Good evening everyone. I'd like to welcome city council meeting. Tonight is Monday, November 10th. Audrey, can you have the record show that our city attorney, city planner, city engineer, along with all council members, our assistant city administrator, and our city administrator are all present this
evening. This time, I'll ask you all to join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. >> Thank you. Our first item of business this evening is our open forum. This is the portion of the meeting where you can come to the podium, state your name and address, and limit comments to five minutes or less. Would anyone like to speak? Thank you, mayor and city council
members. Uh my name is Paul Neatn, the state representative for the east half of Aiggo, Elk River now then and the west half of El Grove. And I just thought I'd stop in tonight uh touch base with you. Uh just to remind you that this short session that we have in
2026, it will not start until uh February 17th, which is uh almost 6 weeks short of what would have been the regular session in 2025. So it'll be very short. If there is any
legislative work that you want done as a council, that will have to be submitted to me or uh Representative Hudson fairly quickly because we cannot wait until session starts, there will only be uh depending on the committee date. U
probably eight committees meeting. Um so and and if you want something done, we'll have to have it on the agenda and have it ready at the start of sessions. With that being said, we have no money. Um rough uh estimates are this state
right now is about 90 in the red. Uh the biggest leading cause of that is uh we're we're losing money on corporate income tax. Um and we've lost some money on uh the the
second driver of revenue is sales tax. Um that's down. I anticipate that the report which should have been out today that usually comes out on the 10th. Um but the revenue report I I suspect for October will be terrible. Uh the dis the
biggest driver of of sales is discretionary buying and there's a whole lot of people that have not had paychecks for the last month and I I would suspect that that would affect their discretionary buying. So um things are not going well.
in that standpoint. And the corporate income tax um said that was 173 million over over the year. Um we'll see what the next report says. Like I said, they should be out tomorrow with the revenue reports, but um if you
want to do something as a city, this would be a good time for policy things. There's no money. So, >> so um do we have a sense of um with corporation the corporate tax laws and
that's from corporations leaving? Is that correct? Or what's causing that? >> Uh I don't I did not get a specific thing. I know that uh July it was like 20 million $20 million short. uh September was $23 million short and then
I would have to pull up my notes again, but well over hundred million dollars short for September. I don't know, that's not a gradual decline. That's a fall off the cliff. Um you know, we we see some of the corporate uh you know, Target just
announced they're pulling 800 of their mid-level jobs. >> Um most of those people will be paid through uh the year. Um, but you know that so that's not going to be reflected. I I don't know where the corporate income tax is to have that
much of a shortfall and it wasn't included in the in the report. But um with the paid family medical leave I anybody that can is outsourcing uh to get out from underneath that. >> Yeah.
Other questions or comments? >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. We're still under our open forum. Any other comments? >> Since no one else is in the audience, we will close the open forum and move on to
consider our agenda for approval. Anything that they would like to add or delete at this time? Madam Mayor, Mr. >> Ryan, >> I move to approve the agenda as written. >> Second. >> Motion by Ryan, seconded by Corey. Is there any discussion?
>> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed, same sign. Motion passes. Moving on to our consent agenda. A motion would be in order. >> Madame Mayor, >> Miss Ryan, >> I move to approve the consent agenda as written. Second. >> Motion by Ryan, seconded by Corey. Is
there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Motion passes. Moving on to our planning. Our 4.1 is our comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and subdivision ordinance. I will turn this over to the
planner. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh, so the city initiated some amendments to the comprehensive plan and development regulations addressing staging, transportation plans, uh, and some provisions in the zoning ordinance related to rural subdivisions. Um this
was basically kind of housekeeping issues that have come up over time. Uh and as new uh developments have come forward, some changes were necessary. Uh the urban service staging plan. This basically outlines where sewer service is to be provided and then expanded to.
Uh the area south of I94 in the very southwest corner of Aiggo includes approximately 160 acres that's uh fairly chopped up in term already having been subdivided into rural parcels. There's also extensive topography and wetlands
in that area which makes it highly unlikely that that area would ever receive sewer service based on the city's current policy. Um it's currently designated as part of the sewer district. U but to owners in that area some opportunity to potentially
subdivide their property using septic and well on site. Uh the recommendation is to change that to long range urban service area. Basically the acreage lots in the northeast corner of the city to be covered under those same policies.
