in time. Um, that'll be running again concurrent with the Forest Lake School District's spring break. Uh, so that's from March 9th to March 13th this year. >> Awesome. Any questions from council? >> No. Can't wait. >> No, that'll be fun. Awesome. Thank you. We'll move on to number 13, the Q 2025
ALPR update. Chief Power. >> Yes. Um, mayor and members of council, uh, as we look at the end of 2025, um, you'll remember that we did initiate a pilot study for a one-year trial on the flock
safety camera system, ALPR camera system. Um, and I wanted to just provide an update on kind of how it's being used and any other questions that you might have considering, um, we continue to work on the data sharing agreements.
This is a kind of a work in progress. Um those agencies that we're sharing data with, we want to make sure we have that agreement and authorization signed with them. It's a kind of a clunky process. We have to manually send them this document. They sign it, return it to us, then they sign theirs, sign it send it
to us, and it's it's kind of a clunky process. Flock is working on updating that. So it is embedded within the system rather than having this uh manual paper process that we need to do. Um but essentially it just ensures that our data is being used in compliance with um
our policies and we haven't had any issues with that. It's just a cumbersome process getting everyone signed. So we did send out a notice to all of the agencies that if it's not signed by the end of February um uh we wouldn't continue to share our data. That was a
an additional step that we added after initial implementation. So, there's a little bit of a given uh back and forth on making sure that gets done. So, we anticipate that we'll have that for first quarter of 2026. Um it continues to be used by our patrol
officers p primarily um looking at driver's license status check for revoked drivers, suspended drivers, any kind of warrants that they may have and also for identification of any stolen vehicles, um cops alerts, anything like that. and uh continues to be used during
proactive enforcement. Um we did use it on a harassment stalking investigation. Um ultimately it was uh used for um a stalking case over at the hospital. Um
it was submitted for charging. Um but the ultimately there's other dynamics at play that it wasn't charged but it still was a a case that was um definitely we would not have been able to identify the suspect without having the system in
place. So it was a success with the system. Um they flock continues to provide webinars and training and we continue to work with other agencies to make sure that we are in compliance with state law um and retaining data as needed. Um, our public safety manager,
Cali, just attended a training last week. Um, I just got the slides today, so I'll be looking through them as well, just to make sure where we're at. Um, making sure that we're compliant with everything that we should be doing as well. And that information was shared with our uh our city attorney as well
just today. So, um, no time to look at that yet, but just to keep you updated that we're we continue to make sure that we're staying compliance. Um the additional document that was attached to the letter was just a brief summary of how it's being used. Um you know there's
a a good usage of it. Uh system is operating as intended. Um and then I just wanted to let you know there was there has not been any data requests by any federal agencies. Um I know there's some discussion about that or concerns about that
nationally or locally. Um but we have not had any data requests or any access to our data at this point. So uh any other questions you may have? >> I have one simple question. >> Sure. >> Of course online there's always questions about the license plate reader and the black license plate. So the
theory is going that um actually the black license plate is the one that captures the best images. And so the state is trying to make it so every license plate is the black one. Is that true to that statement? Not that I've heard. They just
>> it's >> the black plates look nice on car is kind of the understanding. >> Yeah. And some of that money goes to the veterans or whatever. >> Yeah. There's different there's I mean it's a long list of different plates that are available. Um and actually when anytime a new plate does come out, the ALPR system does need to be calibrated
to make sure it's reading correctly. Those black and white ones, they came out and it did not read it properly. Yeah. >> So, it needs to learn what that's what those plates look like and go from there. >> Good to know. Thank you. Um questions from council. We'll start with um member Joerger. >> All right. So, your memo says several
local and county agencies have requested access to the data. Who are they? >> Uh I can provide that list. I don't have that readily available. >> Unfortunate. Your memo also says >> I can by the end of the meeting I can provide it to if you'd like.
>> Thank you. >> Uh I appreciate that. Uh your memo also says that um in your training and compliance you they're focused on system evolution. What is system evolution? >> Uh as the as it adapts like I just
mentioned that as the system needs to learn new uh technology as laws change that that it evolves to make sure that we're compliant with that. >> What kind of new technology >> as of right now?
besides black license plates. >> I don't know anything off the top of my head and like I said, we just attended this training last week and I I have to review it with with Kelly. >> Uh I just like to remind council and everybody in this room, we're all a team and when there are side comments, it
actually doesn't promote teamwork. So I just think that that's super important. we watch some of our verbiage. Um, >> and Mayor Iverson, if I can follow up, we do have a transparency hub that is available 247 if you would like to look at that and that does have all that information you're looking for.
