City Council - Special Meeting

because I started talking.

Perfect. So, it is 6:31 and we will call the special works session of city council for May 4th, 2026 to order. We do have a quorum, a public forum. Individuals may address the city council about items on the agenda or not included on the agenda. Speakers are requested to state their name and address for the council record and limit their remarks to three minutes or fewer. Speakers are requested to frame their comments around items that fall within the authority of the city council. Generally, the city council will not take official action on the items discussed at this time, but may place the item on file, take the matter under advisement, refer the matter to staff or a committee for a future report, or direct the matter to be placed on an upcoming agenda. Does anyone wish to speak? Anyone wish to speak? Anyone wish to speak? Hearing none, we'll move on to bills discussion. Any discussion on the bills? Hearing none, move on to consent agenda items. Any discussion on the consent agenda item?

Nope. That's that won't be under the consent. It should be. Well, it should be, but we'll amend the agenda when we get there to the regular meeting. Okay. Any other discussion? Then move on to council information only items. Uh the first one on the agenda tonight is the flock camera discussion. U police chief Kyle.

Yeah, thank you council president. So we um with the uh approval that we had from you to move forward with a uh kind of a provisional uh test uh participation that project prove it with flock safety. We uh initially had planned on some external funding sources that we were kind of looking at doing. That has not um gone through for us at this point. So, we figured it was probably best for us at this point in time to uh discontinue that project until we can get to a point where, you know, we're have a little better better spot financially. um you know we we still feel that this is a very uh beneficial um type of technology for the community and for our department uh for investigations and various reasons. Uh it's just at this point in time I think it's best for us to be be responsible and make sure that um you know we're not overstepping financially. So we're just going to wait for now and then when things kind of change a little bit we'd like to maybe revisit it down the road. So that's that's kind of our intent at this point. they uh the process where they were at now was just kind of the permitting process. So, they didn't start putting anything in the ground. They didn't start doing any of that work yet. So, we figured this was, you know, the time where we needed to at least um be responsible and say, "Hey, we're we're not going to go through this at this time, but we'll reassess it later." So,

okay. If you have any questions about that, it's basically uh for us just to notify them and just, you know, say at this point, we're just uh going to be putting a pause on it for now. Makes sense. Okay. Okay. Makes sense. Any questions? Second item is planning commission meeting update ATV ordinance. And I guess we'll turn that right back to you, chief.

All right. Thank you, council president. Uh so with the ATV ordinance um we met with the uh planning commission at their last meeting and I provided a very similar document uh with that that meeting and we went through and got some of their thoughts and ideas down as far as some of the there I mean there's certainly a lot of different items and things we needed to kind of address. Um the thought was that we would go to them, get things dialed in a little bit more and then we would bring a lot of their um their ideas and suggestions to you. We'd kind of go through the same sort of process and then at the end of today hopefully we get to a point where we would look through all those decisions and then put together a draft ordinance that we would bring at another meeting. So, I guess the intent here now would be to kind of go through some of these um these questions about kind of the what types of vehicles, you know, what that looks like, the permitting process, those kind of things. So, just to get your idea before we actually put a draft together. So, um so I don't know if that's the best for me to just kind of go through that, Alex. Is that

just go down the line and Yeah. Okay. And again, it's a lot of this a lot of the recommendations we are getting from the planning commission as well as some of the things that we've discussed internally with staff um and also just research that we've done with um other cities that have these similar ordinances. So that's where a lot of this comes from. So Kyle, before you go in, um yeah, is this the same are you going to go through the same process with the same questions that you went through with the planning and zoning?

So there's going to be some on here that are not. Um, but those are more of the I guess I would I don't know if I want to explain that. Um, they're they're they're in here. So, I'll reference them in here. I'm saying what I was saying is did you take when you did that are some of the decisions or the the uh information that we gave you is that included in this presentation tonight or is this totally different than so this has been kind of a whole thing from since we've been having these conversations for the last few years and then with the commission with your input throughout the conversations we've had everything's kind of condensed and then okay brought into this document here. Perfect.

That makes sense. Um, like I said, yeah, there's I mean there's there's a lot to it and we're just trying to make sure we get as many of the the higher level um items addressed before we bring an actual draft ordinance to you because once we start seeing that then it's you know that's where there's a lot of decisions that can be made. So just hoping to narrow down a little bit but so I'll just begin here. Um some of the direction we're looking for is regarding um access and are we wanting like a citywide version or there is other versions where there's um where you could do like a route system. Um, and I would say that for us, uh, for enforcement, for permitting, and just discussions with the, uh, the commission was it makes most sense to do a city-wide permitting structure. Now, that doesn't mean that you can't pick certain areas where they're not allowed to go in, but just instead of having this um process where you're picking out certain routes or certain streets and those kind of things, it gets very convoluted. So, the thought was that we would under permit, it would be a city-wide permit structure to begin with. Um, and there's other, like I said, um, there's other things that'll address that throughout this um, this checklist, but I think just to kind of get things going a little bit. And then the permit requirement. So, we just want to just confirm with you that we are good with a permit requirement for this process.