Transportation plan. When the Amber Meadows development was uh considered uh last year, uh there was work done on what Mallister Avenue should look like as a minor collector street connecting between 70th Street and Future
Nashville. The design that was put forward as part of that project was a 36 foot wide section of street with a larger boulevard and the trail on one side. Um, looking at that design, staff felt it would be worth amending the
transportation plan section all the way through uh between Nashville Avenue and 70th Street. And then also for the segment of a minor collector street that would extend north off of that towards uh 85th Street using Mason Avenue. Um,
with that we also adjusted the alignment to put it uh lands on the north side of the wetland so that it basically becomes more of a parkway street uh without houses on both sides. You basically have the wetland and natural area as a scenic amenity on the south side of it. It also
maximizes the potential traffic utilizing that that route. change with this is it kind of resolves what that intersection at least in schematic form looks like at Nashville Avenue where uh 77th Street actually intersects it.
Um with respect to the interim land use plan, this is the policy that says uh water utilities are available. Development density is limited to one unit per 10 acres. The current practice has been to require uh that any subdivision consist of lots between one
acre and two and a half acres in size with the balance of the property then held as a large track for future development. The planning commission looked at a subdivision request uh to the west of Riverwood National on Cadler Avenue uh that was basically taking a
20acre property and splitting it into two 10acre properties. The planning commission said, you know, if we're this far out from where sewer is immediately available and you're still re realizing a 10acre parcel that could be acquired and resubdivided in the future, maybe we
should have some opportunity for that. Um, so the direction that was brought forward was to establish a second allowance within that urban service expansion area, 10 acre lots, 350 or 300 feet in width, uh, within the areas highlighted in orange. So, those aren't
the immediate areas where sewer is likely to be available, but probably 10 or more years out from now. Um, they still have the opportunity to do the clustered lots. Um, and then the same provisions related to deed restrictions, etc. Uh, limiting any future development
until uh sewer and water utilities are available. Then as we were kind of looking at this section, looking at how we have processed these with it's a conditional use permit and then administrative subdivision. Um the administrative subdivision provisions in the ordinance were somewhat out of date.
I don't think they'd been touched since 1991 when they were adopted. Uh so we basically cleaned up those processes and made them more consistent with um our current practices as well as we're more about information that needs to be submitted so that it would expedite the
process both for the applicant and for city staff. So the planning commission initially discussed this in July uh and provided direction to city staff to proceed with the amendments that we've outlined. They held a public hearing on Octh and they did recommend approval unanimously. Uh
city staff also recommends approval. These changes are consistent with the comprehensive plan goals and policies. Uh above all, what we're doing here is making increased opportunities for property owners to have interim land uses between now and when be available. We're also making the
process of subdividing those properties easier for both uh the property owners as well as staff. Uh one note there on the bottom of the application, the motion in the request for council action doesn't include uh publication summary form like to do so that we can save
cuffs publishing all these words. >> Thank you. Questions for staff? >> Questions? >> Madame Mayor. Yes. >> I think so. The only I'll narrow down my comments to really just the administrative subdivision
portion. Um for me like so an administrative approval means that there's a potential for an ad and I looked today I couldn't find any appeal process within title 10 which is the subdivision ordinance. There is some
in title 11 but it would say this ordinance wouldn't apply to that. So a title 10 denial administrator have no appeal process and the proposed ordinance doesn't have one. Um so that
so requests that would not qualify for this administrative subdivision will go through the normal path where they have public hearings. They have a right to be heard by the council. But if it division it would have to go through this administrative process and then a denial
would end the process. So, I would like to see some sort of appeal process built into this either for title 10 as a whole or for administrative subdivisions. >> Mayor, uh, we can certainly add one to the administrative subdivision section.
