We're having our own meeting [laughter] of the stands nation. >> All right. Any changes to the agenda. >> Um, no, Mr. Mayor. >> Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? >> Motion to approve agenda. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. No, presentations, proclamations, or acknowledgements. There's one person here for public comment. This time, go ahead and take the podium. My name is spring and summer I walked miles through the years ago and across a little distraction with the buildings there. It was hard to for people to see us. I felt um one thing that I was going to suggest is having it lighted. So when people want to cross the button and you know have at least that alert forum The other thing is maybe at street instead of having to go into town again with the county. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else? No. All right. Uh, annual organizational matter, sir. All right. So, we have a number of actions that we need to take at the first meeting of the year. Um, give me one second to pull my reference materials. Um so uh the first thing that we will need to do um under our annual organizational matters is the council will need to appoint an acting mayor. As you guys know the acting mayor basically um acts in thestead of the mayor when the mayor is unavailable. So run meetings when the mayor is not there or if the mayor's unavailable they would assume authorities of the mayor for purposes of signatory declaring emergencies that type of stuff. or if the mayor becomes incapacitated. For last year, it's been Kate serving in that role for the mayor. Um, so at this point, it would be you guys to identify who that is so we can insert a name into resolution 2601, appointing an acting mayor for 2026. >> Any appointments? Anybody? >> No. >> I thought you two were going to trade off or something [snorts] last year. >> I was going to nominate one of these two to my left since they haven't had a turn. I've had a term. >> You have, but Megan, you have not had a term. >> So, interested. [laughter] >> Sure. >> So, I would do we need motions for these or we just we're going to do it all at the end. >> Um, this one we is a standalone. Um, uh, we have a resolution for this. We have a resolution for the depositories and then all the other ones we'll fill in the blanks and you guys will make one motion. >> So, I would nominate Megan to do it if she wants to do it. >> Do you? >> There's a there's got to be an element of wanting to do it. >> Yeah. I think you should do it. >> Oh, no. I mean, you haven't had a turn yet. So, we we just rotate. I mean, it's not >> works for me. >> Yeah. >> Can I second? >> I did. I nominated. I'll make a motion to nominate or to have Megan be the acting mayor. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> Okay. Um the other item that is a standalone is oh we'll I guess the depositories are uh uh we'll do that next. So would be the assignments basically for the year. So going through those um the first one is the Scott County Association for Leadership and Efficiency. So, historically what we've done is we've appointed everybody as a representative with the mayor and um serving to the executive committee and the city administrator serving as the alternate to for that. Um because of the mayor's work schedule, he's had difficulties attending the scale executive meetings. So, I've been mostly our presence at those over the last year. Um so, I guess first question is are you guys okay? There's no downside to it to just appointing everybody as a representative and then we post it that you guys are going to be participating in the meeting so it meets open meeting law requirements. And then the second question is how do you guys want to handle the executive scale executive committee? [snorts] >> When are those? >> They are the third Thursday of the month at 7:30 a.m. The location alternates based on who the chair is, but currently they're at Prior Lake City Hall. You wanted to do it. >> Did you want to do it? >> Well, I just didn't know when the meetings were. >> It doesn't matter. >> Do you want [laughter] >> I'm gonna be quiet for the rest of the meeting. >> Um, I should point out you can >> I believe they still provide for virtual participation. I can tell you when I have had to participate virtual. It sounds like a great idea. It just doesn't seem to work quite as well um uh for that standpoint because you've got big conference rooms and you're trying to figure out who's saying what. Um [snorts] >> no, [laughter] >> that's what I thought. I like >> checking a calendar. I was trying to see if the the day I'm supposed to get this thing off my leg was the third Thursday or not. >> Does this interest you or do we want to just stay status quo with what we've been doing? >> Well, I think we can stay status quo, but do we need an alternate? Anyway, >> so I can tell you based on my experience up until the mid- teens, I was the regular attendee at the executive committee meetings because of the availability of who was mayor at the time. Um, I can tell you that it's not there's a difference when an elected official speaks at those meetings, which is all elected officials as opposed to Tom. Everybody knows Tom. Tom's been around a long time, blah blah blah. >> But it's different. Um, when you have a staff person, um, versus having the elected official there participating in the discussions and rightfully so. you're recommending having a elected official >> if possible, but we I it's there have been many years where um it's been me attending when I can't. The advantage of having somebody else that can attend on a making sure there's somebody can attend a regular basis is if I don't get split between, hey, there's a really important thing I'm supposed to be there for and there's something big I should be in the office for as well. Thursday usually whatever she's thinking about. [laughter] I have a standing meeting every Thursday morning or every third Thursday. >> No, it's Friday morning. >> Friday. >> Friday. >> Friday morning. >> Friday mornings at 7:30. >> Did he say Thursday? >> He did say Thursday. >> Did I say Thursday? >> Fridays are Fridays are easier. >> Friday mornings. >> Yeah, you did say. >> That's my bad. