--------- All right, it is 7:01 p.m. We will call this city council meeting to order for could all rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the >> All right, doing roll call. Uh Council
Member Homegrren and Council Member Lundine are uh absent tonight. They did let us know they would not be here. Uh we will open up the public comment. If there's any public comment at this time, you're more than welcome to come forward and just state your name and address for the record. >> Thanks for coming in, Todd.
>> Yeah, no problem. >> Todd Christensen, County Commissioner, District 4. I just uh thought I would come in and uh um has uh Jason updated you guys yet on CASA 5? Yep. Roundabout and everything. >> So, okay. I didn't know uh
>> um yeah, I was going to talk to you a little bit about that, but if he >> if he already updated you, so that was crazy though finding an asbestous pipe >> down there and it's real shame, but I mean >> at least we're getting a you know we it'll hold until next spring as far as
the grant goes and everything. So for you know and then uh I was going to find out too. I had to leave earlier. Personal thing. How did it go with uh the school come in for questions at all or? >> No. So uh the school couldn't make it tonight. Um we had scheduled them for
roughly 5:00 and they notified us I believe yesterday that they couldn't make it because they had a meeting at 6 p.m. at their intermediate school. >> Well that's that's kind of disappointing. But like I say would have been good to have them here answering questions though. But uh anyway, um any other questions for me as far as uh the
county goes? >> I do have one for you actually now that you're here. Um >> so I have been talking to more community members out um by the intermediate school here in town where 8th Avenue and Heritage meet. Um there's that intersection there that's kind of a
problem. Uh I know next year you guys are planning on repaving that. Um but I I've talked to engineer. I really think that it should be considered. I know you already have plans, but it should be considered to add a traffic control of some sort there. Probably a roundabout, >> probably another roundabout.
>> And you know, right now, you know, Jason or Justin had said, you know, it's not in the plan, but it's in the plan in the future. But if you're going to be spending all this money to repave it, and they wanted to do some like median work there now, >> why not just do the roundabout and not have to cut out that work in a few years, you know? And I I think it's
going to that would alleviate a potential issue that we have um for safety first of all uh for increased traffic flow with some development and then we have another access issue to another property that that might help. Um >> now just to just to clarify so past Cole Burns and down turn to get into the
school down there. >> Correct. Yep. It's 8th Avenue. Yep. >> Okay. Yeah. Cuz I have driven back by there before and there is a lot of traffic >> and it's it's dangerous for kids. There has been a child hit there in the past. >> School buses going in and out and everything too. So, >> so that that would be a perfect spot for a roundabout. Um, and I did talk to
Justin about it. I just wanted to get it on your radar. Okay. You know, maybe it's, >> you know, the state stuff has already been approved, but as you've seen with our state stuff, we just did a a a re a redo on the bid in a couple weeks, you know, so maybe this is something that we could look into because that's that's a
long-term future thing. It's going to you're going to need something there. >> You might as well do it now instead of cutting out money that you already spent. So, that was just something that I thought I'd bring up. Uh it's been a pretty heavy topic. Uh when I was out campaigning over in that area, everybody, not everybody, a vast majority had an issue with that
intersection. So >> I can see where that could be an issue over there. There's no doubt, especially when the kids are going to school, you know. So, >> all righty. Anybody else got any questions? >> I do have one question for you. >> No, you have one. >> We discussed in the past that people had concerns with whiskey. I was wondering if the county had any
>> Are you referring to uh the the speed limit sign? uh not necessarily just be but just trying to address it as a whole whatever whatever the path is towards safety there talking about kids walking. Um >> well we had discussed like one of the times I was in here and we discussed and
I had been talking to Justin about that too going through the process of uh um where it says end what is it end of the 30 mph because then right after that you have another crosswalk. So it'd be nice to be able to get that past the crosswalk at least. So,
>> I think we need to go a lot more firm on that if it were me. I mean, you it's your county road, right? But the state is supposedly telling the county that the speed limit can't be changed. So, I don't know. That's that's ongoing conversation. >> There seem to there's some steps to go through there, too. But, so, I'm going to update. We'll talk I'll talk to
Justin again about this over here and then I'll see what's going on with the update on whiskey. So, >> Okay. >> All righty guys. >> Awesome. >> Good. All right. >> Yeah. Thank you for coming in. We appreciate it. >> Thanks for having me. >> Thank you. Can I got to ask you a question? I thought it was clarified
that in order for a speed limit to go up and down up or down on a county road, there has to be a speed study. Okay. And if that speed study shows that the traffic's actually going faster than the speed limit, they can raise the speed limit >> supposedly.
>> Okay. Supposedly, that isn't all in cement. >> It's complicated. I I feel like there's got to be some sort of exception there. the if the city and the county agree to I don't know. So that's something to to look into. >> All right. Any other public comment
tonight? Hearing none. Miss Wood, did you you had an announcement to make? >> I I do. Thank you, mayor and council. Uh this is Josie Wood, the city administrator. I wanted to take a moment to address a recent issue that came to our attention regarding our city Facebook page a little earlier this evening and more specifically the
blocking of certain words and comments and posts. First and foremost, I want to sincerely apologize to anyone who is affected by this. The filter that caused certain words to be blocked was unintentionally activated due to a toggle setting that remained on without our knowledge. This setting is designed to limit offensive and inappropriate
language, but unfortunately, it also blocked legitimate conversations, and for that, city staff is truly sorry. We deeply value the voices of our of everyone in our community. It was never our intention to restrict comments. Uh those comments have been unhidden. As soon as we became aware of the issue, we
took immediate steps to correct it by adjusting the setting. We're also putting in place new checks to ensure that this doesn't happen again in the future, such as reviewing this toggle setting when Facebook does their updates. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience and any frustration this may have caused. And thank you for your understanding.
