North Pole: Regular Council Meeting October 5, 2026

Um, the way that we're doing this, instead of going back steps, we have, uh, increased it to 30 steps so that we can move up as we go instead of going back. Um, when you go back, what, what you're talking about is the amount talking about the—. Okay, so the ordinance is for a 3% increase for compensation, and if you would speak please, into the mic so that it can be recorded. Councilman Brown.

Okay, discussion on the pay scale. Um, I have drawn up an amendment that CFO Harluck was talking about, and with, um, the pay scale change out to 30 I would also like to make this amendment that, if you wouldn't mind, Councilman Williams, passing that down. I put it on a piece of paper because it makes it a little bit easier to see as you go here, to include the new pay scale. And this is different than the last amendment because on the last amendment I didn't realize when I, when I made the change that the fire department pay scale different— is different than any other pay scale that we have throughout the city. I did 1 through 10 on every single department, whereas the fire scale— the fire department scale is 1 through 8 at a 3%, and then moving to 1.5% after every single step.

Please, Councilman Brandt. So you included in our packet reconsideration of vote on amendment.

Um, you were not on the prevailing side on that, so that cannot be reconsidered. Councilman Brandt, I was on the prevailing side of that vote, so it can be reconsidered. And that—. On the prevailing side— excuse me, Councilman Brandt, I was talking. You were not on the prevailing side of the amendment.

Everybody except for you and What? That's incorrect, sir. It was, it was Mr. Skips and Miss Rolfe who was on the, on the amendment itself, correct? Okay, so I was on the prevailing side, and we shouldn't address that, sir, until we actually get into the meeting, um, because it is a reconsideration of vote, and this is a discussion only that we're having right now. Is there anything else you wanted to add to the conversation, sir?

Um, so this is the amendment that I would like to make, which, which pairs very well with the 30-step. Um, it leaves step 1 through 10 just exactly the way it is, preloading our employees to get them to a very good and reasonable working wage.

Changing professional development after step 10 or step 8, depending on which department you're in, so that those two steps are 1.5% instead of a 6% professional development after step 8 or 10, which wasn't considered in the previous city services pay scales that was put forth.

It would allow our employees who were over 10 and 8 to receive, through professional development, 2 steps, which would give them a total of 9% per year, which is quite a bit for professional development in a singular year. And then also addressing, um, any pay scales that are above the, the 30-step pay range to continue the 1.5% up to 50, 60, 80, however long somebody chooses to work at the City of North Pole. Chief Heineken, please be the first 80-year-old to be chief here at the City of North Pole. I'd love it. Jed, Chief Smith, please, you as well.

Uh, but kind of correcting that, so, um, it fits in with the 3%, and the way that it was proposed prior, um, forces anyone who is over a step 10 to go up and then come back 2 steps to meet whatever scale is closest to that. Um, 3% is a mathematical number. Let's make mathematical numbers work. Thank you.

Please, Councilman Brant. I might say with this is this is a one-time problem.

Before when it's 3% up till 10, and from 11 on it was 1.5%. Now we're going to 3% all across the board. What this is going to do is put that new pay scale in our code, and instead of being 3% across the board, it's going to be from 11 on, it's going to be 1.5%, and then we're going to have to clarify that, you know, after step 10 It's a 2-step increase. And what I can see happening is that, you know, 3 years from now, none— it's quite likely none of us will be here to remember this, and they're going to look at this and say the same thing that we said this time, that why after step 10 there's only 1.5%. So they're going to increase that to 3% without changing the 2%, so then— or the 2-step.

So then everybody after 11 is going to get a 2-step increase. Once we fix it from 3% from 11 on, it, it's never an issue again. But it will be an issue if, if, like I said, 3 years from now when people don't realize what we did here, um, they changed it again to 3%. So I, I personally just, I, I think we just leave it as it was last time when the, when we increased the pay last year for utilities and, and public works. Um, and we made that change from step 11 on.

That left, um, anybody there that was above a step 10 with the same problem that, that we're having here, and they addressed you with it, and you didn't do anything to, to fix that then. So they were just happy to get whatever increase they got. And I mean, if we're going to do this, then we should go back and fix that error from last year and increase their pay also.

Councilman Brandt, I don't know if you've had a chance to read my amendment, but my amendment that I have proposed addresses that.

This is what addresses the step increases that you have concern with, so that the fire department, after step 8, shall actually receive a 2-step annual increase, which would provide them the 3% across the board. Absolutely understand it. You do not listen to what I had to say.

If we leave this as it is right now, after step 10, it's 1.5 increase stepping increase through, through 30 or beyond.

And then we have to clarify that anything over step 10 is a 2-step increase every year. My, my concern is that several years from now, a couple years from now, when they look at this pay scale and see the inequity that we saw in it, that anybody above a step 11 is only getting 1.5%, they may increase that to 3% across the board without realizing that the two-step increase, um, needs to be changed also. So what I'm saying is this, this literally is only a one-time issue. If we just leave it as 3% across the board in perpetuity, everybody will understand that it's a 3% per year.

So the, the way it is proposed would require an employee who is at a step 14 after receiving this pay increase to come back in scale, right? The—. Come back in steps. The issue with that is a lateral move from someone who has the exact same experience as that individual may get hired at a higher rate because of the range scale that we've forced an employee to come back to. Financially, Yes, it's, it's the 3% and that it's 3-ish percent and that works mathematically.

It isn't 3% because you look at the pay chart after 10 on every single one of these and it compounds on every 3% increase so that someone who is a step 20 actually receives much more financial gain than someone who is in a 1 to 10. And that isn't fair for our employees. That's not true. They step back backwards to the closest pay. They don't stay at a step 20.

Their step has to be decreased back to the closest pay. Mr. Harlock, would you mind— because we worked on this quite a bit over the last 3 weeks to dial this in so that it makes sense for all of our departments, so that people who are in the same range can remain in the same step range and also move forward for the remainder of their time here at the city. Would you mind addressing the question, um, that Mr. Brandt has proposed? So, uh, the purpose is for a 3% increase, right? 3%, That's the goal.

Wasn't my—. 3%, 3% Is the, um, the main focus of the employee pay, right? So if we have a 3% increase and somebody's at a step 19 right now and we adjust it from a step 10 going forward for a 3%, there's going to be no scale that actually matches their 3% wage, so they'll have to get adjusted to the closest scale, but that's not actually a 3% increase. So what we're proposing on, uh, this right here, they would actually move 3%, and then when we say they move 2 steps each year for the actual 3%, then it would be a real 3%, and they would stay at the step that they are and continue forward instead of going back and trying to find the closest number that agrees with the 3%. So this actually gives everybody 3%, and then going forward they get a 2-step increase, which also continues at 3%.

I, I understand that now. I'm saying in the future, the future people may not—. But in here it'll say that every— it'll be 2 steps. So if we have somebody at a step 17, they'll go to a step 19. If we have somebody at step 14, they'll go to step 16.

But when we did the 26-15, we had employees go back almost 6 steps or 5 steps depending on where they were to the closest range. This is more consistent if we're truly looking at a 3% increase. So everybody can understand, they're at step 19 today, they'll go up 3% to step 21. I understand that. And, and like I said before, when we made that change for Utilities and Public Works, um, they brought up that same issue, um, that they did not get the full increase because they had to step back.

Yeah, so this would give people the— and they were ignored—. The true increase. And, um, I understand what you're doing here, but it's a little bit more confusing just to leave than just to, to do what we did before for future councils. When they're looking at this?

Um, I think the way that this is more consistent going forward creates a clearer path rather than having to go back various steps for each specific employee and pick the closest number. This allows an exact 3%.

Any other questions or discussions?

Please. Councilman Schuster. I do on this topic, and I was— I guess I'll direct it at Will. Will, did you— I, I had a little bit hard time following, um, Michelle Peedy's testimony. Can we look at that a little bit?

Did you, did you, did you get that?

So, Councilman Schuster. Yeah, um, if we could We all know who our employees are, but if we could not state names on the record, I don't think that that's totally fair to the employees since they're not here to be able to defend themselves. Okay, the way that we can ask a question—. Yeah, wrote it wasn't from an employee, it was named, it was public testimony in my opinion. But, but if you don't have a copy of that, maybe we can look at it and bring it up during the meeting.

And I won't use a name.

Are you talking about wage disparity between multiple positions? Yes. I think that would be— if you want to discuss it now, we could. If you wanted to do it another time, we could. I think that's a different issue per person, per experience, per job description.

Does that seem accurate? Yeah, it does.

And there is some disparity there between the job positions. Like, in that letter, it was very clear about the dollar amount and differential. Yes, job responsibilities, experience. There's a lot of things.

But if that's easier to fix at a later date, not part of this. We can look at it later. That would have to be taken care of at budget time.

Yeah. Any further discussions on this?

Once, twice. Yeah, all right, we're moving on to Item B, Ordinance 2026-30, Establishing a Permanent Fund. Councilman Williams, since you sponsored this, would you mind informing the council what you put forth? I'd be happy to talk about that.

So basically what I'm trying to do is— we have for years been overtaxing the residents. Um, we are supposed to have a balanced budget, and we say This is the services that we are going to provide you, and this is how much money we're going to take from you. But every year we take more money than we told the, the residents that we were going to take. Over the last 5 years, we've taken almost $6 million more than we told them we were going to take, and that money is not being returned to the residents in any way.

So this is— there's 3, an ordinance resolution, another ordinance that all work together here. The establishing the permanent fund, what that would do is take everything over 2 months of unrestricted general fund reserves and put that into a separate fund. The—. I'm proposing we just invest it into the AMLEP.

And then it would take a vote of 6 council members to take money out of that fund. So the money is still there to use. We're not giving it away, but the, the, um, the interest that we would be earning on that fund will be put as a revenue source to help lower the tax rate in the city.

Um, the next— the resolution would just be the one-time transfer establishing how much, uh, to transfer. Councilman Brent, could you just speak to the ordinance itself as a staff report? Follow—. Just let me talk about the 3 together so we can get an understanding of what I'm trying to do here. The resolution is this one-time transfer into the, the permanent fund.

And again, that would be determined by last year's audit, the total unreserved or unrestricted general fund reserves. Now that doesn't include all of, all of the funds we have for fleet funds and capital improvement funds and all that stuff. That, that is not part of the unrestricted— the unrestricted general funds is literally just a pile of money that doesn't have a name on it that we have, you know, no specific use for, has not been set aside for any specific purpose. Um, and then going forward after that, we would look at the audit once again, determine how much excess revenue we took in over projected revenues take that amount and use that amount to further lower the tax rate for the, for the taxpayers, so that excess revenue is not just sitting, um, and continuing to pile up. We've got almost $10 million right now.

Um, that would ensure that we are not overtaxing. That would ensure that we actually have a balanced budget.

Um, our attorney did say that, um, he did think it, it could be a problem requiring a 6-vote, um, uh, a vote of 6 council members to take money out of that. But what he was referencing is the, um, charter where it says that it, it takes a vote of— so Charter 4.1 says an affirmative vote of 4 council members shall be required to adopt an ordinance or resolution or motion unless otherwise specifically required by the charter.

So it will take a vote of 4 to adopt this, but to, um, transfer money out of that fund would require Vote is 6.

And Charter 6.5 says the council shall prescribe the method for the disbursement of city funds. And so we— and this addresses that. It just says, you know, for these funds to be taken out of the permanent fund and put it into— let's say we had a ordinance for the, um, uh, let's say the solar project that we just had, um, to adopt that ordinance would only take 4, but it would take a, a vote of 6 council members to, um, transfer the money, um, for that. And the reason I did that is I looked at a lot of permanent funds across the state that cities have across the state. Now require a supermajority to take money out of those funds.

Questions about it?

So the main, the main thing is money is still available to be used. We're not, as Will's, uh, I think he, he was confused, we're not taking that money and giving, giving it back on the next, um, on the next, um, budget. This money is going to be set aside so the interest will be used to reduce the budget.

And I also put a minimum of, um, the, the, um, the fund cannot drop below $5 million without a vote of 7, um, and that's just so the permanent fund does not just, uh, go away completely.

Please, Councilman Trusser. I just like to hear Will's take on it.

Um, there's many things that, um, could be done like this. Currently, you can, um, maybe a couple months ago, Council requested the reserves, and I listed the definitions of what we can do. Uh, the GFOA, you can pool that and you can get more interest, and then you could allocate those earnings towards specific purposes. If you reduced it to $5 million at the interest rate, the same interest rate that we get at the $10 million, you're going to get $175,000 a year to lower sales tax. The other issue I noticed is that, um, the $600,000 we made on the budget over actual last year was other revenues aside from just sales tax and property tax.

There are other revenues, uh, quite substantial that are calculated in that over-under at the end of the year.

Um, plan after 2027, uh, there's, there's a few things that you could do in this memo. I kind of list them out. I don't want to, uh, reread it, but I think there's better options of keeping it at the same amount, and then you can commit those balances to the purpose that you want just the same, and you would get more interest if we're looking at taking the $5 million out of 3% And then we have around 2.7 in the reserves.

That's a lot less interest if you kept it all together. You can commit those balances towards specific purposes and get the same result and have more.

So we're currently getting about 3.8 in our— in the AMLO 3.47. I just looked it up today. It's 3.8. The last statement said 3.47. Well, it's at 3.8 today when I looked it up.

Doesn't matter regardless. What—. Where would you—. Where would you say to invest it that we're getting more?

We're reducing the 10 point, uh, 10 million, 385,000, and we're— the purpose— there's, I guess there's two things going on if we could talk about both of them because they're kind of together. Okay, so we're looking at taking the $10 million and then we're just going to chop it down to around $2.7 million for the 2 to 4 months, which I also suggest at least 6 months. Um, but if so, we're going to go to $2.7 million. $2.7 Million would get around $88,000 in interest and the $5 million would get $175,000 in interest. So the $175,000 would be used to reduce sales tax in the next year.

That's your intent.

So really, all, all revenue that we get, regardless of where the interest is coming from, is used as a revenue source on our, our budget. So it doesn't matter what pocket it's come— coming from, the interest is still going to the budget to reduce the amount of revenues that we need to take in as taxes. Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think that, um, if we kept it at 3— at the $10 million and then pooled that interest, and you could apply it out, or you can use it to lower sales tax in the next year. If you really wanted to lower sales tax, what the GFOA recommends is the sales tax stabilization fund, where you kind of create a permanent fund that you build, and then you have interest on it, and then you add to that principle each year, to the point where maybe you can get 10 to 20% of the sales tax eventually in 5 to 10 years, and then have a real impact on the sales tax budget.

Because $175,000 reduced sales tax last year was around $5.3 million. So $175,000 from $5.3 million, it's not really, um, you know, if you wanted to reduce the sales tax and give back to the taxpayers. I think there's other options that would benefit more and in the long run be more stable, because, um, the other part I didn't see was really a capital projects fund. I know you said we have other maintenance funds, but the solar fund was taken from the general fund reserves. And in the future, if we're going to anticipate another capital project, say in 5 years we had a project that was going to be $2 million If we put $750,000 of the $10 million in there and then added to that over time and built that up, we would be ready for the next capital project, right?

You can, you can gradually plan for those things. You don't want to just put it all there. But our code already requires that. Our code requires at budget time, um, our reserve funds need a 3-year outlook, basically. On the expenses out of the, the reserve funds.

Um, so the, the first year would be, uh, so it's a 3-year projection on, on what we're going to draw out of that, that fund. The first year is used for that year's budget. I brought that up during budget time last year, and Larry just said, yeah, I'm not going to do that, even though it's in code. So if we are anticipating something that, that needs to be done then that needs to be part of that 3-year outlook.

Okay. And so what, what you're saying is take the money and set it aside and let the interest build and keep it in there. Um, that is doing the opposite of what I'm trying to do here. I'm trying to return the money to the people that it was taken from in the form of interest, reducing the amount of revenue that we need to take from taxes. How did the sales tax accumulate over the last 6 years so much?

Because we were— and so in our budget we say this is the amount of revenue that we're—. Well, not just the budget, the activity, the nature of the activity that drove the increase over the last 6 years. Uh, the amount that we've gotten our general fund reserves? Well, the nature of the activity that increased the sales tax over the last 6 years. All right.

Okay, I don't understand your question. Well, what drove the sales tax over the last 6 years to accumulate to an amount that ended up being $10 million. That's what I'm trying to explain. Okay. In our budget every year, we see these are our projected revenues, and our projected revenues in our budget are far less than our actual revenues every year.

And so if you go back and look over, over our audits, um, in 2025, our, our council appropriation, or the, the council, the budget that we approved, said our anticipated revenues are going to be $9,583,000. $1,323,300. Our actual revenues were $10,935,569.

We took in $1,352,269 more than we projected at budget time. And when Larry first got elected and his first budget came out and I went and talked to him, I told him, this doesn't make sense. You're actually projecting less income on— I think it was, um, online sales tax or something like that than we took in last year. And he says, I just want to be conservative just in case. Okay, well, in being conservative like that, it's not balancing our budget.

We are lying to the residents when we tell them we're only going to take $9.5 million from you and we take $10.4 or $11 million. So, where do we get 11% for sales tax? Not sales tax, total revenue. Total revenue is from other sources though. We have the ambulance fees.

We have— there's other things. The sales tax is maybe 80%, right? So you're confusing this whole issue with sales tax. What I'm saying is that total revenues, that is what our budget predicts, total revenues. Anything over that, we're telling the people this is how much money we're going to take, but then we take a lot more.

I'm saying one way to give that back to the people—. Well, we budget for that. It's—. We budget for it. We budget.

We budget for it. A budget is a forecast of expectations, right? But when our forecast is wrong year after year after year, that's how we accumulate over $10 million. Budget could be wrong because the economy could increase. You could have expenses that go up.

It doesn't matter, but it was wrong. I don't care why it was wrong, it was wrong. So in 2021, $1.22 million. 2023, $1.4 Million. Another question: if we reduce the budget for sales tax— and easy math— say in 2027 we have a $6 million sales tax budget And we have a $5 million permanent fund, which is going to give us $175,000.

So now we're reducing the $6 million by $175,000. And if we collect $6.5 million, what do we do? Again, you're confusing things here. All I'm saying is that we use this money to reduce the sales tax, not the amount of sales tax that we're taking in, the actual sales tax amount. So you're going to reduce sales tax percent?

Yeah, by— from how much are you going to reduce the sales tax percent to make it up for $175,000 from a $5 million permit? At budget time when we have the audit and we, we look at it and say this is how much—. The feasible impact of adjusting sales tax by $175,000 when the last couple years has been over just $5 million, how— what do you foresee that percentage being to adjust down? So again, it's not the $175,000 that just from sales tax. I'm saying total revenues.

That is what our budget is based on, total revenues. And so we take the revenue from this and we reduce the revenue, okay? So that way when we go to determine the tax rate, we can increase or lower the tax rate rather than just leaving the tax rate alone and adjusting our projected revenues to match that. We take our actual projected revenues and adjust the sales tax appropriately. We're doing it completely backwards.

We're saying we're leaving it at 5.5%, and our budget is going to be this year, let's say, $12 million. So our projected revenue is, you know, 5.5% of that $12 million, instead of saying what our actual projected revenue is using realistic numbers, comparing that to the budget, and take the difference to reduce the tax rate. Are you proposing that we go to every single business, or, or business that pays taxes in our city, and adjust that rate every single year? Yes, by a tenth of a percent to meet your request with 3 pieces of legislation Please, one question too. This is a, uh, the bigger one I have is, so we have the $10 million, you want to take $5 million, and then we want to put $2.7 million into the reserves.

