[2:37] Thank you, Madam Clerk. I appreciate that. Councilman Brandt, good evening.

[2:40] We'll give you just a minute here to get settled.

[2:53] Welcome to our council meeting this evening. Tonight is Tuesday, September

[2:57] 8th. Appreciate you being here. Happy Labor Day. Hope you enjoyed it. The

[3:03] weather certainly was nice. Madame Clerk, will you please call the role?

[3:10] » Miss Rolf >> here.

[3:13] » Mr. Schuster >> here.

[3:16] » Mr. Skips >> here.

[3:18] » Mr. Williams >> here.

[3:21] » Mr. Brandt >> here.

[3:22] » Mr. Claus has an excused absence. And Mayor Church

[3:26] » present. Please stand and join me for the pledge of allegiance and remain

[3:30] standing for the invocation.

[3:54] Heavenly Father, thank you for bringing us here this evening to help make

[3:57] decisions for our community. Be with us tonight as we make some very

[4:03] important decisions for the North Pole community in North Pole area.

[4:08] In your most holy name we pray. Amen.

[4:19] Madame clerk, we have a spot on our agenda this evening for a spotlight on

[4:24] new business. Do we have new business this evening?

[4:28] » No, no, no spotlight on North Pole business. So, if there are any

[4:32] businesses out there that would like to come um within the North Pole area and

[4:36] and give testimony and tell a little bit about what you do here in the North Pole

[4:40] area, please feel free to contact our clerk and get on the agenda. We'd love

[4:45] to have you. Brings us to item number five, citizens comments

[4:51] not on the agenda. >> Do we have anybody signed up this

[4:56] evening, Madam Clerk? We have no one online, but we have

[5:00] members of the audience. >> Please come forth, have a seat. I if

[5:05] you're not on the signin sheet, please make sure you're there. Um, state your

[5:10] name and place of residence, area of residence, and then just make sure that

[5:14] the red light is on when you're talking. That way, we're sure the audio is picked

[5:17] up. And you feel free to pull that to if you desire.

[5:20] » All right. I'm a terrible public speaker. My name is Tanya Eris and I

[5:25] live over in the Stillmmyer Estates. Um, I moved in in January and I really love

[5:29] my house. Um, I submitted an offer for the purchase of

[5:35] lot 9 at 880 Refinery Loop, which is adjacent to my property. The city

[5:40] council had previously determined that retaining this property serves no public

[5:44] purpose and that selling it is in the city's best interest. The property was

[5:48] offered through the city auction process with a minimum bid of $35,000 and it did

[5:53] not sell. The city received two bids of $10,000.

[5:58] I believe that this um provides meaningful market feedback regarding

[6:02] what buyers are willing to pay for this particular property.

[6:07] This is also a very small lot with no sewer and water and a substantial

[6:12] portion of that is occupied the driveway that has served my residents for

[6:16] decades. I have included a photograph showing the

[6:20] existence the existing driveway and how significantly it impacts the usable area

[6:25] of the parcel. These circumstances significantly affect the property's

[6:29] practical use and marketability. I understand that ordinance 2026-08

[6:36] as currently written does not authorize the city to negotiate a sale below the

[6:41] $35,000 minimum. I am not asking city staff to disregard that ordinance.

[6:47] Instead, I am respectfully asking the city council to reconsider the ordinance

[6:53] and allow my offer to be considered based on the results of the unsuccessful

[6:57] auction and the unique circumstances of this property. Continuing to retain the

[7:03] property means the city continues carrying the responsibility and costs

[7:07] associated with it while receiving no property tax revenue from private

[7:12] ownership. I am prepared to purchase the property, take on that responsibility,

[7:17] and return it to the tax roles. There is also some urgency for me. Winter is

[7:23] approaching and if this cannot be resolved, I will need to move forward

[7:27] with constructing a new driveway entirely on my own property. Once

[7:32] construction begins, purchasing that this parcel would no longer make

[7:36] practical or financial sense to me. I would much rather reach a solution that

[7:41] benefits both the city and my property and respectfully ask the city council to

[7:47] um consider allowing the sale. Thank you.

[7:52] Thank you. Any questions from council?

[7:57] Thank you for your testimony this evening, Miss Harris. Thank you for

[7:59] joining us.

[8:07] Anyone else who would like to give um citizens comments on items not on the

[8:12] agenda?

[8:16] Okay, with that we are closing citizens comments for this evening. That brings

[8:21] us on to item six, approval of the agenda and consent agenda. Can I get a

[8:26] motion, please? >> Motion to approve the agenda and consent

[8:29] agenda. >> Second, skips.

[8:32] » So moved and seconded.

[8:38] Any discussion? Councilman Brent,

[8:44] » I'd like to make a motion to postpone item 12A, ordinance 2026-19

[8:55] until after we have a workshop on the subject

[9:02] on Monday, September 14th at 5:30 p.m. >> I'll second it.

[9:10] So moved and seconded in discussion. >> So twice now,

[9:14] » Councilman Brandt, >> this council has told you that we wanted

[9:18] to have a workshop on this item.

[9:24] When we decided that a workshop was more

[9:30] appropriate than the committee of the whole,

[9:35] you did not schedule workshop. Instead, you just went ahead and decided

[9:41] on your own what the changes would be and put the ordinance forward without

[9:44] the workshop that we requested. At the last meeting, I made a motion to

[9:51] postpone the ordinance until after workshop can be held. And you told our

[9:57] clerk that you will not have a workshop on it.

[10:01] » I did. >> So,

[10:06] uh, again, that's twice that you ignored the council's wishes on this. It's an

[10:12] extremely complex um

[10:16] issue. It's more appropriate at a workshop that

[10:20] so we can spend all of our time delving into it. We would still have the

[10:26] discussions um afterwards uh during the regular meetings, but I I do believe as

[10:33] the council believes that that uh we should have a workshop on this first.

[10:41] Thank you, Councilman Brandt. Um, and everything you said is correct. I'm not

[10:46] listening to you tell me that we need to have a workshop. Um, because this

[10:52] council has repeatedly said over and over and over again that we need to have

[10:57] it on the record. We need to have public testimony on everything that we bring.

[11:01] And I don't think um that in your thought process to put this forward, you

[11:07] considered the employees um while you're considering what works

[11:13] best for you and the discussion by not hearing from our employees and at a work

[11:20] session um public testimony

[11:25] is not allowed. So you would not actually hear from your employees why

[11:32] this is so important to move forward with

[11:39] any further discussion. Oh, please don't snap your fingers at me. Councilman

[11:43] Brent, you can raise your hand and just wait until I recognize you. I'm not a

[11:47] dog. I am a mayor. Thank you, sir. >> Workshops are open to the public.

[11:52] They are livereamed on YouTube. So every single employee can watch them. We

[11:58] cannot vote on anything during a workshop.

[12:02] The workshop will be just to um go over all of this information

[12:11] and more. Um,

[12:16] and then we would have the two readings at two

[12:21] subsequent meetings that the employees can come and voice their opinions at.

[12:27] And no way whatsoever would we be shutting out the employees from from

[12:34] um having their say in this. And I think the employees would benefit from

[12:38] watching the workshops also to um get all the same information that we have

[12:44] here.

[12:48] Any further discussion on this? Is there anybody who was here this

[12:53] evening to speak on this um on this item since it is on the agenda? If so, please

[13:00] come forth and have a seat. You'll have up to five minutes to speak on this.

[13:13] Please state your name and area of residence when you get to that. Thank

[13:16] you.

[13:29] Ed Smith. I live on Plaque Road area. I wanted to speak to this briefly from a

[13:36] leadership perspective having done a lot of leadership training and I'm speaking

[13:41] speaking to the council as a whole obviously out of the motivation that

[13:46] there can be good continuity in working together between city employees and

[13:50] council. Um, in an ideal world or in my perspective, city council,

[13:57] each one of you and as a body are leaders of the city because you're

[13:59] decision makers and you have a high degree of influence.

[14:03] Um, it's always good when city council works together with department heads and

[14:08] then flowing down from that with employees. I want my employees to trust

[14:14] the city council that the city council generally has the best for the city

[14:19] employees, citizens, all of it. It's difficult for me when decisions are

[14:25] made and things are done that I feel erodess or damages that trust because

[14:31] I'm not here to badmouth any of you or talk you down to my employees. I want

[14:36] them to view each of you and the council at large highly as respectable people

[14:41] that are doing the best job they can for the city.

[14:45] A couple of the components in what we're discussing tonight do work to erode that

[14:50] trust. And I can tell you in city departments right now, the level of

[14:54] trust for city council at large is very low.

[14:59] It just is because of decisions that have been made and especially a lack of

[15:03] consideration of what kind of message is being presented in that. So I can tell

[15:08] you two things. All of the employees know that the last six years of their

[15:14] raises and merit increases and cola increases were requested by this council

[15:20] as part of this discussion. On the one hand, you have every right to discuss

[15:25] and to gather that information, but that in combination with wanting to

[15:31] hold the initial discussion on this in a forum where the employees cannot speak,

[15:37] regardless of your intent, which I think is good. Your intent is good. Sends a

[15:42] extremely strong message to the employees. You'll notice there was

[15:46] people here last time. They're not here tonight. There's no one here tonight.

[15:51] If employees feel like they have a voice and that their leaders care, they will

[15:55] show up and they will give that voice. I can tell you if I just steamroll my

[16:00] employees, they will stop showing up. They will stop giving me input. They

[16:04] will stop talking to me. And that indicates a breakdown of leadership on

[16:08] my part. So the message that has been communicated by those two things

[16:12] occurring is that each employee is going to be evaluated individually based on

[16:17] the last six years of their scheduled merit increases, raises, whatever, and

[16:22] that that's going to play a role in a three-year scheduled cola increase.

[16:28] In summary, regardless of the intent, the decision

[16:33] to do those two things has further eroded trust between department heads in

[16:38] the city council and especially between employees and the city council. We all

[16:43] understand when there's not money to do something. If I don't have money in my

[16:47] budget, I just tell my employees flat out, "Sorry guys and gals, we can't do

[16:51] that and this is why." That's honest. It's upfront. They can give me feedback.