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Okay, I'll take it. CC [laughter] about it. >> You guys know that's my wife. >> I know it's right. >> I didn't comment on the Packers. [laughter] [snorts] >> No, I think we're good. um the SJPA um that one typically does not have council participation. U most of the city administrators or their chief, but typically the administrator serves as the representative to the SJPA board and then our chiefs typically serve as the alternates. Um so we would be recommending that we continue with that going forward. Any >> good sounds good. >> Any any additional motions for this? >> No, we'll get to the end. Um Steph is currently writing everything in and then we'll just take a motion. She'll read back that and then you guys say so moved and we're good. Um the Joint Regional Training Facility Board, same thing. Um I serve as the primary board member. Craig would serve as the backup. And since we're going to First Center, which is later on the agenda, um we're probably looking at one to two years remaining on that before we're just not on the board anymore. I wouldn't recommend making any changes at this time. um I35 Solutions Alliance. Um currently, um Josh and Megan are serving as the representatives to that one. That is the second Thursday of the month. 7:30 is it in Richfield current. >> Megan's obviously good luck. She finally got us money. Yeah, we're keeping Megan >> that's all for >> the back. >> Okay, leave it the same. >> Okay. Uh fire relief board. So, this job has um there's two parts to this because whoever serves the fire relief board um uh usually also serves on the fire service area work group, which don't have to, but because of the subject matter um it's usually the same. So the fire relief board, you're basically meeting with the fire on fire relief related items um three to four times a year. Uh we automatically have de facto two seats on the board um which are typically held by a council member and then another staff person. It's traditionally been me. Um and we're there not to talk about hey the Chile fundraiser or whatever. were there to deal with pension related items because our taxpayers underwrite the pension fund. Um Kate has been doing it for five years now, maybe >> five, six years. >> Five, six years. Um and the meetings are typically in the evenings the same time that they're having a fire training meeting. So it doesn't typically conflict with our our meetings. The other item which is typically related is the fire service area work group. So this again is also three to four normally three to four meetings a month and the real purpose for that is to meet with the township representatives. Um and that group serves as an advisory board to you guys to deal with contracts service level um any fire service related items. Um this year is a little bit different because we're the group has decided that we're going to take a bottom up tear it down and completely take a look at it. the um cost allocation formula for the contract. Um so it it's going to be probably more than three or four meetings this year. I would anticipate that we'll meet a little bit more frequently depending on how that discussion involves. Um our contract is due in 2027. So we have a couple years before that, but there's a lot of work that has to be done over the next couple years to work through that. does a really good job at this one. >> If nobody else wants to throw their hat in it, I'll keep it. >> Sounds good. >> Uh, community and civic events committee meets the third Tuesday of the month at 5:30 here at city hall. Um, Amanda has been serving as a primary with Kate as the backup. Um, we are realistically looking at restructuring. Um we've had [clears throat] discussions about restructuring the composition of that group uh to um broaden the participation and engage individuals who are actually engaged um a little bit more. So it will be modifying a little bit but basically that group is responsible for coordinating with other local organizations to host not only the city's civic events but also other community events they're put on within the community. >> [snorts] >> Are you saying you don't want to be on it anymore? >> It doesn't matter to me. >> I can't do other. >> I mean, I'll do we can flip-flop. I'll do it and then you can be back up. >> Sure. >> You want to do that? Because I'm going to be there anyways because of Fire Rescue Day. >> Yeah. >> Well, and and I would suggest that with the backup, it doesn't mean that you both can't be there at the same time when you can. >> What is the modification? Modification. What does the modification look like? >> We don't know yet. Um, we're waiting for the survey results to come back and they'll be presented to the CCC in February for recommendation to the council. Basically, I I think the key elements are of it's currently composed of representatives from organization that sponsor help put on events in the community, but historically about half of those don't actively participate in the CC. So, part of the survey is going to indicate who's interested in still participating. And then I think there's going to be a discussion about how do we then expand it or engage more more people to be involved in it. So I would anticipate that it might have a recomposition and some at large opportunities. So >> I might know somebody. [laughter] >> So what was the decision on that one? >> Okay. So So Kate would be primary and Amanda would be alternate. If you're okay with that, if you