions, and it is usually the residents people are trying to help that pay the price. Councilmember Elnagdy recognized that the City is not in charge of private contracts and cannot prevent evictions. She stated that one of the most heartwarming things is how quickly and effectively the community has come together to build networks that get everyone’s needs met. She did not think it should be up to residents to front the cost. She did not want the answer to be that things should be left to the community, as the City is a part of it and should take responsibility to the extent possible. She recognized that covering tow fees is not in the budget, but assisting her neighbor with their rent is also not in her budget. Councilmember Doolan stated that she understands that position, but has concerns with the public record requirements of a city. She stated that another city donated money to a private entity that can administer that without legal public disclosure. She stated that they need to understand the opportunity on the streets and how many residents are living in spaces where street parking is the only option. She believed that understanding needs and risks would be the first step. Councilmember Randle asked if the intention would be for the City to pay that cost. Councilmember Elnagdy replied that the towing is done by private companies, so they cannot force them not to ask for money, and if the City does not want residents to pay that fee, the City would be paying that. Councilmember Doolan asked if the intention would be for this assistance to be targeted only at those who feel at risk going outside to move their vehicles, rather than a blanket that would be provided to all. Councilmember Elnagdy confirmed that she would propose the targeted route and used the example of people who have been detained and whose vehicles were parked on the street. Councilmember Randle commented that would turn the City into a welfare state. Councilmember Elnagdy stated that she would see it as helping people in their time of need. Councilmember Jenson stated that he could support it if it were linked to instances that resulted from ICE action. He stated that he would not want it blanketed. Councilmember Randle commented that would be a large ask to put on the community as the City uses taxpayer dollars. Councilmember Elnagdy stated that community members are already providing their own assistance, helping others with rent and groceries. She stated that they could ask the community for their input. Councilmember Randle stated that he would want the opinion of all residents. Councilmember Jenson asked if there is a way to find out if there are impacts in the community where ICE is taking people from their vehicles, and their vehicles are left in St. Anthony. He stated that he would not want to make a decision on something that may not be an issue in the community. Police Chief Spiess stated that he was not aware of any of those situations in St. Anthony. He stated that there was one incident in Falcon Heights where a vehicle was involved in a crash with an ICE vehicle, the person was taken in, and the vehicle was impounded. He stated that there was another vehicle that was involved in that same incident that was left legally parked, and an officer took the time to make arrangements for a family member to get the vehicle. Mr. Yunker stated that this concept came forward as not towing a vehicle left on the street as a result of an ICE action, and did not have to do with overnight parking on the street, or snowplowing. He stated that the question would be if these situations happen, whether the Council would feel comfortable making funds available to cover that cost, and whether they would feel comfortable allowing the information to be public, as it would have to be. Councilmember Doolan stated that perhaps they just follow the administrative process described by Police Chief Spiess, to try to avoid the situation where a vehicle is towed. Councilmember Elnagdy stated that even if the action has not happened in St. Anthony, there is a benefit in residents not worrying about what will happen in that scenario. Mayor Webster commented that this is a step the City can take to relieve some of the pressure that some residents are under. She stated that if someone is pulled from their vehicle and the vehicle is left in traffic, it becomes a public safety issue, and she believed that the City could assist in covering some of those fees. She stated that it would be a way to ensure that people know vehicles will be safe, with the City covering fees, if a resident is detained and their vehicle is towed. Mr. Yunker stated that it seems there is support for the Council to collectively draft a resolution with its stance, provide direction for staff and the Mayor to join collective efforts that are appropriate, and to review the potential of subsidizing towing and storage of vehicles as discussed. The Council agreed with that direction. Councilmember Elnagdy asked if the Council would be interested in joining already existing lawsuits, using the example of the Attorney General’s lawsuit against the Trump administration. She suggested that the City join in an amicus brief position similar to Mankato. Councilmember Doolan stated that she listened to an outstate city having that discussion and provided input. Councilmember Randle stated that he would not feel comfortable joining a lawsuit. Mayor Webster asked if the Council would support an amicus brief. Mr. Lindgren stated that if the City were to intervene in a lawsuit, it would become a party of the lawsuit, and if there were decisions that could impact the City. He stated that an amicus brief shows support by the City without becoming a party of the lawsuit. He confirmed that there would be no legal liability to the City. Councilmember Randle stated that he could support that. Councilmember Elnagdy confirmed the consensus of the Council to direct legal counsel to draft an amicus brief. 2.Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amanda Staple TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. City of St. Anthony CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Minutes February 10, 2026 Present: Mayor & Council: Mayor Wendy Webster, Councilmembers Lona Doolan, Jan Jenson, and Nadia Elnagdy. Absent: Councilmember Thomas Randle Staff: City Manager Charlie Yunker and Assistant City Manager Ashley Morello Call to Order: Mayor Webster called the Work Session to order at 5:30 p.m. 1.Approval of CC WS Meeting Minutes A.January 27, 2026, Council Work Session Meeting Minutes Motion by Councilmember Doolan, seconded by Councilmember Elnagdy, to approve the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of January 27, 2026, as presented. Motion carried 4-0. 2.Work Session Topics A.Legislative Priorities City Manager Yunker reviewed the staff memo, noting the desire to finalize these priorities before the City Day on the Hill scheduled for March 11, 2026. He explained that these priorities will be used in discussions with local Legislators. He noted that the list of priorities from the League of Minnesota Cities was provided in the packet for review. Mayor Webster asked each member to provide their top two priorities from the League of Minnesota Cities list. Councilmember Jenson stated that he believes the priorities related to housing and local decision- making should be priorities of the City. Councilmember Elnagdy stated that the areas where the City could explore or obtain financial assistance stood out to her, as the barrier to accomplishing many of the City's goals is funding. She chose the priorities related to local government aid, housing, and policy resources. She stated that she would also like to see adult-use cannabis move forward, as it has been three or four years with little to no movement. Councilmember Jenson agreed that local government aid was also one of his additional priorities from the list. He stated that he can also support the adult-use cannabis item. Councilmember Doolan stated that she also marked adult-use cannabis as a priority, as she has additional questions. She stated that she also marked public safety as a priority, with bonding as her third. Councilmember Jenson stated that he also marked bonding. Mayor Webster stated that she noticed that there was a lot of overlap between housing and local decision-making in the League of Minnesota Cities and suggested that they focus more on housing than local decision-making. She agreed that adult-use cannabis would also be good for the City list, and she could also support a priority related to local government aid. Councilmember Doolan provided additional priority suggestions, including changing the senior affordable housing reference from AMI to the social security inflation adjustment. She stated that she would also like to see continued investments by the State in order to meet the goals the State has put in place for the decarbonization of energy. Mayor Webster recognized that the senior affordable housing item was included on the City’s priority list the previous year. She stated that different coalitions continue to bring that concept forward, and perhaps it could make sense to include the priority for this year as well. Councilmember Doolan stated that if the item is not included on the priority list, she would still like to see continued lobbying for that effort. Mayor Webster reiterated the preferred priorities of the Council to include adult-use cannabis, housing, local government aid, bonding, and an additional item that could include the preservation of local decision-making and the affordability issue, as mentioned by Councilmember Doolan. 3.Future Work Session Dates, Times, and Agenda Items A.Future Agenda Items The next Work Session will be held on February 24, 2026, in the Council Chambers. Mayor Webster noted the planned items on the agenda related to ordinance amendments. 4.Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Amanda Staple TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. MEMORANDUM To:Saint Anthony Village City Council From:Stephen Grittman, City Planner Richard Sonterre, City Code Official Date:February 24, 2026 Request: City Code Updates BACKGROUND This memorandum forwards a series of proposed City Code updates generated by staff through the Code Committee. The text is provided in redline form identifying new language and existing. The topics and discussion for each are as follows: Vision Triangle. The current zoning language has general language preserving views of traffic on corner lots, but limited detail. The proposed language adds a series of recommended specifics, including measurement and other details, to allow both property owners and the City to evaluate how such areas are to be constructed and maintained. The regulations apply to all zoning districts as a general provision. For many property owners, the bulk of the vision triangle will impact primarily boulevard (right of way) as it relies on measurements along the curb, not the property line. Impervious Surfaces. This item clarifies the existing definition of impervious surface (found within the definition of “Lot Coverage” in the Zoning Ordinance), specifying that only the property within the legal boundaries of a parcel are utilized for making this calculation. There is often a misunderstanding on the part of property owners that their property (and thus their calculation of impervious surface) extends to the public street curb line. Scavengers. This item removes the requirement for City license to “scavenge” street-side refuse that has been set out for removal. However, it requires property owner permission for such persons to remove any such refuse, and requires that property owners retain responsibility for any refuse placed outside for removal. Rodents. This language closes a missing definition loophole from prior amendments, establishing what animals fall into this class for purposes of housing maintenance and rental housing operations. Amusement Devices. This section is proposed for deletion, as it refers to an obsolete business (arcade). Food Trucks. This item has been discussed in the past, leading to this proposed ordinance language. The proposed ordinance identifies requirements for such “mobile food units”, establishes a requirement for such operators to receive appropriate licensing from State and County authorities, and requires a fire safety inspection by St. Anthony Fire personnel. It further allows the SAV Fire Chief to accept proof of inspection by other municipalities that conduct similar inspections, in lieu of a local inspection. The code explicitly permits food truck operations only where there are (1) public