North Pole: Regular City Council Meeting November 2, 2026

Mr. Clerk, are we live? We are. Thank you, sir. Good evening, welcome to North Pole City Council today, November 2nd, 2026.

Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Absolutely. Mr. McGee? Here.

Miss Rolfe? Here. Mr. Skips? Here. Miss Barnett?

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

Larry Terch? Here. Give a quorum. Thank you. Please stand, join me for the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation.

Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America.

Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for bringing us all together as a city council and residents of the city. We ask that you help us make our decisions here this evening that are most beneficial to the city, its businesses, and the residents that we affect with our decisions. In your most holy name we pray.

Amen.

Mr. Clerk, do we have a spotlight on new business this evening? We do not. Okay, that brings us to item 5, citizens' comments for items not on the agenda. Mr.

Clerk, would you mind reading the disclaimer, please? Yes, sir, should have this pulled up.

I apologize, you had me in between things here.

Quite all right, I got this. Um, any person wishing to speak on an item that is not on the agenda needs to sign up on the list located on the public testimony table. Respectful standards of decorum and courtesy should be observed by all speakers. Remarks should be directed to the entire council as a body rather than one member of the council or staff. Comments are limited to 5 minutes.

Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up online to give testimony this evening? Oh, we do not online, but we do have someone in the chambers. Okay, if that's someone would like to step up, please have a seat. Just make sure when you're talking, you're close enough to the mic that it lights up.

If you would, um, are you already signed up, sir? Please state your name and your area of residence. So, Rolando Miranda, 601 Evelyn Drive, Yakima. Thank you. You have 5 minutes.

Something I could pass out to everybody, like, please.

Thank you.

That's a, a letter that I received from you, Mr. Mayor. Which I'm going to let you know I am going to comply with your request.

Um, do think it's necessary that we keep our roads very clear and clean. And so I have some photos of it, and you can see where I have my delineators that kind of outline my yard there.

And see, I got a picture of the corner there. Everyone can ask for you. Last picture I'll save for my comments.

Got this in color because I don't have a color printer.

Um, I know that you want me to remove the delineators right now, which are plastic, proper storm My only issue with it is that in the summertime— and I know you're only addressing for winter right now— that I'd like to put the delineators back because happens is they come around my corner. Just make sure that you, you speak close enough to the mic so that those that are listening online can hear you. Yeah, you can pull it toward you if you need to, sir. So when they come around the corner, when they come down the one-way street of Evelyn and they go around the rest of the neighborhood, they take a shortcut and they wind up getting 10 feet into my yard. And, you know, I really try to have a really nice place here, as you can see.

And then you can see the road. The other thing too is that this, this right here, which is the light post, so there's a 24-inch culvert there. And when they get close to it, they wind up clipping it because the— it winds up— it's a little bit elevated, so the grader kind of clips it. So I'm a little worried, concerned about that for the city as well. So just so you know, so I'm concerned about being able to return my delineators in the summertime, which I think is not going to be a problem so that I can try and protect the yard.

Lived here for 41, uh, 45 years now, trying to maintain a nice place and contribute a lot to North Pole, you know. So I wanted to have that. And the last picture I got is so here recently I know you're trying to do a snow removal, you know, you're the contract contractor, whoever's doing removal. There's a signpost right here which is the one-way street sign that's been knocked over. So there's lots of things going on with snow removal that sometimes the city doesn't see.

So I want that too. So, and I got another set of pictures if he'd want to Answer.

Okay, did I have enough out there? Short one, we can share. That's fine. Yeah, you have 1 minute and 23 seconds. Okay, well, on the next set of pictures I have here, um, don't mind that post office box.

I was just trying to capture that corner of my place there. And if you go on the second page, there's other places on Evelyn Drive, and I just took pictures of Evelyn Drive and, and Turner. And, um, you see the one with the basketball. So there's other areas that are concerning too, not just in my area on the, the street I live on, but all these folks have the same situation I had where they have, you know, post office, uh, receptacles that are not compliant. They're, you know, you see all the other delineators and steel posts that could be in a way as well.

That it's also affecting the snow removal in other areas of the city. So I'm hoping that I'm not the only one that should comply to the request. So I believe that the whole city should be complying and not just a certain few. So I just want to make sure that we're all complying. It's what I'd like to do.

I used to own quite a few properties on Turner, and it was always— we never got wide enough on, on Turner. And it'd be nice if these guys could push their stuff back so that you guys can do your work. See, happen was okay to public. Yeah, certainly. I mean, that's what council meetings are for.

Um, any questions, please? Mr. Schuster? Yeah. Um, are you aware of what your easement is there? I, I'm not exactly sure on my you know, on Evelyn Drive, but I think I actually go back 6 feet.

Okay, that's what I think. Yeah, I'm not quite sure. Yeah, I'd just be curious. I—. In the one pictures, um, it looked like this is pretty— that mark is pretty close to the road.

Yes, and I get it. I, I could sit around the edge of the pavement, to be honest. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I, I know I'm not—. I have a, I have a nice lawn.

I try and keep really nice lawn, so I understand and I appreciate that Your place looks beautiful, and, and that's— the city needs more places like that. And that's right, you know, like I said, I'm not— yeah, I'm not gonna, you know, I'm gonna be— I'm gonna comply. But, you know, I just want to make sure that in the summertime we can do it. And what happens too, when the reader comes by, they rip a 2-foot thing, so it's all bare again. Yeah, and I gotta, I gotta seed all that again.

It's a lot of work, you know. Um, and it changes, you know, from different mayors and different council members and different folks that might be running this city. And over the last 45 years, I've had to move them, I didn't have to move them, I had to move them, I didn't have to move them. You know, I was there when we didn't have pavement or didn't even have streetlights. So, you know, I've been there a long time.

So my last follow-up on that was, I'm sure, I'm sure, um, either the mayor would be happy to talk to Cody, and maybe he could look with our snowplow contractor at that street specifically. And I, I'm sure that this needs to be moved, but maybe he could do a better job of where they're—. So the intent per the snowplow contract, just, just to answer some of that, is to blade that to the center. Yeah, to the center island. Um, and by keeping those markers though there, it does— um, they're always afraid to do damage to private property.

Oh yes. Um, and your private property is set about 5 feet back from the pavement edge. And really, originally, there, there should have been a drainage ditch in there that runs all the way down. Evelyn, I don't know if during your ownership that got filled in. I, I, I'm with you on that.

But, you know, at that time, you know, everything was— we would ask the city back then, just on a, you know, we just asked. There's nothing— we didn't have permitting back then. You know, like I said, I've been there 45 years. So when I put that yard in, which was Shortly after I moved in, you know, we just, we just filled into the pavement, you know. So that's, that's how it was, you know, things change.

And I know we have to have, you know, be compliant with a lot of things that, you know, that have been drainage and those kind of concerns. And I understand, you know, but just if I could just put my yard back and make sure I can put my delineators back in summertime, it's what I'd like to do. And, and I hope the rest of the residents would comply too, because it is get, you know, snow gets piled up. And like I said, when I own those properties on Turner, the city would pile up on those duplexes so high that when the tenants would back out, you couldn't see to back out. So it was kind of a safety concern too.

So, and then, you know, I was prevented from pushing snow across the way into that 12-foot easement that I got there. They said I couldn't do it anymore because the previous owners said it was their property, even though I said, no, it's easement. The city won't allow me. So I had to pile it up on the other side, which made bigger mounds. Then the city would compound that.

So, um, I still have a few lots there, but it'd just be nice we could get cleared. And if the other side was compliant, I think we could have a better street there. You know, I agree with you 100%. Mr. McGee, did you have a— yes, I did. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Um, I appreciate these pictures. What I would like to do is have the mayor take these pictures to our Public Works and talk about— have these mailboxes that are not compliant addressed, as well as all these fence posts I'm seeing along some of these pictures. Yes. And I'm really surprised that there's still mailbox— I mean, you know, newspaper. Turner used to have a post office receptacle that was on Blanket Boulevard.

And there was a gentleman there before those duplexes were built who changed all that and had to post— convince the post office to put these, you know, where the postman has to put them at each residence. It'd be nice if that receptacle would go back and make that neighborhood really clean again, you know, but, you know, I'm not sure how you could accomplish that. Everything I address here has to be done in the form of a question, so I have to ask you, did you know that I was the first one to get a mailbox at my house in my subdivision of North Star Drive when I I read the law about post offices and I was permitted to have mail delivered to the house. Now we've got them all throughout the neighborhood, but if properly recessed— and mine, and if you're aware, mine is properly recessed so it's never affected by the snowplows. But I appreciate these pictures and I appreciate your concern with your yard, and I think that the mayor will address this to our Public Works employee and, and take a look at it for you.

That's good. Thank you. Thank you for any, any further questions. I want to say thank you for your testimony. You are not the only one in the city who received that letter.