[16:57] people who generally respond really well to that type of communication. Look, we

[17:02] can't do it this year, but doing something different,

[17:07] digging into their financials and placing this in a forum where they can't

[17:12] speak when it's first discussed is, I think, sending exactly the opposite of

[17:18] what you intend because it's not so much what you intend, it's how it's received

[17:24] in that. So I would just say that just say think carefully about that and if

[17:31] you have ever a question about how is this going to be received and what is

[17:34] the downstream effects going to be with the staff we're all here to help shed

[17:39] some light on that by just asking our staff and getting opinions from them

[17:43] because they have a lot of good opinions to share. On a personal note neither me

[17:47] or Chad are going to be here on the night that you're trying to schedule

[17:50] this. We had all this lined out six months in advance.

[17:54] Planned trips. We have lives. We weren't even asked if we're going to

[17:59] be here. Again, the steamroller just continues on. No consideration given to

[18:04] the people that are actually affected by it. It damages trust regardless of

[18:08] intent. And without trust, you can't do business.

[18:15] » Thank you, Chief. Questions. Councilman Brandt.

[18:19] So you're against us having workshop to go over all this information?

[18:25] » I'm against sending messages to employees that is not conducive to all

[18:30] of us working together. Well, >> okay. You are on the uh total

[18:37] compensation committee. All of the department heads and two uh council

[18:42] members were on the total compensation committee before we decided it was more

[18:45] appropriate to do it as a workshop. the total compensation committee would have

[18:49] been closed to the public completely would not have been recorded. there

[18:54] would have been no input from any employees whatsoever and I didn't hear

[18:58] you complaining about that then >> so

[19:01] » but what is the difference now >> is the total compensation committee

[19:06] would have included the input of all the employees of the department heads that

[19:09] participated in it because we see them every day live around them and know what

[19:14] they need to to be paid so that you have me you have my staff I

[19:20] represent my staff

[19:24] And you can still do that during the uh the workshop. If you're not going to be

[19:28] here, that's fine. But then we have two readings of this ordinance after the

[19:33] workshop in order for for you and every staff member in the city to have their

[19:38] input. >> Councilman Banana, questions of the

[19:43] testifier, not statements to the testifier. Thank you.

[19:47] » I I stated my motivation when I got up here to give testimony. it's that we

[19:51] would all work together really well, that there'd be a high level of trust

[19:55] between these two branches of government. So my my testimony is not a

[20:01] procedural critique. It's think about the message that you're sending. And if

[20:05] you ever wonder what type of message is being sent, just ask the person that's

[20:10] getting the envelope. They'll tell you because you can't take it back. Once

[20:14] that once that is sent, you can't take it back. There are individuals on this

[20:19] council that will never win the trust of city staff. As long as they continue to

[20:24] work here, you're not going to win it because it's

[20:27] been lost. Once that's lost, it's almost impossible to get it back. So, all I'm

[20:33] saying is think about that carefully and think about those long range effects

[20:37] of those types of decisions. I do my best

[20:43] to explain how you got you operate in the reasonable way that you do that and

[20:47] take that back to my staff, not in a critical way. I'll continue to try to do

[20:52] that.

[20:57] » Followup, Councilman Brandt. So are you saying that

[21:01] the staff is not going to appreciate the fact that we

[21:06] are doing uh a deep dive into this and determining um the best path forward by

[21:14] having a workshop on it? And do you think it's it's appropriate for the

[21:18] mayor to twice uh disregard the orders of the council? Both times you asked me

[21:24] a question, you took your perspective on it and you flipped the question and put

[21:30] words in my mouth and you're asking me to agree with your perspective. You You

[21:35] have your perspective. >> It just asks you the question. It

[21:37] » it's valid. What I shared in my testimony is my perspective. That's the

[21:42] extent of what I wanted to share.

[21:46] » Any further questions? Thank you. Anyone

[21:54] else like to speak to this? >> So, what we're saying is that um

[22:00] » Excuse me. Go ahead, >> Councilman Williams.

[22:03] » So, what we're saying is that we're going to vote on this and and not dig

[22:07] into it. Is that what we're saying? Or have maybe one person make a decision?

[22:11] Is that what we're saying? Or are all all of us going to have a

[22:16] um say in this? Councilman Williams, I don't understand

[22:20] your question. Can you rephrase your question so that it makes sense?

[22:24] » Are we going to have a say into this particular situation?

[22:32] Trying to understand it more.

[22:36] » Councilman Williams, you you have a voting position on this council. So yes,

[22:42] certainly sir, you have a say on whether or not this moves forward as it has been

[22:49] seconded by you. >> Shouldn't we work through it and and see

[22:52] exactly what's going on in here? Yes or no?

[23:00] » Yes, I certainly think we should. Thank you for your question. I hope I answered

[23:05] it. Councilman Schuster. Yeah, I I think to council uh and

[23:12] Williams point, not to his point, but to answer his question is that uh we would

[23:18] still have discussion on it tonight just as we would in a workshop. The the what

[23:22] I struggle with is I understand what the chief is talking about um and timing and

[23:30] then how that looks for employees, us kicking this can down the road. And I

[23:34] understand that. The the part I struggle with is this is the biggest line item in

[23:40] our budget and we have asked for a workshop on this now twice. A work

[23:47] session on it twice

[23:52] a and I think there is more conversation that happens in a work session than

[23:57] there is in council meetings. And I I think that's that's fine. And I

[24:01] understand we're still going to have two readings, but being the largest line

[24:04] item in our budget, it would nice to have the work session and then have the

[24:08] two readings on it to discuss, you know, more each time and get input after the

[24:14] first reading. That's the part I struggle with. I think where I'm at now

[24:20] is I'm tired of kicking this can down the road. It's not good for the

[24:26] employees um for us to keep doing that. And so that's the part I'm struggling

[24:30] with. >> And I agree with you, Mr. Schustster,

[24:35] um, very much. We could discuss this line item tonight and at the very end

[24:43] not make a decision and postpone it to our next meeting. We could do that for

[24:47] the next six months if we so desired that this could be a line item on every

[24:54] single council meeting we have. And I don't disagree with you that it is the

[24:58] largest spend that the city has in our yearly budget,

[25:04] but these are real people's lives and it will start to affect retention of our

[25:12] employees if we continue to kick this down the road with workshops and lots.

[25:19] Councilman Brandt, >> few things. First of all, these wages

[25:23] don't go into effect until next year. So, we're we're not kicking it down the

[25:26] road. Um, second of all, to Mr. Schuster's point, like I've brought up

[25:30] before, it is the largest single item line item on our budget, but by far our

[25:37] budget, when we do our budget, we have three workshops on it, and then we have

[25:41] three meetings on it. All council is asking for is one

[25:47] workshop before we we um have the reading of the ordinance. Um,

[25:56] I don't think a single employee, regardless of what Chief Smith says,

[26:02] would hold it against us for getting the most information that we possibly can

[26:08] before we make a decision on this.

[26:13] » Councilman Brandt, I don't know how much more information you need. Our CFO

[26:17] worked tirelessly last week, week before last, to provide

[26:23] you with the requested information of six years worth of employee information

[26:31] about wages, wage increases, professional development, any steps that

[26:36] they made for the last six years. And tonight you are saying you do not have

[26:41] enough information in front of you. I'm looking at it. It's a pile of

[26:45] information. It's a freaking book. And you cannot discuss this item tonight for

[26:52] our employees benefits. I'm astounded by what you're saying, please.

[27:01] I'm saying that we need a workshop to discuss this pile of information.

[27:07] Um, like Mr. Schuster said, a workshop is less formal. It's way easier to get

[27:13] the information out, to go through the information. Um,

[27:18] it's just very informative and again, council's twice told you we

[27:24] want this and if we postpone this ordinance again, it's not going to make

[27:29] a bit of difference. These wages don't go into effect until January 1st, 2027.

[27:37] Any further discussion on this? Anyone else like to chime in?

[27:44] Madame clerk, please call the role.

[27:49] » On the motion to postpone ordinance 202619,

[27:53] employee pay until after a work session held on Monday, September 14th at 5:30.

[27:59] Miss Rolf. >> Yes.

[28:03] » Mr. Skips.

[28:10] No, >> Mr. Brown.

[28:13] » Yes, >> Mr. Williams.

[28:15] » Yes, >> Mr. Schuster.

[28:19] » No, >> Church.

[28:22] » No. Would anyone like to change their vote?

[28:29] » I failed three to three. >> Okay. Any further amendments to our

[28:34] agenda this evening?

[28:39] Madam clerk, please call the role on the agenda.

[28:42] » In the approval of the agenda, Miss Rolf,

[28:46] » yes. >> Mr. Brandt,

[28:48] » no. >> Mr. Skips?

[28:50] » Yes. >> Mr. Schuster?

[28:52] » Yes. >> Mr. Williams?

[28:54] » No. >> Mayor Church?

[28:56] » Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

[29:02] » That pass to two. >> Okay. Thank you. And then and then just

[29:05] that was approval of the agenda and consent agenda. Correct.

[29:09] » Yes. >> All right. Thank you.

[29:12] Item number seven is minutes that has been consented. Um communications for

[29:17] the mayor. First off, I would like to say

[29:21] thank you and congratulations to Terresa Parsons. Um she is not here this evening

[29:27] but um she has been with the city of North Pole for five years um as an

[29:33] accounting a utility billing clerk and we

[29:36] appreciate all of her efforts here at the city of North Pole. So I know you're

[29:40] watching tonight Teresa. Thank you for all you do. We appreciate you.

