Okay, we'll bring the uh June 23rd, 2025 uh council work meeting to order uh item one. Mr. Mayor and council members, uh we have a couple items to discuss here this evening. If we get to all of them, great. If not, uh we'll do as we
normally do and kind of move it to the next one. Uh we've got uh basically two complaints that came in and uh wanted to establish kind of a process for uh vetting these complaints to determine, you know, if they're valid or not and um to actually
have a process in place so that it's not just a complaint received and complaint filed type of scenario, but we're actually uh considering it. So, Mr. Mayor, we've got two uh one that names you and one that names me. Which one would you like to take first? Doesn't matter. Okay. Well, I'll I'll I'll be
the I'll be the first one then. Um, so, uh, the complaint was submitted on June 9th and it states, uh, essentially that on May 12th work meeting and May 28th council meeting where Mr. Look didn't provide all the information on our six horse IUP, the information he provided
was mis misleading. Um, I've got that complaint up here. Oh, that one's yours. Okay. Uh so essentially on the 28th of May I sent to the council um all this documentation. This is may not be an order but in
January 2005 this is an extension of the IUP for one year. It states under there that the interim use permit expires one year from issue date in 2000. We do not have a another IUP that was issued post
2000 and the IEP was started in 99. Uh these were the minutes that or the agenda that was provided and the minutes that were provided. This is for 1999. Um and these were the minutes.
Uh the motion who made it and everything else. This is all the information essentially that I'm presenting here this evening is what I sent to you guys on the 28th. Uh that's all the information that we have. So, um, I'd like to clarify that the information was not
withheld from you, that it was not misleading. In fact, you've gotten everything that I have on on the matter. And um, and that was what the decision was based out. We then had the mayor, I'm sorry, the uh, attorney at the time, uh, Mr. Larson, kind of address how
stacking uh, uh, IUPs is not something we can do here. In other words, the current IUP with two horses would have been the controlling IUP at that point. You can't have an IUP for six horses in 2000 and then come back and say, "I want another IUP and then another one,
another one, and so on so forth until you have more horses than are allowed per property or according to our code." So, essentially, this is um just a presentation of the information and um I will leave it up to you guys to discuss what you want to do with this. Um, if
there's a consensus to move forward with this complaint in any capacity or to dismiss it, I'll leave that up to you guys. Well, I have a question. What if somebody from the city uh tells the owner that um, okay, you
have this IUP, but these are a different type of horses. They're animal control horses. You need another IUP to cover animal control. And so it's not stacking. And that's their understanding.
Our code, city code does not um specify whether it's animal control horses or it's a horse or a number of horses. And it goes into specificity in terms of the amount of acres you need, the amount of uh pasture land you need, how to
properly care for an animal of this size. Um and that's why the code is established that way. Um my understanding I was not here but my understanding was the six horse u um one had expired because it was not renewed
came back later for a two horse and um and lo and behold there's eight there now. So um if one was not renewed um as we have no record of any renewals and certainly they can bring forward any sort of renewal um uh then uh then that
expires that that IUP ceases to exist under the conditions of that IUP and uh and then when they come back and they say we'd like a IUP they name the number of horses that they want they should have named eight if they wanted eight or whatever the case is and then people could have deliberated on if that number
was appropriate for the acreage. Um, but the point of this evening per the complaint was that I was misleading. This is all the information we have. Um, and that uh and that I didn't provide
all the information that was the complaint. So, I don't know of any other information we could have provided essentially. So, what other information are they saying was not provided? It's a good
question. It's a good question because we have nothing on file. Can you Can you scroll back up to the complaint? Do it the easy way here. Oh, I guess my question would be
what uh information was left out and can that be provided evidenced either by the complaint or you know, uh, Mr. Mayor and council members, I would guess if they had other information, they would have come
forward with that information. But their information is probably similar to what our information is. I think it's not so much if there's other information, it's whether aimed at me as to whether I was misleading and withheld information.