want to stay. >> I mean, if I want to show up, I'll show up. >> Perfect. [laughter] >> I like that. >> We'll just walk in hand in hand every meeting. They'll be like, "Oh, great. The duo." >> I can't skip to the first meeting, but maybe the one after that. >> Um, the next one would be the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority. We do have an exofficial non- voting seat on their board. Um, our frequency of attendance has fluctuated over the years. there. When we first got on, we basically went fairly regularly, but um a lot of the topic materials didn't have direct impact to us. Our engagement is really that they serve us, you know, um further up the line and as we grow over the long haul, there's the potential that there might be more facilities, etc. in our area. Um the board had ultimately indicated that they or the council with regards to attending on the board had indicated that no whoever's assigned would just basically look at the meeting agendas and determine if there is a relevant item for them to attend >> and remind this one's virtual >> it's both. >> Yeah, they always have a virtual option. I would suggest the further we the more we go into the future the importance of this will continue to increase um as we grow as a community etc. Um but >> I have >> I am there hasn't been anything. >> So you saying you just want to keep it? >> Sure. >> I just glanced at the agenda and there's been nothing. So >> perfect. Um the last item that we need to uh would be the administrative appeals board. So this is the appointed board that handles um utility bill adjustments and special circumstances that fall outside normal um uh policy and policy criteria. Josh has been doing it for >> five years maybe doing a good job >> for for a long time. Um we meet I would say on average maybe four times a year some depending on how things are going sometimes six but it's not a huge time demand. Um Steph does a good job of prepping the materials for it and then providing background on the cases that are coming before the appeals board and the meetings are typically like 20 minutes long when we do have them. >> I'd say Josh stays there because he's doing a great job at it. >> Sure. Sounds great. >> Okay. So, at this point, um I would ask Steph to read back. >> Can I just ask one clarify? Yep. >> So, for scale, is Amanda taking over for the mayor or we're just removing all them all from backup hit the mayor then Amanda as the backup? >> Amanda would now be the executive committee >> attendee with with me being the backup. >> Got it. All right. So, acting mayor Megan. Uh, then for scale, we now have Amanda. Um, >> no. Scale would be all of us. Executive the executive part of scale, sorry, is Amanda. >> Um, then this. So Tom and Craig are still doing the SJPA um and the JRTF. Megan and Josh are doing I35. Kate is doing fire relief board and fire service area workg group and CCEC with uh Amanda as backup. Megan is MVTA and Josh is the appeals board. >> And if that sounds good to everybody, just need a so move. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Um the and we've already taken action on the acting mayor. So the next item would be >> um official depositories. No, excuse me, official paper. So it's the same thing we get every year. Um, we get proposals from the new prank times and we get proposals from Sun this week for proposals. Um, the Times is a little bit more expensive per column inch per column inch than Sun, but Sun charges for if they have to do any reworking of the article. So, it offsets that cost a little bit. But the New Times actually covers our community where Sun does not. um from a distribution standpoint, they both do by subscription within the community and they both provide free online access to um articles etc. Um we've historically done it uh chosen the New Times for the items that are identified um within the staff memo. So we'd be looking for direction from councel times. >> Okay. So we so we need a motion adopting resolution 2602. So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Now, as I we're actually to the official depositories. Um we're not proposing any changes. We are proposing to continue to um use New Market Bank and the League of Minnesota Cities forum Fund as our deposiitories for the city. So we'd be looking for a resolution to adopt 2603. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? I consent agenda >> and discuss. No. Uh I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as it appears. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> No public hearings. Uh nothing under general business. >> Move into reports. >> Okay. Under administration, um I have one additional item. I just want to talk quickly with the council before we go into the draft policy for remote meeting attendance. Um, as uh Brandon's been working on putting together the agendas for future EDA meetings, um, it looks like we're lining up uh, most likely to have a industry panel discussion on commercial industrial development at our EDA meeting at the second meeting in February. Um, if that comes together, the panel will likely take longer than the one hour that we would have during the work session. And we'd be looking for we'd ask for an hour and a half. So the two options would be to and we've already posted our start times for we'll be posting our start times for the EDA. We're basically asking are you guys would you be guys okay if that happens for us to come back at the first meeting in February and ask you to move the start time of the council meeting back half an hour. So that's all I needed on that one. And then uh the draft policy for remote meeting attendance. Sure. Real quick. So, the council has previously had discussions about um remote attendance for council meetings and they directed staff to go out and prepare a policy to bring back to council for consideration. And