special events (or Conditional Use Permits) in which such Mobile Food Units may sell to the public as a part of such event (the Code does permit a local food service facility to operate a food truck on their own property – the CUP provision) ; or (2) as a part of a private event where the Mobile Food Unit is a catering facility and no separate sales are allowed. The code does not allow Mobile Food Units to occupy property – public or private – in the City as an independent food seller, under the direction that local food service establishments should not need to compete with such units. Administrative Penalties – Existing text changes. This first section makes some minor clerical adjustments to the existing Administrative Penalties section of the code. Administrative Penalties – CITATIONS. This section sets out the process and procedures for instituting the Administrative Penalties section. It describes the process by which Code Compliance staff will identify and communicate violations to property owners, as well as how the property owners can respond. One response option is to appeal the penalty to a Hearing Officer, among others. Penalties, including financial penalties, would be adopted as a part of the City’s fee schedule. REQUEST Staff is seeking Council comment and further direction on these topics. With that direction, we expect to develop formal ordinance and cover report materials for public hearings at Planning Commission, after which the proposed ordinances would return to the City Council for consideration of adoption. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Ordinance Redlines VISION TRIANGLE Amendments § 94.06 REGISTRATION, BONDING, AND RIGHT-OF-WAY OCCUPANCY. (D) A minimum sight triangle must be established on each corner lot at every street/alley intersection through which motorists have reasonable unobstructed view. Requirements for such sight triangle shall be found in Chapter 154, the ZONING CODE. § 154.184 BOULEVARDS REQUIRED VISIBILITY ON CORNER LOTS AND INTERSECTIONS. No new structure, fencing, grade elevation, or planting, in excess of 18 inches above the curb line, is permitted within the boulevard on corner lots in residential districts. (a) Notwithstanding any other allowance of this CODE, a minimum sight triangle must be established on each corner lot at every street/alley intersection through which motorists have reasonable unobstructed view. (b) The minimum sight triangle is defined as a triangle located at the corner of the curb line of intersecting streets/alleys. The adjacent sides are located along the curb line, or gutter line of streets/alleys without curb and gutter, of the intersecting streets and must be 30 feet in length. The third side is a straight line joining the end points of the adjacent sides as illustrated in Figure 154.184. Figure 154.184 (c) The City has the authority to order removal of vision obstructions located within the minimum sight triangle. (d) A vision obstruction is defined as any object, living or inanimate greater than eighteen (18) inches in height as measured at the curb line, or gutter line where the vison triangle was established, which materially obstructs visibility within this required sight triangle. (e) Obstructions within the right of way must be removed within a reasonable period of time as determined by the City Manager and/or designee and, which time will not exceed 90 days after written notice is given to the property owner of record. (f) Utility features and permanent signs which were in existence at the time this ordinance was approved, signage placed by a recognized governmental entity, snow and bus/transit benches are exempt from this requirement. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES § 10.20 ENFORCEMENT. (A) Any licensed peace officer of the city’s Police Department, or the County Sheriff, or any Deputy Sheriff, shall have the authority to enforce any provision of this code. (B) As permitted by M.S. § 626.862 and other relevant state law, as it may be amended from time to time, the City Clerk Manager or designee shall have the authority to administer and enforce this code. In addition, under that statutory authority, certain individuals designated within the code, or by the Clerk City Manager or City Council, shall have the authority to administer and enforce the provisions specified. All and any person or persons designated may issue a citation in lieu of arrest or continued detention to enforce any provision of the code. (C) The City Clerk Manager and any city official or employee designated by this code who has the responsibility to perform a duty under this code may, with the permission of a licensee of a business or owner of any property or resident of a dwelling, or other person in control of any premises, inspect or otherwise enter any property to enforce compliance with this code. § 10.98 SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES. [This section deleted and replaced with:] PURPOSE: For violations of City Code not voluntarily cured by the offender, the City Council seeks to offer an alternative method of compelling compliance for city code violations rather than relying solely on the judiciary for such relief. To provide more flexibility in addressing city code violations on an individual basis that will be more efficient and effective and to ensure a process for administrative relief before engaging the judicial system, the City Council finds that an alternative method to compel compliance to be necessary. APPLICATION: In addition to those administrative penalties established in this code and the enforcement powers granted in §10.20, supplemental administrative penalties are hereby established. They may not proscribe administrative penalties for traffic offenses designated by M.S. § 169.999, as it may be amended from time to time. The administrative procedures and penalties in this section may, at the discretion of the City, be used for any violation of the City Code or any violation of the terms and conditions of a City approval, including, but not limited to, permits and licenses, required and granted under the city code. Administrative citations are a non- criminal penalty which may be issued to a person or business when city code is violated. The penalty includes a fine(s), which vary depending on the nature of the violation. The issuance of