morning all right good afternoon we'll call the city charter commission meeting uh 5:30 tuesday march 4th 2025 to order uh normally we don't do this but a roll call i mean we have a forum i don't know that
we need if you want to no that's fine commissioners are all right with that we've really never done one before all right on to item two approval of the minutes looking for a motion i move to approve i would second that with one uh just
grammatical error on the opening paragraph it it says city attorney robert and the t is missing on robert with that correction i'd second the motion all right we have a motion on the floor
all in favor say i i opposed motion carried on to the new business uh looks like we're going to have a lot of discussion 3.1 discussion on the following sections uh first one on is section two wards and precincts and i do believe our finance director does have
some notes from the city manager this one was more on me i guess i contacted the county we have the precincts more so because of the county so that they can draw their district lines without dividing the city up into more pieces they can't get the even
population they need for their districts so that's why we have those precincts if that's something you know we would have to redraw the ward lines and i don't know if there's a way to get it because you can't divide a ward in two without having a precinct line um so the county would we'd have to have the precincts if
they can't get the population split the way they need to to get their even districts but even if that's something we want to explore more i think we'd have to wait till 2032 when we redist again otherwise we'd be forcing commissioners to run again midterm and
i just think it would be easier to wait until redistricting if that was something you wanted to explore um kelly hodc was on vacation i did i got an email back from her and she you know gave me the brief answer about not to split the wards into um without a defined precinct line um and she's like
i said she's on vacation she said she could look into it more if we wanted her to um but that was the answer i got from her at time and maybe just a little bit of background i think i maybe raised that question i said it seems like um maybe
an unnecessary layer in in that you have to then print separate ballots and people are get confused because they don't know which precinct they live in it is one of our biggest headaches during elections but like i said i don't know if they can get what they need without
having those other division lines to go along and it only affects two of our wards really the two of the wards aren't split at all um wards is it one and two of the wards are split and have different commissioners
in the precincts but um the other two wards are fine same all right so we're okay with that one sure all right section 28 duties and powers of the mayor all right i i'm the one that
brought that up it's just uh and i was obviously i'm new to this commission when i was reading through it it said you know subject to the mayor's veto and uh i thought wow the mayor can veto um you know whatever they want and then
when i got later on i got to section 71 it talks about the council overriding the veto um and i just thought it might be at other places in the charter it does say uh you know the mayor
uh you know the mayor shall have the power to veto all ordinances resolutions and act are adopted by the city and and often times it says like subject to the other terms of this charter or something uh like i said just reading this it just looks like the
uh the mayor has that absolute right but the mayor doesn't and you got to go down to section 71 to find that out which i did about 3 days later got to section 71 found out
the mayor doesn't have the absolute right to veto uh ordinances and things that was just an observation i don't know if it'd be clear to can you clarify that for me mike i i raised the same question it looked to me like the mayor could veto and there was no
override but in section 71 does it allow the council to override in section 71 it does override it does allow the council to override 71 just talks about basically payments and purchases or whatever that they could isn't it i couldn't remember i i looked at that one
briefly but yeah i guess we don't have 71 printed here but it does talk about overwriting the veto yeah it says in se in section 71 a vetoed motion shall be reconsidered by
the council and if upon reconsideration it is passed by a four-fifths vote of its membership the motion shall have the same effect as if approved by the mayor you're reading 71 yep yeah because i was that's in approving or ratifying payments already made well no never mind
read farther back yeah expenditure of public funds or granting of licenses or permits that's when they can veto it the motion yeah so i don't know if this was chris's note or one of yours but he um has the suggestion or this on here for this one a simple revision in section 28
to state the mayor shall have the power to veto as spelled out in section 71 and then eliminate the rest of the paragraph in section 28 i thought it might be clear if if this section directed you to 71
because you'd have to you have to read a long time to find out that the mayor doesn't have an absolute right to veto so i think it was chris's intention that as you discuss them um if you're all in agreement or we can suggest to have the
attorney move on and make some of those revisions before the next i'm in favor of referencing section 71 in some manner second i don't know if we do it that way i was do we want to do it at the end or do we
