That's the one you don't want. I know >> which one's the one I don't want. >> So go to the You have to close it out. So go to the view. No, >> no. Under the or no say right in the middle. Five people. Enter the waiver up middle above the below the picture.
Click view. So, I'm guessing you'll want to take out the other >> AI notator. >> How do I >> No, that's the host. The next one. You click on that. >> Can you
move? >> There we go. >> Don't listen to Jason. >> What? >> Don't invite all. >> Why not? >> Well, it's a different >> It closes out the picture.
So add all the >> we took out the outer AI. >> No, I'm just individually. >> Yes, I we did see it. >> Take a picture. No. >> Can't be here. Shouldn't be. >> I'm not sure why that is. Double click
on us. Oh yeah, that's good. Let's see. >> Okay, Ryland, whenever you're ready. >> All right. Okay. Yeah. Okay.
All right. Good evening. This is our first monthly city council meeting for 2026. It's January the 20th. Got a call to order. Roll call. >> Mayor, of course. >> Hi. Council Pendigrass >> here. Councelor Phillips >> here. >> Councelor Risor
>> here. Councelor Spring >> here. And then we've got Mike Flity on Zoom. Joe has a another obligation. He's not going to be able to attend tonight. Kane is on vacation. And then myself and
Rachel and Mel. >> Right. Uh approval of the agenda. I have a couple items. >> Yep. I said enough. >> Okay. Um couple items on the agenda.
One is a couple things we need to approve. >> Second have some amendments that's going to add to it. >> Do it. >> Approve it first. >> For a minute. We have May have make a motion to approve it. have discussion on
it to add. >> Of course, >> we have a motion to approve the agenda. All >> clear second. >> Now you can ask for your conditions >> amendments. Yes. So the uh the CDA
report under departments and committee reports CDA contract was >> it's not in here >> and it's assigned. It's under VI. Oh, there >> departments and committee reports. >> BI number six, departments and committee
reports. >> Economic development authority. >> So, what are you going to do with that? >> Uh, we're going to remove it from the agenda because it's been approved with budget and signed. >> What else you got? >> Yeah. And one other item under new business,
part number A. Uh, discussion. remove that support assist of the year nominees recommended not here. What's that? I don't see them here. So that >> um we're going to there'll be a motion to add
>> after we would do a recommendation >> under new business >> for some reason. Yeah, it's under new business. There's a 12 A all of the letters have been >> so it says discussion board have a
motion to to make a recommendation to presenter >> and I think we and I think we ought to move to RFP for engineering services ahead of adopting attorneys and all that Let's see.
Move business up. Moving up to the top of new business or after committee assignments to have that fun. >> We can move it. So you're talking about the official designation that's at the beginning of new business. So they can
move it up before that. Yeah, let's let's do that. Move B up to beginning of new business. So um everybody would accept those amendments. Approve the recommendation for
outstanding citizens. Move the seed of contract and move up the RFP for insurance services to the beginning of new business. >> The only other thing I'm looking at is on the personnel policy.
Um, I'm looking uh with uh January 1st uh for Yan for fire department. I want to make sure that we get that in before the personnel policy. We can talk about that when we talk about personnel policy um with some of the the comments that were made from
fire and first responder. So, I don't again I think that's just a letter for us to know, but we can talk about that. >> Okay, that's fine. I just want to, you know, bring our attention. It's okay. >> Okay. >> Any other changes? In
seeing none, all those in favor signify as approved as amended. I >> I >> I approved >> public forum three minute time limit person city council welcomes and experience participation from community
members. Please keep in mind that your comments must be pertinent to city business and must adhere to that type of rules. No employees names may be used. Please do not expect action from the council during this evening regarding your concerns. To address the city
council during public forum, please step out to the podium. State your name and address and fill out a white form provided. Speakers will be recognized only once. You will be timed. Um has a green card raised when we start. A yellow indicates you have 30 seconds
left and a red car indicates you have your time and stuff. So with that, we'll open the public forum at 6:40. Anybody here that would like to public form step forward?
Is there anybody on Zoom that would like to speak forward? Speak public forum. Uh second call for public forum and third and final call for public forum. Close public forum at 641. First item is our sheriff's report.
>> I have one question. uh could you come forward, sir? >> I have one question. What's an unknown? >> An unknown? >> There's unknown on the bottom. So, >> yeah, that typically would get changed to another call type. Um, so if a person
calls in and dispatcher doesn't know what to code, whether it's a domestic, a dispute, an accident, it gets coded as an unknown and somebody must have forgot to change it to whatever call type it was. >> The other thing I see on there is 17 alarms.
>> What alarms? >> Uh, business alarms. >> Is it the same business? >> Uh, there's Yeah, there's a problem business that's been having an issue. >> Do you address that or do we need to address it? Um, it can be addressed. We have not addressed it. It's up to the business because they're the ones who
pay for the alarm service and all that stuff. So, >> yeah, but we're paying for your service to go there for the 17th time. >> I guess that's not once or twice. 17. >> Yeah, there's been there's been a lot. But they've slowed down. Um, we've been on nights, we just came back at days, so
I don't know how they've been during the days, but at nights they've been kind of slowing down. So, hopefully during the days they are as well. Well, hopefully they have a wrap or a handle on what's going on like the alarms. >> And can we address that one, Jason?
I mean, that's that's >> like you said, that's between them and that we pay for just the overall time here. It's not really We're not getting build extra for them. >> No, no, no. But I'd like to have them. I mean, the rest of the stuff, you know, for traffic stops or different things that way. So,
>> might just be curious which business and what's going on. private matter, I guess. >> Other than that, there's not been anything of note really in in >> any other comments for sheriff. Okay, next item is our
we removed the CEDA contract and uh the public works position has been posted and I don't know if we've had any results the application submitted mail or Rachel or it isn't it's true February
policy. Think that's going to get back to agent. There is a building permit under planning and zoning. Good reference. Next item is a floor relations committee regarding personnel policy.
This was something that was we discussed in or was table two but the January meeting and had discussion you see the uh submission form submitted by C employee relations
committee. So for discussion purposes, I'll make a motion to approve the city personnel policy >> second. Okay. >> Second. Okay. >> So, um, yeah, this is something we've been
working on quite a while. And in your packet, it's a letter from Yan Responders relationship. Yan. >> Yeah, I'm happy to take it, Ryland, if
you want me to. >> Yes, go ahead. Yeah, I think in your packet there is a letter from fire and first responder with some concerns about the personnel policy. So, I just want to first and foremost thank them for taking the time to spend to really look at it
and bring up some thoughts um and being able to ask their questions. So, appreciate their input. I think the one thing that I would like to clarify about the intent and status really of this policy is it was developed with collaboration with our city HR legal
team. start. Right. So, we want to make sure that the city is compliant with state and federal employment laws and that we want to make sure that we're setting the city up to have consistent and compliant personnel framework and I
know we've all wanted that for a while. Um just a little bit of background. This policy was shared with fire and first responders um over the last um probably six months as we continued to draft it as there was additional concerns when we brought it
forward um the beginning of the last year. And so this final policy after HR um legal team reviewed it was shared with them on December 11th. And so we didn't really get any formal responses until um the 9th of January. So, we
understand that there's some timing with leadership transitions. However, I think the city, we still are obligated to make sure that we are maintaining an up-to-date personnel policy. And so, being able to continue to delay this, we are um presenting some legal and
operational risks. So, I know there's a couple of concerns in those documents that I just wanted to talk about and we can open it up for other questions, but just want to head it off before we go there. So, I know there was some conversations about in section 4 about
um really the hiring process and it talks about the city administrator and or um designate to be able to really think about how do we hire within the city. And so again, when we start to think about city administrator or de um
designign, right, that could also mean the fire chief in that regard of being able to bring on new volunteers. I think that does bring a bigger question to the group that we would need to talk about is are there current actually panel interviews going on and should Jason or
someone from ERC or city council sit on those? So that's probably a question that we need to talk about but it doesn't mean that Jason needs to hire everybody. Um there is that designation that we can have a a designate there. The other is talking about holiday pay
on section 11 and that really applies to full-time employees only. So it doesn't apply to volunteers. So it doesn't really create any new compensation requirements that we need to think about and there's really no impact to our budget for the year. I think the other
thing um was talked about is having a separate volunteer policy. We talked about that with our city HR legal team. they advise against it um because it is just something more to maintain. We did your mark where um the volunteer fire
and first responders um do not apply within this policy. Um and that was against um kind of their best education as well to make that delegation of where it's applicable and where it's not. Um, I think again we want to make sure that
we're thinking about approving this. Um, just to make sure from a legal perspective, it doesn't mean that the dialogue can't continue and this policy can't continue to evolve, but continuing to push the can down the road. Um, we're opening ourselves up for risk. So, those are some of my comments as we've worked
on this over the last six to eight months to try to get a policy out there. It's probably not perfect, but we have to start somewhere. All right. Thank you, Marie. >> Yep. >> The um the letter regarding U
I'm sorry, did you speak about Johan's letter we received on the 13th? >> Yeah. Yeah, I got them both in there. Yep. I know that there was some conversation about um in Johan's letter about what is an employee versus a volunteer. I know
Mike, you were able to do just a little bit of research on on that. So, would it maybe turf that off to you of just some of the language that was being used about what an employee and a volunteer means? >> I um Pardon me. Can you guys hear me? My
screen's not blinking green. >> It is here. >> Okay, it is there. Okay, good deal. Um, yeah. So, I did I didn't get the letter. I I saw Yolan sent a note to Melissa or
somebody about that not being in the packet, which triggered me to ask for it and I read it. And so, the only the only issue I mean, I didn't really look at the the issues with contradictions and and this and that. and we we had legal, you know, very competent legal uh team
review this with the ERC for a number of months. And so I'll just defer to that analysis, but the one thing that did catch my eye on it was the the claims that employees or or volunteer firemen or firefighters are not employees. And
so that's a well-worn path, you know, for our firm to answer that question. And there's analysis under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act that would apply to that. Um, and so the I I just I want the council to understand that the
quotations I mean I did it caught my eye to the point where I didn't think it was right. So I did look up the there's quotations quoting to Minnesota statute 176 011 177.23 23 and I I shepherdized that
means I went and looked at those statutes and I don't view those quotations to be found in the statutes at all and I don't think I don't think the conclusions drawn there are accurate. I think that the the quoted language isn't actually quoted in the statute. And if you really
read those, it would probably suggest that that volunteer fire people are employees. Not not that they're not employees, although I don't think either of those chapters applies to this anal that to that analysis. I think there is a more complex analysis, quite a complex
analysis about u balancing factors such as um when employees get compensation and for what they get compensation and how much they get compensation for. Um there's several in our standard
guidance. There's several um uh Fair Labor Standards Act advisory opinions that are cited. That's more a product of common law, not of um the statutes that are cited. The statutes that were cited were the um a different
grouping of statutes. Let me just pull up my uh um analysis on it. Just give me one one second. So that's in the Yeah, there was quotations to the chapter 84 and it wasn't cited to that
but that's what that language is from which is the department of natural resources state employees. It doesn't apply here. Um and then workers compensation statutes and there's a kind of and I don't blame Johan for this necessarily. I mean, he's not an not an
attorney, but there's there's quotations to that employees only for the purposes of workers compensation, and that's not what that statute says. It says that people are employees for the purposes of workers compensation. It doesn't limit
it to only that chapter. That chapter is not really relevant to that analysis. So, the long and the short of it is it's a complex analysis um that's based in common law. I did speak briefly with one of our labor attorneys about it because and it caught
my eye and um they kind of gave me the analysis and I reviewed that and so um I it's really difficult to go into the analysis verbally right now. It's that complicated. >> Um but it is certainly something you would want an attorney's opinion about.
not, you know, you'd want and I think they've given it I I wasn't part of those meetings with the employee relations committee, Marie, but I assume they gave they discussed this and explained this to you. Um, >> yep. Yep. >> So, so that's that's all I have to say about that. In terms of the conflicts, I
do note, you know, the one thing I would note about that and something I've noted for a while is that there wasn't even a code provision for a city administrator. um that that I don't know if we've rectified that yet, but there was no such position. So in the city code at
all and for you know I think since the inception of the city probably there had never been an administrator um until I don't know less than 5 years ago probably um and so you might want to do some updates to your code to match
this um which would be like the next step so that there there is no conflicts. Um, but the bottom line is you've you know, you've had an administrator for multiple years without fixing that. And I think this is just another thing that you you need to do
and have a good employee policy and manual. Um, so I agree with what Marie's saying there. I didn't and honestly I just got this letter this morning, so I didn't have time to fully look through each thing in the letter. Um, but again, that employees versus volunteers is one.