Oh no, we mailed those out, I believe, on the 19th, 20th, right in that ballpark. I don't have that in front of me, but I believe we mailed out 10 of those to residents who, who had markers, and you took pictures of, um, 3 of the folks that we mailed those out to. So I appreciate you providing those. It is a city issue, and as more and more people have those, um, more and more people then want them, and it turns out to be a systemic problem, which we've kind of run into across North Pole where people are marking their properties and, and delineating to our plowing contractors where snow will be pushed and where it shall not be pushed based on the markers. And that isn't always correct.

We have road right-of-ways for a reason, and that's why the letters— and then maybe next summer we can get together and come up with a plan to delineate a a drainage area in your front yard so that we don't have the issue with the culvert. It'd be great. And we have the proper road drainage through that area, so it's not as big of an issue of worrying about tearing up your lawn. Because that'd be a corner too, like that. They start doing that, it starts to create this rut and start to erode the, uh, the pavement there, especially turning on Evelyn too.

I noticed you guys repaired the other side of Evelyn where the stop sign is because people are just cutting that so close and they're just Churn up the—. We did. We got that done this fall. So thanks for noticing that. I pointed that out and we had that filled when we put in that new trail running along Blanket Boulevard.

And, and I don't have any issue. There's no issue with the delineators in the summertime to keep people off of that area because I do notice that they do cut that corner on the back side of your property where Evelyn Circle starts and there's a huge pothole that kind of starts. So thank you for taking care of that. And maybe we can look into that as part of the problem next spring. And try and get that little corner filled in with pavement so that they stop cutting it and doing damage.

Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Miranda. Thank you for your time. Really appreciate it.

Do we have anyone else in the room or online who would like to give testimony this evening?

Okay, with that, we will close citizens' comments for this evening. Um, that brings us to item 6, approval of the agenda and consent agenda.

Motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda. Second. Thank you for that. Does anyone need to declare a conflict of interest on any of the items for this evening?

Seeing none, is there any adjustments to the agenda this evening?

Mr. Clerk, will you read the consent agenda, please? Absolutely. And thank you to Miss Rolfe, uh, she caught a few, uh, minutes mishaps in there, and I appreciate that. So they have been fixed, just so you know.

Uh, so the consent agenda for this evening, uh, minutes October 5th, 2026, regular city council minutes October 5th, 2026, work session minutes, and the October 19th, 2026, regular city council minutes. Uh, new business, request to council travel authorization Travel authorization for Council Member Barnett for AML. Uh, request to council travel authorization for Mayor Terch for AML. And Resolution 2026-21, a resolution honoring Alaskan veterans for Veterans Day. And that concludes your consent agenda.

Thank you, sir. Will you please call the roll on the agenda? Uh, on the motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda, Miss Rolfe? Yes. Mr. McGee?

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

Mr. Schuster? Yes. Miss Barnett? Yes. Mayor Church?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote? 7-0. All right, thank you. Since item 7 has been consented, that brings us on to item 8.

And before we get to item 8A, council reorganization, I would just like to give my update very quickly. In the past few weeks, it has been very busy here at the City of North Pole. We have been working on finalizing the budget. We had our budget workshops last week. And if you happen to miss them, they are online either on our website or on YouTube for viewing.

Um, I met at the governor's office for a quick update on the veteran cemetery out in Salcha. They're about 51% complete with that project. I have asked, um, the main general taking care of that project to give us an update, and hopefully that will be during our November 16th meeting so that we have a little update on that.

I met with the EPA last week regarding the non-attainment split for the North Pole area. I would like to thank the EPA for, for actually showing up and coming to North Pole on a very terrible weather day. Miss Emma Polken and Tammy Fordham. Um, last week Paul and I, the utility supervisor, met with the engineering firm Respect on a progress report for the hydrant relocation efforts. Phase 2 of the water main replacement, the sewer outfall project, and the sewage sludge removal project to see where those projects are at and how we can keep them moving forward.

Um, with that, I would like to thank everyone who's going to come out tomorrow and vote. It's super important. And if you live with inside the city, City Hall here is your voting place. With that, I'll take Um, I guess brief pause and turn it over to Mr. Clerk for the council reorganization.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh, so council reorganization as outlined in North Pole Municipal Code 2.12020, uh, the council shall elect from its membership a mayor pro tempore, a deputy mayor pro tem, and an alternate deputy mayor pro tem. The process will be conducted by secret ballot. Uh, and it takes a majority of 4 to elect each position. Uh, first off, for the position of mayor pro tem, are there any nominations from council members?

Thanks. Councilwoman Ralph, I'd nominate Jordan Schuster. Second. A second's needed if you don't want to, but that's fine. I'd also— oh, please, Mr. Skips, I'd like to nominate Mr. McGee for mayor pro tem.

I accept. Please. I'm good. Okay. Any others?

Doesn't look like it. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. You do have ballots, uh, in between each one of you at every station. They're little pieces of paper.

Please vote, fold, and I will come and collect.

Congratulations. With 4 votes, Mr. McGee, you are the new mayor pro tem. Thank you.

Uh, next we will do, uh, deputy mayor pro tem, please. Mr. Claus. Thank you, Mayor. I nominate Ms. Rolfe, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem. Second.

That fulfill your hand raise? What? You had your hand raised. Go ahead. I'm sorry, I just wanted to second his nomination.

Understood. Okay, any further nominations, please? I nominate Jordan Schuster.

Okay, anyone else?

Same process, write your vote, fold it, I'll come collect.

While he tabulates, is everyone comfortable with their spot on this council as far as where they're sitting, or would anybody like to reorganize and move? I'm comfortable. Comfortable. Okay, excellent.

In a year and a half, you could if you got a job as a, as a department head, sir. That could be your table. With 4 votes, uh, Miss Rolfe is our Deputy Mayor Pro Tem, and then we need to select an alternate Deputy Mayor Pro Tem.

Please, Mr. Claus. I nominate, uh, Mr. Schuster.

Please, Mr. Mc—. I'd like to nominate, um, David Skips.

Any further nominations?

Both of those people accept their nominations.

No one's—. Uh, rest is for you. I'm for done voting.

Congratulations, Mr. Schuster, your alternate Deputy Mayor Pro Tem with 4 votes. Okay, thank you, Council, for the reorganization. Appreciate that.

Is there anything else, Mr. Clerk, that we need to do there? That is it. All right, thank you, sir. That brings us on to 9A, question members— sorry, council members' questions of the mayor.

I don't know why that was such a tongue-tie. Please, Ms. Rolfe, go ahead. Yeah, I had a constituent ask about— they were apparently filling out their form for the bed tax and realized that they have two city business licenses. Apparently there is a gaming business license and a regular business license. I can't find anything in our code about a gaming business license.

Can you tell me where that comes from and what the fee for that is? No, I can't actually. There, there is a requirement to have a North Pole City business license and a state business license, but there shouldn't be a gaming license or gaming permit on the bed tax form. I didn't see it this year or have reviewed it. So the—.

That requirement's not on the bed tax form. Apparently they called the city to get their information for their city license because they couldn't find what their city license number was, and the city asked them which license they were talking about, because apparently they hold 2 with the city.

Mr. Harlock, I guess I'm at a little bit of a loss, and maybe after our meeting you can let Will and I know what business this is. But I'm a little dumbfounded by this question. I don't know if you can shed any light on that, Mr. Harlock. Uh, no.

So maybe you can email us or discuss that later this evening and we can try and get that situated and get an answer for you. I know that business, when they did apply or when they did drop off their paperwork, there was a little bit of discussion when that person did, but I don't— I think we might have left more confused than when we turned in the business or bed tax applications. So Okay, that I knew nothing about, so we'll dial into that. Thank you for bringing that to forefront, Miss Rolfe. Any other questions of the mayor?

Okay, with that we will move on.

Item number 10, communications from department heads, borough representatives, and the city clerk. Miss Rolfe, as our borough representative, please take it away if you're ready, or I can Uh, so, uh, at the borough meeting, the, I guess, the relevant portions that occurred is Ordinance 2026-22, which amended Title 15, updating the floodplain management. It's been, uh, in the works for a few years now. Uh, they removed 2,881, um, properties out of the floodplain and added 530 struck to the floodplains. So there's a lot of North Pole that was removed from the floodplain map, um, and a chunk that did get added, uh, that might be relevant to those in this area is a lot of Moose Creek did get added to the floodplain.

So that was one of the big changes that happened. Um, and then ordinance number 2026-42, which established a temporary moratorium on land use permits for large-scale data centers, uh, was sent to the Planning Commission, uh, and a request for that to come back before the council in 90 days.

Any questions for our borough representative?

Hey, seeing none, thank you for that report. Mr. Clerk, please. Uh, thank you. So we've obviously— you saw on our consent agenda, we're working on getting all those minutes caught up.