[29:46] Um other communications from the mayor has been a very busy three weeks in the

[29:50] office. Um we had the Alaska Defense Forum. Um the fall Alaska Municipal

[29:56] League which happened to be held both of these conferences here in Fairbanks. Um

[30:01] unfortunately I was the only one to attend. I appreciate Councilman Claus

[30:05] who signed up but at last minute um had to cancel due to um other meetings. I I

[30:12] want to say thank you to the Alaska Defense Forum

[30:16] and Alaska Municipal League for having them here in Fairbanks. Um it was very

[30:22] busy. I had meetings with Senator Sullivan

[30:25] um who was in attendance and also um Lisa Marowski was there. I just want to

[30:32] thank everybody from the military and veterans affairs who showed up and the

[30:37] community as a whole who showed up to both of these events. Um it's great to

[30:42] have them here in Fairbanks. I would like to take a second and uh

[30:49] thank Senator Sullivan for showing up last Friday. He came to North Pole.

[30:54] Um took time out of his very busy schedule,

[30:58] met with decision makers here in the North Pole area about what our needs are

[31:05] here in North Pole. being between two military bases that brings

[31:12] a lot of information to him and I'm appreciative that he reaches out to

[31:17] North Pole area stakeholders to ask. I also want to thank him for attending the

[31:22] North Pole High School football game and giving up his evening um to toss out the

[31:27] coin and watch the football game. He sat the first half in the North Pole bench

[31:32] and the second half with the West Valley Wolfpack.

[31:36] Um, other homecoming related news, I'd like

[31:40] to thank all the volunteers who helped make the homecoming parade in North Pole

[31:45] happen. Um, really very much appreciate that. Um, other North Pole news, a huge

[31:52] shout out to the Lady Patriots for playing

[31:55] um, really hard last week in Vald. They played more than 30 sets. And uh

[32:03] North Pole Sports, if if you're not paying attention to North Pole Sports,

[32:07] Mr. Skips, I know know you know this as much as anybody. Mr. Schustster, I see

[32:11] you at the games. Thank you for your support, but uh they're really moving

[32:16] ahead in North Pole and I appreciate that. Um, last Friday I got the

[32:20] opportunity to attend um, a fun little science project for the

[32:26] fourth and fifth graders at North Pole Elementary. They did water testing and

[32:31] fish habitat testing on our Fifth Avenue pond and Christmas Creek. And I want to

[32:36] thank the Tanana Valley Watershed Association in partner with UAF for

[32:41] coming out to North Pole and doing that. Um, it's great to see the kids learning

[32:46] even though it was a rainy terrible day. Um, it was great to see him learning and

[32:51] having fun. I also want to thank Officer Wright for stopping in um to say hello.

[32:57] That was a huge hit with the kids. And uh with that, we'll move on for

[33:02] questions of the mayor.

[33:06] Councilman Brent, >> where are we with hiring a new director

[33:10] of city services? >> At this time, I have chosen not to hire

[33:15] a director of city services. We had um interviews. We had three

[33:23] applicants who came by, came forth and interviewed.

[33:27] And uh

[33:33] one of the applicants wanted far more than the city could offer. Um the second

[33:40] applicant um had certain attributes that would have been beneficial to the city

[33:45] of North Pole. um but not totally the best fit and uh we're still working to

[33:53] decide whether or not we're going to take that back out for advertisement or

[33:57] how we're going to move forward with that.

[34:00] Thank you. Any further questions? Councilman Brandt, a follow-up.

[34:06] » Why would you not revertise that position if we did not hire somebody?

[34:13] Um because anybody who saw it the first time it was out um

[34:22] already saw it. Councilman Brandt um I I wish I had a better answer. We had three

[34:29] applicants. Follow-up question, please. >> That was nearly four months ago.

[34:36] » Thank you for the timeline, Councilman Brandt. Any further questions?

[34:44] Okay, with that brings us to communications

[34:48] from department heads and burough representative.

[34:55] Please take the mic, rob it, run with it. Good evening. Thank you for joining

[35:00] us. Chief Chambers, uh members of the council, Mayor Church,

[35:04] uh and our city clerk, current city clerk, uh thank you for the time. I'm

[35:10] filling in for Chief Heineken while he is uh on vacation in the mountains far

[35:16] far away. Best as I know. Um a couple of things to

[35:22] report for the fire department. Uh we have completed our third annual uh

[35:26] apprenticeship program. Uh the academy ended at the 29th of August. We did our

[35:32] final state testing on hazardous materials. Uh all of five candidates,

[35:37] all five participants passed the firefighter one portion which ended two

[35:41] weeks earlier. We're waiting on their test scores for hazmat from the state.

[35:46] Um and once I have those, we'll have our final. The three full-time paid in

[35:52] apprentices have been put on shift already. They're up to speed in training

[35:56] and they meet meet the standards that we need for for employment. Uh the other

[36:01] two were volunteers. They did this on their own. uh it saved them some money

[36:06] from the CTC program. Uh they'll probably pursue a path towards being one

[36:13] of our part-time members once they complete their EMT status. Uh great

[36:18] crew. They really gelled together and it was a very successful apprenticeship

[36:22] program. uh of the apprenticeship programs out of the this is the third

[36:27] one we've had. We've hired two people directly out of the apprenticeship

[36:32] program, two staff positions. Our latest one being Jake Phillips who accepted a

[36:37] firefighter position and started on the 6th. So, uh it's it's definitely borne

[36:43] fruit for us. of the others, there's only one person participant that didn't

[36:49] go on to a fire service career um or into emergency services. In fact, he may

[36:56] be pursuing the the uh justice services track. So, he might come around. You

[37:03] never know. Uh very successful program and we appreciate your guys' continued

[37:07] support of it. Uh especially if you see Jake, give him, you know, he's the local

[37:11] kid. He's done really good. that he started as a junior firefighter with us

[37:15] and just worked his way in and now he's got a full-time spot. So, we're glad to

[37:20] have him and thank you again for all of your support.

[37:25] » That's great news, Chief. Thank you. Any questions for Chief Chambers?

[37:30] » Mr. Harlock. Good evening. >> Good evening, council. Um been spending

[37:34] quite a few time a little bit of time working on Tyler uh getting the AR

[37:38] module set up for invoicing that's uh ready to go and working on um getting

[37:42] the credit card module ready. So that's ready to go. I'll have the uh financial

[37:46] policies and procedures uh ready for you guys on Friday for the next council

[37:50] meeting. And then I spend quite a bit of time working on the employee wage

[37:53] request and the uh six-year analysis.

[37:59] Any questions for Mr. CFO.

[38:03] » Okay. >> And then we've also been working on the

[38:07] uh budget. We've received uh most of the budgets back from the department heads

[38:10] and we're getting uh making headway on the mayor and I reviewing that in a

[38:14] couple weeks. >> Well, I want to say thank you for

[38:17] stepping up to the plate and helping us since we don't have a director of city

[38:20] services and taking a lot of extra work on um through and for project and all

[38:26] that stuff too. Y >> I really appreciate that and thank you

[38:28] for your help. Pete Smith,

[38:33] » just a couple things to share. One, I'll be flying out this Sunday and I'll be

[38:37] gone for about two weeks. Um, you can still call me if you need to. I should

[38:41] have cell phone service most of the time. It's ended up being a a pretty

[38:45] busy summer. I don't know if the increased traffic or or what, but we've

[38:49] been pretty busy both with uh calls for service and then also traffic related

[38:53] stuff. Um, we're still working through integration training with the K9. We

[38:57] have had several successful deployments thus far though. Most recently last

[39:01] week, AS had a pursuit that ended in a foot bail and the instant the guy found

[39:06] out a dog was on scene, he gave up and just came running right out to the

[39:09] officers. So, perfect situation, perfect uh perfect use of that resource. All

[39:14] right, that's all I got unless you got any questions.

[39:20] Councilwoman Rolf, did you attend a Burough Assembly meeting? Yes. Uh I

[39:26] attended the burough assembly meeting on August 24th. Uh the assembly officially

[39:30] pass their um legislative priorities. It did pass with the addition of the

[39:37] assembly requesting that the legislature somehow tie homeschool aotments to

[39:44] taking the Alaska star test. Uh there was actually a lot of testimony on that.

[39:49] Uh it was pretty controversial. Um the testimony in general was against it. Uh

[39:54] the vote actually to remove it was four to three and they just lacked enough

[39:58] votes to actually remove it because there was only seven members uh of the

[40:03] assembly that could vote. One was conflicted out um from the legislative

[40:07] priorities. Uh and then uh assembly member crass who's the one who put it in

[40:12] there uh was not present. Uh so they uh failed to have the five votes to remove

[40:17] it. So that was kind of interesting. Uh in the end it seemed that the assembly

[40:22] was sort of against actually having that in there. They didn't have enough votes

[40:25] to actually remove it. So it will go forward as a legislative priority. Uh

[40:29] and then they did uh enter into a contract with the American Legion uh

[40:33] post 999 to uh rent some land out by the cemetery uh so that they'll have a place

[40:39] to set up and put in a building. Um they'll be working on fundraising for

[40:44] the next few years. They won't actually have a building there yet uh but the

[40:47] plan is to get a building out there. um kind of as a home base uh for those who

[40:51] are coming to intern their loved ones so they'll have somewhere to go and get

[40:54] information. So that uh lease did occur as well.

[40:59] Wonderful. Thank you very much for that update. Any questions?

[41:05] Madame Clerk, is this the last time that I get to say that to you unless you're

[41:09] filling in for our new clerk? >> Yep. And that's that's number one. We've

[41:13] got a our new clerk starts next week. I'm very excited. I think he's going to

[41:16] be a great asset to the city of North Pole and the entire community. Um, so

[41:22] looking forward to that. Also, elections are coming up on October 6th. The 2026

[41:28] election information pamphlet is available. We have it on the city's

[41:31] website and there's also copies out in the lobby, the entry at city hall. And

[41:36] then I just wanted to update council on the um invitation to bid for the for

[41:41] foreclosed properties that we had. um the Marquette property actually got to

[41:45] go back to the owner after they made payment in full for

[41:51] um the balance plus fines and interest. Um the Mockler property was sold for

[41:57] $20,000 and the refinery loop property that Miss

[42:01] Aerys testified to was not sold. We received two bids for $10,000 each. Um

[42:06] the the ordinance as it is now I am authorized to negotiate a sale for the

[42:12] on a first come first- serve basis for anyone that comes with that 35 minute

[42:17] $35,000 minimum bid. Um but I did leave on the dis copies of Miss Aerys's offer

[42:24] that she asked me to communicate to you. And that's all I've got.

