All right, everybody ready to start? All right, we'll call this meeting to order. Today is August 12th at 601. And we're going to start with the pledge of allegiance, please. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Miss Johnson, will you lead us uh to roll call, please? >> Here. Council member Glazer >> here. Council member >> here. Council members >> here, >> attorney Ruffy >> here, >> tenant Bangader >> here, >> fire chief Miller >> here, >> and myself, Natalie Johnson. Roll call is complete. >> Roll call is complete uh for the code of conduct. It's posted in the back of the word uh back of the room for reference. Uh we'll move on to approving the agenda. >> Council member Ryan, >> I'd like to take uh items 3, F, and G off of the consent agenda. to new business. >> F and G. Move it to new business. >> Any other changes recommended from the council? >> There's no other um changes to the agenda. >> Got a second. All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. All right. So, we'll move right to the public forum then. We have anybody signed up? Is Dileia still here? Okay. Nobody signed up. So, we don't need to open the public forum. >> All right. We'll move to the consent agenda. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Member Ryan, >> make a motion to approve the consent agenda >> with without F and G. We already have a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. Moving along very nicely. Uh we're moving on to number four, which is the engineering. We have anybody here that's going to speak about that portion? >> Uh nope. It just said it was going to be starting this week. And um Shane just wanted you to have a copy of the letter that went out to all of the affected residents. >> Correct. Did any of the council members uh have any discussion on that? I did read and review it last night. I didn't see any concerns. Well, that's quick and easy. So, nothing to approve. That was just for information only. >> It's still in the planning phase. It's not starting till 2020. Oh, we're talking about this year's overlay 25. We're not talking about the JPA. >> Got it. The overlay has started. >> Um, all right, Chief Miller. We'll move on to the fire department. >> Just here to give my monthly update for July. Uh 21 calls for the month of July. One uh grass fire, 18 medicals, and two personal injury accidents. Um just on a note, uh July is a typical month for family vacations, things like that. um with the limited staff we have, our staff worked um really well with each other to kind of plan things out so that we had adequate staffing throughout the month. So kudos to our our uh personnel. Um our tanker is in Minnesota. It actually is uh from from last I've uh found out that it's um >> tentatively for Friday afternoon. >> So So we're getting closer. >> Could show up on the now then fire Friday. It could it could show it could show up. Yes. So, >> are you guys all going to gather at the fire department to welcome the truck? >> Once I Yeah, once I get a once I get a time um frame. It's uh right now it's down in Rochester at their shop getting the final equipment um put onto it. So, as soon as they schedule the drivers out and we figure out what time that'll be, that'll that's kind of that's why we're picking Friday afternoon. So, so exciting news. Um so um we've also worked with our finance consultant um to appropriate enough money to move forward with outfitting five of our firefighters who are coming off probation. None of them have fitted gear. Um they're all in kind of um unfitted gear and unfortunately none of them are with none of that gear is within the 4 in that would be required or allowed to to um uh alter that gear. So we have to we have to get five new sets. So, we're going to outfit them. Um, we were able to find uh enough savings within the budget um to do that. Uh the price is $19,570 um for those five sets of turnout gear. So, it's not going to impact necessarily our this year's budget um since we already have the money and we were able to that to uh to do that. Um so we intend on ordering those uh five sets for those individuals um which will put them in um compliant gear for the next 10 years. >> Did that come out of the fire department budget? When you say it came out of the budget, >> it did. Yes, we found savings within um portion of it was um we had the previous council had had uh put in um full-time wages for a full-time fire chief. So there's a amount of money there that obviously because I'm part-time, we're not using that. >> Also benefits. We also had health insurance benefits included. We we have been we did buy a set of turnout gear out of that um along with some helmets and some other PPE equipment. So we are spending that down >> that was that was used. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. All right. >> Used is being used. So that would have been 7,500 >> being used. I don't know that it's been actually coded yet. So, you're probably not seeing it in >> I would request that that is consumed first before we go in and tap into anything else. >> Council member Brian's point is very very valid. >> Any other questions for Chief Miller? >> Rainbow. Go ahead. I'm wondering since we're getting in our truck and Lexi is working on the fall newsletter, typically we have featured a barn and I don't know what ne Lex's plans are for this fall newsletter. Is that something council be interested in having? I would love to have a fire truck on the on the >> biggest news and now then that we've had all year. >> Absolutely. >> So, if I could direct Natalie to check with one time we tal I had talked about having the um Lake View Cemetery a fall picture of that on it. Um, >> as long as the picture isn't in front of a burning barn. >> I don't think the house is scheduled to burn till what? September, October. >> September, October. Yes. So, >> so, Mr. Mayor, Council, a couple more things that that just came up. Um, we're going to be doing hose testing tomorrow. Um so you'll see out in front of the fire station um Firecat which is our contractor that actually does our testing of our hose has to be done annually. Um we've done that in the past with St. Francis but we are since we are separated we're doing it ourselves. Um so you'll see um our trucks out there and some activity station. And then uh lastly um 199 um was a success um for the community and for the fire department. Um we had several firefighters who uh had uh glittered their mustaches. Um so um sounds like it was a very fun event. Um unfortunately I was working my other job and and attending those u stand for any questions. >> All right. Thank you very much, Chief. Thanks for the update. All right. We'll move on to number six, which is the sheriff's department. And Cole, if you would, please. >> Absolutely. >> Still still struggling with your last name. I'll get it figured out. >> Yeah, Cole's fine. We can stick with that. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, city staff, and citizens, the following is the sheriff's office report for the month of July. Sheriff's deputies responded to 145 calls for service. Of those calls, six were to bar none, two alarm calls, 16 medicals, 14 animal calls for service. Getting into the bar none calls. On the 4th of July, deputies responded for an assault. On that call, one juvenile was charged for assault and ended up being transported to the hospital by ambulance. On the 12th, there was a medical call. Deputies assisted Alina with two juveniles who had minor medical concerns. On the 13th, deputies responded for two juveniles in mental health crisis and engaged in self harm. Both of those juveniles were sent to the hospital on hold. On the 18th, deputies responded for two runaways. Multiple deputies and a UAS, a drone, was used to search and find both juveniles. Eventually, they were returned back to the facility. On the 21st, deputies responded for a disorderly conduct call. Two juveniles were attempting to break into the staff office and damage property at the facility. Both of them were arrested for disorderly conduct and transported to the juvenile facility. Moving on to other noteworthy calls for service on the 15th and kind of some other corresponding dates on both sides. In the 18600 block of St. Francis Boulevard, there's been multiple fraud reports of someone likely from out of state or out of country that's using a business in that area posing it as their own. They are advertising kind of classic cars online and offering to ship those cars, then receiving wire payments or mailed checks. So, kind of a complicated fraud. Um, and there's been at least a number of victims that have lost money in the tens of thousands of dollars range trying to buy those vehicles. Um, that investigation on our side is essentially closed out. So, we verified that this fraud, there's nothing occurring at that business. They're completely uninvolved. So, the investigations are handled by the jurisdictions where the victims live in. So, our side of it's basically closed out, but it's somebody that's kind of posing as that business. Uh, on the 16th in the 19200 block of Burns Parkway, deputy responded for a dog at large on someone else's property. That dog owner was cited for the violation. On the 21st in the 18400 block of Waco Street, a deputy responded for a 45-year-old male who was found deceased in his home. Our criminal investigation division, crime scene, and medical examiner's office responded to the scene and determined it to be a natural death. So, that investigation's all wrapped up. On the 25th at Twin Lakes Park, a male was arrested and taken to jail for disorderly conduct and obstructing the legal process after he had a dispute with another male in the park. And he threatened to get a gun and shoot that male. There was no physical assault that actually occurred, just threats of uh in other news, it sounded like night two night went well from our end as well. Uh unfortunately, I was not able to be there cuz I was at daddy daycare that evening. So, no parties for me. Uh with that, I can stand for any questions whether on the report or uh the upcoming contract. >> Questions from the council at all? >> No, sir. >> No. Thank you very much for the updated report. That's fantastic. >> We certainly can. So, I know there was some discussion at the beginning with Mr. Rupy uh prior to the meeting started. Uh didn't want to do a quick summary of what that was. Uh Mr. Rupy, would you do that and then we can make that motion just so all the council members um get information. >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council, uh I reviewed the proposed contract for sheriff's services for 2026. Uh there was a couple of questions raised. Uh, one issue that I I added into the proposed uh, revisions to the contract were for uh, the city council to be consulted before there were any major change implemented. We recognize the sheriff's right to con, you know, be have to be in control of scheduling of hours and patrol time and but we're not asking for veto power, but I believe that the city council should be able to be consulted to find out what our concerns are so that the sheriff can better able to address them. My understanding is that that concept is not a problem for the sheriff's office uh based on the comments by the lieutenant, but uh the county attorney may want to have uh some additional language. I will be in the office tomorrow and I'll be happy to uh work with uh him or her on that issue. Uh the other concern uh was uh on any savings for uh health insurance. I'm uh I will work with the uh sheriff's department, the county attorney's office to add that uh language in that we get the benefit of that. And then the last question that I received from um Natalie was regarding uh the uh indemnification portion of the contract which was uh basically that clause in essence is designed to ensure that one party's actions or failure to act under the contract causes doesn't cause the other party to incur costes costs or losses. and the party who caused the problem is responsible for covering those losses. So basically it's supposed to be to make each other whole if one party and since acts or doesn't act appropriately then and the we incur cost or they incur cost you're supposed to be made whole. In this situation all actions are actually being performed by the county through the sheriff's department. there isn't any action that is being done by the the city. So I can't think of any other situation that comes to mind where we might be liable to the county. This does, this language in this provision does not make us responsible for indemnifying the county or the sheriff's department if someone sues the county and or the sheriff's department for like negligence or maybe a 1983 claim for violating someone's constitutional or federal sort of statutory rights, which you know, basically acting under the color of law and violating somebody's rights. We're not agreeing to indemnify and defend the county or the sheriff's department from that lawsuit. And so, but if we did something affirmatively that caused the the the county loss, then we may be liable. I just can't think of a situation where that might arise given the