Council President, can I just jump in? Yeah. Is that okay? mind if I I'm sorry, please do if we keep it more conversational. Yep. Uh what one thing I'd say with the permit is and I was kind of I was for the permit before, but maybe with the if it could look like what we want is to attract tourism and and ATV and sidebyside riding is a tourist attraction or you know gets people downtown into our downtown restaurants and businesses. Um if they if may if we have the routes, maybe they they don't need a permit if they're on the route, but if they're just in town, like going from their home to the route,

you know, if they if they live and reside in Little Falls, perhaps they they can get a permit for that. Um, I I guess I want to encourage UTVs and ATVs to come and use our trail, but you know, myself included, if it's a golf cart, maybe a permit might be a little more appropriate. Just so Yeah. Yeah. So, we we did just What I'm saying is if it's on the route, if it's on the legal, you know, trail, so to speak, no permit required because they can't get a permit on a Sunday if they're just coming into town. However, if they live here, they can get a permit,

right? And we so we we talked about this exact thing and what we kind of our thought process was if you are a resident of the city of Little Falls and you want to use one of these vehicles that we allow under permit, that would be a citywide thing. Now, if somebody's coming in from one of these trails, they don't live in Little Falls, they're not from the area, absolutely. We want them to be able to get into town, you know, buy gas and stop at our restaurants and do those kind of things. So the thought there would be, you know, our officers are able to distinguish between who's who's here for that or who's here for visiting purposes. So we thought potentially we wouldn't we just thought it would be really difficult like you said on a Sunday they come into town here. Now they have to have a permit. Well,

I guess we didn't see it necessary for visitors in that situation to have to get a permit to come into town. Kyle, I have a question or kind of a concern. Yep. Uh if you drive by Fort Ripley, there's times you'll see about 30 to 40 four-wheelers. And with the parking situation that we have downtown right now, um I think we're going to need to find a way to keep at least some spots available,

right? And potentially, I mean, there's a way that that can address be addressed within the organs as well. So, if there's a a downtown, if you want to like First Street, you know, north and south of 27, if you want to keep them off there, that's something that could be put into the ordinance as well if that that's what you choose to do. So, what I could do now is just kind of make a note of that and then I'll be able to put that into that draft ordinance so we can kind of see what it looks like with with it, without it, and um if that's something you guys want to look at doing. Um yeah, Kyle, when you say citywide um restrictions, you're talking about this the city limits within the city limits. Correct.

Okay. Now, if people are coming on through four-wheelers, they're not going to be allowed to come into town or they got to go around. I don't I'm getting confused with that part. What you're going to do with four UTVs, I understand, right? As long as they're street legal and whatnot. Mhm. But ATVs now, okay, you say ATVs can come into town if they're coming from out of town, but then what about the residents that are in town that can't come downtown? I guess I'm kind of confused on that a little bit, Kyle. No, and I totally understand because trust me, it's been very confusing trying to work our way through. I'm sure.

So, let me get to the next this next step, which is the vehicle eligibility. So, I think maybe that'll clear up some of these questions as far as what kind of vehicles and that. So um and this has been something that other cities have done too. So what so technically there's a class one and a class two what they call ATV. Now within that class typically the class 2s are your typical side by sides. They have a steering wheel. They have you know roll bar. They have signal lights, tail lights, headlights, the whole work, seat belts, the whole thing. So that's a class two. Class one includes both the handlebar, your regular side saddle, four-wheeler, handlebar, but it does include some of the side by sides that have a steering wheel. So, we're trying to distinguish that a little more easily. And our idea, and this is what came with the planning commission as well, is that the UTVs side by sides that we're looking at allowing within the city for that citywide permitting process would be those that have steering wheels. That's it. So, not the side saddles, not the four-wheelers, um not you know the handlebar operated ones. Um we can talk about stone removal. That'll be a separate conversation. But, um for the purpose of citywide use, permit only would be for uh the steering wheel operated UTVs.

I have one other thing. It's my understanding that they can't go down Highway 27. And that's against the state law. They can only go across in a 90 degree angle. That is state law. We that's something that we don't have any control over. I know that. But it's going to be hard for people from the west side to the east side is what you know what I'm getting at. So, and that that is something too we can have conversations with the state to see if that's something do. But yeah, we don't again it's um yeah, it's it's difficult the way our city's laid out with the bridge, Highway 10 and 27 and getting people

across. So that's if they come across the bridge, they have to they'd have to get off one of the side streets. Okay. To get around town. Okay.