>> What where is that? >> That was in previous updates to council as well that there is an online transparency hub with our ALPR system >> that was released earlier. >> I was just hoping you would know. Well, I think it can be sometimes hard for our
staff to know everything right on demand. So, I appreciate it, Chief Bower. Uh, questions from member Shelly. >> I actually do not have any questions. Thank you for the update. Appreciate it. >> Okay, member. >> I have no questions. member um Luger.
>> Um just to clarify and I know there was a story that came out about um recently uh about I think uh somewhere in California um Los Altos or Santa Cruz or somewhere um about information being accessed
uh by federal agencies uh without warrants or without data requests or anything like that. And just to clarify, we I know that you have put a lot of work into making sure that we have a solid policy that is very very clear about who can access our information and
who we provide it to. And so that would never be a concern here. >> Across the board, I'd have to look at this specific article that you're that you're citing. Um across the board, everything that Flack is saying continues to be that the data is ours.
any request that they received by any other government agency, whether it's search warrant, any legal process, the only way it would be released without us knowing is um hypothetically if they believe that for some reason our data or
we are misusing it and there's a federal investigation into our use or some other kind of criminal or investigation that we would not be privy to that information. That's fine. It's a chainsaw.
>> Um, so I they continue to maintain that that is not happening. We would always be notified. It's our data to release and they're not releasing it. The only way is if they would receive a court order that we would not be allowed to because
of an ongoing investigation. I mean, that's very unlikely, very specific. Um and they they've continued to maintain that and we get updates on a regular basis from a block with that information. >> Thank you. >> Um thank you. Thanks for the
transparency. We'll move on to number 13. Q20 wait number 14. Monthly performance measures fire Q4 2025. Chief, that would be you. >> Sorry. Yes, that would be me. Uh one
minute. Let me just switch documents here. and undo my brain from flock. One second here. Okay. Uh as again, as you're aware, we are maintaining information about uh our fire department. Uh having
these performance measures in place. Um finishing up quarter 4 um gives us a good perspective on kind of where we're at with the certain areas. I will say as we've completed one year with this document um or this process uh understanding that we may
modify or that we will modify how we're calculating some of this information and we'll make sure that's transparent as well in the reporting process some of the averages and how it is calculated as time has gone on. Um I think the information could better relay in a different way. Um but I will make sure when we're doing year-to-year comparison
that we explain why the numbers might be different. Um, and again, no, not trying to hide anything or confuse anything. Just as time has gone on, it's like this can be described a little bit better and more accurately in a different way. So, call volume 326 for the year. That's one
of the highest years we've had um in quite a while. Um, response time, again, this is a calculation that is limited by our dispatch system. They only log the first arriving vehicle on scene from the fire department. So that usually is a chief
vehicle or one of the command vehicles. So on a structure fire, an active fire, that really isn't what we want to be calculating. We want to be calculating or determining the first arriving engine on scene. Um and our system does not allow us to do that other than a manual process. So um hopefully down the road
we could change how that's done. Uh responder goals, we're still looking at lower numbers. Um considering the the benchmark is 10 for a structure fire or any kind of fire um that's difficult to maintain those level of response numbers. Uh we're only about 25 for the
year. 25% for the year. Uh medical we're still doing really well with always uh 99% of the time having two responders or more respond to those incidents. Uh motor vehicle crashes we're at about 41%.