terms of this contract. the other all the other provisions that I believe you have in your packet that I made to the contract other than the price which also I believe has to be adjusted uh was agreeable to the county and I believe would be adopted part of this. If this is something that the city council would like to proceed with, I recommend approval of the sheriff's contract for 2026 contingent on attorney review and that I would work with the county tomorrow or Thursday to get the language resolved so that uh the mayor and Natalie could sign the contract. >> Okay. So, going off Mr. Rupy's request, do you have any because we already had a red line one that was sent out. This is the three additional things. any concern with what Mr. Rupy's recommendation is with uh based off the attorney review and he'll be >> okay member Rainbow. Go ahead. I I move uh that we authorize authorize resolution um excuse me move the resolution authorizing the mayor and interimm city administrator to sign the Second. >> Got a second from Council Member Glazer. All right. Any questions or discussion. All right. We'll move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. >> Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Rupy, for that. >> Thank you, M. >> We've covered six in uh in full at this point. We'll move to planning and zoning. Do we have um Miss Nash online? >> No, we do not. She is out of town. Okay. >> So, basically it was just the applications in review that she wanted you to take a look at as part of her meeting. Um now then pastures Peterson Acres just letting you know where they are. Um Wood Deck Haven uh second edition preliminary plat. Um he's requesting approval of a preliminary plat for one lot. um as a staff she does recommend approval. >> This was up on uh so we'll take them one by one. Um so if you look turn to page 115, this would be the Wood Haven. Um if I remember right, this plot is right up on the northern border of now then confirmation to what I remember reading. >> That would be on page 124. This is where they're looking to uh split from their 44 acre lot. If I remember correctly, looking to take 5 acres out of a 44 acre plot. Um, I know that it went through planning and zoning and we got approval and so Cindy's asking for the preliminary plot approval or the resident is asking and Cindy's help facilitating the process. >> Mr. Mayor >> Council Rainville, >> Miss Johnson, we know if the applicant has um seen the findings and facts that start on page 118 and if they've agreed with um the recommendations 1 through 22 and then um in the no dated August 5th, which is page 125 Um, it's got items, >> I'm sorry, a page on page 128, but the August gift memo. Um, it's got in general items one through six. Do we know if the applicant has looked at those and >> applicant has received all of this >> to answer any other questions other than they received it? That would be a concern if Miss Nash is not here tonight for a planning. >> I can say to get to this far, it's got to follow the entire process. That's what I can say. Otherwise, it would have been rejected >> by planning and zoning. >> Mr. Mayor, if there's no other questions by council, I would move that we adopt resolution 2025- um xxx approving the preliminary and final >> second for the let's just state the name of the two. So we got >> I'm wood duck haven second edition preliminary plat and final plat. >> There we go. We already got a second. Any discussion on it? >> All right, we'll move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Oppose. Motion carries. All right. Now, we got another one in here. The Roamacher Company's concept. I know this also went to planning and zoning because it was at the meeting. Um, this is to build uh a subdivision consisting of 11 lots, two outlots, and you'd have to refer to the map on page uh you can see the lot in yellow. This subdivision falls into the rural residential transition which is often I'll say the east corner of now then or east eastern portion of now then. So the lot sizes are smaller. Uh they're in that 2.5 um acre. That was one of the first questions that came up on it. Is there any discussion points that anybody would like to ask on this one? >> Council Rainville. Um, just to clarify, the RRT has a two point a 22 >> maker. I stand correct at 2acre, not 2.5. >> It's on the back of the RCA. Mr. Mayor, >> if you if you go to uh 120 130 >> 130, >> you'll see in the in the letter from collaborative planning. >> Thank you. >> Enough memory on that. I winged it. And guess what? I was wrong. Everything else is >> I knew it was smaller then because I asked a specific question like this doesn't make sense but that's the area in yellow over there >> just for Mr. Mayor >> just for a a quick update is that was part of the uh a lawsuit brought by a resident to try to um go down to the two acres in an area where he owned and then there were contiguous properties that wanted to be included in it. settled that prior going to court um based on the recommendation of our attorney and that specific area that has the 2.8 2 >> that has no effect whatsoever on the remainder of the city. >> Do you have any idea what year that took place? >> Um >> it's been a few years. >> Long before Shane was here. I can say that. And I >> any other questions or or statements on this particular one? >> Right now we're literally even though there part of that settlement was a lot more land. >> Yes. Because it touches both Vikings and 47. I know there was concerns about uh possibly tying in a road coming out of this development. Um, I didn't hear any more about that though. >> But, um, planner Nash was working with them all when it went to planning and zoning. >> This was pretty much for, um, just, >> but you still got a request for council action on it. a concept plan. >> So, as far as a concept plan, if there's no other questions, can we move forward with an RCA on this or would it really? >> No, >> I don't think we need >> Oh, it's really not a request for council action then. >> No, this is a request for no formal motion or resolution is provided at this step. >> Thank you, Attorney Rookie. Thank you. So, it's just for it's basically an FYI is what it is. So, if you have an FYI like that, does it it shouldn't probably be on a request for council action because there's no actual action. It's more of an informative. >> Well, what she's looking for is a preliminary non-binding nonbinding feedback like basically like this idea, doesn't like this idea forward. >> But what Mr. Ruby just stated, Mr. mayors is also stated on the RCA in the middle of the of the uh document formal motion and resolutions provided. I guess the only thing that did come up was the the road going to the south and tying that in. So, um, there's not, um, so in the future. So, if you were to look at this in the future, if you were to tie into a road down here, he was talking about creating a culde-sac that could lead down to the south. >> Yeah. It probably would hook into um Brian, a road come around the back. >> So, that's that was the biggest thing that came up. Um, and and they were reviewing it, but any input on uh if that road would be a good idea? I know Planner Nash was concerned that because you have 47 and 22. Um, they only want so many roads coming off of that and trying to tie in another me that made sense when she was saying it, especially if you look at future growth. So, not everything is definitely a concern. to whatever you know if the state or the county don't know that the county will say no at this point because there's not a ton of roads but if you look in in the future, uh, if there's any development down there, they're going to want to tie in. So, if you put a road south, so I think it was good forward thinking. Um, Mr. Mayor, >> Rainbow, the lot that or the street it would come into in Brian's Bend is already posted as there is a potential in the future that this lot would this road would continue on, but as That's why it's a concert plan. I mean, I don't know how that'll be figured out as >> anything else for that. >> All right, let's move on to the administrator update. >> Mr. Mayor, >> just to let Natalie know, I'm starting to lose sound on a lot of the people. It's cutting in and out. So, just bear with me if I lose you for a while. It it doesn't last more than five or six seconds and then it comes back. But I am sound is going in and out. >> All right. >> Thank you, Mr. Rupy. All right. We're going to move on to the administrator update. Miss Johnson, >> uh, night to night, I would say, was a big success. I think we had over 200 people in attendance. Um, we did receive donations from the Lions and from Comcast. Our expenses as council member Brian had wanted was $1,265.64. So we have a balance of 223436 left for next year. Um I brought a bounce house and some tents and tables and chairs. We use tables and chairs from here. The bridge church did a large bounce house and cotton candy. Um we had a volunteer for face painting. Um John's church did a Plinko game. We served the hot dogs, chips, lemonade, and water. Um, our note is no cake for next year. It was not fun to serve, right? Um, a few of the vendors came. Um, and it seemed like it was pretty fun. I think everybody I would say it was it was a fun night. Um and I thank staff putting organizing it. Um they did a great job given it was their first time doing it and that um really was a short time frame to work with past. There's the Lions have organized that event, but Lexi took it an extra step and brought in the farmers market vendors and helped make it a fun night for every fun to to work. >> Unfortunately, I wasn't able to make it. Um, sounds like it was a great event and it sounds like something we'll continue to do. >> Any other comments from the council on that? >> Clarify. So, we spent $1,200, but it was all covered by the grants. >> Absolutely. By the donations. >> Yeah. And when I had asked Comcast if I could count on a donation every year, she said probably not, which is why we didn't spend it all because I didn't want to have a great one this year and then not be able to do it as fun next year. >> Nope, we didn't spend anything. >> I'm getting a text from Dileia asking you to speak louder. >> Thank you. >> Outside voice stamp. That's council member O'Brien. Um, I just gave an update that we ordered some new park equipment. Um, the new handicap swing because it was broken. We've got two new basketball hoops going up. Um, and a swivel swing as well. Joe's researching the cost of a new rock wall at Twin Lakes Park. So, we received >> I didn't even know we had a rock wall. Did anybody else know we had a rock wall? part of the swing set. >> It's part of the swing set. >> Not a so meaning like a foot. >> It's like a 10. Yeah. >> Okay. So, it's not all right. Got it. I read that. I was very I didn't know we had a rock wall. >> Um and then giving you an update on Jab Jasper Street in 2023. Um Joe was able to do a 450 foot stretch. They dug up, they repaired it. Um, were able to pull out items that shouldn't be a but there was another patch that needed to be done. We just couldn't do it both at the same time. Um, we did go through it with Shane and Lori and we are able to get that in with the the patching being done next spring along with the overlay project for 2026. >> Got a plan to cover that additional 450 ft. Is that what I'm hearing? >> We do. So that we can get that one done. Then I did get one more email today um just at 4:43. Actually, I just wanted to make you all aware that we are putting a permit on hold because it has not they haven't done anything with it. Rum river has asked us to bill for the plan review work that has been done and then it will be 129th block >> building permit that nothing's happening with >> more informative to us to tell us that it's being >> Yep. Just in case you get some phone calls. >> And with that, I'll stand for questions. >> Questions for Miss Johnson? Okay, we'll close that. move to new business number nine. Uh first one to discuss is the crosswalk. Um and I'll just start speaking on this a little bit. So the biggest thing on the crosswalk was we received a letter and I think it's printed in here. Um sorry I didn't get a better I had a picture of it is all I did and that's what got sent and put in here and this was uh from Avery um requesting a crosswalk. Uh we didn't have any costs at that point but I did go up there to see where she was talking about. So, we requested this to the county because there there was another request from a resident right here on uh between 22 and county road 5. We got some information back talking about uh maybe the level of traffic or talking specifically about the level of traffic and speed limits. Um what I want to do is make sure the council got all of this information so we could talk about does a crosswalk make sense? Is there any discussion on it? Uh but most importantly was to share the information. The county is basically recommending to not move forward with the crosswalk at either location, but I didn't want to hold the information and not share it. So, that was the most important. Thank you for getting an estimate. I'm assuming Joe helped work to