Okay, we'll call the uh November 24th, 2025 uh [clears throat] city council work meeting to order. Item number one, >> Mr. Mayor and Council, we're starting off here with park and trail dedication discussion. We've had some work on this in the past and I have Nate here with us to give us a rundown of the discussions so far at um parks committee and and um some of the comparisons in neighboring communities and hopefully we can we can still continue to gather information before we make an ultimate decision on this. So, I'll turn it over to Nate. >> Good evening, mayor and council members. Um in 2020, there's kind of two issues here on this on this item. We have the park dedication fees and the trail dedication fee. It's been discussed by the park commission and the planning commission. In 2023, the park commission and city council changed how we do our park dedication fees in lie of park dedication land to a flat rate per lot. At that time, it was $2,000 per lot um for single family homes, 1,500 for multifamily homes. At the uh work meeting, the city council looked wanted to talk about maybe raising that rate. So, we brought it back to the park commission at that meeting. They uh discussed it some more and recommended going up to $3,500 [clears throat] per lot and leaving the multif family the same at that time. Um, so that's kind of back before you to change the park dedication fee. All we need is a recommendation from the city council and we'll put that in the fee schedule for 2026 and then you'll officially vote on that when we do the fee schedule change. So there's nothing too formal that we has to have to do for that. We also have on our park our trail dedication um discussion. I handed out a piece of paper here. It wasn't included in your packet. It got skipped. I double printed something. But it's section 66165 of our or of our city code. And it requires all new developments to have a trail built um with the new development when it goes in. The number of trails, where the lo where the trail is is is decided by the zoning type and then what kind of street it's on. It's included in that in that chart there with that's uh that I handed out. This was passed in 2008 and right around that time the um MOS there was actually I think a little before that 2007 the housing market crash happened and they kind of went away from enforcing this. They were looking, the city councils were looking to get development in here. Um, this was kind of just put on the back burner. So, a couple developments went in where they did not require this. The city council can decide not to include this. The park commission wanted to make it fair for everybody that if they don't include it, they should have to give up something uh else like we do with our park dedication. So, they recommended doing a park a trail dedication fee. So, either if you don't if you don't build a trail, you have to pay a certain fee for each lot like we do with park dedication. They recommended $1,200 at their initial meeting and then at this last meeting they recommended maybe bumping it up to $1,500 and the uh so it' be $3500 for the park dedication and another 1,500 uh for trail dedication on the single family lot. So $5,000 would go into those funds and it can only be used for park development. They cannot be used for anything else maintenance stuff like that it cannot be used for. So, it's a dedicated fund that's set aside. We do not have this fund set up. If we want to go that route, we'd have to uh change the city code and it would require doing a public hearing and uh the whole rigma roll. So, those are that's the recommendation from the park commission. We brought it to the planning commission in October and they agreed with those recommendations. So, now we're bringing it back to you guys to see if you have any discussion and where you want to take it from here. >> [snorts] >> I'm just going to say I know trails are expensive because of that trail they started on Baton that was crazy ex I couldn't believe how much that path cost. So, and I am I am surprised that we don't if this came about in 2008. I'm surprised that it didn't get monitored more after the housing crash in the last 10 years. Maybe we've had a lot of development and none of them have sidewalks that I could see. >> The only ones that we recorded on were Viking Preserve, Viking Meadows, [clears throat] and Elage. So they have sidewalks in there and additional trails. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So a lot of the other ones were like a 28. There wasn't a lot of development. From 2008 to 2015, we didn't have any developments taking place and Whispering Aspen had to put sidewalks into the second and third edition. From 2008 to 2015, we didn't have a single development come in. So this was they [snorts] were just kind of looking kind of hoping for development in a few instances. Um the one on Baton, the developer did put that trail in as part of the development, but they used park dedication money to help pay for that. The city has paid for two other sections on there. Our staff built the last section mainly by themselves and we paid a paving contractor to pave it. So we went we did one block and it was about $25,000 to do one block. It has two concrete pad entrances on each side, but so it's not cheap. >> No. and to build all these trails. It also requires maintenance from the city down the road. So, if it's in a development where it doesn't make sense, why why require it? At some point, we're going to have to go in there and fix it, plow it, whatever. So, >> so my question is, [clears throat] is this $1,500 enough? I