want to because we're not really a we do each individual one i think it will be clearer okay i think all right so we have we have a motion on the floor to uh ratify section 28 duties and powers of the mayor i've got a a motion and a second all in f referencing
section 71 in the language here somewhere to add to section 28 to reference section 7 section 71 and directing the city attorney to draft language right correct ratify that
ratify section 28 referencing 71 so so just to be clear the mayor can only veto those financial i think in 71 it's only talking about those financial items talking about other items okay so
the mayor does have an absolute right to veto and the council cannot override it that's the way i would read it i don't know cara do you have a comment on that but only only with the expenditure of public funds correct in section 71 right
uh good evening charter commission um we haven't thoroughly looked at this but let's see section 71 it looks to be a that this is the only procedure for a council override is under this section
correct and i think if it's only for that particular power then but we we'd want to double check um to confirm that but it does look like it's limited under this section if it is limited it needs to be probably
wouldn't just be a language change it would be a whole procedure change where you're actually giving the mayor or not giving the mayor as much power to veto in section 28 if we would add new language to veto all ordinance and
resolutions and all motions except ratify so we can veto everything except it's a i'm sorry enough i think the motion generally is let's
take a look at that yeah do some research on that section and are we feeling like the council should be able to override a mayorial veto on ordinances and i guess i personally am i think the council should
have that power but is that the direction we want the attorney to go do you know dave has the uh you've been on the council quite a while do you know as a mayor ever just vetoed an ordinance not the last two mayors but i i'm not
going to say the name of the mayor vetoed something very important and it stopped cold in his tracks and that's why these were amended as the whole project stopped and that's question is do we want the
mayor to have that power or not it's up to the commission here do you want where it's it's vetoed and it's done yeah i mean i as i read this the the first time i was looking for well what happened that would stimulate a change in that
language i won't say what mayor and yeah but i'm saying that's a long ways back y so so i'm not you know there were actions taken to make a correction back then what do we have now that would that would influence us to make a correction
to what's already written what you know what change do we actually need there i mean the motion on the floor right now is to just add a reference to section 71 so you need to so you know where to go to look for it i i think change what you can veto and
what can be overridden that's a whole different question right i don't think i'm clear from the discussion on what we all think this means i i think it could possibly mean that the mayor has the right to veto everything and it's i think you're saying that 71 says that
there's an override available on some things but not all things but not all things well and if that's what it means expenditures and purchases or something like that the only thing that she can that can be overridden right now would be payments that have not been made yet
okay so then the question is do we feel the mayor should have that power over other things that are not expenditure yeah so we should add 71 to our sections that we discuss for sure
and maybe we need an interpretation to be clear on 28 or is everybody do we all agree it might be wise to look at both of them together yeah i mean i'm just thinking what if the council passed an ordinance you know concerning uh nuisances or
something and they voted unanimously of it in favor of it and uh the mayor said "i'm vetoing it it's done." it sounds like and is that and why yeah is that should
that is that right i don't know i mean that's something we could discuss usually there's a you know if uh you know that it says four fifths on those financial things uh should the council be able to
override the mayor's veto on everything on everything with a maybe unanimous or four-fifth vote i you know it's just a matter of it caught my attention when i read it i was a little surprised that the mayor had the right to veto
given our system right given our mayor's authority otherwise because we have a weak mayor system yeah because the mayor doesn't vote on anything else other than charter changes yeah charter change could
veto veto you so are we leaning towards somehow let's ratify and combine 28 and 71 lump here is the duties of the mayor the power of the veto get rid of it instead of having two sections yeah i
mean i think so i think that makes sense from a clerical standpoint i'm trying to decide you know to what discussion over there about you know the because there's another side to look at this we got people on the city council that are all seem to be locked step on something and the only one that can stop them is the
mayor and that might be the good that might be a good thing might be you know it's not like we have it's not like we have 435 councilmen you know that we we just got a handful and so you know maybe having
someone the ability to say no we really shouldn't do that i mean got a lot of different expertise depends on what the subject matter is i don't know i have to think about it i had really thought about it well the the way it's written now is i
