Okay, we'll call the October 27th, 2025 work meeting to order. Chief, uh, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, um I actually have three items on this uh this work session meeting uh which uh kind of all kind of flow together, but we'll take them individually as we go here. Um after being with the department now coming up on actually I think tonight is five five months um and learning of how the officer core is made up and stuff like that. We've I've taken a look at it and um past practice has been that our officers except for myself and deputy chief uh Udin are they serve terms uh whether it be a two or a three-year term. Um, we I I would recommend us moving away from terms and appointing two of our three officer levels, which would be the district chiefs and the captains. And this would be done so that we have continuity of an officer core. Um, we're not starting a project or working on things and then having our officers potentially switch out with a new term starting. Uh the reason that the I recommend the lieutenants stay as a term is it does give the chance um for firefighters that upward mobility where they get to experience the officer level and see if that's something that they want to do or not. Um that is our uh lowest officer level if you will. That's our entry officer level. And then captains and uh district chiefs would be those those hires. Um, I wanted to bring it to you uh for discussion. Any questions? Um, any concerns with moving that route rather than switching potentially switching out officers every couple of years? [snorts] >> So then instead of a two or threeear term, they're there indefinitely or how long? they would be there until they decided they didn't want to be an officer anymore, which means they could go back to a firefighter status or if they retired um would be the ways. Obviously, if there's any personnel issues or disciplinary issues, that's that there's always that route. Does that limit [clears throat] others who want to move up the ranks at all? That's what my concern would be. >> It would limit them to getting to the captain or district chief level until one of those would open. Um again, we would be keeping the lieutenant level, >> right, >> as that ability to move up. >> And don't you worry that that would increase transition people leaving. Oh, I can go be a captain over here in Oak Grove or Ham Lake or >> I don't I don't think so. Most departments have a response time limit and most departments aren't looking to take members away from other departments. Um, you know, I I wouldn't want to take members from Oakrove or from Ham Lake, uh, because I I'm assuming they're in a similar similar boat that we are that they could use the help there, uh, just as we could use the help. Um, so I I wouldn't want to be taking different departments firefighters. Can't say that we wouldn't or if someone decided to, but we do have a response time limit does well. Well, I truly believe you know what your department needs more than us. I'm just being [clears throat] like a devil's advocate right now because these thoughts are popping in my head. [laughter] So, >> I appreciate the discussion. [snorts] >> How long once uh a member of the fire department reaches a captain position or otherwise do they uh typically stay in that position even with term limits? Do they go for multiple terms? It is my understanding that it they the current members have been in those positions for multiple terms. Um and they would uh there'd be the same opportunity in the term position and this new position for either promoting or demoting but the same rules kind of apply. >> Well, there's no new position. I just want to >> yeah make that clear. um they would have the option if they decided they didn't want to be a district chief or a captain anymore that they could request a motion to go back to being a firefighter. Uh which would be fine. It would open a position and then it would again go back to um application interview process. So the only real change that would happen would be at the end of the their limit they would not have to reapply for it. Is that how it happens? >> We would just get rid of the whole idea of term or terms or limits at that. >> Yeah. But but as it stands right now when it comes up to the end of their term do they have to reapply? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It's an application process. We're coming up on the end of those terms. Um I've asked the lieutenants to stay on um to maintain some continuity with who's currently in the officer positions. I don't know who's going to apply, who's going to decide not to, and who may want to from the fire department body at large. Uh so I asked the lieutenants. So we would not post those positions unless a lieutenant applied for one of those higher positions and got it. Um, but we are coming up on the end of the terms as they currently are that I believe they were filled in 23. So in January we're coming up. So whether they're terms or they're appointed because they would then be appointed by the council just like Ben and myself. Doesn't change the pay structure or anything like that. It just how they're appointed to their position. Um whether we do either of that we need to do it relatively soon so that we don't have a lapse >> yep >> come the beginning >> has there been any feedback from the other me members of the fire department about this >> um I talked with the officer corps about it um you know they were in favor of it I haven't talked with the entire uh body at large about this um I could imagine that there are going to be some questions on on why we're doing that. Um, if you would like me to, I can