Um, what are we going to do with the remaining $2.6 million? Are we going to use that as a one-time injection to lower sales tax next year? No, the minimum is $5 million. We—. No, no, no, no, you listen.

We have $10 million. Let's 10 million, right? We're taking 5 out of the permanent fund, so now we have 5 left. And then we're going to take 2.5 for the reserves that we're going to allocate as 2 to 4 months of expenses. Well, then we have another 2.5 million left.

What, what's the purpose? That goes in the permanent fund. We keep the 2 to 4 months. No, no, no, no, no, no. We have 10 million right now, right?

We're going to take 5 out, so 10 minus 5 is 5. and then we have $2.5 million for the reserves of 4 months of expenses, correct? So we have another $2.5 million. What's—. Where does the $2.5 million going to go? That goes in the permanent fund.

Well, everything over 4 months—. No, David, we have $10 million right now, and your ordinance for the permanent fund is 5, right? No, read the ordinance. It says anything over 4— well, The, the first is 2 months, so anything over that goes into the permanent fund. Everything goes into the permanent fund except for the 2 to 4 months of expenses that we keep on hand.

And every—. Everybody that I have talked to and everything that I have read said local government should have 2 to 4 months expenses. Now, and I talked to auditors a couple years ago And when we talked to the auditors, they said that, you know, it does vary. You know, you could request up to 6 months, like you said, but they said that that's generally if you're heavily reliant on grants. We are not.

She was amazed when she looked at our audit and saw how few grants that we rely on in this city. So she agreed that 2 to 4 months was appropriate. Councilman Brandt. Can I ask why you didn't work with the administration on this? I emailed several times.

Gentlemen, I'll step in here for a second. Please, although this is a work session, we should maintain some public decorum from everyone. Please let folks finish their statements. David, you emailed me on Tuesday when I was filling in for Michelle doing payroll, and you told me Thursday afternoon. I ran out of time to reply.

So I had 12 hours and I was also doing, uh, many things. And we talked about this a couple different times after—. One time when you—. Two different times after you were hired. Excuse me.

So you know what, that— it doesn't matter. Councilman Brandt, why wouldn't the— this is 3 pages, 3 pieces of legislation that you and Councilman Williams have sponsored to bring to the city of North Pole that have to do with finances.

We have a CFO who is very well qualified by your own words, sir. Why would you not work with the CFO to hash these discussions out at a, at a department head level rather than try and do it here in the public when everybody could have been on the same page? I tried. That's all I can say is I can try. So there's a difference between trying and doing.

Doing is the act of actually producing, which is what this is. Trying is saying something and not acting on what you're saying. I know that the CFO is here Monday through Friday, 8 to 5. You stop by for 6 other reasons. I don't understand why this wasn't brought to him.

Um, I have one other— please, Mr. Schuster. I'd like to just shift gears. Um, I, I think I, I'm still unsure which way I'll vote on this. I, I, I hear what our CFO is saying, and I hear what Councilman Brandt's saying. I think what he's saying is, is, is correct, that we are overtaxing the people of the city?

If we're telling them we're going to make this and we make this and this money goes just into an unrestricted account, when does that stop? When do we say, okay, we're taking in more money than we need to take in? And so I'm not completely on board with this plan as being the fix, but what is the fix? What, what are we going to do with this? I mean, we're just going to keep doing this every year and keep overtaxing citizens?

Like, at some point That's got to stop. What's the plan to say, oh geez, well, we have $10 million and that's going to be $11 million next year and $12 million the year after. What's the plan to say, hey, maybe we reduce the sales rate, we're taking in too much money right now, or give the money that we have too much currently back to the people? So I think that's the, the the divide is. I agree with Councilman Brandt that we're overtaxing, and I agree with the CFO that maybe there's a better plan forward.

Like I said in our recommendation, I do support that, you know, this going forward. I just really want to see it consistently applied from year to year without having to tell the businesses your rates this, this year, that year. Creating a fund that would allow for an accumulation of earnings and then expectation of, okay, we budgeted for 6, we made 7, we take half and we put it into next year's budget. And then we run the interest and also add that. And then the next year we over— we're over budget again.

We give the interest and then we take half of the over and put it back in so that eventually we're actually really reducing the budget for sales tax. Year over year over year. So we're— we don't have to maybe lower the rate the first few years, but now we actually are getting to a point where we can stabilize and see how it's going to be for many years, and then we can lower the sales tax rate to the appropriate amount without having to say, oh, next year we have to raise it because we're under-budgeted, or we don't have enough sales tax, so now we have to go back. Where now we have to take $5 million from the permanent fund, and we also want a capital project that we expect to be— I don't know, I don't know, unforeseen cost, let's say $3.5 million, right? And then we have to approve it.

Why not create a better plan? That's all I'm asking for. Councilman Schuster, follow-up. Yeah, and I'm on board with that, but I feel like if that was the plan, then we should have done that 4 years ago. I mean, none of us were on council, but we have the sum of money now that we've overtaxed, what do we do with it right now?

You know, and, and that's what I'm trying to do here. This money is not going away. We will still have this money. We're not giving it to anybody. We're keeping it for that $3.5 million project that we might have.

But what I'm saying, that is, if we do have a $3.5 million project, we can take the money out of the permanent fund. It just has to be agreed upon by supermajority of the council. But then we're losing the main goal of reducing sales tax if that happens. So why don't we try to put a minimum of $5 million so it does not go below the $5 million, so we're still getting the interest on off of that? The interest will be used to reduce the revenue, in turn reducing the, the sales tax.

Okay, property taxes— this last budget we used, uh, we reduce the property tax. I didn't hear a single person complain about having a lower property tax bill this year.

So, Councilman Brandt, we do take the interest that we earn and add it into our budget as a revenue, which helps prevent inflation and using up— we, we do include that into our revenue source. I will tell you that having Every budgeted piece that we don't use return back to the general fund is, um, a little problematic as well. So if we plan for a big project like, let's take Hippo Park, that we budgeted $135,000 or $136,000 for, but that was shut down by council, that was a budgeted number that we included in this budget, and now we're not going to spend that. So that's going to return back to the general fund based on the decision by this council. Um, it isn't simply as cut and dry as, as you have put it here, um, in your 9 pages of ordinances.

So that money would just go back into the general fund once a year. We determine how much of that gets returned to the people in, in the form of lower taxes. So I don't know what the— this is a solution. I get tired of looking at these budgets year after year and seeing that we keep accumulating way more money than, than we need. And instead of just growing the budget, we can lower the cost to the citizens.

And sitting on $10 million is, um, for a city our size with a $10 million budget, that's Um, that's to me not acceptable. That means we are not a for-profit business and we're running this city like a for-profit business. Chief Heineken, you want to weigh in on this?

Um, first off, I'd just like to say that this is really good conversation. Um, this is definitely an area every city should be looking at, is we being responsible with how much revenue we're bringing in, how much we're putting out. The trouble I have with the current conversation is it's— it has this, this theme that we're bringing in money that we don't need. I need more than $20 million for a fire station. We need projects, we need capital projects.

So keep that in mind when you're thinking about this. It's not money that we don't need. We need more than this. So And we're not going to pay cash, $20 million cash for a fire department. We will do a muni or, or grants or something like that.

We're not paying $20 million cash. So if your solution is to overtax everybody and just keep accumulating millions and millions and millions of dollars until we have enough to pay cash for your fire department rather than issuing a bond for it, and doing it like every other municipality does. Um, I don't think that's acceptable to cover that. There's no reason to berate Chief Heineken. I'm not berating him, I'm just explaining that we are not going to pay cash for a fire department.

I'm sorry, unless we way, way, way overtax everybody. That's not how— right, but, and, and again, we will have the money in the permanent fund for matching grants if we get a grant. It would just take a vote of 6 people to transfer the money out of that fund to accept that grant. But then we're pulling— is that the issue? Is then we're pulling it from the purpose of the sales tax reduction?

So that's fine, Will. But then we're not reducing sales tax for the citizens. Okay, you know what, I'm just trying to use priority. I will withdraw it and the next council can figure out you know, what they want to do, that's fine. David, in my recommendation here, I—.

Phil, can I hop in here for a second? Work with you guys at the risk of getting things done and being neutral and talking through this, we really need to start directing our chair— our comments through the chair, which is the mayor, and only speak when the mayor As acknowledged, do please— we're starting to— I, I love the open dialogue, it's great, but we're starting to interrupt people. We're not getting— it's not just Will, everybody's doing that. Please wait to be acknowledged on, and let's follow some rules of order here, please. Thank you, sir.

Um, Will, did you have anything else to finish up your thought? Oh, okay. Councilman Schuster, you've been very patiently waiting. I think David kind of said what I was going to say, is that we're not a business, and it's— this is not our money. It's the taxpayers', it's the citizens' money.

Um, yeah, I just— I don't know what the plan is. I agree with, you know, kind of both sides of the discussion that maybe this isn't the best plan approach. But we have to— we have to do something about excess money. It's where we're going to hit, you know, where David said it before, but we're going to have a revenue cap, something there. There's people that are unhappy with how much money is sitting in that— in that fund, and it just keeps building each year.

So we have to Like I said, it's, it's not— at the end of the day, it's not our money, it's the citizens' money. And if, if we're taking in more than we say we are, that's a problem we need to deal with. I wholeheartedly agree with you, Councilman Schuster. I, I do wish that the sponsors of this would have sat down with our CFO and come up with a reasonable amendment or process forward rather than having this open discussion. Um, but it has been, uh, very interesting.

That moves us on to Item C, the resolution for the one-time transfer. Councilman Williams, would you like to please talk on it? You know that, um, I will withdraw that one also.

Councilman Williams, as the sponsor of Ordinance 2626, excess audited funds and the taxable rate, would you like to speak on this, or would you like Counselman Brandt to speak for you again. Councilman Brandt. Okay, Councilman Brandt will speak on it. Okay, Councilman Brandt.

This one can stand alone. I would prefer it not to, but that's fine. Um, what this would do is at the end of the audit process And before the next budget, we will look at what the actual council appropriation was in the previous budget, determine how— or the, the council approved, uh, revenue expectation in the, the previous budget, determine how much was actually taken in, and the difference would be used to reduce the next year's taxes. Um, so in this case, last year we took in $1.35 million more than projected. Therefore, next year that will— that money will be used to reduce the or will be used as a revenue source, and thereby reducing either property tax or sales tax or both.

Hey, this is— speak on that one, Will. Further discussion on this?

So I, I have some questions, um, in changing the taxable rate every single year. Can you explain the process of this, um, Councilman Brandt, since you've thought about it? We got 7 pages here in front of us that you have put forth.

Um, would you mind describing the process of, of how this would work if this was instituted, please.

It's all right in there, and I just explained it. When we do the audit, um, you look at the, the budget and what our projected revenues were from the budget for the prior year. The audit tells us what the actual revenues were from the prior year. Take the difference and use that, uh, put a line item in the next year's budget and use that money to reduce the revenues that we need to take from the taxpayers. It's pretty simple, and that will stop this accumulation of money, um, that keeps going on.

Okay, so on the flip side of that, if we get to a point 2 years from now where we have reduced it and reduced it, are we going to go to our taxpayers now and ask for an increase in property tax because we've removed their property tax as part of this to 0 mills. Now we're going to the taxpayers because we don't have that and say, hey, now we're going to go back to 1.75 mills or 3.5 mills because we have to make up an audited deficit because of all the cuts that we've had, or, or the city of North Pole didn't have a good year.

Or to go and say, hey, we've reduced sales tax so much that this year now we have to have a 7% sales tax instead of a 5.5% sales tax because we have cut everything out and we've had a terrible year. How do you intend on dealing with that since that isn't addressed at all in this ordinance? We still have the $10 million. Sitting around in a pile with no, no use. So if we do have a bad year and we are negative, we're going to have to take from that money anyway.

So it would not go to the people next year. I, I don't understand your logic there, Larry. If, if it's a negative, we don't put it as a revenue source. If it, if it's a positive, we put it as a revenue source. When we take more money from people than we told them we're going to, we need to return that to the people.

This will do that. This will say, okay, we took in, took in, you know, almost $1.5 million more last year than anticipated, so we will use that money. And our, our charter specifically says excess revenue from the prior year can be used to reduce taxes in the, in the following year. And that's all I'm doing here. So if it's the other way around, if we're $1.5 million under, you're You're proposing that we take $1.5 million from our general fund and, and put that in, and then continue on the same taxable rate that put us in having to pull a hot— $1.5 million from our reserves and continue on that same rate?

No, you adjust your sales tax. Over time, over the course of years, you know, or to put you back on the target. So that works great with sales tax, but not so much in property tax, as we— unless you own your home outright, your escrow account is going to bounce all over the place if we start adjusting the property tax rate, which is great until— as long as it comes down. Until it goes up, though, those people who are on fixed incomes now have come up with $1,000, $3,000, whatever that taxable rate is adjusted to in their escrow, to be able to bring their escrow whole so that they can make their house payment. Mr. Harlock, you had your hand raised, sir.

Oh, David, you're saying that, um, the budgeted excess will get put back into the fund or given to the sales tax, reduce the sales tax, but each time we do a fiscal note, we run it through the budget adjustment, but we actually, you know, when we do those budget fiscal notes to increase certain line items by $500,000 or $50,000, that excess revenue on the audit is matching some of those increased expenditures that we come throughout the year when the budget, the original budget, needs to get amended 35 times throughout the year. So if we just took, I said, a $6 million budget, we made $7 million next year, but our fiscal notes and all of our adjustments required maybe $750,000, but we don't know that number right now. That takes into play from the excess revenue, because without that excess revenue, those fiscal notes, we wouldn't be able to pay those bills. If the original budget was at zero and then we increased our expenditures to $8.5 million and our sales tax went to 8.75, well then maybe we'd have $250,000. But if we went over by $2 million on sales tax and we had an increase of expenditures and you did that for 5 years, the $10 million is going to be zero, and we're not going to be able to lower sales tax.

Good question. But that's, that's what would happen, right? How would you— what would you— you're gonna— so you want to take—. I don't even know why we, we have a budget when, when every single meeting we've got a budget amendment. You know, we're not sticking to the budget that the council has passed, but that's a whole different story.

Um, this, this will still leave the 2 to 4 months operating expenses, so we're not, we're not going to be taking it.

I don't know. I, I I don't know how to make you understand it, Will, because we speak different languages. You are way more in the weeds when it comes to the— the—. I apologize, David. I'm just trying to figure out a way to explain it to you using my simple terms, but I, I don't understand, you know, Um, I, I think we have the same, uh, goal, David.

I just want to make it something that will be, uh, consistent and not a one-time thing. And I don't want to cause chaos year to year, up or down, and be able to continue. That's—. Yeah, I don't Or are you talking adjusting tax rates year to year up and down? Is that your concern?

That's one of my concerns, yes. So again, um, we, we can't just keep taking more money from the residents because we can. If we don't need more money, we lower the taxes. If we need more money, we raise the taxes. That's how it's supposed to work.

We're supposed to have a balanced budget every year. We're not supposed to take our budget budget and adjust our revenues for it, which is what we're doing. We're supposed to take our actual, um, the, the amount of money that we realistically think we're going to take in and adjust our budget to that. Are we talking about all departments? All departments?

Every— the city, the city, because it's applied differently from all departments too. I understand that, but we're talking about the budget as a whole. We, we can't application of different parts of the budget for police stuff and 5.5% for fire. It's all the same tax rate. And I, I'm just trying to find ways to, to, to stop overtaxing our residents and return the money when we do overtax them.

Um, again, we are not a for-profit business and we're running like that. Every single year for the last 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 years that I have here, every single year we've taken in millions and millions and millions of dollars more than we, we've said that we were going to take in. Every single year we're doing that. Councilman Schuster, you had a question. I don't think it was a question.

I think I was trying to bridge maybe the divide and understanding, um, I— because it seemed like there was some confusion. Maybe it worked itself out, but I think what David was suggesting was— and I'll put it in, in terms that Will will understand— is, is, you know, our— take our net profit as a business, even though we're not— I don't want to get those two confused. Take our net profit to reduce the budget for the following year.

I don't think there was— I think that was in layman's terms. I, I think there was some confusion between—.

Or past that.

Okay, any further discussion on this?

Brings us on to Item E, 2026-31, bidder preference. Councilman Schuster or Councilman Brandt, or staff report? Uh, yeah, let me Get to the ordinance from page 44, sir.

And Mr. Clerk, just as a housekeeping note, if we could in our next agenda just write the page number of the ordinances next to it so we can scroll forward, and that would be helpful, especially when we get these big packets. Yes, thank you, sir. Just something I was realizing here in the meeting. Councilman Schuster.

So the goal of this ordinance would be to support the businesses located inside city limits, um, for either goods or services, um, by providing them a 5% bidder discount, um, that, uh, that doesn't For example, if we took the snowplowing contract and, and a contractor that bid that was inside the city and outside the city, um, the contractor that's located inside the city, um, would receive a 5% discount on their valuation from their number. Um, I think the goal behind this would be, one, to support businesses that are located inside the city limits. Um, that contractor contributes to sales tax, They contribute to property taxes, um, and they're a member of our city of North Pole community. And so I think that should mean something and, and, uh, receive a discount because we would prefer to work with contractors that are inside of our city.

Okay, and in front of you there is a memo from our attorney. I don't know if Anyone has had the chance to read it yet and go over it. I know Councilman Brandt has.

Any further discussion on this? Yeah, quite a bit, please. Councilman Brandt. So what Rob is referring to here is talking about local hire. Um, this ordinance does not say anything about requiring a business to hire locally.

It just says, um, the business has to be local. They can hire whoever they want. So that, that was Rob's concern. Um, everything that I've been back and forth with him on this, and all of his concerns relate to that. I would also like to say that nearly every city and borough in Alaska has local bidder preference.

I looked at Fairbanks, Anchorage, Ketchikan, Wrangell, Sitka, Nome, Cordova, Homer, Skagway, Saxman, Haines, Wasilla, Salal— Gustavus, Kenai, Seward, Valdez, Houston, Bethel, Anaktuvuk Pass. And that's when my hand cramped up, so I quit writing all the ones that I looked at.

Um, Fairbanks has one, the Fairbanks North Star Borough has one. Um, that puts our businesses in a disadvantage bidding on this, uh, bidding on work in Fairbanks.

Um, so anyway, like I said, we're, we're not forcing the companies to hire locally, um, and we're not saying that, um, businesses outside of the city cannot bid on projects, um, On another note, this, this ordinance also does a few more things. Basically, it, it says that if there's a business in the city limits that can provide a good or service, they need to be given the opportunity first before we look outside of the city limits. Um, does not guarantee that they get the business, but they should have the opportunity.

So that's in here. And then also, let's see, one quick thing here.

Where is this?

Oh, so one thing Jordan and I talked about was there are I put in here the preference shall not be applied if its application is prohibited by federal or state law, a grant agreement, funding source, or other applicable legal requirement. If there is some sort of grant or something that this cannot apply to, then that covers that.

And then there is also If everybody remembers, we've got kind of this blind spot in our code between when a sealed bid is required, or the limit that the City Council can approve without going to bid is $50,000, and then to go to city sealed bid, it was $100,000. So there was that area between $50,000 and $100,000, um, it made no sense. So I did reduce on line 196 the $100,000 requirement to $50,000. We could either bump the $50,000 up to $100,000 for council approval or reduce $100,000 to $50,000 for competitive sealed bids.

