##VIDEO ID:x3F0So2T9Gk## e e e e e e e e we'll call the city council meeting feary 3rd to order roll call Mayor ree here council member OS here Nelson here Gilbertson Here Gardner here baggerly here Davis here andeles here council member Butterfield is excused so eight present one absent please stand for the pledge I to the flag of the United States of America and to the rep for it stands one nation indivisible withy and justice for all I'm going to start out with something that I don't have on the agenda um many years ago when I would was first on the council I served with a gentleman named Richard Halterman dick Halterman dick uh died on January 3rd he was 94 years old and he was on the council for 22 years dick was quite a leader and uh we work together dick and myself and Kevin Halliday in developing and bringing to uh work business the uh rack eight and uh I just wanted to uh recognize dick A couple of years ago I took him on the mayor's bike ride now look at he's 94 years old but I took we had a a bike that's only by the city it's out at the the community center it's got two wheels in front with a bench seat that dick would sit under and I would pedal pedal him around he just thoroughly enjoyed that so I just uh wanted to take the time to recognize dick since he passed away on January 3rd so that's about it we'll go to uh addition or deletions to the agenda we all have the agenda um I would like to have us add to the agenda at 10 can be um council member um Mike has gone and he's he was on the Broadband committee and uh I don't think I can make a motion but if one of you would make a motion to sign that committee to Justin OS serving on that I would appreciate it I've talked to Justin he's open to doing that Mr Mayor for clarification are you looking to add that as 10 C or are you looking to do that now 10 C okay I'd move an amended agenda with including 10 C second any discussion on that roll call one second council member OS I Nelson I Gilbertson hi Gardner hi baggerly hi Davis I and sches hi seven eyes zero nose that motion passes uh call on berene Larson our city clerk to review the consent items Mr Mayor and council members for your consideration and approval this evening I have the city council minutes of January 21st 25 the Wilmer Municipal Utility Commission minutes of January 2725 the advertisement for bids for project number 2505-b trunk Highway 40 drain pipe repair advertisement for bids for project number 23-b Street Improvement project West Parks and Recreation board applications and the accounts payable report from 11725 to 12925 motion to approve the consent agenda second got a motion and a second discussion roll call council member Nelson hi Gilbertson hi Gardner I baggerly hi Davis I sches I an o i seven eyes zero nose that passes are no items removed from the consent agenda so we'll go to number eight the open form and is there do we have anybody no okay next is a public hearing for cannabis regulation ordinance I'll call on our operations director Kyle box good evening mayor members of the city council tonight is the public hearing for two cannabis related ordinances one is the uh ordinance regulating cannabis and hemp retail businesses within the city of wmer and to follow will be the zoning ordinance to accompany that uh as was discussed at the last um two Council meetings ago uh the first meeting in January walked through uh we walked through the ordinance and I'd like to do that again just for the sake of the public hearing uh so just wanted to highlight some sections in the ordinance here uh starting with Section 8- 372 uh this is the limitation of registrations uh within the ordinance the city is going to allow or is proposed to allow two act two active cannabis retailers within the city limits the is prescribed by state statute for one cannabis retailer per every 12,500 residents making Wilmer minimum number two uh the city council can increase that at any time but for this for this uh at this time we're recommending two uh in addition to that uh the city does reserve the right to uh start a municipal cannabis business if it so chooses U and for the count and for the for information um if the city was to to decide to go down that to that route um it does not count towards that minimum number so if there were two active licenses within the city the city wanted to open up a municipal dispensary the city would have three moving on to section 8.37 4 uh the city added in this ordinance the preliminary inspection prior to retail registration uh so this would be once we received notice from the state of Minnesota the office of cannabis management uh we would start a preliminary inspection uh to help applicants walk through the application process to make sure that we are uh addressing everything that we need to address through the application process moving on to section 8- 379 as the annual compliance checks this is to mirror the um compliance checks that we have with liquor and with the low potency uh ordinance that we have with this on record with the city as well uh so again it just walks through the compliance checks the unannounced age verification compliance checks and then explains the process for failure of those compliance checks moving on to section 8- 388 is the minimum buffer requirements state law uh allows cities to impose maximum buffer zones uh city is proposing a thou uh to prohibit the operation of a cannabis retail business within a th000 feet of a school 500 ft of a daycare 500 ft of a residential treatment facility and 500 ft with in a public attraction like a public park or an event center or any any area that's frequently used by miners