said there's a four fifths it requires a four-fifths vote of the council override you know even if we did adopt something we could get really extreme and say you know it be unanimous consent of the entire council override a mayor's veto
um but that's said it's just something that i wasn't clear to me first of all and i thought maybe was a good i wanted clarification on it i guess so isn't the motion basically to wasn't the motion to
kind of request a reddraft an explanation so we don't have to decide it right now i would be curious is you know what do other towns about our size right what do they have in there some communities the mayor has a lot of
authority st paul and minneapolis i mean like mike pointed out we have a weak mayor system right we have there's a lot of other cities that do yeah you know and there's a lot of other cities that have a lot more controversy than we do amongst the council as well um i don't see there being any issues with any of
this with the current council and mayor what would happen in the future i have well right and that's and we need to write rules based on right what could happen i'll say that most of the cities way over half the cities in the state are what you call statutory cities
they don't have a charter right they're ruled by state statute and the mayor is a voting member of the council has no veto power and uh basically votes like a council member and presides chairs the
meeting so it's and when you have a charter you can have a strong mayor or a weak mayor there's just been a bunch of editorials in minneapolis paper about mayor fry uh in minneapolis uh they recently changed
the charter about several years a few years ago to make him a strong mayor and people are complaining now that he and the council are you know who's doing what m i mean from my point of view it's about on one hand you could
have i'm going to call it a rogue mayor on the other hand you could have a rogue council and how do you how do you mitigate those you know how do those two bodies mitigate each other and so it sounds like there are some avenues in here that does not work
you know i guess i'm open to any discussion about it or you my apologies i thought it was a six o'clock meeting well you missed all the fun stuff already so do we need to give the city attorney
some direction on as that's what i'd like to see what he's drafting i mean you can have the next one but this one's halfway through the discussion keep going what i'm looking for then is the b first basis is put the mayor in one 28 and 71 put it together
so it's referenced in one area and any guidance on you want four fifths you want a five council override no override you know what what direction you kind of leaning i guess i trust the
collective four or five more than i would living the power in a single person so um you know if i were go to amend the the uh resolution i would say to make that a
unanimous uh council motion in order to override and that would be in all matters not just the money manners yep
ordinances yep to me that would make sense i mean if the council's unanimous on something it doesn't seem like the mayor should be able to stop it but that's just my opinion i would be curious what the mayor might
have to say about that i was looking for her to call her you know tonight and tell her "we pulled all your power mayor you're not no no no no i i would just be curious i mean well we should get her we should find out how she feels about it really but you know
nothing is being said here tonight we're proposing something right no this is just a matter of i mean is there language you want drafted or is there just something you want the attorneys or the city manager to research more i don't yes
i mean i would be i would be curious as to what some other places do and i and i realize they got different setups for government locally and um you know it's this whole subject is really new on a local level to me i
wasn't aware that that was actually in there either um so so i would be curious as to just what others do that have a similar setup that we do do they have an override process is it four fifths is it five you know 505 or what what exactly
would that be and and i would like to know what the mayor's thoughts are she's in the job and sometimes the city council can be difficult you know does she have the tools or he or she have the tools to do
the job if they're going to be overridden having to be unanimous that's a different wrinkle at it certainly um and i'd like a little time to think it over just myself i like the whole unanimous part
of it i actually i like the unanimous part i mean it's a unanimous vote not a four fifths unanimous so you have a motion on the table right now to change that language but that's not really what we're at right now right sound like you want more thought put
into it before you would just add that language from section 71 right so that's one we agree bring the research back to us what nicole took down i think so all right and i'll amend that motion i think she is
draw the motion withdraw you would or shall withdraw it and amend it do we need a motion just to tell the i don't attorney so i think the discussion enough is alone as at this point okay so to catch up you were on section
28 i okay so now on to 60 on to 60 special meetings well this is something else again i being new on the charter i and being retired i spent a lot of time reading
