North Pole: Regular Council Meeting September 8, 2026

Thank you, Madam Clerk. I appreciate that. Councilman Brant, good evening. We'll give you just a minute here to get settled.

Welcome to our council meeting this evening. Tonight is Tuesday, September 8th. Appreciate you being here. Happy Labor Day. Hope you enjoyed it.

The weather certainly was nice. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Miss Rolf. Here. Mr. Schuster. Here. Mr. Skips.

Here. Mr. Williams. Here. Mr. Brandt. Here.

Mr. Claus has an excused absence. And Mayor Turch. Present. Please stand and join me for the Pledge of Allegiance and remain standing for the invocation.

Allegiance to the Republic of the United States of America, and to the values that guide our nation.

Heavenly Father, thank you for bringing us here this evening to help make decisions for our community.

Be with us tonight as we make some very important decisions for the North Pole community and North Pole area. In your most holy name we pray. Amen.

Madam Clerk, we have a spot on our agenda this evening for a spotlight on new business. Do we have a new business this evening?

No, no, no spotlight on North Pole business. So if there are any businesses out there that would like to come within the North Pole area and, and give testimony and tell a little bit about what you do here in the North Pole area, please feel free to contact our clerk and get on the agenda. We'd love to have you. Brings us to item number 5, citizens' comments not on the agenda. Do we have anybody signed up this evening, Madam Clerk?

We have no one online, but we have members of the audience. Please come forth, have a seat. If you're not on the sign-in sheet, please make sure you're there. State your name and place of residence, area of residence, and then just make sure that the red light is on when you're talking. That way we're sure the audio is picked up, and you feel free to pull that to you if you desire.

All right, I'm a terrible public speaker. My name is Tanya Aris, and I live over in the Stillmire Estates. I moved in in January, and I really love my house.

Um, I submitted an offer for the purchase of Lot 9 at 880 Refinery Loop, which is adjacent to my property. The city council had previously determined that retaining this property serves no public purpose and that selling it is in the city's best interest. The property was offered through the city auction process with a minimum bid of $35,000, and it did not sell. The city received 2 bids of $10,000. I believe that this provides meaningful market feedback regarding what buyers are willing to pay for this particular property.

This is also a very small lot with no sewer and water. And a substantial portion of that is occupied— that the driveway that has served my residents for decades. I have included a photograph showing the existence of the existing driveway and how significantly it impacts the usable area of the parcel. These circumstances significantly affect the property's practical use and marketability. I understand that Ordinance 2026-08, as currently written, does not authorize the city to negotiate a sale below the $35,000 minimum.

I am not asking city staff to disregard that ordinance. Instead, I am respectfully asking the city council to reconsider the ordinance and allow my offer to be considered based on the results of the unsuccessful auction and the unique circumstances of this property. Continuing to retain the property means the city continues carrying the responsibility and costs associated with it while receiving no property tax revenue from private ownership. I am prepared to purchase the property, take on that responsibility, and return it to the tax rolls. There is also some urgency for me.

Winter is approaching, and if this cannot be resolved, I will need to move forward with constructing a new driveway entirely on my own property. Once construction begins purchasing that— this parcel would no longer make practical or financial sense to me. I would much rather reach a solution that benefits both the city and my property, and respectfully ask the city council to consider allowing the sale. Thank you. Thank you.

Any questions from council? Thank you for your testimony this evening, Ms. Harris. Thank you for joining us.

Anyone else who would like to give citizens comments on items not on the agenda?

Hey, with that, we are closing citizens' comments for this evening. That brings us on to item 6, approval of the agenda and consent agenda. Can I get a motion, please? Motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda. Second.

Skips. So moved and seconded.

Any discussion? Councilman Brandt.

I'd like to make a motion to postpone item 12A, ordinance 2026-19 Until after we have a workshop on the subject on Monday, September 14th at 5:30 PM. I'll second that.

So moved and seconded. Discussion? So twice now, Councilman Brandt, this council has told you that we wanted to have a workshop on this item.

When we decided that a workshop was more appropriate than the Committee of the Whole, you did not schedule a workshop. Instead, you just went ahead and decided on your own what the changes would be and put the ordinance forward without the workshop that we requested. At the last meeting, I made a motion to postpone the ordinance until after workshop can be held, and you told our clerk that you will not have a workshop on it.

I did. So, uh, again, that's twice that you ignored the council's wishes on this. It's an extremely complex issue, it's more appropriate at a workshop that would— so we can spend all of our time delving into it. We would still have the discussions afterwards during the regular meetings, but I, I do believe, as the council believes, that we should have a workshop on this first.

Thank you, Councilman Brandt. Um, and everything you said is correct. I'm not listening to you tell me that we need to have a workshop, um, because this council has repeatedly said over and over and over again that we need to have it on the record. We need to have public testimony on everything that we bring. And I don't think that in your thought process to put this forward, you considered the employees Um, while you're considering what works best for you and the discussion, by not hearing from our employees— and at a work session, public testimony is not allowed, so you would not actually hear from your employees why this is so important to move forward with.

Any further discussion? Oh, please don't snap your fingers at me, Councilman Brandt. You can raise your hand and just wait until I recognize you. I'm not a dog, I'm a mayor. Thank you, sir.

Workshops are open to the public. They are live streamed on YouTube, so every single employee can watch them. We cannot vote on anything during a workshop. The workshop will be just to go over all of this information and more, um, and then we would have the two readings at two subsequent meetings that the employees can come and voice their opinions at. And no way whatsoever would we be shutting out the employees from, from, um, having their say in this.

And I think the employees would benefit from watching the workshops also to get all the same information that we have here.

Any further discussion on this?

Is there anybody who was here this evening to speak on this, um, on this item since it is on the agenda?

If so, please come forth and have a seat. You'll have up to 5 minutes to speak on this.

Please state your name and area of residence when you get to that. Thank you.

I live on Plack Road area. I wanted to speak to this briefly from a leadership perspective, having done a lot of leadership training, and I'm speaking to the council as a whole, obviously, out of the motivation that there can be good continuity in working together between city employees and council. Um, in an ideal world, or in my perspective, City Council, each one of you, and as a body, are leaders of the city because you're decision makers. You have a high degree of influence. Um, it's always good when City Council works together with department heads, and then flowing down from that, with employees.

I want my employees to trust the City Council, that the City Council generally has the best for the city— employees, citizens, all of it. It's difficult for me when decisions are made and things are done that I feel erodes or damages that trust, because I'm not here to badmouth any of you or talk you down to my employees. I want them to view each of you and the council at large highly, as respectable people that are doing the best job they can for the city. A couple of the components in what we're discussing tonight do work to erode that trust, and I can tell you, in city departments right now, the level of trust for city council at large is very low. It just is because of decisions that have been made, and especially a lack of consideration of what kind of message is being presented in that.

So I can tell you two things. All of the employees know that the last 6 years of their raises and merit increases and COLA increases were requested by this council as part of this discussion. On the one hand, you have every right to discuss and to gather that information, but that, in combination with wanting to hold the initial discussion on this in a forum where the employees cannot speak, regardless of your intent, which I think is good, your intent is good, sends an extremely strong message to the employees. You'll notice there was people here last time, they're not here tonight. There's no one here tonight.

If employees feel like they have a voice and that their leaders care, they will show up and they will give that voice. I can tell you, if I just steamroll my employees, they will stop showing up. They will stop giving me input. They will stop talking to me. And that indicates a breakdown of leadership on my part.

