City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the regular city council meeting for the city of St. Peter, Minnesota. It is Monday, April 27th, 2026. At 7 p.m. we are called to order. Would all please rise for the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Um, everybody has received a copy of the agenda. Are there any revisions or corrections to the agenda? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the agenda?

So move. Second. All those in favor of approval say I. I. Any opposed? The agenda is approved. Uh, next up is approval of the minutes. The minutes appear on pages 6 through nine and there are two revisions to the minutes as distributed. At the top of page seven, the deletion of with council member Weisenfeld abstaining. Um and in the middle of page eight under comprehens comprehensive plan steering committee the deletion of with council member Pettis abstaining. Uh those are two corrections to the minutes. Are there any other revisions or corrections? Hearing none. Is there a motion to approve the minutes as as modified?

Second. All those in favor of approval say I. I. I. Any opposed? The minutes are approved. We have time on our agenda as usual for visitors. Are there any visitors tonight who'd like to address the council on a matter that's on our agenda? A matter that's on the agenda. Yeah. Please come forward.

Sit here. Yes.

Uh we'll just ask that you introduce us with your name and your address for the record and you'll have five minutes to address the council. Okay. Hello, my name is Christina Berguson. I live uh at 626 Parkow here in St. Peter and I wanted to talk a little bit about uh Puddler's licenses um in regards to all of the companies that have been coming by after the hail storm. um and my experience with those companies um and to suggest that any companies I won't I won't do the whole list here unless you want me to but uh you can have a copy of this afterwards any companies that have been coming around without those peddlers licenses annoying people um not to be approved peddler's licenses now or in the future um so on Monday April 13th 2026 St. Peter experienced a hailtorm. Beginning on Tuesday, April 14th, a variety of roofing companies, all of whom were from over an hour's drive away, and none of whom had respected St. Peter City Code by obtaining a pedaller's license, began knocking on doors, ringing doorbells, and generally annoying residents with repeated attempts to drum up business. I have had upwards of a dozen individuals come to my door, interrupting my sleep, my meals, and my general daily life. One of them pounded on my door repeatedly and another I had to ask to leave my property when he tried to argue with me after I declined his services. I have compiled a list of the roofing companies that have come to my door in an attempt to solicit business as recommended by whoever responded to my comment on the city Facebook page. I will be turning over a detailed list of these companies to the St. Peter Police Department. I am urging the St. Peter city council to deny any peddlers applications from businesses who have already operated in violation of the city ordinances

regarding peddlers peddlers and transient merchants. And I am urging the residents of St. Peter to refuse to hire any companies who have more respect for their own bottom line than they do for the city of St. Peter, its residents, or its local roofing companies who are conducting business in a more ethical and professional manner. After all, if a company does not have respect for its clients or their city codes, I must logically presume they may have a similar disregard of building codes as well. I would also urge residents to read the Google and Better Business Bureau reviews of these companies as some of them are large or national companies with repeated reviews which indicate a history of similar business practices. Um, some of the ones I've read indicate that they habitually go around to places after hail storms without peddlers licenses, knocking on people's doors, sometimes several times, and refusing to leave. Uh, I think there's also been some uh people who have indicated that they have ignored their no soliciting signs. Included below is a list of companies, approximate dates and/or times they knocked on my door, rang my doorbell, left a door hanger or advertisement or spoke to me personally, as well as the city their company or local office is based out of. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Uh, and then I've got a list here, uh, which is more detailed. I won't read the whole thing. Uh but the companies include Figuro Construction out of Fairmont, Aspen Contracting out of Roseville, uh a few that I did not get their names out of of uh Aspen Ring again. AMRG Exteriors out of Minnetonka also came by multiple times. Legacy Restoration out of Plymouth, NCI or Nissen Con construction incorporated out of Minnetonka. Uh DNH Construction LLC from Andover. Uh, one of the owners of that company is the one that uh wouldn't leave until I asked him to. Um, Ardmore Construction out of St.

Louis Park, Strong House out of Burnsville, and Pascar Construction out of Rapids. So, if anyone would like a copy of this, I have 10 copies. Maybe I should have printed a few more, but can have one if you'd like. Could you hand those off to Pete? That would be great. We can make sure we all get a copy of that. Um I think I know I have experienced similar disruption to our life and you didn't even mention the phone calls which don't follow. Thankfully I haven't gotten any of those. Don't know how wood but I've heard people have been I got 60 phone calls over three days so but no peddler's license will take care of that. But anyway, thanks for taking the time to address us and we'll Pete will make sure we get all those copies. So thanks Christina. Thank you.