through this uh it when i first got to section 60 it talked about the mayor and then it said any three members acting through the mayor and my first thought was who members of what who and then i looked at
other sections and it always talked about council members you know it just be a clarification thing um you know it's obviously council members but in looking at other ordinances um you know they refer to counselors or
council members and this just says other members acting through the mayor for any reason it never mentions the word council members anywhere in this section i just thought that might clarify things a little bit and mike i think i also
picked up on it doesn't say how many council members it just says upon the call of members themselves so maybe we want to make that three members or something that need to act to call a special
meeting well it does reference three members and then but later on then it says but then later on it just said upon the call of members themselves right so that's not 500 word sentence yeah i
think that would could be clarified too the second part how many members was it three members at the bottom too it doesn't say clarification i agree
for any reason the member the mayor refuses to act upon such such requests than upon the call of members themselves so the first one references the request through the mayor then if the mayor
refuses then the members can override it how many members three four five okay so let's get wonky so if
already three members have called it what difference does it make because once three members have called it then you have to have a special meeting the mayor's refusing to do it so we're just talking about having the meeting right so any number of members can go ahead and i mean what we're talking about is somebody publishing scheduling right how
do you call a meeting now to be honest it's the staff that says "oh we need a special meeting here mayor sign this directive right?" if the mayor doesn't then another council member whether it's one of the first three or not could say under section 60 you need to schedule a meeting so any one member could
really i think that would match up with what it says i mean i wouldn't be opposed to saying it has to be three i'm just saying what are we even what's the activity that we're trying to trigger well it says the the call of members themselves that
would imply that more than one be two i thought it was three actually when i read it and i and i think that you know that so there's some issue we got three city councilmen that want to have a meeting on it they take it to the mayor mayor we'd like you to schedule a
meeting and the mayor says no for whatever reason and then so what's the recourse then and that recourse is well then the three of us are going to on this section we're going to schedule that meeting
i guess that's the way i understood it i guess to me it's still unclear um where it says um then upon the call of members themselves the meeting can be be called but it does not say how many members how
many members do you need for a quorum three yeah so kind of by definition you'd have to have three under every scenario because you wouldn't have if they show up and they have a meeting then they'd have three or it wouldn't be a meeting
right so it's either assumed the call of members themselves are the same three members or we add three i would add the number three i think strike themselves
is that what you were kind of after mike or yes i mean it wasn't really clear to me so between of and members we would add three and i assume this would go to
legal to look at it also it's sounding like you're all kind of in agreement that we want just want everything clarified in that section right so we could have language and bring it back to the next meeting for approval okay all good there we don't we're all
good with three we don't need motions on that i don't believe until it's time to make it official yeah until you have the language to right okay section 66
well this was me again and it was uh the first sentence of the second paragraph if someone could i wasn't sure really if it was talking about two different things completely or
well and this may be a statute related minnesota state statute related thing as as well yeah we don't issue a lot of business licenses but i know in relation to liquor anytime we make changes to fees or fines or um any rule changes
with ours we always have to notify all of the license holders but that's state statute directed more so than the charter so this may be in there just because of states i don't know what kind of business licenses does the city issue other than liquor and tobacco those aren't really
businesses but so you you notify all the liquor and tobacco people okay and i'm sure it'll be the same with cannabis once it's added so was that added from over the time when we have
everything in email now as opposed to before it was probably us postal service you just got to notify them that that's the way they're going to be notified it's
like the meeting before the meeting but you can't really do it well they have to sign up electronically because they don't know that yet they have to sign up for the electronic notice okay so they've signed up then the city can send them electronic notice otherwise you got
to do it the oldfashioned way okay does it seem clear or do we need any different language or the only other licenses we issue at bed and breakfast or and there's one or two of each of
those so if usually if there's a change coming it's because they asked us to make a change so we've communicated with them anyway some so so the second part of that sentence where it says or proposed u ordinances at least 10 days before a city council