So the message that has been communicated by those two things occurring is that each employee is going to be evaluated individually based on the last 6 years of their scheduled merit increases, raises, whatever, and that that's going to play a role in a 3-year scheduled COLA increase. In summary, regardless of the intent, the decision to do those two things has further eroded trust between department heads and the City Council, and especially between employees and the City Council. We all understand when there's not money to do something. If I don't have money in my budget, I just tell my employees flat out, sorry guys and gals, we can't do that, and this is why. That's honest, it's upfront, they can give me feedback.

People generally respond really well to that type of communication. Look, we can't do it this year. But doing something different, digging into their financials and placing this in a forum where they can't speak when it's first discussed, is, I think, sending exactly the opposite of what you intend. Because it's not so much what you intend, it's how it's received in that. So I would just say that to say think carefully about that.

And if you have ever a question about how is this going to be received and what is the downstream effects going to be with the staff, we're all here to help shed some light on that by just asking our staff and getting opinions from them, because they have a lot of good opinions to share. On a personal note, neither me or Chad are going to be here on the night that you're trying to schedule this. We had all this lined out 6 months in advance. Planned trips. We have lives.

We weren't even asked if we're going to be here. Again, the steamroller just continues on, no consideration given to the people that are actually affected by it. It damages trust regardless of intent, and without trust, you can't do business.

Thank you, Chief. Questions? Councilman Brandt. So you're against us having a workshop to go over all this information? I'm against sending messages to employees that is not conducive to all of us working together well.

Okay, you are on the Total Compensation Committee. All of the department heads and 2 council members were on the Total Compensation Committee before we decided it was more appropriate to do it as a workshop. The Total Compensation Committee would have been closed to the public completely. Would not have been recorded. There would have been no input from any employees whatsoever, and I didn't hear you complaining about that then.

So what is the difference now? As the Total Compensation Committee would have included the input of all the employees of the department heads that participated in it, because we see them every day, live around them, and know what they need to be paid. So that you have me, you have my staff, I represent my staff.

And you can still do that during the, uh, the workshop. If you're not going to be here, that's fine. But then we have 2 readings of this ordinance after the workshop in order for, for you and every staff member in the city to have their input.

Councilman Branta, questions of the testifier, not statements to the testifier. Thank you. I stated my motivation when I got up here to give testimony. It's that we would all work together really well, that there'd be a high level of trust between these two branches of government. So my testimony is not a procedural critique.

It's think about the message that you're sending. And if you ever wonder what type of message is being sent, just ask the person that's getting the envelope. They'll tell you. Because you can't take it back once that— once that is sent, you can't take it back. There are individuals on this council that will never win the trust of city staff.

As long as they continue to work here, you're not going to win it because it's been lost. Once that's lost, it's almost impossible to get it back. So all I'm saying is think about that carefully and think about those long-range effects of those types of decisions. I do my best to explain how you get— you operate and the reasonable way that you do that and take that back to my staff, not in a critical way. I'll continue to try to do that.

Follow-up, Councilman Brandt. So are you saying that the staff is not going to appreciate the fact that we are doing a deep dive into this and determining the best path forward by having a workshop on it? And do you think it's, it's appropriate for the mayor to twice disregard the orders of the council? Both times you asked me a question, you took your perspective on it and you flipped the question and put words in my mouth, and you're asking me to agree with your perspective. You, you have your perspective.

I just ask you the question. It's valid. What I shared in my testimony is my perspective. That's the extent of what I wanted to share.

Any further questions?

Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak to this?

So what we're saying is that, um, excuse me, Go ahead, Councilman Williams. So what we're saying is that we're going to vote on this and not dig into it. Is that what we're saying? Or have maybe one person make a decision? Is that what we're saying?

Or all of us going to have a say in this? Councilman Williams, I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase your question so that it makes sense? Are we going to have a say into this particular situation?

I understand it more. Councilman Williams, you, you have a voting position on this council, so yes, certainly, sir, you have a say on whether or not this moves forward as it has been seconded by you. Shouldn't we work through it and see exactly what's going on? In here, yes or no?

Yes, I certainly think we should. Thank you for your question. I hope I answered it. Councilman Schuster.

I, I think to Councilman, uh, and Williams' point— not to his point, but to answer his question— is that, uh, we would still have discussion on it tonight, just as we would in a workshop. The, the— what I struggle with is I understand what the chief is talking about, um, and timing, and then how that looks for employees, us kicking this can down the road. And I understand that. The, the part I struggle with is this is the biggest line item in our budget, and we have asked for a workshop on this now twice, a work session on it twice.

Good night. And I think there is more conversation that happens in a work session than there is in council meetings. And I, I think that's, that's fine. I understand we're still going to have 2 readings, but being the largest line item in our budget, it would be nice to have the work session and then have the 2 readings on it to discuss, you know, more each time and get input after the first reading. That's the part I struggle with.

I think where I'm at now is I'm tired of kicking this can down the road. It's not good for the employees, um, for us to keep doing that. And so that's the part I'm struggling with.

And I agree with you, Mr. Schuster, um, very much. We could discuss this line item tonight and at the very end not make a decision and postpone it to our next meeting. We could do that for the next 6 months if we so desired, that this could be a line item on every single council meeting we have. And I don't disagree with you that it is the largest spend that the city has in our yearly budget, but these are real people's lives. And it will start to affect retention of our employees if we continue to kick this down the road with workshops and la-dee-dahs.

Councilman Brandt, a few things. First of all, these wages don't go into effect until next year, so we're, we're not kicking it down the road. Um, second of all, to Mr. Schuster's point, like I've brought up before, it is the largest single item, line item on our budget, but by far. Our budget—. When we do our budget, we have 3 workshops on it, and then we have 3 meetings on it.

All council is asking for is one workshop before we, we, um, have the reading of the ordinance. Um, I don't think a single employee, regardless of what Chief Smith says, would hold it against us for getting the most information that we possibly can before we make a decision on this.

Councilman Brandt, I don't know how much more information you need. Our CFO worked tirelessly last week, week before last, to provide you with the requested information of 6 years' worth of employee information. About wages, wage increases, professional development, any steps that they made for the last 6 years. And tonight you are saying you do not have enough information in front of you? I'm looking at it, it's a pile of information, it's a freaking book, and you cannot discuss this item tonight for our employees' benefits?

I'm astounded. By what you're saying, please.

I'm saying that we need a workshop to discuss this pile of information. Um, like Mr. Schuster said, a workshop is less formal. It's way easier to get the information out, to go through the information. Um, it's just very informative. And again, council's twice told you we want this, and if we postpone this ordinance Again, it's not going to make a bit of difference.

These wages don't go into effect until January 1st, 2027.

Any further discussion on this? Anyone else like to chime in?

Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to postpone Ordinance 2026-19.

Employee pay until after a work session held on Monday, September 14th at 5:30. Miss Rolf? Yes. Mr. Skips?

No. Mr. Brown? Yes. Mr. Williams? Yes.

Mr. Schuster?

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

I failed 3 to 3. Okay. Any further amendments to our agenda this evening?

Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the agenda. On the approval of the agenda, Miss Rolfe.

Yes. Mr. Brandt? No. Mr. Skips? Yes.

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

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

That passed 4 to 2. Okay, thank you. And then just— that was approval of the agenda and consent agenda, correct? Yes. All right, thank you.

Item number 7 is minutes. That has been consented. Um, Communications for the mayor. First off, I would like to say thank you and congratulations to Teresa Parsons. She is not here this evening, but she has been with the City of North Pole for 5 years as an accounting— a utility billing clerk, and we appreciate all of her efforts here at the City of North Pole.