>> Thank you. And you guys did a great job. You adjusted that on the fly in, you know, a few minutes. So, Facebook has been a little glitchy with some of that stuff. You see it in all sorts of pages. I appreciate you guys fixing that and uh we'll keep a diligent eye on that. Uh next we'll move on to adopting the
agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda tonight? >> Uh yes, mayor. We do have an agenda item um being added as K2 resolution for social media archiving. >> All right, sounds good. Any other changes or additions from you guys? >> Motion to adopt.
>> Second. >> Motion to adopt from council member Peterson, second from council member Heman. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? Motion carries 30. The agenda is adopted. Uh, next we'll go on to approval of the city council meeting minutes. Uh, we'll do both at once
unless somebody has something to pull out or change. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion approved by council member Heman, second by Council Member Peterson. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. 30.
Uh, announcements. Park and Rec board meeting Tuesday, October 28th, 2025 at 6 p.m. City Council meeting, Wednesday, November 5th, 2025 at 7 p.m. Uh, economic development authority, Wednesday, November 5th, 2025, immediately following the city council meeting. City offices will be closed
Tuesday, November 11th, in observance of of holiday. Uh, Hills final assessment hearing Tuesday, November 18th, 2025 at 7 p.m. Uh, council committee reports, are there any tonight? You want me to go first? Sure.
>> Uh, community ed resumed. Uh, they talked about highlights from the summer of what they did with summer programming and attendance. Um, mentioned the school referendum and then we also had the Chamber of
Commerce had their meeting and it was basically just a a just a I'm trying to think the word. Uh >> networking meeting. You they move you to different tables every 30 minutes with different discussion topics to get you
talking to different people in the community. >> That was it. >> How was that networking? I I think that's usually a pretty good one. When I was on there, you know, as a city rep, they always seem to have a lot of questions and it's nice to be able to answer them in a format where they feel comfortable. Did you have a lot of questions or not? Not Not particularly.
with the people I was sitting with. There was a joint one between the North 65 chamber and the Bram Chamber. And the first one I got put with like four or five bankers that were all not I don't think any of them were in I think they were all either in Cambridge or Bram. So didn't really have anything I could help
them with. >> Okay. Well, it's good you go to those. So they can be very valuable. >> George, you want me to go first? I I don't have much of one. >> Go ahead. >> All right. So, uh, I've been the school, uh, the school board liaison for the city of Isani for the last three years.
I've been to a lot of the school board meetings, um, over that time, and I've learned a lot about how the stuff works. And I just wanted to inform people that there is a referendum vote coming up November 4th. Um, city of Iani residents will vote at Sani uh, community center. I believe it's 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Uh, it's important that everybody knows that there is that that election. Um, and, you know, be informed on what it is and make your decision to vote. That's all I got to say. November 4th, get out and vote. >> All right. Fire district board meeting.
I discussed what we, you know, the consensus we had here about uh having a committee and go over some of the things that are that we're discussing with the joint powers agreement. Um,
I did have the attorney get back to me actually the night of that meeting and he said cities and townships do have the authority to charge for extraordinary fires. Um, >> I didn't get to have the discussion with
him whether or not he he was in the opinion too that he wasn't sure how that fee would get collected. Um, I didn't want to spend more time. I just wanted to see if what we were looking at was possible. And it
is. It's just a matter of how we word it in the joint powers agreement. I tried to explain that to the fire board. Um, I got I got shot down on that and they said they had already discussed it, but they've never discussed it. Um,
it wasn't. They said it was discussed at the last meeting, which I absolutely know it wasn't because I went in and as soon as I explained to them that we wanted more time to discuss it here as a board, we shut that discussion down. So, the meeting before that I
wasn't at. The meeting before that, it definitely wasn't discussed. um kind of threw me for a loop that I got thrown under the bus a little bit on that, but uh Oxford Township is they wanted more
time on the ordinance authority. He needed more time to talk to his board and he needed more time to talk to them about the budget. I asked a few budget questions. didn't get a lot of my questions out um
because I know I have more time now because Oxford needed another month so it bought me more time and I thought I'd clarify exactly what you guys wanted for questions. Um maybe send them to Josie and I'll have a copy. I took some notes and I made some, you know, marks on on
the budget that we had, but I remember us talking more than the marks I had on that budget. So, sure, >> maybe take another look at that. >> Um, >> did they say anything about a group like
a a work session for the fire board? Because that was I think our biggest takeaway is >> we do we need a work session? I I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. We'll we'll see how this next meeting goes. >> Was it proposed or this weren't receptive to it or >> I I did mention it. I didn't get any
feedback from anybody. It was a tough board meeting, guys. I'm telling you, wasn't >> fun. Maybe maybe next month, you know, make a motion to to start some sort of work session. Maybe that's what it takes. I mean, >> that's exact, you know, that's a good
way of doing it. Just see if I can get some motions out of these guys. >> Okay. >> And the stuff passed so long again about making the uh meetings more available or >> the what? >> Making the meetings available to the public. That isn't going I That isn't going
anywhere right now. >> All right. Well, we'll keep working at it. We're a group. We're a team. >> I'm going to have to get another approach to this whole situation. Got a few ideas. So I will be recording all
the meetings um so I can go back because what's happening at the meetings and what they say happened at the meetings are are amounting to two different things in my eyes. So I'm going to keep a a voice
record of it and move on from here. >> Okay. None of the budget stuff was addressed though. I addressed a few of them, but I don't get straight answers. I don't get common sense answers. I try to clarify it.
>> I I don't get common sense answers and I try to clarify it and really take baby steps at it so I can get the answer and I I never get straight answers. >> I just don't get straight answers. >> Adjusting CIP to maintain 0% that was a no-go.