Correct. That's fair easy enough, you know, for them to to figure that out. So uh so I guess the questions and then so the handlebar TVs would be the ones that are prohibited that was something that we came to with the the commission and what is your take on that? Also the other thing that comes with that is um age of drivers. So you for these vehicles you have to have a driver's license. You have to be 16 or we can put in there 15 with a learner's permit with a a valid driver with you. So, just like a vehicle. So, that's, you know, so you're not going to have 14, 12 year old kids driving side by sides through town. Um, again, this is something that other cities do as well. So, um, just to throw that out there. I guess

I think I think it'd be easier if you just said you got to have a driver's license, right? Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah. I I don't think it's a permit. I don't know. I they need a driver's license, not just a permit. Correct. Okay. I feel and and I know I'm kind of backpedaling here and I understand that, but I think we just need to keep this as simple as possible. Like when we say class one, class two, and quite frankly, you know, so we have a group of, you know, side by sides, but there's one kid who can't afford a side by side and he's with his family and he's driving a regular four-wheeler. And you're not going to tell the kid, "Hey, you got to hang back because you can't drive down." Well, yes, you are. And and I'll I'll covered this in the planning. Okay.

Commission. What was the reasoning in the reasoning is the class one uh call it a four-wheeler, right? Not a sidebyside. They don't have the same equipment as most of the side by sides with brake lights, turn signals, even mirrors. So, okay. If you're going to compare it to a motorcycle, nothing nothing about that four-wheeler is road legal. It's an off-road vehicle. Okay. Well, I was just looking to streamline and keep it simple for the police force and whatnot. So,

okay. Uh then next would be the the golf carts. So, again, this was talked about uh as far as what comfort level was with with us and with the the commission. Um, do you have that? Yeah. So, um, our thoughts were that they would be allowed in that area down by the golf course. So, um, Alison's going to pull up a map here of kind of what we had thought of. You know, it makes sense.

Next one. Yeah. So, it's pretty much that section from the railroad tracks down Hilton Road and within city limits on that side where the golf course is where we would it'd be by permit for golf course or golf golf carts to be allowed. Um, but there's different restrictions for them. Uh, they have to have a slowmoving emblem on them and then they can't be driven after um sunset before sunrise if they aren't equipped with headlights and those kind of things. So um for us it just made the most sense. You know obviously these are not made for the streets. We don't want them sharing road with larger bigger vehicles and crossing main drags in different streets. So uh we felt that this was a good compromise. Um just wanted to know what your thoughts were on that if if at all if you want golf carts at all. Um or if this makes sense to to have them just in this area.

I like that thought. Yeah. Well, you know where we or our where we live, you have people riding around there with their golf course on one of these days, somebody's going to get hit on Riverwood and stuff. So, I like this. I know. I'm not We didn't at Planning Commission and we we didn't talk about these a whole lot. I would not be in favor of this. It's It's discriminatory based on where you live and I don't think that's fair. So, if somebody lives, you know, on the other side of town and they want to drive their golf cart to the golf course, could they get a permit to do that?

Again, that would be a decision that you would you guys can make. If you want them to be allowed to drive from the west side of town or from anywhere in town to the golf course, you could certainly do that by permit. Um, again, we don't feel it's safe to have these. So, we're operating them anywhere in the city. Um, so that was kind of our compromise where we thought that this would make the most sense if we all or none. I've brought this up before. I mean, how many how many accidents have been caused by golf carts in Little Falls in the last 30 years? I don't I don't have the numbers. I really don't know. I mean, it's what's that? Do you know of any? I that I know of. No. Yeah. Right.

So, it's not like we're having this, you know, huge rush of golf cart accidents in the city streets. And if people are being responsible, it's the same thing that goes with ATVs and it's the same thing that goes with four-wheelers or motorcycles or any any vehicle. You you drive you drive responsibly.

And I just don't for I just don't see I mean an older gentleman that's been in in this community since golfing at the golf course since the 60s lives just right outside this border. And I just don't He's never had an issue. He's never caused an accident. He's gone, played his golf every Saturday morning. And I just don't see why we're overly making laws for things that are not really causing problems at the moment.

Well, sorry if I just might jump in. Um, to kind of answer that question too, if we if we say golf carts are permitted. Okay. So, what's the maximum speed of a golf cart?

Lucky if you're 25. Okay. 20. So, I live out on Circle Drive. I want to go golfing. I'm going to go down the highway where it's 45 speed limit and I'm going to use my golf cart. I got my little slow sign on the back of it and I'm going 25 miles an hour. And if that's opened up, how many more people are going to be doing that coming down that road? And to me, that would create a problem. That would create the ability to have more accidents, people trying to go around the golf cart, whatever. you know, all so I I am not in favor of opening it up and having everybody within the city limits being able to take the golf carts on the streets to get to it. That means they got to go through town. They got to go through, you know, there's just way too many possibilities for accidents to occur with them going. Not saying that they wouldn't drive safely or whatever, but I just don't believe that they should be on the city streets. Well, and they'd be crossing the bridge, uh, which would could cause a issue.