Uh, we're trying to get hopefully all the time a 1-week turnaround on those. Uh, so we're, we're proud on that. Uh, also we've been— we're going to start diving into the archives a little bit. And making sure that everything is digitized so that it's more accessible to the public. And then at our AAMC conference, there are some vendors who are there who can help with making things more accessible for the public.

So we're going to look at some of those things while we're there and perhaps bring it to council and talk about the cost and things of that nature. And then lastly, tomorrow is state and federal voting. Like the mayor said, uh, the city— if you live within the city of North Pole, uh, you are a— your voting precinct is here, 7 to 8 PM, I believe. And if you are not sure where your voting location is, you can visit the state's website and they have a find my polling place option.

Thank you, Mr. Ball. Any questions for our city clerk?

All right, seeing none, Chief Smith. Good evening to all. Just two things to let you be aware of. One, we had a great time on Halloween. We did our annual Operation Glow, handed out 750 glow sticks in about an hour and a half or so.

Lots of happy kids. It was another good year because it was pretty warm, same as last year, so we could actually see some costumes. So I always appreciate seeing that. Secondarily, we're about to start our holiday Thanksgiving food drive. We'll be in the city of North Pole again this year, the 11th Um, excuse me, the 13th and 14th of November will be at Three Bears, and then the 20th and 21st of November, catch us over at Safeway.

So we'll be there all day for those two days. Um, come by. All your donations go directly to the food bank. It's always a great time competing with other area agencies. That's all I have for announcements.

I'll take any questions you might have.

Please, Miss Barnett. Do you guys go up and do it at Costco as well, or is that just the Staties that go up there? We definitely have in the past, and we did last year. However, we were told last year that that would be the last time they were going to permit law enforcement to do that, according to them, because of some rule that corporate came up with not wanting law enforcement. And unfortunately, they've been increasingly unfamiliar— or not unfamiliar, unfriendly in some degree to that involvement.

With us there. So, um, not great, but we'll pivot and go where we can. Got it. I'll be at one of the other ones then.

Any further questions for Chief? Thank you, Chief. Mr. Harlock, good evening. Council, been working on the budget, as we know, and then also starting to prepare for the year-end preparation of the financial statement. And, uh, that's all.

Do you have any questions?

Thank you, Mr. Harlock. Mr. Hanakin. Good evening, Council. Um, nothing formal, feels like, uh, I just met last week and you heard enough from the fire department at that point. Um, I do have just one question on the agenda, um, the request for the ambulance chassis.

Um, is it on the consent agenda because it was not read? It was, I apologize. Okay, well, with that, I can take questions from you, please. Mr. McGee. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

How much do you expect to make at this auction on that vehicle? I don't expect a lot, you know. Um, this is the first time we've auctioned just a bare chassis. We've always auctioned the full ambulances in the past, and when we sent those to auctions here locally, we'd see between $5,000 to $10,000 for the full ambulance. So with just a bare chassis, um, you know, and I don't know what the market's like in Washington, um, possibly $5,000 is what my hopes is.

Let's hope we get more value out of that engine and transmission. I agree, you know, um, there's definitely value there. I just don't know what the auction market is like right now. Thank you. Thank you.

Any further questions for Chief Heineken? Thank you, Chief. Appreciate that. Mr.

Clerk, did I miss anybody? That is everybody, correct? Correct. All right, brings us on ongoing projects. Um, don't have an update yet on the solar project.

We are still working with legal at GVEA, um, to get them to remove some items related to, um, indemnification related to that project through the solar project. So, uh, we're dealing with that, and as soon as I have an update, I'll bring that forth to council. Um, that brings us to, uh, unfinished business item 12A, um, Ordinance 26-23, an ordinance amending compensation time to provide compensatory time for utility employees. And I'd like to have a staff report on that, please, from, uh, that was Mr. Schuster, I suppose, or Mr. Kloss. Sorry about that.

Mr. Kloss.

Thank you. Um, when we amended that by substitution, uh, the last time around, I think everybody had a chance to comment on it, and since then we have received a note from Mr. Binkley in support, I believe, of that, which I hope you've had a chance to, to read. The council members have had a chance to read. I'm not sure if we should read that in for the general public or not since that was kind of a last minute—. Or Mr. Claus, if you'd like to do that.

Yeah, please go ahead, read it in, read it into the record. Thanks. It's pretty brief. It's, uh, from Randy Binkley. Um, it's dated Monday, uh, November 2nd, the afternoon.

It was addressed to, uh, our city clerk. To the City of North Pole Council, once again I want to say thank you for considering and supporting this ordinance. It is really important to me, and I appreciate your thoughts and time on this. I was able to read the new version of the ordinance where it creates a utility on-call leave bank, and we accrue 1 hour per leave for each calendar day on call, which I completely support this idea. It seems like a fair compensation for us for being restricted and staying available to respond to utility emergencies.

To me, this provides some incentive to even be on call in the first place, but also gives us back some of our lost time when we're actually on call. I have some prior obligations, won't be able to attend the meeting tonight, but I'm also always available to, uh, If you have any questions for me or want to discuss how I conduct business, thanks again.

All right, thank you very much, Mr. Claus.

And that brings us on to— oh, please, Mr. Claus. Thank you. And we also have from our city attorney his addition. It's entitled the City of North Pole Utilities Department On-Call Agreement. And this is something that the, our city attorney has suggested that we provide to our employees who may be affected by this particular agreement to review and sign or not sign, depending for either existing employees and for new employees coming in, just to make sure that everybody is on the same page with respect to the utility on-call leave benefit.

And that was here on our day today. This evening for everybody to review. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Claus. With that, I'll be looking for a motion, please, to adopt.

Oh, public testimony. Thank you, Miss Rolfe. Anybody signed up online or in the room who'd like to give public testimony to this?

Seeing none.

Yes, please, Mr. Clerk. Uh, just so you guys know, there was a motion to adopt that was made on October 19th, 2026 at the regular council meeting, and a substitute was passed at that same meeting. The current motion on the floor is to adopt Ordinance 2026-32 as substituted.

That's where we are, so we can go right into discussion. Okay, thank you very much, sir. Um, question for you and your office, um, with this being a contract with our employees, did we send this out to the employees for them to review. I do believe Miss Kimmel did send this out. Yes.

Okay, please, Mr. Schuster. Yeah, I just have one comment on the contract itself. If this passes, um, under duties, which is Section 3, um, be physically fit to perform my job, not to leave the North Pole area, um, I think that's crazy. I think it we should say maybe the Fairbanks North Star Borough.

We're going to tell them they can't go watch— go out to dinner in town or anything like that. They can still respond from Fairbanks within their 30-minute window. Um, I don't think we should restrict it to the North Pole area. I think it should be the borough.

I, I tend to agree with you, and I, I think instead of putting in there, um, the Fairbanks North Star Borough within a 30-minute drive, I I think that's good enough. I mean, if you're at Harding Lake, you can still get to North Pole in 30, 35 minutes to be able to respond, I think-ish. So either way, I'd be fine with that change. Is there any opposition to that change? And we will have the attorney update that.

Please, Mr. McGee. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd direct my question through the mayor to the chief of police. When you're, um, when your officers are on call, are they required to stay within a city limits radius, or are they allowed to move around? We actually don't have a formal on-call policy.

If you're, if you're describing the general all cops are always on call because we could always get called in, um, the requirement There— well, there really is no distance requirement. 30 Minutes is kind of the rule, being able to— need to be able to get there. Um, if you live— if you use a take-home car, you have to live within 10 miles of the city. Um, but 30 minutes is a pretty fair, pretty fair estimate for us. Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Bet. And maybe just, uh, pair off on that. For the fire department, are there any sort of stipulations related to your employees in your department? No, really, you know, the same as what the police department currently is.

But I will remind you that years ago, the fire department did have a standby system where we had designated standbys, and at that time we used a half hour, and it was very appropriate. We didn't actually set a geographic boundary at all. It just stated half hour response.

Okay, thank you. Please, Mr. McGee. Point of clarification, Mr. Schuster, could you tell me exactly what line you're referring to? It's in the contract that the attorney sent. In the contract?

It's, it's up on the dais there, and it's, uh, so I read, I, I read the contract. I saw here. I'm just looking to see if it's in ordinance.

No question for the clerk. Should it be?

I think that's council's call. Um, I think the general terms of what you're trying to do, uh, and setting forth the procedure Um, is accomplished in the ordinance, and I would say that this agreement is more of a policy and procedure that doesn't necessarily need to be in code. Um, it accomplishes— it gives further detail through the ordinance. The ordinance itself states what your intent is, and the policy and procedures, which is what this on-call agreement would be provides further clarification.

But it's, it's your, it's your ordinance. So thank you, Mr. Clark. You're welcome, Mr. Ball. So this, as explained, but they are— this code is based on recommended code, which is administered by the chief, the department head. They're indicating city code.

In this call on agreement, but it's not in city code. So the terminology is it's saying receiving on leave call consistent with city code, but it's not consistent because we're not stating it in city code. So my question is this: would Mr. Schuster like to make an amendment to it, add it to the code?