>> What? adjusting their CIP plan to maintain 0% for the budget adjustment. That was >> No, I didn't make that fight last meeting because when Oxford decided to say they needed another month, I decided after
>> things that happened before that, I decided to take a pass on a few of those things since I had another month. >> They they need a month for the JPA or for the budget >> for the budget. So neither the budget or the joint powers agreement are delayed for discussion till next month.
>> Okay. >> So I did have I did talk about a few of the things but like I said I got beat up pretty bad and I just backed off. >> Fair enough. It's not always easy. These these boards are these boards are difficult sometimes. Our jobs here are
tough. >> Thanks for trying. >> Yeah. My hands are up in the air on that one. >> All right. >> It should be an easy thing, but it it isn't. >> All right. Any other council committee
reports? >> No. All right. So, we will move on to uh business item K1 resolution to consider approving the determination of Minnesota paid leave law percentage for employee and employer. So, I had asked to bring this forward just to have a maybe a short discussion on what this means for
the city. Uh this is going to be I mean I've talked about this quite a bit. This this is going to devastate local economies, government, all sorts of all sorts of entities across the state. Um and I want to set up our city our city for success if we can. Uh now we have
had some new hires recently. Um but I think we're pretty much fully staffed >> after tonight. >> Yeah, we have two positions uh in the works. um they're that are actively but they're not there's no offer made. They're
>> listed but we have a couple open positions. >> Sure. So tonight I just wanted to discuss, you know, we have, you know, great city employees and and great taxpayers and I kind of want to make this an even playing field for everybody. And I would like to in the future, you know, with future work
contracts or employment contracts, we have something on there that protects the residents, you know, because this basically these paid family medical leave things. because they can you get paid time off and whether we talk about adjusting PTO for new hires or adjusting
some sort of benefits to to compensate um for this uh we don't want a situation where we have you know a potential employee taking off their P using their PTO and then stacking it with this and it just creates an undue burden for our taxpayers. So, I wanted to have a discussion at some point about, you
know, maybe changing the contracts of future employment um to make it a little more favorable to the city to offset the impact of this paid family medical leave stuff. Um, I didn't know if anybody had any ideas. Uh, it's really just an initial discussion um that was prompted
because I saw this on here and we're going to have to do something about it to consider, you know, the long-term impacts supposed to be effective January 1st and what is that going to mean for us. So, >> I do have some information to share, too, just in regards to what this is. >> So, the Minnesota Paid Family Medical
Leave Act uh does take effect January 1st of 2026. >> Uh the contribution uh depends on how the city sets who pays. Uh the way that this is drafted for your um consideration is a 5050 split. 50% would be paid by the city, 50% would be paid
by the employee. Um the state's plan was 888% of total wages. staff did a great job. Human resources on our finance director team uh went out and found other companies to compare against and we were able to get that rate down lower
to 76% of the wages. So that dollar amount comes to $27,31722. Half of that, so roughly a little over 13 and a half thousand would be paid by the employee. It's a 5050 share. the amount of money that comes from uh
general fund and levy. So for the general fund and EDA, uh that would be uh $18,2695. That's for the full premium. >> Sure. >> And um just I'm sure that you're all aware and I've looked at it because it
does impact our city greatly. Uh this is a law that we're not able to change >> um or have really much discretion in. And when employees are able to use this as it will be their right to do. Um there are some caveats with it. Um but
it doesn't replace 100% of their wage. There is a tiered scale as a percentage. Um so depending on how much you make uh it does get capped out. I believe that dollar amount, don't quote me, is just a little over 1500. Um so per week. So it
depends on what you make if it actually pays you for being gone. So I just want to make you aware of that as well. It's not a full paycheck because some people did think that, but it definitely is a paid leave bank. It'll be similar operated to how workman's compensation is with this outside vendor that you
have to apply for it and such. >> Sure. Um, did you guys have any input on that? Thank you for all the information. By the way, I'm happy to hear you guys got a lower rate. I know we had talked about that at the LMC. I fought to have local choice in this at the at the
League of Minnesota Cities because I think local jurisdictions should decide um on something like that. You know, I'm personally worried about the schools and the hospitals especially. You know, if you have this this opportunity to take time off and it's paid and you have even 5% of the school district or 5% of the
nurses or hospitals take it, what does that mean for the services in our area? So, I I I fought to get some local um local choice in that and it wasn't successful this year, but I'm going to come back next year again. Um but in the meantime, what what what do you guys think we should do to protect our city?
Um you know, it's not really a fun conversation, but it's a conversation that has to be had. So, have any creative ideas? Are you guys okay with considering maybe the future contracts for for workers? We look at and see is there maybe we can offset some of the PTO they get with something like this.