so tonight, what we're doing is walking through the draft policy for any direction before we bring it back for adoption at a future meeting. So I'm just going to literally walk through the policy, talk about the background rationale for pieces of the policy. This is very informal. I'm looking for direct questions and feedback. At the time that we're going through that portion at the end, I'll look for overall guidance. So the purpose is to implement Minnesota State Statute 13D.02, 02 which was amended to provide greater opport ability for council members to attend and participate in council meetings remotely utilizing interactive technology so zoom which we use for our meetings hybrid meetings. Um the author there's the authority section which just talks about here's the statute that would allow us to do it. Um there's a definition section where it talks about you know what is interactive technology how do we define a meeting how do we define a member for purposes um the definition for later in the policy I won't spend any time on that except to the extent that um as the policy is written it would not only apply to the city council but would also apply to any other boards commissions that we have as a city and so first question is are you guys okay with that? Okay. Um, there are certain under statute there are minimum conditions you have to meet. The policy that's proposed exceeds those, but it does talk about here's the minimums. Under statute, um, wherever people are located, they have to be able to hear and see one another and all discussion and testimony. So, if you're participating remotely, you can't turn off your camera and, you know, go wander off and get the hit the buffet and and, you know, then come back. Everybody has to see you and has to be able to hear you. So you have to stay unmiked and you have to leave your camera. You have to leave your camera on with the exception of legally um permitted closed meetings. Uh the public at the regular meeting must be able to hear and see all discussion testimony and votes. So if you do that because we do have the advantage of a setup in our meeting, the audience should be able to see the participating council person on the screen. At least one member must be physically present at the regular meeting location. So, let's say there's a horrible snowstorm, but the mayor can make it here um in his Jeep, then um we could hold a remote meeting as long as there's one one council member here. Staff does not count for that. Um we have to keep in mind though that if your technology goes down during the meeting, so you can no longer be seen or heard, you can no longer participate. Um all votes must be taken by roll call. Um because when you're on video, it becomes did they wave their hand? Did they wiggle their ear? What was the deal? It's harder to tell. So all votes, the mayor or whoever is running the meeting will just have to know that anytime we take a vote, they'll have to do it by roll call. And then minutes must list each remote participant and the state that the appearance was um via the inter interactive technology. So that just be noted in the minutes. So thresholds in the policy it does propose a higher threshold for minimum individuals present. Uh the policy proposes that for remote participation in meetings that there has to be at least a quorum present. So three individuals. There's a couple reasons why we do that. Um reason number one um is you might say the optics of it. um somebody it'd be less critical that there are people participating remotely because you still had enough people in the room to do business regardless. This simply provides for getting additional input from other council members. The other reason it's very practical if let's say we have that snowstorm situation and the mayor's the only person here but all of a sudden the power goes out or the technology goes down you can't do business because those other people can't participate in the meeting. So this provides for more of a continuence of operations aspect of that. There's an exception obviously on the policy if you have an emergency like a pandemic or something like that. This provides for the ability to um have just one person here. There is one other um aspect to this is that the council may temporarily provide it lift this restriction if they feel it's appropriate. So, for example, let's say the intent was that we were going to have three here. Um, the mayor and acting mayor were going to be here, but um Josh was not available, but Megan and Amanda were going to be participating remotely or Josh was going to be here and you guys are going to be participating remotely. And all of a sudden, Josh can't make the meeting. He's horribly sick. Now, we're in a situation where we don't have the three. You guys could vote basically at the beginning of the meeting to lift that policy restriction for purposes of the meeting given the circumstances. That provides an opportunity that's very transparent why you're lifting the restrictions and if any council member has any issues with it, it gives them an opportunity to voice their concerns with doing so or you can look to reschedule the meeting. So before I move on, I mean I think if you go back to this slide, I mean I think [clears throat] it kind of defeats the purpose. Uh I would argue. Uh so yes, throw the snowstorm example out then because if only one person could be here. Um I just and then if we're going to throw in the well, we could temporarily lift it. I think that is too squishy. I I mean it's either we do or we don't. And I think we just you allow for Maybe it's two, maybe. So, maybe it's not just one person in here. Um, but I mean, I think three is silly because then it really doesn't do anything to help. Um, and it doesn't incentivize any of the remote uh participation at all. Uh, if we know the quorum's going to be here, then