Uh, as council member said, basically if staff were to deny the request and the only reason we could deny a request would be is it doesn't comply with the subdivision ordinance or the zoning ordinance. It's subdivisions aren't a real policy issue. They're all just
technical. Does this meet requirements or not? Um, but I think it would be helpful probably to have an appeal language in that section of the ordinance as well. So, we can either uh have the council pass the ordinance as written and
table that section and u add it to your next meeting. >> I I would agree with Ryan's comments. I mean, if the goals on your last page were that we want this to be easier for residents and it gives them more freedom, but we're giving them that
deny, there is no option for them to >> come back. Mayor, I can say I don't think we've ever denied a administrative application. Um, but it's always good to have the language in the ordinance. So, >> right, especially since the plan was to clean this up and make it more user
friendly so they understand the process. >> So, the options are to um make a motion to adopt it as written and come back and revisit and revise it again. We could just add another ordinance and appeal section.
>> I'd be okay with that. >> Okay. All right. All right. I'd like to make a motion to adopt resolution 25-60 amending the comprehensive plan and adoption ordinance 25-10 amending the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance presented.
>> Second. Madame Mayor, I'll just amend >> so that so that we can uh publish in summary form. >> Oh, per the request. >> Yeah, >> that was not included here.
>> It was on the screen. >> Wasn't looking at the screen. Yes. Y >> are you willing to Okay. So, I need Who second? >> I did. Tina seconded it. So, let me back up.
>> Okay. Can you go back? >> I I saw she was looking down and not looking at your screen at Right. >> My apologies. >> Oh, technical difficulties. There we go. >> All right. So, let's try this again. I'm
making a motion to adopt the resolution 2025-60 amending the comprehensive plan and adopting ordinance 2025-10 amending ordinance and subdivision ordinance um and amend the motion to include
publication in summary form. Second we think we are we have motion by Michelle seconded by Tina. Is there any discussion? Those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. All those opposed, same sign. Motion passes.
>> Better. >> All right. Moving on to city council reports and updates. Does anyone have anything? >> Madam Mayor, >> that's great. >> Um I'm just going to that uh OPC put on the cemetery tour on October 30th and I
think it was a big hit. Um I don't know about how many people we had, but there was a bunch of people out there and they were excited. >> Yeah, it was a really good turnout. >> People showed up. >> It had to be. Yeah. And they um there
was a couple people wanting to join um OBC for next year. So >> they did a really good job. So if you could pass it along to them. I thought they did a great job breaking up groups, telling the history. um and taking
feedback for like what we might want to see next year. So kudos to them for doing that. Thought they did great. >> Yeah. Um and I think they they provided some of their own cider and stuff. So that was really cool. >> Was very nice.
>> We'll be meeting on Wednesday evening, >> Wednesday, tomorrow. >> We have Veterans Day tomorrow. >> Oh, it's pushing. >> Yeah. So we're >> You can come tomorrow, but no one will be here. I'll show up >> better than that.
>> All right. Uh same with tomorrow's city hall closed and so public safety is on Wednesday. >> Madame Mayor. >> Yes. >> A less fun topic I think but um talked about at the last council meeting
the end of the year is quickly is approaching. We only have uh two regular meetings left to deal with uh the elephant in the room and that is the planned cancellation of the contracts with Elk River and Rogers. Our current plan calls for our city to go it alone on January 1st of 27 and it
should be obvious to everyone at this point that the plan is not going to work. A single standalone station is inefficient and undermines our responsibility to provide public safety and protect our residents. Going from seven stations down to one does not improve safety. Charging residents three
times for one-third the service does not improve their financial situation. Rather than cancel the contracts and leave our citizens without fire service, I think it's time for this council to take accountability and reverse course. The decision to cancel the contracts was
made without council approval, and we need that immediately. We need to send a letter to the cities of Elk River and Rogers letting them know that we will not be cancelling fire service for our residents. This letter is needed in order to make our intentions clear and
to begin to repair the damage that has been done to our relationships. That this council direct staff to prepare such a letter and bring it back to the council at the next regular meeting for consideration. This is a formal motion, so I'll need a second.
We have a motion. Is there a second to it? Motion fails due to a second. Adam, I have some comments on that or some questions to you on that. We I I assume has met with Chief Scott and
but he's also met with all of these fire chiefs and they're still this is work. they're working towards different things. So, do you have any updates that you can share? >> Uh, Mayor Cal, you hit the point on the head. They he's continuing to meet with
the cha chiefs in the neighboring cities. Um, as far as the contract termination language, to my knowledge, that hasn't been approved by the city council or sent by city staff to any of the three uh neighboring cities
um at this point. So until council would authorize staff to send that letter, I I would not have sent that. So >> okay, >> unless then unless you know something that I do, council member,
>> so a couple things I would say on that. If if that's the case that we are not intending on canceling the contracts, then I just gave us an opportunity to make that abundantly clear to our neighbors and I couldn't get a second.