mean, this that means the city's going to end up having to cover what they don't cover one way or the other. >> $1,500 would not be enough to build the trail. No. >> No. But you can build up a fund to build trails where we actually needed them and use them is kind of a thought from the park commission >> and make it reasonable. So it's not we're not charging these developers way over what's expected. Looking at some of the other cities that we had Ramsey on here, they charging$,575 per unit. Andover was 176 per unit and city of Chicago is 450 per unit. A lot of cities don't charge a trail fee. they just include it with their park dedication fee or they have them build the trail and they put the development in. So, >> well, I think it's very important that the city itself acknowledges the fact that we are a true buffer zone for the metro. [clears throat] Okay. We're one of the last cities that has the amount of land and the developments that we do have under our control and into the future. We need to not cut ourselves [snorts] short. I mean, this is a this is a unique and special place to live. We've seen what our parks commission can do with limited funds, and I'm talking limited funds, and they've done a wonderful job. We need to start building up these these funds [snorts] so we have for rainy day so when the need comes to put these trails in where they're needed and hook up, we can do it. I mean, we don't have anything to work with right now. And with the prices that we're currently charging, we're not going to make any [clears throat] headway whatsoever. And you're right, the $1,500 is not going to cover a trail in somebody's front yard. We know that. But a lot of these places aren't going to need these trails. And with a fund and starting to build up a fund, it gives us a little bit of a cushion and allows us to plan a little bit better for the future. I mean, we can always adjust, but I think we're really selling ourselves short on the type of city and what we have to offer developers and residents moving here. So, uh, I'm all for this this [snorts] new change. >> I'm all for it, too. I just honestly don't think it's enough. I think um [clears throat] that our taxpayers are going to end up funding a lot of trails and stuff. I I think we should be [sighs] as high as any anybody else because [snorts] people are doing serious complaining about their taxes already and if we do anything with anything more they're [clears throat] going to go crazy. So I I think it should be the absolute highest for developers where the taxpayers are not supplementing. >> Is is Ramsey the highest >> from the ones we looked at around here? Yeah. Yep. >> They're at 1575. >> Yeah. And the council can also require any development to put these trails in too. This this is in our code. They can enforce this. Um, that's always an option, too, to actually construct the trail. This this money that we're setting aside would be to help build trails that maybe aren't part of a development that's going in. So, like to finish the Baton Trail or to We have a couple other neighborhoods we want to try and connect that wouldn't fall under this code because there's no [clears throat] developments taking place, but we'd have some money to maybe tap into to help do those connections. We got the park commission's got a lot of them on their on their plans, but they're expensive. A lot of our problem is the wetlands around here. gets expensive when you have to go across wetlands or >> I I agree and I think developers would pay that 1,500 versus put in a trail because [snorts] it's way cheaper to pay this, you know, over 25,000, you know, and that's what it's going to end up costing if not now in the future for some of these houses that have two acres [clears throat] on them. And guaranteed the street I live on, we didn't we don't need a a sidewalk or a trail because our street is nice and wide and people can walk their dogs and there's plenty of room for two cars and dog walkers and bike riders, but other streets are not so wide and um are faster and I see bikers on some of these more narrow fast roads and I I don't think we we can't we don't do any county roads, right? No. No. Um but yeah, so I I do agree. Some of these faster roads definitely need um and especially if people have to cross and connect to get to the park like the one on Wild Rice or um Durant, which I never know which is site is which. >> Did I hear you correctly? We can enforce that trails be put in by developers and collect this fee. >> Can't you can't do both, but you could if you if you wanted. the developers would much rather play pay the fees because be a lot cheaper, right? But the the planning commission, city council can enforce that they put these trails in for our city code as it's written right now. >> We don't have any developers that we've had put a trail in yet, have we? >> Well, Elage and in those ones we have Elvage, Viking Preserve, um Viking Meadows, and Whispering Aspen has put the some of its sidewalks, some of its trails. So there's kind of a breakdown on how it's but those four the higher density ones was a lot easier to enforce [clears throat] because they're a lot more useful. Um there's a lot more people. The yards are smaller. The uh and we're trying to get connections for people to get places without having to walk on a busy road. We do have a I don't have a I don't have with me, but we do have a master plan that shows all the trails in the city. It's in our comprehensive plan. Um so we kind of look at that when development comes in. park commission makes a recommendation a trail should be built, but it's