there's really no point for me to be here if I'm, you know, on vacation or, you know, otherwise. Um, and we're going to limit the number anyway, two times per year. So I just I don't see the value in keeping it having to be a quorum because then we just don't need the remote participation at all. So I think it's kind of pointless then >> and that's and that's really up to council. Our understanding could have been incorrect when we when we were directed was that the idea was to provide for council members to participate supplementally. So let's say if Kate's visiting family out of state, she would have the option to participate um as well. Um so statutes one um it's just a question of whether or not you see reasons to go more than one. Um a lot of that is you might say is um judgment. Um but part of it's just the the main reason staff put in there is the practical issue that if the technology goes down you can't do business anyways if you don't have three. >> Yeah. I just >> but we we worked through that in the pandemic >> and I just don't see the value in going above the floor. I mean, if we're going to do it, we I mean, I just I don't think anybody's going to abuse it. And it is for those special circumstances, but um I don't know. I just I don't I don't know what value it adds by requiring a quorum. um except for limiting us further or at the spur of the moment there's two people here and like now we got to lift this, we got to do this and then that feels kind of shady too in my it just feels less planned and less uh black and white criteria. Um and if I'm in the minority I don't care like I'll live with it. So I just think it's kind >> No, but we are looking for directions. So >> I I kind of still like the having a quorum here. Um just I mean we may not abuse it but we don't know what future councils might I mean are you going to be here in 15 years? >> Tom only wishes. [laughter] I mean no I I don't know. I I just we were we were able to function well during the pandemic and during all that stuff. So I mean I I think I don't know what we're I don't know what issues we think are going to happen by lowering that number to one or two or whatever. I just I don't see the concern. We do meet most many of us do meetings every single day all remotely and like just the concerns just aren't there for me. So that's just where it's just different perspective. I would have to say that it's fair that we always had a quorum that was able to participate even when we were fully virtual and I can tell you having to try and facilitate those meetings the technology and ability to do that is better today than it was five years ago. >> The one thing I would say is if you're going to limit it to three you do want to have the wishy-washy language because you don't want to not have a meeting if you've got pressing items that have to be decided at that meeting. For instance, a land use application that has to be acted on. >> Acted on. Yeah. >> So either way, you need the wishy-washy language or no limit. >> I like the three as well. I think it the policy should be intentionally somewhat restrictive. So you're not incentivizing remote participation, but you're incentivizing and seats. fine either way. >> I don't I I agree with Josh that it's not going to be abused by us, but it's good to have that redundant backup >> to the person that does everything remotely. >> I do not. >> You actually go in the office 50% of the time. [laughter] >> 50. All right. >> The governor made us do that in June, >> sir. >> Well, that being said, are we happy with the way it's presented? [laughter] or do we want to change it? I think small town feel yada yada I could go on all day is that we're here at our little interview and that we're having meetings here and I agree that we what present right now aren't going to abuse it but I do think it's important to have the protections in there that it doesn't get abused in >> and another's perspective is we expect people to be here to talk to us >> not to Not to remote in >> No, they can though. >> Oh, >> they actually can. Can't they? >> They just don't very often. So, >> but the expectations that be here too. >> So, are we going to change it or we going to leave it? That's the question. >> We're leaving it. >> We're leaving it. >> Okay. So, here's the the other item that we really need feedback on is under statute, you can have one person here and only one person here every single meeting. You just have to have one here. Um, the feedback we got in formally from council is that there should be some limit on the number of times that you can do it. um to go to Me Megan's point that you don't want to incentivize people to just never be here or have an absentee council person that there should be a certain thing that well it provides the ability it shouldn't be the norm. That was the intent of it. That doesn't mean that's the way it has to be. Um just based on Steph's research that she saw and what she'd seen other places was six. But keep in mind that means that you can be absent from slightly more than 50% of the meetings over the course of the year. Um and for commissions because they have fewer meetings a year it's three. So basically if half the meetings half the half the number um there is no like data or anything. This is a judgment call as to what is or is not appropriate. >> Many years ago I sat in front of the council and interviewed and there is a question about the expectation of attendance and it was a certain percentage. I feel like could use that as like a starting point. I mean, I feel like six half is a lot. >> That's too much. >> Too much. >> So, the guidance based on adopted expectations by the council is 90% attendance. Now, that is like functioning as a council person. So I think that would include whether it's virtual or not, but it's 90%. The thresholds of the law for commissions at 75%. For