All right. Now, are are there any visitors who'd like to address the council on agenda items? All right, hearing nothing, we'll move on to general visitor comments. Is there a visitor who'd like to address the council on another matter? Hearing none, we will move on to the approval of the consent agenda. The consent agenda begins on page uh 10 and concludes with the resolution which appears on pages 16- 17. The consent agenda includes the following licenses. A transient merchant for TNT fireworks tree worker. I'm not going to read all of them, but hopefully we've got them pulled up on the screen. There's a list of tree workers um along with the dates that they would be approved for. We have numerous employee appointments with names, position, um budget, and wage listed within the packet. I'm not going to read that either because it's a very lengthy list for folks who are interested. It's printed in the packet.

I could read them all, but um and the schedule of dispersements for April 8th through 22nd, 2026. Is there any discussion of any item on the consent agenda? Hearing no discussion, is there a motion to approve the resolution approving the consent agenda? All right, we have a motion in the second. Call the role, please. Council member Ramp. I. Council member Wisenfeld. I. Council member Sharstrom. I. Council member Deos. I. Mayor Noel. I. Council member Johnson. I. Council member Pettis. I.

The resolution is approved. We have no items of new of old business tonight. So, we will move on to new business. Our first item of new business is outdoor field and facility advertising guidelines. And Pete is here to talk to us about that. mayor and city council. Um we're bringing this policy to you based on previous discussions with some of our associations. Uh there's been a couple associations that have requested to advertise on city chain link fences and uh which include Jefferson Park, Vets Park, possibly the skateboard park, Pickleboard Park, a variety of different locations. Um, and where this came to light was back in November when the Girls Fast Pitch Association approached us with ideas to continue making improvements to some of our athletic fields. Um, they were hoping to uh develop banners and advertise uh over a one or two-year window. Uh we took that information, talked to other associations, informed them of how this could benefit both the city and um the associations. Uh the park board took this information under consideration and vetted this through uh March and April. And so with some corrections, those came back again. There are plenty of needs out there for all of our facilities, including scoreboards, warning tracks, uh, and just overall uh, park appearance. Uh, here's some of the items that we discussed uh, in relation to that was who would do what. Um, if you guys are familiar with Caswell Park, uh, very top-notch facility. Uh, Caswell itself is owned by the city of North Mano. uh they do all the advertising, take all the money and make the improvements to

the park as needed. Um some associations also raise uh 100% of the improvements such as our model. Our model is uh we supply the Bayer essentials for most facilities and any improvement above and beyond that is funded by the association that uses that facility the most. Um the other thing would be uh developing a policy to clarify roles and responsibilities. We have a variety of associations that interact with city staff and this the community itself in a variety of different manners. We don't always get to make up rules for the best actors. Sometimes we got to make up rules to control and confide with some of the poor actors. Uh which we have a little bit of both in our community. Some are newer associations, maybe don't have the funds, so they need a little bit of help getting things going. And we have some associations that are flourishing from that point. Um, the parks board uh took this action uh upon themselves to make sure that they could develop something that was considerate of not only staff time, but tried to allow the flexibility within the associations to make things happen. Um, great discussion at both of the parks board meetings there. Um, and what we're hoping tonight is that you would review the uh, policy guidelines on page 19 and approve the resolution on page 20, which was recommended by the St. Peter Parks Board.

Thanks, Pete. Uh, questions or discussion? Carrie? Well, you know, I think a lot of us received an email today. um from the a member of the softball association. I have just a couple questions. Um having not been involved in the parks board and just the one time we had this t talk. Um what like how what was the engagement like with the associations and how and did we meet with all the associations that use that park? Um you're talking just at Jefferson?

Yeah, just at Jefferson specifically. Um well the only association that is really using that is the girls fast pitch where they have completed modifications to field two and three. So the city runs the park and w through through recreation runs the adult softball league that's there and they used to be very active and paid for a lot of the scoreboards and other materials there. U related to other facilities such as baseball. uh they're wide open to those possibilities cuz they see it as a fundraiser uh plus being able to work with the city on making improvements to the fields.

Is the banner fee um any different from our community uh gym fee? Our community center gym fee? Yeah, I'm sorry I can't tell you the exact number. My best recollection is that it's $400 here. So they have to make or provide the cost of making the ad that's there and then it's $400 per year is my recollection. And just so I understand in the policy does a $100 cover the it doesn't cover the banner sign. No, it does not. So association would still uh complete uh they would make the banner

uh sell it whatever cost they need to. the $100 is an attempt to cover some of our cost for putting them up and then taking them down. And what would be um the pros and cons of having the association put it up and put it down? Um probably loss of control, consistency, somebody to maintain it when it gets tore or working with that situation. Okay. Um, in the previous discussions with this association, had some of those things been discussed and were they able to give feedback? Okay. Um, that I think that's those were my questions as we're uh following that email. Dustin,

uh, point of clarification, Pete. Um, those fields are being actively used by the school district every day and the baseball association. So, they're not exclusively used by the softball association. softball association hasn't had a single practice and they've been used six days a week for the last month.