Well, they can't run right now. We can't run ATVs on the bridge. Correct. Correct. So, they can't cross the bridge. So, I mean, that's not anything we can change or do anything about. So, that's one thing. And then I just uh I understand I understand your reasoning. And I just don't think that there's this rush of golf carts, you know, heading to the golf course any longer. And even if they're in a private neighborhood, if they're being responsible, if they're being responsible, it's the same as driving a bike. It's the same as driving It's not.

It's What's the difference? Explain the difference to me. Is a motorcycle between a golf cart and a bike. Huge difference. Well, you can drive a motorcycle or a moped just as irresponsibly as you can drive a golf cart. you can create just as much of a havoc as you can with. All I'm saying is if we ask the citizens to be responsible, which we always do, why do we have to make all these rules? I think we should just keep this as simple and streamline this as much as possible. You want to keep it simple to say no golf carts period. Yep. Well, I guess that's an option, but that's not discriminatory. I think it's ridiculous. Say what was saying it's discriminatory that we got that done. It's not discriminatory.

You got one area that can use golf course and the other ones can't. So that is why how is it discriminatory? It's discriminator. Well, I I'll tell you because I'm the one who said it, right? It's discriminatory based on where you live. Yeah. Right. Oh, if you're within the golf course, you can use this. Let me finish, please. Okay.

I don't think it should be tied to the golf course. Right. This is a carve out for golf and people that live by the golf course. Now, um I I mean I'd be an an advocate for letting him on there, but I I think somebody on the west side of town that wants to visit his buddy six blocks away, why can't he get on his golf cart and and go six blocks blocks away just the same as somebody on the east side of the river can go six blocks to the golf course,

right? Why can't a guy go but visit his buddy on his golf cart? He's not causing any accidents. History has proven right. Well, we're not in disagreement. Where I get lost is carving out, okay,

the activity of golf and the golf course. I think it's ridiculous that you can't hop on your golf cart and go to the golf course. But then again, I think it's equally as ridiculous that, you know, if my neighbor was in the golf that he can't hop on his golf cart and go to the golf course. Mr. President, there's different kind of golf carts, too. Some are set up almost like UTVs. They're uh they have lights on them. They have rugger rugged, stronger tires. They sit up higher. They uh they have a lot more safety things on them versus the kind that are just these little electric ones that they don't have anything that's safety. There's no lights. There's I think if you had it set up where at least they meet all the safety requirements. Uh I'm kind of more in favor of leaning that way.

I guess to reiterate what I was saying. Of course I know the difference between a bike and a golf cart. What I'm trying to say is irresponsible driving is irresponsible driving and it can happen in any type of vehicle. And if we ask, if the citizens are responsible, if they respect the roads and the safety features that we need to have on the roads, then I think anything we can have them use their golf carts anywhere. Well, I think you got to make a decision or we do either either have them the whole city can use the golf carts anywhere or not at all. You can't I mean it's got to be that way and I'm in favor of not letting them on the because I've seen them drive around where we live and that's not a safe place. There's going to be an accident and somebody's going to sue the city.

To me, I think golf courts were made to be on a golf course. Yeah, they're not designed for driving on city streets. No, but that's just my opinion and but we got to do what we can't do this. I don't think we can do we have to do one or the other. That's that's my opinion. So I disagree. Do we So obviously this is one of those big decisions. Is there you know the other thing I would just throw out there is if if the direction was that we're allowed that they would have to be licensed drivers as well. So that would be part of it as well. Just to throw that out there. So, it's not we're not allowing kids to be driving golf carts anywhere in the city.

So, do we need to have uh they have to vote or I mean I don't know how does this work on something like this? You know, just to get a a consensus or something on yay or nay to golf carts. Just a casual thumbs up. I mean, I mean, we don't do any formal voting if you want to get a majority in the discussion, but no actual vote. So, I guess the options would be allowing a golf cart under permit citywide or look at doing an area for golf carts where they're permitted or um no golf golfer carts period. I don't know. That's three. So, yeah. ABC.

Well, I I can make this easy from my point when when these come up my my position, my thumbs up. I'd make it as open as possible. I'm I'm I'm for lack of better term, I'm for the Wild West. So, if if I found a way we could reasonably do class one ATVs, I'd be in support of that as well. So, I'll let the rest of them chime in. Other words, you couldn't drive a golf cart four houses down from yours. You'd be in violation, right? Correct. Which is absurd. Don't make sense.

But I understand that I have a personal vested interest in this, but I don't care. That is absurd. So, I guess I'd be for option one or two. Either all all throughout the city or if you live in this decided district, you can use your golf cart till you get to the course. I mean, and the golf carts are made to ride on neighborhood streets. They do them in Arizona all the time. They they pretty much live in little communities with golf carts. So, this is what they're designed to do. Allows it. What's that? Royaltton allows golf carts and lots of communities.

It doesn't seem that bad of a problem. Would it make sense to go through ABC each of you and then yay or nay on each one of them? That's too much of a vote. That's too much of a vote. Okay. This is not my territory. Much like if you guys all wanted to go down and just put your preference, you know, take turn, state your preference. We can get the uh consensus out of that. Okay. A you want it's okay for golf carts and B it's okay for the region. So A would be for citywide for all. It's okay. Yep. B would be a zoned area and then C would be nothing.