meeting at which the proposed ordinance is scheduled for a final vote so any ordinance again you're notifying these people if there's a zoning ordinance you notify the business license people it relates to that
business oh not everybody that holds a business license but if it relates to that type of license then they're notified all right well it doesn't really say that it says or proposed ordinances at least 10 days that's why i saw thought i
thought why are we notifying if if they pass an ordinance on parking why are we notifying someone who comes in for a tobacco license about it yeah so this maybe could be clarified more as to it was confusing to
me and i wasn't sure what license the city all issued yeah there's not as many as there used to be are there any like annual gaming licenses do you issue licenses for pull
tabs or does that come from the city techally those come from the state but council has to approve them on a local level proposer i think it could be clarified because it just talks about proposed ordinances so we could have the attorneys look at that
and just make sure it's clear okay we'll get that attorney review anything else on 66 uh section 82 board of health
i think i raised that one um my question is what does the board of health do do we really need one i'll give you an example this that question actually came up it did last last year didn't it yeah and i was like wasn't i here for that
anyway the board of health is not used very often but a real example where the city used the testimony of two of our licensed physicians on how unsanitary and healthy the dwelling was and the judge took that into consideration and the house was
raised without that testimony or our chartered board of health he wouldn't even listen to it so it worked i mean it's used rarely but if you do need it it's there it's there
does the county have a board of health that could serve the same purpose i'm not sure that i don't know if they have a board of health or not i mean they have the nursing i don't know that you'd have to look into if
they have they need do they or only if called only when called upon okay so maybe it's no big deal i mean we do pay a salary to that position every month but um so if we could use the county that would be a possibility i don't know how that would
work if they have that function or not that's something we could research okay did the board of health comment at all for covid and the state baseball tournament and things when it was cancelled no well not our not the city board of
health but numerous doctors had signed that petition you know not hold it but it was not directly our board of health i believe they got off easy on that one no nobody remembered them no no good
time to forget they were there so we can do some research for on the county part there okay moving on to section 87 police department all right i'll comment on that also and i looked at
that one particularly closely because i was on the police commission at one time and i got my own notes here it says "the city manager appoints a chief of police with the participation of the police commission but without approval of the city council." i mean it doesn't say
anywhere the city council approves uh the chief of police it's just appointed by the city manager after he's consulted with the commission um i previously served on the police commission when the mayor had absolute authority to appoint the chief after extensive interviews and consideration the commission recommended
one candidate and the mayor appointed his friend someone else um and that was the end of the story and as i understand it the council didn't like it and said "we want that power for ourselves." so when i read this said the public the council still doesn't have the authority that the city manager has
the authority to appoint the chief of police without it consulting the council at all just consulting the police commission which they don't have to follow um does the council want that authority to appoint the chief of police or you want the city manager to have
that authority i i note for example under the fire chief it says um yeah that's council appointed it says the states the city manager shall appoint the fire chief subject to approval by the city council it doesn't say that for the
chief of police and i don't know maybe language may be there more from before we had a full-time chief because the council approves the assistant chief and everything and they approved the chief before that as well but since we've had a full-time chief i don't know if that language has ever been
that's how i remember it so the city manager just appoints its chief right now he's treated as a department head i guess so that works well that's not what yeah yeah that's not what the
section says the city manager shall have the power to appoint the chief of police and other police officers with participation of the police commission is provided in section 88 and if you look i don't think it says
ever says anything about the council approving the chief of police and like i said the police commission when i was on it we recommended one person and the mayor a former police officer uh appointed his buddy as the uh chief
of police chris's only comment there was the city manager is the one who has to work and trust the individual overseeing the pd and should have the final say in who that is well that's fine if the council doesn't care