definitely go back before the body and and engage with them. >> I'm just wondering if there's some feedback from if you already had any feedback from them. >> I did talk with uh the morning uh training crew uh which is I think it was five or six members. There were a couple of questions on, you know, mobility. Uh there were a couple of questions on just if the right person would get to the right position or if they if it wasn't the right person, how would that be handled? Um >> and how would that be handled? because I have seen businesses that have had military for one who have had um been put in leadership positions who did not belong there. >> Um and that's why we have our disciplinary section of our policy which is section 9. It's in place today. If there's performance issues, we would go through the same things if we would with a firefighter or anybody else. Uh we would try and address the issue. We would try and coach with them. We would try and give them an improvement process. And if that doesn't work, then it would be a recommendation of removal from the position >> from the position, not the fire department or >> I think it would depend on what >> I think it would depend on what it was because there are some amazing firefighters that have, you know, they don't want to be leaders. You know, sometimes they get put into it. they get volunttoled, [snorts] if you will, that you know, we're going to make you a lieutenant type deal. Um, but, you know, if it's nothing egregious or, you know, if it's just something that again, if even if they didn't want to do it, I would give them the option. Now, if it's something that's unbecoming of the department, then we have a have a different discussion. >> I have no problem bringing it back to the department. [clears throat] No, but I want to make sure >> if we want to get this done that that's just fine. I I was just wondering if you already had any kind of feedback [snorts] on >> I discussed it with again with the officer core. I did not discuss it with the majority of the the members themselves. >> Mr. Mayor, what uh what's your thought on it? You were on the fire department many years. Well, [clears throat] we had this in place probably prior, I would say, to 2018. 2018 about is when we brought in the terms uh through Chief Desarm and uh it worked out, the process worked out good, but like he said, you'll find out that people come in there wanting a job, but then all of a sudden they're going to step away and they don't. So, it's I would I would tend to agree with him, you know, to do his due diligence on the interview process to make sure this is what they really want to do >> and move forward. >> All right. Because I know what you're saying, too, because some people are not leaders and they don't want to be put in that position if they don't. >> No, I think we had >> I just wanted your opinion on it. >> I think we had one just step down just prior to him coming on there. >> Oh, really? that was a captain and he stepped back and he's just a firefighter now. >> Firefighter. >> Thanks. >> Uh, one other thing with this, as long as we brought up the selection process, um, with the district chief, so you guys have not seen the policies yet. Um, but, um, I will be proposing that actually for the district chiefs, an outside panel of chiefs, uh, three chiefs will be interviewing them and making [clears throat] recommendations to myself. So, it's a truly non-biased opinion of the merit of the resume, the education, the experience, and the answers to the interview. Um, and then I'll conduct the second interview and come with recommendations should should that uh be needed be needed. >> You said three chiefs, not in our department. Correct. That would help. three surrounding departments would be asked to to participate in that because that gives a truly objective view. It's not subjective of my bias or uh anybody else's. It's outside the department, you know, >> but you would take into consideration what you have seen out of their performance. >> Of course, >> some people They're better than they are. >> Oh [laughter] yeah. >> Oh yeah. I have not seen anything that's [laughter] that's concerning. Um again, we're coming up on the term limits whether we do terms or appointments. We're coming up on this and I would recommend doing it the same way even if it were terms. Again, it's the most objective view that we can get on that initial interview for >> for being outside the department. Then that's why there's >> and that's why there's a second interview with myself, >> you know, because I do have >> some time working with all these members now. But >> okay. >> Yeah. And that process is good, you know, bringing in other chiefs. I mean, we we got called out once before on possibly being biased and everything in our procedure. So we rewrote everything and even on our panel besides a couple of our firefighters, we had the sheriff lay us on and them added to it to the board too. So which worked out good for us. [clears throat] >> Yeah, that would make sense. Definitely. Otherwise, you're going to get the finger point. >> Oh yeah. You know, and I think it's important that you as a chief want to make these changes, thinking or or assuming maybe uh that's not the right word I'm looking for here, but you're seeing a way to make the department even better and function better as a group under your leadership. And I think that's important that we support something like that and give you the abilities to do these things. So, I I like the idea. >> I appreciate the support. Um, you know, as I've said, this is everybody's department. Um, I just want to make sure that again, we have the continuity