uh the zoning districts 8 section 8- 389 uh the retail specifically the retail cannabis businesses uh would be allowed in the following districts general b business District 1 2 and three in the central business district and we'll talk about that more in the zoning ordinance uh section 8395 uh again describing the city's authority to establish itself as a cannabis retailer moving on to section 8- 412 is the registration fees and renewal fees I wanted to highlight this fee uh particularly because the city already currently licenses low potency uh retailers at this time uh those retail fees have been paid for 2025 to the city of Wilmer in the event the state does issue licenses in 2025 uh the city would wave those fees for existing license holders within the city uh moving on to section 8- 434 is the loc uh for under temporary licenses or temporary events uh we have prohibited locations uh temporary events would not be allowed on public property or any property located within a residential District uh when this ordinance was introduced council member OS had asked us to look at the buffer zones to that temporary um for that temporary uh location as well and we did include that for clarification in the ordinance so those those similar buffer zones that applied to retail businesses would also apply to those for temporary events so 1,000 fet from a school 500 feet from a daycare treatment facility Parks playgrounds Etc and then last ly uh the on on-site consumption for temporary events uh those would be even temporary events are are allowed however the on-site consumption at those events would be prohibited uh Mr Mayor uh that is the and of uh that's what I have for the council at this point I know we do have some public comment that we are going to be reading in um but I'll stand for any questions after that okay so we need a motion to approve the Canabis regulation ordinance Mr Mayor you need to open the public hearing I was wondering about that I looked back I didn't see it all right we'll open the meeting for public comment anybody wishing to speak in regards to cannabis regulation ordinance I do have something to read into the record okay was sent to me this afternoon after a phone conversation I had with attorney Susan Burns who is the attorney for honic she uh later in the day sent me a a letter to read in because she could is unable to be here today so I'll just read as she's written Dear Mrs Larsson I sorry I am unable to attend this evening's council meeting and appreciate the opportunity to submit comments as discussed I am writing on behalf of my client honic in followup to our conversation I am writing to request that the council city council discuss or clarify a few questions and consider two requested amendments on the proposed ordinance regulating cannabis and hemp retail businesses in the city of Wilmer those questions and comments are as follows number one section 8- 372 does this section Envision the issuance of two licenses exclusive to medical cannabis retailers and medical cannabis combination bus businesses number two section 8- 376 A7 should with be within if not please clarify this section number three section 8-37 6 C delinquent obligations to city or state is there a mechanism in place to notify the business owner who is leasing business premises if their landlord is delinquent on taxes is is the waiver provision intended to include a situation in which delinquency is not due to actions on the part of the license holder or how would this situation be handled given that the business is not permitted to relocate same comment applies to section 8414 B regulating hemp number four section 8378 J please explain the intent on this provision and consider making the language more specific if prohibits the sale of hemp and cannabis products by any other means to any other person it is vague and a bit over Brad if business owners are required to follow the law this seems redundant and confusing same comment applies to hemp provision 8- 417 I also the language or in any other manner or form prohibited by federal state or other local law would prohibit the sale of cannabis AKA marijuana because it is illegal at the federal Level under the controlled substance act number five section 88- 379d other compliance checks similar comments on illegality of cannabis marijuana applies with respect to the reference to compliance checks authorized by federal laws for the enforcement of a particular federal law number six section 8- 395b if I am reading the ordinance correctly I believe the reference should be to section 8- 372 perhaps I misinterpreted number seven section 8- 415 responsibility of lower potency hemp edible retailers I ask the council to consider the revising to consider revising the imposition of strict liability on hemp business owners for acts of their employees the business owner should be responsible for training employees on proper business operations that that are in compliance with the city ordinance however if an employee decides to violate the law even after they have been properly trained it seems unfair to make the business owner automatically responsible for that act if the business owner doesn't train employees or knows that an employee is violating the law and looks the other way or knowingly retains a non-compliant employee on staff then they should be held responsible of course it seems like there is room for amending the language to include the concept of business owner knew or should have known I hope you agree these same comments apply to section 8- 384 on cannabis I appreciate I appreciate your consideration on these comments I'm available to discuss and