They also get to earn sick and save time also. That's another thing that was rolled out this January 1st which is again similar to PTO. So >> a lot of overlap. We got a presentation from uh about this at the August no September chamber meeting. >> Yep. >> That's when come in and give a
presentation for probably half hour and then do a bunch of Q&A. But I mean like all these things are just kind of overlapping. It's really hard to get a true >> picture of >> how much of an employee you can depend upon. And then like they talked about there being some kind of grant you could
apply for if someone applies for this to offset the cost of an interim employee to come in and fill in, but they have no idea how big that pool will be and how many applicants would be and how they determine who gets what amount of money. And it's just a lot of a lot of unknowns with a lot of uh a lot of risk involved
>> and a lot of money for everybody, >> right? financial risk. >> Yeah. >> But I know that the 50% is the most we can the even split is the most in favor of the taxpayer can go. >> Mhm. >> And then the rate seems better than what
they were saying the the one that the state plan was doing. So that's another savings. >> Sure. Yeah. I think K1 here is good. But I just wanted to open the conversation for you know future like do we consider that or do we have a discussion on cow maybe get that on a cow agenda to talk
about look at some specific work contracts um that we do have maybe non- labor or non union contracts that we can adjust you know to sort of compensate for that because that's what businesses are doing you know I've talked to a couple local businesses and they're protecting themselves by basically they
have to adopt these two policies the earn sick and save time and the Minnesota paid leave so now they're just offering their employees less other benefits >> or more contractors and less employees >> or Yeah. So maybe that's a discussion we have. I don't know if you guys want to get that on Kyle, but that was kind of where I was going with the discussion
tonight just to get it started and get you thinking. >> So this resolution that >> this resolution is to enter into an agreement with Sunlife who is that other
vendor uh not going with the state plan. we do need to have the council vote on not going with the state plan. Um, and that it'll be a 50-50 cost share, 50% to the city and 50% to the employee. >> Do they have to have some sort of bond or something to to back that that money
or how does that work legally? Did do you know if Nick dove into that? I just worry that these companies are going to be way more in inundated with these requests than the state than the state expects. I >> I don't understand how the math checks out. >> The math doesn't. So, I'm wor I'm
worried that if they don't have the money to cover it, then who's who's on the line? Guaranteeing it. >> Yeah. A guarantee like a shy bond or anything that backs them. We're paying into them. So, what if they go bankrupt and we've already paid in? How does that work? >> I have not looked into this as much as
HR and finance. Um, but I believe that they're just the administrator. It still is going through the state's pool of money. U they're just administrating it um as a third party. So
would that put us at a a disadvantage uh with the state? Say if the state were to run out of funds or were short on funds, would they give first first dibs to funds to the state enrolled programs versus the contractor? Because that is a
very real problem that they they say that they think they have enough for like six months of paid upfront. But >> I'd like to say theoretically no, but I don't I'm not I don't know the answer. >> Okay. >> You have a concern that if we go with
the outside of state system that we might have paid into a system that we get nothing out of >> correct >> and have to go back to the state and reenroll into that. >> Just an devil's advocate type question. Is this something we have to decide on this month? >> Um perhaps not this month. It could
maybe be wait till the next meeting, but it does need to get sent over to the state, I believe. >> Okay. I I would like to make a motion that we table this and we can get more information to just assure that we're paying into something that we're not going to get shorted on if it comes down
to it. Are you guys okay with that motion or anybody second it? >> I'll second it. >> All right. Motion by myself, second by council member Heman. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed? If I could just make a correction. Sure. Is to postpone it to the November 5th meeting if you two weeks. >> Yeah. So if you can include the November
5th meeting. Sure. Be >> postponed until postpone till November 5th. That is my motion. And there is a second by council member Heman. Are you still good with that second? >> Yep. >> Oh your turn. >> George, are you still good with the second with the November 5th? Okay. Uh all in favor say I. >> I. Any opposed?
>> Motion carries 30. Thank you. Uh, next we'll move on to business item K2. Uh, resolution to consider authorizing the city to enter into a service agreement with Paige Freezer for social media archiving.
>> Yeah. So, mayor and council, as the city's social media presence continues to expand, our accounts have been increasingly active and interactive. I've shared this information also a little bit ago at committee of the whole. Uh while this growth reflects strong community engagement, it also has a significant challenge to maintaining consistent and compliant archiving
practices. So what staff has done um Miss Strand has reached out to four companies and reached out to them for their services of archiving our social media pages. It's the city hall or I'm sorry this main city Facebook page, liquor store Facebook page, and police
Facebook page. So due to the data practices act, we're required to keep all that data and content and keep that available. um for data retention purposes and so this would be automatically digitizing taking those as comments come
in if they get revised uh or edited and keeps track of all that so it can all be recalled if needed which is our responsibility >> all right >> that the cost for this would be $1,728
per year um we could give it a try for one year there is a little bit of a training fee at 275. This was the lowest cost vendor that we were able to find and try it for a year. Make sure it's being effective and doing what we need to to uh decrease any liability.
>> All right, I'm good with it. I think it's something that will save staff time and it's just a necessary evil unfortunately. >> I'll make a motion to approve >> unless >> Nick go ahead. Do you have discussion? Um, just the same points we discussed
earlier. I Mr. Christensen, are you aware of what the county does if they do anything with >> social media and then archiving public interaction if they allow public interaction? >> Yeah. Todd, could you come up to the
microphone if you Sorry. >> Or or or she can give it to you the microphone right there. >> Thank you. >> You can go on the county website and you can watch, you know, the county commissioner meetings and the other ones as well, but we don't do any live
streaming or anything like that. So, >> do you know if they track the comments? I know County makes posts on Facebook and you're supposed to track all the comments as public record and retain all that. Do you know if the county does that or how that works? >> That would be something for a county administrator probably. >> Okay.
>> So, I'm not too I'm not too sure on that one. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can you add comments to their meetings? >> Uh on their website? >> Not on their website, but they do have a Facebook page and they that they post on so people comment there.
So, all right. Well, we had a motion. You still good with your motion, George? Motion to approve. >> Sure. Motion to approve. >> All right. I'll second it. Um motion to approve by Council Member Heman, second by myself. All in favor say I. I. All
opposed. >> I. >> Motion carries 2:1. >> Okay. Next, we will go on to the consent agenda. I did just want to uh point out uh item L2.