Um, it that way. Councilwoman Rolfe, did you have your hand up? No. Okay. Um, Councilman Berndt and Schuster, what does this fix?

I mean, what is the city of North Pole not doing already that these 9 pages of code fix, other than requiring a, a 5% discount or upcharge to the City of North Pole through bidder preference? Please. I'll start. For one, it supports our local businesses that are located here inside the city. Um, a lot of them feel discouraged when they see other contractors or other people providing goods inside the city when being located inside the city should mean something.

Um, and so when they are passed on, or— and because their cost is greater, you know, to, to be operate inside the city. And so if we're making their cost higher to operate, we should also in turn want that to see them succeed by giving them a preference. Okay, with that, um, why should the taxpayers pay more for a service that they're using because of a bidder preference because it's inside the city? And I, I love the supporting the local businesses, but I also think that competition does mean something if we're going out to bid and we're looking for the most cost conscientious way to move forward with the city, essentially saying to every city contractor and every business inside the city, hey, we can raise our, our cost now 5% and submit our bid to the city of North Pole because we have a 5%, um, gray space with this. How is that doing our city and our residents any good by not being competitive?

Please. How would it be doing them any good if that business that was located in the city closed because they can't compete on city projects anymore? I don't think that's the case. You know, somebody's not going to go to business because they can't— can't win a city contract, but if we— if, if a business were to close, um, because there was a service that we were constantly getting from outside the city, how would their revenue loss from them shutting down then affect the citizens? Just to follow up, if, if we hire us a business inside the city and ask them for a bid, but their bid is 20% higher than a company outside of the city, why would we not just use the cheapest option regardless?

And, and what problem does this fix that the city doesn't already do that we need 9 additional pages of language in our code? Because we do support our local businesses in, in absolutely everything we do. It doesn't make sense for us, the city, to drive to town to make our purchases when we can make those purchases right here. What does this fix? It, it supports— and a lot of services right now are not being kept inside the city of North Pole, so that's not true.

The 20%, I don't really understand what you're saying. If they were 20% higher, they wouldn't win the bid, but at least they were guaranteed to have the option to place the bid.

So they did have the option to place the bid, but maybe their bid was higher. Um, please, Councilman Brandt. Um, it's funny that you say that we shouldn't drive into town to buy stuff in town when we can buy it here, because last year you drove to Walmart to buy cupcakes and charged the city residents not only your time but your mileage. You drove to Papa John's to buy pizza when there's 3 pizza places within a 3-mile walk of your office. That's the kind of thing that we need to support our local businesses.

This just says that they're given a chance to get our business. And as far as the bidder preference Um, I don't, I don't know if everybody understands, but that's for evaluation purposes only. Um, so if it's a $100,000 bid and a business outside of the city bid $98,000, for evaluation purposes their bid would be $95,000. It would still cost, you know, $100,000. The, the business would still get $100,000, but for evaluation purposes they get the 5%.

And I will say, when I looked over all of these different local bidder preferences, like I said, almost every single borough and municipality in the state has one. When I looked at them, 5% is low for a lot of them.

Even the state goes up to 15% on, on some of theirs. They offer better preferences for veterans and minority-owned businesses and businesses owned by individuals with disabilities. Those, those go up to 15%. This is only 5%. It's not gonna— it's not gonna discourage anybody that's not in the city from bidding on, on anything.

If that's the case, they wouldn't bid on anything in the borough or the city of Fairbanks or any other municipality in Alaska that has a local bidder preference ordinance.

Anyone else?

Okay, um, if you haven't had a chance to read the memorandums in front of you from our attorneys, it might be helpful as we move forward here. That brings us on to the last topic. Boy, am I glad we started at 5 o'clock. Time is flying. This is the Utility Comp Time Ordinance 26-32.

And who will be speaking on that this evening?

Please. I just like to make a clarification. I didn't co-sponsor this ordinance. Correct. And I, um, Mr. Brandt made me aware of that and we fixed it.

Okay, thank you. So who are the sponsors and co-sponsors of that? Because, um, I was not aware of that. Mr. Brandt and Mr. Claus. Okay, so Mr. Brandt or Mr. Claus, um, age—.

Are we on now?

Sorry, our packet's full of ordinances and resolutions here.

Oh, oh, I see you skipped over that.

Okay, what page are we—. Maybe, Mr. Clerk, you could pull it up on, on your screen there and put it on the big screen so that we can, uh Review it here.

Thank you. Page 27.

Thank you, Councilwoman Rolfe. Oh yeah, this one was, uh, sponsored by, uh Santana, uh, not, not Jordan, although I hope he does support it. Basically what this does is our, our entire utility department is operated by 5 people, and the way that we can get away with that and still have 24-hour service is by requiring one of those people every week to be on call.

Um, when they're on call, they have to be available to respond to the city, or actually anywhere from, from, uh, you know, the Badger Road all the way out to Moose Creek within, say, 20 minutes. Um, and they're not compensated for that whatsoever unless they do, uh, get a call out.

Um, I personally have worked on call before. When you're on call, you, you can't go out to dinner, you can't go to a movie, you can't go to your kid's softball game in town, you can't go for a bike ride with your kids, you can't go snow machining after work, you can't even have a beer with dinner because you may have to drive a company vehicle. To work. Um, what this does is— all this does is gives them 1 hour of comp time for every day that they're on call. So for the 16 hours that they're on call, we're giving them 1 hour of comp time.

That will not affect the budget at all. It's comp time, not overtime.

And for instance, let's say at 2 o'clock in the morning at 40 or 50 below, the utility worker gets called out and they have to work, you know, 3 or 4 hours and then turn around and come back, back to work. They may be exhausted and need to take the rest of the day off instead of using their vacation time for that. They can use their comp time for it.

I think this, this just— we need to compensate them somehow for putting their life on hold. The other alternative is that we can just pay an employee to, to be working 24 hours a day, so we could have 3 crews for the, for the utility department. I don't think that's necessary, but, um, we could do that also. Like I said, the only way that we get by with, with that entire utility system being operated by 5 employees is by having this, this on-call, and I just think that they should be compensated. This is very, very low compensation for what they're giving up, I believe.

All right, thank you, Councilman Brandt. Discussion? Have you done numbers? Oh, please, Councilman Kloss. Thank you, Mayor.

Um, a long time ago, I was an emergency response chaplain and also an emergency medical technician, um, an ambulance corps in New York City. And we were— for when we had to cover, we were being on call, we were paid an extra amount of money each hour. Back then, I think it was like $5 an hour or something like that. And I think what, um, Mayor Pro Tem Brandt is, uh, proposing here is a good solution. So rather than have the city have to pay out an extra fee per hour for someone being on call, which I think would be a legitimate expense, this comp time basically gives them an incentive to be on call and also, um, compensates them with comp time so that the city doesn't have to pay out an extra amount of money unless they're actually called in for a particular job.

Thank you. Councilman Clausenbrandt, since you're the sponsors of the— these are directed at you. I got a couple of questions. Why would you support this for the utility department and not the police department? Or the fire department that are constantly on call?

Police department, fire department are not constantly on call. We're not telling their employees that you cannot drink, you cannot go to a movie, you cannot go to dinner. We're not telling them that. We're saying that if for them, if you're available to be recalled, come on in. But we're not requiring them to be available to be recalled.

In this case, we are requiring one utility employee per week to be on notice that they have to be recalled if called.

And they do have a 2-hour callout for that, correct? So that if it's a 45-minute problem that they can solve from their home or couch by resetting a pump with a computer, they receive a 2-hour call-out fee for that. Or if they have to come in, they get paid for whichever is, is greater, 2 hours or their time that they've spent doing that. Absolutely. Okay.

And then on, on the rest of the week when they're not, uh, being compensated at all because they did not get a call, but we are still requiring them to sit at home and twiddle their thumbs in case they do get a call, we're just compensating him by 1 comp hour.

Mr. Harlock, I, I don't know if you've had a chance to review this. Um, what would this 1 comp hour for every single day of the year cost the city on average?

Um, I can get you cost per hour for employee, but other than that, let's see. Sorry, I know this wasn't something that I asked you prior, but hold on.

Um, please, but while you're doing that, can you determine the cost to have an employee on duty 24 hours a day for the, for the, uh, utility department? Um, our highest utility employee cost per hour our— would be around $100, and our lowest cost per hour employee for utility would be around $50. And that is loaded wage, correct? Yes. Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Did you want to answer Councilman Brandt's question about, um—. That was a rhetorical question. Oh, okay. All right, just checking. Thank you, Councilman Brandt.

Um, any further discussion about this?

Okay, with, uh, 3 minutes, 4 minutes left to go, let's take a quick recess and we will move right into our meeting. Thank you.

Plan on testifying this evening. Thank you, Mr. McGee. Please sign up on the sign-in sheet there.

We are live, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Appreciate that.

Welcome to City of North Pole regular meeting. Today is October 5th, 2026. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Brandt?

Here. Miss Rolf? Here. Mr. Skips? Here.

Mr. Williams? Here. Mr. Schuster? Here. Mr. Claus?

Here. Mayor Church? Here. We have quorum. Thank you.

Please stand, remove your hats for the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for bringing us here.

Thank you for bringing us patience and wisdom to make decisions for the city of North Pole on your behalf. Pray for those residents and the families of our residents, that we make the right decisions here this evening. In your most holy name we pray. Amen.

Mr. Clerk, that brings us to item 4, Spotlight on North Pole Business. Do we have a North Pole Business signed up for this council meeting? We do not. Okay, that brings us on to item 5, citizens' comments for items not on the agenda.

Mr. Clerk, would you mind reading the disclaimer there, please? Any person wishing to speak on an item not on the agenda needs to sign up on the list located at the public testimony table. Respectful standards of decorum and courtesy should be observed by all speakers. Remarks should be directed to the council as a body rather than one member of the council or staff.

5. Comments are limited to 5 minutes.

Thank you. Do we have anybody signed up who would like to speak this evening?

Anybody online? Oh, sir. All right, well, with that, going once, twice, goodbye, Item Number 5. That brings us to Item Number 6, approval of the agenda and consent agenda. Yeah, I get a motion, please.

Motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda. Second, Skips. Okay, please, Councilman Brandt. Make a motion to remove items 13B and C. Okay.

Mr. Clerk, would you mind calling the roll on the amendment, please? To amend the agenda to remove items 13B and 13C. Miss Rolfe? Yes.

Mr. Claus? Yes. Mr. Skips? Yes. Mr. Brandt?

Yes. Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Schuster? Yes.

Mayor Turch? Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote? 7-0. Thank you.

Any further amendments to the agenda this evening?

Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on the approval of the agenda and consent agenda as amended. Miss Rolfe? Yes. Mr. Brandt?

Yes. Mr. Skips? Yes. Mr. Claus? Yes.

Mr. Schuster? Yes. Mr. Williams? Yes. Mayor Church?

Yes. Anyone like to change their vote? 7-0. Mr. Clerk, will you please read into the record, um, anything that we have been consented on this agenda?

Uh, absolutely. It's just the minutes from September 8th, 2026, regular City Council minutes. And that concludes your consent agenda. Thank you, sir. Brings us on to communications from the mayor.

It's been busy at the City of North Pole. Um, Public Works has been out, um, getting ready for winter. It's right around the corner. Finishing up our last-minute projects to include The walking path over at Blanket Boulevard, working on the final patches around the city of North Pole and prepping our equipment for winter.

Utilities, just been doing what utilities do. We did have the Core-Tech drillers out drilling the soils for our new outfall project last week. And, uh, taking care of business as usual. Um, I did get to attend a fast planning meeting where they looked at the safety audit, so thank you, Chief Smith, for attending that, and Cody Lugey for attending that on the city's behalf, um, related to the intersection at Peridot. There is a report out online if you want to look at it through Fast Planning.

Any questions of the mayor?

I have a question, Councilman Claus. Um, I was reading in the news and also listening to the, uh, TV, and I noticed that, uh, KTUU and KTVF had covered, um, the upcoming, uh, elections, and I noticed that one person made a sort of a, sort of kind of an allegation that the, that there has been corruption over the last few years here at the city, and that, quote, we need to get down to the nitty-gritty and knock out the corruption that we had going on. So if this is something that's been going on for years, I'm wondering if you or and/or the police chief for addressing that matter. So I'm not sure where that came from, or that supposed comment, Councilman Claus. It's very— oh, please.

That count— that comment, uh, came from Aubrey Barnett, and it was, uh, published and broadcast. Her comments— she said on air live what I just related to the council and to you. So was that a quote, sir?

Because I don't want to put out any disinformation the day before the election on a local resident who has decided to run for our city council without it being a direct quote. And if you wouldn't mind stating your source so that there's no misinformation out there, I'd appreciate that. Since here's the quote, it's from KTUU and KTVF, and it's by Alex Bengel. Was the author. The quote is, Ms. Barnett said, I think we need to get down to the nitty-gritty and knock out the corruption that we had going on.

Let's see what was happening, etc.

So that was her concern apparently, and that made it onto the news, and I believe it also appeared in print. And I think there's a This particular broadcast said that, uh, Barnett mentioned a friend who was billed by the city for improvements to her water line without the project having gone out for bid. Just choose their friend's business, stuff like that. I don't think is right. I think everyone deserves a chance, etc.

So you might want to look into that, Mayor and Police Chief. I think that's, uh, an allegation. When somebody talks about corruption, I think that would be of concern to the city. Thank you. Hey, you bet.

I haven't heard anything of such, Chief.

All right, he's shaking his head as no. Um, I will tell you, Councilman Claus, that, uh, as far as dealing with, um, the disparaging things that were said about our city, that our city council here has had some pretty heated debates. I can't imagine that, uh, there's corruption at the city without me knowing it, but if there is, I certainly would like to know.

Thank you for the question, Councilman Claus. Any other questions?

I'm sorry, um, I, I, I, I, I can't have citizens yelling from the audience. I believe his question was, could you turn up the sound system inside chambers so that he can hear.

Okay, with that, we move on to communications from department heads and borough representatives. Where would we like to stay? Let's start with Chief Heineken.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. Um, I'll just be real brief in the fire department. Um, we're getting into that time of year, um, where we're starting to see cold temperatures again, and with that The fire department, every year we see an uptick in fires caused by heating appliances that have sat dormant for quite some time this summer. So I just want to get that reminder out that if you're using, you know, especially wood-fired products, you know, whether it's a pellet stove or a wood stove, those are the big ones we really see. There's, I don't know the science behind it, but there's something about a wood stove that sits for 4 or 5 months over the summer.

And then amazingly, most of the chimney fire, attic fires we see end up, um, being the same exact story from the residents. It was the first time I lit it since last winter. There's something about that first light of a wood stove, um, that is super dangerous. So we have always tried to get people to clean their chimneys throughout the summer, get that thing prepared, get it ready. And then be— just be very vigilant when you're firing up any heating device, whether you haven't had a boiler running all summer and you're firing it, your wood stove especially, pellet stoves, um, you know, just don't turn them on and leave.

Um, be very, very careful with them, monitor them the first 24 to 48 hours, and, and, uh, give us a call early if you do suspect a problem. Um, that's all I have for you tonight. I can take any questions.

Thank you, Chief. Thank you for your report. Appreciate that. Mr. Herlock, um, I don't have anything to report on, but if anybody has any questions, feel free.

Questions for the CFO?

Moving on. Chief Smith, I also don't have a big report. I just got back from being gone for 2 weeks. Department's doing well. I would just second what Chief Heineken said, but from my perspective, it's getting slick out.

So time to start thinking about changing your tires over and driving more carefully, giving increased stopping distances, all that stuff, as we now have the presence of ice on bridges and other locations that freeze easily. So be careful out there.

Okay, thank you. Um, Fairbanks North Star Borough representative, Councilwoman Rolfe. So as you're aware, it was very heated meeting. Uh, it, uh, got done just before midnight. Uh, they did pass the community workers— community workforce agreement, uh, so that, uh, will move forward.

And I guess we'll see what happens there from that. Uh, the only other thing really that was on the agenda that night is there was a discussion about committees and appointments, uh, that occurred. I know that The appointment that we put forward for Barbara Haney has never been addressed. When we sent it back, they did discuss a way in which that would not come before the body for approval, which would basically take 3 ordinances— one from us, one from the borough, and one from the city of Fairbanks— in which all agreed that basically it's a joint committee versus the borough's committee, which is what it is currently. And it would make sense for economic development for it to be a joint committee because So I will probably start talking with our clerk about getting such an ordinance drafted and talking with the other bodies to do that.

In that case, our seat would be appointed by us and would not need approval by them.

That's pretty much what came up. All right, thank you, Councilwoman Rolfe. Any questions?

Seeing none, that brings you— that brings us to you, Mr. Clerk. Uh, not much from the Clerk's Office other than tomorrow, uh, is Election Day. Uh, it's regular Municipal Election Day at all of your polling precincts. Uh, polls open at 7 and close at 8.

Uh, get out and vote.

All right, thank you, sir. Any questions for the Clerk?

See none. That brings us to Item 11, ongoing project reports. We really don't have anything this evening. Oh, please. I had one.

I didn't hear anything from the Director of City Services, um, and so I have question for— I guess it's you. Yeah, please. Um, there's a, uh, blockage I emailed you about a couple weeks ago at the, uh, on West First leading into the, um detention basin from some work from a contractor on West First. Um, I'm wondering if there's a plan to address that before winter, because the culvert— the main culvert leading into that is blocked.

So that contractor was emailed and requested to go out there and correct any damage and anything else that came from that, to include clearing the blockage.

Thanks. You bet. Thanks for the email. Any—. Oh, Councilman Brandt.

I'm just curious, can you give us an update on the solar project? I certainly can. Right now, the attorney is reviewing the GVEA net meter contract that was sent out by GVEA, and, and that's where the project is sitting right now with with him reviewing that contract to make sure there's nothing in there that we can't sign, and then whether or not that needs to be brought before this body for approval before we can move forward with that. Please, follow up. I mean, they haven't started any work on the solar project yet.

They've been out to inspect, but correct, no physical work has been started. Any other question?

All right, that moves us on to Item 12A, Ordinance 2026-19.

Um, like to request a staff report from Mr. Harlock, please.

All right, on Ordinance 2619, amending pay, uh, discusses the 3% increase for, uh, compensation across all departments. Um, can I discuss the amendment as part of that?

Um, the amendment hasn't been made, although we did discuss it at the work session. Uh, do you feel as though that's a fair, um, for him to discuss an amendment that we talked about during a work session during a staff report? Uh, I— once, once the amendment's made, I think it would be more appropriate. Okay, I agree. Mr. Harlock.

Okay, thank you for that. Um, that brings us to citizens' comments on this item. Is there anybody who wishes to testify?

Mr. McGee, good to see you. If you wouldn't mind stating your full name, spelling your last name, and then stating your area of residence. Thomas R. McGee, MCGHE, North Star Drive, North Pole, Alaska. Um, I only have 5 minutes, but I have a lot to say, and it comes with 20 years of experience.

Like Mr. Brandt, I always challenged the activities of every mayor— Johnny McCoy, Jeff Jacobson, Doug Isaacson, Bryce Ward, and, um, Mike Welch. I had the opportunity through all of those to sit and review their, their their timesheets when they turned them in so I could evaluate where they were, where they were, what they were doing, and who they were doing it for. And I can assure you that every one of them, even though I had this perception that a mayor should be here from 8 AM to 5 PM every day at the beck and call of any department head or, um, the local office that may need him, and I learned quite over the years that they are available. They have phones wherever they're at. They're very, they're very reachable.