Well, the school doesn't pay for any of the advertising similar to what when we use their fields um at the high school. Uh we don't pay for advertising. Sometimes we will advertise there, but we don't receive revenue or ask them to pay anything for that. They do pay for maintenance of the fuels when the school uses it. Okay. Uh and the baseball team will use that uh facility on certain days for games. Okay. So that's actually where my son's games are scheduled for the whole season and all of his practices, right? Depending on the age. Um just to clarify, I think Pete, when you were talking about exclusively the softball association, that was who was requesting you were just referring to who's requesting the banners.

Yes. That's who that's where the initial not who's using the field. You were just That's where the initial conversation started. you were just okay. I just want to make sure that we were clear on what was Okay, Ben, so question for you. The the fences that were put up at Jefferson Fields, those were put up through a donation from the softball association. Correct. Correct. And in their in their proposal for those, they mentioned that they wanted to sell advertising in order to fund I could have swore I saw that on the Not that I'm aware of. Fences. Maybe I'm misremembering. Okay. Yeah, Darl.

Um, as a member of the parks board, I actually did vote against this last week. Um, I don't think it's right for us to be charging fees to youth sports to pay for our time. I think we adequately fund our parks and recck department. I'm very proud of our park facilities and how they're taken care of and how they're run. And I really am not agreeable with the $100 per banner per season for this fee. Fee setting is a prerogative of the city council and I'm not in support of that. The rest of the proposal, the rest of the policy is fine with me. I do not support the $100 per banner per season.

Would you would can I ask a follow-up question? Would you support a lower fee or you just generally aren't uh are opposed to having a fee for this? I proposed a fee of $25 per banner. Uh my motion did not receive a second in the parks board. However, I did see on the softball association, they have requested or stated a $25 fee. So, I would support the $25 fee or a zero fee. Either one of those two. Okay, Brad.

Um so, well, I I was going to address a fee issue as well. Um I'm I'm not in favor of a zero fee be because of the fact that uh I think that we we do need to recoup something for time. But yes, I think the $100 is is quite a bit um for example like with south if it was maybe one banner and we're sending staff out to put up one banner in the time. But I'm guessing there's going to be multiple banners out there. So you're going to have the efficiency of scale of of unite of the staff out there. Um, I would be in favor I I I I would be supportive of a $25 fee as well. So,

I I will make a motion to amend the fee um in to in the resolution to $25. Is there a second to that? All right. Uh, well, we're not going to Yeah, we'll have discussion of the new motion. Yep. So, he's of the $25. Yep. Okay. Go ahead. No, go ahead. Oh, sorry. Okay. Um Uh All right. So, my question is, can you tell us the justification around $100? Just so we understand that.

Yeah. Was to cover cover an hour of time for putting them up and taking them down. They don't come in in fives or sixes, so there's an economy of scale. They come in in onesies and twoosies. We'll see how that goes. But um it's to cover some city costs so that the labor of the city is not going directly towards the association. That is why that because they're taking all the funds for the advertising for that banner and now they're also getting the labor for free. And there is also a review of signs like signs need to be pre-approved. Is that correct?

Yes. There are guidelines within this as there are in the gymnasium here at the community center rules about what can be on that signage and and what cannot be on that signage. Okay. So, there's a little bit of there's time in addition to the hanging up of signs. Yep. Yep. Okay. Dustin.

Um and I know Pete, this is something you've been held pretty firm on this and I've kind of challenged you on it. I understand the need to keep control of our parks. However, I think city staff has a lot better things to do than hang banners with zip ties. As a varsity softball or varsity tennis coach myself, a coach for multiple levels, I have hung wind screens. I have hung banners. I don't see us giving up or taking much risk by putting this back on the association to hang their own banners.

That certainly would be an option of the council as well. Um I well I guess I would say uh the one thing with the reduced uh fee is um the softball association will be using mo I would I would guess most if not all maybe not all but most of it for park improvement. So in a way these funds will be coming back towards the city. I mean, I'm assuming that's what at least from what I've heard from the con what I've gathered from previous conversations is this is a fundraising thing from the sapall association to actually raise funds primarily for park improvements. So, in that way, yes, the fee is reduced, but we'll also help generate park improvements as well. Potent potentially potentially. Yes. Dustin,

as has been committed, I believe in email to all of you guys that 80% of the previous concession funds that have been raised by this group have gone directly to the park. The intentions, which has been very openly communicated, is that that same percentage at least would be going to the projects that Pete and his team has met with the softball association and requested. I didn't receive the email, so I think I'm working under different information if everybody else got the email. Um, your email was spelled in the email that was sent out. Okay. I thought that it was but I guess