I mean, that's just it's not a product of statute. It's a product of common law. there's citations to statute that aren't relevant to that analysis. And so without getting really deep into it, that's all I can really say about it. But I do agree you need to have some
sort of personnel policy here. Um, you know, would it kill you to wait another month? H, probably not. But Marie's point on how long they've spent on it already is well taken. That's all. Unless if somebody has questions, I can try and answer them.
>> The other go ahead. you give. >> Thanks. Thanks, Mike, for that. I really appreciate it. Um, you're right. I'm not a lawyer. I anticipate I stay at a holiday express last night. I'm just kidding. Um, no. Um, I agree. Um, I agree with you. Uh, your
last statement was definitely that we need that we need a policy. I 100% agree we need a policy. Um, I and if you look I know I know you just got my letter a little a little bit ago. Um, but if you look near the end, I I did state about
uh the city of Byron, which is very local to us, right? They're a couple cities away. They they looked at this um too, and they said, "Yep, just like I said, you said we need a policy." Um,
but they went a different route where they are specific and they they understand that the roles, responsibilities hours, pay, um pay scale, um all of that is
different um for volunteers. Um so they opted to have actually they have three policies um as as I understand it, one for of course the city city employees of Byron and then another for the firefighters
and another for the first responders where they outline you know, more of these um not idiosyncrasies, but just, you know, differences in in what in what these volunteers or these people
do, these 42 people that we that we have here. >> Is there any way to get a copy of those? >> There would be a way to get a copy. I could not get a hold of the M Grand Fire Chief um this week. It's been a it's been a week. Um, but I I I really urge
the the city council like there's other things that I didn't mention in my letter was um if we're speaking to the media um we have a fire or we have medical at or a mass casualty something at 2 in the morning. I really don't think I mean I'm
sure Jason would pick up, don't get me wrong, but I I really don't think that he wants to be bothered at two or three in the morning when I need to talk to or someone needs to talk to the media. Um, and that that's included in this polic.
Um, so I mean he'd probably pick up, don't get me wrong, but I don't think he wants to and I don't think that you guys want this policy to enforce that either. Um, so I again very over very open to dialogue. Both both departments are very
open to dialogue, very open to signing something, but we really want to tailor to to what we do. >> And obviously with the city of Byron, they saw the need to. So I think I hope that we can see the need to. >> I think it would be good if we could get
a hold of that just to take a look at it and and see what what what that has to say. The other comment that that I'll make is that up to this point number of times that as long as I've been on council in that uh we haven't had an
issue even though it didn't say you know city administrator or anything else that way things have run relatively smooth on everything that's been going on. And so it's not like we're we're trying to uh
fix a problem. The problem is not there. And I think that waiting and seeing what we get from Byron makes more sense for us to see and and to review that for the volunteers. You know, the other part I'm I'm fine with all the other stuff that's in here
for the personnel policy on everything else that you guys have done. So, >> I think if we don't have documentation, it's hard to hold people accountable for things that we are wanting to hold them accountable for, right? And so again,
open to to talk about others. The other thing I just want to point out is another policy means more time for someone to write it and maintain it, right? And so if we can't even get this one policy review now, we're going to have two, three, 10.
I just want you guys to think we are a small city with really small numbers in terms of employees and volunteers. I we shouldn't be making this harder for ourselves would be my comments. But I'm
open to to thinking about how we get creative, but another policy means more time spent with HR, right? And I know Jim, you talked about the big bill that was coming from Flattery and Hood last time, right? So that's going to be
more time spent for that. another policy to review on an annual basis time that Johan um and and first responders are going to have to make sure that they're compliant every year and getting it looked at and reviewed. It's it it does add up to have two
separate policies for a really small number of individuals. >> I think that agree I agree I agree with you, Marie. Um I I would think that the 40 plus of us um on both departments um would definitely would definitely make that effort,
right? Just like we make the effort to I don't know, for example, like I'm making everybody bring in all their bring in their radios tomorrow by tomorrow because we're getting reprogrammed, right? It's just to me from an admin side and or just from any side, this is this is a cost of doing
business, right? This is if we if we want something that's tailored to us, if we want something that says that outlines what we do, whether it's fire versus response or both, um we're going to we're going to put the time in. I'll make sure that we put the time in to to sign it again if we have to sign it
yearly or or whatever it is um to make that happen. >> It's not just your time, though. It's legal's time, too. Like, so I mean, I understand what you're saying, Johan, but there's going to be time that we have to spend with
Mike or others to get a separate policy made that is federal and state compliant. >> Right. Right. You know, and >> you can't just cut and paste out of this one. That that's not going to give us the right policy. >> No. You know, just like just like well, for example, for SOPs, SOGS, right?
there's there's a there's something you can always cut and paste out of, but you have to tailor it to your response area, right? Um, so so same with this, >> everything's all unique in its own, but you know, you did bring up did bring up speaking to the media and is that something the city should address
somewhere having some kind of a media policy? It's in there. >> It's in there. >> And it's in there. But the the thing that there is is is like Johan was talking about, if you're at a at a scene, you got reporters that show up,
it's in the middle of the night, you don't know what's going on. They ask questions, you know, or whatever. You should be able to answer those as being that type of of being a firefighter or a first responder that's there and saying, "Huh, >> I understand that." and and and that
again is what we're we're saying is it's going to be separate that way a little bit differently. And >> so how did that go with the township when we had lots of media and people saying lots of different things? I just want to call it out. I I I think if we
we dwell into that one, and I I don't necessarily want to go there, but I think there were other things that happened prior to that point in time that created that issue that was there that that shouldn't have been created, but that's water underneath the bridge. I think what we're looking
>> it is, but if a policy is that we're all saying the same thing and we have a practice in a in a policy in place, that wouldn't have happened, >> right? We would have we would have had a clear message where we would have been a united city to be able to talk about
that good or bad. I'm not saying we shouldn't air things that we've missed misststepped on, but that would have caused less chaos if we would have had time to think about what is our message and what are we trying to talk about. >> I think there's I'd like to to see what
the Byron, you know, policy has to say, especially with with that. Um and and I think it's worthwhile to to look at that um just for the flexibility of what needs to be done for for the volunteers and and we do have a number. I mean it's
not like one or two volunt or you know that that are volunteer people. We're looking at 40 people that there are that we're talking about in this community which is a good section of what we have for volunteers. So, um I I understand
there's extra work, but I think if we're going to do this and and there's just a few minor things that I think that that both the first responders and fire department are concerned about. >> So, I would agree that um
first of all, appreciate you the letter because you did bring some point out that we haven't heard. And the fire department, first responders, this is not the first time you've seen the policy. um you've seen it numerous times in 2025 and the research of searching up to buy
a rent and everything is it's very notable and I think that should have been done but I think we're to the point that um the changes that we did in the personnel policy was the definitions on page 12 and that was the letter
that was sent to you in December 11th and 12th to look at and review that was the main question there was also a question about the form to acknowledgement of of all the federal information, everything that was needed. So, I think I'm I'm of the opinion of
adopting as because one um we've been talking about for a long time and I'm open to it's a living document. It's always been known to be a living document and if uh if the fire department wants to pursue uh looking
what Byron has and seeing how that works for us or doesn't work for us and uh and work with the ERC to to make those changes at sometime in the future, I'm okay with that. But I think we've spent a lot of city money, taxpayer money to
get us to this point. And I think it's important that we get that documented as being effective today. I also think that because it's been updated to include the Minnesota Paid Leave Act, that's important to everybody and right now that's not in our policy and uh I think it needs to be in our policy and that by
adopting it tonight um it gets us going forward with a date on a on the policy and we can continue to to look at your aspect of the our department of first responders and see how it fits with us.
Right. I sure I I understand Ryland. Um my last my last thing I'll say is that we have worked a long time on this. You've got 40 plus volunteers in the city versus six, seven, eight city employees. So the
majority of your people are volunteers. Um, and I'd hate for us to rush something if we could take one more month or two more months to make sure that we do it and we pinpoint everything that we need
to do and we pin and we have it we have it done right. >> I just want to call out this was not rushed by any means. >> Sorry. No, no, it was not. Sorry. Sorry, Maria. I was not saying that. Um, not that not that we rushed it at all. just
that I feel like this last this last month or so I feel I feel like it's rushed and I I would like to take one more month to help to help work together to figure it out. Thank you.
I um well the one that come about the midnight call to the administrator you know I think it's you know it's very common to hey for people to say no comment and don't get caught up in the emotion the reaction of something going
on so it's very typical to say no comment get back with you in the morning or something like that >> that would be >> to me that's a >> that's a sensible way to approach it so but I think it's to point where we just need to get something documented. It's
the first meeting in January and so that's my position. >> If I can really say something real quick. Um I I agree with both sides of this right now. I think it's important to get this approved, but I also know
that they should have their own policy. Um, we talked about this back when we started things in October and I know I provided a couple examples to you guys and encourage you to start working on it back at our first meeting with uh with their group in ERC back in
October of last year. So, I think it's important for them to have their own policy and it will take time, but that's where I also think it's important to get this in place and then as we go like you said right on it's a living document. We can amend it as needed. Once they have a solid policy in place, it can kind of come in and we can adjust the current
one we have for city employees. >> Make it added as an amendment. >> No, it would be its own standalone policy and we would be able to amend the current one we have um for employees to, you know, however we need to if we need to take things out or adjust the verb verbiage. But, you know, like when I
worked for police department, we had our own policy manual for our department. We also had the policy manual for the university we had to follow and we had you know so there's multiple policy manuals at different levels but you know they should absolutely have their own because it's going to go way more in depth than what we would ever do at our
level. You know this is kind of the the basic catchall get things you know theirs would be much more in depth um covering a lot of the same type of topics um but again much more in depth because of what they have to do um just being first responders. So just my take
from that side of it. >> Any other comments? >> No. The only thing Johan is is is would that work for for your people off of that? >> I would absolutely love to have a separate policy. >> It would be a department policy, right?
So it's not going to take this and it like you can't supersede some of these things because these really are HR. So to Jason's point, it's going to be more in depth on Johan on how you're going to run the fire department and some of those processes
and SOPs that you guys do on a monthly basis. So it's not I just want to call that out that it's going to be more in detail of what Johan is expecting as the chief to make sure that from a fire perspective that it's running smoothly and here's the things that they're going
to do as well. I don't think there's anybody disagreeing with not having a policy. I just think it's just the timing of taking more time and probably some some of our HR attorneys time to look at it
too. So, and I think that can be done down the road or one month or two months or three months, whatever it takes. So, but we want it to be done right and I'm sure you want to be done right, too. So, >> yeah. I'm just wondering if if how how soon we could get that that Byron policy
to take a look at. That's why if we could get all that stuff within a month, okay, then we're we're not looking at that much of a difference and we can make this retroactive on this policy to to January 1st, 2026.
>> We have a lot going on this month. Um and we'll talk about that later on, too. But I would yeah I think we should approve it and it's it's it's open for further discussion and more detail and something that can
be um written as a separate policy or part of this personnel policy but right now we're looking at getting approved what we have to date. Any other comments? The only other comment, Ryland, would be
that um with the approval that we would um require that acknowledgement of receipt and reading by the end of February for so February 27th. That is just a standard of practice of when things get updated that people are aware
that they've changed and they've signed off it. Similar to if we have a new hire, we would go through this and talk about the personnel policy. They would sign off that they got it as well. That's pretty standard of practice. Again, if we change it, we would do the
same thing. >> I think you're going to have a lot of volunteers that are going to sign it. So, >> well, then maybe that's a different conversation that we would need to have with fire and first responder leadership.
Well, we could um we could table it to the February meeting. Um but then that would be the end date for approving the policy. We can go to March, April, but then I would rather have sign approve it today
and continue to work on a good policy. We have no idea what the Byron is. And I do get it. It's a it's a lot of time and four weeks or less to make that happen. I think that's could be a challenge.