I will say is if you go on the city website right now and look under the FAQ for our fire department under FAQ number two, it says that our cost estimates are based on ending the contracts. FAQ
number four is even more specific. It's we're going to be recapturing state aid. We can only recapture state aid if we cancel the contracts. The website also claims that we will be having our operating costs will be in lie of the
contract costs, meaning we are canceling the contracts. It's also we told Elbertville in October of 2024 that our intent is to provide service without supplemental service contracts. They memorialized that in their November
11th, 2024 council meeting minutes. It was also stated in the May 4th council meeting uh earlier this year where they were summarizing a meeting with us. They stated that our intent is to provide service to all of Oiggo without any
contracted service. The projected annual operating budget for 2027 that was presented during the joint public safety commission meeting in of last year includes cost estimates which exclude the contracts. The same figures were also presented to the council during our meeting on March 25th
of last year. Those figures increased but they still included a deduction for the full contracts as of the staffing study that was earlier this year. So, our intent and the public information that is out there is that we are cancelling the contracts.
Again, I think we need to make it clear to Elk River and Rogers, we are not going to cancel the contracts. We only have a few weeks left to do so. I the the agreement with the city of Elk River outlines that this agreement may
be terminated at any time during its term. The parties um serving a 365day written notice of termination to the other party. This agreement shall terminate 365 days from the date of written notice of termination unless the party serving the
notice specifies a later date of termination or withdrawnation in writing before it is effective. That is the language in the contract. That notice has not been approved by the city council or been sent by city staff.
And the conversations that Michael go having with them is that he is continuing to evaluate exactly what this looks like since we have not seen our staffing plan moving forward. Correct. >> Mayor, I have not been a party to those meetings, but all indications are that
he's continuing open conversations with Each of the Okay. Well, Madam Mayor, I guess with that we have an interesting conundrum because if we don't cancel the contracts before the end of the year and they are allowed to continue, which is what I would be in
support of, then we have a January 1st, 2027 dead that can't happen because we will have two contracts in place. Further, we would need to reinitiate a contract with Albertville before that time because Albertville's contract does
have an end date. So that's why I'm bringing this up now because we only have the end of the year. We're going to have to make a decision one way or the other. >> Any comment on that? >> I I read you the contract language. It
it allows 365day notice. It also allows for prior to that notice of termination. So, do you have to provide a 365day notice of your intent? You do. Is it binding? No.
So Ryan, are you assuming that when we do submit in a letter in the future to these individuals that if we don't make it by the end of the year, you're assuming that we're going to be paying for a whole year of contract with them
to bridge the gap or um I'm just trying to get on the same page with where your head is at and understand kind of because it doesn't seem like it reads That way we're we're obligated for a full year of contract without sending out a notification that we're
cancelelling. Sounds like it's 36 365 days from that notice. I I would agree with that. That's what's so if our intent and the plan is still to go live, go it alone on January 1st of 2027. That's why I'm saying we only
have two meetings left to make that decision. And I assume you met with Chief Scott. >> I did. >> Okay. And I can share with my meeting, we talked about
it might be have to look a little different what those the going live looks like on January 1st, 2020. He was still evaluating and gathering information on that. I I don't know what your conversation included. >> I would say my conversation was similar.
So with that in mind, we still have to evaluate what this plan actually looks like. I think the current plan of going it alone first of 2027 isn't going to work. And until we can have a better understanding of what our fire service
needs to look like in the city, I don't think we should allow the implication to be out there that we are going to cancel contracts. That's why I offered I I think the best thing we could do in order to repair the
relationships and make this abundantly clear is to send a letter to Elk River and to Rogers and let them know we are not going to cancel the contract because we are still working through what our fire >> happened already per my conversation
with Chief Scott. >> I I think I think it would be much better if it came from us. I don't think we need a scapegoat to take the heat for the failures of this council. >> Madam Mayor, >> that's great.
>> Um, I would confer my conversations with >> with the chief are similar to what I'm hearing from you. Um, that he's working diligently to repair relationships and sounded like well with all three chiefs.