of of the top of of our officer core. That's that's important. Um, if you have people that are done in six months, [snorts] you know, is their head fully in it or do they not want to do it anymore? Uh, and I have no doubt of our core now. Uh, but if we maintain the terms, that's something that worries me. I'd rather have people that are appointed that we know are going to be there. And if they decide they're done, then they can request self-demote and open up the door for the next person. >> I also think it's a good idea what you're doing. Definitely. >> Okay. [clears throat] it. Are there yearly reviews or by annual reviews of officers? I can't answer that question right now. I I I would have to figure out if we do them or not. Um Okay. I I I was just thinking that uh in the same way that uh a term limit comes up and it asks the question does a person want to continue in this role if it would be beneficial to say have an interview done every 3 years to touch base with that person and did do you want to continue do you need tools or are do you want to step back to ask those questions >> I'm in favor of annual reviews for all of our firefighters because I believe I mean myself included that's how we learned where we need to grow. That's how we learned where we're best at. That's how um you know but if I give an officer an opportunity to speak up it sometimes people get stuck in a role and they they don't speak up for themselves. They say I want to step back. I don't like this anymore. But having a review would at least give that opportunity that uh say a term limit would that they can reassess >> and we can definitely implement that if it's not already there. >> Okay. >> Again, I haven't been there long enough to do any sort of annual review or nothing yet. So, >> no, that's okay. >> I apologize for not having that answer. >> So, yeah. Otherwise, I think it's a good idea. If this is the way that the fire department wants to go, then I have no objection objections to it. Okay. Are we okay to move down to uh number two? Okay. So, currently the officer or the uh hierarchy of the department would be myself and then uh deputy unan. And then we have two district chiefs. We have uh two captains and three lieutenants. Um the the officer core change that I would like to make is I would like to have a captain at each station. So we would lose a lieutenant um uh at uh we would we essentially get rid of a lieutenant spot which would be over at station three. We would make that position a captain. We're going to be moving forward with uh officers or interested parties of applying for the officer positions that we just discussed. Um so it would move that position to a captain role. Um that's just the typical hierarchy that we see. Usually each cap or each station would have a captain. Um we would end up with a lieutenant um at station two and a lieutenant at station one. If we made it to where we had enough people at station three, we could add a lieutenant position down there if the span of control uh got too large for any for one person. Uh but right now we're we're not there. So it makes sense to have that one officer position. Um so that's the propo proposed. It would be the two district chiefs, three captains, and two lieutenants. Um my first question would be you mentioned a possible future lieutenant role. Do you have to come back in front of city council to open that lieutenants role at station 3 if needed? I would say any officer core change, something like that, I would come before council and make sure that everybody's updated on what the needs are and that everybody's on the same page because otherwise I I would suggest just approving the tenants role in that spot and just not fill in until such time that it's needed just to cut down paperwork. But but if you want to come back and ask for two, that's that's perfectly fine. >> I would be happy to to maintain that if it's if it's possible within the city. Um obviously I'm not asking for another spot or another officer spot. Right now it's just the reorg of Yep. what that makeup is. >> What's the difference in pay for a lieutenant and a captain? do not have those numbers on the top of my head. I do have them in my desk. >> Okay. >> Um I'm not going to try and make it up. I don't I don't have them. Um I I can I can send them >> uh to the council as a whole. Uh that would have a minor financial implication, but I don't think it'll it won't change anything on our >> Yeah, I don't think it's that much. Just wondering >> your position requirements. Now, uh I know back in the capstone report, there was a huge emphasis on leadership and I see there's no leadership in any of the requirements anymore. >> I didn't understand exactly what you were saying. uh the capstone report that was done last year. Um a huge part of it was at the end on the summary and everything was that uh there's a leadership classes needed for the whole department and >> classes. Yeah. Okay. And I know back in the day there was leadership uh one or two and three we had in position requirements to with officers and I don't see that in there anymore. So I was just kind of curious >> uh depending on um so there's a couple of changes when we look at uh the position requirements for all of the officers. Um there used to be something called basic pumps class or operations. those basic bumps. >> Um, I asked around at the department what that entailed and it was brought to my attention that we don't really do that class anymore in house. Uh, so I got rid of it and I replaced it with fire apparatus operator which is a nationally credited recognized course. >> Mhm. >> Um, and then uh for example with the