We're looking for eight. that is very unlikely that we're going to arrive at that number. You think of it that you know puts two engines in service. Um on the freeway we probably get better numbers just because we have additional resources out there. Alarms looking for
four um about 78%. Only had a couple traffic control calls might be just one in December. So, um, in general ed, those are numbers we're going to still as our staffing numbers improve. Um, we hopefully we'll be able to meet more of those, uh, incident
commanders across the board, we're doing really well with having an incident commander, that's a captain, um, or deputy chief on scene, uh, to have them be, uh, in in in command. Uh, medicals, it was 82% and that's perfectly
acceptable on a medical. Uh we're giving out more mutual aid than we're receiving. Uh 12 structure fires we assisted with throughout the year. Um we received five mutual aid uh six throughout the year, I'm sorry,
by other agencies. Uh regarding public education, um you know, it's it's very sporadic throughout that those initial couple months of the year. Um but December, we do have number of events and in a in a strong reach. A lot of times these fire events have many
more than 20 people attend. Um you think of uh you know the Santa event in December um you know public education at the schools. Those are reaching a lot more than 20 people. So uh it's you know it might not be we're doing a ton of them but the reach is pretty
significant. Uh we had fire 11 fires with lost. That's not something that we can necessarily control. Um but just a something to keep track of. Uh our firefight applications, we had some re decent numbers and we have a a large pool that are starting um and getting
onboarded this right now. Uh EMS, we only had uh two that actually started. Um one has resigned and the other one has actually changed to being a firefighter and EMS, which is which is a good result. So >> y
>> um overall we're happy with that. Um and obviously firefighter is the goal because they can also do both. But if it is an EMS only, we will still entertain those uh applications. Uh our numbers are have steadily dropped throughout the year with active firefighters, but as I
mentioned, starting at the beginning of 26, we will have those numbers will go up for active firefighters. Uh big one in equipment age, we're looking at that ladder truck. We'll be having more discussions about that at a future work session coming near you. Um
what that looks like for that ladder truck that is 25 was a 2000 and we're at uh approaching 26 years on that. So we'll need to take a look at what we're going to do with that that vehicle. And um again, zero inspections this year,
but with the part-time posting um that we'll get out in the next couple weeks. Uh if not tomorrow, I believe. Yeah, I think so. Uh we should be able to start getting those inspections done soon. So, um any other questions on this? Okay,
>> council, any questions? We'll start with um member Schilling. >> I don't have any questions. Thank you. >> Member Joerger. Um, people have asked me, are there any times when there's too many people on a medical call?
Like for example, uh, you have a fire res, you have a fire command vehicle, two police vehicles, uh, a fire rescue vehicle, and a
ambulance all at the the same address. Are does everybody have a role or are the people or are people standing around? Because occasionally I will get a question about do you need so many
people and why on medicals? >> It is call dependent. It depends on the situation. Um we're only calling out fire when it's needed. They're not automatically dispatched. Um police is first priority to first respond and then the ambulance. fire would only respond
as needed. So that might be a lift assist where we need additional uh personnel. Um it may be that uh there's CPR that needs to take place and that is a you know rotating people through. Um it's really dependent on the need. Now
because we're paid on call a call for first responders, it might be one responds, it might be two, or there might be eight sitting having dinner at home and they all respond. Um, so because of the paid on call system and because they're not uh part-time
employees and they're not specifically obligated to respond, it's a very it it depends. Um, we might get aid on scene. Ultimately, when they arrive on scene, they and we don't need them. Hopefully, they're canceled, but that requires somebody to kind of take take note of the situation and then cancel resources.
So, that's the system. >> I was just curious and I it's a question I can ask. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Member Luger, no questions. Member Onstaff, >> just to add to that, because I'm in the same field, is it better to have more
people show up and send them home than not enough? >> Yeah. What we're looking at is if we need additional resources that that well be third and fourth tier then looks at mutual aid agencies and that could be, you know, 15 minutes away. So, we'd rather have them in route and on scene
um and and cancel them or send them home. Yes. >> Thank you. All right. Um, any other questions? >> No. >> No. All right. Thank you for the update. Really appreciate it. We're going to go on to new business number 15 to consider
authorizing the purchase of park amenity master list signage for EFA signage. Mr. McFarland, is that you? >> That is me. Uh, honorable mayor and members of the city council, um, the park advisory commission has had a long-standing goal to try to find ways
to uh, advertise the numerous parks. um all 18 of them in our community and the different amenities that are offered at each of those parks. Uh with that in mind, they spent the past several months um coming up with ways uh to promote uh those amenities. And so they've created a park amenity master list um a park
many uh master list web page which is on the city website. Uh now they've spent a lot of time looking at signage to promote those uh different amenities and that web page for people to access. Uh it's with that in mind that the park advisory commission believes that these signs being out there will uh encourage individuals to scan that QR code and uh
learn that there might be a pavilion at one park or a a baseball field that they didn't know was at another one. Um so they have selected a final design for that sign which is at the bottom of this report. Uh the sign would be 12 in x 18 in and utilizes a 3M highintensity uh
prismatic reflective sheeting. Um and the park advisory commission is recommending that the city council authorize the purchase of 25 total signs for the project which will be installed across 14 parks in the community. Uh the total cost of that project is $537.50. Um that's their best quote right now
though no more with shipping that is shipping included that but they need to weigh it first but very close to that. >> I think that's a wonderful idea. So we have 17 beautiful parks and it's nice to be able to really draw some attention to it. So good job to the park advisory board. All right, questions. We'll start
with um Member Luger. >> Um I have no questions. I just tried the QR code and it's great. So, good job. >> Member Hans. >> Well, this plays into something I've been promoting for a long time is the use of QR codes at our parks. >> I'm really glad to see this is actually
taking place. >> Yeah. All those kids are going to love it, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh member Schilling, >> I think it's great. I just always have a fear with these. So, Somebody puts their own QR code over it on our signs. Sh.