That's the complaint. Any other questions on that? Well, like Brian said, I think this is it's pretty vague because they ain't presenting everything they're looking for out of this. It should have been spelled out a lot better. Basically saying what
information wasn't in place. So if there is any other information that would be related to this complaint, I would like that to be provided to the city. No problem. If they want to bring
forward information, if they have other information, that'd be fine. We don't have it though. So any other discussion on want to do move forward until we have better information or well if there is any other information
we'd like to see it right I mean that that's pretty much that census yeah Mr. Mayor and Council, that would pertain to the decision that you guys made on repealing the IUP if there was other information. This specifically applies to
the administrator in withholding information or misleading. Well, what you've got listed up there and everything, I don't see anything that's misleading or not represented here. I mean, moving forward, I think we
dismiss this unless they can come up with exactly what they believe is missing. Okay. I'd say keep it open until say the next meeting and for them to for an opportunity for them to submit any
information, any relevant information and go from there. I I think we're conflating two issues here. If they have additional information, you can bring back a case to reconsider
um the motion to well, it's a little late to reconsider the motion, but you can definitely have a case to consider an IUP for them if they have, you know, reinstating their IUP or whatever the case may be. I don't know if the attorney has more. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. council. Uh,
from a procedural standpoint, your decision on the IUP has already been made and it is too late in the process to issue a reconsideration on that. Your your time would have lapsed certainly at the last meeting. Um, with regard to,
you know, the the matter at hand, uh, the decision is limited to whether or not the complaint against Mr. Look is substantiated or not. And whether you have the information today or not, you know, that's up to you. and how you want to handle the complaint as a complaint.
With regard to an IEP in the future, that would have to be based upon a new application from the resident based upon whatever information they submit as part of that application and it would be decided independent of the history of the uh prior application though of
course the prior history may be presented as part of the rationale for seeking the IEP. Does that clarify the the three different sort of procedural questions that are kind of being leveled together here? So, moving forward, what do you want to
do? So, we'd have potentially two options right now. either dismiss it until more information comes along or keep it open until more information comes along. If we dismiss it and they provide more
information, do they have to resubmit a complaint? Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mundle, Council, um that is the details of that question are sort of answered by the way you discuss it and the way you decide it, right? So, you could choose to do nothing with this complaint. You could table it until next
meeting, you know, pending additional information. Um, you could choose to dismiss it out of hand and then they'd need to file a new complaint if you dismissed it. If you tabled it for a date certain, that would leave it open for that amount of time. Um, or you could choose to accept the complaint and
investigate on on your own merits. Um, but there isn't uh to to answer the question the way you asked it. I guess there isn't a hard and fast if this then that process. Well, I I think he answered that essentially we can table it
or if we dismiss it then they have to resubmit the correctly. If you dismiss it, they'll have to resubmit. Correct. Do we table at work meetings? We're not voting on anything. Yeah, this is really just a discussion, but because you're directing staff, you can you can
provide them with instruction to investigate further. Um, so if you choose to go that direction now, you can give that instruction to staff. If you, you know, don't want to do that at this time, then you can, as Mr. Luke indicated, let him know that he doesn't need to look into
it any further. Well, personally, I think that is worded very vague and I would like to see the specifics of what they were are talking about the specific um
information not provided the um yes whatever is missing I would like to see what it's going what it is what they are complaining about because this is So, if you'd like to table it essentially. Let's table it.
