City Council - Special Meeting

It is 6:30. I will call the special work session for the city council of May 18th, 2026 to order. Uh we do have a quorum, public forum. Individuals may address the city council about items on the agenda or not included on the agenda. Speakers are required 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 the 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 or for a future report, or direct the matter to be placed on an upcoming agenda. Does anyone wish to speak? Anyone wish to speak? Hearing none, we'll move on to bill discussion. Uh any discussion on the bills? Hearing none, we'll move on to the consent agenda. Any discussion on the consent agenda? Hearing none, we will move on to council information only items. First one tonight is policy 13 bylaws, authorities, boards and bureaus, commissions and committees. Alex.

Thank you, Council President. So, we do have on the agenda today policy 13. Um, we are slowly going through our policies, bylaws, all those items and starting to clean them up. This one was particularly highlighted because it's lacking um general accountability for members on different committees. So, it was requested that we make sure that we have some clause in our bylaws that should people not attend meetings, they can be removed. We actually don't have any language in anything at this time that has a a rule on where we can consider removing people uh due to attendance reasons. So that was our primary reason for um making some modifications to these bylaws. We also did update some legal components for instance legally that has changed on remote attendance and some other logistical components. So we updated those. The big thing that I do want to highlight is that under the attendance section, if a member is absent for three consecutive meetings for or more than onethird of the regular meetings, since not all of them are monthly, it would allow council to review the individual's uh participation on the committee. So, if somebody isn't attending, this can be causing issues of not even having a quorum. It just allows council to have the mechanism to remove somebody if they're not uh performing the duties as required. There is also clauses for um violation of open meeting laws, failure to disclose conflict of interest, uh conduct that is against the bylaws, and failure to perform duties. So again, just making sure that council has the ability to remove somebody if they are not doing what they need to be doing. We did send this out to everybody that is on committees. We did not receive any feedback from anybody about that or any questions. So, with that, we're not seeing any concerns, but we did want to talk about it with council and see if there's anything you'd like

to change. If you like that three consecutive meetings or or anything you want modified there, let's switch to the council. Sounds good to me. Yeah, I've talked about Thank you. There were a couple places in there that it said within reason or I don't remember the exact word, but it was ambiguous. It wasn't and I would like to see that more okay less ambiguous, more straightforward. Sure. So that there's not a what if what if what if. So it's just cut and dried. Mhm.

That's and I'll I will send you exactly what that what I'm talking about. There were a couple of places in there though that was that kind of language in there. Any other comments? Okay. And this is currently on the agenda to vote for today. Would we like to just remove it from the regular agenda to see those changes or would we like to bring it to the vote? I'd like to see the changes.

Okay. So, save it till the next meeting. Make the changes and get them back out to us and then we'll vote on it again the next meeting. Sounds good. Okay. Good enough. All right, second item for discussion is state flag. We'll turn that back over to you, Alex.

Thank you, Council President. I know that this has come up in discussion a few times with council members as well as within the public. So, we figured this was a good opportunity to bring it up uh just bring to light some of the realities that are that we're facing today and uh see if there's anything that we would like to act on or just continue. Uh so as we know there are various cities who are passing I believe resolutions to fly the old flag in their community and I know that there are community members here who feel that we should do the same. Obviously this is something that is up to the council. Um there is also the ability to not fly a state flag at all. We are not legally obligated to fly them. So, I just wanted to point out, you know, the options there of continuing to fly the present one, which the more recent adopted one at the state level. Um, we could go down the path of a resolution for the old one or we could choose to remove them entirely. This is a discussion if you want to pursue it further or we can just let it be and uh handle it at the state level where they are having discussions about it. There was a Democratic House bill that was brought forward. Um they're actually ending they ended session today but it is being seen at the state level. The bill proposed bill that didn't get anywhere suggested that any city that is flying the old flag would have their LGA cut by 10%. Which is a significant amount that would be felt at the city level if that were to come into effect. Again it didn't go anywhere uh with the house and being as split as it is. I didn't suspect that it would but it is getting attention at the state level at this time. comments from the council.