get an estimate on this. So, crosswalks are not free is what we found out. >> I was a little bit confused on it because it talks about just lines going across the street. You need four of them for a crosswalk. Is that correct? Is it four per crosswalk or two per crosswalk? >> I think it's the the cross the four-way stop. So, you'd have to do it on all four corners, right? Were they trying to do that? >> Crosswalk that goes across. So, it's only one. It would be just going across 223rd. >> So, it would only be one one set of crosswalks going across. So I think the probably the cost is a little overestimated if you were going to do all >> four streets. >> Yep. >> Okay. So it would be not this much. But going to what the county said is if you have a street where the speed limit is 55 miles an hour. The concern is you would actually probably reduce or give the residents some form of comfort that they think there's a crosswalk there where others are possibly not. Mr. Mayor, please go ahead. >> Especially due to the fact that there isn't any type of artificial light in the area at night, it uh um huge risk to the pedestrian. >> Yep. And I think that was that was something I wasn't considering when I first requested this is because the speeds are 55 miles an hour. I didn't I didn't think about that. So, it actually would give them a sense of security going through a crosswalk, which actually could cause more harm than good. And Mr. Mayor, >> remind people that yeah, it is state law that if somebody is trying to even though it's not marked, it's considered a crosswalk based on state law. >> If pedestrians are going across the street, >> so I I don't believe there's any action that needs to be taken on this. This was more council member. Go ahead, please. >> Yeah. I would just like to applaud Avery Nearing Garden for having sent that letter in. I think it was a thoughtful letter and a good idea to at least ask. Um, so I just want to applaud her and say good job. >> I will follow up with her because I did go out and see the spot they were requesting and and I never had a letter from I think she was in sixth grade. Um, sixth grade. So I thought it was pretty awesome that she sent it. Um, and as long as the council is in agreement that we are not going to action this as a crosswalk, um, I think we can. And then also the crosswalk up here. I will also inform the resident that requested that. >> Okay. What's next on new business here? Um, Natalie, do you want to lead this one? Who wants to talk about kayaks? >> Kayaks. We were directed to um investigate getting the kayak vendor to Twin Lakes Park. Um, Dileia did a great job looking it up and getting it. Um, in my opinion, the cost is quite high with a very low ROI, but it's $20,000 to do a 4unit station onetime fee. Um, contract can be renewed at no cost, and there's a 30% share in rental revenue. Um, they would do it for 19,000 if we signed it in August. There's also a game kiosk if we would choose to do so where it be like for the pickle ball courts. It'd be about $3,000 to do something like that. Um Elk River gets about two to 300 rentals a year with their kiosk. So Lake Orno is quite large. Kind of up to council but if you want to move forward or >> Mr. Council member Glazer, go ahead, please. >> Do we effectively own that equipment for the $20,000? >> Council member Rainbow. Go ahead. Miss Johnson's comments saying that River >> two 300 >> two% Um 2our rental. I just don't um I don't see on page 156 it just gives you the sizes and it talks about some of the rentals uh and some of the income and there was only one population that's in the city of Smithfield Virginia where they had 7,800 residents. Now we have not even that amount. And they were saying that they have a lot of rentals and I'm assuming it's a much warmer client climate than a small amount. So using Elk River and you said there's 270. Um I didn't calculate the return on investment, but uh I'm thinking this is not a three to three to four years. What I'm looking at if I just do the math here, we're talking approximately eight years. That's if we got the same amount that Elk River does and we have to me less people that are going to go there. So, I don't think it's going to be eight. I think it's going to be a 10 to 20 year return on investment. So, for a $20,000 investment, I said, "Well, maybe the city just goes and buys some kayaks." But then the problem is you have the insurance side to deal with. Um, >> well, Mr. there >> customer replacement. >> If I'm not mistaken, we're named um as insured >> and additional insur additional insured. >> Yeah, if we >> but even still we're, you know, we're still on the hook with >> thought they had enough insurance to cover it is what I thought. >> Well, it's up to 5 million. I mean, we are a named insured and they agreed to defend and demnify it. >> Mayor, >> sure. >> Council member or uh Attorney Rupy. Yes. I I haven't been elevated yet. Uh the insurance actually Minnesota tort liability statute has they have 1 million per occurrence. I think it was 5 million aggregate if I remember right. And tort liability limits is 1.5 million per occurrence. So, we would have if this is something that you were interested in uh pursuing, we would have to talk to them about uh having them cover us uh indemnify and defend us. We'd want to see a actual contract and we would want to have the insurance coverage updated >> to to what amount would you recommend that it would be updated to the 5 million? >> One from 1 million to 1.5 million per that was to go forward, we'd have to uh request that. Mr. >> Mayor, Council Member Swinson, um I too think this is maybe not a great idea. My analysis is a little different. I know uh you know, you're not literally saying investment, but you know, I I think it's okay if the city loses money as long as it's a service that a lot of residents use and get pleasure out of. So, if if we faced a loss with this, I' i'd theoretically be all right with it if I thought it was going to be heavily used, but I just I I don't know. I don't see it. Um I I really don't see the the use of it justifying the cost. So, I too would be a no on this. I think that it was proposed that it would be no cost to the city as they were initially telling us. >> Well, what we quickly learned is a $20,000 bill is uh that doesn't go away. Is there any other comments? >> Berber Rainville. Go ahead. >> I mean, I I I don't know how often the staff gets requests for the use of kayaks at Twin Lakes. Maybe if they start to track them, if we get location residents or if they're outside of the city that we can maybe start tracking the need right now wants it what we would have to expend on it. It's not >> even at even if you were to say we're the same as Elk River and get two to30 and you're uh we're talking like 14 years to get to get your $20,000 back. So >> we're not in the ballpark at this time. Now if the cost goes down to half as much and it's 10,000 to implement and maybe it's two kayaks, maybe we could bring it up, but I just don't see it right now with all right. Anybody wants to make a motion on this? Nobody wants to make a motion. >> Council member Ringo, >> I I would I would just move that we at this point will just receive and file this information. Thank Dia for her work on it. Um >> have to vote on that or we just it's not table. This is finally mean we're doing nothing with it. So no vote necessary. >> No necessary. >> All right. Perfect. Thank you. That's what I needed, Mr. Rupy. All right, we'll move to the next one. Uh, approval for resolution approving the use of the town hall by Minnesota Round Dance Council for granting fee adjustment. >> Council or Mr. Johnson, go ahead. >> Uh, Doug Broaddin is here. If we'd like to ask him any questions about what he's doing and why he's asking for the discount, >> I think that would be great. Sir, if you could step up to the podium, state your name and address, and tell us uh how the NE residents are going to benefit from this. Uh my name is Douglas Bodin. Uh official name, I go by Doug. Uh I actually live out in Egan. And what I'd like to do, uh, I've actually been asked by a few people, about three couples, to do, uh, choreographed ballroom dance lessons, which is basically ballroom dancing with somebody telling you what to do at what time. And so, in theory, everybody's doing the same figure, going around the hall, uh, doing the same thing. Um the the couples that uh have asked me to do this live up in this area. Uh Anoka um and I think one even lives in now then, but I'm not sure. Uh they suggested that I ask the council here to uh be able to use the hall because it it's a beautiful wood floor, great for dancing. Um, we'd use it every Wednesday night starting October 8th going through what the 17th was it? >> Uh, for about an hour and a half. Uh, just just to start off with uh some beginner lessons. Uh, I think they we were we're looking at uh twostep, but we can change that. We can go to cha or whatever them other people is. It would be open to anyone and everyone who would uh like to come and learn ages 9 to 90. Uh >> you said a two-step with like a Texas twostep. >> It's a modified te Texas twostep. We we could demonstrate if you wish. Uh but you know that's just one of the rhythms. Uh you know we do walls fox trot cha rumba some west coast swing uh jive which is basically triple lindy. uh the request that I have got or received from the three couples is to now if a few members of the town want to come and join us and they really don't want to do twostep we'll switch it over and you know do do cha or something. >> The question what it doesn't say is what is the cost for a couple to do this event? Well, we usually charge $10 per person. We take singles in. So, at uh $10 a person, that's $20 a couple. So, I have three I know of three couples. So, and you know, if I can get $50 rental, that puts $10 in my pocket for gas and music. in I should say our p pocket my other half over there. Miss Erica, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. Council member Swinson, go ahead, please. >> Um, yeah. I I mean, I think this is totally reasonable. I have no problem with it. Well, I do have one little problem with it, and it's more like a principal thing. I feel like, didn't we just reduce or eliminate the rent price for the city hall like a month ago for some other organization >> and I I mean >> happens to be a senior >> just it seems like such an insignificant amount of money that I mean >> we're going to pick and choose who we reduce and eliminate. >> Well, I was hoping not to have that discussion tonight. I think we sh that one. >> Yeah. >> No, we're more than willing to pay for the hall. Um it's just we are a nonprofit. We don't make much money with the dances. And according to your website, it's like a hundred bucks uh a night for somebody who doesn't live in in or res non-resident. I did have put in my proposal that you know it was just $50 up to five couples and then after five couples we'd start paying an additional five or $10 per couple up to 100 or we can even drop the hundred you know the limit is you know as you know I I I have at least 10 bucks in my pocket to uh pay for gas coming up here >> look at is if you have a couple residents that sign up for get the resident rate, right? >> Well, I think the resident benefits because they they're doing an activity where that they would be interested in and that it's in a local event. So, these guys are driving. So, I I don't want to create a standard, but I got to tell you, I think this makes sense. You're not making a bunch of money on it. No, this is for the residents and doing now. >> Yeah. >> Can I just clarify? I didn't mean to put you on the defense. I didn't think we should do it. My concern is more so anytime someone wants to rent this, are they going to do an RCA and come before us and plead their case? It's going to take up a lot of our time. I mean, I don't know how often this building's rented out, but it just seems like I mean, I don't know. That's that's a concern for a different day. But I I think your request is totally reasonable and I think it would be a good thing for our community to get some ball. >> Questions, concerns? No questions. I don't have any questions, >> Mr. Mayor. Sorry, >> Dan. Go ahead. I would I would just go in if if if the event is still almost two months away, there's theoretically there should be ample time to either put something put something on our website and or promote it internally that we theoretically could easily get to the the level where we get the $100 and we don't have to deal with we don't have the situation where we're making exceptions all the time and it's not an issue. It's $100 and if someone is does meet different that's that lives in Nman and then then can get the rent this for for a lower charge that's great for you >> just to kind of piggyback on council member Brian is I was thinking the newsletter again if we are doing this that would be a great place to publicize it is in the news >> that is one of the reasons why we come so early is to see about get some of the residents. We we don't want to come in two weeks before and say we'd like to do this. I I know I have three couples that live in this area, not necessarily in uh now then. Uh so if we can get some more people that that would be great. I think it would be a wonderfulity for residents here if they wish. >> Well, I'm team building activity for the council. Well, you you you you all can come. I mean, we can start a lesson tonight for you. I I got Mr. Mayor. >> Council member Gler, go ahead. >> Council member Swinson, I think we meet enough, don't we? >> Just teasing. I'm teasing, >> but I am going to go home and promote it tonight when I get home. >> To see if I can >> We are licensed. Uh I know that's uh usually a big big concern. We are licensed through the uh round lab organization which is the parent organization that lays down the rules and and define uh definitions of of everything we do. >> You have your own insurance to cover anything. >> We do have our own insurance uh through round the lab and through uh the min Minnesota Square Dance Federation. I think it's uh I I think our liab liability insurance is 1.5 million. Uh which uh I think I I >> Mike get a thumbs up for Mr. Rupy then. >> Yeah. member, >> anybody can we can reserve the call whenever they want and knowing that it's too on this and we can just give advertise it and if and and see and even talk about it next month if we need to. >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, >> council member B. >> I personally would like to make a motion to approve the use of the historic town hall by Minnesota Round Dance Council and granting a fee adjustment. >> Second. >> Second. Any more discussion? All right. All those in favor um of the motion that Council Member Glazer is um forward say I. >> I. >> I. >> Those opposed? >> I have >> you can roll with I. So, it's all good. All right. Motion carries. All right, sir. You got your fee. Reduce to $50 a night. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, members. >> All right. So, next one. Data practice policy be added to the personnel policy. Who's discussing this one? Miss Johnson. >> Yep. We just making some changes because we did not have a data practices in the personnel policy. Um much right from the League of Minnesota Cities. Um there's some discussion policy to a flat fee for a $20 data data practice search and a 25 cents per page for anybody who needs a copy of it. We don't get a lot of data practices requests. Um, but it is something that we should have in there because we did add the social media policy as well. >> Any discussion for the council? Would >> anybody like to make a motion if there's no discussion? Oh, Councilman Rainbow, go ahead. >> I would move um that we approve the data practice policy policy. >> Second. >> Second. Any other discussion on this? Council member Brian, are you good? Okay, let's move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Oppose. >> Motion carries. Done. Next one. RCA whether to continue the dog licensing process. >> Yeah. >> M. Johnson, you want to lead us through this one, please? So, we licensed the dogs, but in 2023, we only got 16. In 2024, we got nine, and so far in 2025, we've had seven. Um, given this information, it's kind of assumed that not all the dogs are licensed within the city. >> I think you can make a correct assumption there. >> Um, the dogs that are getting picked up at large don't seem to have a tag, don't seem to have a chip. One of those things when we are going through the fee schedule which will be coming up next month uh was more of do we want to continue this or not. >> Does anybody have any experience they would like to share on this? M >> council member Bryan please go ahead. I've talked to plenty of residents they they're and plenty of residents have told me they're not literally licensing their dogs more work for the city to manage dog owners can decide if there are I think it was a a practice back in the day where it was harder to track down owners etc that you'd have to have a license or have a way to track that information but now plenty of residents are are already choosing not to do the practice. I know I believe if I remember right even the the city of dog licenses and >> try to enforce it >> and try to enforce it. Right. Yeah. Exactly. So, >> Council Swson, go ahead. >> Yeah. I just have a question. Is there any other purpose to licensing other than tracking the dogs? Do you know any? >> Not that I'm aware of. It would just be if they got picked up by the sheriff of dog at large so that they can figure out who >> I would agree with Councilman Brian. The phyto alerts go up on Facebook so fast when you know somebody spots a dog that's at large. So go >> ahead. My only thought I if it were uh contributing in any way to tracking dog bites or something, I would see some value in it, but I mean I think police reports track the dogs and note when a dog bites someone. So I I really I truly see no benefit to the city. >> Is there any other pets that pets that we are required right now given our current ordinance to register? It's just dogs. >> So you don't got to register your goat or your cat or anything else. Only if you choose a dog do you have to register. To me that doesn't make any sense. >> Council member Ray to >> Lieutenant um based on what council member Swanson said, does the county have any authority? So let's say phto the the same phto keeps getting out over and over and over. It's not chipped, but now you know where it goes. Does the county have any authority to mandate that dog to be chipped or or any fines associated with it other than the cost of retrieval of that dog if it ends up being impounded? >> Large Not a lot of value. >> Rainbow. Go ahead. >> The lieutenant's comment. We would still continue with our dangerous dog ordinance. that wouldn't have any >> I would move u there's no other comments I would move that we um we move to end the practice of licensing >> we got a motion anybody for a second go ahead >> okay so we got a second >> for discussion >> you seconded it that's fine >> do you want a second for discussion >> you already did >> we got a second from council member Glazer uh Any discussion? Council member Bryant. So, um this would also do we need to get >> Yeah, I might I was going to do a second motion to say along along with our previous motion that we direct staff to um >> yeah remove all um I can't think of the word I want >> reference >> references to the licensing of dogs within the >> correct >> just the license we go on >> we could add that to the motion of um Also, we would end move to end the practice of licensing and direct staff, update our city ordinances as >> I'll second the amended motion. >> Good. Any other discussion? >> Great point. Um, let's move uh move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Another one done. All right, moving on to the next one. Looks like we have an update to our dress code with personnel policy. Johnson, would you like to tell take us through this one? >> Basically, um, we just updated it so it was more clear to staff as to what is expected. >> Was there any concerns that led to this or is this us being proactive? >> It was us just being proactive. It wasn't a real clear dress code within the policy. the rest of the council members on this. >> Council member Bryant >> wanted to bring up so if so now then apparel that's on the unacceptable attire is still unacceptable. Is that correct? >> I'm sorry. >> If I had a now then t-shirt. >> Yeah. >> T-shirt attire >> unless it's a now then shirt. >> Now then t-shirt I could wear it in the office. >> Yes. I would prefer that acceptable list regardless of whether it's now. >> So you your concern is on tops it says now then apparel but if you go to the un unacceptable attire it says t-shirts. So, if it's a now then t-shirt, that would be considered unacceptable. >> I think it puts it up for interpretation and that's exactly what he's bringing up. So, question is, is it acceptable or should we just strike it out to say t-shirts are acceptable if they're now then attire? Now then attire including t-shirts could be in the acceptable category but if it's a regular t-shirt it would be considered >> Mr. Mayor. >> Council member Glazer. Go ahead. >> I would I would um agree with Council Member Brian if I see no reason why It's not unreasonable to say now then apparel with a now then shirts with a collar if for office staff >> but and that's listed right up there. So it's collar t-shirts polos and button downs. >> So if it's a now then apparel that fits that the way it's written >> right now I agree with you t-shirts the way it's written t-shirts would fit the unacceptable attire. So it could stand as written here, but if it's t-shirts now, does public works, this is just talking that the people that work in the office area, >> public works would not fall into this >> have the uniforms. >> Rainbow, >> I think back to Night to Unite, staff had on what would be considered a t-shirt. It didn't have a collar. Um, but it was a very nice looking t-shirt that had a logo and said city staff on it. So, I I I think a t-shirt that is a now apparel t-shirt should be allowed rather than saying no t-shirts. Then a qu um I would like to see that we include a now then t-shirt acceptable attire. I mean you're Okay. So then a question to Miss Johnson. Are you are the one that's ordering them? >> Uh yes we did for the marketing out of the marketing budget. Um, and we did also order some sweatshirts because gas gets cold in there and if we change the air works comes in, they're hot. >> So, >> so where does sweatshirts? >> Yeah. So, we should add sweatshirts in there. And I I would I I feel comfortable leaving the decision on what is ordered to Miss Johnson. I've never um known her or seen her wear anything that's inappropriate and I think that she um has um she wants the same from her employees appropriately dressed and sometimes a t-shirt is fine. I had plenty of t-shirts when I >> like to make a motion on this one way or the other motion to um approve the policy excluding them as unacceptable. T-shirts would stay unacceptable. >> Like the sweatshirts, >> someone's wearing a tank top and or a polo shirt and they wear a sweatshirt over it. I mean, that's part of being cold. >> Mr. Mayor, I would second Council Member O'Brien's motion. >> All right. So, we got our We got it. Uh we got our second. Let's any other discussion? I think we've heard it. All right, we'll move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries. T-shirts are not going to be acceptable. You work in the office. >> Council member >> clarify if there was an activity like night or whatever then t-shirts not in the office. >> They're not in the office. Correct. So, it's not saying, but if you're working in the office, the t-shirts aren't going to be acceptable. Wear a college shirt. All right, next one. We try to keep it as professional as possible. All right, next one was uh dress codes done. So, now we're talking about the solar app grant. Solar app grant. >> Yeah, this is something that Rum River Consulting um Adam from Baseline gave us an opportunity to share a grant opportunity. Um he's doing it for a couple of cities. You have to have had some solar permitting in the past and we've had two. Um sounds like there is a $5,000 base incentive and Rum River would keep that for doing all of the work to do the grant. Um but based on what he was able to find, it looks like we would get another 5,000 because we've already had some applications. So basically, it's a grant to keep permitting and a grant to have Rum River continue to permit for them. >> So we would get a grant in the city of Nell then for $5,000 if we do this, >> right? >> And then they would also get a $5,000 for doing all the work for the setup fee. >> Talk about what what is is there any negative impact to the city if we do this? Are they going to get a bunch of mailings and emails because we're doing this and bothering residents? >> No. Is there >> it's just applying for one of the grants that's out there and he said not very many cities are doing it. Um he said there was no cost back to the city >> like the no cost and a $5,000 benefit if there's no negative. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Member Glazer, >> what's the current process when somebody comes in and wants to put solar PV on their property, whether freestanding or on their house, >> they fill out a regular permit just like in anybody anything else. Just like Yeah. >> So, a little more complicated with the >> inspections that they have to do, but mostly the cost for Rum River is to get it implemented and submit the grant. Sometimes the grants are not very much fun to complete. >> Yeah. I guess I just it just it's it's free money. It's not unlike the sometimes in the utility business where you know there's free ridership on things. We already have a process in place. Rum River Rum River Consulting is going to get $5,000 and um >> and the city should potentially get $5,000 >> and the city the city so the city will put $5,000 in the bank basically. But if somebody was looking for solar, this process will help the resident go through the process. That's what I'm So it is actually could be a benefit if you're looking for solar. Council, go ahead. >> Yeah, I was just going to ask a clarifying question. I mean, it sounds like this speeds it up and makes it more efficient. So, they're going to pay us. We're going to get money and it's going to make the process more efficient and take it off of city staff's hand. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Randall, go ahead. As I read this, it's not changing any of our permitting processes or our ordinances. So that have to adhere to whatever ordinances we have. >> I read it and didn't find anything negative in it. So I thought there was like a catch I was going to hear tonight, but I didn't. Council >> Bryant Got a second. Any other discussion? Let's move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries. Next one. All right. So, this is the discussion of resolution 2025 to submit an RFP for the city attorney and prosecuting attorney. Um, I think there was a nice I gotta just find it. Hold on. >> This is one that I I had brought up and I'm going to bring it up because I think it's one of the things is basically putting it out to bid. Not that Mr. Rupy's done anything wrong. That's not the case. But it's to put it out to bid and say, are we doing a cost-effective process? >> Thank you for the wakeup call. Um, and that's what the intent of this is. Uh, and the RFP is the process to do that. >> Miss Johnson, is there anything else that I missed on this? >> Uh, just that we want to do it with the prosecuting um attorney as well. >> Yeah. So, it's both. It's our city attorney and prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney. Can we just touch base on that? That's the person that bills us in the random invoices whenever they have time and it makes it very confusing. Not to be confused with Mr. Whoopy. He bills us every month and we have a we have a bill. Um, >> and not to be confused with a as a relative of mine because his last name is Glazer. >> Oh, the other attorney. Yes. >> Yes. >> Council member Rainbow. Go ahead. >> And this follows in the in the last few years, we've gone out for RFPs both for our uh planner and also our building official. So, Uh, Council Member Swansson, go ahead. >> Yeah, as the new guy, I just have a clarifying question. So, when we put it out for RFP, is it just getting an hourly rate? Because obviously there's a lot more to having a a good attorney than that or is it like an I mean do they like give us a proposal similar to what Sydney Nash did for the ordinances where we have a lot of information to review to make or is it just basically asking if there's a cheaper hour have to defer to council member Brian or council member Rainville on this one. I have not been through this process. >> Mr. Mayor, >> council member Glazer, >> can we uh ask Mr. Rupy when you receive an RFP? What do you provide a city when They ask for services that you provide. >> We typically will provide them background information about the firm, the number of employees we have, the number of attorneys we have, their educational background, and the types of experience that we have that might be gerine to the client. Uh for cities, that may be a little different than for our township clients. And then basically we do have a section on our our price range and then what do we bill for what do not we do not bill for and also uh we talk about what are our insurance that we have and but it's basically it's more uh information about the types of services that we could provide to the city. In your case, I think almost everything would be stuff that you already know because we're already been working with you for the past 16 years. So, um, Mr. Rupy, would that also for since you're representing us, would your letter include how many years you've been representing now then? Um, and some of the examples of what you've done, would that be something that you would send back with yours? >> Yes, we would tell you that we were there at the beginning. We my office incorporated you and then we were brought in to incorporate you as because we had special expertise in that area once we and we don't typic you had a attorney at that time. We do not poach other people's clients. But when that attorney then after incorporation left the law firm that he was with to go with the Scott County attorney's office as a a prosecuting attorney for better benefits and so forth. Uh we were asked to come in and be the actual city attorneys. We agreed to do civil, but we would not agree to do the prosecution. And so the city historically has had a different law firm for prosecution, but we have handled all of your civil um things since uh 2009. >> Council member Randville. >> Um to Mr. Rupy. So if we go out for RFPs, are we obligated as we are when we do a uh bid for road construction that we are obligated to go with the lowest bid, but at if it's an RFP that doesn't have a specific dollar amount because it's based on usage, do we have to go with the lowest? >> That's a great question. No, for professional staff, your engineer, your planner, your attorney, you are you are not held to the requirements of the municipal contracting law. That is very specific and does has a exclusion for professional services which would be your planner, your engineer, your lawyer and so forth. That is because you have to be able to work with these people. You have to trust them. you have to be able to work with them. Uh and so they you do not have to go with the lowest quote. You have to factor in all of the material that is available to you in making your decision, their level of expertise, whether you feel like you could work with them in the short term and the long term. And uh so it is not a requirement that you go with the lowest quote that you receive. Is there any other questions or discussion on it? >> Mr. Mayor Council Swanson. >> Yeah. I I would just like to make the point I think we owe it to our residents to at least shop around and see what's out there. Um I agree with what you said about Bob. You know, nothing against Bob. I think he's as far as I know doing a great job, but yeah, it makes a lot of sense to >> other discussions. Would somebody like to make a motion? >> May council member Rainville. Go ahead, please. I was I would move that sta that council provide direction to to the staff um to proceed with drafting and issuing a request for proposal for city attorney and prosecuting attorney services. Have a second. Any other discussion? Okay, move to vote. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. Motion carries. Thanks for uh doing the motion on that. Thank you Mr. Rupy for the explanation on that. I just Okay, next one. Request for council action on the hours of city office is open to the public. Miss Johnson, you want to do the quick explanation on this one? >> At the last meeting, we were asked to direct or we were directed to look at the office hours and um since November 2021, we've been open to 10:00 to 5:00. Um, as we did some research, the cities around us, you can see Oak Grove is 8 to 4, East Bethl is 8 to 4, Blaine is 8 to 4, Elkrove is 8 to 4:30, Andover is 8 to 4:30, and St. Francis and Ham Lake offer a longer day Monday through Thursday, and then a half day on Fridays. So, the proposal from staff is to modify to be open from 8 to 4 or 7:30 to 4:30 with a half a day on Friday. Brian, >> I'll make a motion to um >> got a motion. >> Second. >> Got a second. I will never be able to get to the city. I'm just going to say if we move to this because I'm not going to be able to see you via email. So just so we're and that's it's not a reason to make a decision on me but all right any other discussion here. Go ahead. >> I would just say history is in going to the 5:00 was when people were coming into the office such as work and it takes a while to get here but more not more things now are done via email. permits are online. Fire permits are online. More things that we can do electronically versus having >> earlier fully support that. >> Any other discussion? >> All right, let's move to vote. All those in favor of the motion say I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. >> I'm not saying it's not the right thing. I just don't get to come visit the city anymore. That's all. >> All right, we're moving into old business. First one up. What do we have here? Ordinance update proposal. I'm going to say, Miss Johnson, what do we have for ordinance update proposal? >> I'm going to actually defer to attorney Rupy. I did send you out all of his um comments on the two proposals um on Monday. So, I'm hoping that you all had a chance to review that. >> This is the email that's sitting in front of us right here. >> It is. >> Okay. I have not. So, I'm going to read it really quick. So Bob, can you kind of give a good synopsis of both of the proposals? >> Sure. I'll maybe I'll just talk about the sort of the high points if you don't mind. Uh in terms of overall price for the services to be provided, the cost is about uh $9,000 more for WSB versus the proposal submitted by collaborative planning. uh because WSB's price in their proposal does not include shoreland or flood plane updates and that is part of your zoning ordinance and you do have a need to update those provisions. They have that as an extra $4,000 add-on that is that shoreland and flood plane is already included in Cindy Nash's proposal for collaborative planning. So that's the difference for the base price of $9,000 difference. Also anticipating that the city will want additional hourly work work done either additional meetings or additional memos or summaries whatever the add-on cost both are willing to do it at an hourly rate. WSB's person that would Lor's rate is $218 an hour for this extra work versus Sydney Nash's hourly rate of 133 which is quite a bit different. Also, uh, all of collaborative planning's meetings with the city as you process the new zoning ordinance amendments would be in person versus WSB for the bulk of it, the diagnostic provision where you're working through the new language. They're proposing three virtual meetings. And I can tell you as a person who's on a virtual meeting right now, your technology, even though I worked with uh this afternoon, it is not working. It you guys are cutting out. You're I'm losing all sound for like 10 seconds at a time, then it comes back and then it goes back out again. So hopefully you can at least hear me. U and so >> Yep. And then the other thing, so you definitely if you're thinking about WSB's proposal, you definitely want to make sure that that they are in person for any of this work and and you want to make sure that if there is a additional cost, you find that out. The other issue that is in their proposal is that in their kickoff, WSB proposes having Cindy Nash attend that. and they also in their proposal reference working from Cindy's updated list of things that need to be uh modified in your current zoning ordinance to correct potential issues. So I if that's the case and they are working from Cindy's work product and having Cindy involved at these meetings, I think we need to clarify exactly how Cindy is going to interplay with WSB if they are chosen to lead this project and what is, you know, is Cindy just going to be involved in that kickoff? is Sydney going to be reviewing each of the drafts as WSB proposes them and then she's going to be giving her comments aka doing a lot of the work. She is going to be charging you for that. So is there a cost savings for you based on that? So those are the five major cost issue that I saw in there and then they they all have different small minor changes back and forth between it but in the sub and substance it's all basically the same work. >> I think there's one more point at just at the bottom of your summary. Um Mr. Rupy it talks about uh so I'm on bottom of page two right now. is talking about one inerson meeting and then it's got Cindy's proposals that does not create an online survey. So that was one difference and Cindy's proposal does not propose creating a website but she does propose preparing a summary of the ordinance. >> Correct. >> So everything that you stated was a positive for having Miss Nash do it. That was the only um thing that is probably less. It's not an online survey, but I don't know how important that is anyways, but I wanted to bring that up. >> And the and the website, uh, I'm not I I didn't quite understand their their language if they were creating their own website for this or if they were just going to provide materials for the city to place on its own website. >> Got it. I I don't know. I was just reading your the this proposal and I don't know which way it is either. All right. So, with that, is there um a request for council action on this? >> Decide if we want to move forward with it. And if we want to move forward with it, then I'm going to have to find some money because it is something that I recommend get done. Zoning has caused issues. We all know that if it's possible to get it done, that would be wonderful. >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Member Swinson. >> Yeah, I think it makes a lot of sense to do it. I think it's almost uh no question that we need to do it. It's just picking someone and I I mean, in my