>> I would like to make a motion to table it till next month and see what we come up with with Byron and see how far off it is for what there is what we have right now. >> We have a motion on the table to approve already. I will second the motion to approve as
written with the acknowledgement of receipt by the February 27th of 2016 or 26. Sorry, I said 16. >> So you're making a friendly amendment. >> Nope. I'm taking Ryland. I'm seconding it.
>> I made the motion to approve it. Marie second it. So all in favor of approving the personnel policy today um as written the understanding of more work to be
done going forward and fire department. >> All in favor signify by saying I >> I >> I >> I >> post nay. personnel policy is approved as of today. We'll continue to get more input from the fire department
regarding the potential fire department standalone policy. Moving on. Um, we have a quote for the Motorola radios
and turnout here. >> Oh, sorry. Sorry about that. So, yep. I so I'm requesting two purchases um this month or later this month February um for four radios that were the APX 6000s that were budgeted
for this year in the fire department budget and also uh for turnout sets of turnout gear um you see the mo the radios are one full quote that's how Motorola does it um for everything fire
safety gave us one a quote for one set of turn gear that's how they do it Um, so I'd like to I'd like to get council's approval, please, to um move forward on the purchase of those items. >> Make a motion to approve and get started
with that with the order. >> Second. >> Oh, also real quick does take a bit to get to get the radios and to get the turnout here. Three to six months is our time frame for the radio. >> For the radio and >> technology turnout gear is fitted. So I
understand that we're getting just one >> over co it was over co it was like six months to a year and now we're back down about threeish >> for one set of turnout year right >> um oh I'm asking for I think I put in there I'm asking for
any other questions none in favor of the motion signify by saying I >> I >> I Close. Approved. >> Thank you. Council open.
Thank you. I have something else like AVs or something. >> That would be first responders. >> Oh, I'm not sure. I got put under yours. Oops. Sorry. That's okay. first responders was um
policy and the council report something else it got put under fire department look like it's the bottom one there the says or fire department quote >> oh from z >> yeah that's the aed
yeah >> we can go >> I make a motion to approve their I think they're asking for pays >> second discussion. Kobe, >> what was that? >> You have anything to say?
>> No, I think we've kind of gone through this that we were going to do four and along with all the pads and boards. And >> this outfits every all the vehicles then does it out all the vehicles,
>> right? And would also Yeah. Yeah. It would al out all >> Yes. >> And then do we have any additionals that are or are they expired from use or do we have
additionals still? >> I believe they're expired. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, these will replace what's on the trucks and the first responder vehicles. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> And I don't know. How do you keep one on the brush
the >> the >> UTV? Sorry. Sorry. >> Stand here together. Um so um so the the the four rigs that that hold the AEDs, engine one, engine two, NFPA standards says we carry AEDs. Um
and then also rescue one, right? First out for first responders and then brush one, which is second do. >> If we get if we get more or need more help. Yep. >> Out of curiosity, is there an AED in the building? We have a lot of people in this building that
>> I'm trying to Is that just the pack that's back there? >> Is there one here? >> There is. >> I know. I had asked Dan at the end of last year to go around all the buildings and I don't know if you were part of that change. I knew there was close to transitioning. I was not to go through and look at where we're at for our AEDs
and to update >> ones we we should definitely have one here especially with the classes that we >> absolutely the um this is this is direct from Zol. So this is our Z rep like we're not going through an intermediary or third party or anything. So um I think Jeremy's name is on here sorry
Jason Jason Landry um he is definitely the point of contact for >> the best. Yeah, I would think especially here with some of the senior citizens and stuff like we have here, would it be advantageous to have something? >> Um, can I just request that before you
dispose of any of the ones that are currently in use that we can look into if we can repurpose them for the building or mobile during gold rush or whatever. if they can still be used. Let's before we dispose of them, let's
try and figure out if there's a use for them. That's just a request. >> The biggest the biggest issue with them with them, if they're if they're anywhere near expired, if they're expired, they don't work, you're at fault for it. You know, you would want
you would want an expired one sitting here praying it worked that it didn't. >> But one that's not here won't work. >> That's true. That's a guarantee. That's a guarantee it won't work. >> Oh, >> I think it would be good to have one definitely here. >> Absolutely.
>> Yeah. >> But you said there, Jason. >> I thought there was. They got the bay in the back there, but I don't think there's actually >> there. But is it labeled where everybody would know where it was at? >> I don't know. It's been there for two years. >> I've seen it move. >> I've seen it move a couple times when they've looked through it to I think
refresh the supplies once a year. Does >> somebody want to go open it up and see what's back there? I was going to save something. >> It was really my first year here was really covered in dust. So >> it was >> Well, that was good. It never got used, so that's a good thing.
>> Yeah, kind of falling apart. >> Yeah, it was. I looked at it. I was like, who is that? No, that's too small. >> I guess my point is who would know that was back there other than >> people in here. We can we can use the
ones that might be expired for first responder vehicles that might not necessarily they might not necessarily be expired for in home stuff. >> But I think that would be them, not us. >> I think it's going to be a matter of
checking the battery and then making sure the pads are still good. might be labeled service cheaper than >> buying a new one. But >> anyway, >> Johan, are the ones we currently have are they purchased through Zo as well?
No, >> unfortunately. >> Okay, that might make it a little challenging. >> We'll talk. >> We we can chat about what our options are. Yeah, that's all I ask is just if because is if there's a good use for them, let's let's try and repurpose.
>> Oh, absolutely. Any comments? Say gentle in favor signify by saying I. >> I post same approved. That's all with responders. Unfinished
business is next. This is regarding the carry over from the uh December 16th meeting regarding um wasn't there a resolution?
>> No, we didn't. We talking about mine. Yeah, there was no resolution because we were going to wait to see what what we heard from the forensic audit before we did anything else. So, this was put tabled until this month.
>> And so, um I make a motion that we uh take or just leave the 10% that we were getting with the city to leave that with the first responders and just make it simple for recordkeeping. And that way they they get audited every year off of their stuff and it makes it simpler
for Mel to be able to take care of what she needs here of what goes on. So that would be my motion. >> I think you want by relief now by relief. Yeah. >> I'll second for discussion. I thought there was a
looking at what was in the December meeting package. >> That's what it was. So I just want to make sure because on page 40 41 was your submission form
or uh code 130.007 to repel and replace ordinance 130.07. Well, we don't. And in a discussion that we had in December and and I believe Kent had a really good idea when he was talking about it, there might be somebody else that that we have that
might want to turn around and we'll use that 10% or whatever with them. So that way I didn't want to do it the whole way to remove that resolution but only the part that there is for the first responders that that are not first
respond but fire relief that fire relief gets that 10% and it stays there only the fire relief >> which is just today correct me if I'm wrong it's going to the it's going to fire to the fire department. >> No right now it's coming to the city. it
comes to the city, but then >> I don't think it goes back that way because that was one of the things that we had it stays here. But most of the stuff that's been going on with the fire relief has been stuff that they spend with the city anyway that goes along
with it. So whether it be National Night Out or whether it be stuff they do for gold rush or what we were doing for the Special Olympics, we give money to that that goes to that. Um what was the other one that we had?
>> You know that went to um >> the see the the brush rig brush two $36,000 that was that was fire relief. So along with the SCBA bottle pillar you know that that was $24,000
um $50,000 towards um outfitting engine 2. That was the extrication tools that we put on engine 2. Um, most recently a thermal imaging camera for engine 2 at price tag of about six grand. Um, but we also gave to St. Jude's.
>> That's what I was thinking about St. Jude. >> The Special Olympics um did the in the past to the BFW. >> We gave to um age friendly too. We made it out that way for some stuff. So most of the stuff goes back to the city on
anything we're doing with that. just >> for the frenzigotic um 10% the pull tab donations that came into one account and then it went to the fire department equipment fund 425 account
that's what the forensic audit said that's my understanding is that correct or is that wrong >> I'd have to go back and look at >> yeah I didn't my brain right now that was my understanding >> maybe not to the fire relief but let's go back to because we've got it going. I think right now it's set to go into just
the 425. >> So, we take in the 10%. Council needs to motion and approve how those dollars are used, whether charitable or back to the fire department. Historically, what council has been doing for the last year
or two is using those monies to make purchases for the fire department, whether that be training or equipment. Um, historically, that's just what council has done. Um, in December, council used $3,000 of the 2025 10% gambling contributions that came into
the city as a donation to the food shelf. I think what Johan is referencing is other goodwill donations and what that other 90% that they keep goes to, which they're using as an example of they are donating to the same causes and
the same entities that that the city might also consider to donate to their 10%. So things like the VFW or other community events, fireworks and things like that. Um but historically, Ryland, yes, the council has been using the 10% gambling
funds contributions from the fire relief uh to make purchases back for the fire department um equipment or training. >> Then you also have to account for that and fill out the form every year that goes back to send back to the state and that would take care of that. just to
make it simpler and then every month we don't need to have a resolution that there would be for us to be able to accept it and keep track of it. That way if we stay with the fire relief, it just stays over there and we know where it's at and what's being done with it and how
we've spent it in the past. >> So it's just simpler. >> I understand what you're saying for auditing purposes. I thought the auditors were asking for to put it into resolution so there's some documentation.
>> Mike was trying to >> Yeah. C can I just help out a bit here? Um I I had so I had listened to the conversation before the last we I think this is the third time we've talked about this now and I I just was confused
about what the goal was. So now, and I called Jason today and I figured out what what the proposal was, which was not to repeal the whole ordinance, but just to basically add an exception in for the fire relief association that
they wouldn't be they wouldn't have to pay the 10% which ultimately would get paid back to them anyway later on. Um, probably 10% and then some would get paid paid back to them. So I do have I just can I share my screen quick? Might be easier if I do that. Is
>> Is that Is that even allowable in this meeting? >> Let me just see if I can figure it out. >> Oh, I got it. I got you here. Uh, send request. I sent you a request. >> Go back to the play.
That's not looking right here. Let me let me click on it again. >> Oh, I got it. I got it. I got it. Good deal. So, this is your ordinance. Can you guys see this green and yellow? >> Might have to make it a little bigger. >> Um, I'm not sure I can. I This is a Word
document. Can >> you zoom in on the Word document? >> I can blow it up. Maybe make it bigger. Is that better? >> Um, so this is what your ordinance reads now. The city shall disperse these funds
for lawful purposes as defined by that statute. And then so what I was originally thinking you were trying to do is change that. And so the green language is not currently in your ordinance at all. So,
I I thought you wanted to add take out this reference or or maybe add to this reference to this. This is like the charitable contribution statute. And it's got a whole long list of a whole bunch of charitable things you can do with that money. And I was thinking you
wanted to leave that in, but then add also so that you could legally use these for police, fire, other emergency, public safety related services and equipment. Okay. But now what you're saying is, and so then I was like, well, if you don't want them to pay the 10%, you want to just repeal this whole
thing. And now I get it. You want to you want to keep collecting the 10% from other charitable groups that do pull tabs, but not the first responders. Is that fair? That's what the request is? >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> So, I'm just concerned. I haven't researched that issue. I wasn't understanding that was your intent, but I haven't researched that. I I do think there might be a little bit of a legal issue there in that you're treating similarly situated people different under the statute. In other words, you
know, if the VFW runs both tabs, now they got to pay 10% but the fire relief doesn't have to pay it and they that may create an equal protection or or due process issue. I'm not sure that it does, but it might. And so that's why I
was originally thinking about you don't have to collect the 10% if you don't want to. you can just repeal this whole thing. Um, but the current uh, so then I'm going to show you the statute where this is derived from. Um, so this
right here, and that's I can't blow that up, but I'll just read it to you. It's it says charitable contribution means one or more of the lawful purposes expenditures under subdivision 12 25 paragraph 8 clauses 1 to 7 and then separately 10 to
15 and then separately 19. So it's not even your ordinance isn't even really correct as it's currently drafted. It says any of the any of the these things under that entire statute but the allowance the statutory allowance is only for certain subdivisions.