district chief uh officer one and officer two would be required. Um the leadership one, two, and three is no longer offered, which well was in this report. There's a lot of different routes that we can go, but some of those classes are getting a little bit difficult to get. Um especially the NFA classes, they don't constantly come around. Um >> well, they're outdated. >> [laughter] >> Um so I don't um as far as you know entering into the the job position I think that the certifications that are recognized by IFSAC and proboard which are the accreditation services for the for the nation. Um I I think that gives us a good foundation to build off of. That doesn't mean we stop. it doesn't mean that we um call it good. Um there's a lot of opportunities to go to section schools and take different leadership classes and I guess that's more where I would push my people to go is go learn from those that are in the service um up to and including you know potential outofstate travel. There's a lot of great leadership conferences out there. There's a lot of great fire department training that is getting outside of the Minnesota firebox and bringing those lessons learned back to the department. Um, so, uh, mayor, to your point, no, they're not there, but I think that there are I would more, uh, request that they go to these, um, these classes, which is why I kept the annual requirement of an additional 12 hours, um, because that gives them the chance to go out to these college weekends, uh, which is what it is. it's put on by Riverland College or Morehead State and and go out and take leadership classes there um and bring those back. I don't want to put in a requirement something that we don't one we can't get or one we don't believe in. And I'm not saying that the NFA classes aren't good. Some of them are outdated. Some of them are getting revamped right now. So I would rather not identify them here and I would rather encourage uh pursuing outside education. >> Do you advertise those courses to the firefighters and do they pay for them or does the fire department pay for them? >> We do advertise uh as soon as we get the flyers we put them out. Um they can request to go to them and we pay for them. uh which is why our training budget is where it is so that we can cover those costs and encourage them to go. >> Perfect. >> Um part of this too, uh there there is an outstanding OSHA requirements bill that's kind of been put on hold. Um the fire service believes some form of it is coming. Um, but some of these classes that I've replaced, like the basic pumps class, are the ones that are recognized nationally and that will be recognized by OSHA. So, part of this is trying to get us ahead of that curve on whatever they may put into practice. Um, I don't want to go real deep into it because it has truly been put on hold for a little while. Um, but it's the emergency standard, emergency response standard. Um it's from the fire brigade standard. It's being updated. Uh it was put together in 1980 as a 40-page document. Uh they have since updated that to a 608 page document and part of these training requirements are what would help us meet that should they start to put that into place. Well, back to the subject. I I got no issues with having a new captain position. Okay. Any other questions from the council? Um, under your duty officer, you got position requirements. You ain't got much of anything, but I would assume we should have some kind of medical requirements there if you're going to be a medical officer. It's down further. Matt underneath >> physician requirements captain >> must be officer or firefighter. >> What's the next one? >> It's going to be page 15. I will admit this is an oversight on my part. >> Yeah, I I kind of assumed it was [laughter] and and I apologize for that. Um, however, I do think that it's put in that way currently because whoever is a duty officer is an officer of the department. So, they have to fill the requirements in the job descriptions prior. Um, the last part of what I was going to bring up is the senior firefighter acting as a duty officer. This is another way for them to experience some of the officer roles and experience some of that upward mobility. Um, we were going to rely on the duty officer job description uh to fill that for the senior firefighter. Um, >> can you give a definition of what you're considering as a senior firefighter duty officer? >> [laughter] >> Senior firefighter according to East Bethl standards is where they're at. Firefighter three. >> I think you should have that in there so far. >> And I am actually going to recommend tableabling this so I can update this and get this before you as a proper document. I apologize. >> Yeah, it's just broad, I think. And I think the description needs to be a little better. I would agree. [clears throat] Um the policy set forth though um once we get the job description uh nailed down, the policy I don't believe would uh change and that is also before you. Um, we've had the officers, we've we've fluctuated on officers that fill that duty officer week where they're uh filling the night shift from 1700 to0500 and answering the calls and acting as the senior officer or the senior uh firefighter uh for the department. Um, prior to my arrival, it is my understanding that the chief and the deputy chief or assistant chief also were in that rotation. Um, obviously with me living outside the area, I can't fill that look that rotation. I I won't make it back before the calls are done. So, um, [clears throat] it's been running with the district chiefs, the captains, and the lieutenants filling those roles. Yeah, chief was never ever involved. >> Okay. I