>> Don't tell them to people do it all the time. >> Give them that suggestion. >> But I think they're great. The whole idea is fantastic. >> So then would the follow-up question be, Mr. McFarland, what do we have in place to make sure that we know right away if something does happen with what he's talking about? >> Yeah. I don't know if we have anything
that we've discussed, but I do know that our public works department does do park inspections regularly, and so this could be something that we add into the rotation to say, "Please scan the sign when you're out there. I just >> people's identities and it just worries me. >> Okay. >> Otherwise, it's awesome. >> But we have a good answer.
>> Yes. I like the answer. >> Perfect. >> All right. Member Joerger, >> what fund which fund are you taking the money out of? >> Uh that would be out of their um apologies. The uh park improvement fund. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. We need a motion to approve
the authorization of Park Amenity Masterless Signage from EF Signage Company in amount of $537.50. Do we have a motion? >> Motion. >> Motion by member Anstad. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Schilling. All in
favor? I opposed. So approved. Number 16 to consider resolution 260226, a resolution authorizing the purchase of the chassis of a 2027 Western Star from Trans West on a state bid
contract and equipment and out outfitting from town master in the amount of $328,938. I will not be repeating this whole thing. So, all right, Mr. Reeves, >> honorable mayor and council, uh asset number 916, which is a 2011 freight
liner, um is up for 15-year uh replacement. And uh so we were able to gather state contract numbers from Trans West to replace the truck with a single axle 2027 Western Star and then included in that uh the upfitting from tomaster.
So, we're looking at a potential uh should this be a successful um request, we're looking at a November delivery date for the chassis and then it'll go up to Lichfield and wait in line. We're anticipating a June or July of 27 delivery with all the snow and ice
control equipment, dump body and emergency lighting and everything. So, um I was happy that we were able to capture some opportunity before the toll master contract goes back out to state contract and then also um be able to get ahead of some tariff charges. So, um
being able to capitalize on that is helpful and also get line up in Lichfield. So, >> okay. Uh my only question u Mr. Reeves is you mentioned June or July. That's can be fluid >> of 2027. >> Oh, 2027. Okay. because I'm going to say
that can be fluid. So I don't want to have that set like oh you said so it could be >> June July of 2027 it could be March it could be September I mean there's some right >> yeah orders could get cancelled or there could be a shortage of supplies um
you're exactly right >> okay >> there are external factors out there yes >> perfect okay thank you did I start with you last time who did I leave off with we'll start with you member onstead we'll just start with you because I have last question okay member shilling >> uh no questions we budgeted
Member Joerger, >> is this the same truck that we talked about at the budget meetings where we were going to take 168,000 out of in out of the sewer fund to pay for? >> This is Yeah. Fro's an inter fund loan
in the amount of 175,000. >> Correct. >> So when we do the resolution, do we need to have that mentioned in the resolution? Because this one says we're just taking it out of the CIP. It's part of the CIP, but this is just
author authorization to move forward with the purchase. We can later on when we receive it, we can do another resolution identifying the the transfer from the a five-year transfer out of the sewer CIP. But um this is just authoration to move forward. As we
stated, this could get cancelled. This could get um stopped. But later on when we actually take possession of it, we'll have to make payment on those invoices. >> Well, that's that's okay. It's just that on the the the last whereas it just says the CIP fund has $350,000 budgeted for
the purchase of this new truck and we're not is it still budgeted that way considering we're going to take do it as an inner fund loan. >> If council wanted to make a friendly amendment to that you could do 175 CIP and 175 interfund loan if if council
wanted to do that be appropriate for the resolution now. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, you want to move? All right. So, >> you want me? >> Um, nope. Because we did not have member Luger ask any questions. >> I have no questions. >> Okay. >> But I appreciate Yeah. All right. So,
um, if I'm understanding correctly, uh, member Joerger, you're going to make the motion with a change. >> Yeah. I'm going to make a motion to um to move for approval with the change in the LA in the resolution in the last
whereas that the money will come from 168,000 out of the inter out of the sewer fund as an inter fund loan and what was the rest of it out of the CIP >> it would have been 175 and 175 half and half
>> oh it was it's 175 was like 168 was coming out of the uh the budget meetings. So it's 175 out of the sewer fund and 175 out of the CIP. >> Correct. >> Okay. So we would um
um revise the resolution to say that the funding for this will be 175,000 out of the sewer fund and as an inter fund loan and 175,000 out of the CIP as budgeted. >> Okay, that's your first. Do we have a second? >> I'll second.