It's only for clause 1 through 7 or 10 through 15 or 19. And I think there's like 20 plus. There might be like 25 different reasons you could donate. And so, you know, your your ordinance currently doesn't even accurately state the law, I don't think. You know, it's
probably written a really long time ago. Um, however, there's a separate there's separate language um in the statute that allows you to do this. um which is
basically um the I'm not going to find the statute. I'll just tell you it. It also in addition to that subdivision 25, it also has this exact language. So in addition to what's in that statute, you can also use the funds to pay for police, fire, other emergency or public
safety related services, equipment, training, and exu excluding pension obligations, which is I think what most cities do. Most cities collect this money and then use it for fire equipment. I think that's the normal way to do it. I'm just and I see the the the
the want and desire to just leave the whole statute so that you can keep getting the 10% from others but not this group. But then I worry that those other groups are going to complain and say, "Well, wait a minute. Why do we have to withhold 10%. They're not withholding 10%." And and maybe have some sort of
legal challenge to that. And I haven't fully researched that, but I didn't I didn't fully grasp what was going on until today. Um, so you would I think you need to change this ordinance to add that green language in anyway and actually change this because this isn't even the right statute that you're
referencing. Um, it's only certain provisions within this statute which are defined in a different statute. So, it's kind of confusing. I'll stop sharing. So, that's that's the long and the short of it. um is it would require an ordinance amendment and you know I guess
I can look into if I think it's it's legal to do what you're suggesting. I'm not saying necessarily it's not but you do see my my point though like you know if you have a criminal statute that generally you don't select out certain groups of people that it applies to and certain groups that it
doesn't. You usually have to uniformly apply it. Um and so I haven't done much research on it but I did want to point that out. Um, I do think you should add at least add in this police fire language because that's what you're using that's what you should be using the money for and that's what you're
using it for. If you repeal the whole statute, then it accomplishes what Jim is asking it to accomplish. The problem is, of course, then you're not collecting the money from other groups. Um, so there's a negative there. Um,
does does that make sense? >> Yeah, it it does. I understand what you're trying to say. Um, and it's my understanding that like 85% of the fire departments in Minnesota don't give the 10% to the city. Okay, that's that's
what my understanding is and I could be wrong on on that one. So, it might >> and I know I'm just trying to make it simple for reporting purposes, too. maybe just repeal the whole thing and just >> Well, so here's what I would suggest.
Even though we've continued it three times, I suggest doing it one more time because I I am interested. The only exception to this is would be is if you're not collecting a lot of money from other pull tab vendors anyway, >> you know, and I don't know what the balance sheet is. I mean, if you're only
collecting $2,000 a year, who cares? Let's just repeal the whole thing. If if you're collecting huge amounts of money, like I gave the example, I was talking to Jason today of the Goodview Activity Group in the city of Good View. They collect they sell pull tabs and they
collect a huge amount of money for youth sports essentially. That is an allowable use under that statute I quoted. And so for them it would be that they couldn't repeal it. They have to keep collecting that money so they can build ball fields and whatever fix the fix the parks or
whatever. Um, but I don't know what how much you're getting for it. Does anybody know how much you collect from >> 10 $10,000 a year is what you know. >> And is that included with the fire relief and all the other groups combined is 10,000.
>> There's no other ones that are added. Just fire relief is the only one. >> Oh, there that's the only one you've given a a license to. Oh, well then why don't you just repeal the whole statute >> or either that or just add this language in if you want to keep collecting it and
distribute it if the city wants to keep control over it. I mean, so then the then the only issue is who controls it. Do you just let the fire department keep it all to begin with or do you collect it from them and basically pay them right back with you? >> Might as well let us keep it and make it
simple for everything goes on. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I guess that that is the main issue. I should have asked Jason that. He could have told me that today, but that I mean I wouldn't want you to miss out. And what could happen is as the city expands in population, you might start doing pull tabs from other
you know there's like the snow um I don't know if anybody's ever heard of the snow one like the snow trekers or something. They're pretty famous in southern Minnesota. They sell pull tabs all over the place. So if you get more bars and restaurants that open up in town, you might have more requests and
then I think you might want to re readopt this and then and then I would have to at that point research whether or not you can just accept out one group but not other groups which just I mean my lawyer antenna I mean everybody's antenna should go up a little bit with that. I mean that it doesn't quite seem
right but I you know I haven't researched it at all and >> I think it remove it would remove have it write that resolution each month. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It would be make it simpler everything that's going on for them. And >> my concern would be if we do have more
groups come in who want to do this, then we have to go back and we have to do it again. >> I agree. >> Back at that point from the staff side, we've got the resolution written. It's a changing a number each time. So that's not a big deal. And now we've got a good
handle on this and system in place moving forward. you know, that should be changing to be super easy as well. Am I wrong in that assessment, Mel? Or >> no, now that it's being tracked and somebody knows they're supposed to be doing it. >> Yeah. >> And it doesn't it doesn't mean you can't
let people sell pull tabs. New groups sell pull tabs. New groups can sell pull tabs. You just wouldn't collect the 10% from them. >> And so, you know, >> well, just you just put it in place to do write that resolution each month to get that start to do that to keep track of. We should um table it to the
February meeting when we have a resolution in front of us and >> well and I think you have to repeal this is an ordinance. If you're going to repeal it, you have to ordinance to repeal it, but I mean you could make a vote today
to just not collect any further 10%. >> To repeal that, Michael, we have to do a would we have to do a public hearing to repeal that? >> I don't think so. I don't think it's it's I mean unless there's some special I haven't read the gambling statute. So you never have to do a public hearing to repeal an ordinance unless there's a
statute requiring it like a land use um ordinance for example or annexation you know a lot of reasons. So I don't think so. I haven't fully looked at the gambling statutes but I I think what you could do is just make a motion to
tonight to stop just a voice motion to stop collecting that 10%. And then we'll follow up next month with a formal repeal ordinance. >> Just a resolution to repeal it. >> Nah, it's an ordinance. You got to repeal it by ordinance. So, but we'll
it's it's it's just a one pager. It's not a big deal. I just I didn't understand. We lost track of it, honestly. And I I wasn't understanding I get it now. I just didn't I I was thinking that you wanted to change the language to give the money to the fire department. I wasn't understanding that
you wanted to just stop collecting it in the first place, which is which is fine. Um, you know, city a lot of cities do that. I mean, there's, you know, it's fine either way. I guess my next question would be is what do we do with the funds that they've given us in the
last couple of months that we made the or >> well everything is been done at the end of the year okay with the exception of the one that we just took for this month which is coming up >> but that's going into the 425. So we were trying to do it where it would stop
at at December but things got kind of >> Well, have you actually accepted the money yet? >> No. >> Yes. Yeah, we accepted it last. >> No, we haven't. We haven't accepted it with the resolution yet. The resolution has >> resolution is in the agenda. You're
right. >> It's it's in the consent agenda tonight. >> It's a new business. >> It's a new business. So, I what I would recommend if you don't want to hassle with that, if you're inclined to do what I'm laying out here is just to not approve that and just strike that from
the agenda and then >> everything will go and >> you're saying just remove it from the consent agenda. >> It's on the regular agenda, Marie said, not on the consent agenda. >> Have to take a voice. So >> yeah, you can just skip that and just
tell them tell them you're not going to accept it because you're going to stop taking it alto together next month. And so and then then that would solve that issue. If you had already accepted it, I think then you have to probably spend it pursuant to the statute, you know, you're you know, but if you haven't yet
accepted it, then just don't accept it. >> Um so resolution December that we was like 900 something dollars. >> Yeah. But that's all for last year. >> So that's all >> for 2025. >> So everything would be closed for just
starting 2026 on everything. So we'd leave 2025 the way it was and start fresh with 2026. >> The Yeah, but the resolution for tonight is for 2025. >> What is for 2025? Okay. I didn't know if that was for what we
>> Yeah, if you look at their city their calculation sheet that's attached to it, it says period December 2025. We're kind of a month behind. >> Okay. Then then when we would accept it today for that, then that will close out 2025. >> Yep. And then the money that you accept, if you still have some, not just that
month, but if you have a pot of money sitting there, I think you can't give it back. You have to just spend it, you know, consistent with what the law allows, which you have, which you have been doing, >> right? >> Okay. So in our packet resolution 2026-03
which is on page 64 the resolution of the city council city of Waro Minnesota accepting the monthly 10% gathering contribution from or local fire relief association therefore it be resolved that the city council city of Waro Minnesota thus
hereby accept the order of 10% gambling contributions defined above for the month of January. So >> which should read the month of December. >> What's that? >> It should read the month of December, not January. >> Their contributions that were collected
from the month of December. >> So this is written >> the resolution says January. It should say December. >> We're accepting it in January 4th December. So I would say let's table this and
let's table accepting the money is until next month. Table those two things together >> and then we'll dis we should discuss whether we want to >> add the language that he proposed
or get rid of the whole thing. >> Yeah, that's the discussion tonight because otherwise we keep putting that off. So, if we have this discussion tonight and we agree that we're just not going to accept that and just get rid of that whole um
what am I looking for? >> Ordinance. >> The ordinance, then we can have that written for next month for us to be able to put it in. But we have to have a voice on that tonight so we know what to do next month.
>> Well, you could just tell me, too. I mean, >> well, that's what he's waiting for for Mike and that's why he said, "Okay, let's just go ahead and go that direction." So, >> well, I just if you wanted to get it done tonight, what um you know, well, Council Member Spring saying it would be fine, too. I think the one issue would
be just don't accept any money, you know, until you've addressed that the ultimate issue as to whether or not you want to repeal it. If if you're not sure whether I I think the reason to wait is you're not sure whether or not you want to repeal it. If you're still considering that, then wait. If you've
decided you're going to do that, I think it's fine to just make a voice vote to um, you know, direct the city attorney to draft a resolution to repeal ordinance 130. Um, if you still want to consider keeping this in and adding the language
that, you know, keep the pattern going of collecting the 10%, then you see I in my view your ordinance isn't fully accurate and needs to be fixed anyway. So, let's let's just repeal the ordinance and do a voice vote on that one >> next month.
>> Those vo tonight on more in favor of keeping the ordinance and adding the language. >> Um, as opposed to repealing it completely. >> Um, >> I think every month we're going to do
this and have to keep a resolution every month of what's going on. Keep Those resolutions take 30 seconds. So, we've spent more time discussing this than it's going to take all year >> to to adopt to accept that resolution.
>> Um, I just don't want to get into a situation where we do have another group come in and want to sell pull tabs and now we have to scramble and get this back in. >> Um, make another resolution if that's
the case. I mean, it's never happened up to this point. So, no, but we're growing and we're getting more organizations and um there are other sports teams that that could very well consider doing that. Um
>> well, gambling isn't the uh isn't >> isn't the duck race for is that a gambling thing, too? You buy a $5 ticket or something just for giggles. that it's under the fire license.
>> Oh, got it. Yeah, >> never mind. >> I just think it was simple to do it. >> So, did I missed the name? Did we have a motion initially or not? >> I had a motion, but it to approve it to approve what he
>> moving the ordinance. Did it get seconded? I believe I second. >> So should we we can vote on the motion. We can also table it till February and give the attorney time to review and
from a legal standpoint to provide what the options are to us. >> Well, he just explained that. >> Yeah, I I I think the options are pretty clear, right? >> Yeah, the the options are clear. I don't because you have no other organizations doing this. I don't think you need to
accept out one particular group. I think you should just repeal it or keep it. And if you keep it, tweak the language a little bit to make sure that it's legal that we're giving this money to the fire spending it on fire purposes and first responder purposes. So, I don't think
Yeah, I don't I don't I think those are the two options. I don't think there's a third option. Okay. Either way, the money is going back to fire department one way or another. So, six one half of the other if we language that's dependent too of
you know we giving donations the city like we did this year to the food pantry and everything. It's not always to the fire department. There are other departments that can utilize those funds. So, >> well that that's the other issue. If you don't want to give it entirely to the this group and you want to spread it out, then you need to keep collecting
it, I guess. So, if you're only collecting 10,000 in total, you know, I don't know. >> May not be a lot to the fire department, but that could be a lot to something for parks and trails or whatever else or, you know, >> Yeah. I don't mean to diminish the food
pantries need. $1,000 means a lot to them, obviously, or $2,000 means a lot to them. >> Relief does do that. So, they they've been doing that. You know, I I just I'd like to have it if we're doing this, we just repeal it. Okay. So, we table it next month or we
do it. >> I think we should table it. They set the mot change table to next month >> because in February is still going to be the money coming in January. >> So, we got everything cleared up for the year. So, then we just wouldn't accept
it next month for the money coming in. Well, it's just the normal process is we we approved the money for the previous month. The money from the previous month, that's what it's always been. So, we're not changing that. It's just that this resolution is effective with December, but we want to make it
effective with January. So, we should if we have a resolution, we should approve it in February is my understanding. >> So, that we wouldn't take the money for this year. >> Yeah. You should don't take any money from 2026 if you're still considering it. Yeah, that's what I would say.