I don't— to the mayor— I don't think— I don't I'm not making a motion or anything. I'm just— this was discussion on the contract, so I don't think we need an actual motion to change this contract. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I agree with Mr. Schuster. I think it's a contract between the city and the employees, and unless there's someone who would not like to see that be passed, I believe we can unanimously just ask the attorney to move that forward without any further motion or discussion, as long as everybody is in agreement with that.

Okay, um, any further discussion about the contract itself?

I would like to make a motion, um, in the proposed substitute to change 1 hour to 1/2 hour. Um, it does say that Um, I'll just leave it at that.

For clarification, 1.5 hour or half hour? To half hour rather than 1 hour. Half of 1 hour. Yes.

Okay, that motion fails. Lack of a second. Oh, I second. Sorry, sorry. Okay, I thought we were still discussing and I was waiting.

I apologize, I apologize. Um, and the reason for that, um, a couple of things. A, this hasn't been done before. Leaving it at the full 1 hour Um, would cost the city around $24,000, and something is better than nothing. Um, also in the budgets that we have in front of us, we did not add in any leave time compensation sellout, which may be something that the utilities department workers decide to do rather than take time off.

So we also have to take that into account. Um, this would still provide each employee 45 and a half hours of leave time addition, in addition to the 261 or 263 hours of leave time that they get in the year.

Please, Mr. McGee. Thank you. Actually, my computer was going crazy on me, but I do have something to say. Um, and part of what I'm going to say is— what's going on with my computer?

I've been with the city, and you're going to get tired of me hearing you say this for a long time. I have sat here for many, many meetings discussing with the employees how they're underpaid, underrated, and need more pay for this. We put our line for this, we do this for you, we do that for you, and we need more. And my first reaction is this: when you applied for the job, you didn't have a job, or you had a job you wanted to leave. Hopefully you reviewed the position, what its pay scale was, what its, what its advancements were throughout, throughout a 20-year career of the city.

And that is something you accepted when you signed on to whatever position within the city. When you were looking for a job. But it never seems to fail that when an individual— and I'm not saying anyone within the city, so please don't misunderstand me, this is across the board with any corporation, any company— but it never seems to fail that when somebody finally gets in the door, all of a sudden that wasn't enough wages, it wasn't enough benefits, it wasn't enough medical compensation, insurance benefits, it wasn't enough overtime benefit, it wasn't enough leave benefit. And so they come to us and they want more and more and more. And I've had many discussions with, with the city on that, as well as other areas where I'd been a manager.

And that's great. It's all well and good. I do fully always agree with the, um, the cost of living increases in pay because everybody's costs increase every year regardless of what year it is.

I've seen this as a benefit to the people to recognize the fact that they're on call and that on call requires certain things that they have to be within. We're now saying within 30 minutes of the city, which I would hope they'd be a little bit closer, because if my, if my basement was flooding with sewage, which has happened, it's actually happened to a mayor's house, then I would like a response as quickly as humanly possible.

But it's a benefit. We're adding something to their package. And I do, I do feel, I do agree with the hour, not the half hour, but I don't want to make any more of this. It adds to their vacation pay. It's a benefit.

It's not part of their normal, their work pace, their pay, work hours. We're saying, okay, we appreciate the fact that you're willing to be on call for this particular job position, and yes, we'd like to compensate you a little bit for that by giving you an additional 1 hour's leave, not 1 hour's overtime, not 1 hour's comp time, but additional leave that you can use at the end of the year or whenever you choose to use your vacation. An extra hour always benefits. And so that's where I stand on this motion. I think it's a good idea.

I'm glad it came forward before the council. I don't want to see it get whittled down anymore, but I want to understand— I want them all to understand this. We as a council are agreeing to an additional benefit for a group of employees that I have also seen another department under the same type of circumstance come back and say, hey, you did this for them, why aren't you going to do it for us? And I haven't seen anybody discuss that possibility or that probability that it might happen. I've seen it happen in administration.

I've seen it happen in the police department, in the fire department. I have seen the, the battering back and forth when we do one thing for one department and we don't do another for another department. So I want the council to be prepared for the possibility that this is going to come back in another department for another area that they feel that they should be compensated for. Again, I will finish it with this. I agree with it, um, that I, I like the idea that we're going to give them something, just one little ounce of saying, okay, to be on call, which is part of my job description, which I accepted when I accepted this job.

It's nothing new to me, but we're feeling generous because we live in North Pole and Christmasland, and the council seems to be in favor of it, and I agree with it. I just want to make— I just wanted to throw in my two cents worth on where I have seen how this will step up to another department. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Mr.

Mayor. Please, Miss Burnett. So in saying that, you agree with it, but you're concerned that it's going to trickle through. If that's your major concern and you think it will happen, then why would you agree with it? Mr. McKee.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with it because I, I as a council member for as long as I have been, I want to take care of our employees. These guys, which regardless of what department it is, I have, I have seen how they affect my life and my, my quality of life living in the city. So any opportunity we have, and if we have the income to do it, and apparently we do, then I want to see the benefit go through. I just want— based on my experience, I know how all the departments work, whether it's admin fire department or the police department or even the accounting office, when we do something for one, it doesn't take very long for the other departments to say— and it may not be exactly the same thing, it may not be, uh, a compensation of 1 hour's leave because I'm on call, it could be something else— but it will come.

It always has in my experience. And so I'm fine with that. If the council is fine with that, and know what, what we're going to expect in the future. And I'm being backed up because I'm seeing nodding heads going over there from History that have seen it in the past already. I do think it's a great idea.

I want to see our employees compensated for the time they, they've been given. The first part of my, my discussion was merely my opinion on when someone takes a job and then realizes that job should be worth more than what I'm getting paid. But yes, to answer your question, I agree with it, but you can expect it to come back in another department. Thank you. Thank you for the question.

Miss Barnett, anything further? Okay. Um, Mr. Herlock— I'm sorry, Mr. Schuster, did you have a—. I just had a follow-up to Mr. McGee, please. And, and that would be, I don't disagree with a whole lot of what you're saying.

My only counterpoint would be, you heard Paul talk about in the budget sessions how long these employees have been with the city. And so for them to say they signed on— yeah, sure, they signed on 15 years ago or 10 years ago to one thing. Things changed rapidly, especially today. And so if other departments or other area— other organizations that they could go work for are doing it, it's something that we should offer as a benefit. Not only that, just, you know, overall quality of life and, and home-work-life balance, I think, is becoming more and more critical today than it was when maybe they signed on 15 years ago.

So I think I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think you've got to watch how things are evolving in today's world and how that affects the employees, which may be different than your previous council experience.

Mr. Mayor, before you go to Mr. Harluck, just to remind everybody, the motion on the floor is to change 1 hour to 1/2 hour on the proposed substitute. We are getting back to the—. Thank you—. Ordinance as substituted. So if we can keep our discussion to that, that'd be great.

Thank you very much. Mr. Harluck, if I can ask, since it was brought up by Mr. McGee about affordability, do we have any of these estimates actually included into the budget that we discussed during our budget workshop? Um, no, it would be around a $12,000 increase to leave cash out for the water and sewer each. So total of $24,000 if it was passed as a half hour or as a full hour? For one hour, total value of leave would be $24,331.92.

Okay, thank you. And then could— one other question, um, The utilities employees over the last 18 months have received what percentage of increase in the last 18 months? And considering the one that's about to happen, it would be over 10%, 12%. Okay, thank you.

Mr. Schuster, we've gone over that time and time again. This was their first raise, was playing catch-up because whoever was in charge at that time did not properly defend their department, and so they were left out of a previous raise. So they were— that what the mayor is talking about was catch-up, not we didn't give them a 12% raise. They were brought to what the rest of the city was. So it's a little bit misguided there.

Please, Mr. Claus. Thank you, Mayor. I'm still not I'm not sure anymore what the actual motion is. Is this the increase/decrease hours, decrease/increase compensation? What is going on?

Mr. Bell will clarify that for you, Mr. Claus. Mr. McGee, I'll wait for his clarification for Mr. Claus. Uh, currently the motion on the floor is a motion to amend to change 1 hour to a half an hour in the proposed substitute. Of compensated time. And that was moved by Mayor Terch and seconded by Miss Barnett.

Follow-up, Mr. Claus. Thank you. So I'm still not clear on that. Which is the— would you refer to a particular sentence in here, please? Um, sure.

So we are looking at the ordinance itself. I apologize, let me pull it up here. And specifically the substitute And everywhere it refers to an hour, yep, would be changed to a half hour. So the first instance I see is on line 32, uh, with the city's on-call requirements shall accrue— this amendment would say one half hour of utility on-call leave for each calendar day assigned to on-call duty. Thank you.