Madame Mayor, I'm I'm just confused then if if the intent of this council is to not cancel the contracts and we've all had these conversations that are indicating that we need more work to not only fix the relationships but also to
assess and get that independent third party assessment of what our fire service should look like. >> Then what then to me the only logical conclusion would be we should We should let the other cities know
>> we're changing course >> and and I don't think changing course is the right word, but I guess I assume Adam's had these conversations with the city administrators in those cities also >> pending. >> Okay.
>> Elder City, Madame Mayor, that that is a mistake I think this council has made in the past is we need to take responsibility We those decisions fall on our shoulders and it's okay that we have people that
we bring in experts and there is administrative process but ultimately it falls on our shoulders and that's where I think we should take responsibility in this case >> and make sure our intentions as a council are clear
>> that we're working through challenges and trying to determine things. So I don't think a lad a letter I think we need to be careful on our wording to not lock us into over obligating ourselves like we're going to switch gears completely but a letter letting them
know that we are appreciating their involvement with our community and appreciating uh the fact that they're willing to work with us as we figure out kind of what that game plan truly looks like. I think that's fine. I think we do need to be careful on our wording. so we
don't lock ourselves into something. >> Other comments? >> Madame Mayor, I think what's been going on with Mike from what I'm gathering is he's been having these face-to-face conversations with the cities, and I think that's what's needed here. Um,
yeah, because I mean in this day and age of email and social media and there's a lot of conversations face to face not happening and and uh from what I've gathered from him so far, he's having all of those. I think that's the best
route here. And um we also approved um the group that he's with to help assess this and we just have not received that. back yet, but sounds of it, it's it's favorable. >> And I would concur with speaking to Mike
um that he is working. He has he has done a lot on the relationships since uh Daryl's left. Um he's pretty much done a 360. But I think if you want
to, Ryan, because this is what I've done, if you want to go and meet with the city administrator of each city or whomever and do an apology face to face, that's what I think we should do. Um, I've done that with Albertville. And,
um, I think that's the least that we could do. Not a letter. A letter is not going to A letter means nothing. It needs to be, it needs to come from us. So, I think all of us should go and meet with the city administrators from the cities
that we work currently and continue to work with and do an apology to them face to face. That's where you're going to get most bang for your buck, not a letter. Madam Mayor, I would just say that it
I see nothing wrong with doing both. The reason that a letter has some weight to it is that it comes from all of us. If if we're just going and shaking hands with the other council members and apologizing on behalf of our city or on behalf of our council, the problem is
coming from all of us. We are individually one of five. And I think I agree with the statements that were made by the speaker previous. going to each of these um cities and shaking hands and apologizing is a good step. I just think
a letter coming of us on a five to zero vote would go a long way. >> But what I guess what is your letter what's the meat to the letter? Explain to me what you want that letter to say. >> I I would be perfectly happy with staff coming up with something. But in my
mind, >> then you're saying you want it to come from the and now you're just saying you want it to come from staff. because we would have to approve the letter is what I'm saying. But in my mind, it would just say we are not canceling the contracts. Thank you for your service. We are continuing to work through what our service looks like.
Uh we'll let you know more when we can. You know, to me, the the information in the public right now is that we are going live January 1st and with therefore we are canceling the contracts. I think we need to correct that.