And I can tell you that many of the mayors and I had 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock meetings in, in his office before it was a broom closet, in his office, that we discussed a lot of the things that this was going on in the city. They were always available. They never weren't. And even though we have— we might— that some of you might have the concept that a mayor is supposed to be here from 8 to 5 What you're not seeing— and we had to— I actually was on the council when we voted in comp time for the mayor to compensate them for all the hours they worked outside this office. And a good strong mayor spends a lot of time outside this office, not inside this building.

And we expect them to— as a resident, as a business owner, but as a resident of this city, I expect my mayor to represent the city not only within the city limits of North Pole but in the city limits of Fairbanks and within North Star Borough, Juneau, and Anchorage. And there's a lot of times they're called on to go down there and present what our needs are. And I was, I was shocked that Mr. Brandt brought forward this, this feeble idea that the mayor is only worth $2,000 a month. And somehow another— oh, by the way, I was also on the council when we brought it to a vote to the city residents who voted down the city manager. The residents don't want the manager, and the businesses— I understand Mr. Brandt's commented at the last meet— at the meeting that he said he spoke to a lot of the citizens of businesses.

Do you know that 90% of the business do not have a voting voice in the city? They're not residents. They don't have a voice to vote for. They really personally couldn't care what the mayor was doing in relationship as long as that their city sales tax was being properly gathered and placed in the proper, um, coffers. So I was really surprised that had he done a real true study of the city residents— which, by the way, I only saw one council member at the fundraiser for the city seniors' roof, so I didn't see much representation there from the city— but the city strong mayor represents a lot more than an 8-to-5 time clock.

And I can tell you of a few lawsuits that have happened already within this city over the years by requiring any employee, any department head, to punch in and out on a clock, to be here at a specific hour, specific time. And for you to think that this person— and I don't know what, what the mayor's track record has been since he's been elected in. I'm not here watching him. I don't— haven't felt the need that any citizen needs to overview or micromanage the city. But if he's doing the job, he's in, he's in contact with Juneau, Anchorage, our representatives, our governor, our senator, Fairbanks Borough Mayor, the city mayor, all the time.

The job doesn't work from 8 to 5. You're talking about the utility people just recently about being on comp time for when they are called, and I think that's awesome. But you need to do more of a study, and before you can say that this gentleman or anyone, or even David, because I noticed he had an interest in the mayor last meeting. Anyone runs for this office, then you ought to sit in his shoes for a while and see how many phone calls he takes, what time he takes them, where is he at after hours. I think you need to amend that, get rid of it, get it off this, this, um, scale tonight and put it back the way it was.

You're not going to attract more people to run for $2,000 a month, and you're by no means going to save money to pay a mayor $2,000 a month and then compensate a city manager manager on top of that. You're spending a whole lot more money than you need to. If these department heads aren't capable of handling their departments under the supervision of the mayor, the mayor and the mayor's budget, a city manager is not going to do any different. They don't need to be micromanaged.

Thank you, Mr. McGee. Any questions? Please, Councilman Schuster.

Questions. Did you realize this has nothing to do with a city manager and that would still have to go to a vote of the people? It's in the cobwebs. You've already— apparently you're already talking about it. The news reporters are calling me on it.

Somebody in this city is talking about city management. Okay, I believe I seconded the amendment. At the last meeting, and certainly not me for a city manager. But, uh, next question: how would you go about recruiting qualified business owners or citizens to run for mayor at the requirement that they work 40 hours a week in office um, for their— for the current mayor's salary? Well, the first one that worked part— worked full-time as a school teacher was Jeff Jacobson, and Jeff Jacobson was here in this office right after school, and he spent many hours after that.

Their hours aren't booked. When you— if you ever have— I, I'm not allowed to ask you a question, but I'm wondering, have you looked at the timesheets? Where are they signed in? When they're signed out, were they in the building, or were they at a function with the borough or the city? So it's— you're not asking another business member to be here from 8 to 5 daily.

They don't need to be here from 8 to 5 daily. That's why he's a department head and they're department heads. They're here from 8 to 5. And if they need something from the mayor, like the, the most common thing that the mayor was needed for that he wasn't available and I was called in for because I was a signature and was a signature for many years and a mayor pro tem for many years is to sign a check because he wasn't available to sign a check. He was in Juneau or, or somewhere else.

As a mayor pro tem, the mayor wasn't available at, um, because of different reasons. One particular time, and I believe it was Jeff Jacobson that was at the mayor— and I'm not going to discuss the actual incident— but I was the mayor pro tem and I got called in because of a very traumatic incident that happened within the city. And I personally had to take care of the initial, and I didn't have to do a darn thing. I just had to be there. The department head at the time, the chief of police at the time, the chief of the fire department at the time, jumped on that and took total care of what the situation was.

And I just had to be present until the mayor could come in. The mayor was out of town at the time.

How would I attract— I would attract someone that has the experience and knowledge to be able to work with the other politicians in our community. That knows how to go to Juneau and bring the city's agenda, what their needs are, to Juneau and to invite them here. I have— I'm really sorry, I know where this desk used to be, but I think I would personally be embarrassed if he had to address the senator or the vice president who came into our town today in that old broom closet. It. I would be embarrassed as a resident of the city that that's what we're offering our city.

But if you asked these people that own businesses, they want to be a mayor, they don't have to be from 8 to 5. I'm not— I haven't finished my retirement yet. I haven't finished my job because there's a demand for it, but I've broke it down to 4 days a week, half days, so that I can be available for anything else I want to do.

Please follow up. Um, I'm going to try to address a couple things in this question. Did you hear at our last meeting the testimony where it was very much kind of similar to what you're saying, is if you trust your department heads and you have good department heads that run their city, you, you don't need to be here from 8 to 5? And I think that was kind of the point that was trying to be made was if it's 2 to 3 hours of work that you're doing or 2 to 4 hours of work a day so you could, you know, do two things at once, do you think you should be compensated $90,000 a year with comp time and, and the whole package to work for 2 to 3 hours a day? No, I would agree with you.

If, if, if all he's putting in is 3 or 4 hours a day and that's it, no meetings at the borough, no meetings with the city, doesn't go down to Juneau, then I agree with you. And if that's what your current mayor is doing, then I think you need to address it directly with that current mayor and to find out what his agenda is, what's— what, what is his objective for the city. But I can assure you that every other mayor, even though I didn't agree with Jacobson and work at being a full-time teacher, I didn't agree with Isaacson who was working a real estate state company at the time, and I didn't agree with, with Bryce and his construction. But if I had an issue and I needed to talk to them after I got off work, they were here and they were available. And then when I, when I was put in the position where I had to check and sign off on everybody's timesheets and looked at them and read them and to verify that they were legitimate, I looked at the mayor's every time and I verified where they were.

Were he— was he really there? The only one I questioned was Mike Welch sometimes. On where he was actually spending his time and who he was talking to. Because even if they're at home and they get a phone call from the governor or the phone call from the borough mayor, they're working. It's not here, they're working, and they get to clock in on that and they get to put it down in their timesheet.

So I agree with you, if they're only putting in this much time to the city, then actually I'd really want to vote him out because I want somebody more active that wants the city.

I'm trying to phrase this as a question. Um, do you understand it has nothing to do with the current mayor and his job performance, but attracting potential new mayors that also have full-time jobs, like the mayors you have mentioned, who a lot of them did a very good job, to have the flexibility to do it, to do both simultaneously and do a very good job.

I think I understand what you're saying, that can you, can you attract one of the local business owners who has a desire to serve the city as well as be able to attend to his business, but to be able to serve the city with less hours dedicated to the city. I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't, I wouldn't even put that out there because that would be put— if you told the person that owned a business here within the city limits, well, number one, he's got to be a resident, and very few of them are residents. But if there was a resident that, that wanted to be the mayor and you offered him a 3 to 5 hour a day job, how's he going to perform that if he's called to Juneau for the mayor's meetings with the governor or the senator? You just— it's, it's not that cut and dry.

It's not a job that, that it— none, none of our positions are a job that are that cut and dry. The clerk can get called in after hours if something happens. The department heads, every one of the employees can get called in. The mayor can get called in, can be put to service at any given time. You can't— I don't see how you can create a part-time job for a full-time position.

I just— I'm having a hard time understanding that.

You don't have to ask permission. You and I are in direct. You give it up. Go ahead. One more.

Um, let me think what I was going to say now.

Um, while you're working on—. Yeah, go ahead. While you're working on that thought, um, I just want to correct, um, what you said, um, Mr. McGee. I'm in the old broom closet by choice. I understand that.

By choice, because Lost your mic. It's, it's my goal to be as available to every single citizen of the city of North Pole as possible. And I have had senators sit at that very same table that you sit at in this very same chambers when they come to meet here. And I'm proud of what we have here in North Pole, um, and to take such a big grandeur office that was the mayor's office, I feel is better suited for somebody who is, is here full-time, like a director of city services or a city engineer who needs this space to lay out plans, talk with residents, and make those decisions. I, I can make decisions just as well from the old broom closet as I can from anywhere.

And, and anytime you want to stop by, I'd I would love to have you in my office. Thank you. Please, Councilman Schuster, last one.

If—. Do you think the mayor's current wage is fair for somebody as qualified as you want as a mayor? $69,000 A year? Yeah. No.

And so would your solution be to double that to attract somebody qualified I wouldn't say double it.

The mayor has to, has to prove himself to the, to the city residents, not the city council. He's not hired by the city council. He's hired by the people. And if he does a good campaign and expresses his desires and his goals for the city, then the city is going to vote him in. And the city wants him compensated.

And if that compensation is good enough, off, then we might attract people who aren't working at another job, who can actually dedicate more time to the city. But you're not going to be able to attract a, a business owner who's working hard to keep his business going in these specially struggled times and dedicate time to the city that the city residents really need. You just— I just don't see that happening. I don't see the people voting voting for that position. I think if you truly talk to the people, if you really got out to the people— and yes, you're right, you said earlier, before you could ever go to a city manager, you've got to take it back before the charter.

Um, so, so that'll still go before the people. But apparently somebody's talking about it because it's newsworthy. But it's not something you want to do. A part-time mayor is not something you want. I haven't— I, I've enjoyed my break from the city, um, because after 20 years, I was just getting a little bit— I didn't want to burn out.

I wanted to take a step back. I love the city of North Pole, and I appreciate every member that sat on this, this council over all these years that have dedicated that time to the city. But you've got to understand that you're not going to attract someone at $2,000 a month that owns another business. It takes a lot of time. Every one of you work.

I'm assuming you all have jobs. I don't know. Santa Claus is— he's the only one that I know does doesn't have another job, but you all have to be here after hours. I had a classroom this evening. I had to leave the classroom early so I could be here to be able to speak to this myself.

You've given up your time. I don't know— I, I know very little about the mayor. I don't even know if he has another job. I can't ask him that, but if he does, then I hope he's managing that with also meeting the needs of the people. I'd like to know I don't know how you can expect a person that owns a business to go to a part-time position and leave his business to go to Juneau or to Anchorage or to spend meetings with, with the mayors, with, with the mayor's groups in Fairbanks and the city of Fairbanks.

I just don't see it happening. And I really, I just hope that you all understand that to provide the needs of the city, you need a spokesperson that represents the city represents the needs of this city and can take it to where the money is. And the money's not in a part-time job. And I think some of you have experience and reference with, with other politicians in your families that can understand that. And that I was really, I was really surprised that you're willing to drop your current mayor— well, it won't affect him until next year— but drop those wages to $2,000 a month.

I don't know anybody that could take that job and still hold another full-time job. I mean, I know some people who don't have good-paying jobs and have to work 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet, but the mayor's office isn't one of them. And I really hope you guys reconsider that and, and, and consider that if you— you got to have a strong mayor for the city. I personally, as a voter, want a strong mayor to represent me not only within the city limits but outside in the state We have lots of needs. I'm sure some of you had heard my campaign about parks for the children.

Well, you would— I'm sure you don't have the money, but we can get the funding if we have a strong mayor that can solicit that. And that's the things we need to give back to the people before you cut this position down. Um, and even though that somewhere down the future it can come back up, I think you really need to consider what you're doing. You're not about to, to approach someone part-time to work for the city. Thank you, Mr. McGee.

Mr. Brandt, you reference our last 4 mayors. I'm sorry, I said you referenced our last 4 mayors. Yes, 3 of whom had full-time jobs while they were mayor, and one of whom was retired and just never was here.

Um, do you believe that they earned their $70,000 a year plus retirement plus vacation time plus comp time? Well, the first four, yes. Um, I had problems. I, I really enjoyed— I've been enjoying watching these meetings back because you remind me of myself, Mr. Brandt, um, because you seem to be a thorn in everybody's butt up here on the shoulder on this council. And I was that person.

I made sure everybody did their homework their debates. And I can tell you that I challenged Jeff Jacobson. I challenged him so hard for Christmas he gave me a lump of coal.

I challenged Doug Isaacson. Doug Isaacson was a friend of mine, but if he wasn't doing right, I challenged him on it. Bryce Ward, I mean, he's been one of the best mayors the city's ever seen. And he was here long after hours. Mike Welch was the only one that I doubted, and Mike Welch was the one I watched his time cards the most and then verified that he was being honest on what he was saying.

He was at this meeting, he was in a meeting with this person. Do I believe now that that amount of money came later? I don't— can't remember exactly if he voted it, voted that salary for Bryce or for Mike Welch, but I know that, that, that's— $70,000 isn't much. And Mike Welch was the only one that wasn't working. He's the only one that didn't have a second job.

He was already retired, and I felt he could have gotten more. He was the only one that I had the most complaints on about not being available to sign checks or be here in this office to answer questions for the clerk or for the finance office. And so he was, he was the most difficult to work with because he was the least around when they needed him. None of the others that earn those wages, sir, that you've asked, did I ever get those kind of complaints on. Now, a couple of times I came to, came in to see them and they weren't here and might have been disappointed because what I felt I had was important, but they weren't available.

So, and to answer your question more directly, Mike Welch was the only one who didn't have a second job, but the only one I didn't feel like gave this office the in-office hours it should have received.

Any other questions? Councilman Claus. Thank you, Mayor. So welcome, uh, Mr. Biggie. Good to see you back here again.

I had a question for you since you brought up, uh, Mayor Welch before. Um, I'm sure you recall late 2021, mostly because of Mayor Welch, in my opinion, um, you resigned from City Council. And, um, part of your letter of resignation said, I've never been more disappointed in the performance of the, uh, North Pole City Council and the mayor than I have been over the last 2 years. In good conscience, I'm no longer able to sit on this council. And I presume part of that has to do with the mayor, in your opinion, at the time, not performing duties as one might expect them to do for the entire city of North Pole.

Your assumption is 100% correct. For those that don't know the history about why I resigned that night, is a, a vote for COVID funds came up, and two of the council members are still currently on the council. It was 6 to 1. I don't know if you know the history, but they wanted to give a non-city resident COVID funds to replace their roof.

COVID funds were specifically earmarked for the residents within the city limits, and I don't think Mike Welch did a very good job providing the knowledge and the whereabouts for those people to get that money. I spoke against it. I voted against it. I spoke to the gentleman that represented the company that was asking for it and asked him if he was aware of the litigation and the, the requirements to receive those funds, and I'm the only one that voted against it. And when I left that meeting that night, I was so upset with this council and with the mayor for even bringing that up when so many city residents still needed that money that I resigned that night.

Thank you, Mr. Claus. Thank you, Mr. Brigade. Okay, seeing no further questions, thank you for your testimony this evening. Thank you, council.

Keep up the good work. Anyone else wish to give public testimony on this ordinance amending the pay?

While Mr. Jacobson sits down, uh, might I remind Council to, to keep the questions germane to the, the topic at hand here, please? Thank you, Mr. Clerk. So noted.

Past Mayor Jacobson, good to see you this evening. Um, please state your name, spell your last names, and state your area of residence. Jeff Jacobson, J-A-C-O-B-S-O-N. I live on 391 Finnell Drive in North Pole. Um, tonight's discussion really is like a flashback where, uh, we were pre— we're in the 1990s.

The council was struggling with attracting qualified mayoral candidates. And at that time, the mayor was being paid $24,000, and that was not enough in 1990. So, um, we doubled it to $48,000, and, uh, that was during, uh, Mayor Pastor's time that got recalled— Mayor Peters' time. He, he came on board with the first $48,000 salary.

And then Johnny McCoy took over from that, and then I served as mayor for almost 8 years at $48,000. Um, a lot of people were upset because they felt like I was double dipping because I was a school teacher and getting a full wage there, and I was getting a full wage here. But I can tell you that class got over with at 3, and I was here at 3, and I worked till 11 every day. I left the city with 400 vacation hours, never used, never went on vacation. During that time.

Um, I think when you say you want to attract qualified candidates, what you really want to find are dedicated, uh, candidates, because the mayors who have had full-time jobs like I did, uh, were dedicated still to serving the community in the city of North Pole and took their job and responsibilities seriously. During— just during my short term, um, we put in the Ford subdivision with water, the Stillmire Estates and Highway Park water and sewer. Governor Murkowski called me during my math class and appointed me to be the co-chair of BRAC when we were fighting to keep, uh, Ileson from going to warm status. We built the Beaver Springs Nature Trail, uh, and the new— and the bridge over to Fifth Avenue Park. I got congressional appropriations for the water slide at, at our Westcott Pool.

We built the historic David Davis cabin right at City Hall. We installed the skateboard park, installed Doh Chu Bridge, repainted and expanded the number of candy cane light poles in the city. When I came on board, everybody was using paper spreadsheets None of their computers talked to each other, so I installed a network and people could communicate and we could do accurate accounts receivables using a computer. And we had then a financial system for the first time that worked. I organized the city archives.

There were boxes of records all throughout the city. And so when you walk into the records room here, you have all the ordinances all the resolutions and all the minutes from 1953. That didn't exist before my time. I did that. Um, we also celebrated the 50th anniversary celebration of the city, and I instituted a monthly anniversary celebration which included the continuing fireworks display every December and the Taste of the North Pole, when we had participation from the different different, uh, resident businesses.

Also the landscape around City Hall. All this used to be just rock, no flowers or trees. Um, when you talk about $20,000, you have to be really sure— or $24,000— are you talking about an exempt employee or an hourly employee? Because I heard from last week's comments Mr. Brandt say that, you know, he'll work, that person would work until they get the job done. Well, you can't do that with an hourly employee.

Department of Labor law says that you must pay them overtime.

Now, if you have an exempt employee, they can work over that, but you're not going to attract a dedicated nor a qualified person for $24,000. There are meetings during the day that they have to attend—fast planning, the mayor's meeting, uh, the striker meeting is what we used to call where all the community leaders met at the borough, uh, mayor's office, military events, community events, staff meetings. I worked till 3:00. At 3:30, we had a staff meeting every week with all the department heads. They had 2 hours of access during their duty time to talk to me about what I needed to do for them that night.

I put together the council packets for the clerk every week, every council meeting.

I mean, I wrote the ordinances, I wrote the resolutions, I typed up the agenda. The only thing I didn't do was the minutes. So I was a busy mayor. And so when I've heard comments that I was just a full-time teacher, I took offense at that because I, I was dedicated and got a lot done, and I'm proud that. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Jacobson.