Discrimination if there was I think I think so too. I I say all or nothing and whichever way doesn't make that big of a difference to me. Okay. All or nothing. Um I prefer nothing to be honest with you. Um I just see see them where we live running around there in the golf carts and I could just see going down Riverwood. I can see somebody coming down there and just plowing into them. It's not that they're driving bad. It's the drivers probably, but still it's a danger to me. So I'm I'm for nothing. I'm for all that'll balance this out.

Yeah, I'm for but they have to be safety equipped. Um A was all A is all. So they they would also need a rear view mirror. That's part of it. What about a placard? What about signing? That's most golf carts don't if they're not equipped, they don't have to have them. If they're if they're not equipped with them, then we can't if we're going to allow golf carts and they aren't equipped with signal lights, we can't can't do anything about them. So, how are people going to know where they're turning? Do signals. Hand signals. How many how many people know hand signals?

That's a long time ago. But, you know, I think I just see that there's there's we want to keep it simple, but I think we're asking for more problems if we if we open it up citywide. Um, it just I don't know. But if we if we say it can only be here, then there's the other opposite is that how are you going to enforce it? We don't have enough police officers to to go around say, "Hey, there's someone in my neighborhood that's driving on the streets." you know, you know, so that's another aspect of it. We don't have enough to enforce it if if we say you can't do it. So, I mean, this is kind of a catch 22 situation here. You know, for me, um,

you know, I foresee that if we open it up citywide, we're asking for more problems. I'd be against the citywide Raquel, what was yours? Do you have any idea what the what in the permitting process what that fee would be? That's up to you. That's comes up later, but that would be something you would you can determine. I mean, because what the fee is the fee is high enough and people are willing to pay it. That's Yeah, it's totally up to

you. And then when they get their like they when they get their permit, then there could be like an education component like left, right, slow down. I don't know. Just a thought. Well, I don't think we need our city staff given driving lessons. Somebody somebody comes to Just to be clear, we would we would permit the carts, too, right? Correct. They would have planning commission. We talked about a sticker, right? So, same sticker sticker, something like that. What it would look like?

I'll wait till we come to that for my thoughts on fees. So, it does look like um since you're talking about that the average is around $25 to $30 for other communities um for a license for a year. Y So, it's not really a jet way to generate. Correct. Well, let's not jump to that. Let's finish this so we can kind of stay on track. Part of the If I may, Council President, um I'm thinking out loud here. Is it really discrimination? I mean,

I know my taxes are adjusted because I live near the golf course. I know that's an amenity that probably affects my task tax base. Um, and I just I I I'm questioning and I'm trying to find a good analogy, but you know, maybe if people want to kayak the river, they don't live on the river. Is that discrimination? It's just the the nature of where you live. It's not necessarily I mean anybody can have the opportunity to buy any house near the golf course if that's something they want to do. And is it really discrimination is is my question and I'm again thinking out loud. So, I guess if it's a compromise because you're saying because you live in this neighborhood and participate in a particular activity, we're going to have a carve out for you that makes it legal as opposed to somebody else who lives on

the west side of town. And I use the west side because there's such a hard border that that's you're telling somebody that lives on, pick one, 10th Street Southwest that they can't drive a golf cart around. You you can go on your quiet road, but they can't go on their Well, we're not telling them the state is because of Highway 27. If they want to float their golf cart across the river, No, but you're you're you're conflating issues here. Not really because the state is the one that just wants to go five blocks down the road. Okay. And I'm talking about them too and I think they should be able to do that. I agree with you in that regards as well.

But if it's a compromise, I guess I I I just don't I think it's absurd that we wouldn't allow residents adjacent to the golf course and not be able to drive their golf cart. And again, self- admittedly, I have an interest in this, but I will speak for my neighbors and my district in that regard. It does sound like at this time most council members, please correct me if I'm wrong, are interested in either all or nothing rather than the zone. Is that correct?

Yeah. Well, you know, I don't personally have any stake in this. I to me it doesn't matter. I mean, I I don't feel strongly one way or another, but when I stop to think about my constituents, I know of several that live down in the southeast corner that, you know, I know a guy that takes his cat for a golf cart ride every day, you know, and he he just goes putts down the block and there's it's a tiny little neighborhood without a lot of without a lot of traffic. The neighbors know him. They know that he's taken his cat for a ride in the golf cart. And if we took that away from him, it would probably break his heart. So, from that standpoint, you know, if we're going to allow it one place, we got to allow it every place.

Unfortunately, it sounds like we have a very split council right now on this matter. Um, so I don't seem to it it it if I were counting it's slightly skewed in the all favor. What do you say? I already said okay. Yeah. So with that, is it all is it fair for staff to present something in the all category for golf carts? Yes. Yeah. Up to me. It sounds good. As long as they have their sticker.