>> Well, it starts with that. We need to have correct information on our own city website. >> Yep. >> Does everyone agree with that? >> Yep. >> Correct. And it's my understanding that um Chief Scott said he was working through some
items out there for social media. He had already talked about um his information that was going out in these view. Um those should probably match those information. >> Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. I I'll just add uh he's been going through and reviewing the website, but obviously with limited
time, we're tend to be behind on some of that stuff. So, if there's things, please send it to staff. We can make sure it gets updated. Sometimes we just miss it when we spend all, you know, a lot of time looking at the materials. It tends to just blend together for us, too. So, if there's other ones, please
let us know. We're happy at staff to update things as well. >> Ryan, if you could send that information. on those. Um, I'm not I'm just I I'm very thankful for all
those partners that we listed and I just I'm not sure if just sending a letter makes it better and so that I'm not disagreeing with it with it. Um, I'm like Tina. I talk to Mayor Deetsz all the time. So I I would say if there's
he's maybe not as aware of the situations as the chiefs are because the chiefs are the ones that are working through this process together. Um I I guess I'm looking to as Adam said pending you have meetings set up with
those other city administrators or fire chiefs or how is what's what's that look like? >> Mayor council meetings have been requested and not set up yet. >> Okay. with the other. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> I think if our sentiment is that we all
agree that something needs to be said when the meeting happens, wouldn't it make more sense for Adam to say the full council is in support of allowing us time to work through this and we're thankful? I mean, so it's saying the same thing that you're saying, Ryan. Are we I mean that's if if
we can all agree to that right now that we that that we are not going to have a vote before the end of the year to cancel the contracts then let's get that out there. >> Let's make sure the other cities are aware of that mayor council that's your decision not
mine. >> Can we have information? I mean, I we've all Chief Scott, but is there information that could be provided to us in the next at our next city council meeting from him? Just I know that's hard to give him a deadline of two
weeks, but um or an update, something that we could have as an update >> or come to. Mayor, I don't think that would be fair to be able to have any sort of concrete answer or direction after this amount of time in order to
give you a recommendation to either cancel or not cancel anything. So, I I just don't think that's a fair spot to put him in at this point. So, >> which hard to say to Ryan's point saying that we're putting out a letter saying that we are going to need you when we don't have the information if we do or
don't. And it's and I'm not saying that what that looks like is the same as what it looks like now. It could be a combination or something that looks different. I have a meeting with Mike um walking through the um construction site on Wednesday
>> to talk to him about, >> you know, the ideas of sending some sort of letter to the um other city councils maybe beyond that and see what his opinion is and kind of touch base with him and kind of get a sense on um you
know if he were to word something just to send appreciation and and extending um their their work through and be nimble and work through um um us uh going through the process of figuring
out what we need >> um and being careful about our wording. I think that would be helpful. You might be able to contribute a little bit that but I'll talk to him about it and see what is >> Are we okay waiting two weeks to come
back with information on that? Ryan, >> I would prefer to send a letter now, but I'm again just one vote. >> I would like to talk with Mike a little bit more. And I would also, >> mayor, council, it if there was
intending to be discussion about fire and having conversations with Chief Scott, it would have been nice to have Chief Scott in the room to have those conversation working through individual meetings and discussions with him. If you want to have a meeting about fire
services and the planning, I don't think it's fair to ask for a final recommendation. If you want updates, I think it would be more useful to schedule a meeting to talk about the topic you are all talking about up here with the person most relevant to that
conversation, not in the room. >> That is fair. >> Is it possible to add a conversation to something that we already have scheduled, a time that we already have scheduled coming up? Mayor Council, the next uh special
meeting is on November 24th at 5:30 p.m. >> So to Michelle's point, could we add that discussion with him there? >> You certainly can. I would ask for specific things that you want to see and
presented to you at that meeting or if this is just a conversation. >> I I don't want to have him not know what to present to you or what you're going to be asking him >> at the meeting. Um you need to have it
be a productive process and have a structured discussion and not just a meeting to have a meeting. So >> Sure. I I guess that's my biggest is I I appreciate that we have an interim
person to handle some of these issues but ultimately this is a council decision and the council needs to take responsibility. I am ready to say we are not cancing the contracts. Understand why my the rest of my colleagues are not.
At the very least, it seems to me clear from the discussion that's happened that we all understand that there needs to be more assessment of the plan. And so cancing the contracts in that invol seems reckless to me. >> I I don't think any of us are saying
we're canceling the contracts, Ryan. So >> which brings me back to my original point. I don't think we're prepared to respond one way or the other on are we cancelling or not cancing or do those look different >> every two weeks. I we need a little more time to and a letter stating that we
appreciate them working through this with us during this time of discovery and um carving out the best plan and working with us while we're working through this process. We greatly appreciate I think that's a good letter to send. I
>> I I don't think adding in there that we're canceling anything. That's not what I would want because we don't know. We don't know when we're cancelelling. We don't know when we're um or if it's changing or if it's looking different or if we're pushing it back, pulling it
forward. I you know, I pulling it forward, but um we don't have enough information to become detailed. we can extend out an appreciation for their involvement in working with us during this time.