Any questions for past Mayor Jacobson?

Thank you for being here.

Anyone else who would like to speak on this ordinance?

Mr. Clerk, is there anyone signed up online? There is not. Okay, with that, I'd like to have a motion, please, to adopt Ordinance 2026-19. We still have a motion on the floor postponed from the last meeting, so we're, we're on the main motion that's been amended, so we can go ahead and kick off discussions Okay, um, after last meeting, the day after our meeting, um, I brought up a motion for reconsideration.

I voted to reduce the mayor's pay to $24,000, um, and I would like to reconsider that vote. Vote. Um, I don't necessarily think it is a terrible idea that the mayor's pay be reduced. I do think though there needs to be steps put in place before that happens. Um, those steps would be a chief of staff for the mayor's office who could—.

Point of order, real quick. I'm sorry, please state your point of order. Um, two things. First of all, you cannot, uh, reconsider at this point because you have to do that within 24 hours. Uh, so that particular amendment cannot be, um, reconsidered at this meeting.

Mr. Clerk, sir, um, the Councilman Brandt's discussion. So the notice for reconsideration was emailed out Tuesday September 22nd at 4:11 PM. He was on the prevailing side, and he can reconsider.

Okay, I apologize, I read that email incorrectly. I thought he, uh, was reconsidering the other amendment. Um, I— so I, I would say you've made the motion to reconsider. We need a second for that, and then you can have your discussion.

So you'd like to change your point of order to a second? Thank you.

Second, Skips.

Thank you, Mr. Skips. So I'll continue on. Um, I supported that motion and I still support that motion. I don't think that it is terribly wrong to desire a part-time mayor. I do think, however, if we're going to go to a part-time mayor, the mayor's office needs some support staff to help handle the day-to-day duties of the mayor— emails, ordinance writing, resolution writing, Um, someone to help the city through during transitions of the mayor.

Those steps are not in place, so I would like to withdraw, and is the reason why I asked for the reconsideration of vote to reduce the mayor's pay. Thank you. Any further discussion?

Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on the notice— or on the motion to reconsider the amendment to the amend— to amend the mayor's salary with $24,000 a year with no benefits. Um, Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Brandt?

No. Mr. Claus? No.

Mr. Skips, can you clarify what— Absolutely. So, uh, a yes vote would essentially bring that motion right back before us where it was. It would bring it back as if it never happened, and we'll be back on the floor A no motion, no vote would keep the amendment failed as it was. Yes. Yes for Mr. Skips.

Mr. Schuster? Yes. It's Rolf. Yes.

Mayor Church? Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

No. With the vote change, uh, the motion to reconsider passes 4-3. 3. Okay, thank you. So now that brings us to Item 12A.

Can I get a motion please to adopt?

Oh heavens, I am so sorry. Thank you so much.

Um, where does that bring us, Mr. Clerk? I'm so sorry. To a staff report. Um, you guys can I mean, there's a point of order.

The, the, the amendment is being reconsidered now, so don't we have to discuss and revote on that amendment? Correct. Thank you.

So now before you is the amendment to the mayor's salary, $24,000 with no benefits.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, please, Mr. Schuster. I'll kick off discussion.

Um, I, I try and take public comment to heart, and the two guys who testified tonight have been in the city a lot longer than me and, and certainly have more position in the job than I do.

I struggle with— I still think to attract dedicated, qualified candidates, I think something needs to be done where it's okay to have a second job as long as you're still, you know, performing the mayoral job duties.

As expected. I don't, I don't have any qualms about that. I think $2,000 was probably a little bit arbitrary. I don't, I don't know if there was a whole lot of research into that, that when you look at cities our size, Um, you know, a lot of cities our size just have a mayor that was appointed by council. It's not even a full-time position.

Um, I think a lot of people forget that at the end of the day, we're a small— we're 2,500 people. It's not, it's not 20,000 people including Badger Road and all this. What the public is paying for is the services that 2,500 people receive. And so while I think we need to create more flexibility for more candidates, it also leaves us in a position where I don't think it's fair that a mayor that is doing it at 8, 9, 10 PM— while they might be doing a great job, the public doesn't have the same access— I don't think it's fair to pay them a full wage.

Together. So, Councilman Brant, um, I do want to address what, um, Mr. Jacobson said. Uh, nobody up here ever said you were just a teacher. Um, it was, um, said that you were a teacher while you were mayor, and nobody said you were a bad mayor. Um, and you referenced a considerable number of accomplishments that, that happened while you were mayor, and I'm sure you relied heavily on the Director of City Services to accomplish many of those tasks.

Um, to, uh, what Mr. Councilmember Schuster Asked about the, the $2,000 seeming arbitrary in our code, it says that elected officials making over $2,001 per month, um, must, uh, or can receive PERS benefits. And, and the intent of, um, that particular amendment was to make it a, uh, $24,000 per month or per year with no benefits. So making it over $2,000 per month would, um, uh, make us offer— have to offer retirement benefits along with that.

Um, no, that, that's it.

Any further discussion?

Please, Councilman Claus. Thanks, Mayor. Um, from what I was hearing from, uh, folks who just testified, um, I think both of them would have— I'm guessing, but I think if they really wanted to be mayor way back when, they probably would have been, um, mayor, um, for the 20 or whatever it was, $2,000 a month, because they were just dedicated and A lot of the work that they did do, I think, could have been either given to a city clerk or director of city services, etc., and existing staff. So I think reduction of the, the mayor's salary for the next mayor, whoever that might be, is appropriate, at least for a city of our size. Thank you.

Councilman Claus, did you just put words in our testifier's mouth, um, that were totally opposing the public testimony that we just heard by stating as such? No, I think I feel that they were dedicated enough that they probably would have. That's in my opinion. Thank you. Okay, thank you for sharing your opinion.

Any further discussion on this topic?

Clerk, please call the roll. And just to clarify that this is on the amendment, uh, to amend the mayor's salary to $24,000 with no benefits, as Mr. Brandt indicated in the first or last week's meeting in the pay matrix. Mr. Schuster? Yes. Mr. Williams?

Yes. Miss Rolfe?

No. Mr. Brandt? Yes. Mr. Claus? Yes.

Mr. Skips? No. And Mayor Turch? No. Would anyone like to change their vote?

Passes 4-3. Okay, that brings us on to um, further discussion on Ordinance 29— 26-19.

I would like to propose an amendment, please, to the pay ordinance.

Um, I sent this out in an email. It's in front of you, to remove lines 44 and 45 and add the following: the new pay range chart in front of you to 30 steps for all departments.

Add the following language: employees shall advance to the following on the first pay period of the year. The fire department Range 1 through 8 shall receive a 1-step increase annually. After range 8 shall advance to 2 steps annually. Item B, all other departments range 1 through 10 shall receive 1 step annually. After range 10 shall advance 2 steps annually, except employees hired within the last quarter of the year will not be eligible for their annual increase after the first pay period in January following their one-year anniversary.

All employees above the range of step 30 shall continue at a 1.5% increase per step.

Second. So we had a work session. Thank you for the second. We had a work session prior to this, um, discussion that started at 5 where we dove into, um, a little bit of the pay scales, the pay range, and how that is going to move forward. Um, we talked about briefly an ordinance that was passed by this council in October of last year and how that affected pay scales.

Um, in, in this amendment, um, the CFO and I worked very hard to make sure that the numbers are correct in thinking about every single employee that works for the City of North Pole and their longevity related to the steps that they currently have and being able to retain that, and also to move forward for the future of the city. Those pay scales are in front of you.

Please, Councilwoman Rolfe. So I have a question. I guess it's two-part. One, I guess this would undo the amendment we just did because it, it reinserts a new pay scale. Second is, under our current code of ordinances, or Code, the mayor can only have a 2% increase per year under, I think it's 4.02.

This would give 3% every year. We either need to amend this or we'll need to amend that section of code. Correct.

What section of code are you referring to for the mayor's 2% increase? Because I will tell you that the 3% increase has been on the book books for 4 years, and I understand our code is very archaic and at times does contradict itself. So under mayor's pay, okay, where it sets out what the mayor's pay is, it says that it can increase, but the increase of the mayor's pay can't be more than 2%. If you give me a minute, I'll find the exact code. That's fine.

Mr. Clerk, would you mind finding that in our 360 and pull that up on the screen so we can see that reference code? Thank you.

I believe it's that way in the previous pay scales. I believe it's that way in previous pay scales as well, but it contradicts our code, which is the issue. And what I would like to—. I mean, the 2% is in the previous pay scale, isn't it? The one that's all crossed out that we have is 3% still.

Thanks, eh.

20820A1, and it's the last line of A1.

So I'm doing the math on the previous, um, the ones that are all crossed out, and that is only a 2% increase.

All done, Madam Rolf.

So I'm going to assume that what you have here in front of us that you did with Mr. Harlock is the 3%, right? That's what was proposed by Total City staff. Which contradicts our code. May I please, Councilman Brandt? Um, so the numbers you've provided are a 2% increase.

The only place it referenced 3% is above.

Uh, so numbers are actually correct.

Thank you, Mr. Harlock, for doing your job so wonderfully.

Any further discussion?

Please. So I know we all discussed it at the work session, uh, but we didn't actually talk to, uh, either of the other chiefs, uh, or heads of the department that are here as to whether or not they've talked to their employees about the changes that were made, because I know that was a big discussion before Chief Smith left, uh, that this kept getting moved and the ability for them to speak. And I know that was one of the reasons that we kind of kicked this down the road was nobody had seen this. Have you had a chance to talk to your employees? What are thoughts?

This is not a huge change from what's in front of us, but it is a change. So it was actually one of my employees that brought up the concern over hypothetically if one of his sergeants, fellow sergeants, moved on and someone else was hired in after the pay scale had been adjusted and he'd been bumped back 2 steps, and that person comes in right where he would have been. That was his concern, was just the disparity between those 2 things. So my staff is aware, and from what I'm seeing from this, it's not making a substantive change to what they're receiving above what's already been proposed. It's just streamlining the process and making it more consistent over time.

They would support that. They're not nitpicky. They just— by what we said we're going to give them.

Yeah, very similar for the fire department. Um, it took me a little bit to wrap my head around this amendment, I will admit that. Um, but I believe in the end it's a little bit cleaner for, for those type of reasons. Um, one of my first concerns with the original version was, was the fact that it expected employees to drop back into ranges. And that's a morale issue, even though most likely dropping back and rounding them up, you know, to the nearest would have given them more money than 3% for a few of them.

Um, but it's a morale issue to tell somebody that's at range 16, hey, now you're at range 12, even though monetarily it was the So that was one of my concerns where this amendment, you know, takes that out of it. They'll stay at their own range. And then, as Will pointed out, it cleanly aligns with— it'll be 3% for everybody. There won't be that, you know, round them to the nearest. So I do support it in that way.

I will say right now, if this amendment did fail and we go back to the original, there's nothing in this this that actually says to drop people back. I'm currently in Range 20, and unless something was placed in there to say that I had to drop back, even though I know comments were made and it's kind of an understanding people will drop back, but there's nothing in here that says people will drop back. So I just want to include that at this time, that if this amendment does go through, I'm, I'm fine with either version. Um, I really am. Them.

Um, it— the end outcome is about the same, 3% across the board. It's just how we get there. So I'm good with the amendment. And if that doesn't go, I just recommend, if you're— if your intention is for employees to drop back, you better make sure you make an amendment and make that clear.

Councilman Brent, let's have a comment to, um, Andrea's concerns here about the mayor's pay. I don't think an amendment needs to be made to clarify this. I would just ask that Mr. Ball, when this is codified, somehow in the chart show that the mayor's salary is a 2% increase and then everybody else is at 3%. I think that's just housekeeping thing. I don't think we need an amendment for that since the numbers, the salary numbers that are in front of us, are actually correct.

Any further discussion?

None. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll, uh, on the amendment to remove lines 44 and 45 and add the following new pay range charts to 30 steps for all departments. Employees shall advance to the following on the first full-scale period of the year. Fire Department Range 1 through 8 shall receive 1 step increase annually.

After Range 8 shall advance 2 steps annually. All other departments Range 1 through 10 shall receive 1 step annually. After Range 10 shall advance 2 steps annually. Add except on line 45 and add any employees above the range of step 30 shall continue a 1.5% increase per step. Mr. Williams?

Um, no. Mr. Claus? Uh, yes. Mr. Brant? No.

Miss Rolfe? Yes. Mr. Schuster? Yes. Mr. Skips?

Yes. Mayor Turch? Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote? There, I'd like to change my vote to no.

It's Claus. Oppose. So noted. Mr. Clerk, where does that put us for the count?

Passes 4-3. Thank you.

Brings us on to Item 12B, unfinished business. Mayor, uh, that was just the amendment. We have to vote for the ordinance unless there are any more amendments.

Are we in discussion? Yeah, we are thinking about, uh, Councilman Brandt's conversation relying more on a director of city services. Put your mic closer. Yeah, thank you. The conversation about relying on a director of city services, um, And, uh, the mayor's comments about needing a chief of staff, um, I think that might bring us back to, you know, uh, providing a better wage for a director of city services.

While I think it's very competitive, if they're— if we're going to attract somebody who's qualified and can assist to to really get what we're after, um, with the mayor position and somebody that could be relied on and, and find somebody qualified that could handle not both offices but, but assist the mayor, um, I think that might be something worth looking at.

Any further discussion?

Hey, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on the ordinance 2026-19 to adopt 2026-19 as amended. Mr. Skips? Yes. Mr. Schuster?

Yes. Mr. Brandt? Yes. Miss Rolf? Yes.

Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Claus? Yes. And Mayor Turch?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

7-0. Okay, now that moves us on to item 12B, Ordinance 2025-28. I'm sorry, yes, Mr. Williams, you have your hand up, sir. I'd like to take a bathroom break, about 5 minutes. Move to suspend the rules for 5 minutes.

Any opposed? Okay.

Hey, back on the record. Thank you for joining us again. We were at item 12B, Ordinance 2026-28, amending Ordinance 2026-08. Um, staff report on this, um, we've talked about it a lot to try and help the sale of city-owned property over off of Refinery Loop and allow that to be sold through the clerk's office. Miss Clerk, do we have anybody signed up online or in the room who would like to speak on this item?

Online, no. Anyone in the room who would like to speak on this ordinance?

That brings us to a motion to adopt. If I could have someone make that motion, please. Move to adopt Ordinance 2026-28 and Ordinance Amending 2026-08. Second, Skips. So moved and seconded.

Brings us to council discussion.

Please, Councilman Brant.

I would like to make a motion in Section 5 on line 93 to, um, revert back to the old language. So it would remove immediately upon adoption and go back to 30 days after adoption and the rest of that line. Second.

So the reason I'm doing that is I, I tried to clarify this with our attorney and I have not heard back from him yet on this. So I think to be safe, we need to offer the 30 days.

Uh, Charter 12.3B says no action of the council to sell, lease, or dispose of any city interest in real property shall be final until the expiration of the period for filing an application for permissive referendum on the ordinance. And basically that means that we have to offer the public a chance to protest the sale of publicly owned property, and our attorney has determined that 30 days is adequate for that. Um, I can see both sides of it here. We could say that, you know, we already gave the 30 days when we passed Ordinance 2026-08, so we don't necessarily need to do that again. But then I can also see the argument that 2026-28 changes the terms of the sale, and therefore it should go back to the public to give them a chance to protest.

Um, I think we would need the attorney to tell us whether or not we can break the charter, but we don't need the attorney to tell us to follow the charter. So I would recommend that we just offer— just return to the 30 days, um, uh, delay until the ordinance is adopted.

Councilman Brandt, a referendum of permissive referendum, correct? That is only applicable, as I understand it, to the prior property owner, not to the general public. They have had 6 years and, uh, more than 30 days notice this, um, to take care of this. Um, I see no reason to adjust that as, uh, the sales change that we are making only assists moving things forward. Please.

So that is incorrect. I had lengthy discussions with the attorney when I was drafting the original ordinance and the permissive referendum is for the residents of North Pole, the public, to say no, we don't want this sold. Um, so let's say we, we had a park and somebody wanted to build condominiums on there, and we said, okay, we'll sell this park. This gives the public, um, time time to get a referendum together saying no, you cannot sell it. It's for the public, not for the prior property owner.

And I, I know that for a fact. I had lengthy discussions with, with our attorney on that fact. And so, like I said, our charter requires this 30-day referendum. I think we need to be safe, and I, I don't I don't see what difference it will make if we do delay the implementation of the ordinance for another 30 days. It will follow our charter and keep us from getting in trouble if, if we do adopt the ordinance immediately.

I understand your logic and I understand your reasoning, and I would say if somebody had filed it when we did this the first time to sell it and had an issue with it being sold, that yes, we should extend that period and give them another chance because the terms have changed somewhat. But with there not being an opposition to the sale the first time, I don't see that it's necessary to do it a second time when there was no objections to the sale of the property. We're not picking a new property to sell, uh, we're selling the same property. We've already given the chance for them to say, hey, this shouldn't be sold. It didn't occur.

We've met the charter requirements of giving an opportunity for something to happen prior to the sale.

Councilman Brent, I, I, I had the same argument also, um, but then This ordinance is substantially different from the prior ordinance in how we determine the price for sale. The permissive referendum is on the ordinance itself. This is a brand new ordinance. This is not the old ordinance. This is a brand new ordinance, and the, the language in the charter specifically says expiration of the period for filing application for permissive referendum on the ordinance.

Um, this is Ordinance 2026-28, not 2026-08. I just think that, that we should be safe, follow the charter, have the 30-day, um, uh, waiting period here.

Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on that amendment. On the amendment to delete line 93, effective date, this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption, and add, uh, 30 days after adoption. Mr. Claus?

Yes. Mr. Schuster? Yes. Mr. Skips? No.

Mr. Brandt? Yes. Miss Rolfe? No. Mr. Williams?

Yes. Mr. Church? Or Mayor Church, excuse me. Would anyone like to change their vote? Your vote against her, I apologize.

No, thank you. You bet. Would anyone like to change their vote? 4-3. Okay, any further amendments to this?

Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to adopt 2026-28 as amended. Mr. Britt? Yes. Mr. Schuster?

Yes. Miss Rolfe? Yes. Mr. Claus? Yes.

Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Skips? Yes. Mayor Church?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote? 7-0. Excellent. Brings us on to 13A, Ordinance 2026-32, Utility Comp Time.

Councilman Claus or Councilman Bryant, staff report please.

What this will do, well, compensate our utility employees for the time that they are on call after their regular duty hours Currently, our utility employees, um, our one employee is required to be on call per week. They take turns, but we're not compensating them whatsoever for the time that they are on call. We are limiting what they can do with their free time.

And not compensating them. All this will do will give them 1 comp hour for 16 hours that they're on call. Um, I, I think that this, um, is more than reasonable. Like I said in the work session, 5 employees run our entire utility department, and the way that we can do that, the way they're able to do that is we do not have round-the-clock employees. We have an on-call employee, so that saves the enterprise fund a significant amount of money.

But I personally have worked on-call jobs before. I was compensated 4 hours a day. That point of order. Um, your experience doesn't necessarily relate to the city's experience unless you worked for the city. Did you work for the city, sir?

I was compensated 4 hours, okay, um, for every day that, that I was on call. Um, but, and I felt that was fair because it limited what I could do, where I could go, how I could spend my free time. Um, and currently our utility employees are not being compensated at all for that time. They are being compensated. Thank you for the staff report.