>> If it's for 2025, I'm not sure to be honest. That's an accountant question. I don't know. >> Resolution 03 is for 2025 bunnies. >> So, do we have a >> make a motion we table it? Well, you my motion ready to table it. >> You have to It has to be a friendly
motion back to me if I want to table it. So, leave a friendly motion to table it for next month. Okay, I'll go along with that and to have that I think we should >> So, what do we as city staff need to have and with the attorney? >> Here's what we're here's what we're
going to do. I'm going to make two resolutions, one of each. They're each about one page. It won't take more than an hour. And so, I'll give you your choices. Choice one will be to repeal the whole thing. Choice two will be to just add a little sentence in there about how the funds are used. And then I'll bring them both back as alternates
and you can pick which one you want. Okay. >> Does that sound good? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, man. >> Okay. Um, next item is our WSB
zoning update. Um that was carried over from December and believe there was a memo from Jason here. Page 45 was it wasn't in order. on page
40. 43 says saw it. >> So, I'll talk a little bit about this. >> You know, talking with Lori from WSB. Basically where we're at is um you know we have utilized them above and beyond
the initial contract. Um you know I think she told me to the tune of about 20 to $30,000 above what the original price was just because the amount of stuff that we had going on with this project. Um that's not something they're looking to bill us for or anything like that but they have put in a lot of extra
work and with that we're to this point of they can no longer do anymore without creating a new contract. Um, so if we choose to continue want to utilize them for adjustments, fixing things like that, we would need to create a new contract with them to be able to get
their guidance. Uh, we do have in December we had the res the ordinance amend the ordinance um repeal and replacing for the zoning in the December one. Um, so we do have that ready to go if it is approved.
that can be done. Uh just based off of that, if there are certain things that this council still needs to talk about or would like to discuss more, I would recommend that we set up tonight times to do workshops in the coming month before February and get this approved by
February at the latest. Um, you know, we we do have contractors and people building that are asking for this and you know that we're coming into the building season in the next few months here and they're trying to get themselves squared away as to what they are are doing. So, we want to make sure
that we get this ready to go with them for them to have plenty of time to look at it and make sure that they can align with our new building codes. Um, so that's kind of where we're at is approved tonight as is. Um, set up uh a time to look at doing a new
contract or set up times for workshops and then finalize in February. That make sense? Kind of jumped around a little bit. >> Yeah, I think that makes sense. >> I think the basics is is there, but what we want to do with WSB. Okay. So, I
think that we're in pretty good shape with that. I think there's going to be tweaks in us to look at. So, I don't think it would be bad for us to do a new contract and to have a workshop to take a look at some of those things that might pop up if we have them identified.
So, yeah, I would agree with that. I think at least from a council perspective, um, Paul and Marie, myself, outside of PNZ, I'm sure you've had a chance to look at the drafts and everything. And so I I've
put together some a one-page summary of the numerous I've had several conversations with Lori. Kathy was copied. T Jason was copied. Um, I did get a response back from Lori on some of the issues, but some of those are still
outstanding in my mind as far as um the discussion that we would need to have in in working in the workshop. Um, I I put together a summary and I you allow me to share. These are just the
highlights of my concerns with the uh with the codes and how they interface with our comprehensive plan and some of those Kathy and um Lori have
seen back in October and November. Um, I read both the July draft and the September draft and u I said these are I put together about 11 page memo that I sent to them and and Laura
responded for most of them uh and that's fine and there's a lot of them that council decisions that need to be but these are kind of the the high points I think of 12 plus just numerous editorial updates things like that
See, I I I definitely think it's a workshop agreement or workshop needed just to be get everything out aired and discussed from a council's perspective. I know that Dan and Jim have talked about it, but I think it's important that all of us as a
council member review these items and um just bring it to everybody's awareness. Um, I think the the biggest thing outside of the development flex versus a PUD is our current cost security agreement that's in place.
You can see solar systems. Square footage is I think the 14,000 square foot was what the recommendation came from PNZ at the August or September meeting. Um going into the August meeting before the public hearing it was
at 10,000 square ft. August PNZ discussed 12,000 square ft and then in the September uh it was recommended 14,000 square ft. Whether or not the steering committee
should have been made aware of that changes from what they originally were thinking. Um there's a big difference in the number of homes at 10,000 versus 14,000. They're all 120 foot frontages. There's
33% more homes, 15 more homes in a mile of streets. Um tree preservation plan or current orderly annexation agreement wasn't mentioned in one of them. Front yard setbacks
from 25 to 35 ft. That's a 35% increase in cost of driveway, sidewalk, sewer, water line installation for developers. Um, the data center, we may want to consider making that a conditional use versus a permitted use.
So, this is a, like I said, a highlight summary of my concerns of of the need to have a workshop. Well, in the workshop, some of my concerns are it had to do with when this was when this was initiated, the the intent was
to get it get rid of anything that's redundant and anything that contradicts each other in it >> and so much stuff has been added, >> talked about >> and and and adjusting the the lot side. It's one of one of the big issues. You
know, I I look at this stuff and I I say, "Well, there's there's a lot of good things in here, but but like you say, you have to work." And number 11, it says shall or that we're using irrigation systems and require somebody to put that in.
That's kind of a little bit demanding. Like I said, I thought turning the whole city into a homeowners association. You know, I I in the in the comments I was reading some of the stuff and you only have two rumage sales a year. Hold it
now. What's this have to do with setting up something like that in the city? And like it's not that I have rumage sailed every day and neither neither do my neighbors, but my point is what businesses are ours to run around tell somebody they have that's all I can do.
You know, it's it's none of my business for some things, for what my neighbors do if it's not affecting me. But when I see stuff like that, just shake my head. That is that is what that wasn't the intent when this was initiated. >> And the number 11, okay, off of that um
that one that there was was for businesses for having landscaping and irrigation systems. Okay. was for businesses, not for homeowners. >> I still don't think businesses should be required to do it either.
>> So, if there's a consensus to set up at least a couple workshops, >> absolutely. >> Absolutely. Free whatever. >> I think Jim and I are both in a unique scenario where we've looked at this for a long time and we have looked through
it. I'm happy to set up workshops so we can have discussions about it with the remaining three people. Like that's >> Oh yeah, I agree 100%. So there's a lot of history in some of these like the lot sizes going from 10,000 to 12,000 to
14,000. The history with that is um the 14,000 was adopted instead of using step down um zoning which complicated things. Um and by keeping the flex district
still intact if a developer wanted to come in and build homes. Well, we always refer back to Hamilton, but if that piece of property wanted to come in and say, I want to put 10,000
square foot houses in there, they can still apply for flex zone. And then in that developer agreement, then we can we can then dictate what the step down from the current residents
are. So the 12 to 14,000 square feet was was actually community input um at that um at our public hearing. >> Yes. And so there was there was quite a
bit of discussion I think probably two different PNZ meetings and we discussed that in depth with um and how the flex can be used to to reach developer goals. And I think
that staff training on stuff like that will be a huge part of that. But it sounds like if we want that to happen, we have to change the contract with WSB, right? >> It's my understanding. >> So that's kind of my sticking sticky
point right now because like I feel like the service was delivered late from WSB. I feel like the service was delivered incomplete by them. And I she was very responsive and I know that she did
everything that we asked her to do. Um but at some point when you're the project manager and you have to move things along >> and there were delays from our part behind it too, you know. So, I mean, it's it was kind
of >> but I I I see some of the questions that you have, Ryland, which are, you know, good questions. Okay. What what there is, >> you know, off of that. And so, I I think we should um have a couple workshops and and do another little get some contracts
and she's not asking for money that there was on stuff that she spent in the past where she's asking for more off of the contract. So, she she did honor the contract of what was going on. So yeah, >> but we still have >> final revision,
staff, council training, staff training. Those are the things that we're going to be missing out of the original contract, right? >> I think the final revision part is done. Like from their end, it's it's done. >> So, but only if we make >> Yeah, this is up to us to >> Yeah, they they did that. This is the
cut off. Like we can't keep playing this adjusting game. We just we're using too much time. And um you know I guess as far as the minute details of the training portion I didn't even think to ask her about that. So I don't know if there's flexibility in working with
that. Um I can talk to her but based off of the conversations I've had. They were pretty much at the the end of it. So it would require any contract. I did ask ballpark what she thought price range might be. you know, depending on services and what's going on, could be
20 to $30,000. Don't know exactly. It depends on what's asked of it. Um, so that's something to keep in mind. That's not something that was budgeted for this year. Um, so, you know, that's something you'll have to consider as well. So when we're talking about revisions and I mean
all of these are very valid points and good points but they're also stuff that can be edited fairly easily in my opinion. How comfortable are you that you or staff could
do the final without? >> It depends on what we're doing. Are we changing wording that you know are we going 10 to 12,000 feet? like I mean that kind of stuff if it's something that's of a legal nature of oh we want to change this to do this you know I would have to get advice for that cuz
it's you know I can look at things and research and do um but you know at the same time I'm going to probably would have to work with Evan on some of this stuff >> um >> it was going to cost that way so you might as well have her deal
>> so why don't we why Why don't we set up the workshops and then we determine what changes if any are going to be made and then we can make an educated decision on what
services then we need WSB because if we if we're changing numbers or we're changing shall to May like >> we can do that >> I think that's easy enough to do. um if we're asking for massive edits and big
edits that staff wouldn't be comfortable um making those then I think then maybe we we discuss the contract differences also um as far as like what what does
the training for you guys entail? What are we missing out on? And is that going to be a per important part of it? And that's what we pay extra for, >> right? So, if we're paying extra for that
anyway, then we have them do the edits as well. But >> I can ask her that. I can reach out tomorrow and ask her that. Like I said, that was not something that even crossed my radar to ask her when talking about this stuff. >> So, I'll uh reach out
>> because we did we did budget. So, we did budget to have all of our code put onto online, right? >> I think to to make it so we could put it online but >> in searchable format and
>> but with that too, we also have budgeted for this year to transition our that uni code, right? >> So, that'll actually be beneficial to be able to just plug and play that right into there. So, >> so what services that they offer that we
could potentially >> Yeah. >> What all is the training entailing to >> Right. That's what I'm asking and that's what he's going to find out. But I think that we set up a couple of workshops, we figure out exactly what kind of changes we're going to be asking for and then we
can then we can go from there. >> So, it's 232 pages. So if we set up say three workshops just to go over 80 pages at a workshop like we did with our budgets.
>> If we can do more that's fine but I guess we ask everybody to read the first 80 pages and >> so I would say >> I hear you but there's one of the sections is like 70 80 pages and it we have no say in it. It's all basically
DNR >> like right shoreline stuff. section touch. I don't want I don't want to leave it alone. >> We have the R1 section that's probably three pages or four pages and I promise you that's going to take the entire
>> an entire meeting just >> our stuff is point. So, >> um >> can we look at the first two weeks of February to set a couple dates? I'll look at it and start putting together stuff for agenda if
>> um but those first couple weeks of February is there dates that work for everybody or a majority of everybody. We will make an online option available as well if you can't be here in person. So >> Groundhog's Day is not going to work for
me. >> I gotta go I got to watch Phil that day. So >> in the first part of uh February, I've got uh >> so we're the 2nd through the 13th. It's the first two weeks. >> Yeah.
>> So what dates everybody's available? Send that to JS. >> Mel, do you know how to do those poll things where you put the dates and >> Yes. >> Okay. We're going to send out an email tomorrow morning. It's going to be a poll thing to everybody. We'll have all
the dates. Pick your dates that work for you and we'll pull it and see what we get. So >> 11th we're going to be busy anyway. I think there's 11th or the 12th. It's the 12th for P&Z
potentially that comes later. >> Might be the pit. Well, if it's the fifth, I'll be up there for advanced training for so city council. So, anyways, we'll put together a poll thing to put out to everybody. So, please
check your emails tomorrow afternoon vote. Um, that way we can start doing that. I'm guess evening time. Is there a preference on start time like six o'clock? Does that seem to work well for everybody? 6:30, 5:30?