So I know you're watching tonight, Teresa. Thank you for all you do. We appreciate you.

Um, other communications from the mayor. Has been a very busy 3 weeks in the office. We had the Alaska Defense Forum, the Fall Alaska Municipal League, which happened to be held— both of these conferences here in Fairbanks. Unfortunately, I was the only one to attend. I appreciate Councilman Claus, who signed up but at last minute had to cancel due to other meetings.

I want to say thank you to the Alaska Defense Forum and Alaska Municipal League for having them here in Fairbanks. It was very busy. I had meetings with Senator Sullivan, who was in attendance, and also Lisa Murkowski was there. I just want to thank everybody from the military and Veterans Affairs who showed up and the community as a whole who showed up to both of these events. It's great to have them here in Fairbanks.

I would like to take a second and, uh, thanks Senator Sullivan for showing up last Friday. He came to North Pole, um, took time out of his very busy schedule, met with decision makers here in the North Pole area about what our needs are here in North Pole. Being between two military bases, that brings a lot of information to him, and I'm appreciative that he reaches out to North Pole area stakeholders to ask. I also want to thank him for attending the North Pole High School football game and giving up his evening, um, to toss out the coin and watch the football game. He sat the first half in the North Pole bench and the second half with the West Valley Wolfpack.

Other homecoming-related news: I'd like to thank all the volunteers who helped make the homecoming parade in North Pole happen. Um, really very much appreciate that. Other North Pole news: a huge shout out to Lady Patriots for playing, um, really hard last week in Valdez. They played more than 30 sets and, uh North Pole Sports. If, if you're not paying attention to North Pole Sports, Mr. Skips, I know you know this as much as anybody.

Mr. Schuster, I see you at the games. Thank you for your support. But, uh, they're really moving ahead in North Pole, and I appreciate that. Um, last Friday I got the opportunity to attend, um, a fun little science project for the 4th and 5th graders at North Pole Elementary. They did water testing and fish habitat testing on our 5th Avenue Pond.

And Christmas Creek. And I want to thank the Tanana Valley Watershed Association in partner with UAF for coming out to North Pole and doing that. It's great to see the kids learning even though it was a rainy, terrible day. Um, it was great to see him learning and having fun. I also want to thank Officer Wright for stopping in to say hello.

That was a huge hit with the kids and, uh, With that, we'll move on for questions of the mayor.

Councilman Brent, where are we with hiring a new director of city services? At this time, I have chosen not to hire a director of city services. We had interviews, we had 3 applicants who came by and came forth and interviewed, and, uh, One of the applicants wanted far more than the city could offer. Um, the second applicant had certain attributes that would have been beneficial to the city of North Pole, but not totally the best fit. And, uh, we're still working to decide whether or not we're going to take that back out for advertisement or how we're going to move forward with that.

Thank you. Any further questions?

Councilman Brandt, a follow-up. Why would you not re-advertise that position if we did not hire somebody?

Um, because anybody who saw it the first time it was out, um, already saw it, Councilman Brandt. Um, I wish I had a better answer. We had 3 applicants. Follow-up question, please. That was nearly 4 months ago.

Thank you for the timeline, Councilman Branton. Any further questions?

Okay, with that brings us to communications from department heads and borough representative.

Please take the mic, rob it, run with it. Good evening, thank you for joining us. Chief Chambers, members of the council, Mayor Turch, uh, and our city clerk, current city clerk, uh, thank you for the time. I'm filling in for Chief Heineken while he is, uh, on vacation in the mountains far, far away. Best as I know.

A couple of things to report for the Fire Department. We have completed our third annual apprenticeship program. The academy ended at the 29th of August. We did our final state testing on hazardous materials. All of 5 candidates, all 5 participants passed the Firefighter 1 portion, which ended 2 weeks earlier.

We're waiting on their test scores for hazmat from the state, and once I have those, we'll have our final. The 3 3 full-time paid apprentices have been put on shift already. They're up to speed in training and they meet the standards that we need for employment. The other 2 were volunteers. They did this on their own.

It saved them some money from the CTC program. They'll probably pursue a path towards being one of our part-time members once they complete their EMT-1. Status. Uh, great crew, they really gelled together, and it was a very successful apprenticeship program. Of the apprenticeship programs out of the— this is the third one we've had— we've hired two people directly out of the apprenticeship program, two staff positions, our latest one being Jake Phillips, who accepted a firefighter position and started on the 6th.

So it's, it's definitely borne fruit for us. Of the others, there's only one person participant that didn't go on to a fire service career or into emergency services. In fact, he may be pursuing the justice services track, so he might come around, you never know. Very successful program, and we appreciate your guys' continued support of it, and especially if you see Jake, give him, you know, he's the local kid, he's done really good. He started as a junior firefighter with us and just worked his way in, and now he's got a full-time spot.

So we're glad to have him, and thank you again for all of your support.

That's great news, Chief. Thank you. Any questions for Chief Chambers?

Mr. Harlock, good evening. Good evening, Council. Um, been spending quite a few time— a little bit of time working on Tyler, uh, getting the AR module set up for invoicing. That's, uh, ready to go. Been working on, um, getting the credit card module ready, so that's ready to go.

I'll have the financial policies and procedures ready for you guys on Friday for the next council meeting. And then I spent quite a bit of time working on the employee wage request and the, uh, 6-year analysis.

Any questions for Mr. CFO? Okay. And then we've also been working on the budget. We've received most of the budgets back from the department heads, and we're getting, uh, making headway on the mayor and I reviewing seeing that in a couple weeks. Well, I want to say thank you for stepping up to the plate and helping us since we don't have a Director of City Services and taking a lot of extra work on, um, through and all that stuff too.

Yep, I really appreciate that and thank you for your help.

Chief Smith, just a couple things to share. One, I'll be flying out this Sunday and I'll be gone for about 2 weeks. Um, you can still call me if you need to. I should have cell phone service most of the time. It's ended up being a pretty busy summer.

I I don't know if the increased traffic or what, but we've been pretty busy both with calls for service and then also traffic-related stuff. We're still working through integration training with the K-9. We have had several successful deployments thus far though. Most recently last week, AST had a pursuit that ended in a foot bail, and the instant the guy found out a dog was on scene, he gave up and just came running right out to the officers. So perfect situation, perfect use of that resource.

All right, that's all I got unless you got any questions.

Councilwoman Rolfe, did you attend a Borough Assembly meeting? Yes, I attended the Borough Assembly meeting on August 24th. Uh, the assembly officially passed their legislative priorities. It did pass with the addition of the assembly requesting that the legislature somehow tie homeschool allotments to taking the Alaska STAR test. Uh, there was actually a lot of testimony on that.

Uh, it's pretty controversial. Um, the testimony in general was against it. Uh, the vote actually to remove it was 4 to 3, and they just lacked enough votes to actually remove it because there was only 7 members of the assembly that could vote. One was conflicted out from the legislative priorities, uh, and then, uh, Assemblymember Crass, who's the one who put it in there, uh, was not present. Uh, so they, uh, failed to have the 5 votes to remove it.

So that was kind of interesting. Uh, in the end, it seemed that the assembly was sort of against actually having that in there. They didn't have enough votes to actually remove it, so it will go forward as a legislative priority. Uh, and then they did, uh, enter into a contract with the American Legion, uh, Post 99, to, uh, rent some land out by the cemetery. So that they'll have a place to set up and put in a building.