You're welcome. Mr. McGee. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For clarification, Mr. Harkel, and forgive me if I didn't pronounce your name right, I'm terrible with names. Are you saying that the quote you gave for what the increase would be for an annual leave, is that for one individual or for the department?

The $24,000 is the total value of the leave cash out if they chose to cash out their leave. If they chose to cash out their leave. For each employee, we have, uh, 4 employees that would be receiving this. Um, each employee would receive between $5,200 and $7,500 based on their loaded wage for, uh, total compensation based on this 1 hour. Yes.

Thank you. The whole department? The whole department employees? For 4 employees. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You bet. Any further discussion?

Mr. Ball, please call the roll on the motion to amend to change 1 hour to 1 half— or a half hour, uh, in the proposed substitute throughout. Miss Rolfe? No. Mr. Claus?

No. Mr. Skips? No. Mr. McGee? No.

Miss Barnett? Yes. Mr. Schuster? No. And Mayor Church?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote? Motion fails 2-5. Thank you. Any further discussion on this?

Please, Mr. McGee. Thank you, Mr. Clerk, for clarifying. And my lengthy conversation, I did get off track and not discuss the wage, instead discuss the motion as a whole, or that the substitute as a whole. Um, I, I do appreciate the two sponsors at the time that brought this forward.

I'd like to be a co-sponsor, um, of this substitute. Um, and I just want the city employees to always know that this council is always here for them, always has been. Um, and we will always— I, I personally will always strive to make their quality of life as well as they make mine. Thank you.

Any further discussions?

I would like to move to amend line 44 to state an accrual balance of 91 hours. Second.

Was that second, Mr. Church? That's Mr. McGee. Thank you, Mr. Um, the reason for that move is that is a year's worth of on-call leave time. 80 Hours doesn't make a lot of sense to me before they have to clear that out, and 91 hours is what they will earn if this proposal passes for the entire year, which makes more sense to me than an 80-hour random number put in there. Thank you.

Any further discussion on that?

Mr. Ball, please call the roll on the motion, uh, to amend, uh, line 44 to change 80 to 91. Mr. Schuster? Yes. Miss Barnett?

Yes. Miss Rolfe? Yes. Mr. McGee? Yes.

Mr. Claus? Yes. Mr. Skips? Yes. Mayor Terch?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

7-0. Thank you. Any further discussion on this?

Okay, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to adopt Ordinance 2026-32 as substituted and now amended.

Miss Barnett? Yes. Mr. Claus? Yes. Mr. McGee?

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

Mr. Skips? Yes. Mayor Terch?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

7-0. Thank you, sir. That moves us on to 12B and Ordinance 2026-34, an ordinance amending North Pole Municipal Code to allow a single member to sponsor an ordinance.

Mr. Claus. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, just as mentioned last time around, I think it's important that each council person can sponsor an ordinance without having a second council person join them. And part of that, I've talked to several people in the community now that feel as though they would like to just be able to approach a particular council person to get the ball rolling. And I've heard both sides of the— I've heard the mayor's, uh, I've heard, uh, other council persons' input on this.

So I'm still in favor of it. Thank you.

Thank you for that nonpartisan staff report. That brings us to a call for public testimony. Is there anybody in the room or signed up online who'd like to give testimony to that? There's not. Thank you, sir.

That brings us to council discussion. Please, Mr. McGee. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, motion first, gentlemen and ladies.

Motion to approve Ordinance 2026-34, an ordinance amending North Pole Municipal Code 2-12030E to allow a single council member to sponsor an ordinance, resolution, or other action item for placement on the City Council agenda. I'll second for discussion. Thank you, Madam Ralph. Mr. McGee. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I didn't know it changed. For 20 years, it was always a one-member situation. I can tell you I personally have brought up a number of resolutions ordinance amendments, and even new ordinances throughout my years. And the good part about it is once I brought it, after going through the steps of proper approval through the clerk— clerk and I studied it, made sure all that everything, all the T's were dotted and the I's were crossed, that made sure it was correct— and then it was actually enjoyable to bring it to the council. I can't say that every one of my resolutions passed or amendments to an ordinance passed, but it was nice having that, that active involvement with the rest of the council at a council meeting and not outside doors talking to one individual at a time to get them to buy onto it.

And so I agree that it should go back to one member. Each, each of us have different things that we'd like to study and look at in our ordinances. And I think we should have that privilege to be able to bring something forward. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Mr. Schuster. Yeah, I said at the last meeting, I'll say it again, I value everybody on this council's opinion. I don't think that two of us need to agree on, on, you know, one certain thing. I think, like I said last meeting, I— if Santa Claus thinks he has a great idea, I want to hear about it. And that goes with everybody.

And so So, um, I think we have really great counsel, and, and if you feel like you have a great idea, I don't think you should have to ask another council member if you think you have a great idea for me to want to hear about it.

Any further discussion? See none. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to adopt 2026-34. Ms. Barnett.

Yes. Mr. McGee? Yes. Mr. Claus? Yes.

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

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

6-1. Okay, that brings us on to Item C, Ordinance 2026-35, uh, budget amendment. As amended, starts on page 35. Mr. Harlock, for staff report, please. Hi there.

This fiscal note is to cover, um, cost of electric for the next few months, increase our vehicle repair and maintenance and our vehicle gas and oil for the police department, and then also to correct the, um, well, to amend the electric for the water sewer, for the sewer department. To $49,193.27.

Okay, thank you. That brings us to public testimony. Is there anybody signed up or in the room? There's none. All right, thank you, Mr.

Clerk. Can I get a motion, please, to adopt? Motion to adopt Ordinance 2026-35, Budget Amendment, as amended. Second. Second.

So moved and seconded twice. That brings us to council discussion.

I would like to move to, um, change the electric increase, um, in and out. I believe that we added a 1 into that number, um, that shouldn't have been. It's redlined in our packet down toward the bottom, third line from the bottom. I believe, Mr. Harlock, if you, if you'll make sure that this number is That's correct. It should state $49,123.47.

$49,193.93 And 47 cents. I'd like to make that motion, please. Okay. Any discussion on that? Could you clarify which line that was?

This one here under, under the sewer fund. Correct. The sewer fund electric and the sewer fund transfer out, and it should read $49,193.47.

That would change the balance too, correct? Thank you. What would the balance change be, Mr.— through the mayor, Mr. Harlock? Harlock. Harlock.

Thank you. I apologize, Mr. Harlot. $22,189. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Bet, Mr. McGee. Any further discussion on this? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Council, would you like to vote twice, or would you just like this amendment to carry the main motion?

Carry. Carry. Carry. Carry. Sorry.

All right, uh, motion to adopt 2026-35— or excuse me, to amend to reduce 4— 42-12.3-305 from $143,668 to $49,193.47.

This motion will carry the main motion. In case you do not know, that just means that we're not going to vote twice. It's just going to carry the whole motion together. Miss Barnett? Yes.

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

Mr. Schuster? Yes. Mr. Skips? Yes. And Mayor Terch?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

7-0. Thank you very much. Um, that brings us on to 12D, Ordinance 26-36. Um, staff report, Mr. Claus.

Thank you. Uh, so as discussed last time, this, uh, doesn't change— this particular ordinance is asking for a discount for North Pole City residents, and it does not change essentially the fees that are currently being charged North Pole City residents while the rest of the borough fees have gone up. So we're basically not going along with the rest of the borough's increase, and I would ask Mr. Mayor at some point that our fire chief addresses as well. Thank you.

Thank you for that report, Chief. Would you like to address that now since that's the request of Mr. Claus? Sure, I'd be happy to. Please. Um, so yeah, um, the fire department is indifferent with discounts for this.

Um, revenue is not what we do. We provide the service, um, you all decide if you're going to charge and what you will charge fairly. Um, we, we understand that, um, what, what it will do, the 25%, um, it, it does is what Santa was trying to describe there, um, the in-the-city residents wouldn't see an increase if they did have an ambulance occurrence. Um, I think, um, Assistant Chief Chambers, um, reported on this earlier. He had some numbers It's, it's pretty minor what, what effect this will have overall just because of the number of individuals that this will affect.

I believe when we ran the numbers, there was, um, out of the cash payers— that's truly the citizens paying for it— there was 8 of those documented for that year in which we received zero payment from, from any of those 8. So it would have very, very little effect on, on the revenue side is what I believe. So, but like I said, did we— we try not to take a stance on this. It is, it is, we feel, the council's obligation to decide what to charge or what to discount, and we're, we're absolutely appreciative of your judgment. Thank you, Chief.

Thank you for that. Um, with that, it calls for public testimony. Is there anybody in the room or signed up online who'd like to give testimony to that? There is none. Okay, with that, I'd like to hear a motion for adoption, please.

Motion to approve, uh, Ordinance 2026-36, an ordinance amending North Pole Municipal Code 410.030A, Ambulance and EMS Services, to increase the percentage discount for North Pole City residents. Second. Moved and seconded. Council discussion.