>> It kind of depends on the day. Okay, >> we can include multiple times, too. >> Yeah. All right, we'll put together something figured out that thing. There's online. It's a lot easier. >> Marie, I'll send you my summary sheet
after the meeting. >> All right. Um >> whether we need to motion or >> Well, we should um I guess we really can't motion.
>> We're setting it up. No, they're not >> nothing for the WSB budget or the >> No, that was just information. And if we're going to move forward this way, this option then >> Yeah. So, I would if if you're going to get in contact with her about the
um about what the training actually entails, um that would be good information to have maybe for the first workshop that we have and let her know that we're trying to iron it out.
>> Yeah. >> And then we'll discuss the additional services later. >> Great. Next item is um move to approve the oral residential street speed limit from 30 to 25 for this.
>> I'll make a motion to approve it. >> I'll second that. >> Yeah, the surveys >> 74% response to your >> Yeah, we had some surveys. Okay. So, we had some surveys. >> Everybody got a chance to look through
all that? >> Yes. And I just wanted to make one comment. Okay. I I definitely um at the safety part of what there is with the city to make the city safer. There's no question about that part of it. The reality is,
are people going to abide by the 25 if we put it there? That's all I'm saying. I I I want the safety. I'm I'm I'm in favor of the safety without a doubt. I'm just making a comment about that. So >> I I agree with you. I They do. If they
do, they if they do, they do. If they don't, they don't. >> I'm just But I'm just saying >> is with 30 m hour. >> Yeah. No, but I'm just saying that for the safety part of it, do I want people to be safe in this city? Absolutely. I I've been around enough of the neighborhoods around town that if you're
doing over 25, you're probably >> flipping too fast anyway. >> Well, I mean, where where I'm at, I mean, I've got people that are screaming around the corner in front of my house. >> Some places, >> you make a valid point, and I think that we've argued the same same thing
multiple times, >> but lowering it to 25 >> makes it easier to take somebody going 37. >> Oh, I agree. Well, that's what I'm saying. I think if if we start having more traffic enforcement, that's where it's
going to slow people down. >> But it's the same thing. If we put up a new stop sign, are people going to stop >> sometimes? That's >> But no, that's why I'm saying for the safety of the city. Absolutely.
We'll make sure from the city side we are, you know, publicizing it out there to, you know, the reduced speed limits and um I think we'll work a little bit with Sergeant Ren and the Mstead County Sheriff's Office for a uh
uh more enforcement on the warning side of things. They're pretty lenient with residents as well. You know, they they're more often not going to give warnings to residents. Um but I think having just that more enforcement of this especially right away to say hey this is lowered down to 25. Yeah.
>> You know um to really start putting that word out there. I think that's something that helps kind of spread word as well when people are getting stopped a little more frequently and passing that information along. So >> So what accounts this coming out of? Because there's $2,300
for new signs. I think Kane had some um >> has some signage. Yeah, >> Kane does have some money in his in his budget >> for road signs and crosswalk signs and all that.
>> And that that's not earmarked for new branding signs. I just want to make sure we're not taking that money because we I know he put money in for getting new signs once we have a new logo and
>> that wouldn't be public works. >> No, >> I don't know. I think it's still coming out of canes though, but >> we have to do. >> So, one one thing that we could consider is instead of replacing all the 35s to
25s is removing the 35s and posting citywide 25 in residential areas at the openings of >> Well, they're all 30, >> not 35. Well, I'm saying that instead of
instead of replacing all the signs, just put them strategically, the 25 strategically and letting the residents know that it's 25. >> I don't think that there's any reason to have a a speed sign every, you know, few miles
or whatever it is. >> Well, they kind of laid it out where they would place, >> right? Yeah, they they laid it out pretty well in their maps. There's really not a whole lot of signs >> and those signs are just going to say >> there's 15 >> speed limit speed limit 25 and roads not posted. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean that's really what it >> that's all you can really put up. >> 15 locations 20 $2,250 approximately. >> Yeah. >> As plus labor. >> I will say too some of our miscellaneous revenue each year does come from traffic
citations. We do get some back from the county on those. So, I mean, I'd have to look at what our numbers were last year and, you know, kind of this year. If there's more enforcement that are actively citing, um, we can't force the state county sheriff's office to site
more, but, you know, encourage it. I always try to encourage it because that's just my law enforcement background, but, um, when necessary and appropriate, and that's what they do. Um, but we do get kind of a I think we get a little bit of a a comeback from the citations that are issued within our
jurisdiction. So we do see those occasionally come through. It comes through the state. So when the fines are paid, any other questions? Seeing none, all those in favor of mouructions signify by saying I.
>> I. >> I approve. business brought to the front. >> We have don't appointment that adjusted it to bring
>> you wanted your RFP. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I just make a make a proposal to uh request Disney staff draw a request for proposal for
citywide engineering services been it's been 20 years since since it's been looked at and reviewed. might appreciate Joel who's done he's done a good job. There's no wish of doubt about it. Just send
times 20 years and never never reviewing it because just need it just needs to be looked at. That gives everybody opportunity to uh have a second. I'll second that for
discussion. So what would that and um I guess I I understand like fiscally that that's incredibly responsible to look for um to see if we're getting what we're paying for. I mean ultimately
that's what you're asking, right? Um but what's the what's the outcome when or if we get something back that's you hundred few thousand less than what
we're currently paying how do we um put a monetary value on the history and the knowledge of the community for that money like what's the dollar amount that's that would justify the change I guess is what I'm looking
for because I do think that Stantech especially within the projects of the sewer and that's what we would ultimately be affecting if we change city engineers. Um that's that's a huge value in itself and
I I think that it's fiscally responsible to ask for this. Um, but I would hate for somebody to come back, you know, $2,000 cheaper and then all of a sudden, well, we have to jump on that or or where does that discussion
lead to then, I guess, is where does >> well, it's not necessarily $2,000 cheaper. So, >> it could be $200,000, right? >> What number would be cheaper, >> right? You know, >> but where where does that discussion then
where's the ballot? Where do we put the value of um the the knowledge of the city and how we move forward and the funds that we've um we've gotten with them >> for a future project?
>> That that answer would be depending upon where the quotes come back for us to make that decision because before we even get anything back or have people, you know, say they're going to do. So like what we did with planning and
zoning, we had three people that we took a look at and then we eliminated one and we said, "Okay, the top two come back again and and make a proposal of what there was." And we made an decision based on that.
>> And it wasn't just on dollars. It also had, you know, the service that went along with it and other things that we looked at before we made that decision. And again, I think that that Stantech's done a great job. And again, it's one of
those things that I hope Stantech comes out on top on everything that's going on. I just think that as a as a council that we owe it to the community to after 20 years to take a look at it, you know, that's that's where where I come. And
again, I I think Stant's done a good job. I I there's no question at all. I just think for a city, for what we're we're responsible for doing, I think it's wise for us to do that. >> I think the one the one thing to think about though, even though an RFP may be
the way, there's still hours spent. I mean, again, we're in the middle of some major construction, that RFP, it's going to be a moderate effort for city staff. I'm talking 60 to 100 hours to just push it out of what we're act
asking people to send back to us. Stantech will have that inside ball on what we're doing, but like there's significant time dedicated to an RFP just to get it written. >> Well, I I I know I understand what
you're saying, Marie. Uh, but I can't let that be a restriction for us to do it. We There's There's somebody that >> So, will you help write it then? >> Um, I'm just If you wait, let me finish what I was going to say.
>> Uh, we we do have an individual that we might be able to talk to. Okay. of planning and zoning that's very adept doing stuff for RFPs for what he does for a regular position that if if
we talk to him maybe we can use his assistance to be able to do something that way you know so that's what I was thinking because he's got the expertise to do that >> yeah and that's a big ask that's a big ask for for a PNZ
>> um I I think that it's reasonable to talk to them about it. Um it is a big ask. Um would we be and I know this isn't necessarily on the agenda, but would we be trying to wrap in the
planning and zoning RFP with the engineering? >> Um >> well, seems like they're all involved in >> Yeah. Are they >> any of the any of the plats and everything like that? >> Was that your request or just planning? No, for everything >> engineering ad planning.
>> Yep. No, that being part of it. It's citywide engineering services. So they're they're the ones that are into the plan. >> Sure. There's no engineer without plan. >> So and I I requested that um our chair
at P&Z come discuss um the desire for the RFP for the planning and zoning services at the next meeting. Um, so I would hate to push keep pushing things down the line, but
if we're going to com combine those two things, um, then I think and and we're going to potentially be using P&Z resources that I think we need to have a very clear picture of what we're requesting
ultimately, right? >> Yeah, I would agree. We need to spend some time thinking what our requirements would be and having alignment because I don't think there's alignment besides we just want to see if there's someone that could give us services for cheaper and I and I appreciate that. I just
think we need to be on the same page of what we're looking for. >> Absolutely. I think that that's the right way. So what we should maybe do is next month, you know, have Kathy come.
>> Okay. and we can get into this deeper on what's going on from from that from that point. Okay. Because we haven't had a chance to do >> a P&Z to get together for the last couple months. So, >> yeah. Um, another option would be Paul,
if you wanted to join the PNZ meeting that we discuss next, we could we could discuss a little bit. >> Probably have to put a >> 12. It'll be there the 12th. However, we've got we've got
>> available at 12. Okay. >> Okay. >> The RFP is a city staff function. Um, you know, when we did the RFP um or the the code review, um, you know,
Sunny did that for us. And to me, that's writing an RFP is really meant to be a city staff function at our request. I don't think we should be uh using a committee person to you may have had the experience that's great he can review
this RFP that city states together but I think that's really if that's what we decide to do I think it should be a city staff writing the RFP um you know Stantech is you know we're looking at it sounds like we're looking
for the dollars and u granted I hope that dollars doesn't make a decision factor It may have some input into it, but I look at see what Stantech has done for the last 20 years. They brought $50 million worth of projects to the city,
city sewer system. We've started new phase 1B. They've done all the design. I know the city will uh to bring in a new injuring organization is not going to be it's going to be very very expensive for our taxpayers to
recreate everything that Stantech has done for us. And I just feel like it would be a as I mentioned before it being very risky of bringing in another company. Um if it's lower cost that's fine but that's just a small portion of the
expenses but that we are going to be putting our taxpayers in a situation where it's going to cost a lot of money to develop everything that Stantech has developed and the feasibility reports for phase 1 A phase 1B. >> Well those feasibility reports and all
that stuff is ours. We paid for that. >> You've got the tablets. You don't have the documentation. You don't have the drawings. >> Those are those drawings that he drew. We paid Stantech belongs belong to us. We pay for those. >> Would like the lawyer's opinion on that.
>> But I just feel like it's a they brought a lot of good integrity to the city. They're they've done great work for us. Joe's been that one person. We haven't had it. It hasn't been shifted from one engineer to another one. And uh
>> I think that's >> kind kind of kind of the line you're going is as long as say like if phase the next phase gets started and then we start talking something else that basically you can never do another FP
>> because there's because there's always something >> there'll be something that's there. Well, it was written into phase one a report that we were going through phase one B that they looked together >> and and again it's if if we if we do this and and I I understand what you're saying like I said I think that Stant's
done a good job. I I'm not kicking Stantech at all of what's going on. I think it's wise for us as looking at our community that we we take a look at this after 20 years. It's not like after two or three years or five years. This is 20
years that >> we've had a look at it. And I I think that that that we should um and and people might come back and say, "No, you're in the middle of something. Can't do it." Then we'll know that. Okay. But until we we do this,
like again, I'm not I'm not kicking Stantech at all. Not not not at all. That's what I don't >> I just because I think it's wise for us after 20 years that we look at it. I really think it's wise for our
community that we do this for the money that that we're spending in our community >> and that's they've done a lot for the community in this community. >> I like I said I >> my concern is that with our sewer systems just talk with the sewer system. We have a street program, the pavement
plan, all that stuff they put together. Um but I think that's um phase 1B is is a commitment the city has made have in place by 2030 and that was noted in the leaseability
phase 1A back in 2019 2020 and to start over with another company if that's what we choose um that's going to that's going to be a an expenditure that the city's going to have to put up with >> but we don't know any of these things, Riley. That's what I'm saying. We need
to have >> Sorry, Jim. Go ahead. >> No, I'm just saying. I mean, these are all things we're not making a decision that we're we're going another direction. We don't know those things yet, right? >> We don't. >> And so, that's what I'm trying to do is
is I think it we owe it to the community to ask those questions to find out. And like I said, Stante's done a good job. I'm I'm not kicking Stantech at all. I'm just saying I think we owe it to take a look at it, review it, and have
something to take a look at after 20 years. I think we're >> just from that span just from that point alone. I think that's the risk, you know, somewhat the risk we're taking by making a decision based on cost.