>> We have a second by member Anstad. All in favor? I opposed. >> So approved. >> Okay. Um number 17 to consider resolution 260227, a resolution declaring coverage in the public employees police and fire plan for a non
full-time firefighter. Chief Bower. >> Yes. Uh member, Mayor Iverson and members of council, we'll get this done. Uh, as you know, we we did um request approval to post this position. Um, and as we were posting, we learned that per
requires council resolution or order to include a part-time employee in the police and fire uh pension fund. Um, this was what we had originally proposed when we got the uh position approved by council. Um but they're just looking for a resolution officially allowing the
city to contribute and have this position because it generally is for full-time. Um but they are allowing part-time if council approves it. So um as you know our fire department is a member our paid on call is has a fire
relief association. Um there are limited with wind statute who can participate in that. Um and those have The relief association has minimum call requirements and those type of things um in place. Part-time employee because
their schedule times, we can't put minimum call response on them, those same requirements either. So, this would be allowing them to participate in this uh in the PAR uh police and fire fund um which has obviously a part-time
employee. it's not as significant of a contribution and that you're not going to retire based on this, but potentially if they have a previous pension they're contributing to with with fire and police, um this may contribute to that. So, um it's a way for us to um reward
and um have them be a part of a pension fund. >> Okay. Member Schilling questions. >> Uh you kind of answered some of it, but I was wondering, you know, with a lot of positions there's a hours trigger. So with these um
is there an hours trigger for it or is it just the very minimum? Okay. >> So they they'll be scheduled a set number of hours. They are not obligated to and they cannot respond outside of their scheduled hours. It is just purely during their scheduled hours they will respond to calls which then they may not
have calls and they're doing fire inspections. So um that or they're doing public rel public education type things. So, um, we knew that going into this that they wouldn't be able to require a certain number of calls. They also have the same training requirements, but not call requirements. >> Okay, that was my only question. Thank you. >> Yeah,
>> member Joerger. >> Uh, when the city had part-time police officers and a part-time crime analyst, were they included in the PAR retirement plan? >> The part-time analyst is a part of the coordinated fund. That is a different
fund within the PAR uh retirement system. um the part-time police I that would have had to have same resolution in place because they don't allow part-time employees or that may have changed since then. >> I think there's a statutory change since we had a part-time which has been quite
some time since we had a part-time police officer. You're correct. >> Okay. So, this this uh position isn't being treated differently than anything else >> than any other position. >> No. and the se like the the community service officer position is in the
coordinated fund. So it's still a par contributing uh position. It just is that part-time cso position is not part of it doesn't meet the requirements for police and fire. So that would be like um any other non law enforcement.
>> You're going to take it out of a different fund for that for the CSO. >> It it contributes to a different fund. Yes. >> It contributes to a different fund. They'll get their pension from a different fund. >> Yes. Correct. >> And so it which would not require a resolution. >> That's correct. >> Okay. All right. With that, I mean, I did have
a question about if this position is parel eligible are all our part-time like you said the part-time CSO would be parel eligible, but would like our public works seasonal or if we had another part-time >> it' be over 167 days in a year. a
parttime public works employee is not. >> And if we ever went back to a part-time building inspector, that's a whole different story. >> It could be depending. It probably be more than that. So, it probably would be a parel eligible position. Yes. Seasonals are >> But it must be over 167 days. >> Correct.