participation and again as a council person, that's just a self-imposed expectation amongst your peers. The final arbiter is the voter obviously. Um but that that is an expectation the council set on itself in the past for participating. But again, you could participate remotely. >> I see. Okay. going down to four. >> What if Kate wants to do eight? What are the consequences of any of us blowing this off? >> She has to trade with somebody else. >> That doesn't seem [laughter] Oh, I'm going to give you my answer and then I'm going to go like this and wait for response from the city attorney. So, the statute does not specify and provide any guidance, nor is there any case law by this point to provide any guidance either. So, it essentially would be a point of order. based on the policy and it would be up to whoever's presiding to enforce it. >> If let's say Kate is >> can we send chief to go drag us in and >> well what it would mean [laughter] is it's a it's a public meeting and you can't reasonably restrict attendance at the meeting for a council member any more than you would a member of the public. So let's say Kate what the policy would mean in application as it's written is if Kate is already Mr. four and or six, but she's in Nevada. Doesn't mean she can't attend the meeting virtually, but it would mean that she wouldn't have she wouldn't be participating as a in a role as a council person, if that makes sense. >> But again, how would we restrict that? >> Well, go with four and then go extenduating circumstance, case by case. So, so it would be so the um in this case it would be up to whoever's running the meeting to basically as a point out you basically gave them them out or not allow them to vote. Now from a legal standpoint, you get into a gray you get into a gray area. >> Yeah. Because then when Kate disagrees the whole meeting and continues to make votes, do we just not write down her votes and counter votes? Like I'm glad you're the example. >> I was [laughter] not about me here. So, so you could do that, but what would happen in that case if that council member wanted to challenge their participation in the meeting is >> there's no clarity in the law, so to speak. So, I'm going to defer to the city attorney for her legal opinion. I know of no case law that says that you can exclude a council member from participating in a meeting. That doesn't mean that it's possible that they could you could try it and see what happens, but I don't know how that would turn out. So, >> will we know from Nissa here anytime soon? [laughter] >> Maybe. >> How many cities do you watch? >> Stupid. >> So, it it so in effect it would be self-p policing, >> which in theory, we're all here for a reason. like because we want to be here theoretically. >> So, so what would happen is if this we actually got to that point, Tom would call the city attorney. The city attorney would give that answer, which means that I don't know that you can. And since our city attorney generally makes um conservative recommendations so we don't get into trouble legally, would say you probably should let them attend, that advice would be given to whoever's running the meeting. So you could call them out, publicly chastise them that they've been absent more than the amount that they're permitted and yada yada yada, but you the recommendation would be that you would allow them to participate. So again, this is a self regulating policy from that standpoint. >> I don't care what the number is because you can't enforce it. So whatever you guys want to change to four and then case by case after that, >> I agree with that four >> because things happen. You may want to have the wishy-washy language for that person who is at home bedridden >> health issues >> the case by case. So we we would include similar language that we use on on the number we would include it then for this as well that the council necess you know on a case by case basis >> they can do it and we would use similar criteria. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Right. Um the rest is procedural. Um but we should talk about it. That the idea is that if somebody knows they're going to be absent, they should let the deputy clerk or the city administrator clerk know a couple days before the meeting so we can make accommodations as necessary. Um that there would be a technology test. The policy suggests that it be one hour before the meeting. And it's a very practical reason. you guys have seen staff and we're usually running around trying to get stuff ready right before the meeting. We won't have time five minutes before the meeting to do the check. Now, will there be it's this is a guideline. There will obviously be exceptions to it, but it creates an expectation for if you're going to be participating remotely, you have to make accommodations so that we can do the sound check. Doesn't mean after it's done you can't go do whatever you want to do, but just leave your machine on after we've checked it out. Um quum participation. Um just stating that each member participating in the meeting by interact technology is considered to be present at the meeting for purposes of determining the quorum and then um the minutes uh just clarifying that the the clerk will um identify the remote individuals. >> But doesn't that conflict what we said that you have to have three persons here physically to make a quorum? >> Yeah, >> just in case there's loss of >> No, no, I understand. But like that it's in addition to the quorum. >> The policy earlier is saying that you're not >> in order to have a quorum. We have to have three physical people. We can't have a quorum with you know any other combination other than that. >> Right. Okay. And then uh the failure technology is just stating common sense that if something happens with the failure technology, it'll be up to whoever's presiding over the