>> Madame Mayor, we have two meetings to figure it out. That's where I keep going back to I to me if if there is some concern if there is some idea that maybe we don't know what comes next then
the next logical thing to do would be to correct the fact that it is out be going live on January 1st 2027 cancelling the contracts in the next two weeks in the next two before the next before the end of the year because they have a 365day a
cancellation requirement. >> One contract has a 365day notice. >> The Rogers one has a similar has similar language. >> Rogers is September 1st of any year. >> I thought that was the Albertville one.
>> Albertville has no notice language because it is a contract that ends on December 31st, 2026. So the ro Rogers language reads, "This contract replaces any existing contracts
and agreements so on so on so on uh and shall remain enforced from January through December 31st and from year after unless on or before September 1st of any year either party gives notice to the other party of intention to amend or
terminate this contract. So, prior to the end of the year, you have one letter that you have to send contractually to say that you may or may not the contract. It also allows for that to be revoked at any day before
that termination date. So, yes, you do have to send a letter to the city of Elk River with 365day notice. That doesn't mean it has to be before December 31st. it has just means it's 365 days before
you intend to potentially terminate that contract. >> So we're we've already missed the deadline on the Rogers one if I'm hearing your >> September 1st of any year. So September 1st would being
>> right but then that would be 365 days from that. No, >> there there is no notice of 365 days contract prior to September 1st >> for January through December. >> Mayors
on the agenda for discussion tonight. Staff is not prepared to address any of this. Council reports and updates are a time for individual council members to make whatever reports and updates that they need to. But the agenda was not amended to include this as a discussion
item. to have staff come back with analysis of the various contracts or proposed language for a letter or anything else. I would suggest you direct staff to put that on agenda and then you can have a discussion. But I don't think anyone's
prepared to discuss this tonight because it was not it was not added to the agenda when the agenda was approved. >> Thank you. >> All right. for this discussion this evening. Do we
want to Ryan, would it be helpful for you to have them put together when the dates are for the other contracts since it seems like there's been some confusion on the language of when that needs to be made. >> I don't need that because I'm not in
favor of cancing the contract. So, I'm >> Okay. So specifically a letter to Rogers would not need to happen if per Dave and Adam's comment. Um,
I I guess I would I mean I'm I'm taking Chief Scott's word that he's been having these conversations and that he's been thanking them for their continued service with us and also what that looks like moving forward. That has not been
all figured been figured out yet. So, I'm I mean, we've all publicly said we're very thankful for our three service providers, and given the change, what our staffing looks like, we've had
to re-evaluate where we're at. And so, I think to have an answer tonight seems very premature. and also um sending a list when does that add a
little bit does that of another layer of confusion for for those cities? Um I guess I'm I'm not sure that does or does not. Those are my comments. Does anyone else have anything on that? Madam Mayor, I
think maybe what might be helpful and maybe the next couple weeks here is um if we could receive some sort of a timetable or outline of maybe where the chief thinks things are at or going to
be at. Um I don't know what everybody thinks about that. >> I think that would be fair. And it's not that to say this is the window, but but setting something up to give us some
concrete feedback on when we may know idea would be helpful. Madame Mayor, my opinion on that is that, and I said this to him when I spoke to him, I don't think it's fair to put all of that on an fire
administrator's shoulders. I think when our fire chief resigned, some of the responsibility of that needs to fall on the council's shoulders. We need to figure out what we want as a council >> and then we should be directing our interim fire administ carry out those
orders. I do not think it's fair to put all that pressure on him to have him fix what we have done. I don't think he has enough time to do that. I don't think that's what anyone wants to do. I he's fully qualified trying to step on
his toes. That's why I'm trying to say the council needs to make some decisions here and I don't need the information from Mr. Scott. To me, he's on path. He's he's repairing some of our relationships and
those to me the council needs to take some responsibility. >> So, what responsibility are you expecting for us to to take at this point in time? We've we've engaged an expert who is also has um other experts
that are supporting what we're doing looking at and what we're looking at modifying where we're at today. What what decisions what things do we need to do at this point in time when we don't have enough information to
really feed into those decisions? >> That question. What has changed? January 1st, 2027 no longer seems likely to me. It doesn't seem like a possibility. And that's why I offered
what I did tonight. >> I disagree with you. >> You're in favor of cancing the contracts then and going alone on January 1st of 2027? >> Today? I don't have enough information to respond that way.