yeah I I didn't see one. I don't know if Pete saw one. I mean part of the challenge that you see here from at least from a staff perspective and we talked about this at workshop when this was brought back to you for review at workshop is that you are in a very changing environment here and the business model that you operate under which Pete articulated I think very well may have to change in the near future. And this isn't just for Jefferson or just for the Fast Pitch Association. This relates to all of the associations at all of the fields that we have. While it is true at Jefferson Fields, um there's more fence than you have any place else, there are fences at these other locations. And so this would be applied across the board to all associations and groups. It's also true at least from a staff perspective that leadership within these associations waxes and waines and with that are how they view contribution or not contribution to facilities um and and so that's changed over time and so you have some groups that really don't contribute much they use um but they don't contribute much contribute much. It is true though that over the past couple of years um girls fast pitch has been I think far and away um the biggest contributor with the exception of the pickle ball association who has provided the most funds towards development of areas that they use and so these rules would apply to them as well. So um if you want to have separate rules for each facility for each association we can certainly have that discussion. Our goal isn't necessarily to do that. Ours is to have one that we can apply across the board to all of the associations and um ensure that there is at least some level of equity in relation to the availability of the of the location in which they're selling ads for.

Krie,

I don't think we need separate roles for different associations. It's just that this association is engaged and does contribute a lot to this specific park um at Jefferson. But I also think, you know, when you're developing a new policy, um, it's okay to kind of start small with a smaller fee and evaluate how it's going within the first year and does that fee need like what is the actual time that city staff are putting into this? Are there issues? Do we need to adjust the policy to um, you know, adjust with how how it's actually going? And so for me, like starting at a $25 baseline doesn't seem like it's quite enough, but I think $100 might be a stretch for some associations. Maybe not this one necessarily, but it could for others. Um and and they did articulate that it would, you know, they would hope that we would um reduce it. But I think I'd be willing to start at a baseline of $25. I just have a couple thoughts which are first of all I would be I would oppose having associations put up their own signs at this time. I think because associations are largely volunteer-based it would be very easy for somebody to you know hand over a bunch of signs and somebody not know which ones had been paid for and which ones hadn't. Um so I would be opposed to having at this time like maybe in the future having having people put up their own signs. Um, I could be persuaded that $25 I think $25 um is low. I'd have preferred to see 50, but I won't vote against 25. I think that does need to be something I would be opposed to because there is staff time. And um there's also some uh you know liability in terms of I I think it's low um signs being damaged or um by weather or vandalism and things like

that. I just want to um have something a little more formal. So, that's where I'm at right now. All right. I'm not seeing any other hands up. The motion before us right now is is um changing from $100 to $25 with the policy as is. Otherwise, with the policy otherwise as is. So, is there It's not the resolution. and we'll get to the resolution if the $25 change passes. So, um, is the We have a motion in a second. Yep. Council member Weisenfeld, I. Council member Sharstrom, I. Council member Devos, I. Mayor Noel,

I. Council member Johnson, I. Council member Pettis, I. Council member Ram I. All right, the motion carries. Um, if there's no further discussion, the resolution in front of us is on page 20. We would be changing $100 to $25 under bullet point number two. Um, is there any discussion or a motion to approve the resolution as modified? So moved. Second. Uh, uh, we have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. Council member Shstrom, I. Council member Deos, I. Mayor Noel, I. Council member Johnson, I. Council member Pettis, I. Council member Ran I. Council member Weisenville. Hi.

The resolution is approved. Our next item of new business, Miller Homes agreement. And there are two resolutions and Ben is here to talk to us about that.

All right. Thank you, mayor, and members of the council. Um, so Miller Homes, uh, Miller Real Estate has been building and selling homes over the last several years. Um, but there's been three main partnerships that we've, um, um, had a partners with them over the last few years. So number one is in phase one and phase two of Traverse Green. Um this is where uh they decided to do four homes um was which was initiated by kind of like some catalyst money um some seed money of $50,000 per home. That combined with some deferred costs on building permits and uh doing a mortgage till the actual closing date has helped spur those uh first two phases um in that. So in the first seven years of that development that there was 25 units built um after this agreement kind of came about now there's been 44 homes built in three years. So you can see uh quite a change in that particular development. So those initiatives uh worked really well. Um the second partnership was in phase three. So this is the Cullen Street development that was built um in July or finished in July of 2025 um which created 42 lots. 26 of those lots uh were reserved by Miller Homes as we partnered with them and then 16 of the lots were for the city of St. Peter, kind of the edge lots, the bigger the bigger lots. Um since that time um over the last um oh nine months or so um Millers have done really well with their lots. Um they're uh closing in on nine new homes along Cullen Street uh that are either done or in the process or closing on. Um whereas the city has only sold one lot. Um that it's not um that we haven't been trying. Uh the city has made a valiant effort through all sorts of different media options and advertisements, but