administrative citations differs among various sections of code based upon the nature, severity and frequency of the violation. Specific fee amounts shall be established annually within the city fee schedule. Except as expressly provided in this section, the provisions of this section may be used concurrently with or in addition to any other procedure or remedy, criminal or civil, the City may pursue under city code, state law, or federal law. Nothing herein restricts the right of the City to enter property immediately or to seek other remedies in emergency or other situations as authorized by city code, state law, or federal law. Where differences occur between provisions of this section and other applicable city code sections, this section controls to the extent of such differences. No provision of the City Code that provides a criminal procedure or penalty, or an administrative or civil procedure or penalty, for a violation of the city code shall preclude the application of this section in its entirety to such violation. The penalties and procedures provided in this section shall be applicable to every section and chapter of the city code. The penalties and procedures provided by this section shall apply to any amendment of the city code, whether such penalty is reenacted in the amendment, unless otherwise provided in such amendment. Unless otherwise stated, any and all subsequent administrative penalties issued upon the same property, for the same offense and within the same calendar year, shall cause the established fine to double over the amount of the previous penalty imposed. ISSUING CITATIONS 1. Any person with authority to seek compliance to the city code may, upon a reasonable belief that there has been a violation of city code, issue an Administrative Citation to the violator or party responsible for the violation via first class mail to a person identified.---. 2. The recipient of an administrative penalty may, any time prior to the due date established in the administrative citation, contact the issuing party and present a plan to come into compliance. If the plan to become compliant is accepted by the city, the established due date shall be amended to a date (5) five days following the established last date to become compliant. 3. The City shall notify a recipient of an Administrative Penalty of their right to contest the citation as outlined in Section ----. The City shall also appoint a neutral third party to hear and rule on challenges to administrative citations authorized by the city code. 4. At any time after the date the payment of the administrative penalty is due, if the administrative penalty remains unpaid or the situation creating the alleged violation remains uncorrected, the city, through its Attorney, may bring an action to enforce in accordance with state law and this code. Likewise, the city, in its discretion, may bring charges for a violation in the first instance, rather than requesting the payment of an administrative penalty, even if a penalty for the violation has been established. If the administrative penalty is paid, or if any requested correction of the situation resulting in the violation is completed, no charges shall be initiated by the city for the alleged violation. 5. The failure to pay an Administrative Citation or petition for an Administrative Hearing within 14 business days after the citation is issued, or failure to attend a scheduled Administrative Hearing, constitutes a waiver of the violator's right to a future Administrative Hearing and is an admission of the violation. FEES ESTABLISHED Administrative fines in an amount set forth by the City Council within Section 33.041 33.101 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 1. Request for Hearing. Anyone in violation of any section of the City Code may either pay the Administrative Penalty, as defined by Section 2. Hearing Examiner. The position of Hearing Examiner is hereby created. The City Manager, or their designee, may, at their discretion, contract with third parties for the furnishing of all services of the Hearing Examiner as contained in this chapter and set the rate of compensation therefor. 3. Qualifications. The Hearing Examiner shall be an individual trained in law; however, it shall not be required that the Hearing Examiner be currently licensed to practice law in the State of Minnesota. 4. Duties. The Hearing Examiner shall have the following duties: a. Set dates and hear all contested cases; b. Take testimony from all interested parties; c. Examine all facts, evidence and testimony presented; d. Make a complete record of all proceedings including findings of fact and conclusions of law; and e. Affirm, dismiss or modify the Administrative Citation and/or the Administrative Penalty assessed. 5. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner are final and uncontestable. Any unpaid fines shall be paid immediately following an upholding of a citation by the Hearing Examiner. Failure to do so shall be cause for any additional penalties established within the City fee schedule. Chapter 114. Mobile Food Units (Food Trucks) § 114.100 PURPOSE. This chapter is enacted to permit the reasonable private use of mobile food units while preventing any adverse consequences to residents, businesses, and public property. § 114.102 DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definition shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. MOBILE FOOD UNIT. Mobile food unit means a food and beverage service establishment that is a vehicle mounted unit, either: (1) Motorized or trailered, operating no more than 21 days annually at any one place, or operating more than 21 days annually at any one place with the approval of the regulatory authority as defined in Minn. Rules, Part 4626.0020, Subpart 70; or (2) Operated in conjunction with a permanent business licensed under M.S. Chapters 28A or 157 at the site of the permanent business by the same individual or company, and readily movable, without disassembling, for transport to another location. § 114.103 LICENSING. (A) State and county license required. No person shall operate a mobile food unit within the city limits without first having obtained the appropriate license(s) from the state or county as may be required by County requirements and M.S. Chapter 329, as it may be amended from time to time, or as may be required under any other applicable state statute, rule, or regulation. Mobile food units must be licensed by the Minnesota Department of Health and must adhere to state regulations for food trucks as provided in Food Code Chapter 4626.1860, Mobile Food Establishments; Seasonal Temporary Food Stands; Seasonal Permanent Food Stands (B) City fire inspection required. Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, no person shall operate a mobile food unit without first obtaining an inspection of the mobile food unit by City of St. Anthony Fire Chief or designee. The City may accept evidence of a recent, comparable inspection of the mobile food unit from a list of other municipalities maintained by the Fire Chief in lieu of a City of St. Anthony fire inspection, at the sole discretion of the Fire Chief. § 114.104 OPERATIONS. (A) Holders of conditional use or special event permits. Where outdoor sales are permitted under a conditional use or special event permit approved by the City Council, this chapter shall apply only to the extent that such provisions have been included, reviewed, and approved as a part of the conditional use or special event permit. Nothing herein shall limit the authority of the City Council to impose other reasonable conditions where they are deemed by the city to be appropriate to promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. (B) Private events. In addition to Special Events as allowed in Subp. (A) of this section, Mobile Food Units may be contracted by a property owner for a private event where food and/or beverage is provided to guests of the Private Event under a catering arrangement, and is otherwise not separately sold to guests nor to any other member of the public. In such cases, the Mobile Food Unit may park on the public street directly adjacent to the property of the contracting party for a period of no more than twelve (12) hours, for no more than one day. § 114.105 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS. All those operating mobile food units are required to comply with the additional following standards and conditions. (A) Location. A mobile food unit may only operate in accordance with the following. (1) Mobile food units are permitted in private commercial, industrial, public/institutional parking lots and on private residential property, with the written consent of the private property owner, for a "one-time" event. When operations occur on private residential property, mobile food unit sales may only be for catering purposes (such as a private graduation party or wedding) and not open for sales to the general public. (2) Mobile food units must be located a minimum of five feet from front, side and rear property lines. No Mobile food unit shall be located in such a way as to obstruct circulation on the site or public right of way, nor to obstruct reasonable access to emergency response units. Public Safety officers may require such Mobile Food Units to relocate if, in the opinion of the Public Safety officer, any such obstruction is found. (3) Mobile food units cannot be located within 300 feet from the perimeter of any pre-approved festival, sporting event, or civic event unless the licensee operating the mobile food unit submits written verification to the City Clerk that the licensee is authorized to operate the mobile food unit as part of the festival, sporting event, or civic event. (4) Mobile food units may not be operated in city-owned parking lots, except those parking lots adjacent to or inside a city park in conjunction with a special event approved by the city as allowed under Subp. (B)(3) of this Section. § 114.106 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES. No person engaged in the business of a mobile food unit operation shall conduct such activity in any of the following manners. (A) Refusing to leave. It shall be unlawful to refuse to leave premises owned or leased by another after having been notified by the owner or occupant to leave the premises. (B) Misrepresentation. It shall be unlawful to make false, misleading, or fraudulent statements concerning the quality of the food which is being offered for sale. (C) Use of audio devices or unreasonable noise. It shall be unlawful to call attention to activities regulated by this chapter by means of blowing a horn or whistle, by ringing any bell, by crying out, or by making any other noise in an unreasonable manner. (D) Obstructing traffic. It shall be unlawful to obstruct the free flow of either vehicular or pedestrian traffic on any street, alley, sidewalk, or other public right-of-way. (E) Safety hazard. It shall be unlawful to conduct activities regulated by this chapter in such a way as to create a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of any individual or the general public. (F) Proof of license and inspections. It shall be unlawful to fail to provide proof of State and/or County license, registration, inspections, or identification when requested, or to use those of another person. (G) Harassment. It shall be unlawful to conduct business in a manner a reasonable person would find obscene, threatening, intimidating, or abusive. § 114.107 COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING. Mobile food units shall be operated in compliance with all requirements of the Zoning Code. Compliance with the Zoning Code location, information, and plan requirements shall be verified in writing by the Zoning Administrator. § 154.007 DEFINITIONS. (1) LOT COVERAGE. The area of a lot covered by impervious surface. An IMPERVIOUS SURFACE is any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water into the ground. IMPERVIOUS SURFACES shall include all buildings, driveways (paved or gravel), sidewalks and parking areas. A surface that has been compacted or covered with a layer of material so that it is highly resistant to infiltration by water will be considered impervious. An IMPERVIOUS SURFACE shall not include decks as long as the deck is pervious and the surface beneath the deck is pervious. For the purposes of calculating impervious surface ratios in compliance with the requirements of this Chapter, the ratio shall be based only on those impervious surfaces located within the legal boundaries of the private property in question, and shall utilize as a denominator only the area of the subject