mind, the clear pick is uh um Yeah, I I think we need to do it. >> Council member Glazer, you got one? I was just going to say that, you know, I think we've done our due diligence. We've gone out to see what's what options are available to us. Um, planner Nash has a relationship with the city already. It's clear that her uh services are going to be less expensive. um then WS is it WSB and um we definitely need to make some changes that I I'm hoping will benefit our residents to make um the process of improving their improving their land um easier and less expensive. The number one complaint I get from residents is working with planning and zoning, not with our planning and zoning committee. It's trying to split lots and it's trying to work through this. It's complicated. Um, and it's the number one thing that I receive phone calls on. So, I would love to move forward. I do have a question. Is where would the funding come from for where where's the money coming from? Is it just coming from the general fund? Is this one we need to call Lori and say where are we going to pull it from? >> Yep. This would be something that we would talk about during the budgeting meeting and see if we can. >> So, what we could do is approve this pending where we're getting the funding from and whe what that's going to dictate our timeline whether it starts in 25 or if we have to budget it for 26. >> Council member Glacier, go ahead, please. >> I'd like to ask a question about about the funds that have been set aside for um making improvements to this building. Well, um I we've had some discussion about it. Um I think there's over $60,000 that's set aside there. While while I firmly believe there's some things that we need to do cosmetically to this building, I don't think we need to spend that $60,000 to create um a council chamber at this time in this building. I don't think it's um the building is conducive to that. Is there any way that some of that money could be used to to be allocated for this purpose >> with a budget adjustment? We'd have to prove it. >> We would have to approve it. Yep. That fund and back into >> Great recommendation, Mr. Mayor. >> Council member Swiss. >> I think that is a great recommendation and not to go too far down that road, but it to Mr. Rupy's point, it'd be nice to uh allot some of that money to getting a new sound system, too. I don't mean to go spending all >> that that certainly would benefit the build the building and the residents. And >> we're moving there. We've got one thing added so we can clearly see. >> So that's great. And we don't have a heat deflector pouring off from the old projector. >> Council member Brian, >> do we want to um next Wednesday anyway to talk about the budget? Do we want to take a stab at going through where we were at with 2025 to see if we can come up with this >> pass it or pass it contingent on So usually we can shelf it till that. I I would >> personally like to move forward with approving it. >> No, I'm saying we can approve it contingent on you know if we need to if we need to find the money next week or >> I think finding it next week and then that'll determine whether we do it in 25 or 26. But since we just had the conversation we'd like to go forward and approve or deny it now and be done. >> Council member Rainville. >> Depending on where the dollars lie, it could be that some of it is the end. I mean, we're not >> certainly could be. So I I would move that we give direct direction to council or excuse me direction to staff um that the council chooses to move forward Cindy Cindy >> Cindy and Lori. >> So let me let me start over. >> Yes, please. because my speaker was not. >> Please clarify. >> Yeah. So, I I move that we council adopts a motion to move forward with updating our ordinances and that with with using collaborative planning, Cindy Nash, and that staff is directed to look at our budget. So, both Natalie and Lori Joerger look at our budget to see where we can find the funds for this come from funds here. if there's extra road and bridge funds wherever that we can legally move from one line to another and um if we have to we would look at 2025 and into 2026. >> I would second your motion. The timing can be determined from uh from that conversation and hopefully next week we can make that decision. >> All right, let's move to uh a vote. All those in favor say I. I >> I oppose. Motion carries. Okay, so another one done. Okay, we're going to talk about job description next. Approval of the administrative job description. Uh you've got multiple in here. Deputy clerk, administrative assistant, and front desk. Any questions or conversation on that? >> Mr. Mayor, on on the first um job description that's in here, deputy clerk, one of the things that we talked about in the in the previous meeting when um we were we asked that um Miss Johnson go back and refine the number of job descriptions that that she was putting together. One of the things that that we ask for that I ask for is that we hold off in um bringing on someone with the title of deputy clerk until Miss Johnson has completed her um training as uh the three-year clerk training. So I I'm not I realize that this is being brought back. My preference would be that I I think um Natalie, please tell me is it stle? >> Statle St. >> Statle. So, Miss Stle, what's her current job description? Is it is it finance assistant and communications specialist? >> My proposal, Mr. Mr. Mayor, is that we continue with that same job des the uh the job title um under the uh the job description that's been put together. Take that last piece one more time would be the >> that the job title be city of now then finance assistant and communications specialist. >> Okay. >> I'm I'm okay with that. You said finance clerk, >> finance assistant. >> Finance assistant >> and communication specialist. >> Mayor just Yep. Council response, go ahead. C >> can you just restate what what would the purpose of changing the title be? Could you say that one more time? I'm sorry. >> Well, my what I what I see here is we're cons are we considering this a promotion from finance assistant to deputy clerk? >> It's just a change in title. >> Just a change in title. >> I guess I should have asked for clarification on that, >> Mr. Mayor, >> Council Member Rainbow >> to to to Mr. Rupy, are we um statute does statute dictate we have a city clerk, which is what we're looking for in number C or letter C um and a deputy clerk. >> Statute requires a clerk. It does not require that I to my knowledge a deputy clerk. Although it is good to have someone appointed because if the clerk is somehow unavailable, you want a deputy to be able to step into the shoes of the clerk to sign documents and also in case of if it's election time or somebody somebody who has official designation by the city council to be able to take on step into the shoes of the clerk and fulfill those statutory obligations. >> Thank you. Okay. Out of that conversation, do we have a recommendation? Do we keep it um as finance assistant or put it back to deputy clerk? >> Council member Swanson. >> I would lean towards deputy clerk because I I don't think the change in title is super significant. It's not a promotion. It's not a raise. And as Mr. Rupy pointed out, it allows us more flexibility and getting work done in the >> Yes, sir. Moving it back to deputy clerk. Okay, good good discussion on that. Anything on administrative assistant position for Miss uh Stoke Stokal or front desk receptionist. And then the last one, it it says city clerk in here, but it doesn't say it on the agenda. Johnson, that would be for you. because we haven't really had anything >> I think. >> But doesn't that jump over to this one right here? >> It does. >> Okay. >> Which I believe is our next one to talk about. >> But we need to uh >> move the approval of the administrative job descriptions. I would move that we approve the administrative job descriptions as presented by >> Okay. Is there a second? >> One second. Okay, we got a second. All right, all those in favor say I. >> I >> opposed. Motion carries. All right, that drops us down to 10 C at this point. Approval of job board city clerk job description and employment agreement. Um, and this is the one that had the red line version that hopefully everybody got a chance to read. So, who wants to start off discussion on this particular one? So, can we start with the the first one on top is the employment agreement. Is that where we want to start? Does anybody have a recommendation of where to start this one? Okay. So, employment agreement is page one of four. Uh there's a bunch of red lines to this one. Um salary we believe we've already agreed on, so I think we're good there. performance reviews. You have one coming due on the 28th for this for this document. >> Yes, Mr. Mayor. What I was hoping for is a review just to see how if I'm meeting your expectations, I guess. Um, I've been doing it now for almost eight months and I haven't really had a lot of feedback as to if I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing, >> where you want me to improve. >> I think everybody's in agreement that we we can do a review. The question is is the process for the review here. It's got employer um the employer, which is the city, will appoint two council members each year to conduct a performance review. So it's difficult to do a performance review with just two people giving you input or the other option was to close a meeting and do a performance review together. >> The way it's written is two I would actually prefer the other way to do a closed meeting so everybody can provide their feedback. I think that's a more inclusive meaning everybody can provide you that. Um that's what I would prefer to what's written here but I don't know how anybody else feels about that. Mayor >> Councman Rao, >> can we can we go by bullet point because I I had something under salary. >> Okay, >> back up to salary. >> Position and pension are fine. Um I'm uncomfortable with and I voiced this at the last meeting. Um wait making Natalie wait two years for a wage increase. I I wouldn't take a job where I had to wait two years for a wage increase. I don't know who else would. Um I believe that if we're giving her we're doing performance appraisals and the performance appraisals are um her her her workload or her work her duties and her performance is satisfactory and she's continues to expand on her knowledge level which she will be because she's taking the additional classes um that we at we consider um wages I just don't think it's fair to an employee to ask them to wait two years. >> Reo, this doesn't say that they have to wait two years. >> Says there will be a cost of living and adjustment uh state provided all employees. >> Okay. The next sentence is the parties agree to negotiate an appropriate salary increase upon employee achieving the certified municipal clerk designation from the clerk Minnesota clerks and finance officers association which is two years away. >> That would be an additional raise is what we're talking about. So already getting a cost of living. This would be an additional >> what I would consider a merit raise. >> Yes. Yeah. I mean she's not she doesn't have steps. Um it's up to council to decide that. I just don't think it's um fair to to Natalie or whoever's in that position that they wait two years for. >> I totally agree with Councilman uh Rainville. Um but as it's written here saying, you know, we will negotiate a raise in two years when she doesn't rule out us giving her a raise if she's doing a super awesome job. >> Correct. And that's what we ended up leaving last time. And so I I I think that would be the appropriate time. But I I >> council's discretion is really what it comes down to more than anything else. >> So as long as it doesn't rule out a raise, then >> Mr. Mayor, to me it says the parties agreed an an appropriate salary increase upon employee achieving the da da da. It doesn't say in the interm. We can look at it. And if we're going to go that route, then we should have something in there that says that council direction salary increases can be made prior to that point. Other words, we're leaving it out and we're saying only upon completion. >> Council member Glacier, go ahead. >> Uh going back to our, you know, my position in our last discussion that council member Rainbow was referring to. Um we established a a salary range for this position and we we determined you know a specific salary based on you know experience and you know the needs of the city. We don't we don't have extensive services that have to be managed and more and more of our our services are being farmed out to to contractors. I come I come more from the the corporate perspective. you come into, you know, you you negotiate um a salary which is based on a range um you know, ideally uh and most businesses you don't get necessarily past the midpoint. And so sometimes those things have to be re re-evaluated, you know, every couple of years. I'm of the perspective that, you know, we establish a very a good salary. We have a very good benefit package. Our our new employees get five weeks of vacation. Um Mr. Mayor, I would