meeting to basically make a decision about how long do you spend reestablishing contact or addressing the issue before you just determine they're not absent. And from a practical standpoint, they should say, um, Megan, we can no longer see her, hear her, so at this point, she would be considered to be not present at the meeting. that doesn't meet the criteria. Um, and then there's language that's added to just address specifically the pandemic emergency language. Now, that being said, there was a question that came up when I was talking with council members individually about it about, well, let's say the mayor's in Florida, but Kate's here, but the mayor is participating virtually. Would it be better to have Kate preside over the meeting because she's actually in the room with the technology? checking with the city attorneys, there's nothing to indicate that whoever the most senior person is in the meeting virtually or otherwise >> would run the meeting. >> They if something happens to them, it would automatically default to the next senior person who is still participating in the meeting. So I don't know that that's super critical. Um we ran meetings just fine when things were fully virtual when I was in the room by myself. Um so I there is some advantage obviously but I don't know that it's critical so that other than making the adding the flexibility language under the number of meetings and reducing it to four I did not hear any other direction. Is that fair to say? >> Sure. >> So our intent would be to I I shouldn't say we the intent is that staff will um finalize the policy. She'll draft a memo and it'll be on consent agenda at the next meeting. >> All right, courty. >> Um, it's been snowing a lot. Not not a lot of snow, but u I think we had nine events in December and uh again, not a lot of snow, but it's been challenging ones because it snowed all day long and then stuff gets driven on and then it gets freezing cold and then you spend days trying to scrape it off. Um so hopefully the next snow we get will be like four or five inches from 10 to 2 and then we'll just be able to plow it off in the morning and be done. But, uh, other than that, we've been working on some trees. Um, and then, um, just wanted to thank you guys for approving, um, us to get somebody else in quarter two of next year. Um, that doesn't go unnoticed by me or my staff. Um, so with that, we are looking to post for that position. And the timeline's going to be, you know, if we post um say even tomorrow by the time we get somebody through interviews, backgrounds, we're looking at April anyways. So, just kind of giving you guys a heads up there. If we're still on board for that, then that's kind of our plan right now. Um I think we're going to have a very busy summer with all the development that we have going on. So, it's a little bit slower right now, but um we will see a big uptick this spring. >> Other than that, I have nothing. >> So, I I am looking for some sort of a clearly documented response that you guys are okay with us posting the position. It is authorized in the budget, but historically, we'll come and get approvals. Recently, it seems like we're filling vacancies all the time, but this is an expansion position. So, before we post for it, I want to make sure the council >> Would you like a motion? If we could get a motion, that would be ideal. >> I would make a motion to post it as soon as you guys think it's appropriate to post. >> Second. >> I >> thank you, >> Chief. >> Uh, so staffing has been challenging. As you can see from our December numbers, our mission suffered a bit. Uh, going from eight officers down to six. Having a one in training that did not complete FTO. Uh 2025 was a a challenge. Um we do have one new officer starting um next uh Martin Luther King Day actually. So we're excited about that. Um we have washed out our two candidates that we currently have in background process. So we are out hiring again. Uh it's going to continue to be a problem. Uh Tom and I have been kind of discussing some ideas on what we can do to differentiate us from our competition because we are either cannibalizing or fighting over the same poor candidate pool currently. So that's going to be an ongoing challenge and battle. Um the detective position is paying off in spades. um has helped out quite a bit with his knowledge that he's already gained and the expertise and the tools. Um so we look to continue to grow that into 2026. Um morale's pretty good considering like I said we're down to six. Um so kind of happy about that. Um but big thing will be staffing adding hopefully a lot of people in 2026 and dealing with that problem which but that'll be a good problem hopefully to have. That's all I got. >> Is the posting up? >> Yes. >> Yep. It's going to be open till filled. So, as we get people who meet the minimum requirements, we're going to interview as quickly as we can and move as quickly as we can because everyone else is. >> So, from a practical standpoint, we'll conduct first round interviews. Um, typically we'll have a scheduled second round of interviews for the pool. Currently, Amanda has been serving as primary with Kate as backup. um with this because we're doing until filled, we'll do a first round and then if they make it past the first round, then we'll be calling you guys on your availability to schedule a second round of interviews. Uh we do have actually an interview scheduled for Tuesday, first round. So, >> fires in the meeting. >> Uh nothing formal. We'll have uh our report on next meeting. Um, unless anybody has any questions at all. >> Um, under engineering, I should note that we are planning at the January 22nd meeting to recognize Rich Reing for his service to the city for over 20 years. So, >> community development speaker on I know Tom sent you an email so you're all well aware of it but just for public