I really appreciate that you guys got a did a great job getting competitive bids uh saving over $1,000 per year on the five new 5-year contract. That's awesome. Um any little bit that we can save here and there is greatly appreciated for everybody. So, I just wanted to give you guys a shout out for
that. Um I did have a question also on L6. Uh did we just receive not notification of of winning this bid or did it get lost in translation when finance uh director Bker passed away? >> So this grant was it actually was
discussed I don't know if it was council or committee the whole probably was um October of 2024 so a year ago um it was talked about staff applying for this grant and we were awarded it but then nothing had happened. We had some transition of staff happen. We have to make sure and I couldn't find by
resolution that that had gone to council in this last year. So, we wanted to make sure just for auditing purposes that we brought that that council approved accepting the grant and it's a reimbursement grant. So, wells will be sealed. Um Mr. Becker has worked to get quotes that is less than what um the
value is. So, we'll be able to get reimbured 100% of the expenses of sealing those wells in the Disma area. We have to get it done by uh the end of this year and we're running out of time for weatherwise. So, we just wanted to make sure we crossed every teen and dot every eye. >> Okay. I wasn't sure if they had just got
back into us and expected to get it done in a month and a half. >> No, it sounds like we knew that we were getting this uh last year. >> Okay. So, it's just a transition period that we unfortunately had to deal with. Okay. Uh and there is there any concern about getting them all done in the next two months? There was only five, I think it said.
>> We're actually going to get started tomorrow if everything passed as as was needed. >> Sounds good. And then on item L3, I guess I'm a little confused on the layout and specifics of the My Cause My Kicks program. Um I'm always, you know, a little bit
skeptical on those like do they how much of the percentage of the donations goes back to the food shelf, you know, is it 100% or do they take their cut? I didn't see that anywhere in here, but I just was curious about that. I would assume, you know, Keith would do his due diligence on it, but I just wanted to ask that question. This would be
probably a better Keith question. However, my understanding is that 100% of the donations that come in through our store, it goes back to the community or the organization that we are donating to and have um identified. Um and that is a whole they
work with lots of different cities and liquors and all different things. They're conglomerate, but the money doesn't go to them. It goes to the local. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Keith makes sure that everything goes back local. You can give it to them, but we've never done that. Sure. >> All right. Any other questions on the
consent agenda, guys? >> No. >> Motion to approve cons. >> Second. >> Motion to approve from council member Heman. Second from Council Member Peterson. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries 30. The consent agenda is approved. Uh, any other
communications or questions from staff or council? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Uh, nope. We have a public Yeah, close session. >> So, if there's no other communications or questions, I'll entertain a motion to go into close session. >> Motion to go into close session. Second.
>> Motion by Council Member Peterson, second by Council Member Heman. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries 300. Therefore, we go into close session. >> Okay. >> Sure. So close session pursuant to Minnesota statute subdivision 3 or
Minnesota statute 3D.03 subdivision 1B regarding labor negotiation strategy attorney client privilege. Thank you. We are going into close session. Part: 2
All right. I will entertain a motion to come out of recess. >> Motion to exit recess. Second. >> Motion by council member Peterson, second by council member Heman to come out of recess and continue with the committee of a whole meeting. Uh we will start with item E8, employee permit to carry discussion.
Uh so for this one uh this was just council was requesting a discussion. I had did have one question. Um you know we had mostly focused on you know permit to carry uh is pepper spray considered a weapon in our personnel policy like if a if a worker wanted to
carry pepper spray is that considered a weapon? Um, Travis, would you consider it pepper spray >> is listed and the definition within the personal policy says weapons are defined to include all legal or illegal
firearms, switchblade, knives, or any other object that has been modified to serve as a weapon or that has the primary purpose of serving as a weapon. >> So, pepper spray would not fit in there. Okay, so they could carry pepper spray right now. Okay, that's good.
Any other discussion on this guys? >> No, I make a motion to bring it to council. >> Is your motion to >> I mean no motion. That's right. We >> Well, yeah. It if your desire is to move it to council, is that with the revised
language removing the red line version that's within your packet? >> Yes. >> And that was looked at by the attorney, correct? >> No, that was written by me by your direction. >> Okay. I would like to suggest removing
entirely if the state does change the requirements for a carry permit and this requires a permit then the language in here would become antiquated versus just deferring to what the state statute already is >> and not having this stuff present. >> The language in red line removes all of
it if you look at the track changes that I did but it it keeps in there the other weapons is all that does >> right. So it would read this excludes firearms for employ I mean uh this excludes firearms for employees with a valid permit. But if there is no permits issued because it became a
constitutional carry or something like that then they would not have the permit. So then they'd be excluded >> will have the right to carry >> legally. They could carry. >> No, no, no. I'm saying how how do you word that then? >> I mean if they're not uh if they have a
carry permit and you don't have this language in here. Well, >> they need a permit to carry in the building regardless of what this language is. I can't carry in this building as a personal person with or without the permit. So, the employees would still need to have a permit in order to legally carry within the
building. So, adding this on top of that is redundant. >> So, it would just say excludes firearms. >> No weapons are allowed and firearms are excluded by what you're saying. I see what you're saying. How
so the state has a proclusion on this. So if you let the state determine what happens and all this stuff you can't carry in this building as an employee, as an elected official, as a private citizen without the permit. So, this saying that you can't have a
gun in here without a permit is already >> I I see what you're saying, but I I think perception might be a little bit different. >> And this is just employees. The public can still do, >> right? >> I think I'd rather just leave it the way it is just because then nobody gets the
wrong idea that they could without I know that state statute trumps, but we're trying to I don't know. I just want to be sure about the language, you know, and not have it up to any sort of it's not really up to interpretation, but it kind of is and might be in somebody's head,
you know, that they don't need to have a valid permit to carry because it's not included in saying in that language, >> but that's still state law. If if the employee was carrying, >> right, I understand. >> Then that's a whole different issue because now they're doing something else. So more so than violating an employee policy, they'd be violating
state statute. >> Sure. >> So where are the teeth at? Right. >> So, you want to take out what word? >> I want I wanted to strike at all is what I had initially suggested because then you don't end up into a point where if
the permitting process changes, you don't have antiquated language and they're prohibiting someone from carrying if you had constitutional carry. And if this issue ever comes up down the road, then you'd have to address it again. >> So, just from possession or use of strike at all all the way down. Don't
even have that. don't even have that line item. >> I said you can't employ a non-emp employee, you can't carry in this building without a carry permit. So having it in there where they're excluded from it, they're not allowed to carry even with they have a permit. If you just get rid of that restriction
entirely, then they can carry with a permit. If they don't have a permit, they can't carry. So you're still achieving the same thing just by striking all the language out as opposed to putting in you can carry as an employee if you have a permit. You just get rid of that and you don't need the police carve out to where they
can carry because they are an employee but they it's their official capacity and they need to be able to do it in city buildings. You just strike it all and achieve the same thing versus setting yourself up for antiquated language if or when this changes. >> You think we need attorney advice on
that? Have just ask that question. It shouldn't be something too difficult. Should be 15 minutes of his time I would think. There's also concerns that if you have language in there that says like what is being advocated for, it's could possibly
open yourself towards liability because now it's almost an endorse or sanction thing versus not having a prohibition. You're now making an allowance for something versus not prohibiting something. >> I don't know where to go with this. It's only three of us. So, I think from a principal standpoint and
from a liability standpoint, striking at all is what I'm adv advocating for. But >> Miss Wood, do you have any input or do you not want to give input on this? I I don't know. >> Are you asking me my personal opinion?