Everybody in agreement. Table it. All right. We'll table this item. Okay. See if anything else comes forward from it. Okay. Mr. Mayor, the second complaint is a complaint naming yourself about
Robert's rules of order ensures meetings are fair, efficient, and orderly protecting the rights of all members and the mayor Anderson is failing to do that. uh same complaintant on this and I did copy Robert's rules of order which is a lengthy manual of parliamentary
procedure that governs most boards of directors which was first created in 1876 by Henry Robert actually and um set of codes and rules of eth ethics that help groups hold orderly meetings and allow the majority to rule while
allowing minority ver voices to be heard. Um, and going down a little further, I think is where the complaintant lifted this information. Um, right here it says, "Tips and reminders for chairpersons. Robert's
rules of order was developed to ensure the meetings are fair, efficient, democratic, and orderly. A skilled chairperson allows all members to voice their opinions in an orderly manner so that everyone in the meeting can be can hear and be heard." Okay. Um, what we're
talking about here when it refers to this word right here, members, members are the five of you, not the public, not people approaching the mo podium, not somebody who has an IUP taken away from them or has an axe to
grind or anything else. It's you people and um and your voice and your opinion needs to be handled in an orderly manner so that everyone can be heard, the majority and the minority. Um, and I think that's where the confusion comes
in this uh in this uh complaint which states basically implies basically that the rights of all members were not uh protected and that it wasn't very efficient and orderly.
Um again a complaint that is was submitted and we need to consider it and um and I um I think once it once it clears up in terms of uh what
Robert's rules is imply, you know, implied to apply to the implication of who it applies to. I think um I think it uh it's clear that it has to with you folks that as a chair you wouldn't cut somebody off that wants to speak or not recognize somebody that wants to speak
on a certain topic. Anyways, also looking for direction on what you want to do with this. Well, to me, Robert's rules is is a set of guidelines. Basically, our packets are all set up by it and everything, but we have rules, procedures, and other
policies that supersede some of it in there when it comes to like uh our guidelines for public forums and everything else. So, I mean, it the city sets it up this way and we follow it.
We're we're following the rule. Well, I again I think this may be a little vague. It's a general generalization. He's not following it. Um, I I'd like to know how have it be more specified in
what way what actions did the mayor take that he was failing or he violated them. I mean, I I understand your your need for for clarification.
Um, we really don't have a complaint form that goes back to the complaintant to please specify what you're talking about. about I mean it's it's the basis of what's written right here and we get to look at that and determine if what was written what was complained officially complained about is
legitimate and if it's not dismiss it if it is figure out how to correct it or whatever the case is but I can make a comment because somebody called me and made a um I don't know it's not a complaint just kind of
whining about it but they just their their problem was that some people got more time than others. I think that was a big thing that I heard. That's at the public forum. Yeah. Okay. This is this is just rules of order as
it relates to um running a meeting. Public forum is is quasi. That's kind of at the discretion of the of the mayor. I mean, the mayor can extend it if he'd like or not. Yeah. I was just thinking maybe that's
what this I'm just trying to read into the complaint. I have no idea. Right. Well, in this case, we could dismiss it, but encourage the
um applicant who submitted it to resubmit it with specified information. Does that sound accurate? Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mundle, uh, council. Part of the process here is to let the
council know that a complaint has been filed for some event at a meeting. You know, in this case, for procedural breach of an unspecified nature. Um, it's somewhat different than the last complaint in so far as I don't know what
you're going to find that isn't already alleged. Um, and so I'm I'm reluctant to set this pattern of of of leaving things open until they are uh conclusively closed. I mean, at this point, you can look at it and say, either we want to keep it open because we think there's something there and we might learn more
about it that we're concerned about. Or, frankly, this is just not a big deal. Nothing happened. We haven't seen anything that merits further discussion. And that's sort of a balancing test informally that you all take on here on the council. And if it just doesn't seem like there is anything
there, you don't need to feel compelled to table it. Uh, yeah. I'm not in this instance. I'm not suggesting tableabling it. But if we dismiss this one, does the applicant have the option to resubmit this issue with specific
information that can can the applicant resubmit? Well, um, Mr. Mayor, council, in this case, uh, the applicant is a complaintant, correct? So someone always sort of has the ability to lodge a complaint about the way they've been treated by the
city. Certainly meritless complaints over time will build that sort of understanding of what the complainant is complaining about and whether there's a you know merit behind it. Um but it doesn't receive the same level of
scrutiny or protection that that an applicant would for say a land use application or something of that nature. So, so I quibble technically to call it an applicant or you know in that sense, but you have a complainant, they filed a complaint. Um, I think any complainant would want to be heard and make sure the council knows that the complaint came
in. What you do with it is of course up to you and the person to directly answer your question. They would have the ability to continue filing complaints at some point. Meritless complaints might constitute harassing behavior, but I'm not saying this is there, nor am I suggesting it will go there.