property. No portion of the public right of way shall be counted for either numerator or denominator in this regard. § 130.51 SCAVENGERS. (A) It is unlawful for any person, except a law enforcement officer acting in the course of official business, to scavenge or otherwise collect refuse, recyclable materials, or yard waste at the curb or from refuse containers, or from recyclable materials containers, or from private property, without a license therefore from the city and an account relationship with written permission from the owner or occupant of the premises. (B) Responsibility for and ownership of any such refuse, waste, or recyclable materials shall remain with the individual resident until collected by a licensed hauler or recyclable materials, at which time the ownership and responsibility shall pass to the hauler. § 152.05 DEFINITIONS. [Rental Dwellings] RODENT. Shall include: Chipmunks, Groundhogs/Woodchucks, Lemmings, Mice, Moles, Pocket Gophers, Rats, Shrews, Squirrels and Voles, and any other non-domesticated animals as may be defined by the PUBLIC NUISANCES AFFECTING HEALTH section of the City Code. § 151.04 DEFINITIONS. [Housing Maintenance] RODENT. Shall include: Chipmunks, Groundhogs/Woodchucks, Lemmings, Mice, Moles, Pocket Gophers, Rats, Shrews, Squirrels and Voles, and any other non-domesticated animals as may be defined by the PUBLIC NUISANCES AFFECTING HEALTH section of the City Code. AMUSEMENT DEVICES § 114.001 DEFINITION. For the purpose of this subchapter, the following definition shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. AMUSEMENT DEVICE. An electrical or mechanical machine for which a fee is charged to be used by the public as a game of skill, amusement, or play. AMUSEMENT DEVICES include, but are not limited to, shuffle boards; pinball machines; amusement machines patterned after baseball, basketball, hockey, bowling, tennis or other games; electric rifle or gun ranges; road racing or driving games; billiard, pool and table tennis tables; and coin-operated rides designed for use by small children. § 114.002 LIMITED NUMBER OF LICENSES. No more than 75 licenses for amusement devices, as defined in § 114.001, shall exist in the city at any one given time. Not more than 15 licenses will be issued for any one establishment. If application is made for a license which if issued would cause the number of amusement device licenses to exceed the maximum, the City Council shall table action on the license and shall consider it only when issuance of the license would not be in excess of the maximum number specified in this section. § 114.003 ISSUED TO OPERATOR. A license for amusement devices shall be issued only to the person or business entity which directly operates the business establishment in which the amusement devices are used. § 114.004 RENEWALS. When existing amusement device licenses expire, they will be available for renewal by the same licensee for a period of 30 days after expiration of the license. Any renewal will be considered prior to any pending applications for new licenses. § 114.005 PRIORITY FOR AVAILABLE LICENSES. If action has been tabled on one or more applications for amusement device licenses and licenses subsequently became available, these applications will be considered by the City Council according to the chronological priority of the filing of the applications. § 114.006 EXPIRATION OF LICENSES FOR FAILURE TO OPERATE. If the licensee does not have the amusement devices for which the license was issued available for use by the public within six months after the license is issued, or if use of the amusement devices is discontinued for a period of six months, the license shall expire and shall be available for issuance to other licensees. No portion of the license fee will be refunded after it is paid, even if the license is not in effect for its full term. From:Dr. Bibi Neumann To:SA City Cc:Charlie Yunker; Wendy Webster; Tom Randle; Jan Jenson; Lona Doolan; Nadia Elnagdy Subject:February 24 Work Session – Follow-Up Questions and City Code Comments Date:Saturday, February 21, 2026 6:44:07 PM Dear Mayor Webster and Members of the City Council, Please include the following written comments in the record for the February 24, 2026 Work Session. Before addressing the City Code updates, I would appreciate clarification on two matters arising from the February 4 Special Work Session discussion regarding immigration enforcement. At that meeting, the Council directed legal counsel to draft an amicus brief and discussed providing towing and storage assistance in ICE-related scenarios. Since that time, a resolution was read publicly at a Council meeting, and $15,000 has reportedly been administratively allocated for towing assistance. However, I have not seen any update regarding the status of the amicus brief, nor any publicly available information outlining the process, eligibility criteria, or application mechanism for the towing assistance program. Could the Council clarify whether an amicus brief has been drafted or filed (and if so, in which matter), what the anticipated timeline is if it has not yet been filed, and how residents may access the towing assistance funds, including qualification standards, documentation requirements, confidentiality considerations, and whether participation implicates public- record disclosure? If continued discussion is anticipated, I respectfully suggest placing the amicus brief status and towing-assistance implementation details on an upcoming Work Session agenda so that prior Council direction can be transparently followed through. With respect to the proposed City Code updates dated February 24, 2026, I appreciate staff’s effort to present the materials in redline form and to seek Council direction prior to formal public hearings. My comments below focus on clarity, implementation structure, and fairness; particularly where the draft text relies on cross-references, placeholders, or procedural mechanisms that are not fully outlined in the packet. Regarding the Vision Triangle amendments, I understand the goal of moving from general visibility language to a defined, measurable standard, including a 30-foot curb-line sight triangle and an 18-inch height limitation for obstructions. The specificity is helpful. At the same time, implementation details matter. Because the standard is