>> Yeah. and about striking it and what do you see any issues with that? >> I I don't know any gun laws so I'm not sure. Um constitutional rights that's not my forte. >> Sure. >> Um do I think that there's been any
problems? >> No. Have I ever had a staff member asked me to be able to bring their gun? >> No. Is it possible that people who have their concealing carry bring their gun? Yes. Do I ask any questions? No. >> Sure. I think that people have their
rights. They exercise their rights. There's not a problem. >> Sure. Okay. So, as far as the the language striking though, that's more what I was >> asking about it. You don't know just Okay. So, that would be something you'd
want. You would probably think ask the lawyer, >> Chief. >> You can ask the attorney, but I don't believe that the attorney recommends taking the language out. It's pretty typical of city language to have that in.
>> I think I agree. But Travis, what do you think? DN >> Yeah, I'm not really involved in that, but uh as Nick states, the law state law is there. You're just reiterating the state
law. I mean, so hypothetically, if somebody had a gun without a permit to carry, you know, they'd be charged with the crime, which then would violate on a different personnel policy. There's that, too.
>> Okay. I don't I don't really see a reason to take it out. I I get what your point is, but to have it there, it's a it's a small redundancy, but is it really that big of a deal because it's only a couple sentences? >> We're going to check the permits and see
if they're valid or not. Who is the enforcement mechanism of that policy? >> So, you're saying if it was just left to the state, the state would be forced to enforce it, not us. >> The state issues the permits, but not like if it came up, I don't know. I I said
the state preempts it, so it's unnecessary. If it changes, it becomes broken. I think it will change. Not if it changes, but I'm optimistic on that. But either way, I just being a Second Amendment city,
>> like why why restrict people from what we say is a god-given, inaliable right? Why have any restrictions on that? >> Well, this wouldn't restrict it. It's just shiring it up in our own language. But I get what you're saying. >> Why is it necessary? If they have that, then why are we saying you're allowed to do what you're allowed to do?
Is it a right they have or is it something that they're being given? >> Sure, >> I see your point. >> Well, >> right for permission, I guess. >> Yeah. >> What do you want to do? >> I mean, I guess ultimately we don't need
to decide this now. We could bring both to council and then have a vote on both or have a >> Yep. >> Do we need uh Yeah, we probably don't need an attorney opinion then. I would guess. I mean, unless you happen to talk to him about
something else and you're on the phone, hey, quick question. I don't know. I think it would depend on what attorney you're going to talk to whether they're going to say that from a liability standpoint you need to min minimize your liability and this is something you shouldn't do if they're of the
persuasion that this is a right that should be protected but then somewhere in the middle you're going to have what's achieving the objective and minimizing the liability and that's what I think is striking at all and having nothing in there at all so it's not an endorsed or sanctioned thing but it's also not a restricted thing
>> could we could we have Nick talk to the attorney and just see if if his thing is he can explain it well and if see if that's legal and if the attorney recommends it based on that and then we can come back to council >> heard that I don't have to reiterate it
>> right right so yeah >> okay >> I think that's a good idea and then we can just whatever you know you can give him your side and how and he can interpret it by the law and if if it works it works if it doesn't it doesn't >> okay >> that sound fair >> I'll talk to him. >> Okay, >> perfect.
>> And then we'll come back to council and we'll talk about maybe just let Miss Wood know which or just have both on there >> and we can decide then in two weeks. All right, that sounds fair.
All right, E9 budget dates and 2025 goal discussion. Okay. So, we do have um our budget draft was approved, but we do have our final budget that needs to um be ready for our December 3rd meeting for truth and
taxation. Why I say that out loud? I should just look at the date. Might be December, December 2nd. I believe it's truth and taxation. Um how many budget work sessions would you like to have? Uh it's pretty typical of our council that in
the years past that it gets added to like following city council meeting. Although we might want to try to keep our committee of the whole agenda a little bit lighter because then we don't go we can go right from council to the budget work session. Um as we prepared
for our draft budget we had some extra meetings in there and I think that that was value added at the time to go through those in detail but I'm not sure if that's necessary. You can let me know. So, and if there are changes further that you'd like to see the budget, I'd
entertain what those would be. So, uh, our finance director could start working on those and preparing a revised draft to bring forward. Uh, the other thing to bring up was we still have some goals on the agenda list. Are there any of those?