And there's still a vote to be had. This is just direction for staff to begin writing up more of the actual policy. Okay. Uh move on from there. And mini trucks. Yeah, mini trucks. So that was also um and Councilman Hansen, I don't recall what it was. Yeah. Okay. So, uh, the planning commission thought that would be reasonable for them to be allowed as well. So, I don't know if anybody has any objections to that.

So, mini trucks allowed as well. They're uh

Yeah, they have signal lights, they have a cab, they have Okay. Yeah. So, okay. Trucks. Um, citywide. I'll leave all that alone here. Um, so do we want it? So, as far as the golf carts, um, you know, the speed limit for the ATVs, the thought would be that it would be the posted speed limit. Do we want to limit that for golf carts to 20 m hour or leave them kind of within that same? I know some cities bring their golf carts to 20 mph where the rest are just posting speed limits. So that was just we certainly don't have to. How fast would they go?

I think depends on the golf cart. I think some go pretty fast. And a juiced up Arizona cart can go 25 30 possibly, but I I So we're Yeah, I won't worry about that too much then.

Um and then keep going past that. That covers that. Uh so the the permitting so there's a permit revocation process that we have to address as well. Uh obviously I don't foresee this being an issue but we have to have it something somewhere in writing. So what I've seen other cities do is that the police chief is the one that would bring a revocation forward. Um let's say an individual that um continues to say they're driving on the sidewalk or they're you know driving through the parks. They're you know they're being reckless or whatever it is. um they've been warned a couple times. Now it's clearly they're not um getting the message. So um I would be able to revoke their permit for you know year, two years, whatever it would be. Uh but we need to allow them time to u let us know that they want to contest that. Um so there's a process that other cities would use where that they would be able to within 10 days notify us that they want to contest it. They could then come in front of the city council during a regular meeting and then plead their case and then the decision would be the city council's decision whether or not that revocation that was brought forward is either upheld or if it is overturned. The other options are getting city attorney involved. Um that's a different process, but I I think when we talked through this a little bit with staff that that made the most sense to have that kind of process. So, I didn't know what your your thought was were on that having something like that if we ever had to come to it, but

I'd rather have it come between the council instead of spending the money to have our city attorney come in here every time Yeah. we have a problem. You're talking hundreds of And again, right, hundreds of dollars for an hour for them to come in here to, you know, whatever. The only thing is if they come in here and and they don't like what we say, they can go get their attorney, then we have to use our attorney anyway, right? Well, it's up to them then. It's up to him, but we still would have to use our attorney. So, I don't know. Yeah. And I again, I don't I think a lot of it will get can get fixed with enforcement and with officers addressing the issues as they come. My question is, do you think you need to warn them twice?

It it can again it's it's up to if we did if you wrote it in there, it' be up to the chief to decide if the revocation it could be for a first offense no matter what it is. Um and again, that would be where you wouldn't just be my decision. It would be you guys be able to look at it as well. So what' you say, Rael? I would say zero tolerance. You get one chance. You blow it, you're done. Yeah. And it's I mean it's for things like, you know, driving over the speed limit, that type of thing or just not having a permit to begin with. Um it's kind of your decision on what you want to do is or the police decision what they want to do. Yeah. I mean, that's, you know,

but if we're going to expect them to follow the the rules of driving, right, then they have to follow the rules of driving. You don't have a permit. You get pulled over, you have no permit. Well, sorry. You're revoked citation. There you go. You know, you don't you know, you pull over for drunk driving on your on your golf cart. You're revoked. Where is that? Where does that go? Well, that's a criminal matter, correct? Right. But you know what I'm saying? But yeah, there's how many people out there that have got nine of those and they're still on the road driving? You know, that's that's that's a problem there, too.

Um, you know, to me, it's like if we're going to if we're going to allow this, then follow the rules. If you don't follow the rules, then the fines are, you know, applyable to whatever. No warning, just zero drawings like if nothing else, one warning, but that's it. That's it. Case by case too. You know, depending on what the actual violation is, um, you know, and how serious it was. Correct. And if we feel that we've corrected the issue, you know, we can move on. But, um, I just wanted to make sure that you were comfortable with that process where they would, if they wanted to fight that revocation that they would be allowed to come in front of the council,

Yeah. plead their case and go from there. So, okay. Um, let's see here. You're bringing this back to the planning commission.

Um, the thought would be from here would be to put it all into a draft ordinance with all of some of those those decisions and then review that draft ordinance prior to moving forward from there. So, I I would imagine we would do another work session with the draft ordinance before we would bring it to an actual vote. I'm sure there'll be some tweaking that will have to be done with that draft and then um come back with a final at some point. Let's see. Uh what else do we touch on here? Uh the snow removal. So, we discussed this as well and the thought was um you know there's a lot of obviously the handlebar driven ATVs that have plows on them and it it just makes sense to allow those during those times um for for snow removal purposes only. And um the thought would be um obviously the UTVs themselves that are permitted, they're already good to go to do that. However, 48 hours after a snowfall, if they're just being used for snow removal purposes, even if they're going driving down their neighbors or wherever they're going to to do snow plowing, they'd be allowed to do that without a permit within 48 hours of a snowfall. Um, otherwise, you know, we could do it where they would have to have a permit as well.