there's only been a few inquiries. Um, and one more success story was in the Traverse Green North development. So, this is where the city did a land swap with St. Peter Land or St. Peter Investors. Um, in that they ended up selling their 12 twin home lots to Miller and now there's now three twin homes uh that have been built or in the process of being built. So, six new units with six more to come. So, you can see on page 22 there's kind of a table that shows how um progress really has taken off since two 2022. um both with Miller and with the that spraying on other builders to build in the Travis Green development. So since the St. Peter city of St. Peter has struggled to gain some momentum with selling those larger um higherend home lots along Cullen Street, the city did reach out to Miller to see if they'd be interested in furthering our partnership. Uh Miller has agreed and they uh proposed um they provided a proposal which is summarized there on the middle to bottom part of page 22. those five bullet points essentially. One, they would like to list some lots and some to be built uh homes for us and that would be through Miller Real Estate and then Miller Homes would do a construction of one to two customuilt or higherend homes um with some seed money. Um, at our last workshop, the council did review this and they recognized that Miller would be a good partner and could potentially help uh the city get these 16 lots going. So, attached there is a map that kind of shows the 16 lots in blue that the city was responsible for selling on the west side of Cullen Street and then the 26 lots that were originally reserved by Miller. So, um, if this moves forward, that whole area along Cullen Street would be marketed by Miller Homes for us. And then, um, they would also do some custom homes in

either the blue or or the light blue or pink area. Um, again, they do one to two at a time with some of that seed or catalyst money like we had done before. Um, and hopefully that would do the what it did a few years ago and get that development really going, especially on the west side. Also attached is uh a listing agreement. Um and I just wanted to note on page 27 on line seven that should say the city of St. Peter. Um other than that they would be responsible for listing our lots on the on the west side of the C Col Cullen Street. There's also a proposal and that proposal again would be with Miller Homes to do two up to two custom homes um with that seed money. So attached on page 37 is the first resolution for the listing agreement and then on page 38 for the building incentive agreement.

Ben, just to clarify, previously when we when we provided $50,000 for four homes as seed money, those were dollars that when the home was sold was paid back. Absolutely. Yes. And in this process for those higherend homes, $400 plus,000, that $100,000 would be paid back at the time of closing. Correct. Exactly. Yep. All right. Thank you, Brad. Um, I have a question about the number of lots. Um, we had 16 originally, but one has already been sold. So, why it should be 15. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Brad. Okay. Yeah. Just I just want to make sure that's revised on Yeah. So, that address can get crossed off. That was already sold.

Okay. that yeah because that that was part of the confused so and and the reason why is you were and you kept referring to 16 throughout your presentation as well. self. Um, so I'm trying to make heads or tails out of the numbers. On page 29, we've got the seller shall pay broker total broker compensation of 4% and that's if it's a split commission, right? They're selling somebody else's representing one side and Miller Real Estate's representing the other side. The standard 4%

4%. But when we go to the next page, there's shall pay compensation cooperating buyers 2 to 2 and a.5% other 3% for dual agency sales. So those just don't kind of add up and it would it's 3% if if they have both doing both sides but then there's also a two to two and a half% of the selling price whichever is greater for cooperating brokers representing the buyer. So, on line 127 of the uh listing contract,

should that just be marked off and not have the two and two to 2 and a half% because it's line 131 other shows the 3% for dual agency sales. Does that make sense, Steve? Yeah, one of those should be omitted. I I understand what you're saying. Not having not having read the this contract of Jim might have, but I have not. So, I I can't speak on that specifically, but I understand I understand the argument what you're saying

because then that's almost calling for five to five and a half percent of total commission because it's called out in both spots because the other should supersede the selling price. I just want to make sure that we're clear. I'm like completely cool with the 3% if they're representing both sides of the deal or 4% if there's two brokers involved or two people involved. I just want to make sure that that doesn't come back to bite us.

So, if I can, our intent is to follow the bullet points that are um on page 22, the five bullet points. And so, the listing details are 4% full service commission and 3% if Miller represents both sides. Um will if the council desires and approves the resolution that's in front of you, we will make sure that the document has the right name in it and is outlined appropriately under those listing details. Yeah, I'm good with that. Yeah, it just doesn't add up the way that the deal is supposed to be lined up.

I do not disagree with you. We will ensure that that is the bullet points. And if that is not what Miller has agreed to or thought that they agreed to, um then we'll come back and talk to you about that. Sounds good. Yeah. Additional questions, Dustin. And then Brad, I didn't have the opportunity last week to be at the workshop. there's only one of me and wasn't been able to chat about it. I was going to tell you then and I'll tell you now that this looks like a great opportunity and I appreciate everything you have done and city staff has done to make this happen. Brad,

um just so make sure we have it spelled out. Do you know which address? Because it looks like we still have the 16 on the page listed which one it is. Just so that just so that we can put it into the record which one would be struck from from the listing agreement I think cuz page 35 is where all the all of them are listed out. So it would be if you don't mind we can double check that the resolution doesn't specify um which lots. So we'll make sure that that's appropriate within the I was just saying because on the resolution says a proposal listing agreement submitted attached here too. So it's line 15 line 15 1380 Col Street can be crossed out. Great. Thank you.