purposes um the city had applied for two mind grants one corridors of commerce was for $1.5 million to fund engineering design and environmental documents needed for the interchange the second application was a highway freight program application for $10 million of which we uh received a $7 million award. Um so that was the good news of the day. Um second uh thing I have on my list is I think you're all aware that the planning commission is working on minimum lot size standards and maybe amending some of the standards for single family detached lots. Um they are moving they have directed staff to move forward with a public hearing on just one uh zoning district that's our our two zoning district to go from a 70 foot lot to a 65 foot lot which is kind of what had been approved through PUDS recently anyways um they do have some questions about uh maybe looking at one other zoning district but um they are looking for some council feedback on that before they go out for hearing on that. So, um I'll try to have a report in your packet giving a little more background on that in the next packet. But at the January planning commission meeting, there'll be a public hearing on the lot size uh the one lot size. Um and then I think final thing I have on my list is that um the developer for Parkway Meadows or I'm sorry, uh [clears throat] >> no um Eagle View Meadows. uh the 80 acres that was 81 acres that is under annexation. Um they advise us that they will be submitting their development applications at the end of the month. So we if it's application is complete we would prepare for public hearings on the development at the February planning commission meeting. I mean, pass along. I've been I've watched one of the planning commission meetings when they were talking about the lot sizes and I mean the questions, the discussion has been great. So, I mean, I wouldn't have any other feedback for them at this point. So, keep doing what they're doing. >> Yeah, there's a lot of discussion at the last meeting. It was a lot of back and forth and I thought there was um there just wasn't unanimous on this one uh the second piece of it. it was unanimous on one and um before they you know move forward with anything they just are seeking your input or some kind of direction. >> It hasn't been uncommon over the years when they're working on a say [clears throat] high profile item and they're kind and they're split to get some feedback from the council so that um they're a little more sure of what they're going to be sending forward is going to be acceptable to the council. Um they're still doing their job. they'll make you a recommendation on the draft, but they don't want to go to hearing if if you know there's concern about the acceptability of council level. So, >> I guess one more item just let you know we I know you're aware we're meeting uh meeting with the DNR continually, especially the mayor because you're you were put on notice from the DNR about our shoreland ordinance. Um we do continue to meet with them. Uh we met with them again today. I think this is going to be probably several months of back and forth. I don't think it's going to, you know, be a short process, but um they Luke participated in the meeting today. Uh they seem flexible, but still need to accomplish the goals of uh the statute or the Minnesota the rules regarding >> parks. Um parks meeting is next week. Uh they only have one item on the agenda. It is uh establishing a policy for lighting on trails and parks. Our past practice has been we don't like trails and parks um unless it's a facility within the park like pavilion ice rink or something like that. Um there's been a request more recently to place a light in the park and the commission's taken the position that we need to have a comprehensive approach how we do it rather than just simply doing it as one-offs. So uh Brandon will be bringing them a draft policy for their discussion at that meeting and if it gets a blessing it'll be coming to you guys at the probably then in February. CC, >> is it me? [clears throat] >> One more time. >> One more time. Oh, just kidding. Um, well, I think Tom alluded to the sort [clears throat] of letters that went out to gather interest and input on how we can get more people to show up at the meetings. Um, we have like the core five people that always show up to all the meetings, all the events, and do all that. And it's They're all great and they all do a lot of work, but it would be nice to have more. So, that'll be at the February CC meeting, which I'll probably show up because I'm looking forward to hearing about that. >> All right, other committees. Scale >> scale tomorrow morning. >> Yep. >> Committee. Um, I did not make the last the December service delivery committee meeting. >> Service delivery. >> I didn't make it. >> Uh, I35 >> had a meeting this morning. Uh, Metro Transit presented. So, not a lot that impacted Elon Market, but we were congratulated for our grant from INDOT as well. So, it's good. LMC >> that was supposed to come off the >> Oh, that was supposed to be off there. >> Yeah. Although in a couple months we'll be back in that season anyway. So, >> okay. >> All right. Any discussion by council? Just curious if there's any followup with the Lakeville school district after our last meeting or any reachouts from them at all. >> Um I spoke with the school superintendent at Lakeville. I indicated the I I relayed the request from the council to research what the process would be to move school boundaries. um uh the informally with me directly prior to our discussion and following our discussion and publicly in the newspaper article, the superintendent um assumed the responsibility for not having communicated better with us on the topic. Um that would be the extent of the communications. Anything else? I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I I