Um, that brings us to a call for public testimony. Is there anybody signed up online or in the room who would like to give testimony to this? Please make sure you're signed up. Please state your name, spell your last name, and your area of residence, please. Uh, Randy Binkley, B-I-N-K-L-E-Y, um, Homestead Drive.

It's the shop, basically where I live my second life Chair. Um, so I am one of your utility employees, and one of the things I want, you know, I first, I want to thank you for bringing this up. This has been something that I've been asking for since I started in the utility. We do, if we get called in, we do receive compensation, but we get nothing for just being on call. And one kind of clarification there is we don't charge time for when we answer phone calls.

We only put time down home when we actually come in and work. So if I was putting all the phone calls I was taking when I was on call, it would— there wouldn't be enough hours in the day for overtime. So this is something that, you know, when I feel when we're on call, we lose our week. We, we can't do anything. I can't go fishing on the weekend.

I'm stuck. So this kind of gives us an opportunity to bring back and give us some time off. So it's— I, and, and also I feel that this is a fair option compared to other utilities in the area. College Utilities is receiving the same deal. Their guys that are on call receive compensation if they come in, but they also get 1 hour of comp time per day that they're covering the on-call.

So, your time. Any questions? Questions? Yes, Councilman Brandt. I just want to clarify something.

So if, if you are on call for the whole week and you don't get a call where you have to come into the city, you don't get compensated anything whatsoever for the entire week, but you are still required to stay at home basically and wait for the phone to ring? Is that correct? Correct. Okay, Mr. Brinkley, is there a time limit in which you have to respond to the limit— to the, to the phone call? Like, you're not just sitting at home on the couch watching reruns of Golden Girls waiting for a phone call to come in.

You can still go out and do activities because there's— is there a time limit in which you have to respond to those calls? Well, we need to be answering the calls almost immediately. Half our calls are SCADA. That has instant callbacks for whoever is on call before it rotates to the next guy. But no, I mean, yes, I can do things.

I'm not 100% stuck at home, but I am 100% stuck from doing what I want. When I was in the police department, if it was my weekend, I could be out four-wheeling, doing whatever I want. And yes, I was on call and I would get calls from officers all the time, but now I am stuck. I, I can't go fishing. And, and really, even though there is 5 of us in the utility, 4 of us are the only ones covering this.

So you got to figure 3 months of the year I am covering on-call where I am stuck and I lost my time. So, okay. And then, um, for your on-call service, um, explain to us how that works and, and how that's decided who gets what, and then what vehicle you decide to take home during the on-call service. Well, each of us basically has own truck that has our gear that we are taking home when we're on call. But the way we break it up is basically the 4 operators, not including the supervisor, we rotate the on-call, um, one week on.

So it'd be Monday to Monday, basically. We come in Monday morning and change it over.

Um, we kind of as a group set our schedule for the year and say, hey, this is how we're going to do our rotation, and we try to stick to it. But that's not always the case. If someone's sick or on vacation, we're shuffling and you might be doing 2 weeks back to back. Um, and yes, when we are on call, that guy, that one operator, does take the vehicle home so he has his gear and can respond to stuff. Um, we are basically like the dispatcher and the officer.

So thank you. Any other questions? Councilman So your freedom is greatly reduced while you're on call. I would assume that you can't have a drink at dinner if you wanted to. You can't go to a movie.

You wouldn't be able, like you said, to go fishing. You can't take a long bike ride wherever with your kids.

So is are your freedoms reduced when you are on call like that? Absolutely. I— the way me and my wife plan things when I'm on call is totally different than our normal week. Um, we, we try to avoid going to things like movies or doing stuff personally because I don't want to get called out in the middle of the movie and waste my money. So how we plan our life is totally different and based on our on-call Mr.

Binkley, when you applied for this job, was it made clear to you that this was a responsibility of the job that you chose? Yes. Okay. All right, thank you. Any other— oh, please, Mr. Williams, question into the mic, please, sir.

Let's say you get called on a Monday, you go out and you take care of it. Let's say you get called on a Wednesday, you go out and take, take care of it. So that's 2 hours right there. Am I reading this right? Yes, but we, uh, generally when we get called out and actually come in, we have a 2-hour minimum.

So, so that would be 4 hours. Be 4 hours. Okay, I just— okay, got it. All right.

Okay, thank you very much for your testimony.

Is there anyone else in the room or online who would like to testify this?

Welcome, Chief Smith.

Jed Smith, uh, into the mic please. I'm sorry. Jed Smith, uh, 125 Snowman Lane.

Um, I very much support this ordinance as far as, uh, giving the Utilities Department some compensation for having their life changed as a result of their employment. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the mental load associated with this. So it's one of the things I work really hard to try to protect my staff from, is having to carry that while they're home, because that's kind of the point of home. You get to, you get to leave that behind. So one of the big impacts of being on call like this is you're always divided in your and you're always carrying that weight of where you work all the time.

In the police service, in the utility, in, in the fire department, that can happen. So you really have two options. Either you figure out a way to make the work work in such a way that you can remove that load from them, and when they go home, they can actually go home. Or as a city, we're obligated to assist in whatever way we can. To help mitigate some of those, some of those negative effects.

So I would actually recommend that someone take the initiative to do some type of a time study regarding some of the phone calls he's referencing, because we've, we've done workarounds in the police department where sergeants are getting called, called, called, called, called. They get compensated for that, right? So maybe there's a difference between a 2-hour minimum for an actual call-out and maybe a smaller minimum call-out for an actual phone call. But those types of things, as we move the whole city towards, hey, your time is actually worth something, those types of things should be considered. If he's getting called 4, 5, 6 times a night and not having to come in and not being compensated for that, and he gets woken up and it messes up his sleep schedule, and then he's jacked up for the next 3 days trying to catch back up, he's the one paying that bill.

All, not the city. Um, and, and that's, that's just the way it is. When I first started here, we didn't get paid for driving from our house to traffic court. We only got paid once we got at traffic court and only while we were at traffic court. And then when we came home, we didn't get paid to drive home.

There's just little things like that. It's like, really? You know, so the more, the more we can move in the direction of people's time is actually worth something and we're communicating that to them, I think the better. And I would honestly do a poll and figure out how many calls they're getting on average a week, and then maybe craft some type of a smaller call-out for those types of incidences because it does have an impact on their life. I'll take any questions.

As, as mental load, what you're talking about is what do you recommend that probably we should do? I know you to take a survey on how many calls that's coming and what they are. A survey would be just to figure out if you, if you need to establish an additional form of compensation. Like I said, there's only two options. You either style the job in a way that they can totally leave it at work when they go home, which would be they don't have a call-out, they're not on-call, right?

Or you appropriately compensate them for that, for that load and that time. One of those two things, but it sounds like they need to be on call, so you're going to have to address what's coming in during those periods of time or outside.

These guys, when they get the call out, so from the time they leave their house, they're getting paid, even regardless of how long it take them to get back. If they can do the job within less than an hour's time, they still get their 2 hours, right?

But if they get woken up by a phone call at 2 in the morning and it's a 10-minute call and they get off the phone and they're awake for 3 hours— that's what happens to me— you've negatively impacted their life because they had to, they had to do that. So think about that impact and consider whether that's something that deserves some level of compensation as well, on top of what you're talking about with— okay, with the— this is for a later time, but I just wanted to bring it out because it applies directly to the, the comp time argument.

Any further questions for Mr. Smith? Thank you. Any further testimony this evening on this item?

Anyone online? Mr. Clerk? All right. Right, with that, be looking for a motion.

Motion to forward ordinance 2020 or advanced ordinance 2026-32, utility comp time. Second, Skips. Council discussion.

Please, because I'll kick it off. Uh, so when I started here, uh, I did a tour of the utilities, uh, and public works, uh, and met, I think, all but one or two of the guys that were working in those departments, uh, which is great. I learned a lot. I didn't know most of what I learned, which is, which is great. I was familiar with the systems that they talk about because my husband's an IT geek and he has a lot of those same type systems that give him calls and his people calls.

So I understand what he's talking about when he gets calls from SCADA, uh, and there are things that have to be fixed that wouldn't necessarily require you to go in and do something, but it's definitely going to require you to pull out your computer, uh, or whatever you need to fix the problem so it doesn't continue to call you every 10 minutes. Um, so I think that's something that, uh, they have under their contract, probably have a right to charge us comp time for, 2 hours for every phone call that they're doing. They're not currently doing that. Um, I think that this is, uh, a good step in the right direction in, uh, giving them compensation for the time out of their lives that we're taking. Um, and, uh, I am personally in support of this.

Please, Councilman Skips. Yeah, I've, um, firsthand knowledge. My son's in utilities, and I know when he's at the house, he's always getting phone calls, or, hey, I got to change, I got to go look at this pump, or go look at that pump. So I know he can't do stuff at times that I know he wants to do because he's on standby. So yeah, I am in support of this also.

So since you have personal knowledge of that, um, Councilman Skips, when, when he leaves to go check on a pump, he gets his 2 hours even if it takes him 15 minutes? A lot of it is if, if he gets a call, if he can't do it on the computer or the phone or something nothing, then he has to go physically lift it up and reset the pump. And if there's something in the gears, now he's got to get down there and pull stuff out of the gears to get the pump going. So yeah, it could be an hour, it could be 4 hours, 5 hours. It all depends on the severity of the call, right?

But I know he said when he gets really bad, then he calls for help. Gets, gets some more guys in there to help out. So it makes his job quicker, so he's not out there 5, 6 hours. A lot of his safety stuff too, you want to be in, you know, teams, buddy teams and stuff.

Please, Councilman Brandt. Just want to reiterate what I said before about only 5 utility workers being able to operate operate our entire utility system 24 hours a day. I think it's remarkable.

They work 40 hours a week, but there's, you know, um, 168 hours in a week. So those 128 hours that the person is on call, um, if they do not get a call in at all, they're not compensated whatsoever.

I just think an hour a day of comp time is the least we can do for them.

Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to introduce 2026-32. Mr. Schuster? Yes.

Mr. Skips? Yes. Miss Rolfe? Yes. Mr. Claus?

Yes. Mr. Williams? Williams. Yes. Mr. Brandt.

Yes. Mayor Turch. No. Would anyone like to change their vote?

6-1. And then that passes. Thank you. Uh, that brings us on to Item 13D, Ordinance 2026-26, Excess Audited Funds to Reduce Tax Rate. Councilman Brandt or Councilman Williams, who would like to give a staff report on this?

Take that. Excuse me. Um, what this would do is when we get our annual audit done in June, um, we can look over the prior year's, um, uh, revenue and expenditures and any excess excess revenue for that year will be applied to, uh, the revenue portion of the budget the following year, um, that will be used to lower the tax burden on the residents of North Pole.

Thank you. Is there anybody in the room or signed up online who would like to give testimony to this item?

Not online. Okay, that brings us to council discussion. Please, Councilman Brandt. So we covered this in the work session, and, and I apologize, I'm not feeling well, and I'm not—. Point of order, I don't think we've moved it.

Oh, okay. Thank you. Thank you. I would move to advance Ordinance 2026-26, Excess Audited Funds to Reduce Tax Rate. Second.

So moved and seconded. Continue on. Councilman Brent. Anyway, uh, thank you, Sandra. Um, like I was saying, I, I, I'm not feeling well at all, so I'm not able to just— it, it's all in my head and I understand it, but I can't make other people understand it.

And so I want to apologize in advance Um, over the last 9, 10 years, we've been overtaxing our residents significantly. We're supposed to have a balanced budget, and at budget time we tell the residents, this is our projected revenue, this is how much money we're going to take from you and provide you with these services. And every single year we're taking in far in excess of what we tell them we're going to take from them. Um, just in the last 5 years alone, we, we've taken in nearly $6 million over our projected revenues. Um, we've got— I, I, if I remember right, uh, $10, close to $11 million, um, sitting in the bank.

The GFOA and everybody else that I've talked to said that, that, um, 2 to 4 months of months of unrestricted budget reserves is what a municipality needs, and the borough, it's 17%, so that's 2 months.

Um, what this will do, it will not touch that $10 or $11 million that's still there. All this will do is at the audit time, we take the unrestricted general fund, um, as determined by the audit. Then we take the, the annual operating expenses. Um, we leave 2 to— we leave 4 months of reserve in there, and the rest of it will be used as a revenue source. It'll be a new line item on the budget will be a revenue source for, um, uh, lowering the, um, revenue needed to pay for our expenses.

I hope that makes better sense than I was making during the, the work session.

Um, that is allowed in our charter. That's what gave me the idea for this ordinance.

And, uh, that's it for now. Councilman Brandt and, uh, Mr. Councilman Williams, um, on, on line 42, it says initial funding of a permanent fund, um, but doesn't state a calculation By, by reading through Item C, it says that everything with exception of 2 months of operating expenses shall go into this permanent fund. And then on the following lines, um, into— are you on page 3 on there?

1. Yeah, that one got removed from the agenda.

I took away the permanent fund. That can be a, a future council's problem if, if they want to address that.

Any other questions?

Councilman Brandt, um, can I ask why you didn't work with the CFO to help establish this? A work session? I tried. It didn't work out. Um, I did try.

So I would like to make an amendment on line 111 after the word surplus to include the words from the prior year.

Second. So that's just going to clarify that this does not go back. I mean, it is pretty clear later on in the the ordinance, but that just will clarify that this will only, um, be for the, for the prior year's audit. It doesn't go beyond that. So just from now, if this passes, from now on at budget time, we look at the prior year's audit, determine how much excess revenue the city received, and return that to the people in the form of reducing expected revenues.

What are you changing on line 111? Line 111, after the word surplus, insert the words from the prior year.

Please, Councilman Schuster. I just have a question. Trying to think when we— what time of the year we normally get our audit back. It's due by June 30th. June 30th.

So this year, June 30th, we got the audit for 2025.

And so when we're making our 2026 budget budget. No, it will be the, the following year after. Yeah, so we will take, uh, this will go into effect and we would take 2026 audit, use that excess revenue for the 2027 budget.

Please, Councilwoman Rolf, going to be the '25 audit for the '27 budget. Like I said, my head's a little, uh, cloudy today. Yeah, so we, we will get the—. You meant, but it's not what you said. I just wanted to confirm.

So this same page, this— let's take this year for instance. It's 2026, right? Yeah. Okay, it's 2026. The audit we just received for the prior year is 2025.

We would take that excess revenue and apply it to the next year's budget, 2027 budget.

Any further discussion or questions on the amendment?

Clerk, please call the roll. The motion to amend line 111 after the word surplus to add from the prior year. Uh, Mr. Brandt? Yes. Mr. Williams?

Yes. Mr. Claus? Yes. Miss Rolf? Yes.

Mr. Skips? Yes. Mr. Schuster? Yes. Mayor Church?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote? 7-0. Thank you. Um, if I may, Councilman Brandt, um, in the effective date, um, you have in here that this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption Correct.

So we would use the audited 2025 numbers from this year to make that adjustment. When? To the 2027 budget.

You had a question, sir?

I just had a—. You had your hand raised. Oh, a statement. Okay. So I want to apologize to Will.

I would— I think I was was explaining things different, or I didn't quite understand what you were saying, you didn't understand what I was saying.

So I was talking previously about our budget, the, the amount that we anticipate in revenue in the budget.

That's not the number that, that this ordinance uses. This ordinance uses the actual excess revenue from the audit. So that does take into account all of the, the budget amendments throughout the year, any excess revenue or expenditures. You know, it's the actual number that we took in above the balanced budget, basically anything above our actual expenditures. And again, our, our code requires us to have a balanced budget, but we have not had a truly balanced budget in forever.

We are constantly taking in far more revenue than we have expenditures, and this will just take that extra revenue and apply it to the next year's, um, uh, revenue expectations to lower the amount of revenue that we have to take from other sources such as taxes. And in this particular ordinance, um, the, the intent is to use that excess revenue to lower the tax burden on the residents of North Pole.

Thanks, Councilman Schuster. Yeah, I would just like to hear from, from Will. I think when we were having our work session, it was a little bit spirited towards the end when we got to this actual, uh, ordinance. So I just want to hear your take on it again.

Yeah, so my understanding is that we're going to use prior year, um, excess to cover the budget budget for the next year for the revenue. That's the basics. Not to cover it, but to— there will be a new line item in the budget that will have this. But instead of using the revenue, instead of increasing our budget for the sales tax revenue, we would take the excess from the prior year or that revenue for the next year.

I don't quite understand. We had a million dollars in excess from our audited books, right? Right. We would take that million and add it to the revenue for the next year's budget. Exactly.

Yeah. And then during that next year, if we had an excess of sales tax, it would continue to roll.

Next year, if we had an excess of sales tax over the budgeted amount. Yeah, this would be an ongoing ordinance. It's not just for this year. It's every single year we would take whatever excess revenue above of the 4-month, uh, um, the, the 4-month, uh, reserves. So we're not taking away the reserves.

And I want to remind everybody that we're unlike the borough that gets all of their money at once at the end of the year, for, for the most part. I mean, they have other revenue sources, but, um, we are continuously getting, um, not on a daily basis, but but fairly regularly we're getting sales tax revenue in. That's our main source of income is sales tax revenue, and that is coming in nearly every single day. Um, and then at the end of the year, um, we get the, the hit, the, um, hit to our account from the, um, uh, sales tax or, or the, uh, property tax. So all that, all that money, those monies will be building up in in our general fund reserves until the next budget when it's taken out to be used for— taken out of revenue to be used for reducing taxes.

So we're not lowering the available money to the city at all during the year. That's constantly being replenished. And we're not gonna—. Are we thinking about lowering the sales tax, or how is the sales tax? So again, we, we have to balance our budget.

If we say our expected expenditures are $10 million and we expect to make $11 million, that's not balanced. We're not being truthful to our residents at, at budget time by constantly under— drastically underestimating revenues. And then, like I said, last year we were, uh, $1,352,269 over projected revenues of $958,330, I think it was. Um, you know, that's 15% over our projected revenues. That means we overtaxed our citizens by 15% last year.

So this is just one way that we can stop just piling on money. If— I have a question. Go ahead. How is it going to reduce the amount that people pay on sales tax throughout the year? Year because the budget— we're just budgeting for, let's say, $7 million sales tax revenue, but we are not controlling the day-to-day purchases that accumulate to that $7 million.

And as the economy grows or declines, that adjustment or that budget forecast on the revenue, really, in the best possible faith, and it tries to manage the expenditures to zero, to break even from year to here. That's the goal. But we cannot control what people buy, what businesses come in here, and how the economy goes, just hoping that it continues to grow. So as the economy grows, sales tax will increase unless the rate gets cut so drastically that it can't, right? So if we budget for $10 million and we take last year's million and reduce it to $9 million, but we end up making $12 million, How, how did we overtax the residents?

So we provided $10 million worth of services and took in $12 million. We are not a for-profit business. We profited $2 million. That's not a balanced budget. So when the budget time comes around, we use our crystal ball and figure out how much we think we're going to take in this We can't be 100% accurate.

That's why this says when the audit comes around, we find out truly how much revenue we did take in, what our actual expenses were, and the difference is the amount that we overtax the residents for the prior year to return that to the people, because it's supposed to be balanced, to return that to the people we keep the 4-month reserve that we need, and the difference then is put onto a new line item on the budget. And that— the way that reduces the, the taxes is because we, we say, let's just use a $200,000 number, let's say. Um, so that reduces our expected revenue that we have to collect from the taxpayers by $200,000. So we adjust the property tax rate to match the expected revenue. That's— we, we do that every year after budget.