U we do talk about those periodically and we've done a great job of eliminating some of our goals because we've been able to accomplish those. But are there any of those that we want to have um if they have financial impacts include those in the 2026 budget?
>> Like to eliminate number one and maybe >> roll number two in the next year still. I'd still like to see a sign >> a dynamic sign or a liquor store sign. I'd like both, but I know I'm a rarity on that one.
I'd like to see a sign up on the corner and a liquor store sign, but >> and maybe we'll separate those two just so if we want to talk about those. >> Yeah, because I think that seems to be confusing. The dynamic sign and liquor store sign. >> I think so. Um, yeah, I was going to suggest actually that we just remove
leave pickup from the goals because I've gotten a few estimates and to get a system that's automated and only have one person running it is asked a lot of money and to have two people running it, it's a lot of long-term money. I just don't think it's feasible to do the leaf pickup. So, I mean, I
looked into it as good as I could and I was hoping to find a more cost-effective solution, but I don't think there's going to be one. >> What is the leaf pickup goal? to do pickup leaf pickup for the entire community or just for streets and parks. >> It was like it was just talked about like some communities offer leaf pickup, you know,
>> and not a drop site, but like you put them curbside and they actually show up and take them away. >> Yeah. And I wanted to look and see. So, we have the thought was, you know, we got these plow trucks that sit in the summer, fall, don't do anything. I wanted to look and see if I could kind of maggyver like a homemade setup that we could, you know, use like a receiver
hitch and put it, you know, in the back of the back of the plow truck and then, you know, box in the and fill it in with leaves. And, you know, I thought it it could be done for a pretty cost effective measure, but I'm just not finding the the cost effective measure that I was hoping to find. So, I don't
think it's a feasible deal. And buying a new truck, one of those trucks like 300 grand, that's not feasible. So, I was hopeful, but I just don't think it's going to work. And then, you know, we're trying to talk about obviously cutting taxes and keeping taxes low, and we have employee costs are going up. Costs for
everything else are going up. So, you got to draw the line somewhere. So, I would be okay with removing that entirely from the goals. >> Sure. >> For now, especially for next year, that's it's not going to happen next year. But I think if we have it on there, I think it gives a false
message that maybe we will do that, you know, when I don't think it's feasible at this point. I tried. Um, so the dynamic sign and liquor store sign, we could have that discussion. Uh, I think, you know, there might be some
traction on for next year. So, not getting rid of them, I think, would be important for the discussion talks. Uh we're going to have to figure out where else we can scale on some stuff. But >> also like to make sure that we have uh uh
the liquor store direct uh >> Keith. >> Yeah, Keith was last >> Lusk. >> Lusk. Yeah. Have him present for that because we were talking about like the ROI like how sure what the actual cost is versus the benefit and trying to figure that stuff out. So if we do have
another sign discussion, I think he has a lot of the answers that we were asking last time we brought it up. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Especially for the liquor store sign. >> Yeah. >> Any other topics of this discussion that you guys can see coming that or maybe if
you if you think of some, send them. >> Yeah. And if you have any um things that you'd like to see different of the budget or just have budget questions, I really encourage you to meet with Nick Sberg ahead of the meeting. Um like I said, he'll bring the draft on. It would be the November 5th meeting and then he
can bring it back on November 18th, but if that is not really teed up for the truth and taxation meeting for to adopt our final budget, uh we would need to have some special meetings in there. So the more that we can get um for what if you're looking for making Any changes
ahead of the November 5th meeting would be advantageous for timing. >> Would it be possible to have the one before the November 5th >> also? >> No, that's our next meeting. >> Oh, yeah, it is. Shoot, you're right. >> Yeah, October's gone. >> I was I was thinking I was thinking the
wrong I was thinking December 5th. >> Yeah. No, it's going fast. >> Yeah. So, we only have two meetings left before >> Got it. Do we really need >> We can add in more, but Do we really need a budget session or just a you know Nick here and a good
conversation or >> I mean definitely in the next time around we need an update on the budget and conversation and maybe then decide if we want to have a budget session the following week and we still have another week to do some cuts or I mean another
meeting not a week >> be one more. Yeah. >> But yeah, I mean definitely we will want to bring it on the fifth because there now that we have final numbers have come in. >> Yeah. >> And then I think we should have them for both because then you're
it's not just a council meeting. We can dive into the budget items specifically and focus on that, you know, because it's it's the most important thing we do. I'd rather have a separate meeting myself for it. But >> I don't I agree to have one meeting like
that. Definitely. at least one >> and then see what happens for the next one. Is that what you're proposing? >> I'm saying is so the next meeting have Nick give us a really solid update and how he thinks things are looking so we know if we need to do some more
cutting or what we need to do. And then the following me and then that meeting decide whether we're going to have a budget session. >> Sure. >> Have it for the following meeting. And we still have another meeting after that. Actually two if we but that's cutting it. cutting it. But we have
another meeting after that to uh set the final levy. >> When is the final levy due again? Is it >> 26th >> 26th >> of December? >> I read right read it somewhere. So Oh, >> I don't have that in front of me.
Unfortunately, it is possible we could go to the >> December 16th meeting. Um >> it must be said prior to December 26. >> Okay. So December 16th would be our backup. So you just want to, you know, have the November 5th one and then at the
November 5th meeting we'll talk about if we want to have another budget session the next meeting and then that next meeting we can talk about if we want to have another one or not type of >> or set the final time. >> Okay. So a little bit of flexibility, >> right? And we still had a spare meeting. >> Sure.
>> So we had to have it. >> Okay. I was just waiting for things to get closer to the year end because there was a lot of variables this year budget that we haven't had in past budget. So, it looks like most of that's all ironed out.