That is the current plan, >> Ryan. And and we all know that with the change in staffing and we have met with the chief that it may look different. We do not have the information. It sounds as though we all were told
something very similar to that and what that may look like. So, and I would agree with Dave's comment to expect staff to respond and us council members to respond and have a
healthy conversation here. It's It's being thrown at us to say, "Send a letter. We're not canceling contracts." Okay. Well, we don't know what exactly that looks like. Are the contracts going to be the same? I don't know that answer right now. You don't know that answer right now.
>> It's an assumption. I brought it up at the last council meeting. So I would expect that my colleagues would at least that we are faced with. >> We're not in an emergency situation for the end of the year. We do need to send
something and we do need to have a game plan. We need to have something on the agenda for probably the next council to take this furthered. But what but in regards to letter it's El River would be the only one. >> Correct.
Correct, >> mayor. Yes. >> All right, staff. I will if you guys could look this over with some information back to the full council. Appreciate that. Is everybody okay with that?
>> Yep. >> All right, we are still under council reports and updates. Does anyone else have anything? We will move on to staff reports and updates. Sabrina, >> thank you, Mayor. Uh just as a reminder, as was discussed earlier, city offices are closed tomorrow for Veterans Day.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Adam. >> Mayor Councel uh that uh extended invitations to all of you if you would like to meet him at the fire station site to tour construction progress. So, uh please contact him if you would like
to do that. Okay. >> No further updates. >> Thank you. Audra. Thank you, Mayor. Updates. >> Okay. Dates. >> No updates. Thanks, Mayor >> Dan. >> Mayor, no further updates. Run.
Yes. this week. Yeah. >> Yeah. Today's the 10th by just walking by him. That's awesome. Great. Sergeant Alman's I can tell you I am looking forward to
the end of construction season. My squad shocks and the struts will very much appreciate being on real roads and not going through detour zones. So, um couple things that are on my list. um in no particular order, although they kind of have a segue to one another. Um
our uh social media team at the sheriff's office, one really trying to do a bigger push to have a little bit more interaction and have a little bit more u more posts. Uh the lieutenant that's in charge of that has been kind of instructed like more content, more content. Um I think he's kind of finding
out boy, it's tough to come up with content as a government entity. Um I know like I think most people entities that have Facebook pages they're kind of struggle with the content to get the engagement up so that when we do want to push forward messages like that message does go forward to quite a few people.
Um one of the things he had commented on uh is the amount of car deer accidents that we're having the deer that are out there. It is like the number of carer accidents that we've had while we're while we're sitting here. >> Um so >> just tonight >> yeah just in while I was sitting here literally there's been three that have
been popped up. So, um, there's a lot of them. Um, a lot of damages being done to cars for the most part. There's nothing that's real injury. Fortunately, cars are built pretty good that even if they hit the windshield, they're usually b not going into the car and keeping a good job keeping keeping that from going
into the cabin compartment. Um, a lot of questions today. So, um, usually over the weekend, depending on how the questions come in, Monday is typically a big day for me to take like phone calls on things like an OIGO that come through our office. Uh today I had
five different calls on like a hunting regulation throughout the city. So I'm just kind of sorting through a number of those. Uh for the most part those questions are coming in the form of am I allowed to hunt over here? Can I walk through this? You know, can I walk through the city property to get to this land sort of thing. Sorting through a
lot of those uh for the most part those answers are almost almost always like no, technically you can't do that. Um, however, then then it kind of compounds into that hunter who took the time to call in to ask, then notices, but there's five people that just did it. We
kind of run into that situation. So, there's a number of places in the city that we kind of happen to shoot squad cars over to to kind of, uh, handle that issue. So, um, beyond that, public safety on Wednesday should have a good, uh, presentation. And I think that's all
all I can think of for now. Does anyone have anything? >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sergeant. >> All right. If no one else has anything, then a motion to adjurnn would be in order. So move second. >> Motion by Tina, seconded by Corey. Is
there any discussion? In favor signify by saying I. I. >> All those opposed, same sign. The meeting is ended. Thank you all for attending.