That's what we're looking for. Low cost. You're looking for lowcost engineering, we'll get lowcost engine. Not everybody has wastewater experience. WSV doesn't. They have no experience with waste water and sewer water. >> And and and I didn't say I was looking that direction either. Okay. I mean,
there's there's there's lots of other engineering companies that there are around that are very capable of doing stuff. Okay. It's so I and again there was you know some I think that Stantech paid state back what was it $4.4 million
just this last year of what there was for misusing different grants that were accepted as public knowledge on the 4.4 million that they had to pay back. So there's things that are that are there I think that it just makes sense for us to take a sorry what was that about? um
they had had overwritten different grants that there were with the state of Minnesota and they had to pay back the state $4.4 million. >> This came from where? >> Public knowledge. >> So
the statute on that one. So and again I'm not saying that that they did that either here. Okay. But I'm just saying there's there's other things that >> I think that I think that the likelihood of any engineering company getting fined for
using monies incorrectly is probably pretty high and I would say it's pretty low that any one individual engineering company at some point is not going to get hit with that. it's cost to go visit. But but I I agree with the
financial and the the feasibility, but I think we have to have like a very clear vision of what the value we're looking for is because Stantech might cost more, but they might be able to complete a billable job in half the amount of time.
We can't we're not going to be able to determine that by looking at at somebody else's numbers, right? So internally, we need to figure out what value we're looking for and we need to have that metric because we somebody could come in
and and be $1,000 cheaper and there will be residents who are like, well, we should go with them. And there will be residents who' be like, "No, we should go with >> somebody else." So we have to have valuebased assessment on this and it can't be just
about the the bottom dollar and we have to be able to to quantify >> and that was my point about making sure that we're all on the same page before an RFP is pushed out and having evaluation criteria and scoring mechanisms that not just cost right
again to everything that you guys are talking about cost can't be the only deciding factor and and we're not on the same page right here. So, pushing out an RFP, you're going to get 10 different ways that this is sliced and it's not going to be the same and we
can't look at them the same. And and honestly, I don't think we should have an individual do that. Again, that's city staff, but we need to make sure that we're understanding what we're asking for people to do. I mean, the other suggestion would be to have a
conversation with Joe. I mean, he'll probably listen to this, but maybe there's something that Stantech could think about a new proposal without even going through an RFP of what they would offer differently if this was a new contract. What would it look like from a costing perspective?
Again, I think there's there's opportunity to look at it, but I would hate to again I think to Daniel your point of just, you know, we're saving a couple bucks here, but in the long run, it's going to cause more confusion and we're going to be spinning our wheels
for, you know, a couple thousand dollars when we're neck deep in some of these construction, you know, initiatives. So again, I I think we need to be on the same page of how we're what our goal is. What are we documenting in terms of our evaluation
and scoring? And that's a lot of work. I just want to point that out. An RFP, a good RFP for this, this is going to this is going to take some time to do. And not saying we shouldn't do it. I'm just I I want to just preface that an RFP is not just something you push out
and people just respond to it. like we need we need to think about what we're trying to accomplish here >> to make it meaningful. >> I I I agree. I want to be on the same page. So to answer your question on this, it was a release from the office
of public affairs uses US Department of Justice. This was released on Monday, July 7th, 2025, that Santech agrees to pay $4 million to resolve allegations that it violated false claims acting as
submitting false certifications and EPA and grant applications. And if you want me to send the rest of it, we'll find a way to get it over to you. So, >> I mean, Spentech is a huge national organization. No, I I it's it can be >> I mean that was just here in Minnesota.
That that's that's what I was just saying. So >> we can't I mean we Yeah, I mean again I don't know why we're even discussing that. I mean that's something like Daniel said there is probably a lot of misuse of grant funds. If if we're not happy with their services and we want to
do that, then let's do it. Let's get on the same page. We shouldn't be throwing dirt. we should just move forward with what we need from a city and let it res let them respond as as is. >> So >> any other comments?
I make a motion that that we have on the table. Motion motions on the table. >> So I would also can make a friendly amendment to the motion. I would say is that we would have city staff draw up the RFP. >> I agree.
I would I don't directly friendly amendment the amendment to the amendment is that we potentially put up a another workshop for this like so we can get >> well I was trying to get Kathy and everybody together on the same
>> on the same page and we we sit down and we really I think first we have to figure out what services we're not happy with if there are any or or if it's just dollars and cents that we're looking for. Um, and then we need we do need to
have metrics on bringing these when we these RFIs come in. Um, how do we score them because it can't be just >> planning and zoning scoring it or council scoring?
>> I would say absolutely because planning and zoning won't have anything to do with engineering. um with all I think I think that has to stay here. But I do think that um if we're going down this rabbit hole, we
need to have more workshops for this because we don't need to take up time on council meetings discussing the whole thing. >> So what do you propose? We're creating more work for council >> by having PNC do their purchase.
>> Well, no, we'll we'll be we'll PNC I think we're just looking for input on why they're requesting as well. But I think ultimately we have to determine what metrics we're looking for, what
we're asking for, how we're going to score things as we come as they come in. And I city staff will have to write it as well. But it's going to be extremely detailed. It's got to have to be a
extremely detailed document which is going to get >> little motion we have on the table that should be removed or we vote on the agenda. I motion. Thanks. There's a friendly amendment to Paul to make it a workshop
and we can discuss further details or their to write an appropriate RFP. >> Maybe we should uh send the PNZ and see what their intentions are too. >> Council should leave this not PNZ.
That's why they bring them to us. >> PNZ is having something to do with planning services that they were looking at something. Okay, that's where I'm confused because your action item was just for engineering, not planning. >> There was one last month for PNZ, but I
could not speak on it enough uh without confusing the topic. So, I asked Kathy chair to come speak at the next meeting, >> right, >> to us >> because that's a whole another level of are we combining these into one or are
we doing two separate RFPs, one for planning, one for engineering? If we're doing if we're doing both, we might as well combine them. >> It was his motion was to combine them >> granduring and planning. >> But I think the motion now is to set up
workshops to continue this. >> That would be the only way to go forward. Have to continue. Yes. Or vote it out. whatever you're going to do. >> So either >> it's a friendly amendment to you Paul
for the workshop. >> So if you agree to that then that would be the new vote. >> I'm okay with it >> on that. We'll send out another poll thing. Um not limited to the first two weeks of February. We'll kind of spread it out. Um you know this is going to
take time. So we'll work on a couple dates to get together for it. This is not going to be done once. >> It's not something that has to happen immediately. No. Okay. And we'll include uh Kathy Z on this as well. >> I'll let her know that she doesn't need to prepare something for next month.
Yeah. We're gonna do a workshop. She can the workshop. >> Yeah. So, we'll include her on that for the workshop. Um and it'll be obviously city staff as well for that. But, um so we'll set up another poll for that one. >> Okay.
I have a motion to work on RFPs as a result of workshops that we'll be having in the year. I think the the friendly amendment was to set up set up workshops to discuss
the RS. >> No motion about just workshops only. Yes. Okay. >> You agree with that? >> Yeah. Yeah. I got a board right here. >> All in favor of the workshops, uh,
second by saying I >> I >> post. Okay. Submit your dates through February or something like that. >> I we'll we'll put together something. This will kind of probably extend it February and March. We'll put out dates.
So, it's just >> whole process of this is going to take >> it's going to take a while. months. >> Oh, maybe months >> months. So, >> okay. So, next item is resolution 2026-01
resolution approving official designations 59. Um, so with that, I make a motion we approve resolution 2026-01. >> Second. >> Which one is 01? I got 021
and >> 02 is for the media scientific. >> No, it's not. That one we don't have anybody put down for the stuff. It's blank on page 58. The other one that that you're talking
about, Ryland, >> that was >> was uh it's 2026-02. >> 01 is the uh >> 01 is the resolution approving the official designations, the
signatures. >> Nothing listed on my >> This is 2021. Second, next page, page 59. Oh, is the uh it's found it. It's the It's like the signatures.
>> Yeah. I mean, what am I missing here? 58. It's got everything there, but nobody's name. >> You just went past came out. >> You just went past it. >> You got the security thing on yours. >> I've got uh That's the security. I've got this one here.
>> No, you you were you were at it. You just went over it. Go slow. Slow down. Slow. But keep go back to 15 59. Yeah, there's your 59. I I see that, but there's nothing there at >> the top of the page. >> Pack it on your tables. You have to do back it up. Oh,
she >> I think that's the packet that page 59. Um the editorial update on number eight city planner Phil Carlson re retires. So it's Evan Bson. >> That's it. That's okay. This one's
filled out. Okay, we will get that one fixed. Any comments? What we have now? Yeah. Question. >> No, it's voice. All
>> in favor? Say are we saying I? >> It's a voice vote. >> I'm sorry. Voice vote. Sorry. >> Uh, mayor of course. >> I. >> Councelor Penigrass. >> Hi. >> Councelor Rice Parker. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Councelor Spring. >> Hi.
>> Thank you. This resolution 2026- resolution I had an item submission form the blank blank one here on page 601 page 63 is 63 the other one
>> resolution >> 2602 26 page 63. Yeah. Okay. U so I make a motion we approve resolution 2026-02. >> Second.
A couple things on here that would draw your attention to. Um, planning and zoning meeting. This has been discussed multiple times, but moving it from the second Thursday to the first Thursday.
The main reason for that is that the second Thursday in some cases on certain months that's usually the within the day that the packets supposed to go out or the next day of the packet. So it's kind of a short turn around to get the packet.
The other item is uh under EDA we're starting at 5:30 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday. Employee relations is second Tuesday at 8 a.m. Lison on and the ultimate players on stay the same this going forward this
year. We already have the planning and zoning meeting scheduled for uh February being the 12th. Um with the ERC scheduled at 5:30 prior to without
moving both of those meetings, I would suggest that we leave February's meeting scheduled the second uh Thursday of that month. I'm not sure we got an ERC, Marie. I don't I don't think we have an
ERC response to that. >> There's been a lot. >> Marie, you want >> Yeah. No. Um I don't think we lock that day in. Daniel, so I I'm personally not available, but it doesn't need to hinge
around my schedule. So, I think if we want to move it, we we can. I wouldn't lock that as a we can't move it. I mean, we could leave that meeting and find another alternative time. I know they want to try to double dip. Again, I think that is is we're
working with all of the different committees to just do a check-in so there's no urgency. So, we could even push that to the first time they meet in March, too. >> Okay. Yeah. So, that's that's fine. I was under the impression we were
>> Yeah. And I was too, but what was going on with that? We got it rescheduled based off what was said in January and we didn't know Marie could make that date. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I didn't know anything about it. >> Well, that's kind of important. >> The only thing I'm I'm thinking of is it
would be great if we had the meeting and tell everybody next month that it's going to change to be the first Thursday. That's the only thing. >> Yeah. >> You know, that that would make sense. Unfortunately, I mentioned multiple times that we needed to come up with a
new date in last year's meetings or going to get designated at this meeting. Um, and so I don't think that it's out of the well of possibility that if it has to be the if we have to push it to the third
Thursday or the fourth Thursday. >> No, no, no. I I'm I'm with you on the first. I'm just saying I think for next month >> absolutely >> and then tell everybody that's there with what we're doing to have it go for the next month after that. >> So leave it at the 12th.