advocate that the the language be changed. Um that uh in regard that there just be cost of living adjustment and that's what most of us who come from the corporate world um we have to deal with. Now I know council member Swenson said, you know, that's why most people maybe don't stay um anywhere longer than a couple of years. But back to my point, if we go if we start looking at the rule of 72 and you want to give if we want to give merit increases every year to somebody, well, in in based on what you wanted to give previously at 5% every year, in 14 12 years, Miss Johnson would be making $210,000 a year. That totally, you know, would put this, you know, city wouldn't be able to afford to do that. So I I I stand strong on you know what I proposed before. Um we have a a very good salary range. We establish a very fair salary to come uh entry point to come into the position. Um I I don't think we need to I don't think the city is in a position to offer um some type of schedule that is going to guarantee other merit increases. It's for me that's unheard of. >> This was written as I as it hold one second. This was written as as kind of a compromise looking at it. We have the ability as a council to do a raise every year or as needed. So if a salary adjustment needs to be made, we can bring it up into an RCA. This was written as a compromise uh from the two sides saying that yes uh a cost of living is there and we will review it uh upon completion of training. So that's why it was written this way. >> Rainbow, go ahead. >> This is it's this is saying And I'm not, Mr. Council member Blazer. I'm not saying she gets a 10% raise every That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that it's unfair to not look at her performance and what she's done for the city, the additional training that she's receives next year. Um, it's unfair to make her wait two years to be considered for a raise, whether that raise a 0.25% to 5% or at 5%. It's unfair to make her wait. I am only asking that there's verbiage that is clearer to say that we will look at her performance on an annual basis and council can determine whether or not a a a wage increase is appropriate. Again, I don't >> council, would you remove the last two lines there and just put that exact thing. >> That that's I mean that's fair. Um >> that's what I believe we'll be doing anyway is we're going to do >> but it doesn't say that in here. It says at the end of that period. And >> so do you want to write what you just stated there and make a >> motion is to remove that? >> Yes. What was the proposal? Well, >> the The proposal is that we take out that last last sentence and just say that the council will review employ the employees performance and determine whether or not merit increases are appropriate. >> I think that's applicable to anybody to tell you the truth. >> Mr. Mayor, so >> let's go back to council member Glazer. Go ahead. So, as well as a cost of living adjustment, >> that is something that is always available if the council chooses to do a cost. Cost of living and your salary are not the similar. They're not. >> Council member Rainbow, we come from different worlds. You worked you worked in for in a government office most of your career. I have I have not. So, while early in my career at certain jobs I got a merit raise, that didn't last very long. and and I wasn't making a heck of a lot of money. It was in the the mid to early 80s. Um but I unless I made a job change, a career, you know, a position change, typically what most employees see is a cost of living adjustment there. And even the mayor stated it in the the last time we were having discussion that merit increases are not a common thing. um outside I didn't realize that that you know governments were you know offering those types of raises on top of cost of living adjustments. >> So if you don't m Mr. Mayor >> Council Rael, go ahead. >> If if you if you are saying that other than COLA, there's no incentive for an employee to try to better themselves in order to serve the council and the community because, oh, I'm going to be getting a cola. And the the city will determine in budget se sessions every year whether or not and what the cola amount is. That's not a given, >> guys. We could change it to this right here. We could change it to a performance evaluation raise and Ola, uh, cost of living, merit, throw all that stuff out the door and say it's a performance-based raise. And if your performance is good, you can have said percent. If it's not good, you you're going to get less. We could go that route, too. >> But I'm in agreement with council member Glazer on this. this there's not these do your job and because you do some additional training you don't get merit and this and I this is too much I I don't agree to that at all so I want to be careful and again we can evaluate performance every year and we can give the appropriate raise if we feel that the employees doing good but maybe it's called a performancebased raise >> council member Brian go ahead you got to hold one please >> I maybe I'm maybe I'm missing something but to your point if instead of saying employee um the employer shall provide employee the cost of living adjustment if we simply replace cost of living with salary that includes whatever whatever salary adjustments that we that we include because last year we didn't do cola we just had merit and we split it across everybody so then if we just had cola in here then nobody's getting anything >> and that's a decision council makes but cola and salary are two cola and salary increases are two different things >> they're the same thing they're adjusting your salary >> but a cola is based on cost of living, not your performance. It's like giving somebody a stipen for working a midnight shift. Not getting more money for what you're doing. You're getting more money for the hours you're working it. So, the a cola and salary are two separate things. >> Hey, Council Member Swanson, you're next. >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to keep the the cola in there because that is a separate thing. And to Councilwoman Rainville's point, again, I don't disagree with her, but I don't think we really need to put language in this contract. I guess, you know, laying out the council's authority. We have the authority regardless of what is in that contract. I would rather keep it as uh Mr. Ruby edited it if anything to say that once she completes that then you know we will negotiate an appropriate salary cuz that in my mind that's sort of Natalie's worst case scenario is going two years and then having that negotiation. So it sort of her worst case scenario. I would rather have that than just some >> whale >> just some vague language saying yeah we'll think about it each year because again we can as a council um you know propose a raise at any time and I'll probably agree with you you know when we do give Natalie review if you have a proposal for a >> proposal is to leave it exactly like it is >> yeah because we don't need to include language on what our authority is it it just is >> I I think Everybody's made their points pretty clear on this one. We don't agree and that's okay. But if we just leave it like it is, it's like Mr. Rupy edited. Is it bad? No, it's not bad. It just everybody's got a different interpretation of it. And I think that's okay. It's okay we don't agree on everything. So my recommendation is do exactly what council member Swansson says. Leave it as is. And if we do that, can we get agreement on that before we move on? You okay with that? Just leave it as is >> that bullet point. Yeah, it's fine. >> Okay. Can we move on fast past that one? All right. Take a deep breath and let's go to the next page or something. Did anybody do you want to go point by point? Uh, Council Member Rainbow, if >> anybody has anything. I just we had skipped over that and I feel >> I'm sorry. Okay. >> I said we had just skipped over that and I feel very passionate that we're not doing what's best for our employees. >> Okay. um performance review. Do we want to go with the two member uh council members or do we want to go with the closed meeting? >> Go ahead. Council member Brian. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Council Brian. >> I would I I like the five I like the closed meeting concept. >> Any other discussion? >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Just that. Yeah, that we would include that count. The staff always has the ability to call for a closed meeting or they can call for it open if they choose to. >> They want if they want to they could have it open but I don't think most would want. I think that the intent would be to close because it's to just talking about performance >> with what your how your performance is. >> You okay with the closed meeting? >> Yes sir. I to to to echo what you said earlier, especially with this position, I think it's important that that all members of the council have be able to have >> most constructive feedback. >> And if you only do two, then how how do you you try to do it every third year? The whole thing doesn't make sense. So, I'd really like to do a close meeting so we can update that verbiage. Anything else on performance? Can we can we go to PTO? >> Mr. Mayor, >> council member, >> are we scheduling a performance review for August 28th or are we picking another time? Good question. How many meetings do we already have in August? And that's only like two weeks away. I would prefer to pick another date at sometime in September instead of trying to jam another meeting in here >> if we could. It's not to delay performance feedback to you and I try to give you feedback whenever I have it. So, um, can we bump that out to ju just say in September and we'll figure out a date or do we want to figure out a date right now? right now. >> Probably better for us to actually pick a date so we have one on the calendar. >> Okay. Um, could I >> budget meeting on the 3? >> Yep. And then we have a council meeting on the 9th. Could we look at the week of the 15th? Is that possible? I don't think we have any meetings currently scheduled. >> Tuesday, September 16th work. >> Make that work. >> Good. It works for me. >> Does that work for you? It's your performance review, so it's got to work for you, too. >> It should. I don't have my calendar. >> Can't be on a Wednesday in October cuz that's dance night. >> I'm putting it on here right now so it doesn't get missed. >> All right. So, that would be updated to the 16th of September. Thank you for bringing that up, Council Member Brian. Okay. Anything else for performance review? Can we go to PTO? Any comments? I'll say what is the next one you somebody would like to comment on? >> Termination benefits. >> Termination benefits. That's my next spot. >> Um I I don't know where this came from this, you know, as a if we've ever offered our city clerk termination benefits. you know, essentially it's a halfyear salary that we're that we'll be paying, three months going out the door. Um, and then, uh, ongoing benefits, salary benefits for for another 3 months, and then the the city's already paying for unemployment insurance. Um, but I don't see the necessity of this. If um you know the clerk is doing their job, uh I I don't think we need to pro provide a six-month termination benefit. Typical typical termination benefit um I think when I left Kexus it was one or two weeks for every year of service when I was there. Um so I would be I would be if we're to do something I would be more comfortable with something along those lines. not a not six months of of uh of salary on top of unemployment benefits compensation. >> Council member Swanson, >> go ahead. >> Yep. Thanks. As uh as I pointed out last time, I I too agree that I, you know, I have not encountered a six-month severance policy in the private world, but in my research of, you know, other heads of the city, city clerks or city administrators, it looks like it is pretty standard to give the 6 months or 3 months. And I guess to use your analogy with Kexus, you know, I guess I don't know what the office politics were there, but you know, city government with the, you know, newly elected council and the head of government, you know, I can see heads butdding there. When you get new a new manager at Kexus, it's not like they're going to come in and wipe everyone out. And so I I feel like there's less of a risk there than like a new mayor or a council, you know, having an issue where they want to just sort of dismiss the the clerk. So that I think that is the rationale. And I guess I would like to ask Mr. Rupy, I imagine he has some familiarity with this, is is uh a severance package for someone such as Natalie's position, is that pretty standard in city governments? And if so, what is the duration of it typically? >> Yes, it is pretty standard for city administrators or uh to have people that are in charge of city government to have a termination benefits as you put it in your agreement. Uh, and in this case, I believe the city council when they added that in there was thinking of of of Natalie as a Miss Johnson as a head of the city, a head of the staff. In this, Ken a in a type of