Please, Miss Burnett. Um, is this something that is okay legally? The only reason I ask is because we had an issue at a previous meeting with where I wasn't sworn in yet about the bidding, and that become— the lawyer was concerned about it being unconstitutional and so on and so forth. I just want to make sure that this is not something that will be like that. In discussions with the attorney, um, because it already said 10%, us increasing it to 25 unilaterally, he, he saw no issue with really our decision as council to, to do that.

Any further discussion? Well, please, Mr. Claus. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I think it's excellent that we can offer, uh, this discount to our residents here.

Thank you. Can I ask, um, Chief, how would that discount work. So if, if I was to take an ambulance ride, how would I receive that discount as an insured person? And would that be something that I show you my insurance card up front, you know that I'm a city resident because of where you're picking me up at, or my resident address, or how exactly does that work? Well, the way it'll work is, is if this did pass, um, Tomorrow I would notify our billing agency, Systems Design West, that this occurred.

Right now they're currently doing it at the 10%. Um, truly how they're identifying the— that you are a citizen of North Pole, I would have to clarify with them what they're using because I, I don't know that off the top of my head. But, um, I, I believe they have it— a system— because they are currently doing it at a 10%. And I could, I could bring feedback once I reach out to them. If you would, this ordinance is, is strictly for city residents, so I am concerned if they're doing it on-call location, like you're picking up somebody from, uh, let's say a local drinking establishment that's in town who may not be a resident of the city of North Pole.

And, and you're transporting them to town. Um, how does that— we just want to make sure that that's delineated. I understand, and I would predict they're using the location. And, and then I also want to point out that this, this would apply to a citizen being picked up in the city of North Pole. If, if you were visiting your mother that lived on Badger Road, that is not something we bill as a city.

That is something that North Star Borough bills for. And that discount would not apply whether you're a citizen or not.

Did you have a question, Mr. Schuster? Uh, just maybe for Councilwoman Rolfe, um, you provided some feedback last time. Uh, yeah, so, uh, when I got transported, I got a, uh, letter in the mail, uh, that basically from— it came from the fire department. I had to provide information that showed that my residence was the address I got picked up from or was within city limits, uh, and I think I just took my driver's license down because it's got my home address on it, uh, to show that I did in fact live there, uh, and so the discount didn't apply until I proved it. I had like 30 days to provide the information to them, otherwise the discount wouldn't be applied.

Chief, one question on, on what you just said. If—. Were you—. I'm sorry, Mr. Schuster, were you done with your questions? Yeah.

Okay. Um, If your ambulance service picks a resident of the city up at Down Badger Road and hauls them in, that's not covered then with the 25% discount that we have. I read the code here on line A that it says the city hereby finds that North Pole city residents who use the city ambulance and EMS services. It doesn't say anything about where they pick you up at. It says because you are a city resident, you receive this discount.

Should we add language in there that clarifies within city limits? That, that might be advisable because, because like I said, outside of the city, um, this entity isn't the billing agency. Um, it is the Fairbanks North Star Borough that would have to grant that 10%, 25%. Um, and that would be something probably difficult to get them to do. Um, so So that probably would be great clarification at this point to add that language in there that it had to be within city limits that the citizen was picked up.

Okay, thank you. Please, if I might add my two cents, just because I'm looking at it right now. Not two cents, but just my clarification on what I'm reading here. And to add to what Chief said, it says the city hereby finds that the North Pole city residents who use city ambulance EMS services— at that point in time, Chief, would that not be correct that if they're outside and they're using FNSB ambulance services, that that essentially would not be city ambulance services? It gets a little confusing because it is a city-owned and operated ambulance, um, providing the EMS service via contract with the Fairbanks North Star Borough.

So it's one of those legal terminologies that it is indeed a City of North Pole provided ambulance. It is not within our, our jurisdiction, it's within the borough's jurisdiction. Can I make a motion to add within city limits and to the end of line 26? A second.

So, Mayor, that would be the end of line 26. City hereby finds the North Pole City residents who use city ambulance EMS services within city limits and are economically justified in receiving up to a 25% discount, correct?

Oh, please, Mr. Oki. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I don't know— I know no one just saw me do this, but something that we used to do years ago, and I want to see it come back: when any council member makes an amendment, do you have paper in your box? That's a form that needs to be filled out with that amendment and the wording for clarification to the clerk. I hope that we start using that again, um, because the way I read It's— understand, we do have the City of North Pole EMS and ambulance service, the City of North Pole, and we pay in our property taxes for that service within the city limits.

Outside the city limits, it no longer is the City of North Pole service, it is the borough service. And so any amendment um, to change that won't change the, the fact that outside the city limits, the call is going to go to the borough. And even though within a certain mileage range or, or the severity of the call, North Pole will be called out or North Star will be called out, called out. Um, so this, just for clarification, understanding, our ordinance represents the city limit the city limits and the residents of the city. And we— you won't get a discount if you have an accident or need the ambulance and you just happen to be picked up by the city of North Pole outside the city limits.

You, Mr. Mayor? You bet.

Seeing no further discussion, please call the roll. On the motion to amend to insert on line 26, within city limits and after EMS services. Miss Rolfe? No. Mr. McGee?

No. Miss Barnett? Yes. Mr. Claus? Yes.

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

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

I do.

Thank you. Further motion— I'm sorry, further discussion on this ordinance?

Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to adopt 2026-36 as amended. Mr. Schuster? Yes. Mr. Skiff?

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

Miss Barnett? Yes. Mr. McGee? Yes. Mayor Terch?

Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote? 7-0. Okay, would— at, at this point, would anyone like to take a 5-minute break take to use a restroom? Yes.

Okay, let's do so. Spend the rules, 5 minutes. Thank you.

Hello. All right, thank you for joining us. We are back, uh, today, November February 2nd, 2026, for the second half of our City Council meeting. Thank you for joining us, and we are at Item 13A, Ordinance 26-37, an ordinance amending the disposal of city-owned property to revise the allocation of proceeds from sales, page 40 in our packet. Um, I sponsored this, uh, for a staff report, and if either any department in the city wants to chime in, I'm great with that.

But, um, this was changed a year and a half ago so that proceeds from surplus equipment went into the general fund rather than going back into fleet funds. As we try and bolster our fleet funds to take care of future fleets, I don't see that being a huge benefit to the city.

So I ask that this get drawn up and changed in a way that makes sense.

Either chiefs want to chime in on that?

Yeah, so ultimately it was— this was changed after I brought forth an ordinance that was clarifying some of this language surrounding it. Some of you might remember that. Um, it's always really helpful if in my long-term planning I can kind of forecast and see what's going to be the most value within my budget. My long-term goal is to have some level of offset that occurs from what's in my vehicle fleet fund to the things I'm trying to purchase with the fleet fund. And so, for example, if I sell an old patrol car, it's very helpful to know that what, what I get for that is actually going back to offset future costs of future patrol cars rather than just just vanishing into the ether.

So for that reason, I support this, I mean, this change.

Yeah, I also just be real quick that, yeah, I definitely support this. You know, for the fire department, the majority of items that we would send usually that would bring any type of cash value are usually vehicles. So it just makes sense to pass that into its replacement as we sell it. So fully support it. Thank you, Chiefs.

That brings us to call for public testimony. Anybody in the room or signed up online like to give testimony to this item? Done. Okay, with that, looking for a motion to introduce.

Motion to introduce Ordinance 2026-37, an ordinance amending North Pole Municipal Code 41910, Disposal of City-Owned Property, to revise the allocation of proceeds from sales. Second, Skips. So moved and seconded. Brings us to council discussion.

Mr. Skips. Yeah, I'm, I'm in support of this. Um, last time when they took it away, one of my big arguments against it was because, you know, fire department has their vehicles, or the police department, they have their vehicles, they seem to take care of their vehicles. Knowing it's about to get get turned in, they'll want to, you know, kind of keep their vehicles nicer, knowing if it's nicer, they get more money. Therefore, it comes back to their fleet to help their fleet fund.

But the way it is now, it just goes away, and there's really no incentive for the departments to take care of the vehicles as they age.

Thank you. Please, Mr. McGee. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I was on council when we developed these fleet funds because of the shortage of funds available to each department. Um, and we're learning that, that numbers need to be adjusted so that they are correct.

But I've always argued this, and I still will. The grants that the fire department get should go to the fire department. The grants the police department get should clearly go to the police department instead of in the general fund. It all goes into the general fund, and we as a council decide how much each department gets out of the general fund. Where I personally think, and I don't know if it's financially feasible to do it this way, I'm not the accountant, but I've always been a proponent of It's your money, you get it, you tell us how you need to spend it.

And hopefully someday the city will see it that way, and those funds, like our contract with the borough, won't go to general funds. It'll go directly to the department and to be used as the department. And the JAG funds and the other funds that you bring forth through grants go— now I know that there's some grants that we get that are, that are spearheaded specifically for certain items. That's understandable. But hopefully someday the departments will get the monies that they, that they solicit for, that they've earned and can use throughout that department.