look forward to listening to the council meeting recording signed Susan Burns attorney at law okay is there anybody else that wants to speak so Tom umil uh earlier this afternoon uh council member Tom Butterfield sent me an email in regards to this and let me find it here it was a question from uh concern from Jason Hamstead he called uh Mr Butterfield on Saturday and the question was uh is the city going to open marijuana shop if so will that count as one shop uh he was informed no and also he asked about no mailing of products those were the two items that he would like addressed um Robert are you going to counsel us a little bit on this yeah me uh mayor members of the council um I believe uh operations director box will have responses to the attorney's lengthy email with questions section by section um I I think in general there were a couple uh points that were well taken and will result in very very minor edits to the language and the ordinance before you um but in general um the way the ordinance is drafted is similar to the way the city licenses other products like liquor like tobacco um in specific regards to the um suggestion that the ordinance is too harsh on business owners if their employees commit a violation of the ordinance um again that is no different than City Licensing regulations and other contexts my comment would be certainly the council will have discretion when it's considering what uh punitive me measures to take if there is a violation to take the full context of the violation into effect and to recognize if there were efforts made by the business owner to comply uh or if it uh other circumstances were present that would justify some harsher treatment in in response to a violation so I think that's built into the licensing structure of any licensing ordinance this one is no different um we can perhaps uh go Section by section with uh operations director box though and I'll be happy to answer any follow-up questions should I uh close the public hearing and bring it up to the council as he speaks um and honestly mayor I think uh keeping the hearing open for the response to the comments read into the record would be appropriate and then calling for comments or anyone who wishes to address the council one more time after that would make sense and then bringing it to the council okay okay Mr Box all right thank you Mr Mayor um so yes to we do have some responses here uh in in generally um we're city is agreeable to most of these changes uh so moving back to section 8- 372 the limitation of registrations that's where we talk about um the city issuing a maximum number of two retail B businesses however we did add there is an exclusion uh for Med medical cannabis combination businesses uh that would not count towards that maximum number and that is described in State Statute as well so any medical dispensaries or medical combination businesses would not go towards that maximum number uh so that is written into the ordinance section there uh moving to section 8- 376 um a-7 uh we did correct the the term there it's within instead of with moving to uh section 8- 395 city has a cannabis retailer uh and the respon or the written uh question was a Mis reference for a cross-section so we did update that to section 8- 372 instead of 8- 373 that has been corrected and then under prohibited acts section 8- 4417 letter I uh there the ordinance currently reads to sell or uh under prohibited acts to sell or give cannabis flour cannabis products lower potency hemp Edibles or hemp derived consumer products by any other means to any other person or any other or in any other manner or form prohibited by federal state or local law ordinance or other regulation um we are proposing to remove the federal out of that uh section of the ordinance and then I believe all the other questions were answered uh by attorney Scott um the question that was brought up by administrator valant through council member Butterfield we talked about the number of licenses issued in the city if the city was to go into it would not count towards that maximum number um the specific question on um products being sent through the mail um that is not something that the city regulates or enforces um so we wouldn't have any action to take on on that specific question but it's not a regulated or enforceable um response from the city on product going through the mail um so if there aren't I'll pause there Mr Mr Mayor but if there aren't any questions with those amendments um that we have made to the ordinance we would recommend if the council will chooses that would be the recommended action to adopt the ordinance with those amendments unless there's any other questions from the council or comments from the public I'll I'll pause there Mr Mayor anybody from the public wants to speak I'll br members Kyle can you go back through 8372 on the license issue I thought I heard you say that if they have a medical marijuana license already that's going to be that license additional to the the two that the city is going to do so we could potentially have more than two firms selling recreational marijuana correct so uh thank you council member Gardner um the correct medical cannabis um does not count toward the Cannabis retail licenses so if there's a medical dispensary that would be again in addition to the retail businesses that would be issued by the city so uh Wilmer does have a medical dispensary in town um if they so chose to have a retail license through the state of Minnesota um to have a medical combination businesses business that would not go towards that minimum number or that Max excuse me that maximum number of two