was misinformed. I apologize about that. >> No, that was just a uh >> deputy chief, chiefs, and captains and lieutenants that ran it. >> Okay. [snorts] Um so in an effort to again give some experience uh opportunities uh uh deputy chief Udin and I proposed coming up with this uh senior firefighter duty officer program or those that may be interested and meet the requirements of a duty officer um would be able to fill that role for a week be compensated as everybody else is. So there's no financial implication, but this stretches out the rotation rather than it being um what two two and three uh seven. It would stretch it out to every 10 weeks uh that a person's on call essentially for for seven nights. Uh the one part about this is it would it would create a role um with again no financial impact um where we would have essentially a duty chief that would be a phone call away for a simple call or something that they're not understanding or hey I'm in over my head and that chief is then expected or that person is then expected to respond back to the station and assist with that scene. Um, I would assume I I I don't anticipate it being a problem. I anticipate questions and hey, I haven't dealt with this before. How do we do it? Uh, but that would also come with education uh prior to them taking over their their first week. go over the most common calls that they would be expected to respond to, the smells and bells and the the fire alarms that are going off, the smoke uh CO detectors that are going off, fire alarms uh at a commercial structure where it was a malfunction or that that kind of deal. Um, but it would just give give some uh breathing room [clears throat] for our officers again to not be on house arrest for seven days every seven or six weeks, whatever it comes down to. So, their schedule is they will work seven days, 12-hour shifts, and then do they have a couple days off the next week or do they go back to their regular duty hours the following week? How do how does their schedule work? >> The officers rot rotate on a week-long basis. Uh, so I think it changes on Mondays if I'm correct, mayor. >> Yep. switches on Monday night. Um, and uh, Captain One takes the the the response vehicle from Monday night until uh, essentially Sunday or Monday morning at 0500. And then the next person in line would captain 2 would take it and it just rotates through and eventually gets back to captain one six weeks later and they're back with that truck. Okay. And you [clears throat] have six people. >> We have seven. >> Seven people. >> Yep. >> Rotating. >> Yep. >> And do you think you can add people by adding the >> senior firefighter? >> Senior [clears throat] firefighter. [cough] That's a good idea. Yeah. >> If there's people interested as well. Again, we got to look at this and and make sure that we can get it approved here and then approach everybody and see if they're interested. And >> it helps where you don't burn out your officers. >> Absolutely. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Every [clears throat] six weeks is a short time period. It goes fast. >> Yep, it does. And if it, you know, if there's more people, it might allow for because they can trade as they want to, you know, um, you know, so it opens up that trade window a little bit more where, you know, hopefully not doing it one week on, one week off, and then another week on because you're trying to help out a different officer. >> Yeah. And if somebody has a a week on and they have something that comes up, a family member goes to the hospital or something and they need a day or two off, do they just switch a can they switch a day or two or do they have to switch like the whole week? >> We encourage switching a week. It's easier on the financial side. Uh but obviously if someone needs help in that matter, we're going to figure it out and >> Okay. >> make those trades. Yeah. Uh it we have someone on 24/7, you know, with with the duty officer and then then with Ben and I and um duty crew and that kind of stuff. But we're going to work with our people to make sure that we can get them where they need to be should something should an emergency happen. >> Okay. Looking back on the duty officer job description, I do envision it looking very much like a lieutenant position. >> Yeah. So, I I don't I don't think it's going to stray very much from that. And I think that that's why it's written the way it is. >> No, I'm good. Any other questions for Chief? All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Move on to the last item there, short-term rental. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor and Council, uh, I wanted to just bring up this topic of a short-term rental ordinance. Um, I've included in your packet on page 20 there. This is a redacted complaint uh that we received um concerning uh property at 19520 West Triarch Circle Northeast. Essentially, what's happening as it was reported, gatherings are are occurring at this property where 20 to 40 or more people are coming. Um and I we we believe it's kind of being used as a VBO wedding type of a scenario. It's a VBO. >> Yeah. VBO. >> Sleep 16. >> Yeah. So, >> weddings, family reunions, bachelor, bachelorette parties, guys, golf weekends, things of this nature. Okay. So, essentially, we do not have a short-term uh rental ordinance on the books at all. Uh we really don't kind of cover VBO issues. Um, and so this is kind of want to just have a conversation with you. When we get a complaint like this, um, currently, as long as they don't exceed 250 people outdoors, they're not violating any of the ordinances on the books. Um, 250 people in a small neighborhood is a