[42:31] » Thank you, Madam Clerk. Please, Councilman Schuster.

[42:33] » Oh, we're working on it. Can you place ordinance 20268 on the next agenda,

[42:41] next meeting's agenda? >> Yep.

[42:46] » Any other questions for Madame Clerk? I want to say thank you for all that

[42:52] you've done. I know it's a lot of extra work that you took on to fill that

[42:56] acting role and we appreciate all of your efforts. I know it's been a lot of

[43:01] long hours, so thank you, Miss Kimmel. Um for utilities, the fire hydrant

[43:07] relocation project has been continuing and should be ready to put out to bid

[43:11] next week. Um that's phase one. And then phase two will put out the bid um spring

[43:18] of 2027. That would be relocating the fire hydrant over there by Three Bears

[43:24] and Summit Church. Um the lagoon rehabilitation efforts are nearing 95%

[43:30] completion and should be finished up this week. Um and paired together with

[43:36] the sewer outfall project. And the sewer outfall project, the environmental work

[43:41] should be starting on that within the next couple of weeks along with geotech

[43:46] to find out what type of soils we have on our way out to the sewer project.

[43:53] Councilman Schuster, go ahead. Before I move on with my next report.

[43:56] » Yeah. I just curious if uh we had heard back if we're allowed to use engineering

[44:02] that we've already >> that we talked about a couple meetings

[44:07] ago or are we going to be allowed to use the engineering?

[44:10] » We can use the environmental. But as far as the engineering, u Mr.

[44:15] Harlock, do you want to take that question since you communicated with

[44:18] them earlier this afternoon about that? >> Yes. Yes. Um, we have to modify the

[44:24] letter a little bit to include the entire scope of work that respspec is

[44:27] going to do in addition to the environmental and design. Their scope of

[44:31] work includes the uh mixing zone support permitting and all that other stuff

[44:34] which was provided to HUD, but HUD needs to see those things stated in the

[44:39] letter. So, tomorrow I'll be sending them a revised letter to show them that

[44:42] it agrees with the other schedule they already saw. So, we'll hear back

[44:45] shortly.

[44:49] » Any other questions for utilities? I will move on with public works. Um,

[44:55] thank you to public works. They've been working their tail off with uh just like

[44:59] everybody else. We all know winter's coming and we're trying to wrap up

[45:02] summer projects as fast as we can. Um, they were able to relocate the visitors

[45:08] um center sign to Santa Claus Lane. That has been a request um for the last year

[45:14] and a half that they have tried to get that moved through DOT. we were able to

[45:19] get um authority to to remove that sign from Dawson Road and uh and mistletoe

[45:27] and move that into our own city. So that's out there just as you come out of

[45:31] the roundabout driving traffic into the visitor center or now the welcoming

[45:36] center. Um I don't know if you noticed the new

[45:41] drainage ditch down here by the dog park. um that is to help with the

[45:47] seasonal road drainage or seasonal drainage that comes off of Snowman Lane

[45:52] and sort of pools in front of that dog park. They are going to regrade that dog

[45:56] park so it drops into that drainage so that those dog park users um don't have

[46:02] all that water to contend with in the spring as the snow starts to melt. And

[46:07] it will also make it easier for our public works department to pump that out

[46:12] and and have that drainage ditch there. Um they have been over working on

[46:17] Blanket Boulevard and the working the walking path extension to connect

[46:21] Blanket Boulevard from Psalms Way to Blanket Boulevard walking path that is

[46:27] off of Fifth. So thank them for that. And then they have also been working on

[46:32] the drainage projects in Ford's subdivision. A culvert was installed

[46:37] this past week at Rosson's Crossway across Rosson's Crossway to allow water

[46:43] to flow into a drainage easement that we have down on First Avenue that flows

[46:48] into a gravel pit. At the same time, we also um dug a test hole down off of the

[46:57] holding pond on First Avenue. And when they put that in, they were about 2 ft

[47:04] shy of good um soil to be able to drain that pond. So it was acting like a pool

[47:11] and not actually able to make it down into the groundwater table. Um so we

[47:16] have about two more feet to go to get down into good ground where that water

[47:22] will dissipate faster and hopefully help the drainage issues in Ford subdivision.

[47:27] with those two. Um we are asking for contractors to bid on um digging out the

[47:34] extra 2 feet, sliding the gravel that we put on top of um non-permeable soil over

[47:43] into the permeable gravel and then digging out the other

[47:47] side and what that would cost. I think if either side of that drainage ditch

[47:52] got down into good soil where the water could disperse, that will certainly help

[47:58] out any drainage problems in Ford subdivision. So, more to come on that.

[48:02] Um the snow removal bids um have been received and opened as of last Friday um

[48:08] 2027. Um we'll have that on our agenda next meeting for the the snow removal

[48:15] for 2027. Any questions for public works?

[48:21] All right, with that I believe that that closes out communications from

[48:25] department heads and burough representative.

[48:28] Moving on to ongoing project reports, which we do not have. Brings us to item

[48:34] 12A, ordinance 2026-9. Can I get a motion, please, to introduce

[48:41] Hold on one second, please.

[48:45] Sure. Yeah. You gonna make them a little bit bigger for us? Can we start?

[48:53] Gotcha. Okay. Um, if you want to just burn one copy, I can give them mine

[48:59] because I made an extra copy. Okay. Can I get a motion, please, to introduce um

[49:05] 12A, please?

[49:10] Motion to introduce ordinance 2026-9 amending employee pays.

[49:19] » So moved and seconded

[49:27] brings us on to a staff report and he just went to make copies. Do

[49:37] we'll wait just a minute here. It'll be okay.

[51:01] Okay, I suppose with that I'll try and muddle through a staff report.

[51:08] Patience is a virtue. Thank you for the copies, Mr. Harluck.

[51:14] Appreciate that. Um would you mind providing a staff report on this item?

[51:24] Thank you. this uh ordinance 2619 for the employee pay. Um

[51:35] all city employees excluding the mayor uh casual employees, temporary employees

[51:40] shall be paid monthly hourly wage in accordance with the position

[51:42] classification title and date of hire. Um

[51:47] employees being promoted to positions of higher pay shall receive a start date

[51:50] adjustment that places them at the increased salary closest to their

[51:53] subsequent pay scale salary. Such adjustment shall be recorded in the

[51:57] employees personnel file and used throughout the tenure of that position.

[52:02] The proposed change

[52:07] is to remove the employees excluding personnel on the city services pay scale

[52:11] over step 20. Uh employees overstep 20 will receive a 3% increase on the first

[52:16] full pay period and employees um

[52:23] yeah it's pretty bad at staff report. Um

[52:32] yeah you could take it you want. So I mean we're reviewing cola increase.

[52:39] Um, my numbers, I know Chad's numbers are based on the AML report we look at

[52:43] statewide, right? I make a list and I try to drop our department with all the

[52:48] positions in somewhere in the middle. Not too high, not too low. This year,

[52:52] that ended up being 3% that lands us right in the sweet spot of what we've

[52:56] historically done. Chad apparently came up with the same thing because he also

[53:00] proposed 3%. And then everything else is just

[53:03] harmonizing the the monthly or monthly yearly step increases changing the 1.5

[53:09] to 3% and then after 20 um to 3% in accordance with the ordinance that was

[53:14] passed last October for city services. So that applies the consistency across

[53:19] the board for that aspect of it and then also just as a 3% cola increase.

[53:25] » Okay. Thank you staff. Appreciate that. brings us to call for public testimony.

[53:31] Is there anybody in the room or signed up online who would like to give public

[53:34] testimony to this item?

[53:39] » Okay, with that it moves us on to council discussion.

[53:43] Councilman Brandt, just want to say this isn't as simple as just a cola increase.

[53:48] The cola increase is already built into the pay scale. There's a 3% uh goal

[53:53] increase every single year for every single employee in the pay scale

[53:57] already. This was intended to see if our employees were being compensated fairly

[54:04] compared to other uh employees in similar similar jobs.

[54:12] Um I'm not going to delve into that

[54:15] tonight. So if you just want to stick with the 3% that's fine with me. But the

[54:20] other um comment I have is that um the way a pay scale works from from 1 to

[54:30] 10 years it was a uh annual 3% cola basically.

[54:35] Uh after 10 years it dropped down to 1.5% for some reason.

[54:41] This will um change that to 3% across the board from from step one through

[54:49] step 20 and beyond. So if somebody is here 30 years, they still get the 3% per

[54:55] year um increase. But I want to make clear that

[55:02] if somebody, let's say somebody is currently at a step 18,

[55:09] but they're making I, this is far too small for me to read, so I'll just make

[55:14] these numbers up. Let's say somebody's at a step 18 and they're currently

[55:19] making $50 an hour.

[55:23] when we ch if we change this to where uh steps 11 through 20 increase 3% per year

[55:30] instead of 1.5% per year that step 18 is going to go up drastically.

[55:37] Um, so I just want to make clear that if somebody is above a step 10, their

[55:47] their current step would be adjusted backwards to their current the closest

[55:52] current pay, if that makes sense. So if they're making 40 now and the new step

[55:58] 18 would be 60, they would go back to whatever step 40 is and then from that

[56:06] point on um accumulate the the 3% per year. They won't get the, you know,

[56:12] 20ome% increase this particular year. Um am I making that clear? I'm not sure if

[56:19] I'm explaining that properly. The pay would then be reverted to the nearest

[56:25] pay scale that fits that employee. Yes, that appreciate that. Councilman Brandt,

[56:31] Councilman Schuster, >> asking Councilman Brandt, I to maybe

[56:37] explain that a little further. >> So, let again, let's let's just say

[56:42] somebody is currently at a step 18 and they're currently making $40. the step

[56:47] 18 is going to increase drastically because instead of 1.5% per year, it

[56:52] will go up 3% per year. So there will be a 1.5% increase um for every single year

[56:59] for every single step. So the 18 instead of currently 40, it might be 60. Let's

[57:05] say what like I said, I I I don't have my glasses. I can't read this tiny

[57:09] print. So the employee would not get that $20

[57:14] an hour raise. they would get the 3% raise.