okay anybody else well if not go back close the hearing and uh to the council as a motion to approve the regulation ordinance With The Changes noted I'll will make that motion to accept the ordinance with the Amendments as noted we have a second second we got a second discussion um U mayor I'm I'm curious or Kyle uh is there a deadline and when we need to have this ordinance put in place uh that's a great question um we would like to have an ordinance in place sooner rather than later uh we do know that the state of Minnesota office of cannabis management from what uh we have been told or what has been published they do not intend to start issuing retail licenses until May or June of this year uh that deadline is I believe is still fluid um but we would like to have an ordinance on record at for at this point um there is comment public there is comment public comment period still open uh with ocm on their rules and regulations that they had updated at the beginning of the year um depending how the legislature goes this year if there's any other administrative changes that need to be made um I'm I feel confident saying we might will likely have an amended ordinance coming back to the city council at some point um to address any of those changes made at the state level but to answer your question no there isn't a necessarily a deadline however it is important for the city to have an ordinance on file um or on record so we can administer what we can locally or enforce what we can locally anybody else yes just before uh the council vs I thought it would be helpful maybe as a reminder for the council just the kind of broader context that this ordinance is coming to you in um obviously as you're all aware the state legislature legalize cannabis businesses as part of its uh uh statute that legalized the businesses it included a local registration component for retail businesses only um with some Authority that was specifically spelled out in the statute for local regulations um and some areas that are more um silent or implied that cities must have this Authority in order to make a local registration ordinance work and what I I guess characterize this ordinance as is it's about as restrictive as the state would allow localities to be and that the city is restricting the number of businesses to the um smallest number it legally could which is two um it imposes I believe the maximum buffer requirement it can from the protected uses um it does not allow local cannabis events on public property essentially every place the statute allowed City to regulate these uses or even some areas where it was kind of Silent on that but it was implied that the city must be able to do this this ordinance is uh exercising that Authority and regulating these businesses again about as uh restrictively as could be allowed so I did want the council to know that before the council takes a vote on this thank you you ready to vote roll call council member gtson hi Gardner i baggerly i Davis i schis i o i and Nelson I seven eyes zero nose that motion passes now we need a motion to approve the publication by summary so move second a motion and a second discussion r call council member Gardner i baggerly i Davis I shes i o hi Nelson hi and Gilbertson hi seven eyes zero nose that pass next is uh consideration of an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance call on you all right thank you Mr Mayor uh city council so following up on the uh cannabis retail registration ordinance we do have an ordinance that would amend the zoning ordinance to include those types of licensed businesses uh to be allowed or zoned properly within the city of Wilmer so in the council packet you'll see the um again in the uh section 3-5 the Canabis and hemp at again reiterates the buffer zones as well as defines each of the types of cannabis businesses that could be Li may be licensed by the state of Minnesota which include cannabis micro businesses meso businesses cultivators manufacturers retailers wholesalers Transporters testing facilities delivery businesses low potency hemp edible manufacturers and low potency hemp edible retailers uh throughout the zoning ordinance we do have identified um the permitted um uses or permitted areas in in the city of wmer for those businesses to be uh to set up or to to operate um as well as talking uh as we mentioned as I mentioned in the previous ordinance there is a map attached to the last page of the ordinance in the council packet that identifies the retail zoning districts again that would be Central business district and then General business District 1 two and three U Mr Mayor I'll pause there for your questions or for the public hearing is this a hearing yes is okay so I'll open the hearing and ask for public comment if any if not I'm G to ask Christopher did you have anything you wanted to add to this no there's nothing that um I'm um director box and I we work together on drafting the ordinance and um this Aline with State guidance as well okay anybody want to speak if not I'll close the hearing bring it up to the council for discussion or action we have a motion I can make a motion to adopt the ordinance amending ordinance 60 okay second second let's move to and second discussion if's no discussion roll call council member fagly hi Davis i sches i o hi Nelson hi Gilbertson hi and Gardner seven eyes zero nose all right um I need a motion to publish the ordinance by summary also so moved second got a motion second discussion roll call council member Davis Hi sches Hi O hi Nelson hi Gilbertson hi Gardner I fagly I seven eyes zero nose that motion passes thank you Kyle thank you counil