lot of people, you know, up to that many. Obviously, it's even 30, 40, depending on the demeanor of those people. Obviously, if they're outdoors, hooping it up and and possibly consuming beverages and things of this nature, it could get wild. And uh and that somewhat seems to be the um at least this this complaint. Um I do know that other uh cities have addressed this this issue. I know that there's uh some contesting of of these issues that are out there, but um but essentially what you're looking at is um you know there's there are health department concerns that could exist. Is the septic up to code? Is the well up to code? Are the smoke detectors operational? Um there's different uh inspections that can be done for safety and wellness when you have a large number of people within a small structure. Um what happens when a fire, you know, breaks out, that sort of thing. And so, um, we, um, we wanted to bring this forward to you to see if this is something that you'd like us to research further, uh, to determine if if we want to adopt or look at adopting a short-term rental, um, uh, ordinance that would kind of put some parameters around uh, you know, when we find out there's a VBO, we'll send them, you know, this is the the regulations on this. this is what you have to do to maintain peace [snorts] and quiet, right to privacy, all that sort of thing in a in a functioning neighborhood. Um, we we don't get many complaints like this. I will say that. Um, but, uh, but the ones that we do, um, you know, are it's it's kind of more of a maybe a neighborhood is is, um, reacting after enduring it for a while. It's not just a one-off, you know, type of scenario. It's this is happening and reoccurring and reoccurring recurring and finally they call. Uh but at any rate, um this is the question, right? This is the policy uh that you people get to decide on as if there's going to be uh any sort of ordinances that would kind of treat these properties as somewhat of a commercial business-like uh operation. Put some parameters around it. Uh allow some inspection to happen very similar to rental properties so that we can ensure that um that at least people are reasonably safe you know as far as a structure is concerned. uh not necessarily in terms of their behavior, but we can't control that part of it. Get your feedback. >> So, my question is it seems like besides the noise, their big issue is the parking. We have um ordinances that say you can't park on the street overnight. If they're parked on their yard, um can't they just call a tow truck and have those vehicles towed and teach them a lesson that way? put a sign up. Your vehicle will be towed if you park here. >> I would assume that they're probably not parking on the lawn necessarily. They're probably parking up and down the street. >> Oh, well, that's what the thing said. Parking on my lawn. >> I would assume if they're renting it and they destroy the lawn, that'll be >> Well, the neighbor's lawn is I think I thought they were parking. >> Maybe they're parking up on the rightway, you know, >> in the east. That may be the case. I'm not sure. >> But um >> addressy, >> but yeah, it's >> y >> I mean obviously we want people to enjoy themselves, but if there's a business that is kind of putting the neighborhood at, you know, at um >> residents should have quiet a right to quiet enjoyment of the property, >> right? >> I mean, >> they do have rental ordinances, correct? >> We do. Yes. I mean, if they're going to run it as a business and the parking that I mean, we we require businesses to have so many parking spots and I mean, if they're going to run this as a business, I would think they should have the adequate parking. I mean, it's like I say, it's listed for s sleep 16 people. >> So, it should have at least eight parking spots. >> Yeah. This place was built in uh 97. It's worth 1.5 million right now. >> Can you pass that over here? I'd like to see it. Yeah, it was there was a lot of headaches when people didn't want it there when it originally built. >> Is there anything in our current rental ordinances that would apply to this property or to any uh future properties of VBOS? >> Nothing in our code restricts rental properties from hosting gatherings. So, say you have a >> graduation party and there's 50 people that come. Yep. >> You know, those type of scenarios happen once a year. Everyone kind of knows it. >> Yeah. >> Everyone expects it. Um but every other weekend, I think, is where you're starting to get into that. >> It's bit excessive. >> Right. Right. >> So, there there's nothing in our current rental ordinance that would cover any of the these issues. There might be some overlap in there, but um but again, if they don't have um if they're not required to at least notify us that they have this going on by ordinance, then we can't really >> unless you you happen to pull it up on VBO and see, oh, there's a rental here, you know. >> Yep. >> You don't really know until it's >> And I'm sure there's some that operate peacefully out there, right? But um but these larger homes, larger venues might >> kind of be the culprit that you know >> it creates a scenario that everyone now has to comply with, you know, but um I I think um I know I know that uh a friend of mine rented out a cabin and um whether it was the county or the state approached them and said, "You need to get [snorts] so many, you know, uh things in line in terms of inspections. We got to make sure your like I said your smoke detectors and everything are are operational. We need to make sure it's a clean property. Um they just decide decided that the hoops they had to jump through was not worth it anymore. They