WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=8uIAedS0j8s

Part: 1

1
00:03:18.239 --> 00:03:39.519
Okay, I'm ready when you guys are. All right, good morning everybody. I would like to officially call the city of Nisa special council meeting to order. It is Wednesday, July 15th, 2026, and it is 10:00 a.m. Uh, Miss Wentler, if you could just let the record reflect

2
00:03:39.519 --> 00:03:53.200
that today's special meeting was called by Council Member Joe Hall and Council Member Jesse Z, that would be appreciated. And just before we jump into the first agenda item, I just want to note that the council members did receive an email from a resident by the

3
00:03:53.200 --> 00:04:09.840
name of Mr. Roger Landers uh sharing uh his displeasure with another special meeting. He did note, I'd like this in the record as well, that for May 2025 to present, we've had 14 special meetings this past year, which includes today.

4
00:04:09.840 --> 00:04:24.960
Um, and he also noted that that includes town halls and different things like budget meetings, uh, truth and taxation and things like that. So, we did get some feedback about special meetings from the council, which was discussed at the last meeting. Uh, but our first agenda item is Grand View Lodge approval

5
00:04:24.960 --> 00:05:34.160
of using the city land. Um, I don't know if Gravity wanted to address or make sure everything's done correctly, but it's really to eliminate people parking all over the roads and it being an unsafe environment. Um, Party at the

6
00:05:34.160 --> 00:05:52.320
Pines was a a very good example of what can happen. And there were cars up and down 77. It was a very unsafe environment uh for the community and our guests, but we're just asking if we can use it for tomorrow evening. Um, so that

7
00:05:52.320 --> 00:06:07.919
we do not have that. We have several other events going on on property and a full house. So, we just want to make sure everyone's safe and is able to get to and from the event. >> Um, does council have any questions for Miss Southworth? I'll start with you, Council Member Freley.

8
00:06:07.919 --> 00:06:24.880
>> Hi, Don. Um, I know this is an annual thing and we do it periodically. Um, it was kind of sad that it didn't come up in June later. Um, is there any way that the your events people can work and hopefully figure out the calendar because um, and then get it in sooner so

9
00:06:24.880 --> 00:06:41.280
that we don't run into this again? We actually wanted to use just the church, but they ended up having an event coming up and I don't think we communicated effectively with them. So, it was one of those it was a popup for the concert and

10
00:06:41.280 --> 00:06:58.000
the party at the pines. We saw that we were able to accommodate more people and so we wanted to open it up to the community which we usually don't do and that was the reason for the um >> Okay. >> for the short notice piece.

11
00:06:58.000 --> 00:07:13.680
Yeah. >> Because I want to see that you guys continue going and getting stuff done. Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. Council member London, Council Member Zan, >> Miss Maggie, is there anything on a formality standpoint that we have done

12
00:07:13.680 --> 00:07:28.800
or need to do to be able to accommodate this? Because I know that the Briner JC's has used the property in the past for their fishing tournament. >> The only thing that we require is the certificate of insurance, which Don will provide to me before tomorrow,

13
00:07:28.800 --> 00:07:44.080
but nothing else than that. No further questions. >> Council member Hall. >> Yeah. My only thing would be kind of piggyback on that. In the future, does this need to even come before the council or can we direct this to be done

14
00:07:44.080 --> 00:08:00.080
with the with city staff just like other street permits and stuff are granted because it's not only Grand View, but it's a lot of other people in the community that use that property in the past or have wanted to use it for more of a over- the-counter system. if we

15
00:08:00.080 --> 00:08:16.080
could get that set up. >> I I mean, as council direction, you can do that. Um, however, I know that we are going to hopefully be doing some improvements and potentially selling off some of that land hopefully in the near future as well. So, that will impact, I think, a lot of the discussions. But if

16
00:08:16.080 --> 00:08:31.360
you guys are okay with staff um approving further use of this, I'm I have no problems unless Tom Pearson does. >> Yeah, I don't recommend that. Um, if you delegate this to the

17
00:08:31.360 --> 00:08:46.480
administrator or other staff and the council isn't aware of it, then that has the potential to have criticism leveled at people making delegated decisions. So, at least for the time being, these sorts of events should come before the

18
00:08:46.480 --> 00:09:03.120
council for awareness and approval. >> Anything else, council? >> Uh, okay. Just a quick question piggybacking on that. Did when the Brainer JC's used the lot for the ice fishing tournament, was that just on the consent agenda? >> No, it was a >> It was its own item. >> It was business.