48 hours after it stopped snowing. I think that's typically, Greg, what is that? How do you guys see that? Yeah, 48 hours is typical what we would see. Um that's the time requirement for snow removal on sidewalks. So it would coincide with that as well post the end of snowfall. Yep. Yep. So that Yeah. So the thought would be, you know, allowing those side or the uh the handlebar ATVs to be allowed to do that as well during that that time period without a permit. I don't know what your thoughts are on that, but does that seem reasonable and Yep. Yeah. Okay.

Are we going to talk about non-resident permits?

So, yeah. I the thought would be there, I think, is if they are on a regular basis, say they just live outside of city limits and they want to drive into town like everybody else and that's something they're doing on a regular basis, I would say yes, they would need to have a permit. Um, obviously those are things are going to get tricky to try and regulate, but you know, um, if our officers are having contact with certain individuals, um, and it's, you know, weekly and we see them all the time, they don't get a permit, they're not residents, we could certainly address that with them, that, you know, if you are regularly using these vehicles in the city, you need to have a permit. Um, yeah, that's that's another tricky one. Um cuz then you start talking to people that are just visiting or they're coming in town for gas and whatnot. So

So my understanding is that this whole thing came up because there were people just racing around up and down the railroad tracks and over up by the Twitchel playground. Not Twitchel, the one up Twitchel. Yeah, the ark. Um, and that that that's kind of where this all started. So, is this going to address that issue? Yeah. I mean, um, because they're not really on a road. They're it's within city limits. They'd have to have a permit regardless. Period. Correct.

Yeah. And that's a I mean, that's a park, so they shouldn't be there anyway. So, Okay. One one quick thought question if you don't mind. Um could we put something on our website that if we so if they do need to get a permit on a weekend they can just get their permit on the website take a screenshot or whatever and that could be their permit. Is that a possibility? It's an option we can explore with our new website. We don't we don't have anything in place today. Uh our building permits are through a separate system. We can explore that something to explore. Yes, we can explore that.

I think the challenge would be the sticker. I mean, you can get something to print out, but that would require them to have some sort of a print out to be able to show the officers. Yep, I've got the permit. Um, like a three-day per Exactly. Um, and then our our thought too is that uh it would be an annual permitting scheme. So, um we would be able to have different color stickers for each year. It's just easier for officers to quickly look at a vehicle as it's driving by and it has the right color, they're good. You know, I'm I'm for the I thought it was up to three years on that. Chief, you can go up to three years. That's I'm for up to three years

and as little fees as possible just to cover the sticker. That's where I stand on that. I agree there. Okay, I agree with that. I know that that was initially the direction, but we had thought about again with the the colors making it easier on police because it is hard to know like if I if I register this year, I get a three-year window and then you register the next year, how to do the easy identification process. Again, just trying to make it easier on our officers. So, that's where the one-year recommendation came from. Plates. Well, if it's cheap, you know, this is this year and like on a license plate, Dave,

if we're talking 5 10 bucks, 20 bucks. Let's just do if it's the end, you know, 2026 is the end of that threeyear period, just for example, then next year 2027, you have to buy to spend another 25 bucks and you just kind of, you know, you lost out on those first two years. That's kind of how they do it with canoes and kayaks, isn't it? Where Well, that's not Yeah, it is true. Yeah. I'm unfamiliar. You're supposed to register every so so often. And so permits for like boats and whatnot. I think they're two years. I think it was a rolling two years, not don't use it in 27, but I use in 28. I still only get to use it for 28. I don't necessarily get it for 28 29. We can discuss all those details in the future.

That's how it is for the vote. Yeah, that's always the right two years. So, one color that that would eliminate that problem. Okay. And then what about the fee? Is that something you want to address and figure out now or probably later do that? Okay. Um I can put that into the draft ordinance and then we can go from there. Okay. When are we going to vote on this? I mean, how many months down the road is it going to be before this is going to be Well, I would hopefully I can have something drafted by the next council meeting. So I can't drive down tomorrow in

correct. Well, and if we do want to have another council meeting with discussion, then it would be as ear the earliest of a month. When you're putting yours up for sale, Wayne, we'll make sure we get it done right after that. I don't know. And I would have 10 minutes left. Keep in mind that somebody that wants to drive it around and have a keep in mind that with ordinances you've got the introduction then you've got the the hearing in the public. So you're looking at a month just for public comment on it