They'll be working on fundraising for the next few years. They won't actually have a building there yet, but the plan is to get a building out there kind of as a home base for those who are coming to intern their loved ones. So they'll have somewhere to go and get information. So that lease did occur as well.

Wonderful. Thank you very much for that update. Any questions?

Madam Clerk, is this the last time that I get to say that to you unless you're filling in for our new clerk? Yeah, and that's—. So that's number one. We've got a— our new clerk starts next week. I'm very excited.

I think he's going to be a great asset to the city of North Pole and the entire community. Um, so looking forward to that. Also, elections are coming up on October 6th. The 2026 election information pamphlet is available. We have it on the city's website, and there's also copies out in the lobby, the entry at City Hall.

Call. And then I just wanted to update council on the invitation to bid for the foreclosed properties that we had. The Marquette property actually got to go back to the owner after they made payment in full for the balance plus fines and interest. Um, the Mockler property was sold for $20,000, and the Refinery Loop property that Miss Aris testified to was not sold. We received 2 bids for $10,000 each.

Um, the ordinance as it is now, I am authorized to negotiate a sale for the— on a first-come, first-served basis for anyone that comes with that $35,000 minimum bid. But I did leave on the dais copies of Ms. Aris's offer that she asked me to communicate to you, and that's all I've got. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Please, Councilman Schuster. Oh, we're working on it.

Can you place Ordinance 2026-8 on the next agenda, next meeting's agenda?

Yep. Any other questions for Madam Clerk? I want to say thank you for all that you've done. I know it's a lot of extra work that you took on to fill that acting role, and we appreciate all of your efforts. I know it's been a lot of long hours, so thank you, Miss Kimmel.

Um, for utilities, the fire hydrant relocation project has been continuing and should be ready to put out to bid next week. Um, that's phase 1, and then phase 2 will put out the bid spring of 2027. That would be relocating the fire hydrant over there by Three Bears and Summit Church. Um, the lagoon rehabilitation efforts are nearing 95% completion and should be finished up this week, um, and paired together with the sewer outfall project. And the sewer outfall project, the environmental work should be starting on that within the next couple of weeks, along with Geotech to find out what type of soils we have on our way out to the sewer project.

Councilman Schuster, go ahead before I move on with my next report. Yeah, I'm just curious if, uh, we had heard back if we're allowed to use engineering that we have already— that we talked about a couple meetings ago. Are we going to be allowed to use the engineering? We can use the environmental, but as far as the engineering, Mr. Harlock, do you want to take that question since you communicated with them earlier this afternoon about that? Yes, yes, um, we have to modify the letter a little bit to include the entire scope of work that RESPEC is going to do in addition to the environmental and design.

Their scope of work includes the mixing zone support, permitting, and all that other stuff, which was provided to HUD, but HUD needs to see those things stated in the letter. So tomorrow I'll be sending them a revised letter to show them that it agrees with the other schedule they already saw. So we'll hear back shortly.

Any other questions for utilities? I will move on with Public Works. Um, thank you to Public Works. They've been working their tail off with, uh, just like everybody else, we all know winter's coming and we're trying to wrap up summer projects as fast as we can. Um, they were able to relocate the Visitors Center sign to Santa Claus Lane.

That has been a request for the last year and a half that they have tried to get that move through DOT.

We were able to get authority to remove that sign from Dawson Road and Mistletoe and move that into our own city. So that's out there just as you come out of the roundabout driving traffic into the visitor center, or now the welcoming center.

I don't know if you noticed the new drainage ditch down here by the dog park.

That is to help with the seasonal road drainage or seasonal drainage that comes off of Snowman Lane and sort of pools in front of that dog park. They are going to regrade that dog park so it drops into that drainage so that those dog park users don't have all that water to contend with in the spring as the snow starts to melt. And it will also make it easier for our Public Works Department to pump that out and, and have that drainage ditch there. They have been over working on Blanket Boulevard and the working— the walking path extension to connect Blanket Boulevard from Solms Way to Blanket Boulevard walking path that is off of 5th. So thank them for that.

And then they have also been working on the drainage projects in Ford subdivision. A culvert was installed this past week at Rawson's Crossway, across Rawson's Crossway, to allow water to flow into a drainage easement that we have down on First Avenue that flows into a gravel pit. At the same time, we also dug a test hole down off of the holding pond on First Avenue, and when they put that in, they were about 2 feet shy of good soil to be able to drain that pond. So it was acting like a pool and not actually able to make it down into the groundwater table. So we have about 2 more feet to go to get down into good ground where that water will dissipate faster and hopefully help the drainage issues in Ford Subdivision with those too.

We are asking for contractors to bid on digging out the extra 2 feet, sliding the gravel that we put on top of non-permeable soil over into the permeable gravel and then digging out the other side and what that would cost. I think if either side of that drainage ditch got down into good soil where the water could disperse, that will certainly help out any drainage problems in Ford Subdivision. So more to come on that. The snow removal bids have been received and opened as of last Friday, um, 2027. Um, we'll have that on our agenda next meeting for the, the snow removal for 2027.

Any questions for Public Works?

All right, with that, I believe that that closes out communications from department heads and borough representative. Moving on to ongoing project reports, which we do not have, brings us to Item 12A, Ordinance 2026-19. Can I get a motion, please, to introduce— hold on one second, please.

Sure. Yeah, you're gonna make them a little bit bigger for us. Can we start?

Gotcha. Okay, um, if you want to just burn one copy, I can give them mine because I made an extra copy. Okay, can I get a Motion, please, to introduce, um, 12A, please.

Motion to introduce Ordinance 2026-19, amending employee pay.

Second, Skiffs. So moved and seconded.

Brings us on to a Staff report, and he just went to make copies.

Do—. We'll wait just a minute here, it'll be okay.

Okay, I suppose with that I'll try and muddle through a staff report.

Patience is a virtue.

Thank you for the copies, Mr. Harlock. Appreciate that. Um, would you mind providing the staff report on this item?

Thank you. This, uh, Ordinance 2619 for the employee pay.

Um, all city employees excluding the mayor Casual employees, temporary employees shall be paid monthly hourly wage in accordance with the position classification, title, and date of hire.

Employees being promoted to positions of higher pay shall receive a start date adjustment that places them at the increased salary closest to their subsequent pay scale salary. Such adjustment shall be recorded in the employee's personnel file and used throughout the tenure of that position. The proposed change is to remove the employees excluding personnel on the city services pay scale over step 20. Uh, employees over step 20 will receive a 3% increase on the first full pay period. And employees, um, yeah, it's pretty bad staff report.

Um, Yeah, you could take it if you want. So I mean, we're reviewing COLA increase. Um, my numbers— I know Chad's numbers were based on the AML report we look at statewide, right? I make a list and I try to drop our department with all the positions in somewhere in the middle, not too high, not too low. This year that ended up being 3%.

That lands us right in the sweet spot of what we've historically done. Chad Apparently came up with the same thing because he also proposed 3%. And then everything else is just harmonizing the monthly or monthly yearly step increases, changing the 1.5 to 3%, and then after 20 to 3% in accordance with the ordinance that was passed last October for city services. So that applies the consistency across the board for that aspect of it, and then also just does a 3% COLA increase. Okay, thank you, staff.

Appreciate that. Brings us to call for public testimony. Is there anybody in the room or signed up online who would like to give public testimony to this item?

Okay, with that, it moves us on to council discussion.