Christopher for your work next is uh to consider the hiring of Alissa gambro as our human resource director good evening Council yes I'd like to introduce you to Alyssa Gambrell we have uh gone through the process of selecting Alysa out of 15 applicants and we interviewed six and uh Melissa comes from the the private sector and I will ask her to come up here and you could ask her any questions if you'd like welcome thank you we met a little earlier today you did yes and I know you got a family and maybe you want to tell the council a little bit about yourself sure um I'm married I have two kids a 10th grade boy and a sixth grade boy we live live near dael um so my kids go to dael COC play basketball and baseball um so that's where all my time goes right now um I have a degree in Psychology I have been working um as an HR Director um in the mental health industry um specifically we work with children with autism um so I current in my current role when I'm about to leave um I work with um our staff in Minnesota Nebraska uh California Pennsylvania and New Jersey um so uh used to a wide range of um employees different state laws um so kind of a a wide variety of experience in that role council do you have any questions that you want to ask Alissa yes uh just to clarify that you you will be working in the city yes not remotely yes okay yep you will see me can come by my office well welcome I'll uh thank you Lesly for your work on this and uh I hope you enjoy working for the city of wmer thank you I'm very excited to start all right I need a motion to approve the hiring of so moved second we got motion and a second discussion roll call council member sches hi OS hi Nelson hi Gilbertson I Garder I baggerly I and Davis I seven eyes zero nose that motion passes you're in back now all right um next we're going to review the city council open Forum policy so it's going to be an open discussion so if you want to speak just let me know what you're thinking we made the motion to review it the policy itself yes thank you Mr Mayor and thank you to staff for getting this on the agenda so quickly um after I had brought it up at the last meeting um in reviewing the eight different rules that we have there for the open Forum um in in my mind I I justify most of them I'll I still have a problem with number five where comments must be limited to the issues that are not already that are not on the agenda for the meeting at which comments will be made and wanting to make sure that we have the opportunity to hear from our constituents and any matter that would be coming before us that night recognizing that our our staff will speak to us on that too um but I would want to make sure that we would at least offer members of the public the opportunity to to speak to their elected officials on the on the matters at hand that evening so I'd like to see us amend those those rules can I ask you Robert what do you think about number five uh why did we have that uh restraint in there yeah mayor members of the council um my understanding is that was uh put in place in order to make sure that when an item is coming to council that you hear it presented in the way staff prepared it first um and not from a member of the public who um obviously could have a vested interest in something or may not be characterizing it correctly while I'm sure the council values public input I think staff thought that it would be important for Council to consider agenda items in the manner staff had prepared them with that said obviously this is not a a legal issue this is a policy issue for the city council all of these rules are um you know the framework for this is there's no requirement that City councils open up a portion of their regular meetings to public comment um those that do try to uh I think generally try to have some parameters for that discussion so that the public comment portion of the meeting doesn't um either get out of hand or take too much time or become too contentious and I think you know honestly I think the parameters that the city has put in place have worked as intended generally so um the the thing with this is if the council has parameters they have to be uh content neutral um you can certainly say certain classifications of topics are okay certain aren't but then it's incumbent on the city to apply those fairly to everybody um regardless of the particular Viewpoint expressed and again I I don't think that's really been an issue for the for the city so that's the background I think on the rules that have been in place generally and my understanding on number five again was just to uh kind of control those items to make sure Council hears them as uh you know presented by staff who had worked on those items but certainly I'd defer to uh the city administrator if there's any other thoughts about that I would say in that regard is that um the public doesn't um have the understanding of what the issue is until staff presents it and so there can be perceived I ideas and such and and that before the whole presentation is provided so I that is I would say why number five was put in place I mean I wasn't here either when none of this was put in place but I would agree that I would like to see staff being able to present their concerns and the pro go through the process first I was there when I was put in and and uh I wasn't really at first in favor of the open Forum but I think what we've put together is fair and uh as our City attorney said and so did our city administrator all the years I've been on the council and now as mayor I rely on information from staff because they have the time they have the direction they have the