and then we got to figure out the permitting process uh with our staff how that's going to look um because they're they're going to have to be coming in probably to the PD uh with all the licensing and those things. We have to have permits. We got to figure out a system within our records to keep track of everything. Um, and then a big thing will just be getting out information to the community education and explaining um to them that whole process. So, it'll take a little bit of time. Yeah. I think that's what we really got to do is put out some information for people so they know what they can do and what they doing. make it as easy as possible and we'll get something on the websites, on our Facebook page, on our app and then, you know, it's easy for them to to follow

and we can even design a like a one-page flyer that when people do get the license, it can come with the sticker so that they have the hand signals for instance and just the basic regulations. I don't want to be uh break your heart here, but I think we should move on to the bariff thing. We only have nine minutes. Nine minutes. Yeah, I think I have more than enough. Uh, like I said, we'll I'll put a draft together and then we'll bring that to the next meeting. Sounds good. Thanks, Kyle. Yep. All right, so we'll move on to the Barrett expansion and tiff discussion. Alex, you got eight minutes.

Thank you, council president. Well, it does help that I have talked to each and every one of you individually. So, um, we will be bringing forth the resolution to call for the public hearing for the tiff district for Barrett expansion. Um, fantastic news for us, but they're losing warehouse space out in little or in sock Rapids. So, they want to add on to their warehouse here, uh, which also would include one more production line and additional office spaces to be done in three phases. But because of the timeline they have on their on losing their warehouse space, they do want to get this done as soon as possible. So that is why we are going forward very quickly on this uh proposed tiff district with adding an additional production line. It would put a quite a strain on our wastewater system. So we are asking that they put in a pre-treatment plant with the expansion plan which Sarah Barrett did agree to. We did propose a tiff in order to help pay for that pre-treatment plant. Getting the pre-treatment plant is both a benefit for Barrett as well as the city as it will definitely lessen the strain on our wastewater plant and uh what it's all processing. So the lovely stack of uh papers that come with this, the short version of it is today it's calling for the public hearing which would take place June 1st at a council meeting. What that does is it's modifying the TIFF district, approving the development program, creating TIFF 148, and proposing the uh adoption of the TIFF plan itself. Overall, they're looking at a 280,000 square foot expansion through a total of those um phases with an estimated $3.5 million of TIFF or increment generated, which would be about $2.5 million going back to Barrett to cover the cost uh a portion of the cost of the pre-treatment plant. This is an economic development tiff

district which has a shelf life of a maximum of nine years. So the taxes that they are paying today with their existing facility would remain would continue to be paid to the city county school district. Um but the additional tax generated from the expansion would be held up for a maximum of 9 years. That going to the pre-treatment cost, which we are currently estimating at being $1.9 million over that duration of time. As of right now, their existing market value is $4.8 million. This expansion is expected to bring it up to 12.6. So, we do believe that this is a very good thing for the city for um they're looking at generating around 30 to 40 additional jobs and uh it's it's a really good project. So, that is the short and skinny of this. I just wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity to discuss it if there were any questions. No,

uh to me it all makes sense and we are very fortunate that they are expanding with the loss of Wabash and all um that will benefit the city greatly. I believe is it possible we've had some issues with waste treatment with their other plants? Can they run some of that through this? What do you mean the other plants? Well, it was brought up before that we found debris inside our wastewater system was coming from Barrett. Oh, you're probably referring to like um grease and such. Yeah.

So, this this would be intended designed specifically to take those those out of it. So, that would would help significantly. Can it help the other plants? Is it possible for them to run it through it? Potentially. We're looking at ways to explore uh that. Uh the challenge is the timing of things. I know Barrett's looking to get going on this project relatively quick and she's got a very tight time frame. So I'm doubtful we'll be able to make that work. Um but it is something that we're exploring.

Well, having been in the meetings, I would just like to add this. If it was just the expanded warehouse and we said our sewer plant can handle everything you can throw at us, they wouldn't even be asking for tiff. This came about in discussing trying to find a solution to make everything work. Um and and so it's under our the collective hour as in those of us in this room putting that this out there as an option to accommodate that. So I just want to be clear they if if it if they were just building a warehouse they would just get a permit build their warehouse. They wouldn't be asking for a tiff district.

Correct. Yeah. In adding the third production line that is the the main contributor towards this. But it is nice that they are they have a need to expand and that's fantastic. So is the 30 to 40 new jobs that create for the community and more housing to help those people find places to live enough by us. Oh yeah. Yeah. Thanks for the precise update. Uh anybody have any other questions? If not, uh, any constituent messages? If not,

I'll sorry, I'll take that. I just, just real briefly, I know we discussed it before, but, um, I did have another conversation with the Little Falls High School golf coach and having multiple golf teams out there is a problem. So, we have to figure we have to address that next year. Um, he's he's frustrated. he's thinking about quitting and sometimes, you know, those positions aren't easy to replace. So, um, yeah. Anyway, that's an issue that needs to be addressed. Okay. Anything else? Hearing none, we'll adjourn at 7:28 till our regular meeting at 7:30.

Just a reminder, please leave your mics when you're talking. You're only supposed to be about