Okay. I propose dismissal. Is that the consensus of the council at this time? Okay. Okay. We'll move to dismiss that. Moving on to 2.0
public form. Find that one here quickly. Okay, Mr. Mayor and council members, we have before us here um kind of the rules of conduct that we've um been practicing uh at East Bethl here as it relates to those that approach the podium and for
public comment. Um we um want to review these, make sure they're still applicable for this evening and um see if there's any additions or subtractions that you want to make. But essentially uh it says that those who wish to address the city council must sign up do
so before the citizen input questions part of the meeting begins. You must be current residents of East Bethl Minnesota and should state their name and address before addressing their topic. Non-citizens will be allowed to speak at the mayor's discretion. Mayor will invite speakers to the podium and they are asked to clearly speak into the
microphone. Speakers are limited to three minutes to present their comments or questions. If there are multiple residents who wish to address the same topic, they should choose a spokesperson to speak for them. And at its choice, the city council may simply listen to comments or may engage in dialogue with
the residents. Is there any changes that anyone would like to make to these or is this going to be the um the rules we want to proceed with this evening? Well, number three is not being enforced.
What I can do, Mr. Mayor, is I can set an alarm for 3 minutes and when it goes off, that'll be in indication to the speaker that the three minutes have expired and they should wrap it up. I'll have a timer going and then at 30 seconds I'll tell him to wrap it up.
Okay. Do you want to do that? That work. Okay. Um anybody in agreement at that then? All right. 3.0. I'll be abstaining from this discussion
item and stepping down from the dis. Uh Mr. Mr. Mayor and council members, uh, last meeting or last work session, we discussed Whispering Aspen and it was asked that we bring it back to um to try and find some sort of finality to it uh
before it kind of gets um I guess postponed indefinitely like it has many many years and and uh times before that. Um so essentially um we have a um I think we have kind of a a
scenario in which um uh we've talked about the contract in the past. We know that the contract um omits some information uh and is clear on other parts of information and there's
multiple points that can range from um there's road road dollar uh you know discussions that we've had on this. There are uh using of the facility. there is operating costs of the facility and um and essentially we had two
letters that went out um to BDM construction. Uh one was concerning uh the um the road deficiency amount and uh the other is concerning kind of the call it the operating cost of the facility.
And when we talk about operating costs, we're referring to electricity and water and sewer and and um their portion of, you know, uh cleaning, you know, adding it all up. And I think we came to there was a letter
specific to that. We came to a letter in the amount of let me just see if it's here. We called it CAMS or common area maintenance and um came up with a a monthly rent in the amount of $450 per month payable the
first of each month. This covers the cams, it covers electricity, covers internet, covers water usage, sewer usage, um their portion of mowing, cleaning, snow plowing, that sort of thing. Does not cover um a sign that's
out front uh that the contract doesn't identify either. uh but could very well cover that as well. And the the purpose for bringing this is to try and come to I think last time we had a little bit of a heated meeting. Um and the goal was to
kind of let cooler minds prevail and hopefully that's the case here this evening and uh and we can come to some sort of finality on this. our options of course being legal, which is I think your most expensive option uh or um
agreement uh to cover some of the operating costs um I've I've had conversations with some of you if not all of you with regards to the roads um and some of the complexities dating back to 2004 on the roads. um you know roads
can be considered in this discussion or it can be part of the agreement if you want. Um in other words, everyone gives something uh and uh and and we come to an agreement on that. So, just wanted to um keep this front and center in terms