who as a counselor you know what i'd like to see it the same way we do the fire chief oh who appoints the uh what are the other departments um there are a few department we defined that last year right like the finance hr
engineer engineer i mean those all had to be council approval right is that what we changed it to along with the police and fire that we didn't we include the police and no because he pulled it out of there and did it in a separate section so i'm not sure maybe we need a history
of this section starting back to when the mayor's approval was removed because that was within the last i think i was on the commission when that happened so i remember talking about not a long time ago because we might have discussed that already not that it wouldn't necessarily change again but there might have been some
more insight than yeah so it references all members of the board shall be appointed by the mayor but they're talking about oh i'm on two different pages sorry okay so what are the wishes for this
section review it and do you remember is that when it was amended or how long ago was that been a while time flies you know
bill you were on yeah june of 2011 it looks like oh right it's right in front of us good point i i do think it's tangled up though in what bill was referencing that was a discussion of hierarchy and the manager's role versus the council's role
and does yeah i mean it was you know it's my thoughts i mean i'm i'm the plant manager at ampi pick my heads that work with me they're i pick my own team i'm responsible for everything they do but i pick the team and it kind of was the same thing with the city
manager he's responsible for what those department heads who he gets to pick his own team not you know what i like joe over there we're going to put him on your team and no no no that's that's there's no way to manage an organization state statute says that the
commission shall have the absolute control and supervision over the employment promotion discharge and suspension of all officers and employees of the police department the police commission mhm not be in compliance with state statute
at this point which sure and the police commission is elected by it's appointed by the mayor isn't it right and approved by the city council what are you saying michelle
the commissioners are appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council but the police commission can't i don't think the mayor has shall have the power to appoint the chief of police with the participation of police
commission subject section 88 what does 88 say that just says the mayor appoints the commission but the council actually approves that points of commission right
so the council does approve the commission the commission yes so what were you reading was that state statute state statute okay does that and that kind of conflicts this yeah i would just like
the attorney to double check with state statute so i have some questions written down to research should the council have approval should it be the same for the fire as it is for the fire um then just research some of the history um does this agree with the 2024 department head changes and does this agree with state
debt just some more research and clarification and some of those points and then discussion again okay anything else on 87 moving on to 101 library board i think i could raise the question here
um in that section it talks about the size of the library board being being nine members and i recall that the the mayor at one time was talking about reducing the size of some of the of the commissions and boards and nine just seems a little large to me so i don't
know if we want to act on that separately or want to refer back to the mayor or what we should do but chris is in favor of reducing to seven members with which is still compliant with state statute says no member would
be kicked off when the but wouldn't be filled once their term expired do you know does state statute say seven it i don't i'm not sure what statute says he just says seven is still in compliance with stateut yeah that probably is a challenge to
keep that members on there right i do know the mayor is working on reorganizing some of our larger commissions yeah i'm not she is with all of that in her research right five
this has come up i remember this came up before and i think the difficulty was trying to find nine people that would actually do that and you know do we really need nine and should it be some other number that's how i remember it mhm y what came
of it but well i agree with you dwayne that if state statute only requires seven i think nine is an awful lot there's five on the city council but nine on the library board right
so michelle good evening commission just to jump in here it does allow five seven or nine members um so if you are interested in five that is an option oh maybe we need the input of the library board yeah or the library mayor the
mayor library director yeah i would agree maybe check with them and then come back with more discussion next meeting okay very
good uh section 180 that was public nuisance i believe that was just a it's lack format thing right yeah it lacks a title is was my comment on that one um it sounds like it's public
nuisances or something like that so it just needs a title what title should we put on there dwayne public nuisances is what i like i'd like to add a whole lot more to that section but
here's your chance so do we send that back with that recommendation yeah that final language back for approval all right very good you know as long as you brought that up commissioner dwayne ansel we'll make a comment on that you know you're all