city administrative position, but without the title. And so, yes, I would answer your question. Normally, you do expect to see some sort of a severance package or termination benefits package. uh due to the political nature of the position. You know, you have new city council that comes in, they want to bring in their own person. Uh it happens in my world as well where people come in and they want to bring in their new, you know, some other city attorney. That's fine, but I have many clients and the administrator or the clerk only has the one job. I think that's typically the um where you see it the most. What is the typical duration in your experience? >> Typically what I have seen is three months. The most I've seen is 6 months from our various cities that we represent. >> I I think three months would be reasonable. That was sort of what I had squared away in my mind. >> Council Rainville, did you have you started? Go >> ahead. Mr. Mayor, um I I'm comfortable with what is there. I would go down to 5 months. But Natalie is in a in a whoever is in this posi position is in a unique position. Every four days she has to worry about council either the mayor or two council members calling a special meeting to talk about her job performance and they could relieve them with three votes. Relieve that person with with three votes that day. that is very um that's very difficult for people to work under that environment. Um and I believe that termination agreement such as this helps lessen that burden of all of a sudden 3 days from now you're out of a job for no fault of their own. Um, we just saw in our federal government complete wipeouts of departments without any rationalization, any reasoning, any sound reasoning for doing what was done. And that can occur to anyone in this position every 3 or 4 days if we call a meeting. Maybe five or six if it's over a weekend. But I believe there needs to be some security for the person that's in that job. Government in these positions are different than private sector. And we don't have unions that we have contracts with that determine terminations and things like that. Um so I'm comfortable with this. I think it's something that is um appropriate. I understand it was supposed to be in the last it wasn't included in the last document or the last um position hired there. Um and they were well if you didn't put it in you don't get it. It's there and I believe that they that that >> Brian do you have any comments? >> Mr. Mayor I was just I I would also agree 6 months seems too long. I mean, anybody can lose their job at any moment in time and and those individuals need to be able to should have some sort of a plan for what they're would do if that happens. Um, but um I also wanted to point out that I believe that was in council member emails that came up with questions. doesn't have to be in there. It's it it's it's something that you know it not expected and whether you get termination benefits or not, you wouldn't have to. And also that um so I mean that does put a a large burden on the city to to to fund that if if if it is included. >> Got a couple comments I'd like to share. um because it is um a position where if we have some transition within council members um does it increase your risk compared to the civilian side? I don't actually know the answer to that. So, I'll just throw it out there. What I would like to see is I'm not I can't sign up for 6 months. What I could sign up and I I think I shared my story is that we did end up letting a person go and we ended up doing about 3 months and I think 3 months gives enough cushion. So, it's kind of that happy medium of not having it or having it. Um, but because of the risk of you literally could have three council members that are disappointed in your performance and you could be let go. Is that a higher risk than a civilian job? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that, guys. >> Well, Mr. Mayor, so gl you know to to counter what council member Swinson said, u one day I showed up for work and a gentleman who was a manager got promoted to vice president and he and another vice president decided that my department was going to get eliminated and I could reapply for one job against one of my fellow employees that they were trying to get rid of. So it can it can happen. It happens in the corporate world all the time. >> Um it's a free will to work state. Um, and I was offered the I was offered the opportunity to reapply for a job or take a severance package. And I, like I said, I believe that the severance package that I received was was based on um uh I got so many weeks pay based on the years of service that that I put forth. >> Can I ask what you recommend for this? Um, you know, I either I mean I would be okay with I I would feel better about 3 months or if we could come up with, you know, a reasonable um, you know, so many, you know, a certain amount of pay based on the number of years of service, whether it's so many weeks of pay for, you know, a year's service, whether it's a week or two weeks pay for, I think it was two weeks pay for a year for every year's service, if I remember correctly. >> Would you like like it rewritten like that? Is that what you're recommending? Or can we just leave >> I I would be like I said, I would be more comfortable with 3 months than 6 months un unless we could agree on um >> we beat this one to death. Again, we we're not in agreement across the board, but is 3 months a happy medium and can we move on with that? >> Councilman Rainville, you said you're not happy with that. It sounds like we probably got enough as a council to get three months. Can we move on to the next one then? So it's not after six months. So there's two paragraphs in this. If you look at the first paragraph, it says uh by the employer after the first 6 months. During such time that employee will be willing and able to to perform the duties of the city clerk, the employer will pay cash payment equal to 3 months aggregate salary and to continue to provide provide to provide and pay in benefits. should be pay and benefits set forth earlier in this document. So what we're talking about is the second paragraph. It's that the duration of the salary. It's at 6 months. That would be changed to 3 months. So I think that's an important note. So you just be careful on how that's rewritten who's ever rewriting this thing. All right. Is there any other compliance? I know Mr. Rupy put a bunch of stuff in under general conditions and then he wrote some additional comments on there. Anything else for the employment agreement? >> Councilman Rainbow. Go ahead, please. >> Um, >> first full bullet point on page three of four. Um, if employee voluntarily resigns uh a position with the employee, the employee agrees to give the employer 2 weeks 14 days advanced notice. Um, I think we should designate business days and working days. So, you don't count holidays. If it's if it's uh uh what's the nove the November you get Thanksgiving and the day after you don't count those they're they're working days in the office that they be business days um >> I make a recommendation we just change it to 30 days and call it >> I'd be happy with 30 um if if Elvis >> but then it doesn't matter if it's you could just say 30 calendar days >> okay >> if that would be okay I think that would be a for this particular position I think a 30-day notice would be appropriate and that's a great >> there's a lot to get we've learned on this council there's a lot to learn in bringing somebody in and training in >> 30 days >> Natalie you can't leave and then we don't got to worry about that >> I have no intent >> so 30 days >> okay >> good on that one anything else with Mr. Rupe's comments. He's already kept us out of trouble um with all of the remaining that I read. Okay. So, do we do request for council action right now on the employment agreement or do we keep going? >> Council member Ryan, >> I would make a a motion to offer Miss Natalie Johnson the employment agreement for the um the city first as amended. >> I'll second that motion. I would love to get this passed. Any other discussion? >> We're not in full agreement, but I think we're close enough. >> Who's going to revise it? Will Bob revise it or >> I I actually don't know who is revise. It's a very good question. >> I can revise it if or we can have a >> I'd like to see Mr. Rupy revise it. >> Mr. Rupy, would you do the revision on that for us? I will revise it and have it to Natalie tomorrow morning. >> You're the best. Okay. Um, all those in favor? >> I I >> I >> opposed. >> Got it. I know there was some dissent. So, you're and I um motion carries. There was no no Naz. Okay. Next one on the block. >> Did I miss one? >> We skipped them. But yeah, we can go back to the recycling thing now. That's fine. >> We moved the recycling ones down. Yep. Yep. >> But we didn't get them under new business. But so we can get them now. >> Oh, I was thinking >> Mr. Mayor, I'm I'm okay with um just for the record, I'm okay with changing the vendors, but um when I made the question about um amending the fee schedule because I noticed that at least some of these um the proposal was wherever it went for that there was um extra cost that would be provided for for things that we hadn't charged for. um or that wasn't wasn't listed under current vendor even though we charged for them. So, I just wanted to make sure that um if I I wasn't intending to lower the fee schedule, but that there's especially something about skid steer tires where it went up to like $200, but we were charging $2 and25 if that covers our cost cuz I know those things are heavy and um so that at least I think we need to you're >> on page 59. Is that what we're talking about? >> Yes, 59 and 56. And I just wanted to that to um make a motion to um authorize changing vendors for the electric bulb for the light bulbs as well as the tires. But that we also need to take a look at our fee schedule for those specific things with the new fees included that um we're we're still able to um we're charging the right amount and we're making sure that our our staff time is included in that in that. Um, I know there was talk about looking at the fee schedule again. So, I just it wasn't mentioned in the resolution. So, I just wanted to to bring that up. >> That's my motion. >> Second, Mr. >> Mayor. Oh, >> for quick discussion. Council member >> for me especially as it pertains to ballasts in in fluorescent lighting. If somebody have there's some old technology out there and some of those old PCB ballast can weigh up to 10 pounds based on our current fee schedule. We're not charging enough for those please. >> We have never the ballast. So this the these numbers are what we got from the statements. in the ordinance will be correct. Just the tubes. >> Yeah. Just >> no ballast. >> No. And I I when I I was helping I looked all through Home Depot for a bast. I didn't know it was this little tiny box. I >> used to be really large, but they're much smaller now. The old ones are copper. I t I Well, I asked my husband last night and the old ones are recycle. >> We We can't just We can't just recycle them as copper because the old ones have PCBs in them, >> okay? >> Which is a hazardous waste. >> And then not taking them as say that we're not taking those. >> So that was the motion. >> Yeah. >> And the motion is not just fluorescent bulbs as stated on the RCA. It's light. >> And there was a second on it. All right. We need to vote. Any other discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Mr. Mayor. >> Council member Ryan. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Oh, mayor. No, we missed the appointing for city responsible >> back into the starting gate. Mr. Brian, >> where are we missing? >> Sorry, it's the very last one because it's something that we have to do. >> I got you. Gotcha. You're right. >> In order for me to the authority >> the bullet under 10 C >> 10 C that I crossed I already crossed 10C off, but I don't know how I missed that. >> We missed. All right. >> All right. So, we're responsible city authority. All right. Talk us through this one, Miss Johnson. Uh basically this is what is required. Um we have to have somebody uh appointed as a responsible authority and as of right now it's still Scott. So >> okay so we need to appoint you as a responsible authority for the city of now then. >> Okay. Any discussion on this? >> How did I miss this one? Where's the last one? I missed the >> very last page. >> I checked that bullet and yeah I don't stick it. >> So we have a motion. >> Uh no not yet. Mr. Mayor, >> Council Member Ry, >> make a motion um approving the resolution to appoint Natalie Johnson, our new city clerk, as the responsible authority. >> Second. >> Well, we got like 3 seconds, so that's perfect. All right. Any other discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion carries. >> Move to adjourn. All right. Second. Meeting adjourned. Thank you. Have a great evening. Y >> the recorder still on. I think I know that guy in the audience that was >> Thank you. Good night. >> And I think I went to school with him today, but I can't tell. >> He looks like But I wouldn't know. Yeah.