Councilman Brandt, I just want to say this isn't as simple as just a COLA increase. The COLA increase is already built into the pay scale. There's a 3%, uh, COLA increase every single year for every single employee in the pay scale already. This was intended to see if our employees were being compensated fairly compared to other, uh, employees in similar, similar jobs. Um, I'm not going to delve into that tonight, so if you just want to stick with the 3%, that's fine with me.

But the other comment I have is that, um, the way our pay scale works, from, from 1 to 10 years, it was an annual 3% COLA. Basically, after 10 years, it dropped down to 1.5% for some reason. This will change that to 3% across the board from from step 1 through step 20 and beyond. So if somebody is here 30 years, they still get the 3% per year increase.

But I want to make clear that if somebody— let's say somebody is currently at a step 18, but they're making— this is far too small for me to read, so I'll just make these numbers up. Let's say somebody's at a step 18 and they're currently making $50 an hour.

When we change— if we change this to where steps 11 through 20 increase 3% per year instead of 1.5% per year, that step 18 is going to go up drastically.

Um, so I just want to make clear that if somebody is above a step 10, their their current step would be adjusted backwards to their current— the closest current pay, if that makes sense. So if they're making 40 now and the new step 18 would be 60, they would go back to whatever step 40 is and then from that point on accumulate the 3% per year. They won't get the you know, 20-some percent increase this particular year. Um, am I making that clear? I'm not sure if I'm explaining that properly.

The pay would then be reverted to the nearest pay scale that fits that employee. Yes, that— appreciate that, Councilman Brandt. Councilman Schuster asking Councilman Brandt, I'd Maybe explain that a little further. So let, again, let's, let's just say somebody is currently at a step 18 and they're currently making $40. The step 18 is going to increase drastically because instead of 1.5% per year, it will go up 3% per year.

So there will be a 1.5% increase for every single year for every single step. So the 18, instead of currently $40, it might be $60. Let's say what, like I said, I I don't have my glasses, I can't read this tiny print. So the employee would not get that $20 an hour raise, they would get the 3% raise.

So their wage would determine what step they are. So if they're currently a step 18 and they're making $40 an hour, but a step 12 is the closest to $40 an hour, then they would— they're step would go back to a 12. It wouldn't— this step wouldn't stay at an 18, and they would get the, the new 18 wage. If the—. I'm, I'm sorry, I, I have difficulty explaining stuff like that.

I understand it in my head, but I have them. Councilman Brant, I have a bigger copy here if you'd like that. That might be a little easier to read for you. I'll take your smaller copy. My eyes are still Fairly good.

Is that helpful? Thank you. Oh, okay, good enough. Do you want— would you like it up on the screen, Madam Clerk? Would you mind?

Can't even see this. It's not a big deal. I was just going to use just a— I was just going to use one as an example. But you understand what I'm saying now, Jordan, or— okay, thank you.

I would like to propose an amendment to lines 33 and 36. Inside the quotations, um, employees excluding the fire department personnel, department heads, and the mayor, end quotation. Um, Second, Skips.

Thank you, Mr. Skips, for the second. Mayor, will you please repeat that? Um, lines 33 and 36 in the quotations, adding on to excluding fire department to also add department heads and the mayor. Since all department heads and the mayor can set their own schedule if their regularly scheduled time is in between any one of these shift differential pays, they would be entitled to that. So I would like to just make it clear to everybody that department heads and, and myself shouldn't get differential pay just because we've decided to schedule ourselves.

In the middle of the night or in the late evening, um, to clear that up.

Any questions or discussion on that?

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

On the motion, I have—. Yes, it, it was moved and seconded. Moved by myself and seconded by Mr. Skips. Please call the roll, Madam Clerk, on the motion to amend Ordinance 2026-19 by inserting department heads and mayor inside the, the brackets on lines 33 and 36. Mr. Schuster.

Yes. Mr. Williams?

I say no. Miss Rolf?

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

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

Pass 5 to 1. Thank you.

Any further discussion on this ordinance? Oh, please, Chief. I just was going to offer a little history if you guys want. Please, that'd be great. So it was originally a longevity increase yearly, not intended to be a COLA, because in some positions there's no further promotion possibility.

Right? So that increase was built in. Then the 1.5— so it was 3% before, right? And then a previous council member looked at what would happen if someone stayed here for 55 years or something like that, and they were like, oh my goodness, they're going to be making a lot of money. And so they decreased that and eliminated the after 20.

The argument at that time was that you always have the preponderance of your employees in the 9-step range, you know, people midway. You maybe have a couple outliers, but you're not going to see this entire bulk group of people move out to the, you know, 35th step type thing. And so that's— but that fear is why it was reduced to 1.5.

Thank you for that history. Appreciate that, Chief.

Any further discussion on this ordinance for this evening? Please, Councilwoman Rolfe. Okay, so my understanding of the purpose behind the committee that was eliminated was to review what is the appropriate pay for all departments. I'm only seeing 3 of our departments here.

Correct. Why? Um, City Services was evaluated last October and voted on by this council, um, to receive a, um, 5% increase. Which changed the entire scale for, um, the 1.5% and 1% after scale 10.

Great. My understanding at that time was that was because at the previous 3-year one that occurred 3 years prior, kind of got shafted and they were not included in that. So that would have caught them up to the increase that occurred 2 years prior. So essentially, they are caught up to where they should have been 2 years prior, and now we're going to bump everybody but them again and end up in the same position. And that was the narrative that was sold to you.

Agreed. And was voted on by this council. Please, Councilman Brandt. That wasn't— didn't answer my question, but sure. All right, good.

No, no, no, it was not— that didn't answer a question, but I don't, I don't have another one because he doesn't have an answer, so that's fine. May I speak to that? Yes. I, I believe that City Services was included in the increase 3 years ago.

They— 3 years ago there was a 3% COLA increase that was citywide, all departments, so they were included.

Did that answer your question, or do you have another follow-up? No, it doesn't match the testimony that was given, but that's fine. Councilman Brandt, if this is truly just a COLA, um, increase, then every single employee deserves that. So I would like to make a motion to, uh, include Public Works and Utilities, um, in, in this ordinance and, um, give every, every one of those employees a 3% goal increase also. Second.

So moved and seconded. Discussion?

Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to amend Ordinance 2026-19 and include Public Works and Utilities in the 3% increase. Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Brandt? Yes.

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

Yes. Mayor Church? No. Would anyone like to change their vote? It passed 5 to 1.

Excellent.

Any further discussion on this ordinance?

Mr. Skips, got one question. So now with change we just made with 3% for everybody, now this is— everybody's on the same basically playing level now, right? Everybody's even with the 3%, everybody's online?

Yes, that was the amendment that everybody in the city, all city employees, receive the suggested 3% increase.

So what happened is 3 years ago when we did this, the city director at that time, in my opinion, did not advocate for his people the way he should have. It was done, the increase was given citywide, but not as much as should have been in that department. We broke the pay scales up so department heads can, can put what they need forth. Because it's different markets, right? And I don't ever want to go back to conjoining that, but he just— he didn't do that.

And so that left them feeling behind. So there is truth to what you're hearing in that, but it was based on the department head not pushing what he should have pushed and not doing the work he should have done, not so much that we failed as a city to do it. So they got— they were made right last year. So what we're doing now is, I think, good. Not that it will harmonize everybody perfectly, but I don't agree with everyone being harmonized perfectly.

We do different jobs. So if that's competitive and it keeps people in their department, I support that fully. Same thing for my department. So no issues here. Um, it'll, it'll, it'll send the strong right type of message.