of trying to get this plane landed uh so that as a community we can move on and not continue to kick this football around every single year. So, in this we've got what how many different issues? We got the roads, you
got the rental. I mean, I think we need to tackle each one on an individual basis. Um, we'd probably gain more common ground going that route, you know, and trying to lump it all into
one deal. We're just fighting back and forth over it. Um, another question I have is, is this going to break the contract or how is this going? Mr. Mr. Mayor and Council, the contract does not speak to um common
area maintenance in terms of uh it does it the contract says that they can correct me certainly if I'm wrong and I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth here, but essentially says uh that they have use of office space, something to that effect. And it doesn't define
how much office space, square footage, or anything else. Um and the contract does not say that they get free electricity and free internet and free operating costs. I'm trying to trying to use the word operating cost as maybe what your monthly cost would be every
single month if you were a normal business out there paying for telephone, paying for, you know, whatever. Today, telephone is generally cell phones, so that's probably off the table. Um, there was a there was a um also maybe maybe a third issue was was property taxes identified in the contract uh stating
that the purchaser BDM was responsible for property taxes. Um, and as of this last year, um, or for this calendar year, property taxes are currently being paid. Um, so for the last however many years that this contract has been
enforced, the property taxes have not been paid. So, this is what I'm saying. Um, is there a reach back on property taxes or can that be thrown in for a negotiated settlement? You know, we'll give this, you give that, we settle with
this. And uh and that's why I think um you know we can go to we can go to we can go the legal route and we can list all the damages from dating back to the beginning of the contract if we want. We can let a judge decide. And um and that's that's rolling the dice. Uh in my
opinion, uh you never know how they're going to generally they they split the baby in half. So it's uh it never never usually ends up very well going to court. But um but at any rate um it's uh I you know when we came up with the cam amount here I think it was a very
reasonable amount. Um and uh and I would say it's um you know in recognition of the fact that the city has never build us for uh electricity, never build us for internet, never build us for these things. Um we felt that the 450 a month
was a reasonable amount to to catch up with at this point um and moving forward. And I think the the uh the business had indicated they wanted to stay there five more years. That could be part of the agreement that um that
that be part of it as well. Um so I I kind of lay it out there. Yes, there's a lot of different options and my hope is that um that there's people that'll settle on the easiest path of least resistance and move
forward so that anyone coming in the future saying, "Yeah, but they but no, we settled on this." And and everybody agreed that that was um you know, the path forward on this. So, that's kind of my hope. My hope is that we um stop
spending staff time researching and regurgitating and and trying to figure out uh different things over and over and over again. Every new council member that comes in wants an update. Uh you wanted an update on on information. I mean, it's just the nature of the beast and so it takes up a lot of time and if
we can come to a reasonable um uh you know agreement and um you know for a certain period of time, great. I think everybody wins in the process. Have we um
brought this to the league and talked to him about it at all? We have not. We have not brought it to the league. The league and um uh our city attorney can can um update me on that. Um the league is generally a defense uh scenario. So, if
we are late named in a lawsuit, they provide the defense through the uh the trust, League of Minnesota City's Insurance Trust. The reason I ask is because they really frown on if this turns out to be like a breaking contract deal because that could cost us our rate
and it it raise our insurance cost for the city, too. Again, I I don't think you can break a contract when it's not defined in the contract. Well, that's that's I know what I just want to make sure we're right going the right way here.