1380 Colin Street will be but there will be other there will be other revisions to this document. Y any other questions? Hearing nothing further. Uh the resolution approving a listing agreement from Miller Real Estate appears on page 37 of the packet. Is there a motion to approve? Subject to the changes we discussed, I'll make a motion. Second. Uh um we have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. Council member Devos, I. Mayor Noel, I. Council member Johnson, I. Council member Pettis, I. Council member Ram, I. Council member Weisenfeld, I. Council member Charstrom, I.

The resolution is approved. Uh next up, there is a second resolution regarding constructed the construction incentive proposal. Madame Mayor, we don't have anything more to say. We've included that in in the uh um memo covering this. Any discussion? All right. Hearing nothing. The resolution approving a construction incentive proposal from Miller Homes is on page 38. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. Mayor Noel. I. Council member Johnson. I. Council member Pettis. Hi. Council member Ram. I. Council member Weisenfeld. I, Council Member Charstrom. I, Council Member DVOS, I.

The resolution is approved. Uh, next up we have consideration of new licenses. And Pete, I'm wondering if you could distribute that list that we received earlier in the meeting. Mayor members, if you are okay, I'll go ahead. Yeah.

So, the information included in your packet, um, starting on page 39 includes a bunch of pedallers license applications. Um and so this is different um than um transient merchant and so wanted to make sure that you were aware of that. This also includes one tree workers license. As you know, new licenses come to you as separate agenda item and this includes those new licenses. Um renewals come as a part of your consent agenda and so you had one renewal um that was listed on your consent agenda which you previously approved. I will tell you one of the staff plans for this was over the next month or two to do a comparison between building permits that are pulled and who has pedallers um or who received pedlers permits. Um it takes a few months probably for this to cycle through or for people to pull permits and then more discussion would be had related to the council or with the council related to what steps do you want to take next or not take next. The reality is is that we have homeowners that are inundated and we do not have enough people to track down everyone who knocked on doors. Even though I know even some of you had people knock on your doors and you said to them, "You got a pedaller's license? If you don't, hit the bricks and they would drive two or three blocks away." Um but um we cover as best as we can in those instances.

Uh yeah, I certainly had that experience of somebody knocking on my door and asking them, "Do you have a peddler's license?" Oh yeah, I turned that into the city. Well, you're talking to the mayor and so I can guarantee you need that and it won't be approved until it comes to a city council meeting. So So again, the approach that I outlined, although not perfect, does at least in some ways benefit those who at least went through the process. It didn't stop them from knocking on 72 doors or knocking on somebody's door two or three times, but they at least went through the process as to compared to those building permits that will come in for these types of services that did not go through the building permit process. So, I'm it's at your pleasure.

Sure, Krie.

I think the challenge here is it, you know, if you go through the process, you're going to lose because unfortunately their tactics work. I mean, people had their signs out, had already signed things right away. So, what I really appreciated was the um police department sharing like, hey, make sure you know that there's a and a lot of community members posted like make sure that you're, you know, vetting these companies, don't sign anything, all of those things. But, um these companies need to go through the process. But again, you can you can understand why they don't because if you don't get out there, you're not going to get the business. You're gonna you're going to lose. And that's what's really unfortunate unfortunate about this type of situation where people take advantage of a a situation where people are afraid that they're going to have roof damage and leaks in their house and what is this going to cost me? And um I really appreciate the documentation on the experience. um have heard from a lot of other people too and then knowing what specific companies um you were challenged by, but I it's it's was a really frustrating situation and not something that the community is new to, although some of us are. Um and so one of my questions is just like how long does it take to vet and just for the community's benefit, what is the vetting process for a peddler license? vetting process is is that the specific pedallers, not just the company, are background checked and we ensure insurance is in place for that. Um, and so that does not take very long. Once they submit the appropriate paperwork, it's typically done within 24 hours of regular business day to make that happen. These licenses are required by your ordinance to be approved by the city council. So, they can't be approved administratively. The ordinance is very

specific about where it has to go after their application. So, as you saw within some of the information that we put on our website and through utiliz utilization of social media, we told people that the next time pedallers licenses would be approved would be at this council meeting. And so, ensure that you're asking the right questions and uh following up as appropriate. And peddlers will moving forward be listed on that uh web page that was shared on the city Facebook page.

That's correct. that usually takes 24 to 48 hours to get that information on that website, but then they are located on that website. This is akin to something that we talked about on many occasions related to tree workers. We have a tree worker section as well. Um and and we do believe and I think we promoted this appropriately um that buyers should beware and um ensuring that whoever they're working with has the appropriate credentiing. But to clarify, it's a criminal background check. Um and also you said you check insurance. So really to to check Better Business Bureau some of those things that would be uh you know what the the certainly appropriate res would need to

if you're a homeowner um it's certainly in your best interest to check all of those places. Right. Okay. Thank you Ben. And then I'll move over to this side of the room. I think Josh was next.