always up to the planning commission and city council if they want to see these enforced. So, what we're looking to do is if it's not enforced, at least we get something as a trail dedication fee so there's a little bit more even of a balance between developments. I guess >> I I have a question though. Is there still a plan for an NOA County to connect all the cities, East Bethl, Oak Grove and the county roads? Isn't Wasn't there some big plan to connect all these towns to all the parks to the river and all those different places? >> So, they have an they have a um I pull it up real quick. They have a they have a countywide master trail plan. It's funded through Matt, you might be able to answer this, too. The the heritage money is that the it's from the lottery money. It goes into a fund. It's doled out by the Met Council to the counties. The counties control it, but they use it to do their regional trail plan [clears throat] here in East Bethl. There's two trails. Um, one goes from east to west basically along 221st. That's their plan trail. That's the north regional trail. It would connect Lake George, come through an orchova on on 221st, cross 65 right past city hall here and eventually connect up to Martin Lake Park in Lynwood. There's another one that they're working on that would go north south, but it only touches east peel in the very southeast corner in Lexington. basically follows up Lexington to that St. Martin Lake park. >> Thank you. >> So just for clarification when you're talking trails that include sidewalks is considered >> some of Yes. Some of it is Yes. Yep. >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> Nate, these [clears throat] three uh developers that are doing this at this time, was there any negative by them? >> No, they were all for it. They It was a benefit for them, I think, to have trails in there. We did a park survey a couple years ago now. It's been [clears throat] over a decade ago, I guess. So the number one thing we got on there from people was they wanted trails. Number two is pickle ball courts. So that's kind of what the park commission is focused on. So this blue line here on our on our comp map is the north regional trail. So here's city hall. But over here would be Lake George and it crosses over um I actually have a big print out from open county too that we can look at if we need to. But and then the other one just connects just this last little piece right here. >> [snorts] >> And then it follows Lexington over to Martin Lake. Go downs. It would go down Lexington and connect up to Hamilton Lane [clears throat] where the trails already in place. That's probably a long ways out. It might not be in any of our lifetimes. They do it when they do the roads. When they widen the road, they do the the uh trail at the same time. Um >> we've had them out and we've tried to lobby with the parks department to try and get this as a priority, but um the money kind of follows development in the busier and over Blaine Kun Rapids area. It's slowly making its way north into Ham Lake along bunker there and stuff. City had a plan then to connect Booster Park by going to Baton O2229th and then the uh Fish Lake Nature Trail area here. Got a lot of those rightaways already in place. [clears throat] So, some direction from you or we look are you [clears throat] thinking we want to do the trail dedication fee? Um, would require an ordinance change. So it' be just like park dedication fee, trail dedication fee in lie of land on new developments if the city decides they don't want the trails built. >> I'm definitely for it. >> I'm for it. Yeah, definitely. >> Yeah, I believe we should. So, what we'll do then is we'll we'll do a red line ordinance and have a public hearing and bring it back to city council at a later meeting for uh official approval. Then, how about the uh park dedication fees? Are you okay with the recommendation from the park commission and planning commission of $3,500 per lot or you want to see that changed at all or >> I think $3,500 is a good start because we can always go through this in a year or two if it's not working. >> Yep. the on and once the trail dedication fee is in there too, it's really simple. Then we just we just adjust it with our fee schedule. >> Yeah. >> So we can bump that up and down from year to year if it's seems too extreme or we're too short. It's a pretty simple change after that. So >> all in agreement on that? Yeah. >> Yep. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. Thank you. We got what we need. We'll bring it back. [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> Thanks. Holding tank. Yeah, Mr. Mayor and Council, uh, I wanted to bring this forward for discussion. We have, um, Route 65 that is, um, see if I can get to the right thing here. Route 65 located right here. Um Brad is in the process of renting out this portion of the of this building um that has a kind of a failed septic system or a failing septic system. He wants to put in a um a business that prepares food for schools and things of that nature. Catering type of business. Um and um and as we know the sewer and water is kind of located up in here and to bring it you know down would be significant money right now uh to try and connect this up. So the options on the table are um require a hookup to city so water and and historically what's happened is city sewer and water and for existing businesses the city bears that cost to bring it through [clears throat] but for new developments um that would be the cost to the developer. So, um, so it's maybe $150,000 or something like that to bring city storm water