I mean, your thoughts. Uh, Mr. Mayor, Council, uh, I don't have the answer to your question. I can look into it. I spent four years working at the league. I understand that they, um, they typically handle more traditional tort liability claims. Uh, but that does not
necessarily mean that they won't cover a contractual liability claim. Uh, like I said, I don't know. and I'll happily look into it. Is that true though and and Jacob in terms of u they're more defense and not offense legal? Oh, that's certainly
correct. Yeah, absolutely correct. Yeah. Well, I'm going to put my two cents in here. I did meet with Mr. Mundo senior and um I think in his heart he thinks he's doing everything right. I don't agree um
with everything. I think um every business in the world would love to have a free place, free o overhead. I mean that is a dream come true. And I agree that the contract does not say it's supposed to be free. However, there
is that issue of interest owed him that we really need to research. I don't know how far you've gotten into that, gone to banks or whatever and gotten that kind of information, but we need to find that out before we go legal or not legal. I'd
personally prefer a negotiation contract. I think $450 a month is still a steal. It's like almost free in today's rates, but um I think they're going to be done in within five years anyway. So that's my
two cents. Everybody knows my position on this. I don't think taxpayer dollars should have ever been used in any way, shape, or form to pay the utilities here. I don't know why it was not brought forth
sooner. I do not know why it was not more transparent through the years. Um, it's the job of city council to be a watchdog for the community's money.
And in this case, once we identified that tax dollars were being spent, I can't find a reason why it should have been being spent for 21 years.
I don't know why it is being spent. Shouldn't have been done in 2004 and it shouldn't been done and it shouldn't be going on right now. The city and their taxpayers have a right to know exactly where their money is being spent. They
also have a right to know or right to say no and have their voices heard. It's apparent that half this city at least did not have any idea that tax dollars were being spent in this way. Now, I didn't come here to fight
residents. I came here to fight for residents. And this is something that going into the future when these bills come up to be paid, I don't know if I can vote to approve them because I don't agree with taxpayer
dollars being spent this way. Um, not for 21 years. There may have been a time when this would have been a temporarily thing that might have been all right where the city would have benefited from a contract like this, but as of right now, the city's losing
money. 21 years to do a development is I I've never even heard of a development going on this long. It's one heck of a great deal. and it is. But at the same time, to think that the only thing I have to worry about in my
business is showing up, that's that's it's an unheard of deal. Um, I think the taxpayers deserve better than this. I really do. I mean, it's it comes down to ethics,
fundamentals, and what's right and wrong here. And I I can't find any excuse whatsoever for taxpayer dollars to be used for 21 years. I just can't. And that's something that needs to be stopped.
I mean, we're we're negotiating in good faith here. That 450 is I don't know. Take it to any business or any developer in this city and they jump on it. I don't know why it's not being looked at as thank you. Sounds like a good deal
yet. We're going to continue on, but what I'm hearing is that if we try to do this, it's got to go legal. So, a business that has been given free rent
for 21 years and has not had to pay any utilities is going to sue this city or fight legally. [Music] I I I don't know what business class
that ever came out of, but I've never even heard of anything like that. Nothing like that. And that's what it comes down to. I've had free rent and I've had all my bills or or utilities paid in this development. And yet
I'm mad at the city and I'm mad at student c at council city council for bringing it up. I don't know what else to say about this. I really don't. And that's how I feel about it. It's a
councilman's job to bring up things to the attention of this city when they find out things where tax dollars could be could be very well looked at as as as being uh well, what do you call it?
Misappropriated. misuse. Um, not transparent. Um, and that's wrong. It's just wrong.
You can't use taxpayers dollars like that and not benefit the city at all. There's no benefit right now. We're losing money. That's how I feel. anything, Jim? I agree exactly what Mr.