uh access to opinions and uh have discussions I I I appreciate that and I I think that relates to number five um I'm able to get the clear sense of what it means to make a decision from staff and then I can make my decision as a council member so I I would be in favor of keeping it as is course I don't have a vot but I said anybody else I could tell you were going to Audrey thank you I'm glad you could tell thank you mayor Reese um this was updated in August of 2021 and I think that's when we went to some of these and I don't remember us actually having a conversation and more just changing it um with that so I had I had a couple questions I am uncomfortable with number five in that I think back when we used to have committees or those types of things it was usually by the time it got to the council table it already had been discussed by someone whether it was the Planning Commission or whether it was committees that doesn't happen this time and so while certainly staff presenting information I think sometimes there are some things that the public can bring to the table and um with that I don't have any issue with someone calling and asking me to bring that to the table that's fine um but I'm I'm a little concerned about um feeling a a little slam dunk kind of we're not open to hearing what the public has to say um I also was questioning the time frame FR and number four it says that only three people can speak about the same topic in open form however then it says that there three people are allotted to five minutes where individuals can speak for 3 minutes so there's like the second and third people a time wise I I question that one um that one also um with that so so um the the other thing that I think is we sit here and we listen and we don't which is fine we shouldn't comment because staff do need to follow up with with them but there's a lot of times we don't hear back with so a a person can come to the table and ask a question and it'll be referred to staff but Council never gets an answer with what was the answer that was given to the person who came to the public for regarding this subject and I think that's important for us to understand too with that and so I would ask that we would um have a report back to Council on the questions that are asked at the public forum um you know it says and that the issue will come back to the Council on agenda item in the future I don't know that that happens either if it's resolved or if it's just a complaint you know kind of thing but I do struggle struggle with that one um you know with that I also know I remember there is a lot of cities who don't have a public for there are cities who have the public forum at the end of the meeting um so not to disrupt but it still gives people an opportunity to speak um I like where ours is at um but I do really question um that you know the items on the agenda because there's a lot of times we don't get information with what's on the agenda until Friday afternoon and when we do our homework um now you're looking at Monday and so if someone's looking for something or a lot of times they don't know about it until after we voted on it and um and then they have questions so um I I guess I am a fan of being open and transparent with the community also and that that's our responsibility as elected officials so Ricky um I was just going to say that I think since the mayor runs the meetings I would respect his ideas on it personally yeah from a Civic engagement I think that's lacking in today's society so anytime that we can get feedback from our con constituents it's going to be better now obviously if they come to us with information before the meeting and express that in a phone call or email it'll be uh listened to and uh pondered upon for a longer period of Time Versus knee-jerk reactions at the council meeting which may not be very helpful so I'd encourage uh the uh folks of Wilmer to reach out to us via phone call or email or um stop on into City Hall uh where we will be able to truly listen um but also I would love for us to strike section five so that we can hear from them at any point in time Audrey thank you mayor Rees if we leave it there um and and and I respect that but then I think we also have to make sure that we don't allow on some type times because sometimes you you will allow people to speak when we're discussing if someone you know it's like well do you have anything to add to that that's not appropriate if we're not going to allow them to do it at open form either then we have to say no you cannot speak to this it's at the council table and so that to me is you can't just pick and choose who you decide who's sitting out in the audience should be allowed to speak yes uh do we have any evidence that it's preventing people from speaking or is we I mean I'm new to this I don't know how many people normally come to these open forums I've been here for exactly three and seeing exactly zero people so uh I'm not sure what the scope of the issue is but if if there's this big if people think that they can't speak and they can only speak to what's not not on the agenda well maybe we have a Communications issue know people either don't understand what the purpose of the open forum is because I assume anytime we have a public hearing they have the opportunity to speak right but not everything that we do has a public hearing associated with it so that's really not what we're talking about here it's if they want to come and say there's too many cats running around on the street I want a chance to talk about if we're talking about pet ordinances they should be able to come and talk about that right is