We, we have an ordinance to set the property tax and the sales tax. Um, I, I'm not one that thinks that it's a burden to our taxpayers to pay less taxes if they need to pay less taxes.

Councilman Skips.

So then what you're saying with this, with the excess monies and stuff, so basically every year there's going to be either increase or decline in taxes or the mill rate? Every year something's going to change? It could. Well, it will, because they're always going to have a plus. Not always, or a minus, but then I have to get from somewhere else.

But from your testimony from earlier on today, you're making it sound like the city is ganking all the constituents. Excuse me, please let him speak. The impression that I got from the way you were giving your testimony testimony is that it's our fault the city is robbing the citizens of taxes. That's just what I was getting. Now I know, I know what you meant, but that's not the impression I got, or from other people listening.

They might have got the same impression I got. Like I said, I apologize to Will because I'm not feeling well and, and, um, I was not able to explain it properly. But when we, when we— I'll sound like a broken record— when we tell the residents we're going to take this much money from them to provide this much service, but we take this much money, we should give that money back because our ordinance, our, our code says that we have to have a balanced budget. Now at the end of the year, or, or we still have that $10 million sitting, sitting in our general fund reserves, so that's not going anywhere. All this does is is return the excess revenue from the previous year to the taxpayers in the form of reducing the expected revenue the following year.

Oh, I understand that, but, but you're saying— but I apologize, but are you saying we told the citizens we're only going to make this much, but we took this much? We have no say of how much we make, right? It's all the economy and what happens in inflation and everything else. Exactly. But when it's a—.

Man, Grant, this isn't a discussion Discussion, please. Discussion through the chair. Please do not interrupt anyone else speaking. Thank you. Because if COVID hits again, now everything— now the all bets are off.

Now we're digging into those other reserves and stuff.

Thank you, Councilman Brandt.

Okay, when we do collect excess revenue, then we give it back to the people we took it from. That's all this is saying. If COVID hits, we've still got that $10 million sitting in the bank. And I will say that when COVID did hit, we still took in— in 2019, uh, taking out all the CARES Act money, which was millions of dollars, we still took in $40,000 more in 2019. And in 2020, we took in $363,000 $1,830 more.

In 2021, we took in $1.3 million more. So even when, when COVID hit, we were still taking in more revenue than our expenditures were.

Councilman Brandt, with your plan here, what happens when we reduce sales tax and, and we go through this process and we do reduce our property tax and we have a terrible year. That isn't addressed in this ordinance at all. What are your thoughts and plans to be able to deal with that? Please. Again, we're sitting on $10, $11 million here.

Every single person, uh, everything, single thing I've read, every person I've talked to, experts say municipalities should have 2 to 4 months of unrestricted general fund reserves. We have well over a year or unrestricted general fund reserves. Um, we, we— and again, that money isn't going anywhere. I'm not saying get rid of that $10 million that we have. I'm saying from this time going forward, let's have an actual balanced budget.

Um, we, we— again, we can't accurately predict how much revenue is going to be or how much expenses are going to be. Things come up, but When our audit is completed, that tells us a true picture of what happened to the prior year. If there is excess revenue, that should go back to the people in the form of a line item that uses that money as a revenue source. Councilman Brandt, you've put forth a lot of things in your year and a half here on this dais. Just this evening, we passed an ordinance to amend everyone's pay.

Which is going to cost the city, um, around $375-ish thousand dollars a year. Earlier this year, you put forth an ordinance to pull funds from our city coffers, our money that we are sitting on, to pay for solar. And I agree that that may pay off in the long run, but in the short There's a lot of things coming from your office, um, spending the city's money without quantifying any sort of long-term ripple effects that may come from your ordinances.

Um, what ripple effects from this ordinance can we expect? Please, Councilman Brandt.

Again, at budget time, you will take into account— and I didn't bring forth this, this, um, uh, pay increase. I did vote for it, but at budget time, you will take that into account. You will say this is an expenditure, and we will need to take in that much more revenue to pay for that, and that's great, then it balances. But then the following summer, we get the audit for, for the, the prior year, and that tells us how much money we actually took in, more or less, than we told the people we would take. That we are using the actual true numbers from our audit.

Um, I'm not saying at budget time you can't increase a budget, because I know you're going to drastically. And so you're going to have to drastically increase the revenue that we take in. And so that's great on paper, it balances. When we get the audit the following year, we find out what the actual balance was, and that's the money that we use.

To, to, um, return back to the people. The solar project was paid for from, uh, unrestricted general fund reserves. We still have $10 million sitting in that account. You know, if in the future we burn through that $10 million, then you increase the, the property tax. And if the property tax or sales tax or both or whatever, and then if the expenditures come in less than revenue again, or the other way around, then this— I don't, I don't see how— like I said, I understand it in my head.

I'm sorry if I can't explain it properly. I think I've done a good job explaining it and you're just being contrary. So I, I'm asking questions, sir, for a reasonable thing that you have put forth. On line 132, it says no use of excess surplus as a recurring revenue. Can you explain that section of this proposed ordinance?

The city shall not use excess audited surplus of a recurring source of funding for ongoing personnel, program services, or other recurring expenditures. That's basically saying the budget cannot increase because we've got this extra money. This money will go to revenue, um, to be returned, uh, to the taxpayers that over— that were overtaxed. Um, it is not intended to increase the budget by that amount. So it's saying that just because we took in a million dollars more last year than we told the people we were going to doesn't mean that we automatically should spend— just spend that money next year.

Please, Mr. Harlock. When we create the budget for the revenue, where are we telling the people that we're taking in more or less? We're just telling them what the budget is for the year, and that's the forecast. Past. On that budget, we're not— I mean, it's just a daily accumulation over 365 years of purchases and the expense expenses that it takes to operate the city.

If we took in $6 million and we reduced it for a million from last year's excess and we made 8, how are we giving that money back to the residents? How is that being done? How is it being done? Like, again, how are we doing it next year? How are we reducing— how are we giving the money back to the people next year if hypothetically we have $2 million extra in sales tax?

How is it going back to the citizens?

Again, um, at budget time, we're guessing. That's all we can do. We can guess what our revenue is going to be. We can guess what our expenditures are going to be. We try to use educated guesses.

It's not going to be 100%. The difference at the audit is what we will use for the next year. In the next year, there will be a new line item on the budget that says excess revenue from prior years, and that will reduce the revenues that we need to take in.

So, so after the budget, we pass an ordinance that sets the mill rate and the sales tax rate. We use the expected revenues to do that.

So every year we're going to adjust the sales tax rate or the property tax rate or both? Yes.

Yes, Councilman Schuster. I was gonna further explain that, but I think Councilman Brandt got it. I would like to propose an amendment though. Hey, state your amendment. On lines 95 and 97, would like to change 4 to 6.

Second. So moved and seconded. Um, further in this, um, Councilman Schuster, it, it mentions— is it mentions the 4-month, um, minimum reserve also on line 143. 143, And in one other spot here. Um, but we'll start with your amendment, sir.

Well, I would— I can— I would like to change to include that if so, but at once.

I see 143. Is there another one? 42S is—. I'm always trying to change the maximum. And then 85 also mentions the 4 months as well.

Well, what, what was the other one? 143, Then which, which one did you just say? 85. Okay, so I'd like to change 85, 95, 97, and 143 to 6 months if I have concurrence of the second. Concur.

Okay, 85.

What's the second one? 85, 95, 97, And 143.

Oh, and 69 and 60.

Can we just make a motion to change 4 months inside this entire ordinance to 6 months and have that stand? Yes. Would you like to propose that, Mr. Schuster? Yes, I would like to.

I would like to make a motion to change maximum, uh, let me find it easily. Uh, what's that? On line 6, maximum general fund reserve means an amount equal to operating expenses. Yes, that way throughout the—. Yes, I would make a motion to change the maximum general fund reserve to 6 months throughout the entire ordinance.

Second. Also on 22. Any, any other discussion about this? Mr. Harlock, are you in support of this?

Oh, of the amendment raising that to a 6-month savings rather than a 4-month. Yeah, if that's what the council wants, sure. Yes. Thank you, Councilman Brett. Gordon, did you want to speak on that first?

I, I would just say I, I think it's a fair middle ground of some of the concerns we heard tonight on if the city got into a cash position. I know it could be transferred. I'm in support of the ordinance as a whole. I, I also meant favor in favor of being a little bit more conservative with, with, uh, what we hold available.

Councilman Brandt, um, again, I just want to say that we still have that $10 million sitting in the bank, and the reason I chose for the 2-month and 4-month is because that's what all the experts that, that I have talked to and everything that I, I've read recommends. And I, I agree with you that, that, you know, something comes up, we need the money or whatever. But again, I want to reiterate that the, the 4-month maximum is done one time, and then we continue to build up, uh, our, our taxes near— nearly daily, every single day throughout the year, to where we will be far above that. That, uh, 4-month maximum. So that 4-month maximum would be just a 1-day deal, basically, after, after this, after that money is, is taken out there, and then it will build up and up and up and up, and, and then basically, uh, anyway, so that, that's why I wasn't concerned with the 4 months, because I know that that we have a continual revenue source, unlike the, the borough.

If I may ask a question, Mr. Harlock, um, on the monthly, when we deal with tax revenue, um, if we were to have this 6-month premium set in place where we had that as a reserve and we received the insurance bill of $500,000 and another expenditure at the same time. How would the city manage to pay both of those large expenditures if there isn't enough money in there, which then would trigger it to be required to come back to council for approval to pull out out of the fund, as I understand it. How much extra work would that create for you?

Um, not a substantial amount, but the, the other part of it is, um, you know, our average monthly is $600,000-$675,000. If we're adding $550,000 because of healthcare insurance and we have something happen, that could be between $100,000 and $150,000. We should consider that if we're looking at a 6-month maximum, what would be those 6 months that we're looking at throughout the year.

Also, with the rising costs in fuel and electricity and other factors, um, yeah, it would be something that we would want to calculate before we determined it. But that's why a 6-month might be more an acceptable range, because we're having 2 more months added to that now. So to try and work on the middle ground, maybe 6 months would protect us with that $550,000 in an additional cost throughout the year, like something that we'd have to wait for insurance to reimburse us on, or, you know, to having that cash liquid. Councilman Brant, I would agree with that if we didn't— if we weren't already sitting on $10 or $11 million. $1 Million, um, all of which is completely 100% liquid.

We can access that money if you get your request in before 3 o'clock. It's there that afternoon. So, uh, there is no bill that this city gets that is required to be paid that day. Um, we have access to our money still. This does nothing for that.

Um, And, and this does not set up the fund like, like the mayor was saying. That was a different ordinance completely that I pulled. So there is no— if this doesn't affect our day-to-day operations whatsoever.

Seeing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on the amendment to change the maximum from 4 months to 6 months throughout the ordinance. Mr. Skips? Yes. Mr. Schuster?

Yes. Mr. Brandt? No. Miss Rolfe? Yes.

Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Claus? No. Mayor Church?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

5-2. Thank you for that. Any further amendments on this or discussion?

I'd like to say my piece. I think that this ordinance certainly has merit moving forward. I'm concerned about adjusting the rate of tax and the mill rate every single year, especially for property owners. If we go to drop that and for some reason we have to increase that, that is going to be a big effect on those people who are, um, on an income that maybe they could budget for it, but certainly not at an immediate audit sale related to tax. I think it's problematic for our businesses to be able to adjust the tax up and down every single year.

If we did it on a 3-year study rather than a singular year audit, that might make more sense because then we have the law of averages adjusting that and I also think about the online sales taxpayers. Every single one of those companies are going to have to adjust how they do business every single year. It could also create a very interesting sales tax cap. In code right now, it states that our sales tax cap is $1,650 at 5.5%. 5.5%.

If we reduce our sales tax to 4.4498% because this ordinance told us so, the tax cap is going to be at $1,648 instead of $1,650, which seems problematic for those businesses dealing with that, collecting that, and supplying that to the city. Councilman Brandt, the borough changes their mill rate every single year. I don't see that as a problem. No, nobody's complaining, um, that they're— I mean, they, they do complain about the amount of taxes that they're paying, but not, you know, the fact that the mill rate changed.

Um, literally, it's So your answer is to just keep piling this money on and taking more revenue from the people just because it's convenient to leave it at 5.5% or $1.75 mil. Um, that is not being honest with our taxpayers.

So that is not what I said, Councilman Brandt, but I think it certainly serves to look at the unintended consequences and effects of trying to push through legislation that was produced without ever sitting down with the CFO and dialing this in dollar for dollar and looking at, at it from his perspective. If our CFO can't understand how this moves forward and be able to put this into practice, I'm not sure understand why we're trying to put this forth in front of the council.

Please. I never heard the CFO say that he doesn't understand how to put this into practice. He's a brilliant man. He will figure it out. And as far as doing a 3-year average, that is not— God, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.

The prior years— it over— if we take in more revenue from the prior year, it should be returned, uh, to the taxpayers the next year. If you take the 3-year average, that is not balancing the budget.

Just call the roll, please.

Miss Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to introduce 2026—. Sorry, fixing my roll call sheet here— 26 as amended. Miss Rolfe? Yes. Mr. Brandt?

Yes. Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Claus? Yes.

Mr. Skips? Nope. Mr. Schuster? Yes. And Mayor Turch?

No. Would anyone like to change their vote?

5-2. Okay, that brings us to Ordinance 2026-31, Bidder Preference.

Councilman Brandt or Schuster, who would like to move forward with this to give a staff report?

What? I can do that. All right, thank you. Councilman Schuster, my page is back in order here.

Yeah, Ordinance, uh, 2026-31 is a It's, it's a 5% bidder preferences to look businesses located inside the city of North Pole providing goods or services. It also makes it so that the city has to reach out to those businesses before getting goods and services for a price elsewhere outside city limits. Um, the, the 5% is in evaluation only, and the purpose of it is to support, uh, businesses inside the city of North Pole that are charged already a, uh, more taxes, has to pay sales taxes, property taxes, um, and support our community and our neighbors inside the city.

Thank you for that. Anyone signed up for testimony on this, either online or in the room? Not online. Okay, thank you. That brings us to requesting a motion.

Motion to advance Ordinance 2026-31, Bidder Preference. Second. So moved and seconded. Brings us to council discussion.

Question. I have concern over this ordinance. Um, it was sent to our attorneys at MCS, and I'd like to read, um, part of the letter that was put forth that says, if the council believes that the notice provisions of this ordinance are good for the community, then the local procurement preference likely needs to be stricken for the ordinance to be enforceable and to survive a constitutional challenge because the notice of process of ordinance simply puts local businesses on equal footing with non-local businesses, which is likely constitutional. However, the 5% local preference stated are likely unconstitutional and should be struck down. Stricken from this ordinance.

The amendments in the ordinance sections 2 and 3 should strike references to the local procurement preferences lines.

Sorry, lines, um, 82 through 85, lines 228 through 232, and lines 244 to 245 and lines 248 to 251 from Mr. Rob Palmer.

Please, Mr. Brant. So I, I read through everything that he had to say. I had a lengthy email, uh, chain with him about this. Everything that he's concerned about is local hire.

This does not require a local business to hire locally.

The State of Alaska has a local bidder preference, as does almost every borough and city in this state. Everywhere I looked, they— and I crafted this ordinance off of dozens of different ordinances throughout the state that I've read. Um, his arguments, uh, in my opinion, um, do not apply to this particular ordinance.

And again, this is all, all of the cases that he referenced were for saying giving preference to Alaskan hire, the courts have determined that individuals are different than companies and corporations in that respect.

I can get further into it, but I mean, I could talk all night on, on the conversations that we had on this, but basically, um, if, if our attorney says that this is wrong, then every single— nearly every single city and borough in the state, as well as the state itself, is wrong.

Okay, so you're disagreeing with the findings of our attorney Absolutely. Okay, just wanted that on the record. Thank you. Any further discussion on this?

Please, Councilwoman Rolfe. Uh, so I saw the memo, uh, that was here when we sat down, uh, looked at it, and then I looked at the cases that are cited in the memo. Uh, I'm just agree with Mr. Brandt, uh, that I think, uh, Mr. Palmer's memo is a little off base here. Um, he's correct in that local hire has been found unconstitutional over and over in Alaska, but that's for giving preference to local residents versus non-residents, which is even what his captions that he gives in the memo are. I went back and read the cases.

They speak specifically to hiring of residents, not bidding of jobs. There's Alaska statute that gives bidder preferences. It's not been overturned. It's still good law, it's used, uh, it gives preferences to veterans in all different, uh, other ones. Uh, it's found that bidder preferences is allowed, but specific preferences to hiring of individuals, uh, based on residency is unconstitutional.

So I think— I think he did what, uh, they were going after with this ordinance. Um, I don't see an issue with the ordinance as it's written, uh, in trying to, uh, give a advantage, even if it's a slight one, to those who are local to the city.

Any further discussion?

So I'm opposed to this. I believe that a competitive bid process is of the utmost importance. I love to support our local businesses. I do so every single day, but dollars are dollars, and we are spending the citizens' money money, and we should choose the absolute lowest bidder that comes in that can do the work applicably. And City Council already has the right to choose on contracts.

They come before this council. So 9 pages of ordinance we're going to codify, turn into our procurement, and, and require the city to follow these rules for absolutely everything while giving a preference I don't agree with.

Please, Mr. Schuster.

Your point, uh, who— or against your point, who do you think spends more money inside the City of North Pole? A City of North Pole business, its employees, or a Fairbanks contractor and its employees?

Is? I have no idea how to answer that. I would like to hope that people of North Pole work for North Pole contractors, but at the city here, all of our department heads except for one live in Fairbanks. So to that point, I, I don't know how to answer that question because I haven't done the study. Um, but at the city of North Pole, we We— most of our department heads live outside of the city of North Pole.

Every single department head in the city lives outside of the city of North Pole, and I believe we only have one that lives in the general geographical area of North Pole. That wasn't the question. I don't believe our employees are bidding on contracts, but, um, I can speak for what happens here at the city of North Pole. I can't speak for any of the other contractors that we do business with. I don't know where Phil Hubbard's Hubbard Excavation, where their, where their people live.

I don't know if they live in town or live in North Pole. Any other contractor at Ace Hardware, I don't know if those employees are coming in from Salcha or from town to work there. I can't speak to that, but certainly they would spend more money inside the city of North Pole they're working for in that location, correct?

I can't answer that, Mr. Schuster. Okay, thank you. Mr. Bryant, our local businesses contribute considerably with their property taxes and collecting sales tax for us. Um, I will say that the City of Fairbanks has a local bidder preference, that puts our contractors at a disadvantage for doing work inside the City of Fairbanks.

Um, this kind of evens that playing field a little bit, but, um, this supports our local businesses who contribute to our local economy, and that's how every single city and borough and the state look at Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. For the motion to introduce Ordinance 2026-31: Mr. Brandt? Yes.

Mr. Schuster? Yes. Miss Rolfe? Yes. Mr. Claus?

Yes. Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Skips? Yes.

And Mayor Turch? No. Would anyone like to change their vote?

Next one. That brings us to Item F, 2026-33, Budget Adjustment. Mr. Harlock, to you for a staff report. Hi there.