measured from the curb rather than the property line, residents will reasonably need clear public guidance on how measurement occurs on sloped lots, irregular intersections, and corner conditions. The draft authorizes removal within a period determined by the City Manager or designee, not to exceed 90 days after written notice. I recommend clarifying what documentation accompanies such notice, how measurements are verified, and whether there is an appeal mechanism if a resident disputes the determination. Clear process prevents inconsistent enforcement and builds trust. Regarding impervious surface calculations, clarifying that only impervious surfaces within the legal parcel boundaries count (excluding the public right-of-way for both numerator and denominator) resolves a longstanding misunderstanding. I encourage publication of a simple illustrated example so residents can easily understand how compliance is calculated in practice. Regarding the scavengers provision, the draft prohibits scavenging at the curb or from containers without written permission and an account relationship, and it states that ownership remains with the resident until collected by a licensed hauler. If the intent is to simplify prior licensing requirements, the final ordinance should clearly reflect that change and explain enforcement expectations. Terms such as “account relationship” and “written permission” may generate neighbor disputes unless the City clarifies what documentation is expected and how complaints are evaluated. Regarding the rodent definition updates, I understand the intent to close a definitional gap by listing covered animals. However, the phrase “any other non-domesticated animals as may be defined by the Public Nuisances Affecting Health section” functions as an open-ended incorporation by reference. If the City intends to rely on another section, citing it explicitly would provide greater clarity and reduce interpretive ambiguity for landlords and residents alike. Regarding Mobile Food Units, the draft chapter is detailed and includes state and county licensing requirements, Minnesota Department of Health compliance, and local fire inspection authority. The policy issue that merits explicit Council discussion is the stated rationale that local establishments should not need to compete with mobile units. That is a significant economic-policy choice. Mobile food units are often a lower-barrier entry point for entrepreneurs, including immigrants and first-time business owners, while brick-and-mortar establishments represent a higher capital threshold. If the City’s approach is to restrict independent mobile vending to protect existing businesses, I respectfully suggest that the Council weigh that against principles of inclusive economic participation and equitable access to opportunity. The draft already contains guardrails such as distance restrictions, event limitations, zoning compliance, relocation authority for public safety, and fire inspection oversight. If a restrictive framework is maintained, the justification should be clearly articulated on the public record so the regulation is understood as a deliberate policy choice rather than an incidental barrier to entry. Regarding the Administrative Penalties framework, this is the most structurally significant proposal in the packet. The draft establishes administrative citations, fines set through the annual fee schedule, and the creation of a Hearing Examiner. However, several internal gaps prevent meaningful public evaluation. The text references sections identified only as placeholders, includes incomplete cross-references, and states that fine amounts will be established in the fee schedule without including that schedule in the packet. For transparency, all referenced procedural sections and the proposed fee structure should be available before adoption. The Hearing Examiner structure also warrants greater detail. The draft provides that the City Manager or designee may contract with third parties to furnish services of the Hearing Examiner and that decisions are “final and uncontestable.” The packet does not describe how neutrality is ensured, what conflict-of-interest safeguards apply, what procedural rules govern hearings, whether findings must be written and published, or whether any avenue of judicial review remains available under state law. Because the system allows fines to double within a calendar year and treats failure to respond within 14 business days as an admission of violation, these procedural safeguards are central, not peripheral, to fairness. I respectfully encourage the Council to ensure that notice requirements, hearing procedures, fee schedules, and review rights are fully outlined before implementation. Finally, given the breadth of policy matters scheduled for future Work Sessions, I believe that forum remains appropriate for continued structured follow-up discussion of immigration- enforcement-related implementation issues, including the amicus brief status and the towing assistance program process. Thank you for your attention to these matters and for including these comments in the record. Respectfully, Dr. Bibi Neumann, PsyD, JD Saint Anthony Village Resident FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS Date Type Staff Present / Contributing Packet Due Date 2026 March 10 Work Session Review of Ice Rinks Usage City Council City Manager March 4 March 10 Regular Planning Commission Items from February Finance Annual Report Public Works Annual Report Engineers Annual Report City Council City Manager Finance Director PW Director Engineer March 4 March 24 Work Session Student development proposals City Council City Manager March 18 March 24 Regular Fire Annual Report Police Annual Report Police Department Renovation Project City Council City Manager Fire Dept Police Dept March 18 April 1 Joint Work Session Parks Summit City Council City Manager Sustinability Coordinator March 26 April 14 Work Session Stinson Blvd RFP Housing Topics Discussion City Council City Manager April 8 April 14 Regular Planning Commission Items from March Quarterly Donations & Grants Arbor Day Proclamation Earth Day Proclamation Quarterly Goals Update City Council City Manager April 8 April 28 Work Session Franchise Fees Discussion Sustainability Initiatives Funding Discussion City Council City Manager April 22 