Thank you, Chief. Did you have a follow-up, Mr. Skips? No, I was just trying to wrap this whole thing around in my head, but yeah, it's making sense. I mean, when it comes to pay, people are always going to complain, right? I don't get enough, why do they get more than me, and blah blah blah.

But like Chief said, everybody has different jobs, and if you're bosses don't fight for your pay raise, then you don't pay raise. Oh, that was a wrong of whoever was in charge of the reserves at the time who didn't basically fight for his people to say, hey, we want more money. So I guess this right is kind of right in the right.

Yeah, okay, I'm just trying to wrap it in my head. Okay, no, I'm good. Thank you. Please, Councilman Schuster. I'm going to ask, uh, the CFO if maybe the next reading would be possible, um, where you could give us kind of an overview of a budget impact.

Yes, I already have that prepared. I can give it to you on Fridays.

Mine's approximately $46K.

Total. Any further discussion on this ordinance?

Madam Clerk, please call the roll on Ordinance 2026-19, Employee Pay, as amended. Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Brandt? Yes.

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

Yes. Mayor Church? Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote? That passed 6 to 0.

Anybody need a break or we keep going? Seeing none, we'll keep rolling. Brings us on to Item 13A, Ordinance 2026-20. Can I get a motion, please, to introduce?

To introduce Ordinance 2026-20, Business License Transfer. Second, Skips. So moved and seconded. And I'll give the staff report. This was brought on by our business tax clerk, um, when a certain local business called and wanted to transfer their license to a new owner.

They had already paid the current year's business license, but per our code would require them to get a new business license under their own name, even though it had already been paid for. I didn't find that to be fair or make sense. I understand it's important that we as a city know who owns the business, whether it's a, a taxpaying business or not, but know who the owner is so if there is ever an issue in the middle of the night and, and Chief Smith needs to call that business owner, it's important that we know who that business owner is. And this just clarifies and cleans this section of code up to make sense.

Madam Clerk, is there anybody in the room or signed up online who would like to give testimony to this item? I have no one online. Thank you. That brings us to council discussion. Please, Councilman Skip.

Is the business going to be the same name, or it's a completely different name? Business would have to be the same name to continue to hold that license.

If it's a new name, that is a new business, which requires a new license. Yeah. Councilman Brandt. So the new business owner is still going to be required to fill out a new business license application, but the fee— they would not have to pay the fee until the beginning of the next year. Is that the way you intend this?

That is correct.

Okay, please, Councilwoman Rolfe. Uh, the language has changed slightly from 15 to 16 because of the amendments. I, uh, believe it's supposed to say on 16 that it's a surrender the license Previously, it was you're surrendering something by the licensee. So I think it just needs an E removed from it if that's the intent, is that they're— the previous owner that's selling it is surrendering their current license and the city will reissue a new one to the new.

I think we can do that on a clerical. That is my bad as a real estate licensee.

I apologize for the extra E. Madam Clerk, is that okay to remove the E from line 16?

Um, rather, or do we need a formal amendment to remove what I believe is an extra E?

I'm just going to look at code and see if it was a typo or if it's changing the The intent—. Not a typo. No, let's make it a motion just to make sure it's clear that it's— because that's changing.

Then I would make a motion to remove the second E in licensee on line 16. Second.

Any further discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll. The motion to amend Ordinance 2026-20, line 16, remove the second E from the word licensee to make it license. Miss Rolfe? Yes.

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

Yes. Mr. Schuster? Yes. Mayor Turch? Yes.

Anybody like to change their vote? That passed 6 to 0. Thank you. I would like to amend the word right behind the extra E to holder, so it would read must be— I'm sorry, must surrender now. Never mind, I withdraw that.

Any further discussion on this?

Madam Clerk, please call the roll on Ordinance 2026-20 as amended. Mr. Schuster? Yes. Mr. Skips? Yes.

Miss Rolf? Yes. Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Brant?

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

That passed 6 to 0. Thank you, Madam Clerk. That brings us on to item 13B. I can get a motion, please, to introduce, uh, motion to introduce Ordinance 2026-21, Minor Offense Fine Schedule. Second, Skip.

So moved and seconded. Um, I'll give the staff report. As a city staff, um, we got together and discussed some of the garbage fines, junk fee fines, and, uh, what constitutes, um, how many vehicles you can have on your property. And I believe that this got out of order and should have been the other way around, which is my own fault for not catching it, but But, um, just changing some of the fees and fines for dog waste, junk vehicles, and garbage that's either deposited in place in containers or out of vehicles. We have had complaints over the last 2 years of people not picking up their dog cat material along the trails and in our dog park, and, um, It's really discouraging cleanup day walking around, um, the city of North Pole with the transfer site being so close to see how much has blown out.

I can't believe that someone has lost a couch and a mattress and wasn't aware of that happening. And unfortunately, um, there probably wasn't an officer around or someone to enforce that, but hopefully this will help curb that. Um, is there anyone signed up to give public testimony on this item?

There's no one online. That moves us on to council discussion.

Councilman Brandt.

So, Section 8.01.020, garbage and refuse containers required.

Personally, I feel that entire section should go away. I don't think that we, we have the right to tell somebody that they have to have a garbage can.

And the, the fines are outrageous. So if somebody doesn't have a garbage can out in front of their house, they're going to get a $500 fine.

Oh, Councilman Brandt, have you ever had a neighbor who leaves 40 bags of trash, um, out by your property line on a hot day and let it sit there for 2 weeks and had that whiff onto your property? I know that you live outside of, um, the city where we have smaller lots where Maybe you have some room in between your neighbor, but that isn't the case for everybody within the city. And containing your trash in a reasonable manner, I agree, we shouldn't have to tell anybody to do that. That should be common sense and logic, but that isn't always the case. Um, I get a call a week about people not containing their garbage to a garbage container, the smell, or someone hauling in trash.

Um, Next to houses. Please, Councilman Brandt. Well, that's not what this says whatsoever, because it says that you have to have a garbage can. Um, if somebody takes their garbage to the dump, you know, instead of setting it outside, they don't need a garbage can outside. They just take their garbage to the dump instead of setting it outside.

Why do Why is it any of our business and require them to have a garbage can outside that they never use, or we find them $500? Again, um, that doesn't fix a problem that you're, you're trying to fix. Thank you, Councilman Brandt. Councilman Skips. Yeah, I know in my neighborhood there's a few houses all winter long, they pile the garbage up.

The white sacks outside their house, outside their door, and inevitably the ravens get into it, and now it's a big mess, and now it's blowing trash all over the street. So, I mean, I used to do the same thing, you know. I put in a trailer in my garage, and then once a week or whenever it's full, a trailer to the landfill, take it out and bring the trailer back.

Yes, thank you. Yeah, it doesn't say that you have to have a trash can. It does say that you have to have a container. It doesn't need to be a plastic trash can. It can be a truck bed.

It can be a trash truck. It can be almost anything you want it to be except on the ground and in a pile.

Councilman Brant, it specifically says dumpster port or portable metal or plastic containers.

That's what the ordinance specifically says.

Thank you for that. Appreciate that. I, I should— maybe I should have read the entire thing. Please, Councilwoman Ruff. Uh, so I don't know if it's just my legal brain going haywire or interpreting this too narrowly.

Uh, I don't read it to say that at all. Uh, it says that on the premises somewhere you have to have a place where garbage goes. That could be the can inside your house, and the garbage goes there, and you take your contained garbage in the bag and place it outside The way this reads, that's not illegal. You can still do that.