So the the the company that I work for, we get pedallers licenses all over the state. and it's kind of a a mixed bag where half of them require council approval and the other half don't once they go through the steps and the processes. Um would there be something against us looking at this in the future to say okay, you know, it's passed the the the the background check by the police department. and we've checked for insurance and provisionally approve their permit so that way they can go out and start doing their work and then comes in front of the council after the fact that we just put our blessing on it to to push it forward because in some cases if they would have came the day after the last council meeting their background check was back the day after you know what I mean and now they're wait they're waiting almost two weeks before they can do the business that they're trying to do to help residents in the h or in the town, but get in there first, you know, first to first to say, "Yeah, let's replace your roof." They're they're going to be the ones that win. Um, so is there anything against us doing that in the future?

We could have a few we'd we'd have to have a council workshop discussion about that. But Josh, yeah. Um, so one clarifying question. You companies do not need a pedaller's license. So, if I looked up one of these and called them to come replace my roof, they do not need a pedaller's license. Correct.

That's correct. Um, if I could add on to that, it is also true that if they just leave a door hanger, if they don't knock on your door, as an example, um, then they can do that as well under your ordinance. But they they really can't knock on your door, ring on your doorbell, engage with you specifically. That's where it comes into being a pedaller rather than canvasing. And the ordinance that you have in place related to pedallers is not frankly is not designed to exactly cover this. It is really designed to be let me give you an example where I come around and I'm selling Todd's pots and pans and I stop by the mayor's house and I say, "I have pots and pans for sale." And the mayor says, "Well, I'd like that pot and that pan." and I say, "That is fantastic. If you sign and pay me now, within two weeks, it'll arrive at your door." Um, I know there's not a lot of business that's transacted in that way in St. Peter. Um, but there still is some that is transacted in that way. And so while the ordinance covers these types of things that you're looking at within your packet, it's more closely designed and aligned with that kind of knock, order, pay, delivery later to help ensure or minimize opportunity for lack of delivery or failure to deliver on what was purchased. At this time, there's no transaction. There's typically not a financial transaction going on. And that's what differentiates this to some extent. And and I bring this up every time we talk about peddler's licenses and this is sort of a different issue, but I am of the opinion that it's 2026 and no one should be knocking on anyone's doors unless they're invited. And I am not in favor of approving any pedaller's licenses for anyone who's been preemptively knocking on doors without a pedaller's license is in violation of city code. And I I strongly believe that the vast majority of people who run this style of

pedallers business are doing it for reasons that are potentially questionable business-wise. And I do not think it makes sense for us to be cart blanch approving a whole bunch of new companies to come in town just because they found out from residents they needed a pedaller's license and so now we are thinking about granting them. But primarily it is because Yelp exists and I think we should be hiring people that we vetted ourselves online more than hiring whoever shows up at your house. Uh Dustin.

Yeah. First off, I'd like to commend Miss Berguson, is that how you say it? For sticking around for all of this and the frustrations you dealt with. My house is right across the street here and I was like ground zero of blowing up where you looked up and down the street and you saw a truck every few houses. The challenge is like even my own insurance company wanted me to have an answer of who I was going to use for a contractor to set a meeting up as soon as this week. So, had I waited for the pedal or licenses to be approved, like Krie indicated, it it is time frame sensitive about how we need how the homeowners need to handle this business process with their insurance companies. So, it's almost like our system doesn't align for this. And I'm sure she's telling us 100% truthfully every one of the companies that was pushy and over the top. And I could probably grab the flyers from outside of my house and agree with it. I just don't know. We don't have the time frames to vet that right now to determine who should or should not get a pedaller's license. And I'm going to guess some of the bad culprits are not even on the list that we're looking at right now. They're not interested in following the rules. And that's unfortunate, but I think that is a reality.

Brad and then Darl. Um, so I I have no sympathy for the people losing out because they didn't get their pedaler's license. Quite honestly, the pe I I know a lot of these people. I've seen I've seen their signs in the yards. They were out and about going door to door. These people are vultures. I I'm sorry. They really are. They're knocking on doors right afterwards. Um they we have plenty we h we have a number of local contractors. I mean, you see the hind riffing McCabe, all those out there, they're not on here because they know they essentially they're not going door to door. Um Josh is right. I think uh approving these after the fact um after they got caught and got their hand slapped. Um I I I don't think it's appropriate. Um if you know I mean I mean I can see Nordique on here. Um actually it's interesting. There's Nordic and Nordique. Um, but uh I I just I really don't have sympathy for people who go out before getting their peddler's license hoping that they don't get caught. Uh Darl,

um the only comment I wanted to make is uh I do support uh council member Ram's uh thoughts about making these more a little bit more administrative, but just remember this is the same council that um was upset when certain things were approved administratively and we brought them back into the council to be approved. So, if we want uh quickness and ease and things like that, maybe some of these things should go back to be administratively approved like we would a building permit or something like that if you want to speed things up. We can't ask for our staff to do things quick and prompt in this situation, then come back and slap their hands and say, "Why did you do that quick and prompt in this situation?" So, we have to make our minds up what we want to do. And I will stop at that.