to here. The other option is a holding tank, um, which would be around I was talking with Classic Construction around $10,000, and I'm not sure exactly what that covers, but um, but that would be a temporary solution. Currently, right now for Route 65, he is pumping out his tanks regularly. Um, and this would just be a another tank to pump out. Um, there would be one bathroom in here. It wouldn't be used that much. There's not going to be a whole lot of uh discharge at all going in there. Um, this is more of a food prep. Um, sandwiches and things of that nature. So, no no real cooking. Cooking will happen down here if it needs to. Um, and so I just wanted to bring this to to you. I we've had some discussions um you know we've we've looked at all the options in terms of you know what it would cost to bring it down to this corner um to help out uh um this development I'm sorry this development here and um and we're talking you know with a road from the roundabout up here coming through here and the extension of sewer and water probably 1.5 million somewhere in in that neighborhood. So, it's kind of um kind of a costly proposition and um and so we were even trying to investigate, okay, if we if we could get it down halfway, then it's half that cost, you know, trying to alleviate some of the costs for um for the potential developer. Um none of that's kind of um coming to fruition. So, I wanted to just bring this to you, get purposes of a head nods, uh, if everyone's in agreement that in order to help Brad out right now in the short run, short term rather, uh, to install a holding tank here, [clears throat] um, temporary holding tank until such time as there's sewer that comes through, which case he wants to hook up, love to hook up, but, um, but again, it doesn't kind of take care of even if he was interested in trying to bring sewer through. Uh it would be significant time to try and get that done. Uh not necessarily in the timetable of getting this business up and running. So you can look at it from an economic development lens if you want to. Um helping out an existing business, uh filling space that's vacant right now. Um and uh there's the easy button, you might say, for the holding tank. And then and then there's, you know, more difficult options from there. >> You said he had a failing septic system right now. >> So >> So what does he have? Another holding tank that's going or >> No. So there's a septic system that's here that was put in in the 50s and everybody is pretty confident when tested this will fail. So um so essentially in order to run a commercial business out of here, it would have to be tested and and uh we're going to have that that problem. So, um I believe if I understood correctly from classic construction, the project would be to remove the septic that's there and uh and then place in a holding tank. It would be a I think they're plastic holding tank now. Um inexpensive, but um but provides an immediate solution to the the challenge that they have. uh allows him to, you know, set up shop and get going right away. Um and um I think in this particular building, he's uh putting together food for schools right now. He's looking to do food for jails, that type of catering, kind of a high high volume catering uh prospects that that uh he'd be fulfilling from that portion of the building. But anyways, I just wanted to bring it to everyone here for sake of discussion um [clears throat and cough] and uh see what your input is on it. >> So, he's going to pay for the holding tank, right? >> Yeah. because you said something to the effect that when the sewer water comes down, it's all on the city and the businesses don't have to pay because in the past the the businesses that are hooked up >> had to pay big money. >> Sorry. The the businesses have to pay a sack and whack fee to the city and they have to pay a sack fee to Met Council to hook up, >> right? But in terms of the main line going by, the installation of that line and everything else to existing businesses historically has been paid for by the city. Um unless it's going to a new development such as the Osborne development here, then it's generally um a um you know a cost the developer carries and sometimes that's offset with tiff which the city has done before in the past as well. So there's there's different ways of handling that that that cost, >> but essentially what he's saying is is when this goes by, >> we have a policy that for commercial businesses, you're required to hook up, >> right? >> Um there are some right now that aren't hooked up. There was some leniency given to them during the COVID times. We're working with them right now to to get that um to get that completed. But um until it goes by, you know, there's a there's a need for handling wastewater and um and a holding tank is not necessarily the preferred option, right? It's um uh we the holding tanks were put over on the beach because there was this ultimate plan that sewer would come over there, which never happened. And so you have kind of a not great situation there. Um but um but again he's willing to sign whatever needs to be signed or agreement saying that yes when this goes by I by all means want to hook up because pumping is not inexpensive >> regulations. I have no problem with it. I think that's I think we should support our business owners to the fullest extent possible. I I think the the challenge is that holding tanks when not pumped regularly create a problem, right? I mean, overflow or whatever the case is. I think Brad has has a long history of doing it right because he's got a business to the south that has