that kind of what you're saying Justin what do you want to do about it Justin just want to say that I I definitely respect the uh the work that our staff puts into everything that they bring to the table um and I I do believe that they still set the table for all of us when they present issues for us the the work that we receive that they do in our Council action reports you know that we're reading before these meetings give give us a sense of what it is um the issue at hand um if we leave five in it it in my opinion it it just makes it that the public can't comment on it that night staff's still going to be able to speak to us they're going to get the final word which I think is more important than the first word um but it still allows the public to speak to their elected officials and I mean it's certainly possible that you have uninformed members of the public that don't understand the full scope of the issue and I think you can trust the council members uh to know the difference between someone that might not understand the full scope especially after they've heard from the staff who's maybe had to correct I mean this happens in public forums all the time uh where staff have to say like no that's actually not true we've done whatever um but encouraging more communication with the citizens of Wilmer seems healthy and so um I will make a motion to strike number five from open Forum rules we have a second second we have motion and a second discussion Vicky you know thinking about this more um I think if someone does ask a question and and they're wrong if they have the wrong information and they're coming for the Forum that's a good chance to tell the truth about the matter so actually we should made motion discussion any more discussion just a clarification on Vicki I'm not understanding which way you're thinking well I mean I want to honor the mayor but I'm thinking if someone stands up and they have questions that are totally like they're misunderstanding the topic what a great time for staff to tell them um the truth about the matter and for all of us to hear it too does that make sense I can be wrong but that's an interactive time at the at that this it's you're you're saying when we discuss it later no I'm saying when they speak at The Forum about the topic then when staff comes later that's what I meant that's what I meant it's not at the time they're standing there okay thank you yep anybody else any more discussion roll call council member ask I Nelson i g son I Gardner I Bly I Davis I and sches hi seven eyes zero nose that passes do we have any more discussion or concerns with the forign policy audre uh just a clarification I think we could ask staff that um if someone agrees to get back to the person that's at the public for that we be informed with what they were told that we don't go back the next meeting and wonder whatever happened you know kind of thing I think that that would be important for that communication to take place um whether that's in a email or a just some sort of way of letting us know with what that person because that person may have interacted with one of us in the meantime and it's it's nice to know that communication you didn't put you didn't think of putting any time limitation on it because I think sometimes what the issue is being discussed the the staff has to yeah no I think it might take them a week three we or a year yeah I I'm aware of that but I think just to know that we're working on it kind of thing is is fine will work City administrator Lesley we'll make it work okay all right thank you any other changes or discussion um I had asked also about the Community Pride I know it wasn't listed on there and I don't care whether we talk about it tonight or not but I do think that there are sometimes just announcements or statements or requests or things that maybe could feel a little more open than just having to be a Community Pride I don't know what the original intent was to my understanding there is no written policy form like this on the Community Pride announcements we couldn't find anything but we just make an announcements yeah so if you would like to put something like this down we can do that you call it Council open Forum comment Council are you okay with the process yeah I I just know it when it was put in there we were told we were supposed to notify people what that was going to be you know that you couldn't just speak you had to kind of let people know what you were going to say and I think that ifat it's if there's something going on next week or there's something that people want just want to say I think it it removes that ability to do that so I would think it's a pretty open and I don't want to complicate it so if that if it's okay you just continue as is I I'd appreciate removing Community Pride and just having announcements Community announcements yeah or just announcements anybody staff or anybody has anything they want us to know or council members that's okay Council okay with that y okay um so the next thing is 10 C and that's the Broadband committ committee and uh replacing Michael Brian I've talked to Justin about serving in that capacity um we need a motion to do that if you're okay with I'll make that motion to point Justin ask to the open fiber committee to place the Mich Briant second we got a motion second second discussion anything say don't want to do roll call council member Nelson I Gilbertson hi Garder hi baggerly hi Davis Hi shes hi and o i seven eyes zero nose motion passes next is announcements I got that any announcements if not I will entertain a motion to adjourn move to adjourn second we are adjourned