>> Sounds good. >> Okay. >> Yep. I got it. >> All right. Any other discussion items? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Were you Hold on a second. Were you guys okay with taking the or should we wait for that taking the leaf pickup out of the goal section on the committee of a
hole? >> Yeah, if that's the cost I >> Yeah, >> that's >> you're not going to be able >> labor and all that. >> You're not going to be able to do it for under 100,000 bucks basically. >> No, >> I couldn't see that either. >> No, >> it was really expensive. >> Okay. So, take
>> Before you go to journ, I just want clarification back on that cannabis and the ordinance and the fees. Are we bringing that back because I don't know if we completed that conversation. >> No, we didn't. You're right. >> Bring it to the November cow. >> I thought that's the plan.
>> Some people wanted to increase it. We have to find out. I could not find anything. Travis, if you could do more digging on if you can charge for compliance. I read the statute as we were in here. There's nothing in there that says you can charge. So, >> is that how it works? You have to It have to has to say it.
>> Yes. Typically, >> that's why you're c charging the registration fee. So, >> so why is the why is the cost so different between those between the types of businesses? That's what like it just makes me wonder why is there is
there a significantly more enforcement with these other ones that are so much more expensive. >> Well, some of those businesses allow you to do some of those smaller things together like it's like one license that lets you do multiple things, >> five things. So I think that that's why and some of them allow you to have
multiple locations, >> right? >> So if you if you were to have five different things, would that be five different compliance checks or would that just be one? >> Well, I think their business is one well five locations per locations. But like
if they're on one site have a a retail store along with manufacturing of it, you're going to inspect both while you're there. That's probably one inspection. >> Won't there be two different processes though? One for inspecting the sale, one for inspecting the manufacturing.
>> You know, I don't know if that's clearly defined. Uh I mean, it says like they have to make sure that the labeling and um things are correct, but I'm not sure what the enforcement is for like the grower growers. >> Exactly.
So you guys, can we really try and find that information out? How they got to have some sort of regulation done, right? >> We can have a cheap look into it. >> Yeah. So next month we come back with some actual numbers. They got to have
something written somewhere. I would think >> that's kind this whole um statute is a little messy. >> So absolute worst case scenario we have say we have five more cannabis businesses come in and they pay their
first year of $500. Next year would we be set up if we ended up changing one of those to $5,000 because it takes absorbent amount of enforcement. We could do that right? >> I believe so. Once you change city code, if you did it mid year, um, and you
know, you adopt your fee schedule, it might not be till the next year, something like that. But yes, I mean, they have to comply with whatever the rules are. I'm not >> having said that, we should double check with statute that there's no like grandfather clause, >> right, >> when they got in, but I'm not I haven't
seen that, but doesn't mean it doesn't exist. >> But I will say there we get a lot Jaden gets a lot of phone calls because So many cities are regulating the number of businesses, >> right? >> Um, she takes a lot of vets out a lot of
phone calls of what can be done here and >> so I get a lot of them too. >> I bet. >> Mhm. It's going to be a hot ticket item here. So I don't know if we want to look into that at all with any sort of ordinance change
with how many. I >> I told you earlier I'm good with that. >> With the ordinance change on how many? Oh, >> or just on just you just want to you said maximize the fees or didn't you didn't you? >> Right. But I'm good with how many too
now that we >> the laws have changed on us. >> I don't know. That's a that's a full discussion with all the council members, but maybe next you got something. >> Yeah, just I pulled up the last direction we kind of got. Not saying there's not going to be more, but talks
about u must do compliance checks on cannabis and hemp businesses holding a retail registration. So it laid that out there. >> Just retail. >> Yeah. On that, not saying there's not more, but there and it's and it's similar to the alcohol and tobacco
compliance checks. What they're looking for is age compliance. really the state supposed to be doing the regula regulating because even if you find that a business is um not in compliance, they're supposed to turn it into OCM, right?
So hopefully they're doing their own >> and then they take it over completely from there, you would hope, and we don't have to interact or >> We'd hope so. I mean, that's what they're giving all the money for. >> Sure. >> Okay. Okay. Well, maybe if if we can
>> one thing I would say is we have I think it's next cow the whole fee schedule we review every year for fee changes chapter 160. Maybe you want to talk about them because that's when it sets the fee for the next year. >> Okay. Yeah. Maybe we can get some more concrete information on what is involved
with enforcement of all the different ones. They got to have something written somewhere. >> I would like to know. I I you know it's like liquor. can't liquor store can't go to Costco and buy 20 cases of liquor and sell it at the liquor store. Everything's regulated. But with the
cannabis business, I don't see where that's regulated. And that's where my concern is. Um, and there has to be better regulation on that that uh somebody who has cannabis store in town doesn't have, you know, five or six of
his friends um getting him product. rather than getting it through the normal channels. I I don't know what the regulations are on that. So, yeah, I would like to know what responsibility we have and and who has that responsibility and and how often is it
enforced, >> right? So, Travis, you got some homework to do on that. >> I mean, kind of what Miss Wood was saying, there's a complaint form that we fill out. I mean, we've gotten that far so far. They give us the local government complaint. So if there's a
violation, you complain as the local government entity to the state, which is kind of odd, but that's there. Not saying that they have I don't know if they have their own investigation
people, too. I'm assuming >> it's a mess. The whole thing from the beginning. >> How's that municipal sound? Just kidding. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, maybe next month we'll have some more clarity on that and we
can roll it in again. So, >> any other discussion or questions? >> I'll make a motion to adjourn if you guys are good. >> Second. >> Motion to journ by council member Heman. Second by council member Peterson. All
in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries 30. We are adjourned. Did we even really get anything?