probably familiar we've got our top 10 homes in new alm what do we do with them i i want to talk to the city manager can we add more power to this in our charter it's not just an ordinance but it's in the charter about these
vacant abandoned dilapidated dwellings which our hands are tied i mean we get phone calls all the time about our top 10 houses where people next to them i mean they look like they're in the ghetto and you've got all
these nice homes on the block what can we do some are abandoned some have been boarded up i boarded some of them up 10 years ago and they're still sitting like that wow what can we get more power maybe we have to do it by charter where we have the right to do this or condemn
it or i know it takes an act of congress to tear them down i've been there done that but i i'd like to see that i mean it's for the betterment of our whole community and neighborhoods i should say top nine one of them burned down we have nine left
we don't want to comment further on how you could take care of the rest right but i mean it it is a there there are some i think the uh it's probably if you want more teeth in it i think you could probably just do
it by ordinance gota believe there's state statute that talks about that and there are some stat things are there constitution you just got to jump through a lot of hoops to uh to get it done i mean i'm i
would be perfectly good with making it a little putting a little more teeth in it as long as it's not in violation of some higher higher rule there i mean vacant the george's ballroom for 25 years i
know all about vacant buildings and all the critters that live in it and you know there there's issues kids getting in them mhm so do we send that back to for the
attorney to review and if there's anything more that can be i don't that they can put into it that would improve our ability to get those nine homes at least five of my okay anything else on
180 otherwise we'll move to 221 uh item six uh that's refers to uh point and
remove all employees of public utilities i think more of the question is around the department head portion i think what um we're looking for is more definition as to what apu department head is or who those are
um just for more clarification so on that um chris is suggesting working with the utility director to define those more so maybe what we need to do is work on our end um what those what we feel those should be and then bring that back and then have that in
the in the charter the way i read this and this is what struck me on this one was that the city manager is supposed to appoint and remove all employees of the puc that's a lot of employees that's the way it reads yes
i wonder if there's similar language for all other city employees if he is supposed to point yeah i'm sure that's that's the city manager's job throughout the city i think this is just clarifying that it applies to the puc as well because of the unique nature of the
puc right yeah i'm thinking about that i was on the puc for nine years and i thought the puc operated virtually independently of the city manager and the city council that that was to be run as a
business unimpeded by other political issues within the town but that city manager sat at all of our meetings because the city manager does have that authority yeah so what were we after here did who put
this in i think hr and utility director and everybody were like i said are just we're looking for more clarification on who the department heads are i think it was actually the public utilities director was asking yeah and i think there may have been a couple other questions that she had too as far as what's listed in here for the for the
puc so i think on this point i think we just need to work with her some more on what she was looking for um and then we could bring that back in the charter about the public utility commission i don't know i just remember i think i
that relationship i thought was defined somewhere else i don't have it sent in front of me to read yeah it's like way back in the beginning somewhere or in the code i have to look some more well yeah oh in addition to the elected officials of the city there is to be
board of health of public utilities commission so the charter created the bu basically okay so you'll come back with a little more definition here okay yeah i was on the puc also and
it we were never on tv that's what i thought was best about that commission that changed what i was on ah maybe we caused it uh okay
so anything else on three section three otherwise we need to schedule the next meeting i believe yeah i don't know what timeline chris was looking for there if you just want to wait for a doodle poll and aim for
within the next month again yeah send a do another poll that'd be great right i'll try and actually jot down the right time this time first time for everything
does the city use outlook for email yeah they do so so rick won't forget we could send it to his calendar and it would just you know embarrassingly enough i think it is i
just you know i had it in my head and i didn't double check i think it goes to my google calendar and we won't make the mistake again i see the email and i just go in my
calendar and i just stick it in there and then sometimes i get the invite and i it goes in that way and actually usually comes both ways that way i don't forget but well i didn't forget it
was i oh shoot okay so we'll send that out uh item four announcements any announcements okay then a motion to adjurnn so moved second seconded to adjurnn any
discussion all in favor say i i same sign motion carried we're adjourned