to do it on a regular basis and he knows that. So, he's very familiar with what it takes. I think his his level of professionalism on this is is notable. >> Absolutely. >> So, How many How many businesses are going to hook up to that? [clears throat] >> Just two. >> Just him. Just him. >> Just him. >> Okay. >> So, currently the other two buildings ain't hooked up to it right now. >> I'm not sure the status on the smoke shop and >> I would think they are. They're owned by Carlson. >> They may be hooked up to that drain field then. I'm not sure, but my understanding is was coming out. So, I guess that would be one area to clarify is if it is it a holding tank for all of them, but then why would he be paying to have it pumped? So, that's that's a question I guess. >> Yeah, just a question to ask because I know Carlson owns all three of the buildings. >> Sure. He actually owns Route 65 and the other two to [clears throat] the south, too. Yeah, >> I'd say yeah, with the holding tank to help him get going on his situation until the line is put in. I have no problem with the holding tank. >> Yeah, as long as we get to agreement in the future. >> Okay, >> everybody good with that? >> But the thing is, if if Brad doesn't own it, >> he's doing it at his own cost, >> right? But I mean, as far as hooking up to the sewer, he's going to be that respect. Sure too. But >> he's trying hard to buy all this from >> he >> has been for years. Oh, >> has he? Okay, good idea. >> Mr. Carlson, I suppose he's up in his 80s now, so >> Oh, yeah. >> He's a hard one to deal with, I guess. >> Well, I'm trying to find that tank. >> No, this laptop needs to go in the holding tank. Um, >> was it another word? >> There we go. >> Okay. All righty. >> All right. We'll go to item three. >> Uh, Mr. Mayor and Council, we've got uh uh fire chief with us here this evening to talk about fire grant opportunities and officer appointments. So, I will turn it over to him. Uh, mayor, members of the council, thanks for taking the time to listen uh to me on these two topics. Um, grants uh is probably going to be a fairly short discussion, but I wanted to bring up a a couple of different opportunities that'll be coming up. Uh, I believe it's Centerpoint that does a uh 50/50 match grant um for equipment purchases every two years. Um, we could potentially be in line for that one. Um there's another one uh firefighters charity foundation or charitable foundation um which is a continuously open one uh that they accept and award uh according to their timetable. Uh [snorts] this is again for purchasing equipment and and that kind of stuff. Um and then uh AFG is the federal ones that uh the city has gotten before. Um there's been significant changes since uh COVID happened uh with some of this stuff and just updates with the system. I'm working on getting through those updates and ensuring that we're ready for that next round that opens when they do. Um my my big thing here is I' I'd like to be prepared. I I'd like to uh look into and chase down the firefighters charitable foundation grant and uh be ready for uh centerpoint should it become available to us. Um this is more of a question of do you want me chasing grants? How do you want to be notified of them? How often do you want to be updated on them? [snorts] So, Mr. Mayor and Council, there are two categories for grants. The easy grants and then the federal grants, which are going to be the difficult ones. And the federal ones uh may require uh hiring some professionals to help draft them and and uh and that sort of thing. Um they're generally a lot larger than the easy grants. Uh but um but that's that's part of the question is um to what level do you want us to pursue these? Well, I am all for grants. Um personally, I think it's a great way to get a little extra funding for some of the extras that we need. Um but I would like to know make sure it's for stuff that we really need, not frivolous stuff. So, if you're going to do it, I would want to know you're doing this grant for >> XYZ >> expired uniforms, you know, >> fight gear or, you know, and and not for um well, these are not our radios are really good, but these are really nice because they got these extra features, you know, just frivolous stuff or, you know, know, top of the line versus what we got is okay kind of stuff. >> Yeah. Um, just having been here for, you know, coming up on 6 months and looking through the equipment and stuff, there are some things that are in need of updating and and replacement. Um, some of that we have funds available through through the budget and some of the other things it would be wise of us to try and pursue, you know, for some of the bigger purchases. Um, one of them being extrication equipment. >> Um, >> you know, we're looking at between 40 and $50,000 for a set of extrication equipment. Um, so pursuing, you know, grants, grant opportunities for something like that would be something that's going to benefit the city. It's not a nice to have. It's something that should be updated. Um, you know, our citizens depend on us to have that kind of equipment available. We do have it. It is operational. It's not broken. That's not what I'm saying. But [clears throat] as technology advances and that kind of stuff, some of these things should be considered. And and >> yeah, and I've seen some of this stuff. Some of the stuff is definitely outdated. Some of the stuff is being held together by tape and threads, but that's an exaggeration maybe, but um so the I agree. You know, the outdated stuff even though it does work is one thing, but I guess if it was bought two years ago, but