19
00:09:03.120 --> 00:09:18.959
>> All right. Got it. All right. Are there any other questions uh related to this agenda item? >> All right. Then I would ask if there is a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve Graham View Lodge use of city land July 16th from 3 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. as presented.

20
00:09:18.959 --> 00:09:35.839
>> Do we have a second? Okay, we have a motion by council member Freillley, second by council member London. Any additional discussion? Okay, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> Opposed. Okay, motion carries. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh the last agenda item here

21
00:09:35.839 --> 00:09:51.120
we have is the data practices policy charging fees. Miss Wetler, I don't know if you want to walk us through that or Mr. Pearson. >> Sure. I'll start it off. Um, as I stated in my memo, um, this was I mean our policy as it states today without any

22
00:09:51.120 --> 00:10:08.720
changes is that we are allowed to charge for some of the time and copies and things like this for data requests. Um, you can see in the data request activity that these have increased dramatically over the past handful of years. And I

23
00:10:08.720 --> 00:10:25.360
did a rough count this morning and I think I have like 14 or 16 open data requests. Um, a lot of these data requests are coming in are just a lot of time, staff time. Um, and they do require a lot of attention. Um, having

24
00:10:25.360 --> 00:10:41.800
legal teams review them and things like that to ensure that we're not providing data that is private. And I'll just pick on one of the one of the last data requests we had. Um, staff time. time it was 38 hours.

25
00:10:41.839 --> 00:10:59.519
So, I don't know. Um, our past administrator chose not to charge for these um even though our policy states we can. And I thought it was best practice to come back to you guys to say, "Hey, are you guys in favor of us charging this back to the person who

26
00:10:59.519 --> 00:11:16.079
wants the data instead of putting this burden on the taxpayers?" Um, some of these days if it's a quick report or a copy of a minute, like I can't imagine that we would be charging for that unless they want copies. But a lot of this

27
00:11:16.079 --> 00:11:34.880
it takes a lot of staff time and knowing that we're short staffed. trying to um just ensure that if people are submitting data requests that maybe they would streamline or fine-tune what information they're looking for as well

28
00:11:34.880 --> 00:11:50.028
that would eliminate the additional costs and burden on the taxpayers. >> Okay. Thank u Mr. Pearson. >> Yeah. Could I add to that too? >> Go ahead. Um these requests in my experience through a couple of administrations are getting

29
00:11:50.028 --> 00:12:06.959
[clears throat] more wide ranging, more voluminous. Um and maybe you know this or maybe you don't, but there's levels of of how we go about responding to these requests. they arrive uh we evaluate them and if they call for information

30
00:12:06.959 --> 00:12:23.519
from other departments other city officials whatever we go about the process or Maggie does of trying to harvest that information then it's accumulated it's reviewed then it gets to me I have a discussion as I did with Jenny back in the day with Maggie um

31
00:12:23.519 --> 00:12:39.279
when we review especially the voluminous ones um oftentimes there are redactions needed that takes lots of time um And so what I would stress to what Maggie said is many of these data requests don't just involve her department so to speak.

32
00:12:39.279 --> 00:12:57.000
They involve other city departments devoting a serious amount of time to accumulating lots of sheets of paper. Um, [clears throat] the reason to bring this up now, and what I'd add to that too is

33
00:12:57.920 --> 00:13:14.000
prior to a time period when we received data requests that typically weren't of large volume. They were pretty easy to evaluate, look for redactions if necessary, and and answer them. Now, it's getting different, and I think that might speak to the former city

34
00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:31.600
administrator not having charged for copies or considered staff time as a component. But your policy does indicate that staff time can be estimated as part of a advanced charge notice to a requester, not just the volume of paper,