[57:19] So their their wage would determine what step

[57:24] they are. So if they're currently a step 18 and they're making $40 an hour, but a

[57:29] step 12 is the closest to $40 an hour, then they would their step would go back

[57:34] to a 12, it wouldn't the step wouldn't stay at an 18 and they would get the the

[57:39] new 18 wage. if the I'm I'm sorry that I I have

[57:47] difficulty explaining stuff like that. I understand it in my head, but

[57:52] » Okay, >> Councilman Brent, I have a bigger copy

[57:53] here if you'd like that. That might be a little easier to read for you. I'll take

[57:57] your smaller copy. My eyes are still fairly good. Is that helpful?

[58:02] » Bigger. Thank you. >> Oh, okay. Good enough. Do you want would

[58:07] you like it up on the screen, madam clerk? Would you mind? You can't even

[58:11] see this. It's not a big deal. I was just going to use just a I was just

[58:16] going to use one as an example, but you understand what I'm saying now, Jordan,

[58:21] or Okay, thank you.

[58:28] » I would like to propose an amendment to lines 33 and 36

[58:36] inside the quotations. um employees excluding the fire department personnel,

[58:42] department heads, and the mayor. End quotation.

[58:47] Um

[58:53] second skips. >> Thank you, Mr. Skips, for the second.

[58:59] » Mayor, will you please repeat that? um lines 33 and 36 in the quotations

[59:06] adding on to excluding fire department to also add department heads and the

[59:12] mayor since all department heads and the mayor

[59:16] can set their own schedule if they're regularly scheduled. um time

[59:24] is in between any one of these um shift differential pays

[59:30] um they would be entitled to that. So, I would like to just make it clear to

[59:36] everybody that u department heads and and myself um shouldn't get differential

[59:41] pay just because we've decided to schedule ourselves

[59:45] um in the middle of the night or in the

[59:50] late evening um to clear that up.

[59:59] Any

[1:00:04] questions or discussion on that?

[1:00:08] » Madame clerk, please call the role.

[1:00:13] » On the motion. >> I have

[1:00:16] » Yes, it it was moved and seconded. Moved by myself and seconded by Mr. Skips.

[1:00:21] Please call the role. Madam clerk, >> on the motion to amend ordinance 202619

[1:00:27] by inserting department heads and mayor inside the

[1:00:33] the brackets on lines 33 and 36. Mr. Schuster,

[1:00:38] » yes. >> Mr. Williams,

[1:00:47] I >> say no.

[1:00:49] Miss Rolf, >> yes.

[1:00:53] » Mr. Brandt, >> yes.

[1:00:55] » Mr. Skips, >> yes.

[1:00:58] » Mayor Church, >> yes. Would anyone like to change their

[1:01:02] vote? >> Pass 5 to one.

[1:01:06] » Thank you.

[1:01:10] Any further discussion on this ordinance? Oh, please, Chief. I just was

[1:01:16] going to offer a little history if you guys want. Nice. That'd be great.

[1:01:20] » So, it was originally a longevity increase yearly, not intended to be a

[1:01:24] cola because in some positions there's no further promotion possibility, right?

[1:01:30] So, that increase was built in. Then the 1.5, so it was 3% before, right? And

[1:01:36] then a previous council member looked at what would happen if someone stayed here

[1:01:40] for 55 years or something like that and they were like, "Oh my goodness, they're

[1:01:43] going to be making a lot of money." And so they decreased that and eliminated

[1:01:48] the after 20. The argument at that time was that you're always have the prep

[1:01:53] preponderance of your employees in the ninestep range. You know, people midway.

[1:01:59] you maybe have a couple outliers, but you're not going to see this entire bulk

[1:02:03] group of people move out to the, you know, 35th step type thing. And so

[1:02:09] that's but that fear is why it was reduced to 1.5.

[1:02:15] Thank you for that history. Appreciate that, Chief.

[1:02:19] Any further discussion on this ordinance for this evening?

[1:02:23] » Please, Councilwoman Rolf. >> Great. Okay. So, my understanding of the

[1:02:26] purpose behind the committee that was eliminated was to review what is the

[1:02:31] appropriate pay for all departments. I'm only seeing three of our departments

[1:02:36] here.

[1:02:39] » Correct. >> Why? Um, city services was evaluated la

[1:02:45] last October and voted on by this council um to receive a um 5% increase

[1:02:52] which changed the entire scale for um the one and a half and 1% after scale

[1:02:59] 10. >> Great. My understanding at that time was

[1:03:04] that was because at the previous three-year one that occurred three years

[1:03:10] prior kind of got shafted and they were not included in that. So that would have

[1:03:14] caught them up to the increase that occurred two years prior. So

[1:03:20] essentially they are caught up to where they should have been two years prior

[1:03:24] and now we're going to bump everybody but them again and ended up in the same

[1:03:28] position. >> And that was the narrative that was sold

[1:03:31] to you. agreed and was voted on by this council.

[1:03:36] Please, Councilman Brandt, >> that wasn't didn't answer my question,

[1:03:39] but sure. All right. Go ahead. >> No, no, that was not that didn't answer

[1:03:43] our question, but I don't I don't have another one because he doesn't have an

[1:03:46] answer, so that's fine. >> Can I speak to that?

[1:03:48] » Yes. >> I I believe that city services was

[1:03:52] included in the increase three years ago.

[1:03:57] They three years ago there was a 3% cola

[1:04:01] increase that was citywide all departments so they were included.

[1:04:12] » Did that answer your question or do you have another follow-up?

[1:04:15] » No, it doesn't match the testimony that was given, but that's fine.

[1:04:19] Councilman Brandt, >> if this is truly just a cola um

[1:04:24] increase, then every single employee deserves that. So, I would like to make

[1:04:29] a motion to uh include public works and utilities

[1:04:35] um in in this ordinance and um give every

[1:04:43] every one of those employees a 3% goal increase. also

[1:04:48] » second. >> So moved and seconded. Discussion.

[1:04:59] » Madam clerk, please call the role. >> On the motion to amend ordinance 202619

[1:05:05] and include public works and utilities in the 3% increase. Mr. Williams,

[1:05:11] » yes. >> Mr. Brandt,

[1:05:13] » yes. >> Miss Ralph,

[1:05:15] » yes. >> Mr. Mr. Schuster.

[1:05:17] » Yes. >> Mr. Skips.

[1:05:19] » Yes. >> Mayor Church.

[1:05:21] » No. Would anyone like to change their vote?

[1:05:25] » I pass 5 to one. >> Excellent.

[1:05:30] Any further discussion on this ordinance?

[1:05:36] » Mr. Skips. >> One question. So now with

[1:05:42] change we just made with 3% for everybody. Now, this is everybody's on

[1:05:46] the same basically playing level now, right? Everybody's even with the 3%.

[1:05:53] Everybody's online. Yes, that was the amendment that

[1:05:58] everybody in the city, all city employees received the suggested 3%

[1:06:03] increase.

[1:06:07] So what happened is three years ago when we did this the city director at that

[1:06:12] time in my opinion did not advocate for his people the way he should have. It

[1:06:17] was done the increase was given citywide but not as much as should have been in

[1:06:23] that department. We broke the pay scales up so department heads can can put what

[1:06:29] they need forth because it's different markets, right?

[1:06:33] And I don't ever want to go back to conjoining that, but he just he didn't

[1:06:36] do that. And so that left them feeling behind. So there is truth to what you're

[1:06:41] hearing in that. But it was based on the department head not pushing what he

[1:06:45] should have pushed and not doing the work he should have done. Not so much

[1:06:48] that we failed as a city to do it. So they got they were made right last year.

[1:06:54] So what we're doing now

[1:06:59] is I think good. Not that it will harmonize everybody perfectly, but I

[1:07:03] don't agree with everyone being harmonized perfectly. We do different

[1:07:06] jobs. So, if that's competitive and it keeps people in their department, I

[1:07:10] support that fully. Same thing for my department. So, no issues here. Um,

[1:07:16] it'll it'll it'll send the a strong right type of message.

[1:07:24] » Thank you, Chief. Did you have a followup, Mr. Skips?

[1:07:28] No, I was just trying to wrap this whole thing around in my head. But yeah, it's

[1:07:32] it's making sense. I mean, when it comes to pay, people are always

[1:07:37] going to complain, right? I don't get enough. Why do they get more than me?

[1:07:41] And blah blah blah. But like Chief said, everybody has different jobs. And if

[1:07:47] you're bosses

[1:07:50] don't fight for your pay raise, then you don't pay raise. So that was a wrong of

[1:07:58] whoever was in charge of the services at the time who didn't basically fight for

[1:08:02] his people to say, "Hey, we want more money." So I guess this right is kind of

[1:08:09] right in the right.

[1:08:13] Yeah. Okay. I'm just trying to wrap it in my head. Okay. No, I'm good. Thank

[1:08:18] you. >> Please, Councilman Schuster.

[1:08:21] » Ask the CFO if maybe the next reading it would be possible.

[1:08:26] um where you could give us kind of a overview of a budget impact.

[1:08:33] » Yes, I already have that prepared. I can give it to you on Fridays.

[1:08:38] » Mine's approximately 46K total.

[1:08:47] » Any further discussion on this ordinance?

[1:08:51] Madame clerk, please call the role >> on ordinance 202619, employee pay as

[1:08:57] amended. Mr. Williams, >> yes.

[1:09:00] » Mr. Brandt, >> yes.

[1:09:02] » Mr. Skips, >> yes.

[1:09:03] » Mr. Schuster, >> yes.

[1:09:05] » Miss Rolf, >> yes.

[1:09:07] » Mayor Church, >> yes.