there's a really nice one, then we probably wouldn't need to replace it. But if it's 10, 20, 30 years old, I think there's a good reason for it to be replaced. >> I would agree with that. >> I know I've had conversations with the chief, too, and there's wants and needs, and everybody likes wants, but he knows how I feel about it. If we need it, and he can show us that we really do need it, especially if it's safety for firefighters or >> residents or whatever, >> we'll work like crazy. to help do that. >> Yeah. And I agree. I I think this is kind of in in your expertise, so to speak. I mean, if you think we can get something and we have a good shot at it, you would know. I mean, we want you to go after every grant possible to relieve our residents from having to pony up a lot of stuff. But at the same time, I don't know if it's if we can get it, we can't get it, we got a shot to get it or not. But if you think we can get some of these things, it's well worth our time to try. Okay. Um, federal grants are great. I mean, it's great for your big ticket items. I I believe I was the last one to write one. We got one back in the early 2000s for 266,000. It covered uh gear covered ACAs and radius. And Michelle Bachmann was here and presented the check to us. >> Cool. It was a great deal. But writing them, it it's a technique, you know, you can write the best one there is, but there's rubbing shoulders behind the scenes here that really gets it done. [cough] And if you're [clears throat] going to deal with somebody for writing one, you better go through Jerry Strike because Jerry's probably the best one to get. He knows the ins and outs how to get them. >> That's what I was just going to say. I would imagine >> he's very good at it. He helped me with writing mine a lot today, but he's good good guy. >> We can definitely engage in talks with him and see if >> he knows the ins and outs and he knows the players, >> you know, and you're going to do it that I would really have him counseling on it. >> I agree. >> Okay. Um the the next topic is officer appointments. Uh we discussed this at the work session on 10:27. Uh and it was brought up that we should potentially uh revisit it. Um we had talked um or I had brought up the idea of appointments at a certain level of our officer core being district chiefs and the captains. Um, currently, uh, they're on, uh, terms. I believe they're two-year terms. Uh, so every two years, people have to reapply, go through the interview process, and be reappointed for the next, uh, period of time. Um, I I would like to see the the district chiefs and the captains um, the upper levels of our officer CP um, on the paid on call side be appointed because there's an operational continuity there um at the higher levels to ensure that um we can keep working on officer development. Um there's consistent uh personnel to build a foundation from uh we can eliminate stress from the unknown coming up on the 2-year cycle. Who's going to be in that position? Who's going to apply? What is anybody going to apply? Um I've got a few things on here. Um, we're maintaining a consistent level of knowledge of current projects and initiatives going on. Um, and and I think one of the bigger things is is to drive buy in and initiative from that officer CP. If we start to work on an initiative and people are coming up on six months left of their term and they don't know if they're going to be able to see this through or they don't, you know, they don't know if they're going to reapply or that kind of thing. Are they going to be pushing to have all that stuff done or are they going to be able to invest the time uh to carry those projects forward? And I believe appointments provides that security and that continuity to continue to move things forward at that higher level. uh in order to provide room for uh upward mobility within the department. That's where the lieutenant's position would stay on a term basis. It would give people that opportunity to uh step up into that leadership role as a as a junior officer on the department, if you will, and >> [snorts] >> um experience that. Um the officers that we have currently are doing a fantastic job. um they're taking on tasks and initiatives and getting involved. Um and it's been great to see uh and I want to continue to see that as we move forward and I don't want there to be any other potential hiccups. Um so that's where this discussion came from originally. uh just kind of recapping stuff that we talked about, but I wanted to bring it back up here for further discussion from >> Let me ask a question. I don't remember after that two years is up, are they they're automatically done or they can be automatically reappointed or how does that work? >> They would have to reapply. we would go back through the interview process because with that opening um anybody could apply for the position that's open and then we go through the the interview process and come back before the council for appointment for that term. [snorts] My thought is that I would be okay with extending the term to four years versus two, but to just appoint them because I look at it this way is I was on the fire department in Bethl and that was just me that I wanted to be an officer and so I fought for it and I became a captain. But the thing is, when [clears throat] you have people that are underneath you that are learning and if they want to achieve that status of captain, district chief, or whatever, if you have people that are not, you know, that you can't really basically change them out. I don't want the ones below thinking, well, what good is it? I