35
00:13:31.600 --> 00:13:48.720
copying costs, etc., but the staff time. And the requesttor is then let know what that number is going to be. And it's going to be probably put a deposit down so that the work gets done. Um, this is where we're in a quandry a little bit because of the volume of the ones that

36
00:13:48.720 --> 00:14:04.639
we have outstanding and thus the need to get this question answered because it'll inform how we respond to those requesters. It's really a question of as Maggie said, I think well in this memo, do you want the overall uh city budget to

37
00:14:04.639 --> 00:14:21.199
continue to pay for these things or do you want um staff to comply with the data practices policy as it's written? And the reason this is being brought up to you is because we we we if you give us the direction to comply

38
00:14:21.199 --> 00:14:38.639
with the policy and act accordingly, then we expect there will be complaints about that. And to head off those complaints, we needed to have this conversation with you. >> Okay. Thank you. Um do we have any questions for Miss Wentler or Mr. Pearson? I'll start at this end first with councelor Hall.

39
00:14:38.639 --> 00:14:54.639
No, I think it all makes sense and and uh following our policy to charge for some of these. I just know from my experience being involved with a few of them and asking the information um extremely time conssuming um for

40
00:14:54.639 --> 00:15:11.279
everybody involved and also like you said I I think um getting people to realize that maybe they could streamline or just get to the point on what they're trying to ask for um that would help guide this.

41
00:15:11.279 --> 00:15:25.279
Okay, counselor on. >> Is there a idea of a threshold of what would be the trigger for a fee that would go back to the data requester?

42
00:15:25.279 --> 00:15:42.639
Is it a specific threshold of hours [clears throat] from staff that would trigger it or is it a cart blanch across the board? Any data request that comes in there's any suggestion or framework for that? love. >> And I think this is probably where it's

43
00:15:42.639 --> 00:15:59.040
probably a discretionary thing. If somebody calls and says, "Hey, can I get a copy of this policy? I probably have the policy. It will take me three minutes." Am I going to charge for three minutes? Probably not. If they want a copy of it, then there's a potential if it's 20

44
00:15:59.040 --> 00:16:15.279
pages, I'll charge them 10 cents a sheet. Um, but some of this these requests are digging up tons of emails and history and minutes and notes and drafts of things that it does require a thing. So, like if somebody

45
00:16:15.279 --> 00:16:32.000
just wants a one-off policy, I can't imagine I would be charging for that piece of it just to email it to them. Um, a lot of these things can be found on the website. So, if somebody calls and says, "Hey, can I get the minutes from whatever meeting?" I will send it to them, but then I say, "Here's the link for all of our minutes that are

46
00:16:32.000 --> 00:16:47.440
approved. They are posted on our website." So, just trying to direct people to our website as well if those things are out there. >> Yeah, Jesse, it's it's tough to answer that question. It's a common sense question to say what's the number, but >> it's a know it when you see it kind of

47
00:16:47.440 --> 00:17:03.519
thing, right? >> Yeah. >> Maggie and I were discussing one yesterday. I went through, I looked at it. It needed redaction. I had Julie redact it quick. We didn't charge any staff time for that, any of my time for that. And that's kind of a practice we've used for stuff like that. So that

48
00:17:03.519 --> 00:17:19.839
would fall under the category of what Maggie was just describing. It's it's really these more voluminous requests that can take a department head 35 or 40 hours by himself to respond to it where that starts to get to be a pretty big number and you you can only know it when

49
00:17:19.839 --> 00:17:36.080
you see it. >> Anything else counselors on? So discretion will be deployed within reason is what I'm hearing. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Council member London. >> No question about agreement. There

50
00:17:36.080 --> 00:17:52.160
should they should be charged these requests. >> Okay. Council member Freley, >> I have nothing. >> Okay. Um I just want to read an email that the city council received uh for the record of this meeting around the data practices. Uh it came from a resident by the name of Kent Wilining.