[1:09:10] » Would anyone like to change their vote? >> I passed six to zero.

[1:09:15] » Anybody need a break or we keep going? Seeing none, we'll keep rolling. brings

[1:09:21] us on to item 13A, ordinance 2026-20.

[1:09:28] Can I get a motion, please, to introduce >> Move to introduce ordinance 2026-20,

[1:09:35] business license transfer? >> Second. Skips.

[1:09:39] » So moved and seconded. I'll give the staff report. This was brought on by our

[1:09:43] business tax clerk um when a certain local business called and wanted to

[1:09:50] transfer their license to a new owner. They had already paid the

[1:09:57] current year's business license, but per our code would require them to get a new

[1:10:05] business license under their own name, even though it had already been paid

[1:10:09] for. I didn't find that to be fair or make

[1:10:14] sense. I understand it's important that we as a city know who owns the business

[1:10:19] um whether it's a a taxpaying business or not, but know who the owner is. So,

[1:10:24] if there is ever an issue in the middle of the night and and Chief Smith needs

[1:10:29] to call that business owner, it's important that we know who that business

[1:10:33] owner is. And this just clarifies and cleans this section of code up um to

[1:10:39] make sense. Madame clerk, is there anybody in the

[1:10:43] room or signed up online who would like to give testimony to this item?

[1:10:48] » I have no one online. >> Thank you. That brings us to council

[1:10:53] discussion, please. Councilman Skip,

[1:10:56] » is the business going to be the same name or it's a completely different

[1:11:01] name? >> Business would have to be the same name

[1:11:03] to continue to hold that license. If it's a new name that

[1:11:10] » is a new business which requires a new license.

[1:11:13] » Yeah. >> Councilman Brandt.

[1:11:15] » So, the new business owner is still going to be required to fill out a new

[1:11:20] business license application, but the fee they would not have to pay

[1:11:26] the fee until the beginning of the next year. Is that the way you intend this?

[1:11:31] » That is correct.

[1:11:35] » Thanks, Councilwoman Ralph. Uh the language has changed slightly from 15 to

[1:11:40] 16 because of the amendments. I uh believe it's supposed to say on 16 that

[1:11:43] it's a surrender the license. Uh previously it was you're surrendering

[1:11:49] something by the license e. So I think it just needs an e removed from it if

[1:11:53] that's the intent is that there the previous owner that's selling it is

[1:11:58] surrendering their current license and the city will reissue a new one to the

[1:12:02] new. I I think we can do that on a clerical.

[1:12:07] That is my bad as a real estate ly. Um I apologize for the extra e if madame

[1:12:16] clerk is that okay to remove the e from line 16.

[1:12:22] Um rather or do we need a formal amendment

[1:12:28] to remove what I believe is an extra e? I'm just going to look at code and see

[1:12:36] if it was a typo or if it's changing the

[1:12:41] intent.

[1:12:45] Not a typo. No.

[1:12:57] Let's make it a motion just to make sure it's clear that it's because that's

[1:13:01] changing Then I would make a motion uh to remove

[1:13:06] the second E in license E on line 16. >> Second.

[1:13:13] » Any further discussion? Madam clerk, please call the role.

[1:13:17] » The motion to amend ordinance 2026-20 line 16 remove the second E from the

[1:13:25] word L E to make it license. Miss Ralph. >> Yes.

[1:13:29] » Mr. Williams. >> Yes.

[1:13:31] » Mr. Skips. Yes, >> Mr. Brandt.

[1:13:33] » Yes, >> Mr. Schuster.

[1:13:35] » Yes, >> Mayor Church.

[1:13:36] » Yes. >> Anybody like to change their vote?

[1:13:40] » That pass six to zero. >> Thank you. I would like to amend the

[1:13:44] word right behind the extra E2 holder.

[1:13:52] So, it would read must be I'm sorry. Must surrender. Yeah,

[1:13:57] never mind. I withdraw that. Any

[1:14:03] further discussion on this?

[1:14:08] » Madam clerk, please call the role.

[1:14:12] » On ordinance 2026-20 as amended. Mr. Schustster,

[1:14:17] » yes. >> Mr. Skips,

[1:14:19] » yes. >> M. Ralph,

[1:14:21] » yes. >> Mr. Williams,

[1:14:22] » yes. >> Mr. Brandt,

[1:14:24] » yes. >> Mayor Church,

[1:14:25] » yes. Would >> anyone like to change their vote?

[1:14:30] That pass six to zero. >> Thank you, madam clerk. That brings us

[1:14:33] on to item 13B. I get a motion, please, to introduce

[1:14:41] » um motion to introduce ordinance 2026-21,

[1:14:44] minor offense fine schedule. >> Second, skip.

[1:14:48] » So moved and seconded. Um I'll give the staff report as a city staff. um we got

[1:14:57] together and discussed some of the garbage fines, junk fee fines,

[1:15:01] and uh what constitutes um how many vehicles you can have on

[1:15:08] your property. And I believe that this got out of order and should have been um

[1:15:13] the other way around, which is my own fault for not catching it, but um

[1:15:18] just changing some of the the fees and fines for dog waste, junk vehicles, and

[1:15:25] garbage that's either deposited in place, in containers, or out of

[1:15:30] vehicles. We have had complaints over the last two years of people not picking

[1:15:34] up their dog cat material along the trails and in our dog park. And um it's

[1:15:42] really discouraging cleanup day walking around um the city of North Pole with

[1:15:48] the transfer site being so close to see how much has blown out. I can't believe

[1:15:53] that someone has lost a couch and a mattress and wasn't aware of that

[1:15:59] happening. And unfortunately, um, there probably wasn't an officer

[1:16:03] around or someone to enforce that, but hopefully this will help curb that.

[1:16:09] Um, is there anyone signed up to give public testimony on this item?

[1:16:17] » There's no one online. >> And that moves us on to council

[1:16:21] discussion. Councilman Brandt.

[1:16:27] » So section 8.01 01.02 garbage and refu containers required.

[1:16:33] Um, personally, I feel that entire section

[1:16:37] should go away. I don't think that we have the right to tell somebody that

[1:16:43] they have to have a garbage can. Um, and the the fines are are outrageous.

[1:16:52] So, if somebody doesn't have a garbage can out in front of their house, they're

[1:16:55] going to get a $500 fine. Um,

[1:17:01] oh,

[1:17:05] Councilman Brandt, have you ever had a neighbor who leaves 40 bags of trash um

[1:17:12] out by your property line on a hot day and let it sit there for two weeks and

[1:17:18] had that whiff onto your property? I know that you live outside of um the

[1:17:24] city where we have smaller lots where maybe you have some room in between your

[1:17:29] neighbor, but that isn't the case for everybody within the city and uh

[1:17:34] containing your trash in a reasonable manner.

[1:17:38] I agree, we shouldn't have to tell anybody to do that. That should be

[1:17:42] common sense and logic, but that isn't always the case. Um, I get a call a week

[1:17:48] about people not containing their garbage to a garbage container, the

[1:17:53] smell, or someone hauling in trash um, next to houses, please. Councilman

[1:18:02] Brandt, >> that's not what this says whatsoever. It

[1:18:05] just says that you have to have a garbage can. Um,

[1:18:11] if somebody takes their garbage to the dump, you

[1:18:16] know, instead of setting it outside, they don't need a garbage can outside.

[1:18:21] They just take their garbage to the dump instead of setting it outside. Why do

[1:18:25] why is it any of our business and require them to have a garbage can

[1:18:30] outside that they never use or we find them $500 again? um that doesn't fix a

[1:18:38] problem that you're you're um trying to fix.

[1:18:42] » Thank you, Councilman Brandt. Councilman Skips.

[1:18:45] » Yeah, I know in my neighborhood there's a few houses all winter long they pile

[1:18:49] the garbage up, the white sacks outside their house, outside their door

[1:18:54] and inevitably the Ravens get into it and

[1:18:59] now it's a big mess and now it's blowing trash all over the street.

[1:19:05] So, I mean, I used to do the same thing. You know, I put in a trailer in my

[1:19:09] garage and then once a week or whenever it's full, I trailer it to the landfill,

[1:19:15] take it out, and bring the trailer back.

[1:19:20] » Yes. Thank you. >> Yeah, it it doesn't say that you have to

[1:19:23] have a trash can. It it does say that you have to have a container. Uh it

[1:19:28] doesn't need to be a plastic trash can. It can be a truck bed. It can be a trash

[1:19:34] truck. Can be almost anything you want it to be

[1:19:40] except on the ground and in a pile.

[1:19:47] Councilman Brandt, it specifically says dumpster port or portable metal or

[1:19:54] plastic containers.

[1:19:58] That's what the ordinance specifically says.

[1:20:04] Thank you for that. Appreciate that. I I should maybe I should have read the

[1:20:10] entire thing. Please, Councilwoman Rolf. >> Uh so I don't know if it's just my legal

[1:20:16] brain going haywire or interpreting this too narrowly. Uh I don't read it to say

[1:20:22] that at all. Uh it says that on the premises somewhere you have to have a

[1:20:27] place where garbage goes. That could be the can inside your house. and the

[1:20:32] garbage goes there and you take your contained garbage in the bag and place

[1:20:37] it outside. The way this reads, that's not illegal. You can still do that.

[1:20:45] That's my interpretation. I don't know if that's too narrow uh or

[1:20:51] too vague or however you want to do it. That's how I read this. So, I don't get

[1:20:56] the you have to have a can outside your house or you're going to get fined.

[1:21:02] But I did have another question to that. Um,

[1:21:06] are we citing people for this or how many people have we cited in the last

[1:21:11] year? I see your chuckles, so I assume you thought this was coming.