can't ever become a captain or a district chief because these guys are in the position and I have to wait till if they're going to retire, quit or whatever. So, I mean, I think personally that four-year term and just let them reapply because then when you got other guys coming up, they can apply as well. That's my opinion >> and I think a three to four year is good. So I me this is coming from my military background now because I know it takes two years before you really know your job really well well enough so you can be an expert at it. Three years you're a super expert. You know the ins and outs. You know what where you can skip a step here, skip a step there. And you might start doing that. You might not. You might whatever. But um I also think it once you're in for three plus years, you get a little bit of a head on you and you think you know it all and you're irreplaceable. And I feel like they might start treating people not so great. They might um and this may not ever happen, but it has happened where we've had somebody in and it's really really hard to get rid of people. We've experienced that um when I was on accounts before trying to remove a person and then there's the lawsuits and there's this and there's the big fight and I don't want that. So that's why I'm kind of going with the three to four years uh option and not I think five is too long. I think two is too short. So anywhere I'd go with anywhere between three and four years. I'd make sure you stagger them, too, so that you ain't got them all coming up at once. >> Mhm. >> Good point. >> I wasn't aware of what the staggering was prior to my arrival. I just was >> It was staggered originally when Mark put it into place. The notes on that, who knows where they are. And unfortunately, I haven't been able to find those. So, we're [clears throat] Yeah, I'm going to make sure that this is in writing on how >> Yeah, >> it's decided that it's going to go forward. It's in policy and um understood how it'll go forward. Um the current positions that are posted are for district chief and captain uh and the senior uh firefighter duty officer. I did ask lieutenants uh to stay on for another year so that we can start to stagger them. >> [cough and clears throat] >> So, what you guys want to recommend for them? Four years is what you want. >> I'm good with four. >> Four. >> Do it to four and just like I say, stagger them so that you ain't get getting all new people all at once. I mean, we have a great fire department now, and I just don't want it could possibly happen. You know, if people are not in knowing they don't have a chance to get that position because it's permanent, they could go elsewhere. And I don't want that to happen. I want them to be able to think that, hey, I could be I can apply next time, three, four years, whatever it is. >> It's a motivator. I understand. I'll put it into policy and make sure that it's it's documented where we can all find it and we'll move forward with that. >> Perfect. >> Great. Thanks, Jeep. >> Thank you. >> Sounds good. >> Item five, >> Mr. Mayor and Council, I wanted to bring up a discussion here about a veteran hunt possibility. I have um I had mentioned this to council member Miller quite a long time ago and um we've kind of been slow to not him myself slow in getting this off the ground but nevertheless um city of Binoa has what they call waterfall for warriors and this is a hunting opportunity for uh veterans to essentially come a half hour before sunset and stay till lunch you'll see them grilling there and um and they it's a way of thanking them for their service and uh and what I noticed um I've attended some of these and volunteered at some of these and what I noticed is these dates that they have they're always filling up. There's um there's a combination of youth and there's a combination of veterans that come to these events and um and it's it's never enough, right? there's more demand than there is uh than there is supply. And so we started thinking about this early on about what would it looked like to possibly expand this. I know that this um city of um uh Ham Lake was approached and they turned it down um and decided not to go ahead with this. But um but there's still a demand out there for more veterans to participate. Um it it's just amazing to to go to one of these and kind of see the smiles on these these guys' faces that they can go somewhere in the metro area here. They don't have to drive all the way out to Fergus Falls or or South Dakota or somewhere like that. U but they can go kind of in the metro area and that the cities have at least in Noa has set this up so it's uh easy to do. Um it's it's uh supported by a lot of different um a lot of different uh organizations here. Um Federal Premium provides ammunition. They're very excited about this. I've been speaking with a guy gentleman by the name of John Zennel uh who uh actually I think lives in Oak River and he said absolutely if you guys set this up we're on board 100%. Just let us know how we can help out. Um, so there's um actually there's a a guide in Ham Lake that was trying to set it up in Ham Lake and when he learned that possibly East Bethl might be interested in in carrying this said, "Let me know. I'll I'll be there to help do it." So he's he's super excited about that possibility. We have a firefighter Tyus Carlson who uh when he learned of it said, "Let me know. I'm there. I'm there to help out." So there's a lot of people that are potentially interested. Um and um and the it really kind of boils down to location. Uh just uh on Friday right across the street here um on the Curax