[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.