>> Okay. How does the PAR retirement benefits compare to the fire relief association's retirement benefits? >> They're completely different systems. Um the the the the PAR system is based on
they contribute a percentage of their salary. The city contributes a percentage of their salary. They need to acquire a certain number of years of service and f uh and contribution amounts in order to take that pension. So it's a you know
>> it's a different but are they going to come out with the same benefit? >> No, it's a completely different system. They're not So when we give the fire relief association 5,000 and some per year, that's
the the gentleman or the lady on the pariff system won't be realizing >> no >> that much. >> It's completely different. It's based on the number of hours. It's based on the volume. They're completely different systems. >> Yeah. In the fire relief, you have to be it takes 10 years to be vested even on
the fire relief to be eligible. Paris is five years, but like Miss Chief B said, completely different. One's through the state, one's coordinated locally that the city essentially just does the the liability on it, but it's the fire relief money in their fund that they run other than us um pro the city providing
essentially liability assurance if something were to happen to the fund and their people were getting paid out of it. >> It it was more are they going to get the same kind of payout? Apparently not. >> No, I would say it's it's hard to determine that I think based on the individual as far as you know based It's
it's difficult to say if you know like I said if you started as a firefighter this year you wouldn't be eligible for any kind of pension till 10 years in. So this individual you have to be for repair system for the that that benefit for police and fire it's five years. So
whatever the contribution is through that they could be eligible after that but at a part-time position it's going to be it's it's you know kind of what you put in and duration of time. So, it's hard to say all the different variables how they would shake out between them, but they're just different coordinated system. One's to the state,
one's kind of in-house, per se. I don't know if there would be some questions about for the individual hired you know differences in monetary benefit of it but also along that the different systems
how does the how does it compare to the city's contribution to the private system we're doing 200 per firefighter are we contributing more or less for the part-time firefighter >> it's a percentage just like it's the same fun that I'm in or a police officer. >> Yeah,
>> they we contribute a percentage of their pay to the to the fund and they and the employee contributes a percentage of the fund. It's based on their their their salary or the hourly rate >> and then their yeah their job their job function. the the police and fire in a different plan than everyone else. Like
everyone else as far as like our building inspectors, our admin people, our council, if they opt to take Perry, you're in a a coordinated plan that is >> completely separate from police and fire. Police and fire have their own plan, but there's different percentages and like chief power said this the city
matches a portion, the state matches a portion, but it's all depending upon what you're just there are two buckets essentially. Yeah, I know it's two buckets, but I was more concerned uh interested in is the contribution that the city makes more or less than $200
per firefighter. >> It depends how many hours they work. >> Yeah, it depends on the hours. I don't based on the percentage. I I don't know the math. that it it could be um >> I mean if they're working 12 to 16 hours a week and I'm not g I don't know that I
can do the math off the top of my head but >> percentages for the fire percentages >> for the fire system. I'm not sure what the >> Okay. >> I I don't know that I can answer those questions off the top of my head. So do you have anything else? >> No, that's it. >> Okay. Um again
I'm sorry again we just it's not play gotcha. All right. Um, member Luger, I have no questions. Okay. Member Anstead, >> no questions. >> Okay. I'll make the motion to approve resolution 260227, a resolution declaring coverage in the public
employees p police and fire plan for the non-fullime firefighter. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by member Luger. All in favor? I oppose. So approved. Council reports. Let's start with um member Schilling. >> I actually have no report to anybody watching. Thank you and have a good
night. >> Member Jagger. >> Uh I attended the work session before this. Thank you all. Thank you for coming and thank you all for watching. >> Member Luger, I also attended the work session earlier. Thank you for attending and thanks for watching. Have a wonderful evening. Member onstead.
>> I attended the park advisory commission uh meeting last week and the work session just prior to this. Thank you for coming tonight. Okay. I also attended that work session and I'm happy to say that um I did attend the League of Minnesota C's um yearly how to be
better elected officials. Um it was a always something fantastic to learn. So we should add that to the goals for this next year that we get our whole council to attend. So it's just the the learning is amazing and the connections are great. So um and did we talk about
coffee with the cops? Was that two weeks ago? Chief Bower, I'm like plus the polar plunge, right? Polargeunge was wonderful. It was 50° as opposed to negative a,000 last year. >> Um, we raised good amount of money. We
had a good team that jumped. Uh, I would do it again in a heartbeat rather than last year. So, it was a great event. >> Fabulous. All right. Do you guys have anything else coming up that we should know about? >> Uh, I didn't see. >> We don't. We're actually working on night toight. We're starting the planning for that even though it's in
August. Um we are starting with our multicultural group to figure out how we're going to do that again this year. Love that. So yeah. >> Perfect. Great. Thank you very much. So thanks everybody for watching tonight, being here tonight, and also um for our staff. You all work really super hard and just really appreciate everything
you do. Uh with that, I need a motion to adjurnn. So move. >> Do we have a second? >> Yep. >> We have a second. >> We have a second. All in favor? I >> we