land uh folks set up over there and uh we're we're blasting uh uh geese. Uh driving me quite honestly nuts because uh you know it's going to it's like they're calling me out there. But anyways um you know no issues. is obviously um being even that close. But um but one thought was we've got a pond kind of right behind uh city hall here that uh is home to maybe a 100,000 geese. Um and uh and might be an opportunity to set up a blind there uh for an event such as this after the event. Then we can bring them back over to uh city hall here. We can grill them hamburgers or hot dogs, those type of things. geese. >> Um you could grow geese if you want. Um and uh and then also I know a lot of these people, Polaris particularly, they give handouts, you know, people raffle, you know, you pull a raffle ticket or whatever and if your name's called, you can pick something out. They give away those type of things. So, um it's just an allaround, um uh thank you for for their service and an opportunity for them that I know um goes does not go unnoticed. I think it's great PR and um and it's an opportunity that the city of East Bethle can participate in if they wish to. So, I wanted to just bring this to uh the work session, get your input, and if you want us to keep pushing toward this, it's not easy to set up. I'm going to tell you, it's difficult to set up, but once we get going, um I think you'll have people beating down the doors to participate. So, >> well, I agree. I don't think we can thank our wounded veterans enough. And, uh to do a program like this, if you follow it and you do any work and research on this, it's packed. Like Matt said, it is packed. You can't It fills up very quickly. That's why they have so many events over there. and it turns out to be a a wonderful PR for the city, but it's a gift to these warriors to get them out in the field. They get to do a little hunting. Um chance to win a few things. They get to talk with other veterans. Uh and all in all, it's it's a nice event. If we could pull something like that off and and have them come here to the city to make something, I'm sure we could probably involve the seniors in that, too. >> We got plenty of senior vets. They [clears throat] love and they still hunt. >> They would love it. Yes. >> So, I mean, we we've got a lot of possibilities. We've got Polaris right across the street up here on 65 >> on some other businesses that I'm sure would would love to to be a part of it and and chip in. I think it's well worth looking into for the city. >> Absolutely. How many veterans would show up at a hunt? How many can be at one one time? >> They had city had two blinds. One was on water, one was in the field. And um there was probably 20 to 30 spots, you know, that you could could fill. >> Um you know, when one one poor duck flew over, it was um it was [laughter] >> already >> Yeah. >> disintegrated. >> But they had the time of their life, you know, just unloading. So, um, but yeah, you can kind of see some of the field here that that, um, they were set up in. And I mean, it's, uh, and and I know that um, uh, even Classic Construction said, "I've got a field up here that might work." Wyatt's >> We got Wyatt's farm right down on the corner, Cooper's Corner. They said they would volunteer their property if need be. So, >> so we've got >> So, we maybe will set up multiple locations and then everyone convene [clears throat] back here. Maybe those that can't, you know, walk real easy can go here and those that can walk across the field and go up there. You know, there's different options. But, um, but right now we have an ordinance that says that no guns in city parks except by permit. Uh, and so there is an allowance for it. It just has to be controlled obviously. So, um I don't think there'd be too much in terms of rewriting city code or anything like that, thankfully. Uh but, um but there is there are homes nearby. And so, part of this is a public discussion, right, for folks to say, "All right, are you know, is this going to be too much of a a challenge for maybe animals that you might have or or something like that?" um kind of dispel some of the the the the fear maybe that might be out there and and um and perhaps get them to volunteer that may come over and want to volunteer, too. So, >> I think it's a fantastic idea. I think we should move forward with it. If something happens, we can always change things if it's inconvenient or hurts somebody or whatever. But I think it's a great a great thing. I know for the city of Anoka they have it in a park and they'll have um volunteers standing by sign saying the park is closed you know during the event >> so you don't have people walking through and and that sort of thing. So um there are this lady up here is uh kind of coordinates it for the city of Anoka and um I think would be a valuable resource and replicating something here um and kind of saying this is what you want to do this is how you want to set it up etc etc. So, >> but it's one of those things we have to set up. Right. >> Right. >> You know, we need to talk to everybody around this area to make sure we have their blessings. >> Right. >> And then uh get them involved and and set it up right from the beginning because this this this will be multiple events because people will not be able to get in the first one or two for sure. It'll be packed. Anyways, that's all I have on this one. >> I say yes. >> Let's keep going. >> Yeah, I think it's a good idea to pursue it and see where we end up. >> All right, this time uh that's it, Mark. Matt. Yep, that's all I have this time. We'll close the work meeting.