Miller said. I mean, I've never ever heard of a business that doesn't have to pay anything. And yet, this was brought to our attention. We researched it. Hard to believe, but we found out that that's
true. And I feel the same way as Mr. Miller. It's like totally wrong. Totally wrong. So So what uh as a result I don't know. I I mean I I would like Sorry. Sorry, mayor. I I would like to find
something that's fair and something that we can approach and do because we have no no means. We we don't want to attack BDM. That That's not what we're trying to do. We're trying to prevent certain
things from happening to city funds. Okay. And I'm I'm I'm I'm sorry that if a councilman can abstain from voting on issues about whispering pines
or whispering as I'm sorry, and uh turn around during the bill voting time and okay bills to be paid for this business. To me, that's not abstaining. I mean, you're actually okaying bills
that fund a family business here. Um, and you can go down the line. Electric, water, sewer, I mean, Wi-Fi, all this stuff that's not abstaining. We have to be fair. Okay, I agree. We
need to be fair with this. We also need to honor older city commitments that we have and this is an older commitment that the city made here. Uh but at the same time, the taxpayers of this city have to come first. The contracts that
we have in this city have to benefit this city. We cannot go backwards. We're trying to do something here that we're trying to fix something that's come to our attention. This isn't an attack. This is this is preventative
from happening in the future in anywhere down the line. Sorry. No, you're fine. Well, I would suggest maybe myself, Mr. look and one other
council person sit down with the BDM one last time and see if we can iron out this and then put it to bed. I don't care who else wants to go with me and Matt, but if BDM's willing to sit
down and would just try and hash something out here and get to a happy medium somewhere that we all can live with. I'd like to try and see that, but that's up to you guys. I have no problem with that.
Brian Senior, you have a problem with that? Well, we're going to do that. If we're going to do that, then I would like uh Arty, Suzanne
to be the two council people and we can sit down and have a frank discussion about my contract, why it was put in place. I've always been willing to work with the city,
but the way I have been attacked, my son has been attacked, it's just incredibly bad. Makes this council look bad. I've been doing business in this city for 22 years.
I lived in this city probably way before you guys did. I lived right across the street for 18 years from that development. I watched it go in. I watched it fail. I watched it become a cess poolool. I watched the
community center get destroyed. The city did nothing. I came by and I made an offer to the city. The city accepted it. Took five years to work out this contract. And you say this contract has holes in it.
It's a rock solid contract. I am willing to sit down with you. Thank you. Well, I would propose it be more of a closed session type of an event where we're
all together and we can all hear everything because there's a good chance you when things go from first per first time hearing to second time, we're not going to hear everything. And I think we need all opinions to hear what he has to
say. Mr. Mr. Mayor, we should check with the attorney on whether we can close for this type of topic. I don't think it's for acquisition of property or contract negotiation possibly, but I'm not sure. Mr. Mayor, council, Mr.
Look, at this point, um, Mr. Look is certainly correct. We don't fall within the categories for closed meeting for the purpose of property acquisition or the more traditional aspects of closed meeting. and um it's a judgment call as to whether or not it invokes the litigation exception
to the open meeting law. Um it's something we can look into and follow up with you as to whether or not it's possible for us to enter a closed session, but right now I'd rather not just make a call from the chair. And Mr. Mayor, if I can, um the yourself
and Susanna have been identified as the as the negotiators, if you will. I need to double check what the committee structure is. We certainly don't want a majority of a committee um you know discussing this. So I'm not I don't recall if the two of you are on a
specific committee or not, but that may have to change the uh who can who can be in this meeting that's not a public meeting. So I'll I'll research that in the morning and shoot everyone out an email.
Okay, you could let's do that and then uh move forward and uh once you get the information that get all of us the information that we'll move forward on that sound good.