That's my interpretation. I don't know if that's too narrow, uh, or too vague, or however you want to do it. That's how I read this. So I don't get the, you have to have a can outside your house or you're going to get fined.

But I did have another question to that, um, Are we citing people for this, or how many people have we cited in the last year? I see your chuckle, so I assume you thought this was coming.

Yeah, that was like a 'we cite people every day' chuckle. No, we don't. I've never cited anyone for this, and I have no knowledge of anyone citing anyone for this.

Yeah, I guess my follow-up to that is what would we expect to get from the increase of the fines if we're not actually using this currently? My bad, I thought you were talking about the trash can thing in general. Well, any of them. I mean, it applies to— to where— I mean, we're increasing that one as well. Um, so this is increasing 801, 020, 030, 040, 050.

How often are we citing these? Um, the general garbage and junk vehicles, a few times a year, I would say.

Um, I would also say during my entire period of time here, the fines only help when someone is fairly reasonable and has common sense. And in most cases, you go and you talk to the person and they clean it up without fining them. They do absolutely nothing to deter problem people that don't care because they just won't. We got one lady in town here that's got like 12 tickets in Courtview that she hasn't paid, and they just stack up in there, and it doesn't do really do any good. So long term, it'd be nice if the city figured out a way to actually move beyond just monetary fines and actually able to, I don't know, do something more to, to clean the property up.

But to answer your question, usually a few times a year, 3, 4, maybe 5 times.

Councilman Brandt. So if you recall, last year there was a gentleman in town that was cited, uh, 13 different citations. 3 Of them were for no garbage or refuse containers, and I would just say that the judge threw every single one of those, those citations out when he went to court.

So if you're saying that the fines don't really help, why are we increasing them? A couple things. The judge— I say this carefully— but he actually broke the rules because the magistrate district court judges can't actually throw out municipal citations, but he did it anyway. Unfortunately, the officer wasn't aware of that, so he didn't bring it up in court. Um, second, I, I don't have a strong opinion either way on increasing the amount or not increasing the amount.

I've had conversations with the mayor about this where I've said it You know, it really is only effective against people that are reasonable to begin with.

Um, so I'm kind of neither here nor there on it. And, and based on that, you know, I, I believe that people who want to change will change, and usually a talk is all it takes. You treat somebody with respect, you get respect back. Um, And when you don't, you pay a stupid tax, you pay a fine, you pay a fee, you get in trouble. Whatever the consequence from your decision-making is, you have that.

You come off and you're belligerent right off the bat and tell somebody to fuck off because I can do whatever I want on my property. There might not be that leniency there, but I think having the first offense be a reasonable fine that isn't drastic. But if we have repeat offenders who are— positing their garbage in public dumpsters at our city, and they continue to do that because they don't want to take their trash to the dump, and we as a city have to bear that cost. There needs to be a fee for that because we pay for the trash to be hauled off when they can haul it to the dumpster themselves.

Councilman Brandt. So with the chief's testimony, that increase in the fees really isn't going to do what you want to accomplish here. I'm going to be voting against this. It just doesn't make sense. But I have a question on 12.0.

4.020, Unlawful to obstruct. Why the drastic increase in those fines?

I know, more so drastic than any other change in this fee schedule. As have we had problems with, um, obstructions? What, what exact problem are you trying to solve with increasing those particular fines?

Chief, would you like to take that?

Was this the pairing to match what the state fines are?

I'm just, I'm just asking, has this been an issue to the point where— how many, how many people have we talked to or fined for this particular problem? And what is the problem that you're trying to solve with increasing fines on this one?

Definitely cited people for like parking their cars on the street for extended periods of time. But I mean, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but based on my tenure here, this is not something that gets commonly cited because it appears to be more about placing or erecting or maintaining signs, posters, advertising billboards, um, that type of thing, which is not, not a frequent problem in the city. I, I've never cited anyone for this the entire time I worked here. Well, my question is, there's, you know, dozens of different sections and fines here, and only a few of them were increased. Why was this particular one increased, Mayor?

I did send him, like, state statute on some of these, and so some of them you'll have to ask him, but maybe harmonizing the two. So they match, but I don't know for sure on this one. But again, we, we can cite a municipal— give a municipal citation at a lower fine than the state fine, or we can find— or we can cite them for the state. You know, I, I don't know why we need to meld the two together. If we give— just give them warnings, say it's $50 But you're saying here that your first offense is $150.

Maybe they don't know that they can't put a sign out on the sidewalk advertising a yard sale, you know, and you're going to find them $150. That, that's ridiculous. I wouldn't, but I'd ask them if they have a business license since they're obviously doing it as a business. For a yard sale, they do not require a business license. Any Any, um, sales under $1,000 that do not require a state business license do not require a city business license by our code.

Any further? Oh, Chief, did you have something you wanted to say then, or—.

Say, I think pretty much every municipal, uh, citation I could remember, there, there's almost none of them that you just walk up to somebody and cite cite them because they're all compliance stuff. It's like, hey, clean, clean up, like move this car. Like 99% of the time that has always solved the issue. I mean, the only really— the only stuff you walk right up to somebody and cite them for is like they're doing 160, right? This type of stuff is all super discretionary and just trying to get, you know, just trying to get whatever the problem is fixed.

I mean, I've gone out and helped people clean up and done all kinds of things to just not have to go to court and file citations. And like, it's actually be a help. So that's kind of the police department's perspective on it, is just we'll try to help you get it, get it worked out.

Councilman Brant, but still didn't answer my question. Is there a specific problem we're trying to fix with this particular one? I mean, we've got Disturbing the peace is only a $50 offense. How come that one wasn't increased?

And, um, you know, obstructing a drainage system is only a $50 offense. That wasn't increased, but unlawful to obstruct was increased. My question is simply, has there been an increase in problems with this particular ordinance that we're trying to fix with increasing this particular one? That's all I'm asking, Mayor. You're the one that, that changed that one.

I certainly did. And I sponsored this entire thing. Um, it does pair with the next item of business, which required me to change this, but, um, I believe that that was a harmonizing between what state statutes say and the City of North Pole Municipal Code, and we certainly can state either one. The municipality can be stronger than the state and be enforced. It can be exactly the same as the state, or it can be less than the state and enforced.

Did that answer your question, Councilman Brandt? A follow-up? That's fine. Again, I'm just going to say, if the, the chief is saying increasing the fines isn't going to really help, I don't, I don't see a sense in, in passing this ordinance. That's all.

Thank you. What this ordinance also does, um, which is why I'm a little disappointed in myself for not making sure that the order in which was is correct, um, 12— I'm sorry, 802.060, the junk vehicles Um, A, B, or C certainly does affect our city. Um, it just happens to be our next item of business on the agenda.

Please, Councilwoman Rolfe. So I know it, it pairs with the other one, but it also appears here. It's changing from 4 to 3. Uh, is there any resident that this would affect immediately that have 4 junk vehicles on their property that are going to get cited then for this?

Potentially. Okay. Uh, and then, um, I noticed that the next ordinance that will be in front of us has an effective date of December 31st, and this has an immediate effective date, which would be contrary to that. Um, wouldn't that make this Are you asking for an amendment to change the effective date of our next item of business, or would you like to change the effective date of this item of business to, to pair with the second? As an attorney, what would be more apropos?