I agree.

Yeah, I think that's something to revisit. Um, and I just just to clarify, Brad, I don't feel bad for the bad actors. I'm saying that the good people lose because there's a reason why they descend. It's because it works. It's working on our residence and it's really sad. And so that's where the time-sensitive piece comes in. And and for this specific type of situation, is there a different way to do it? Um, and we and I uh agree with Dustin that it'd be really hard to vet this list that's in here right now based on and you know and already we have a trouble with just going around and seeing who has a peddler's license. We don't have the capacity to do that nor right this moment have the capacity to vet uh these companies. And I think we have a process in place but we can we can look at it and see if it needs changes in the future for this type of situation. So, I'm I'm going to support uh moving forward with uh what we have presented here.

Other discussion or anything to add? Todd, you have one more council member that I'm happy to say. I will vote in favor of this, but that's only because I don't want to hold up the tree worker license. I don't think it's fair. I I will say um in the future because I've seen this happen in the you have different types of licenses all getting lumped onto one. You got the peddler and the tree worker. In the future, I would like to see, you know, the time taken just to add a second I adding a second resolution typically isn't that big of a deal. So, between So, I I I I I would you just have to think about your poor mayor Brad who has to read all the extra

Anyway, so that that would just be a that' just be a request in the future. So, if I could, Madame Mayor,

um you all need to help us. However you decide to vote on this is just fine. Um, but you need to help us by giving us some additional direction at some point about how you want this to happen. And it really is based on your goals. I don't know that we have the ability, not only from a legal standpoint, but from a practical standpoint to ensure that no one ever knocks on anyone's door. I don't know that we can make that happen. That would be fantastic if we could. I don't know that that we have the ability to make that happen. I also know that as a part of the resolutions and how this is put together, you could certainly do an amendment to this resolution and strike everything and just provide for the tree guy or um other builders. It's important to note that your ordinance does not require contractors that have their address here. They do not they're not required to have a pedaller's permit. And so you'll notice that some of your local contractors that are housed in St. Peter are not required to do that. So, as you think about this moving forward, if you want more information, my goal would be to bring you back some data and the comparison of this list of permits so we can understand the impact of that overall. And that might be helpful. If your goal is to help contractors move more quickly because the value that they bring to homeowners, that's likely one solution. If the goal is to restrict their ability to knock on doors, uh there's maybe a different solution, but the practical application of that is very, very difficult given the resources that you have. So, as you think about this going forward, um those are at least a couple of the ways that you might be best served in thinking about it and helping us figure out what's best for your community.

Any further discussion? We'll definitely be talking about this again in the future. Um just want to say to all the people who are watching at home, I feel your pain. I'm in solidarity with you. had a lot of the same experiences and so um happy to have a future conversation. Um hearing no further discussion, is there a motion to approve the resolution approving new licenses that appears on page 42? So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. Council member Johnson, I. Council member Pettis, I. Council member Ram, I. Council member Weisenfeld, no. Council member Sharstrom, I. Council member Devos I.

Mayor Noel I. The resolution is approved. We That was our last item of new business. We'll move on to reports. I do not have a report this evening. Is are there reports from any council members hearing? No reports. Report from our city administrator.

Mayor and members, I did want to mention before I go into the comp plan survey that I have nothing new to report relative to federal presence within your community. You had asked that if there was something new that came up, I should report it. This is the first time kind of after that discussion. So, don't have anything new for you in the future. If I have something new, I'll mention it. If I don't, I won't. And I think that's been the direction that we've received from the council. Um, then in addition to that, I want to mention um this item. Um, we wanted to give an update on the work that's been going on with the comprehensive plan. And so, we're really continuing to look for people to help guide the community's future. Um, we've had approximately 490 responses on the survey or folks that have filled out the survey. So, that's a wonderful response thus far. Just a fantastic response. But, we do want to mention to folks that you can learn more about that um at the location that is provided here or if you hadn't had the chance to do the survey monkey. Um, certainly if folks are watching this on their computer screen, they can take a quick shot of this QR code and get right to it. and we certainly want to continue to encourage folks to participate. The survey itself is open till the middle of May. Um so you'll see this information continuing to be pushed out, but we really want to encourage people to participate. A lot of hard work is going to go into this. A lot of community members are able to participate and that survey is one of the ways you can actively participate.

Well, our folks walking watching at home as council members, we really want and value your feedback. I know when we do surveys of this type, for example, when we were planning for um renovations to Gorman Park, we really did pay close attention to resident feedback. And so um hope that people will take this take the opportunity that we're presenting. Madame Mayor, that's the last uh item that I have for you for tonight. All right. Hearing seeing no raised hands, uh I'll take a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. All those in favor of adjournment say I. I. Any opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you. Todd, what time is it? 8:30.