That's all I have. I am in support of this bill to continue, and thank you, Mayor, for bringing it forward. Mr. Schuster. Yeah, I think the Um, I, I am in support of this. To counter what Mr. McGee is saying, I, I think technically they do get their grants, right?

Because their revenues are 1.1, 1.3, and their budget's 4. And so they are getting all that money and some, um, from the city's general fund.

Um, that aside, I am in support of this. Um, I remember the conversation a year and a half ago being about, you know, it's—. It—. We're accruing the most in the general fund interest-wise, and it kind of gave the city a little bit more control on, um, you know, money out of the general fund, and then it just gets deposited right back when there's equipment sale. I think I, I wrestled with it when it came a year and a half ago, but I think it deposit back in the fleet fund makes the most sense.

Please, Miss Burnett.

Why was it changed?

Why did we start putting it into the general fund instead? A councilperson brought forth an amendment and an ordinance similar to this one to change that to go into the general fund rather than go into the fleet fund. That council member's belief, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but that council member's belief was it was all city money and should go back in to fund the city rather than be deposited into a fleet fund that was already dedicated, um, I believe was how that went. And, and if you want to correct me, Mr. Schuster, please clarify. Yeah, I think, I think the argument was the money comes out of the general fund to purchase these vehicles, so when they're sold, they should be back into the general fund, the, the sale proceeds.

Okay, for me, I, I understand that argument and, and believe in that argument, and it is the city's money, it's the people's money. I, I also see it from our department and fleets' needs that moving that, those fleet funds forward to help contribute and take care of further fleets makes more sense than to have it go back into the general fund. So a huge proponent of this ordinance. Please, Mr. Claus. Thanks, Mayor.

I think there is some concern before that the council would have been sort of shut out of some of the decisions with respect to the, uh, where the money was going for vehicle purchases, for example. And since if it's going either way, it's still going to go for vehicle purchases. So I'm in support of this particular, um, ordinance. Seeing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

Excuse me, on the motion to introduce 2026-37. Mr. McGee? Yes. Miss Barnett? Yes.

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

Yes. Mr. Schuster? Yes. And Mayor Terch? Yes.

Would anyone like to change their vote?

7-0. Thank you. That brings us on to item 13B, the, the large item of this evening, um, Ordinance 2026-38, an ordinance of the City of North Pole establishing the 2027 operating and capital budget, including levying the mill rate. Um, that brings us to a staff report, and I think what I'll do for the staff report, if that's okay, is I'd like to run through the budget. Mr. Boll, if you wouldn't mind throwing that up on the screen, and then after we run through it, we'll take public testimony and then have council discussion on that.

Um, so like I stated during our— um, I'm sorry, my council— my mayor's comments, we had a budget workshop Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday where we went over a lot of the budget. And I would like to thank Mr. Schuster on Thursday for calling me out. I did miss the building budget, so thank you for that. Um, so I'd like to just run through this real quickly if you want to go back up. Property taxes, that is levying the mill rate at 1.75 mil, contributing, um, up an estimated $675,000 to the city.

Our general sales tax, which is at 5.5%, um, that estimated there at $6.465,000. Online taxes of 1.025%. Alcohol and tobacco tax is seen there at 3.75% and $135,000. The state shared collected taxes, license permitting fees of 52%, fees and services of 1.13%, fines and penalties at $130,000, intergovernmental revenue at $1,217,000, and then other miscellaneous revenue at $422,000, bringing us to a total budget for 2027 recommended at $10,641,750.

Next page, please.

Um, as they break down per department, we ran through that a little bit. So you see the administration, the clerk, HR, the police department, The Fire Department and Public Works Department with their budgets set there.

The Utility Fund, the Utility Fleet Fund, I believe that we're going to try and do a little bit of change to that, but the Utility Water Fund, the Sewer Fund, Capital Improvement Fund, the Water Reserve Fund, and Sewer Fund Reserves.

For Fund Number 20, the capital project reserves, um, fire fleet fund, the police fleet fund, and the public works fleet fund actually has a current negative balance in that, I believe. Is that correct, Mr. Harlock? Um, so we'll do some things maybe to correct that, please. Um, the Building Department revenues and expenditures there at $211,000.

State forfeitures is an estimated about $2,500, and then the impound lot fund about $15,000.

The assessment fund about $16,700 worth of revenues and expenditures this year. And bed tax fund, I know on our sheets that we received for a budget workshop, that was at, I think, $165,000 is, is what we had on there for current year budget. We checked here this afternoon and we're already at $190,000, $195,000 for this year for the bed tax. So I think the $195,000 is pretty conservative. The healthcare fund and then the North Pole Festival fund, fire department grants, and then the JAG award on that page.

And thank you for getting that for us, Chief. Appreciate that. That's it. And then that's it. Let's— can we run to the, um, building workshop pages there and get to the building department.

You have a page, Mayor, that you're looking at? Building fund. I'm looking at, uh, 59 of 83, and I'm working off our worksheets, not off the packet. So that— is that still applicable? Yeah, yeah.

Okay, worksheet was part of the packet. Oh, wonderful. Thank you.

Um, so as we go down there, um, we have our commercial plan check fee, uh, commercial upgrades within the city at an estimated $75,000. Um, our commercial building permit fee of about $75,000, just based on historicals. It's hard to know what's going to come in and leave the city of North Pole. Between residential and commercial for the following year. So a lot of these are estimates in the revenue side of things.

For the wages, PERS, leave cash out, temp overhire, and health insurance, we break that out because we don't have a dedicated employee to the building fund. We break that out into a couple of different employees. Our main building employee here, 40% of their wage comes out of this fund, 10% of another employee, and then 20% from our Director of City Services' wage are made up out of the building fund.

We have purchased services, some maintenance contracts, some legal.

Pretty minimal compared to the other city departments that we have. Postage, we have some there. Office equipment and supplies, operational supplies totaling $1,100. Recruitment and training, that $200 is more of a placeholder for this department, along with travel and training. It really depends on whether we are in a cycle of step increases in professional development or not.

And then that same 40%, 10%, and 20% allocations for their training and professional development of that employee come out of this department. Vehicle gas and oil, we don't have anything set up, but we may want to change that just as a placeholder. Other expenses, we have commercial plan reviews, commercial inspections, Developer agreement. If we have somebody who decides to come into the city and do a development similar to, gosh, Brookside 2, I think is what, uh, Salm's was called. And, uh, residential plan review and residential inspections.

And the one thing that may be adjusted here is in the 2026 budget where we have $2.5 million. Mr. Ball, if you wouldn't mind scrolling to that $2.5 million, up and to the right just a little bit there. That $2.5 million that's sitting there for the 2026 budget, further down, that's actually our HUD grant that got put into the wrong place there. It's in the Smart Water grant expense. That's really a HUD grant, and we're working on getting that corrected.

Um, other than that, that, that's the building fund, and, uh, we can run through the other dedicated funds, um, as we move this onto the floor for adoption. So at this time, I'd like to call for public testimony on the 2027 budget of the City of North Pole. Is there anyone signed up online or in the room who would like to give testimony?

Not online. Anyone in the room? Okay, with that, I'd, uh, like to hear a motion, please, for introduction. Motion to introduce Ordinance 2026-38, an ordinance of the North Pole City Council establishing the 2027 operating and capital budget, levying the mill rate. Second, Skips.

So moved and seconded. That brings us to council discussion.

Please, Mr. Schuster. Yeah, just on that building department, um, trying to tie this into how it's going to affect the budget, but has there been any discussion on two potential retiree inspectors and how the city is going to handle possible recruitment or find a director of city services that can do building inspections? Or are we tracking, aware of maybe losing two of our residential and commercial building inspectors? We are tracking that very much. I believe that they're both willing to sign up for one more year with the city, so that does buy us a little time.

As far as the Director of City Services position, that position closed on Saturday the 31st, and with our HR department out today, I'm not sure exactly how many applications we have received. As of Friday, we had received 9 total applications, um, have not look through to see how many of those are viable engineers, um, in the direction as which we want to go. But as soon as she returns back in the office, we'll, we'll know exactly how many we have and start that process moving forward. Does that answer your question? Okay, thank you, Mr. Schuster.

Um, I would like Mr. Harlock, if, if that's okay, I'm going to kind of put you on the spot a little bit about the assessment fund found on page 57. If you wouldn't mind dialing us into that fund, that's one that I'm a little unfamiliar with and would love to hear it from you, if you wouldn't mind. Sure. So the assessment fund has been around for a long time, going back to 2004. It was there, so it's been there for a minute.

Um, these are billed at the first of the year, so, um, January 1st we send out the bills and then we collect them over the year. We have a few that are, um, have penalties and delinquencies and some normal principal distributions that are due, but, uh, the 2027 budget is just an estimate of the 2026. And, um, that's all. You have any questions?

Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. These are property improvements. Okay, thank you very much. Um, Chief Smith, I'm going to put you on the— in the hot seat for a hot minute.

Um, on 52, we have the Memorial Park fund. Would you mind discussing that a little bit? Yeah, it's just a fund that was established from the original donations to build the park. And it sustains ongoing operations at the park, you know, maintenance around the grounds, those types of things. So every year I just project what I think it'll cost for those in the coming year, and that's what's reflected on the form there.

Thank you very much. We pulled that up here, about $2,500 budgeted to that. So thank you for that, sir.

Did want to go over a couple of things here for the capital projects and reserves. Um, that's found on page 60 and how we got to the $580,000 capital um, project improvement.

Um, $350,000 of that requested budget is for the solar project. That includes, um, funding for all city departments with exception of water and sewer.

And then $235,000 we have budgeted in capital project reserves. To re-side City Hall, re-side the Police Department, upgrade the windows throughout City Hall and the Police Department, and replace the boiler here at City Hall. Whether we go to a more efficient oil-burning boiler or a natural gas type boiler. That's yet to be decided. But if we don't improve the buildings that we have, they're going to fall down around us.

And, and when that siding comes off— I don't believe that either of these buildings have ever been resided. I believe that they were repainted the brown during Mayor Ward's time here, which was more than 10 years ago, um, and since then they've been left, um, just sort of marginally maintained to make sure that, um, they're as great as they can be. But it's certainly time for an upgrade, um, so I have added $235,000 in there for that project. Please, Mr. Kloss. Thanks, Mayor.

Just had a quick question. It might be unnecessary, but is, uh, asbestos a problem or a possible problem with respect to siding, reciting? I would like to hope not since this building was built in, in the '80s and, and asbestos was more of a, a late '60s, um, problem. Lead-based paint may be a problem if it was built prior to 1978. I, I don't believe asbestos would be a unless they used some super old surplus materials in the construction of City Hall or the police department.

Thank you. You bet. Please, Mr. Schuster, just to clarify, citing police department would be more so probably the backside, not the addition that just got done, correct? Correct. But we also want whatever is put up to be congruent throughout the whole building.

Um, to, to me it's very odd and, and whimsical, but we have, um, 3 different kinds of siding— or 4 different kinds of siding throughout this building and the police department next door. And we have the new cement lap on the new side of the building, and we have the half fake log on some of the police department, some is 8-inch cedar lap. City Hall has 6-inch lap, has steel, and 8-inch lap throughout the building. So it was done at the time with the products that we had left over from other things and with frugality in mind, but it looks like it has been built on and built on and built on, which it has. Let's try and bring those build-ons together.

To look more congruent.

Just my thoughts. And then the windows, although these good— are good double-pane windows throughout the city, they're wooden and they're starting to fail. The wood is starting to fail, the window's starting to fail, and it's time for an upgrade to either a better double-pane or to a triple-pane.

Um, the only other thing I wanted to dial into a little bit more this evening was the healthcare fund. Mr. Harlock, that is found on page 61 of our packet. Um, would you mind explaining to us how this works and, and, uh, its operation? Sure. So, um, during the last audit, auditors made it known that the healthcare fund, um, requires GASB compliance with GASB 10 and C50 to account for these separately.

Previously, we had accounted for the healthcare fund as a single line item, but the contributions that you see, that's the, um, the money that the city pays on behalf of each employee each paycheck. And then the, uh, the claims— the biggest portion of those expenses are the claims against, you know, whatever the employee is using their coverage for. Uh, other smaller things— stop-loss claims, monthly premiums, reimbursements, investments, etc. But the bulk of it is the contributions the city pays on behalf of the employees and the healthcare they receive.

Any questions related to those numbers or that fund?

Any further discussion on the budget this evening? Please, Mr. McKee. I'm just bringing it back down. No. Okay, um, I would like to, um, go to page 72.

Um, this is the water budget, and because the ordinance passed, we will, or we probably should as a city, look at trying to increase the leave cash out for water and sewer. As our utility employees receive 91 additional hours of time in addition to their 261 hours, we may see more leave cash outcoming from those employees. So it might be recommended to, to raise each one of those, uh, $12,000. I have a note on my sheet, um, we're not actually going to make changes to that this evening, but I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Um, that is in wages and benefits on both water and sewer.

Um, leave cash out for sewer is account 42-12-1.

-0060, And then for the Water Fund, leave cash out 41-10-1-060.

And with that, I'm, I'm done with my notes for this evening. If there's any more council discussion On the budget, seeing none. Mr. Ball, on the motion to introduce Ordinance Number 202638. Mr. Skips?

Yes. Mr. Schuster? Yes. Mr. McGee? Yes.

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

Yes. And Mayor Church? Yes.

Would anyone like to change their vote?

7-0.

Thank you. Uh, with that brings us to item 13C, Ordinance 2026-41, budget amendment found on page 77. So that I'll go to Mr. Harlock, please, for staff report. Thank you. Um, so this fiscal note is a reclass adjustment.

We are moving the $10,972 in legal fees in January back to the correct account for admin and removing that from the litigation fund. And then we're properly accounting for the solar project through the capital grants fund. You'll see we're eliminating those 4065, 116, 85, and then picking up the rest as the $350,000 in capital outlay for the capital projects fund.

Thank you for that staff report. At this time, calls for public testimony. Is there anybody in the room or online who'd like to give testimony to this item? Done. Okay, with that, I'd be looking for a motion, please, to introduce.

Motion to introduce Ordinance 2026-41, Budget Amendment. Second. So moved and seconded. Um, brings us to council discussion. Please, Mr. Schuster.

I just have a question. Both items 13D and C are listed on 77— 74.

I'm looking at the actual ordinance and it's found on page 76, but it starts on— yeah, okay, thank you.

120 On my page.

Oh, 120 on the actual packet. Okay, who knows? Are we all looking at the same thing? Would you mind putting that up on, uh, online so we can confirm that we're all looking at the same, uh, ordinance there? So this is the fiscal note to the ordinance.

Perfect.

Any further discussion about that?

That. Okay, seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll on the motion to introduce Ordinance, uh, Number 2026-41. Mr. McGee? Yes.

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

Yes. Miss Barnett? Yes. Mr. Skips? Yes.

And Mayor Terch? Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote?

And then just to— sorry, thank you, sir. Um, just to clarify, 13D, request to council approval to sell the ambulance chassis at auction, um, was consented. Just to clarify. That brings us to item 14, council members' comments excluding the mayor. Mr.

Clerk, where, where are we starting this evening? Let's see.

Mr. Claus, uh, everybody please be careful out there and please vote tomorrow. Thank you.

Councilmember Schuster, yeah, uh, vote tomorrow. And then just a big thank you to police department, uh, for their Operation Glow. My family went out in the Ford subdivision and, uh, it was a great time seeing the new police dog Yeti and, uh, and everybody out. And then, um, yeah, drive careful, roads are getting slick, weird weather. Um, that's all.

Council Member Skips, I have nothing. Thank you. Council Member McGee, thank you. Um, first of all, I'd like to thank the council for their confidence in the vote to vote me as a mayor pro tem again. I have had the pleasure of serving as mayor pro tem for every mayor that I've, I've served with on this council.

I take the job very serious as a responsibility to be available for the mayor when he's not here and to serve as, um, not as, as an individual with my own right, but with following his mission and the department heads' needs. And that's what I believe the position holds. And I appreciate again the council voting me in. I do say, uh, do be careful out there. Um, I'm all over the roads, and please respect any driver's ed car you see.

There's 3 of us out there now, 3 companies, and I think it's great. Um, and enjoy the rest of your night. Thank you. Councilmember Rolfe. Uh, yes, I just want to say thanks to the police department, uh, for Operation Glow, uh, and then special thanks to Officer Bloom.

Uh, he stopped by the Santa seniors. They did a holiday party on Halloween. He came by and not only spoke to all the seniors who were there, he spoke to all the kids that were there, talked to them about what subdivisions and where they're going to go trick-or-treating at. My kids mentioned where we live and where they'd be, and he had mentioned to them that they weren't in that area tonight. But after he got done in the area that he was, uh, doing Operation Glow in, he actually came to the Lake Drive subdivision and found the kids, gave them glow sticks, totally made their night.

So just wanted to say big thanks to him for coming out and doing that.

Council Member Barnett, I don't have anything. If I may, Mr. Clerk, I, I would like to just, uh, state on the record and, and thank the fire department and the police department, especially Lieutenant Cash, for holding the trick-or-treat at Safeway. And thank you, big thanks to Safeway for having that early event so that kids who don't go out in the dark or whose parents are concerned about that had an alternative here in North Pole. So thank you to the Police Department and Fire Department along with Safeway for making that happen.

We really very much appreciate it. And with that, I'd like to move to adjourn. Okay. So adjourned, 8:35. Thank you for joining us this evening.