51
00:17:52.160 --> 00:18:08.880
It says, "Nisa City Council, I am unable to attend today's special council meeting to address the data requests issue in person. As many of you know, I was an elected county sheriff for over 20 years. I received and answered hundreds of data requests. I believe the highest number in one year was 30. In

52
00:18:08.880 --> 00:18:24.160
those 20 years, I can only recall asking for payment a couple of times. This was done because of the enormous number of copies we had to provide to the requesters. We never charged for my staff's time to process and gather the data. The county and I felt it was important not to change as we felt

53
00:18:24.160 --> 00:18:40.880
charging may stop people from exercising their right to requesting public data. I would encourage the city to keep the past practice of not charging as I feel it will hinder people who may not have the means to pay from exercising their rights to request data from the city. If the city feels the need to change its

54
00:18:40.880 --> 00:18:56.320
past practice, it should only apply to future requests and not requests received before the official vote. Requests were made by people who knew that the city did not charge for this. Uh, changing your past practice looks like you are trying to stop citizens from exercising their rights. I would

55
00:18:56.320 --> 00:19:11.200
respectfully request my email be read into record for today's session. >> Can I respond to that? >> Go ahead, Council Member Freley. >> I know Nobles counties they do charge for data requests. They don't charge for inerson if someone comes in for a data request and can talk to somebody about

56
00:19:11.200 --> 00:19:27.919
it and it's done. But other than that, for copies, papers, like they do have a data, they have a data schedule for the data request. what the charge schedule is. >> Sure. Did you have something >> comment on it as well? Um I saw that email this morning and I looked up

57
00:19:27.919 --> 00:19:44.000
Nobles County and guess what? They do charge and I don't know what they did when Mr. Woken was a sheriff. He's not the sheriff down there now, but uh Noles County does charge for these requests. So I think we should do it, too. >> Okay. Um the only com Oh, go ahead.

58
00:19:44.000 --> 00:20:00.080
Counselor H. Also in that comment there, he said the most he had seen in was 30 in a year and we're we're well exceeding that. So I guess that just kind of drives the point home more too that the volume that we're seeing is out of line.

59
00:20:00.080 --> 00:20:16.559
A little town like Nysa versus a whole county. It kind of drives the point home that this is getting out of line. >> Okay. Do you have anything else counselors on? Okay. The only thing I have is um and I I think I had shared this with counselors on is I just felt

60
00:20:16.559 --> 00:20:32.320
the data practices policy it would have been good to have this discussion in our regular council meeting on Tuesday when more members of the public are here and are able to maybe come up and opine on it. Um so we did receive an email which uh was requested I read for the record so I did that. Um but do we have a motion?

61
00:20:32.320 --> 00:20:48.320
>> May I first >> go ahead Mr. Pearson? >> The only thing I would say is this. Um, we have a volume of data requests that we have not responded to for precisely clarification on this issue. And so, if there's a motion to be made, my recommendation is that the motion be

62
00:20:48.320 --> 00:21:04.000
that staff uh comply fully with the data practices policy as it's written and that no uh data requests that were made prior to this meeting are grandfathered, so to speak, from that requirement. It's it's

63
00:21:04.000 --> 00:21:19.760
just telling us to um abide by the policy as we respond to these requests. >> Okay. Do we have a motion from council? >> I will make a motion. I'll make a motion that the city moves forward with abiding

64
00:21:19.760 --> 00:21:37.760
by the policy for charging fees um related to data request. Also too, that any current data requests that are currently placed are not um exempt from the fees or grandfathered in and that um

65
00:21:37.760 --> 00:21:55.520
the city would move forward in all future data requests um following the city policy. >> Okay. Do we have a second? Okay. We have a motion by council member Hall, a second by council member London. I'd like to do a roll call vote on this. I'll start with you, Councelor Freley.

66
00:21:55.520 --> 00:22:11.280
I >> council member London. >> Hi. >> Council member Zan >> I. >> Council member Hall >> I. >> Okay. Motion carries. All right. We are at the point in the meeting where a motion to adjurnn would be in order. >> I so move. >> Second. >> Okay. All those in favor signify by

67
00:22:11.280 --> 00:22:32.840
saying I. I. >> Opposed. Okay. Motion carries. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you everybody. Come over here.