Um, this fiscal note covers, uh, quite a few things. Um, Chad, do you want to speak to the first one, or— okay, so I got it. So the, um, the first one is insurance claim reimbursement we had for the ambulance, and then we just need to increase our fiscal note to account for that repair. We got the reimbursement, but we need to increase the other side for the expense. Um, vehicle gas and oil, uh, current budget as of today is, uh, $14 in the account.

So the, um, we had two budget adjustments, administrative adjustments that we used to pull from other accounts. So this is just restoring those two budget adjustments for the $7,000. Uh, credit card fees each month are about $2,700 with $164 remaining. So, uh, that amount, $10,800, would get us through the end of the year. Heating fuel, uh, heating fuel last year was $2.99 a gallon at 9,720 gallons times the current rate for the remaining 3 months would put us at $45,998.

So requested $45,000 of heating fuel for the, uh, Water Department. Heating fuel for the, uh, Sewer Department, same story, uh, $2.99 a gallon last year times 1,100 gallons, $4.73 this year. So just about, uh, $5,500 to get us through the year on that.

Legal fees. Legal fees amount remaining for the administration is $800. Last 2 months or invoices, the average was $2,300, anticipating the remainder for the year, so about $8,750 to get us through the end of the year. Um, bills come in at the first of the month for the last month, so we got to get those paid. Uh, professional services, we're at about $9 right now for the, uh, clerk's office.

We have about, uh, $340 a month, so to get through the next 3 months. And then we have a couple bills that we have to get paid, so $1,650 requested there. Membership and dues, we have a budget remaining of $40. We have 2 memberships coming up at the end of the year for the GFOA and the AGFOA membership fee totaling $345, so I requested $350. Um, equipment repair and maintenance, that is covering an administrative adjustment, um, that we use to cover from another fund, inter-fund transfer I made, so we're just requesting $700 to cover that adjustment.

And same story for vehicle gas and oil, $700 administrative adjustment made. If you have any questions— thank you for the staff report, Mr. Harlock. Anybody in the room or online like to give public testimony? Seeing none, like a motion please to introduce. Motion to introduce ordinance 2026-31, bidder preferences— or I'm sorry, budget Adjustment, 2026-33 budget adjustment.

Second. Skips. So moved and seconded. Council discussion. Councilman Brandt, line item for professional services for $1,650, that's a clerk in HR department, is that correct?

Yes, they have, uh, 2733 on Golden Heart Waste Management that gets allocated and Expert Cleaning which is $308. It's allocated to their department.

Okay, it's a professional services. Oh, also, um, covering the onboarding?

No, no, that's on a different line item. Yes. Okay, so was there an increase in cost over Um, not that I saw. I just noticed we had $10 left, and Expert Cleaning and Golden Heart Waste Management monthly is, uh, $335.33. So I was just looking at covering the remainder of the year.

Okay. Um, I'd just like to see what happened to the money that we allocated and why it increased so much. It if, if costs increase or if we added something on there that wasn't previously on there. Um, sure, I can get that sent out to you tomorrow. Thank you.

Well, further discussion? Miss Clerk, please call the roll to introduce Ordinance Number 2026-23, Bidder Adjustments or Budget Adjustments. Uh, Mr. Claus? Yes. Mr. Schuster?

Yes. Mr. Skips? Yes. Yes. Mr. Brant?

Yes. Miss Rolfe? Yes. Mr. Williams? Yes.

And Mayor Church? Yes. Anyone like to change their vote?

7-0. Hey, that brings us to Item G, resolution. Can we take 5 again?

So moved for a recess for 5 minutes. Anyone opposed? Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I'd like to call this meeting back to order. Um, before we took a brief recess— good evening, Chief, thank you for being here— um, before we took a brief recess, we were, um, getting ready to introduce Resolution 2026-19 like a staff report, um, from one of the sponsors, uh, either Councilman Schuster or Councilman Brandt.

I will start, um, and I think it brings us to this, uh, decisions we made earlier in the night. Um, I think, uh, Director of City Services is a very important role in the city. Uh, testimony was tonight is, uh, the mayor can be a full-time position, and it kind of is what you make of it, it doesn't leave a lot of time for a director of city services role, which I think is vital and in the future will become even more vital. Um, I think the director of city services can build a unique relationship with builders and developers and our employees running the utility. I think it's an important role, um, that can't be done Um, it's a, it's a full-time job is, is what I'm getting after.

And so this is going to make it so that we, uh, list the position back open, um, for the benefit of the city to move it forward by having a Director of City Services.

Okay, thank you. Anybody signed up online or in the room who'd like to give testimony to this. Okay, moves us on to a motion. Motion to adopt, uh, Resolution 2026-19, City Services Hire. Second.

So moved and seconded. Brings us to council discussion. Councilman Brandt. Um, like I said before, the director of city services is in our charter, it is in our code. We cannot have one person decide to just break the charter and code.

This is a position in the city. It's a very vital position to our city, the way, the way our city has been running.

Um, the Director of City Services doesn't just oversee the Building Department and the utilities and public works. They pick up, uh, all the other things, like, like I said earlier, with, with, uh, Jeff Jacobson when he was mayor. He relied heavily on Bill to do all of those accomplishments that he spoke of tonight. Um, it's a vital role to our city, and, and without one, we have done a lot of damage to our city this year, this summer. Um, the, the solar project for it to be delayed this far.

And I know you say it's because the, the Golden Valley stuff is with the, the attorney. And, um, Council Member Schuster made a point at a meeting several months ago that our contractors, our vendors, don't know how we do business.

The, the contract for the, um, solar was turned in, uh, to the city, um, before June, I believe. And it's still being batted back and forth. They did not expect that it had to go to our attorney and back and forth and back and forth. Um, I think if, if, um, our prior director of city services was still here, he would have explained that to them and got got that done in time. Um, the, the loans for the utilities, um, did not get put on the ballot for some reason.

That is something that the Director of City Services was taking care of that did not happen. Um, there's so many other things that are going on in the city right now that I could talk all night on that are, are fallen by the wayside because we do not have a Director of City Services at this point.

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Motion to adopt Resolution 2026-19. Mr. Schuster? Yes.

Mr. Skips? Yes. Miss Rolf? Yes. Mr.

Claus? Yes. Mr. Williams?

Mr. Brandt? Yes. Then Mayor Turch? No. Would anyone like to change their vote?

6-1. Excellent.

Brings us on to Item H, Ordinance 2026-23, User Fee Schedule. Um, this was requested by the Utilities Department Department and also, um, by the fire chief, um, related to EMS. Um, the $1,300 ambulance fee is partnering that with what Fairbanks North Star Borough charges, and, uh, the other fees on there related to service clamp rentals and service clamp replacement costs along with plumbing parts and fixtures at cost and a call-out fee, um, will help make up some of the, uh, prior ordinance, um, for the call-out fee.

Anyone signed up online in the room like to talk on this and give comments? Okay, that brings us to a motion, please. Motion to introduce Ordinance 2026-23, User Fee Schedule. Stagner skips. Moved and seconded.

Council discussion. Councilman Brandt. Oh, I, I wish Chief Heineken was still here, um, with the ambulance fee raising from $1,100 to $1,300. I'm just wondering, if I recall, and I did not look this up, but I seem to remember that the City of Fair Waterbanks has a city resident discount. So if you're a resident of the city, it would cost, say, you know, $850 or something instead of $1,300.

I'm wondering if, if we can do something like that with this. Believe we have one that's in our code. So maybe that's what I'm thinking. I know when I got a bill, I got a city resident discount. I'm gonna assume it's in the code somewhere.

You look that up real quick, Derek.

In that case, is that also increasing?

And then I, I want to say that I, I talked to Paul about this ordinance on Friday, and he did not request this. Um, when I Excuse me, I'm sorry, no side conversations. Thank you. I'm on the record, please. I talked to him, he said that that's the first that he'd heard of this.

So increasing the hydrant meter water usage rate to 5 cents a gallon from 3.5 cents a gallon. I talked to Melanie and she said that we, um, it ranged from year to year from 100,000 to 200,000 gallons. With our hydrant meter usage.

That increase would only bring in an additional $1,500. I don't know why we are not increasing the water rates in the FFR, but we are increasing only that. I don't see a problem with increasing that, but it's not going to make a bit of difference to the, um, the utility fund.

Our reserves in the Enterprise Fund are dwindling rapidly. We need to do something to replace those.

As far as the service clamp rental, I asked him what those were, and he said that what those are, for those of you that don't know, which I didn't. Um, outside of the city limits especially, they're having a problem with people digging up their service lines. This is not for the, the main line, but the line from the service line to their house, um, is HDPE. And so when they dig that up and, and break that, we have two sets these clamps that we can go out there and, and clamp on. The problem is they're not returning them in a timely manner.

We only have 2 sets. So this service clamp rental, um, after a week we're going to charge them $100 a week. That's what's going to light a fire under their butt to, uh, return them to us. And he did say they cost us about $1,100 a pair, so So the replacement cost is, is pretty accurate there. Um, the call-out fee, I do want to address.

It just says call-out fee, $250. Um, I would like to make an amendment here to say the call-out fee, after-hours call-out fee. And change the $250 to $125 an hour with a minimum of 2 hours.

Second.

Oh, when I was talking to Paul about this, he said, you know, um, well, the call-out fee— we don't charge a call-out fee during regular business hours, so I think it should be be specified there that it's after hours. And he said $250, what if it takes 5, 6 hours?

Um, you know, is that $250 just a flat cost? So he recommended changing it to $125 an hour with a minimum of 2 hours. I think $125 an hour is, is pretty darn cheap for an after-hours plumber, um, but make that a minimum of 2 hours. So if it does go over 2 hours, over that $250, then we are being reimbursed for that.

Further discussion?

Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Would you like to rule that the amendment would carry the main motion? Or do you want to do them separately? Separately, please.

All right. I just—. Sorry, I have one question before we, we vote.

The call-out fee, I, I just need to understand that better. That's if somebody has a break at the water line, maybe towards the main, and somebody has to come out, or anytime they have to call us out for, you know, so So if it's our fault, if we dump 200,000 gallons of sewage in somebody's basement again, yeah, we don't charge them a call-out fee, right? If it's the, the, you know, service line between the main line and their house that bursts, we will charge them. What would the city need to do besides shut off the water or clamp at that location? Just that—.

That's a call-out fee after hours only. Okay, okay.

Please call the roll on the amendment. The amendment to, uh, adjust the call-out fee or amend the call-out fee to add after-hours call-out fee and to replace $250 with $125 per hour with a minimum of 2 hours. Mr. Brant? Yes. Mr. Williams?

Mr. Kloss? Yes. Miss Rolfe? Yes. Mr. Skips?

Yes. Mr. Schuster? Yes. And Mayor Turner? Yes.

Would anyone like to change their vote?

7-0. Excellent. Any other amendments or further discussion? Councilman Brandt. I am looking at the code that says there's a 10% discount by the parent.

Am I reading that right? So if you're a city resident, you get 10% off of, um, ambulance services? Is that what this is saying?

As determined by the chief of the fire department and based on the pro— yep.

Um, I don't know how much lower we're— is reasonable to go, but I would like to see it significant. Discount for city residents on ambulance fees.

Thanks for mentioning that, but trying to adjust the rate that we have in front of us on the fee schedules is probably not appropriate because that would affect all of our EMS ambulance calls, not just the ones in the city of North Pole. If you would like to do that, Councilman Brant, I'd suggest you get an ordinance, uh, related to 410.030, um, if that's something you would like to do. Well, I mean, we could add $1,300 non-resident, $800 resident here, but then we would have to go back and change, uh, 410.030 later. Um, I don't think I will make that amendment now, but I would I would like the future council to take a look at that and make a significant discount for city residents. Sure, we'll see you down here a lot for public testimony and over the next few months.

Any further discussion on this?

Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. The motion to introduce 2026-23 is amended. Miss Rolfe? Yes.

Mr. Bryant? Yes. Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Kloss?

Yes. Mr. Skips? Yep. Mr. Schuster? Yeah.

Mayor Church? Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

7-0. Excellent. That brings us to Item I, Ordinance 2026-29, an ordinance amending 801.030, limiting entrance into trash and/or refuse receptacles. Um, this comes out of concern from our provider in the city of North Pole that when they go to tip the dumpsters, people are in there. They pull stuff out of the dumpsters by dumpster diving, leaving it all over, requiring people to come behind them and pick it up.

Um, it's a problem throughout our entire borough. But especially at the transfer sites. Um, I tried to write this in a way that made sense for those people who are, um, eco-friendly and they choose to recycle cans, uh, metal scraps, clothes, whatever they need to, but that it would go into a recycling receptacle rather than on the ground or anywhere else. Do we have anybody signed up on online or in the room who would like to speak to this ordinance? Okay, brings us to a motion to introduce.

Motion to introduce Ordinance 2026-29, ordinance ending Marpole Code 801030 and/or Second, Skips.

I moved and second. It's pretty self-explanatory. Um, the red line essentially says don't dumpster dive in the city of North Pole unless you're going to put it in a reuse receptacle. Any— Councilman Brandt.

So the, the transfer sites are on borough property. The dumpsters are owned by the borough. If they want an ordinance that says no dumpster diving in their dumpsters, they can try that again. They tried it 20 years ago. That did not go over well.

I don't know if anybody in here was here back then.

There was a huge outcry by the public over that, so I don't see how we can enforce a law on property in dumpsters that owned by the, the borough without their approval. And then I would also like to say that, uh, you're, you're saying, uh, unless it's for the purpose of recycling, reusing is recycling. Anything that is reused out of the transfer site does not go to our dump and does not— and that will— that extends the life of our dump. So I mean, I'm opposed to this. If the borough wants to say no dumpster diving in their dumpsters, fine.

Let them pass an ordinance that says that. But I don't think that we have the right right to pass an ordinance saying, uh, what can take place on their property in their dumpsters. So the dumpsters aren't borough property, the dumpsters are property of the contractor who receives that. It is borough property, but it's also borough property within the city. Councilman Brandt, so the dumpsters are, um, rented or leased basically by the borough, um, not by us.

So again, um, I don't think we have the right to do this, nor do I think we should. Um, I think dumpster diving is a very unique culture in the borough. Um, our landfill is, you know, has a very short lifespan at this point. Anything that we can recycle out of those, the transfer site, will help extend the life of our landfill. And then this will— there are a lot of people in this borough that, in the city in particular, that are a lot less fortunate than each and every one of us up here.

Um, if they see something in that dumpster that they can use or need, I don't want to tell them they can't take it. Somebody decided they didn't want it any longer. Once it's in the dumpster, it does not belong to them anymore. And if somebody needs it and can use it, that, that's not hurting me. I'm not going to tell them they can't do that.

Hey, any other— well, please, Councilman Claus. Thank you, Mayor. I think enforcement, uh, would be problematic and, uh, sort of contentious in some ways. I think perhaps if the borough were at its dump site to designate one particular dumpster or two saying recyclable or reusable items in here, that might help that particular issue and let people just go that particular dumpster, that particular area where they know there's things that they can actually reuse, um, instead of going through a whole dumpster with really nothing in there except refuse, perhaps. Thank you.

Councilman Skips, you're in Earthfold. You do have an area like that. It's a concrete pad, and if people got stuff they want to reuse, I'll put in washers, dryers there before. That's just minor maintenance stuff. So there is a spot people put clothes, people put tires, people other stuff that they don't want to throw away, they put there.

Hey, recycle it, take it if you want to take it. Thank you. Councilman Brandt. Yeah, we do have a reuse area at our transfer site, as does, I don't know, probably two-thirds of the transfer sites throughout the borough. Um, but a lot of times when people go to the dump or to the transfer transfer site, there's a lot of people in that reuse area, and so they'll, they'll just dump their stuff in the dumpster so they don't have to deal with that.

I've been to the transfer site before where the reuse area is overflowing, so people are just throwing stuff in the dump— in the dumpster. Again, it's not hurting anybody letting them take something that they can use.

I don't like this. If the borough wants to pass something like this, let them, but I don't think we should. Councilman Schuster, um, I would think that this ordinance is targeted at not somebody dropping off their dump and seeing something and quickly grabbing it, but more so the vehicles you see that are there that I don't even know how the person sees out their windshield to drive drive back out of the dump, um, or the people that'll meet you at your car to help you unload and see what you got, you know. And that's, that's a true story. And, and I, I see both sides.

I see Councilman Brandt's point. Um, the dumps have become a little bit contentious because I've had it where 2 or 3 people are— you're trying to throw away your garbage and there's people in there, people going after your stuff, and it does feel weird that you're throwing away garbage and somebody's in there ripping open the bag and seeing what you're throwing away. I think that's, um, it's a different lifestyle, but I, uh, I see both ways. I, I think, like Santa said, enforcement would probably be tough. Um, I, I think if it's, uh, ordinance for inside the city city and city dumpsters and stuff like that.

It makes sense. I don't know how we'll be able to enforce it at the transfer site, but that's what I got.

Councilman Brandt. Um, so I agree, I agree with Councilman Schuster that, that, um, there are there are a few people that, that do come in there and overindulge in removing items. That shouldn't take away from the people that are taking stuff that they truly need and can use. So I don't want to ruin this for just because we're trying to limit the, the actions of a few bad apples, if you will. Um, also, this doesn't say anything about— this literally says basically dumpsters on private property, and I don't see how that, that can be enforced because it says, um, within the limits of the city or upon any private premises or anywhere except a place of places designated for by the FNSB Solid Waste Division.

If somebody has a business on private property with a private dumpster, if they don't want somebody in that dumpster, then they can call the police and have them trespassed. But I don't see how we can drive by, you know, our police drive by a dumpster and see somebody taking something out of a dumpster and and, um, give them a ticket. Um, so anyway, I, I don't like this ordinance. Okay, third time. Thank you, Councilman Brandt.

Um, please call the roll, Mr. Clerk, on the motion to introduce 2026-29. Mr. Skips? Yes. Mr. Schuster?

Yes. Mr. Brandt? No. Miss Rolfe? No.

Mr. Williams? Nope. Mr. Claus? Mayor Church? Yes.

Would anyone like to change their vote?

3-4, Fails. Wonderful. That takes us to item 14, council comments excluding the mayor. Where shall we start this evening, Mr. Clerk?

With Mr. Claus.

Just, uh, want to encourage everybody to go out and vote for their favorite candidate or candidates tomorrow. No problem. Thank you.

Mr. Brant? Nothing, thank you. Mr. Williams? Nope, I pass. Miss Rolfe?

Just to remind everybody, get out and vote. There's ballot measures on and candidates up, so get the vote out. Oops. Yeah, Saturday, North Pole football girls flag football team won the Rail Belt Conference champions again for the third year in a row. They're going to state in Wasilla.

It'll be this coming Thursday, Friday, Saturday. Get out and vote. Mr. Schuster. I would echo the vote sentiment. Um, please get out and vote.

Um, secondly, I just wanted to welcome our vice president to our great town and area. Um, no matter, I think, how you view administration, and I think it's really special to have a sitting vice president visit the area, and hopefully he was greeted accordingly in town. And, uh, I wish I could have been there tonight. Uh, and then I would just like to thank Councilman Brandt for all your work. Um, I think at times, you know, there's plenty of agreements and disagreements Um, but I think you brought a unique perspective to the council, um, and certainly always made meetings interesting.

So thanks for your work.

Move to adjourn. Moved and seconded.

Like, we're here in Arizona, so you couldn't go. You would do your test. So she was sad. She was sad.