All right, moving on. 4.0 4.0. Uh Mr. Mr. Mayor and Council, we've had a um shall we say a a a property with challenges uh recently here that um that I think um one of the complaintants
came in was um was was pleased with the outcome and I think they're still working towards that. And part of that discussion um then came about with um whether or not we have a crime-free community ordinance. Now, we have uh nuisance ordinances
uh that are currently on the books, but from what I understand, a crime-free ordinance would give a little bit more um see if we can pull it up here. A little bit more um teeth to be able to um
get out of that one. to be able to handle some of these properties. So, the question then becomes, um, it's on this screen. Bear with me one second. The question then becomes, do we want to go down this road of a crime-free ordinance? Um,
and we're dealing with junk vehicles. There were some junk vehicles that were there. Um, and some of the ordinances apply to this and uh, some apply to cleanup, but we were kind of dealing with and blight as well as you can see here, but we were kind of dealing with with squatters, you know, people that
some were invited, some were not. Uh, and then that kind of led to some of these uh um issues that you're seeing here as far as our um, ordinances currently identify. Um, what I will tell you is that the crime-free ordinance has
its legal challenges. Uh there are groups out there, ACLU and others that um that believe that they're put in place to um to essentially be um uh used against certain people groups maybe is a
good way to put it. And um and so often times they're challenged. And so when we talk about uh risk, right, we're talking about ordinances on the books that um that could potentially produce lawsuits or produce uh you know uh challenges
legally. And um and so this is kind of the the risk, right, that that at least I've been warned about in terms of crime-free ordinances. And if you want to go down this road, we can certainly go down it. We can investigate what I think Rapids has a crime-free
ordinance. they've they may have a tolerance for legal challenges or they may have drafted it in such a way that that reduces some of those challenges. But the question for me as I was kind of thinking through this was um how many do we have? Um you know in my time here I
think we've we've got one for sure and we may have another one. U but it's not like we're dealing with a dozen of these things every year, right? I mean, it's um it's somewhat limited in its scope and um and it may be something that
while it's easier for our law enforcement to go in and prosecute violators um that um that that need just really isn't there quite yet for this. But um I wanted to bring it up kind of get your
you know kind of take get the council's take on on the time frame. I know that the the individual that that came to the podium was was not pleased with the amount of time it took. Um and and I think our law enforcement was very clear
as to what the sheriff can and can't do. And uh and so if your ordinances aren't specifically written that empower the sheriff with a crime-free type of ordinance, then um then you potentially have a um you know a longer process to
try and resolve these these um these properties. So um I bring it up. I um it's not like we don't have nuisance ordinances. I don't think we necessarily enforce a lot of them, but uh but we can
certainly uh look at um you know, we are just so folks know, we're a complaint based uh city. So, if for example, there's junk vehicles in a yard and a neighbor doesn't like that, they can come in and fill out a complaint form and uh and then we'll follow up on that. But we aren't actively or proactively
going out and saying, "You have junk vehicles, you need to remove these." Um, so, uh, I want to just kind of get your input on on whether you want to go down this road of a crime free and, um, and if you feel it's warranted and if not,
we can we can kind of play it by ear if, um, if we start to see more of these type of problem properties. Well, my thinking is, yeah, let's do it. But then again, I don't want to impede on freedoms of our residents either. So,
it would have to be very specific and um be very oriented to obvious crime because I'm all about freedom pretty much anyway. So, I I care about our residents freedom.
Okay. I'd like to see us uh get a hold of Rapidses, look at it and talk to them and see how often they actually use it, you know,
and uh for further discussion before we really proceed to have staff look at that. I feel in the situation that this took place that we have to let the professionals handle it. I mean, we can
make decisions, but I'm not an expert as a sheriff. And I had conversations with Derek before and there's certain protocol that they got to follow. So, they just can't run in there, which I'm sure they'd like
to. I would too, but unfortunately with laws and rules that we have, it has to be done in a certain way. And if it could have been done faster, that' have been fantastic. But it wasn't. So, I think it needs to be left to the
professionals on all these. That's my opinion. Well, I agree with that, Jim. I think, you know, I think the reason we're looking at this is probably because of the county sheriff's office. Was there they were restrained from
doing a lot of things and we found found a way to do it otherwise, but this was just brought up as adding some kind of teeth or to it to to move it along further. But I, you know, I do
agree with what you're saying. Okay. We can certainly reach out to Rapids. We can get their take on it. Maybe they can have somebody speak to us about it as well. And and uh also try and dig into I know the League of Minnesota Cities has done some work on this as well. Some flyers we can get out
kind of identifying some of the challenges potentially and um and we can go from there. Everybody fine with that? Yep. All right. Nothing further. I'll close
the uh council work meeting.