they stopped vboing it. But in that particular instance, there was a control mechanism in there to ensure that people are taken care of. you know, if they're going to be renting this property that there's something in place, some enforcement in place to make sure that it's safe and clean and not going to endanger them. Uh we just don't have that. So, it's it's hard to enforce that if someone calls in and says, "Hey, we got a we got a problem. Uh we don't have an ordinance that says you can't, you know." So, >> do you know how much acreage this is on? It looks like it's on a good size plat of land. >> No, it's not. >> I think it's on a lake lot. Yeah. >> Really? That looks so big. >> Might be a half an acre. >> 78 >> of an acre. >> Oh, wow. >> Just over 3/4. So, it's a decent size lot for being on the lake, but it's not, >> you know, five acres or anything. >> Yeah. >> Well, they're renting it out for $930 a day. 6,500 for the week. >> Yeah, that's a lot. >> They appear to be getting it. Yeah. Oh, you got the lake access there. Sure. They leave their toys there, too, to rent them out, too. I I don't know that a short-term rental ordinance would prevent this from happening, but at least it could put some parameters around, you know, enforcement of bad behavior, that sort of thing. Parking and, you know, if they need [clears throat] to get a have someone shuttle people, you know, from somewhere else, maybe that's what they need to do, you know, to prevent the congestion in the in the neighborhood. But um for some of the so going to try to look at in two ways one that okay we have rental ordinance but we don't have a VBO ordinance and the issue of neighbors having issues of trespassing um excessive drinking noise uh root rude pe people are these two different issues that we're looking to solve here. >> Yeah. So, if you look at it in terms of long-term rental versus short-term rental, uh your short-term rental people kind of descend in on a weekend and yep, >> things go crazy and then they leave. Uh long-term renters kind of coexist, I would think, in a neighborhood. you know, they get to know their neighbors and >> might have a level of at least a potential to have more uh respect for neighbors than would be your weekend warriors. So, that's that's kind of the way I'm envisioning this. We haven't researched yet what other cities have done and what ordinances and you know. >> Yep. >> But, um that's that's kind of the discussion is if you want us to deep dive into this, we will. Um, if that's the direction. >> Well, I think first and foremost, we have to watch out for our residents first. Okay. I think we need to look into it to find out if they are indeed running it as a commercial business for starters and then take appropriate action and take a look at what we can do to prevent this from coming in. You just can't advertise in neighborhoods to rent it. We know what they're doing and have weddings. >> We have five to 10 BRBOs in the city right now that are operating. >> Yeah. The only one that so far has attracted attention, it's this one. >> Right. If this [clears throat] is an issue, can the sheriff's department handle some of this stuff? Because if if if we don't have to put in additional ordinances that we don't have to, yes, we want to protect our residents, but is is it an ordinance that is needed? If there's five to 10 others and they aren't causing any issues, I wouldn't want to put the residents that run the VBO for some extra cash, >> right? >> I don't want to make them jump through the hoops because of one bad incident. So if there are if there would be a way to curb this behavior for this particular prop property, but I would also be interested in looking at uh a potential ordinance just to see what it would entail that if an instant incident like this were to happen again that say you get three strikes. If you get cops called three times to your VRBO, well, we're going to pull your short-term short-term license. Something like that. Yeah. Currently, if the event exceeds 250 people or uh has noise that exceeds our ordinance, then the sheriff can do something. But otherwise, they get called out and they have to inform the the person calling that, sorry, there's nothing we can do about it. you know, there's no no rules on the books that they're violating. So, that usually doesn't go over well, but you know, those bachelorette parties, they can get a little out of hand at times. So, I'm kidding. But, uh, yeah, if if that's the case, then that the sheriff's department does not have the tools to be able to enforce this, then we should look into at least some sort of >> Okay. Well, that's what I'll do then is I'll have um Grace is going to kind of start looking at model ordinances that other communities have, determine if that would be a fit for us, determine if it would need to be tweaked, and then um yeah, like I I don't want something that would make the the good renters jump through so many hoops that like uh the person that you knew that they just said not to do it. But there should be something that at the same time protects the quiet enjoyment of the residents surrounding residents property as well. Right. Very good. We will dig into that one. We'll come back with something addressing this in the meantime. I think we may reach out to the property owner and let them know that we're we're trying to >> trying to identify the issues here and and get our arms around it and that may help quell some of the some of the craziness that's going on. But >> yeah, sometimes a simple conversation can help a lot. >> Yep. Yep. Okay, that's all I have. Anything else? N okay, at this time I'll close the work session.