April 28 Regular Insurance Renewal & Tort Limits- Consent Villager of the Year and Business of the Year City Council City Manager Finance Director April 22 May 12 Work Session City Council City Manager May 6 May 12 Regular Planning Commission items from April City Council City Manager May 6 May 26 Work Session City Council City Manager May 20 May 26 Regular City Council City Manager May 20 June 9 Work Session City Council City Manager June 3 June 9 Regular Planning Commission Items from May City Council City Manager June 3 FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS Date Type Staff Present / Contributing Packet Due Date June 23 Work Session City Council City Manager June 17 June 23 Regular City Council City Manager June 17 June 30 Joint Work Session Comprehensive Plan Preliminary Planning City Council City Manager June 24 July 7 Work Session 2027 Initial Property Tax Levy Scenarios City Council City Manager Finance Director July 1 July 7 Regular Planning Commission items from June Quarterly Donations & Grants Audit Report Quarterly Goals Update City Council City Manager Finance Director July 1 July 21 Work Session City Council City Manager July 15 July 21 Regular Liquor Operations Mid Year Report VillageFest Presentation Night to Unite Presentation Night to Unite Proclamation Public Safety Engagement Presentation City Council City Manager Liquor Op Mgr Police Chief Fire Chief July 15 August 11 Work Session Discuss Updated Levy Scenarios/Detailed General Fund Budget City Council City Manager Finance Director August 5 August 11 Regular Planning Commission items from July City Council City Manager August 5 August 25 Work Session City Council City Manager City Planner August 19 August 25 Regular 2027 Proposed Budget & Levy Presentation City Council City Manager Finance Director August 19 September 8 Work Session City Council City Manager City Planner September 2 September 8 Regular Planning Commission items from August 2027 Preliminary Operating Budget and Debt Levy-PUBLIC HEARING Students in Leadership-Consent City Council City Manager Finance Director Engineer September 2 September 22 Work Session Existing and Future Community Center Needs Discussion City Council City Manager September 16 September 22 Regular Spirit of St. Anthony Award Fire Prevention Presentation Planning Commission items from August Climate Plan Update Energy Action Plan Update City Council City Manager Fire Dept Sustain. Coord. September 16 October 13 Work Session 2027 Long Term Capital Budget Plalns City Council City Manager October 7 FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS Date Type Staff Present / Contributing Packet Due Date October 13 Regular City Council City Manager October 7 October 27 Work Session 2027 Utility Rates and Budgets City Council City Manager October 21 October 27 Regular Quarterly Donations & Grants Quarterly Goals Update City Council City Manager October 21 November 10 Work Session Commission Interviews City Council City Manager November 4 November 10 Regular Score Grant Funding Application Approval Canvass Election Results City Council City Manager November 4 November 24 Work Session City Council City Manager November 18 November 24 Regular Fire Poster Contest Winners Approval Plans & Specifications & Order Advertisement for Bids for the upcoming Street Project Fee Schedule Review City Council City Manager Fire Chief City Engineer November 18 December 8 Work Session Goal Setting Preparation City Council City Manager December 2 December 8 Regular Planning Commission items from November Appoint Parks and Planning Commissioners and Chair/Vice Chairs Setting Salary of City Manager Authorizing Transfers & Closing of Specified Funds Setting the 2027 City & HRA Budgets and Final Property Tax Levy - PUBLIC HEARING 2027 Fee Schedule MS4 Quarterly Goals update Final reading and adoption of water, sewer, & stormwater City Council City Manager Finance Director December 2 December 22 Regular (Typically Cancelled) 2027 January 12 Work Session City Council City Manager January 6 January 12 Regular Planning Commission items from December Housekeeping Resolutions Quarterly Donations & Grants NYFS Agreement Outside Orgs-Council City Council City Manager NYFS January 6 January 26 Work Session 2027 Goals Draft City Council City Manager January 20 January 26 Regular Public Works Snow Plowing Operations presentation City Council City Manager PW Director January 20 FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS Date Type Staff Present / Contributing Packet Due Date February 9 Work Session City Council City Manager February 3 February 9 Regular Planning Commission items from January Public Hearing-2028 Budget Calendar and Process 2027 Planning Commission Work Plan- (motion only) 2027 Parks and Environmental Commission Work Plan- (motion only) Adoption of Strategic Plan City Council City Manager Finance Director February 3 February 23 Work Session Miscellaneous Ordinance Revisions City Council City Manager February 17 February 23 Regular City Council City Manager February 17 March 9 Work Session City Council City Manager March 3 March 9 Regular Planning Commission Items from February Finance Annual Report Public Works Annual Report NineNorth Presentation City Council City Manager Finance Director PW Director March 3 March 23 Work Session City Council City Manager March 17 March 23 Regular Fire Annual Report Police Annual Report City Council City Manager Police Dept Fire Dept March 17 April 13 Work Session City Council City Manager April 7 April 13 Regular Planning Commission Items from March Quarterly Donations & Grants Arbor Day Proclamation Earth Day Proclamation Quarterly Goals Update City Council City Manager April 7 April 27 Work Session City Council City Manager April 21 April 27 Regular Insurance Renewal & Tort Limits- Consent Villager of the Year and Business of the Year City Council City Manager Finance Director April 21 May 11 Work Session City Council City Manager May 5 May 11 Regular Planning Commission items from April Salo Park Concert Series Presentation City Council City Manager May 5 May 25 Work Session City Council City Manager May 19 May 25 Regular City Insurance Renewal City Council City Manager Finance Director May 19 June 8 Work Session City Council City Manager June 2 June 8 Regular Planning Commission Items from May City Council City Manager June 2