Well, if this one goes into effect immediately and is now finding somebody for something that's not in effect yet, uh, that's illegal, uh, so So, the, the effective dates need to match, uh, which way they go. I don't care because I don't support either ordinance, um, but the way it's set up now, uh, is, uh, illegal and could bring suit to the city for finding somebody for something that's not yet allowed. Okay, thank you. I'd like to amend the effective date to match, um, Ordinance 2026-22.

Second.

Any further discussion on the amendment?

Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the amendment of the effective date.

On the motion to amend Ordinance 2026-21, the effective date on lines 26 and 27 to match Ordinance 2026-22, which would be an effective date of December 31st, 2026. Mr. Skips? Yes. Mr. Brandt? No.

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

No. Mayor Church?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

That passed 4 to 3— or 4 to 2. Thank you. Any further discussion on the ordinance?

Madam Clerk, on Ordinance 2026-21 as amended. Mr. Williams? Yes. Mr. Skips? Yes.

Mr. Schuster? Mr. Brandt? No. Miss Rolf? No.

Mayor Church?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

That failed 3 to 3. Yes, Mr. Williams. What do we—. Which one are we talking? 2021, Right?

Ordinance 2026-21 fee schedule. Said yes before, so let's go with no.

Madam Clerk, will you please, um, Redo the roll, please.

Change his vote. Should be—. It doesn't change the—. It still fails. Great.

Yes, I understand.

His desire is what's important, Madam Clerk. Yeah, so it fails 2 to 4. Or thank you.

That brings us on to item 13C.

Motion please to introduce.

Motion to— motion to introduce Ordinance 2026-22. So I did. I could—. So moved and seconded. Um, as a staff report, Chief, would you like to take this or would you like me to?

Um, it's— I mean, it's, it's your, it's your ordinance, but what it's, what it's changing is the amount of vehicles, and then it's also further clarifying what, what a junk vehicle is. Which I think, I think the clarification is good. It's always good to have more data on what qualifies for that so it's less subjective based on the officer trying to talk to the person and vice versa. Um, I'm also not strongly opinionated on the number of vehicles. Again, the problem people are the problem people, and the non-problem people are pretty reasonable.

Thank you, Chief. Sorry to put you on the spot like that.

That brings us to public testimony. Is there anybody signed up or online who would like to give testimony to this item?

Brings us to council discussion.

Councilman Brandt.

So I, I, it's very hard to just look at a car and tell if it runs or not. Uh, in the definitions here, there's, uh, in a condition which exhibits two of the following elements: broken glass. It's not illegal to drive a car with broken glass.

Missing or damaged body panels or parts. I don't know, there's very few cars that don't have a broken windshield and, and, you know, dented fenders and bumpers. And, um, so that, that's not workable. Um, has not been repaired because of mechanical difficulties or because the cost of repair is required to make it inoperable. To make it operable exceeds the fair market value of the vehicle.

I don't think it's, it's any of our business if we— if somebody wants to spend more than fair market value to fix their vehicle. Um, and again, you can't— an officer cannot just look at a vehicle and tell if it costs too much to fix it. Um, And again, a vehicle that is disabled and cannot be used as a vehicle without substantial repairs or reconstruction— that's too subjective. Um, has remained inoperable or unmoved for 250 consecutive days. What if they have a motorhome that they use a couple times a year?

Now it's a junk vehicle. Um, This just doesn't work for me. And again, we had a gentleman that was fined, uh, 13 times last year, and regardless of whether or not it was legal to throw those citations out, the judge agreed with him that this is ridiculous. Um, I could go into what happened during that particular instance, but the chief would be very upset with me over that, so I will not.

Again, an officer cannot look at a vehicle and tell if it's a junk vehicle according to these definitions. And then also, this now includes trailer or equipment.

Again, if somebody has a piece of equipment that they use a couple of times a year, or a trailer that they only use every so often, it now according to this ordinance is an abandoned vehicle or a junk vehicle.

Um, that's all I have to say about this. I obviously I'm going to vote against this. So if I may, Chief, just take a crack at that because, um, if you have a motorhome and you take it out a couple of times a year You have taken it out more than once every 250 days. And, and there may be a point as to which it doesn't move for more than 250 days, but it certainly isn't sitting stagnant, half burnt down for 2 years. Um, I believe that officers are good at their job and can decide if a junk vehicle is a junk vehicle with missing wheels, missing panels.

I think anybody who cares about their town can look at a vehicle and say, hmm, that's a collectible, and you have 10 collectibles in your front yard You have a hoarding problem, which happens to be pretty prevalent in our little town. I know, Councilman Brandt, that you take great pride in your front yard and your property, but not everybody in our entire city follows your impeccable mowing and care for your home. Chief, Well, first of all, since my goal is to build trust, I would never allude to something that exists out there in the ether that I can't talk about it here, because that's just not appropriate to do, nor does it build trust. Secondly, kind of goes down to the same argument we had over impounds. More information is always better for officers because there's no officer that's going out there like, heh heh heh, going down this list You know, you've got a broken windshield, I can cite you for this junk vehicle in your car, in your yard.

It's ridiculous. We don't, we don't approach the issue that way because it's all about just helping people get in compliance with city code and working with them for as long as it takes to affect that type of actual change. I mean, if I just cite them 15 times and the car doesn't move, it's a huge waste of time and resources. So having more data points to say, yeah, it's been here forever, it's half burnt down, it's missing 2 out of 4 wheels, windshield and body panel missing, all that stuff, which is illegal, by the way. There's a lot of stuff I could cite people for in state statute that we just don't most of the time.

Cracked windshield, missing shock absorption device in the front. There's cars driving around all over the place with all kinds of petty stuff we could be pulling them over for and citing them for all day long. It's just not worth it. But having those data points is valuable. That way the officer can go, it was on— it's been on Google Earth for the last 6 years.

I can look back, it's still sitting in the same spot, it's missing a window, the snow's blown in there every winter. You know, like common sense. It's a junk car. That way he's able to look— he or she is able to look at that and say, the totality of the circumstance says this probably needs to get taken care of. So you try to neck that down, you try to set the criteria to be exact every time, it's not going to work because it's a whole picture type situation.

So I would just say, compound thing, same thing. Give the officers the discretion that they're able to, you know, say, look, it's a problem person and here's some criteria that it meets. It's been pretty generic in the past. The trailer thing, the trailer thing is just because it's a loophole that's been exploited. Oh, they're not vehicles, but I can have 15 trailers on my property in various states of disrepair, falling apart, you know, not usable, but it's not a vehicle, so we can't do anything about it.

So that's some context for some of this.

Further discussion? Madam Clerk, please call the roll on Ordinance 2026-22. Mr. Williams?

Let me say no. Mr. Schuster? Yes. Mr. Skips? Yes.

Miss Rolfe? No. Mr. Brown? No. Mayor Church?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

That failed 3 to 3.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. 13D is consented. That brings us on to item 14, council comments excluding the mayor. My favorite part. Where shall we start this evening, Madam Clerk?

Mr. Schuster? I have nothing tonight. Mr. Brandt? Nothing. Mr. Williams?

Nothing. Miss Rolf? Uh, today Taco Bell is making the move from their building that's impossible to get through the drive-through to, to the, uh, old Wendy's that's now the new Taco Bell, and will reopen in their new building tomorrow. So go check them out.

Mr. Skips? Um, yeah, if anybody's in Anchorage this coming weekend, the North Pole football girls team, the flag team's playing in— they're gonna be having 4 games in Anchorage, and then next week they got 3 home games.

That brings us to adjournment. Motion to adjourn. Second. We adjourned at 8:14.

Thank you.