>> Yes. >> Okay. And then go to the first >> Yeah. >> third day after that which makes sense. >> I think that'd be the committee would appreciate that I think too. So then >> if we have some major conflict with the first Thursday that
>> we'll do something else. Mike's trying to talk to you. >> Oh, just all I was going to say is I would just approve the designations with the dates you have and then for that next planning commission meeting just notice it as a special meeting and have it on the old date. Does that make sense? Because you you would be changing
it to the new date. >> Yeah. So >> So don't don't don't muck up the resolution by saying it's But I didn't want to mark it up. I will keep it that way. But just >> but just for the next for the next meeting because you're going to keep it the same as last year. Notice it as a special meeting.
>> Yeah, I got you. >> Yeah, >> we'll just do that on our end. That's fine. >> And then it all is going to come to the 12th. Then you probably have to post them. >> Well, yeah, because it's going to be
>> workshops. >> That's right. That's right. to come today. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Okay. Any other questions there on the resolution? Who seconded? >> Yes.
>> If there's no other questions, we'll do the voice vote. Mayor >> IS. Council >> Pentigrass. Hi. Councelor Risorfer. Hi. >> Phillips. Hi. Councelor Spring. Hi. Okay, we had the next resolution that we're going to
come back in February. This is the 10% resolution 2026-03, >> but this would this 2025 money. >> Oh, we're going to make this resolution. >> This one would be the last one right now to to make based off a 2025.
>> 22 leaving over there in 2026. >> Yeah. So, we haven't gotten 2026 money yet. This is just from December of 2025. So, this would be the last one and then we'll hold off on anything from there. So, this one would need to go through the process.
>> Make a motion to accept all >> second June >> with the edit that it is edited to the this month of December. Please. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Comments.
Seeing none, the voice vote. >> Uh, Mayor I councelor Phillips. >> Hi. >> Councelor Rorfford. >> Hi. >> Councelor Pentagrass. Councelor Spring. >> Hi. >> Okay, it's approved item. >> So, this was I don't know how this got
taken off in the last adjustment. Um, but this was on one of the previous ones. Um, and uh, Rachel went around and got everybody print out. Marie, if you're on diligent, okay,
>> okay, say if you refresh the diligent, it's all in there too as well. For anybody who's online, you can refresh the diligent your diligent page and it'll update the packet to show all the information. >> This is for the uh, growth security. I sent this out in a memo on the 13th uh,
to council as well. Um so you all should have received it then um for the uh security equipments that were planned in the 425 fund for this year uh for the project for phase one of the project. Um
so after the memo you'll see the breakdown for the costs. Why it had to get on this one is because there is a uh reduction in price that we're getting of $1,300 for a discount um based off of
last year's numbers and some other stuff that they had u were able to get a discount and some of the services there. So, I think it's important to make sure we had it on here. And then the last part of this is just kind of they had a a presentation they provided me with um
and so I put that in the packet just kind of explains the system. You can see some of the local cities that use it. Uh Burnsville and Sroa I believe Pine Island is also on there. Yep. Um, so this is they're a pretty reputable regional company that we've used and we've been trying out
their equipment uh for the past months now. Um, and they've graciously let us keep the ones here with the understanding that we would likely be using their product. So, um, you know, there's some some install that's already done, which is kind of nice. Um, but
this one really, this is going to cover phase one is going to cover the city hall. Uh, and then outside the fire department. Um, and then phase two will cover public works and some other ones, but that'll be a next year thing we can get into for budget.
My ask for this again is um approval of the expenditure of the $14,97623 from the 425 CIP fund for the security project which was in this year's budget uh just to authorize the agreement as you see attached here
um for growth security so we can start moving forward on that project. >> Make a motion to approve. Second >> discount on the first phase or the third phase. >> This is the motion to approve the
$14,97623 and authorize the contract. >> Right. Thank you. >> Discount. >> Correct. Yeah. And you'll see that it's on the uh the invoice on page two here.
>> Jason, is there a I mean maybe it's a 2027, but I know even parks and trails has been talking about security within the park. So I would assume that they have kind of like alart where we could start to buy some other cameras or other
related things that we could have within the parks too so we can bolt on parks are part of that. There's uh the wastewater treatment facility, the water tower, and parks were kind of the three other areas we were looking at for city facilities and infrastructure. Um and we
can certainly as we looked at it all and kind of did a quick Okay, let's year one and then year two and three. We can adjust it as we come into year two and three however we need to. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry, what this going to include the well sites also because >> we could we didn't really discuss that.
So, I mean it's >> I don't disagree. It was, you know, I'm looking at budget and how much we want to spend and I mean I'll spend as much on security as we want to. I think it's important, but you know, trying to keep it low enough where it's reasonable, especially >> know that the well sites are separate from everything else.
>> Yeah. I mean, you could almost do a trail cam inside. >> Well, things have something inside because there's not much damage they can do outside. >> Yeah. But this would be something for our system where we'd be able to, you know, have it monitored. And so, I mean, I don't disagree with the the well
things. It would be easy to put up a a camera in there. The big thing is making sure we got power, which we have out there. Um, and then accessibility for connection, which we wouldn't be able to do. So, >> they already have Wi-Fi in them anyway for >> Yeah. I don't know. I'd have to talk
with their text and figure all that out, but I don't foresee if we can get it out at the water tower. I mean, we can put we should be able to put it anywhere, you know. So, >> okay. >> Question about the um this case, this the city door, front
door. Is that it going to be a keypad? >> We have a code and is that is that going to be the code not required on office hours? half an hour is when you could use the code. >> What are we looking at here? >> This is the first page of the
PowerPoint. >> I didn't quite understand all the verbiage in the exhibit invoice. >> So, what the with the the door what we're looking at doing is key cards for scanning in and out >> card. Okay. This little bit here.
>> This is probably >> That looks like a key. That's >> probably inside. So they can shut it off when they lock in the door. >> Yeah, this is just a picture of some of their products they offer. This is this is like a gen a generic picture they put in here of some of their products.
>> But yeah, >> security system for the office buzz to call in and somebody had this little push enter and that got to be a real hassle. So they >> Yeah, we'll be able to set up we'll be able to set up automatic lock and unlock
time. So, you know, it can be unlocked at certain times, uh, you know, business hours, meetings, things like that. Um, but then we have the keypads as well for, um, off hours. Yeah. >> Okay. That makes sense. >> Okay.
>> I wonder. >> Oh, we didn't vote this morning. >> Oh, yeah. All in favor purchase will the security signify by saying I >> I >> I approve. Thank you.
>> Next item is be working at 7:30 in the morning. >> This is a handout. This is every year we do an outstanding citizen board. the 2025 meeting made up of Skyler Frankenstein Bo Honberger and myself we ask for
applications we've received two that they're asking candidate A and candidate B and um you can read through the U presentation but uh so I'll make a motion we recommendation for candidate A
to receive the uh outstanding any citizen award at the February meeting. >> Second uh because of the privacy and what the way we do that. That's why it wasn't in the packet.
Candidate is they should read the paragraph there. Candidate Both of them, but we thought candidate A was the appropriate one. So, for those because the plaque out of the hallways where we put the names on
the February meeting. motion. >> Yep. >> Yeah. All >> in favor signify by saying I >> I post. >> It's great. That's a great award. Most
very deserving people getting that. Next item I think is consent agenda. Senator make a motion to approve the consent agenda >> before you second. Then I've got a question. Okay.
>> Um the thing that that came up on the consent agenda and I was kind of curious. You can help me out. I saw the the check that we had for Minnesota Pump for $11,13 and I was going back through that and um
>> yeah, that was part of the minutes that was there, but it's it's for the other well for an observation. Well, >> you talking about one page 112 or >> Yeah. Um I >> He also talked about using Lance Sons.
>> Yeah. And that's I just kind of have a little it's on page 189 for for that. So I was just kind of curious, could you kind of help me fill me in on on the monitoring well? >> Oh, okay. Yes. On the water permit. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So that's No, not a new well.
>> So >> Well, no, I was just gonna, you know, help. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's a requirement um to find a well that's not the city well. Um another well that just can be used for measuring the surface water. Uh right now we're about 34 feet in the Jordan
aquifier with what our current city wells, but we need to designate a a well and so we're Kane's working with Skip Langanger from our Homestead County Soil Water Conservation Board and he's in charge of all the wells. He knows which ones have ones have been sealed, which
ones are still open. Um, so we'll find a well within the city limits that we can u basically just measure down with a tape that has a me measuring device. We'll measure the water. It's just for there's no water. I mean we we send in
reports on the well water but they want another well just to make sure it's separate from the city of Wales but within the city limits. So >> Okay. So how deep is that aquafer? >> Well our wells go down 450 ft. Yeah, but I mean the aquifer itself or the Jordan
aquifer is there. I >> imagine you were you said you were 34 feet into it. You said >> well we hit it at 34 feet is where the Jordan aquifer water at 34 ft. >> Yeah, there's water. >> That's the That's a different name for
that, isn't it? >> I thought it was all Jordan aquifer. So I think there's >> the >> So it's just something they do every year, but they need to do it. So
>> lane's looking for there's a a well over at Tilly's that you possibly use. >> It's between the two wells between River Park and Riverwood Hills. >> So you might use that. >> Yeah. I was just, you know, I guess I was like, that's interesting. I was
like, what's going on with that? You know, are we running low water or >> I see I see in the minutes they talked about using land sorts. Well, that would be up here. >> What's that? >> I see in in the in the water and sewer minutes.
They were talking about using land sens. >> Well, we talked about a lot of different things. Okay. Yeah. That's just in the me. >> They tal talked about approaching him on that. >> Well, most of it. >> Next item.
>> I uh >> Did you want to pull something off the consent agenda? >> Yes, I did. I want to pull the uh page 73 and 74. Head to Jason's review. It says that we voted four voted for. Oh, >> you want to make a motion that?
>> Yes, I'll make a to uh amend the uh the vote for Jason's review because it was a three to two vote. You and I both voted against it. >> You didn't think it was high enough and
I I thought it was too high. So the numbers I think it says four that says four for it and just me against it. It was a three to two vote. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So I just we need to correct that. just happened to we'll make that
correction on the >> I've got it in my notes too. So we're pulling the meeting minutes from last month >> just to make that correction. >> Correction one correction there. >> The only other well never mind sorry
that's in the financial piece. Um but um on the revenue and expenditure report again when you're looking at that that original budget 2026 is all zero. So, I know Jason, you were working on getting that updated, but just wanted to call that out, too.
>> Yeah, >> it's going to stay like that till we close out 2025 and it could be till the end of March. >> Well, we'll do it. We'll have it by February. >> I hope. >> Well, we'll have it by the end of February. >> I didn't notice on the edit report
that we wrote separate text from Menards. Do we pay for that one slip at a time or do we have a monthly payment for that? Usually it's when we get in invoices. >> It's two different ways. We have an account with them, but only certain people can be on that account and the rest of them use their cards and then we
have to pay separate for those cards. >> So, who gets the 11% rebate or does that come off the card? >> Well, I just I know Kane usually uses the 11% rebate >> stuff. So, it's one of those things like Kane's used that before. will save up a
bunch of those and then put together, you know, $200 $300 worth of rebate stuff to use. So, >> we are also in the process of separating public works and the fire department accounts at an arts. So, they're going to have two. >> Okay. >> Fire will have their own public works will have their own.
>> I've been under the I've been that Menards will actually take that 11% off as a register instead of their credit card. I I don't shop there enough. So I don't know. >> We hear the same big money. >> That's what I hear.
>> So do we need a vote on Paul's amendment separate than the final consent agenda? >> Yeah, this was just making make. >> So that was it and I just had a question on the other. So I mean I'm fine. Yeah. With the consent.
>> Again, I I mentioned before, but you know items like what we just discussed here. just please call city hall and you know really is not a >> well >> maybe except for this one here you know if you have question you have a question
about two menards just please call city hall and say hey what's this about >> no I mean the rest of the water I couldn't do that I we had it figured well that was the one that kind of jumped out at me >> I'd make a motion to meeting >> we got a vote first
in favor consent agenda signify by saying I I >> I should make a motion to adjourn. >> Who moved it? >> Uh I get that was spring and then Phillips. >> That sounds right. >> One way or the other. >> Who made the movement?
>> All in saying I >> I was the second on the adjournment. >> I was made the motion. So I don't know who second it. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Totally. >> Got two minutes left on my truck auto start.
>> Get you started already. >> Thank you Marie. >> 9 o' >> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you Marie. >> No. bye.