[1:21:16] » Yeah, that was like a we cite people every day chuckle. No, we don't. I've

[1:21:20] never cited anyone for this and I have no knowledge of anyone citing anyone for

[1:21:25] this. Um, yeah. I guess my followup to that is what

[1:21:30] would expect to get from the increase of the fines if we're not actually using

[1:21:36] this currently. >> My bad. I thought you were talking about

[1:21:40] the trash can thing >> in general. Well, any of them. I mean,

[1:21:43] it applies to to we're I mean, we're increasing that one as well. Um, so this

[1:21:50] is increasing 801, 02, 030, 040, 050. How often are we citing these? Um, the

[1:21:57] general garbage and junk vehicles a few times a year, I would say. Um,

[1:22:03] I would also say during my entire period of time here, the fines only help when

[1:22:08] someone is fairly reasonable and has common sense. And in most cases, you go

[1:22:12] and you talk to the person and they clean it up without finding them. They

[1:22:16] do absolutely nothing to deter problem people. They don't care because they

[1:22:20] just won't. We got one lady in town here that's got like 12 tickets in court view

[1:22:24] that she hasn't paid. Then they just stack up in there and it it doesn't do

[1:22:28] really do any good. So longterm it be nice if the city figured out a way to

[1:22:32] actually move beyond just monetary fines and actually able to I don't know do

[1:22:38] something more to to clean the property up. But to answer your question, usually

[1:22:42] a few times a year, three, four, maybe five times.

[1:22:48] » Councilman Brandt. So, if you recall last year, there was a gentleman in town

[1:22:53] that was cited uh 13 different citations. Three of them were for um no

[1:23:01] garbage or refugees containers. And um I would just say that the judge threw

[1:23:07] every single one of those um those citations out when he went to

[1:23:13] court. So, if you're saying that the fines

[1:23:18] don't really help, why are we increasing them?

[1:23:24] » Couple things. The judge, I I say this carefully, but he actually broke the

[1:23:28] rules because magistrate district court judges can't

[1:23:32] actually throw out mutable citations. Um, but he did it anyway. Unfortunately,

[1:23:36] the officer wasn't aware of that, so he didn't bring it up in court. Um, second,

[1:23:41] I I don't have a strong opinion either way on increasing the amount or not

[1:23:46] increasing the amount. I've had conversations with the mayor about this

[1:23:48] where I've said it, you know, it really is only effective against people that

[1:23:54] are reasonable to begin with. Um, so I'm kind of neither here nor there on it.

[1:24:01] And and based on that, you know, I I believe that people who want to change

[1:24:07] will change. And usually a talk is all it takes. You treat somebody with

[1:24:11] respect, you get respect back. Um, and when you don't,

[1:24:19] you pay a stupid tax, you pay a fine, you pay a fee, you get in trouble,

[1:24:24] whatever the consequence from your decision making is, you have that. You

[1:24:29] come off and you're belligerent right off the bat and tell somebody to f off

[1:24:33] because I can do whatever I want on my property. um there might not be that

[1:24:38] leniency there, but um I think having the first offense be a

[1:24:44] reasonable fine that isn't drastic. But if we have repeat offenders who are

[1:24:52] depositing their garbage in public dumpsters at our city

[1:24:59] and they continue to do that because they don't want to take their trash to

[1:25:04] the dump and we as a city have to bear that cost.

[1:25:09] There needs to be a fee for that because we pay for the trash to be hauled off

[1:25:14] when they can haul it to the dumpster themselves.

[1:25:19] » Councilman Brandt. >> So, with the chief's testimony that

[1:25:23] increasing the the fees really isn't going to to do what uh what you want to

[1:25:29] accomplish here, I'm going to be voting against this. It just doesn't make

[1:25:33] sense. But I have a question on 12.04.02 O2 unlawful to obstruct. Why the drastic

[1:25:40] increase in those fines?

[1:25:45] » No. More so drastic than any other change in this fee schedule.

[1:25:52] » Has have we had problems with um instructions?

[1:26:00] What what exact problem are you trying to solve with increasing those

[1:26:03] particular fines?

[1:26:10] Chief, would you like to take that?

[1:26:22] Was this the pairing to match what the state finds are?

[1:26:32] I'm just I'm just asking has this been an issue to the point

[1:26:37] where how many how many people have we talked

[1:26:41] to or finded for this particular problem and what is the problem that you're

[1:26:46] trying to solve with increasing fines on this one?

[1:26:52] definitely cited people for like parking their cars on the street for extended

[1:26:57] periods of time, but I mean I I don't have the numbers in front of me, but

[1:27:00] based on my tenure here, this is not something that gets commonly cited

[1:27:05] because it appears to be more about placing

[1:27:10] erecting or maintaining signs, posters, advertising billboards,

[1:27:15] um that type of thing, which is not not a frequent problem in the city. I I have

[1:27:21] never cited anyone for this the entire time I worked here.

[1:27:24] » Well, my question is there there's, you know, dozens of different uh sections

[1:27:30] and and fines here and only a few of them were increased. Why was this

[1:27:36] particular one increased? mayor.

[1:27:41] » I did send him like state statute on some of these and so some of them

[1:27:46] you'll have to ask him about maybe harmonizing the two so they match.

[1:27:51] But I don't know for sure on this one. >> Again, we we can site

[1:27:58] a municipal give a municipal citation at a lower fine than the state fine or we

[1:28:05] can fi or we can site them for the state. it. You know, I I don't know

[1:28:11] why we need to meld the two together. If we give just give them warning, say it's

[1:28:16] $50, but you're saying here that uh your first offense is $150.

[1:28:22] Maybe they don't know that they can't put a sign out on the sidewalk

[1:28:25] advertising a yard sale, you know, and you're going to find them

[1:28:30] $150. That That's ridiculous. I wouldn't, but I'd ask them if they have

[1:28:34] a business license since they're obviously doing it as a business.

[1:28:38] » For a yard sale, they do not require a business license. Any

[1:28:43] any um sales under thousands that do not require a state business

[1:28:50] license do not require a city business license by our code.

[1:28:55] any further Oh, Chief, did you have something you wanted to say that or

[1:29:01] » say I think pretty much every municipal uh citation I could remember there

[1:29:05] there's almost none of them that you just walk up to somebody and site cite

[1:29:09] them because they're all compliance stuff. It's like, hey, clean clean up

[1:29:13] like move this car. Like 99% of the time that has always solved the issue. I mean

[1:29:19] the only really the only stuff you walk right up to somebody and site them for

[1:29:22] is like they're doing a 60, right? this type of stuff is all super

[1:29:27] discretionary and just trying to get, you know, just trying to get whatever

[1:29:32] the problem is fixed. I mean, I've gone out and helped people clean up and done

[1:29:36] all kinds of things to just not have to go to court and file citations and like

[1:29:41] it's actually be a help. So, that's that's kind of the police department's

[1:29:45] um perspective on it is just we'll try to help you get it get it worked out.

[1:29:53] Councilman Brent. Well, >> it still didn't answer my question. Is

[1:29:56] there a specific problem we're trying to fix with this particular one? I mean,

[1:30:01] we've got disturbing the peace is only a 50 $50 offense. How come that one wasn't

[1:30:07] increased? And um you know, obstructing her drainage system is only a $50

[1:30:13] offense. That wasn't increased, but unlawful to obstruct was increased. My

[1:30:18] my question is simply is has there been an increase in problems with this

[1:30:24] particular ordinance that we're trying to fix with increasing this particular

[1:30:27] one? That's all I'm asking. Mayor, you you're the one that that changed that

[1:30:32] one. >> I certainly did asking why.

[1:30:34] » Yep. And I sponsored this entire thing. Um,

[1:30:38] it does pair with the next item of business which required me to change

[1:30:44] this, but um, I believe that that was a harmonizing between what state statutes

[1:30:50] say and the city of North Pole municipal code. And we certainly can state either

[1:30:56] one. The municipality can be stronger than the state and be enforced. It can

[1:31:01] be exactly the same as the state or it can be less than the state and enforced.

[1:31:08] Did that answer your question, Councilman Brandt? A followup.

[1:31:11] » That's fine. Again, I'm just going to say if the the chief is saying increase

[1:31:15] in the fine system going to really um help. I I don't I don't see a sense in

[1:31:23] in passing this ordinance. That's all. >> Thank you. what this ordinance also does

[1:31:30] um which is why I'm a little disappointed that in in myself for not

[1:31:35] making sure that the order in which was is correct um

[1:31:41] 12 I'm sorry 80260 the junk vehicles

[1:31:49] um AB or Certainly

[1:31:53] does affect our city um it just happens to be our next item of business on the

[1:31:59] agenda.

[1:32:03] Please, Councilwoman Rolf. >> So, I know it it pairs with the other

[1:32:07] one, but it it also appears here. It's changing from four to three. Uh, is

[1:32:13] there any resident that this would affect immediately that have

[1:32:17] four junk vehicles on their property that are going to get cited then for

[1:32:20] this >> potentially?

[1:32:25] Uh and then um I noticed that the next ordinance that will be in front of us

[1:32:30] has an effective date of December 31st and this has an immediate effective date

[1:32:35] which would be contrary to that. Um, wouldn't that make this

[1:32:44] » Are you asking for an amendment to change the effective date of our next

[1:32:48] item of business or would you like to change the effective date of this item

[1:32:52] of business to to pair with the second as an attorney? Um, what would be more

[1:32:57] app propo? >> Well, if this one goes into effect

[1:33:01] immediately and is now finding somebody for something that's not in effect yet,

[1:33:06] uh, that's illegal. Uh, so the the effective dates need to match.

[1:33:12] Uh, which way they go, I don't care because I don't support either

[1:33:16] ordinance. Um, but the way it's set up now uh is uh illegal and could bring

[1:33:23] suit to the city for finding somebody for something that's not yet

[1:33:29] not allowed. >> Okay. Thank you. I'd like to amend the

[1:33:34] effective date to match um ordinance 2026-22.

[1:33:46] » Second.

[1:33:49] » Any further discussion on the amendment? >> Madam clerk, please call the role on the

[1:33:54] amendment of the effective date.

[1:34:05] On the motion to amend ordinance 2026-21,

[1:34:10] the effective date on

[1:34:14] lines 26 and 27 to match ordinance 202622,

[1:34:19] which would be an effective date of December 31st, 2026.

[1:34:24] Mr. Skips, >> yes.

[1:34:26] » Mr. Brandt, >> no.

[1:34:29] Mr. Schuster, >> yes.

[1:34:32] » M. Ralph, >> yes.

[1:34:34] » Mr. Williams, >> no.

[1:34:36] » Mayor Church, >> yes. Would anyone like to change their

[1:34:40] vote? >> That pass 4 to three or 4 to two.

[1:34:45] » Thank you. Any further discussion on the ordinance,

[1:34:52] Madame Clerk? on ordinance 202621

[1:34:56] as amended. Mr. Williams, >> yes.

[1:35:01] » Mr. Skips, >> yes.

[1:35:04] » Mr. Schuster. >> Mr. Brandt?

[1:35:07] » No. >> Miss Rolf?

[1:35:09] » No. >> Mayor Church?

[1:35:12] » Yes. >> Would anyone like to change their vote?

[1:35:17] » That failed three to three. >> Yes. Mr. Williams.

[1:35:22] » What do we Which one are we talking? 2021, right?

[1:35:26] » Ordinance 202621 fee schedule.

[1:35:31] » Said yes before. So, let's go with no.

[1:35:38] » Madame clerk, will you please um redo the role, please?

[1:35:49] » His vote should be

[1:36:00] It doesn't change the It still fails. >> Great.

[1:36:02] » Yes, I understand.

[1:36:06] » His desire is what's important, Madam Clerk.

[1:36:09] » Yeah. So, it fails two to four or

[1:36:18] Thank you. That brings us on to item 13 C.

[1:36:28] Motion please to introduce >> motion to or motion to introduce

[1:36:34] ordinance 2026-22. >> So it second.

[1:36:39] » So moved and seconded. um as a staff report. Chief, would you

[1:36:45] like to take this or would you like me to

[1:36:51] um it's I mean it's it's your it's your

[1:36:55] ordinance, but what it's what it's changing is the amount of vehicles and

[1:36:59] then it's also further clarifying what what a junk vehicle is, which I think I

[1:37:04] think the clarification is good. It's always good to have more data on what

[1:37:08] qualifies for that so it's less subjective based on the officer trying

[1:37:13] to talk to the person and vice versa. Um I'm also not strongly opinionated on the

[1:37:21] number of vehicles. Again, the problem people are the problem people and the

[1:37:25] non-pro people are pretty reasonable.

[1:37:32] Thank you, Chief. Sorry to put you on the spot like that.

[1:37:37] That brings us to public testimony. Is there anybody signed up or online who

[1:37:42] would like to give testimony to this item

[1:37:48] brings us to council discussion.

[1:37:54] Councilman Brent. So I I it's very hard to just look at a

[1:37:59] car and tell if it runs or not. Uh in the definitions here

[1:38:07] says uh

[1:38:11] in a condition which exhibits two of the following elements. Broken glass. It's

[1:38:16] not illegal to drive a car with broken glass. Um missing or damaged body panels

[1:38:24] or parts. I don't know. There's very few cars that don't have a broken windshield

[1:38:29] and and you know dented fenders and bumpers and um so that that's not

[1:38:35] workable. Um

[1:38:40] has not been repaired because of mechanical difficulties or because the

[1:38:44] cost of repairs required to make it inoperable make it operable exceeds the

[1:38:49] fair market value of the vehicle. I don't think it's it's any of our

[1:38:53] business if we if somebody wants to spend more than fair for fair market

[1:38:57] value to fix their vehicle. Um and again, you can't an officer cannot just

[1:39:03] look at a vehicle and tell if it costs too much to fix it. Um

[1:39:12] and again, a vehicle that is disabled and cannot be used as a vehicle without

[1:39:16] substantial repairs or reconstruction, that's too subjective.

[1:39:21] um has remained inoperable or unmoved for 250 consecutive days.

[1:39:28] What if they have a a motor home that they use a couple times a year? Now it's

[1:39:33] a junk vehicle. Um

[1:39:41] this just doesn't work for me. And again, we had a gentleman that was fined

[1:39:46] uh 13 times last year. And regardless of whether or not it was

[1:39:51] legal to throw those citations out, the judge agreed with him that this is

[1:39:57] ridiculous. Um,

[1:40:02] I could go into what happened during that particular

[1:40:06] um instance, but the chief would be very upset with me over that. So, I will not.

[1:40:11] Um, again, an officer cannot look at a vehicle and tell if it's if it's a junk

[1:40:17] vehicle. according to these definitions. And then also this this now includes

[1:40:23] trailer or equipment. Again, um if somebody has a piece of

[1:40:31] equipment that they use a couple of times a year or a trailer that they only

[1:40:36] use every so often, it now according to this ordinance is an abandoned vehicle

[1:40:41] or a junk vehicle. Um,

[1:40:46] that's all I have to say about this. I obviously I'm going to vote against

[1:40:50] this. >> So, if I may, Chief, just take a crack

[1:40:55] at that cuz um if you have a motor home and you take it

[1:40:59] out a couple of times a year, you you have taken it out

[1:41:06] um more than once every 250 days. and and there may be a point as to which it

[1:41:13] doesn't move for more than 250 days, but it certainly isn't sitting stagnant um

[1:41:21] half burnt down for 2 years.

[1:41:26] Um, I believe that officers are good at

[1:41:31] their job and can decide if a junk vehicle is a junk vehicle with missing

[1:41:38] wheels, missing panels. I think anybody who cares about their town can look at a

[1:41:45] vehicle and say, "That's a collectible."

[1:41:51] And you have 10 collectibles in your front yard.

[1:41:56] You have a hoarding problem which happens to be pretty prevalent in

[1:42:03] our little town. I know, Councilman Brandt that you take great pride in your

[1:42:07] front yard and your property, but not everybody in our entire city

[1:42:14] follows your impeccable mowing and care for your home. chief.

[1:42:24] » Well, first of all, since my goal is to build trust, I would never allude to

[1:42:29] something that exists out there in the ether that I can't talk about it here

[1:42:33] because that's just not appropriate to do, nor does it build trust. Um,

[1:42:38] secondly, kind of goes down to the same argument

[1:42:41] we had over impounds. More information is always better for officers because

[1:42:45] there's no officer that's going out there like going down this list, you

[1:42:50] know, you've got a broken windshield. I can cite you for this junk vehicle in

[1:42:53] your car, in your yard. It's ridiculous. We don't we don't approach the issue

[1:42:57] that way because it's all about just helping people get in compliance with

[1:43:02] city code and working with them for as long as it takes to affect that type of

[1:43:07] actual change. I mean, if I just sight them 15 times and the car doesn't move,

[1:43:11] it's a huge waste of time and resources. So, having more data points to say,

[1:43:17] "Yeah, it's been here forever. It's half burnt down. It's missing two out of four

[1:43:20] wheels, windshield and body panel missing, all that stuff, which is

[1:43:24] illegal, by the way." There's a lot of stuff I could site people for in state

[1:43:28] statute that we just don't most of the time. Cracked windshield missing, shock

[1:43:34] absorption device in the front. There's cars driving around all over the place

[1:43:37] with all kinds of petty stuff we could be pulling them over for and citing them

[1:43:40] for all day long. It's just not worth it. But having those data points is

[1:43:45] valuable. That way the officer can go it was on it's been on Google Earth for the

[1:43:50] last 6 years. I can look back. It's still sitting in the same spot. It's

[1:43:54] missing a window. The snow's blown in there every winter. You know, like

[1:43:59] common sense. It's a junk car. That way he's able to look he or she is able to

[1:44:03] look at that and say the totality of the circumstance says this probably needs to

[1:44:08] get taken care of. So you you try to neck that down. You try to set the

[1:44:12] criteria to be exact every time. It's it's not going to work because it's it's

[1:44:17] a it's a whole picture type type situation. So I would just say

[1:44:25] impound thing. Same thing. get give the officers the discretion that they're

[1:44:29] able to, you know, say, "Look, it's a problem person and here's some criteria

[1:44:33] that it meets." Um, it's been pretty generic in the past. The trailer thing,

[1:44:38] the trailer thing is just cuz it's a loophole that's been exploited. Oh,

[1:44:42] they're not vehicles, but I can have 15 trailers on my property in various

[1:44:46] states of disrepair, falling apart, you know, not usable, but it's not a

[1:44:51] vehicle, so we can't do anything about it. So that's some context for some of

[1:44:56] this.

[1:45:02] Further discussion. >> Madam clerk, please call the role.

[1:45:06] » On ordinance 202622. Mr. Williams.

[1:45:13] » Let me say no. >> Mr. Schuster.

[1:45:17] » Yes. >> Mr. Skips.

[1:45:20] » Yes. >> Miss Roths?

[1:45:21] » No. >> Mr. Brown.

[1:45:23] » No. >> Mayor Church.

[1:45:26] » Yes. >> Would anyone like to change their vote?

[1:45:32] » That failed three to three.

[1:45:38] » Thank you, Madam Clerk. 13D is consented. That brings us on to item 14,

[1:45:44] council comments, excluding the mayor. My favorite part.

[1:45:49] Where shall we start this evening, Madam Clerk?

[1:45:52] » Mr. Mr. Schuster. >> I have nothing tonight.

[1:45:55] » Mr. Brent? >> Nothing.

[1:45:57] » Mr. Williams? >> Nothing.

[1:45:59] » Miss Rolf? >> Uh, today Taco Bell is making the move

[1:46:02] from their building that's impossible to get through the drive-thru to to the old

[1:46:07] Wendy's that's now the new Taco Bell and will reopen in their new building

[1:46:11] tomorrow. So, go check them out. >> Mr. Skips.

[1:46:16] » Um, yeah. If anybody's in Anchorage this coming weekend, the North Pole football

[1:46:21] girls team, the flag team is playing in they're going to be having four games in

[1:46:25] Anchorage and then next week they got three home games.

[1:46:31] » That brings us to adjournment. >> Motion to adjourn.

[1:46:35] » Second. >> We're at 8:14.

[1:46:40] Thank you.

Regular Council Meeting September 8, 2026

Transcript