I would like to see us fly a state flag. Which one? Um, well, I'd love to see the old one, but if they're threatening to cut 10% of our dollars coming in, that would be amiable.

Well, Mr. Mayor, that legis that house file didn't go anywhere. That the session is all right. I mean, this has turned into a political subject. I can address this without being political. I think we should fly the previous flag out of solidarity to the rest of our outstate cities and counties that have already done it. Whatever people think about it, it has turned into a rural versus urban issue in my opinion. I don't even I mean, why do we need a resolution to change it? We we the the new one's over there. I don't remember voting to put that in here.

Yeah, I like the old flag better. I just soon fly the old flag. So what I makes a statement.

We still do fly the old one. Well, and to me with the old flag with Yeah. Camp Ripley being so close to the north of us and with all the veterans we have in our community, uh, all the service members, um, I would love to see us go back to the Old Flag. I'm in favor of the old flag. Well, that's five five of the council.

As council member Hansen did point out, I we don't require a resolution. I think that was partially, as you'd stated, a political statement as to why they had done that. Um, but as you stated, we could do that without it. Hi, Council President, if I may. Go ahead. Um, I, you know, I I just I I just don't want to gloss over, you know, what's being said here. And I understand from what Council Member Hansen is saying that this is going nowhere. And that's But even still to say that to say if you don't, you know, get in line, we're cutting 10% of your funding. I mean, that's that's a bold statement. And I think that's a wildly inappropriate statement. And I'm not sure I haven't been following this issue. I not sure if one or the other political parties said it that way, but that is an absolutely ridiculous statement. I mean, essentially blackmail of a statement, and I think it's wildly inappropriate. Um, when it comes to the actual nuts and bolts, I like the idea of a new flag. Um, I like the idea of a flag that is easy to recognize. um more so because I know the old Minnesota state flag is similar to Nebraska. I and I feel a few other states, but um I like I like the idea of it, but I don't understand why everything has to always get so politicized. Um and I guess what I'm speaking about now is just a much bigger picture than what we're actually discussing here tonight. But um I guess if it's I want to be one state. I want to, you know, I think Minnesota needs to be, you know, have some solidarity. So maybe no flag is what I'd be in favor of at the moment. Um,

until some reasonable people start talking to each other again. Any other discussion on that? From my from my perspective here, it sounds like everybody seven seven for the old flag and one for no flag is what I kind of get from the council here. So, start flying the old flag and until we're told we can't. We'll do. Thank you.

Okay. Next item is the annual CGMC conference July 22nd through the 24th uh in New Alm and we'll go right back to you Alex. Thank you council president. So uh much like with the LMC conference we have the annual CGMC conference coming up July 22nd to 24th in New. So just seeing if there are any council members who would like to attend. If so we can uh get you registered to go. Since I'm on their board of directors I plan on attending. Okay. Any other discussion on that?

No, just to add since the mayor's on the board when you're kicking around stuff,

don't change the update. I I I I like the emails we get. It's a quick hitter. It speaks to what's going on at the capital, you know, and usually it's something at the state trying to put their thumb down on the cities, whether it's, you know, zoning or housing. So, I I can let the rest of your board know. I I I appreciate reading that. It's not It's something that comes in. I don't It doesn't go in the delete folder. I give it a scan. There's a lot of good stuff there. If you're not reading it, I would encourage it.

I'm reading it. Well, I'm not talking to you specifically. Any other discussion? If not, move on to the next, which is council packet discussion. And we'll go right back to you again, Alex.

Thank you. Uh, this one's just a quick FYI so you guys aren't confused when this happens. Um, due to our new website, the uploading of our packets, we have to break everything up into two parts for special or our work session and our regular session. So, in order to save staff time, um, they're spending an hour plus merging them back together, getting the formatting, getting everything set up. So, from now on, you'll be receiving your packets in an email with two links. The first link will be for the work session. The second one will be for your regular. Just wanted to give you a heads up so you weren't confused and just let you know that it's just saving time and taking a little easier on staff.

Okay. Anything else? No, just why did you wait that long? I mean, if it if it was a hassle, why didn't you bring it up a long time ago? I just found out about it. So, any constituent messages?

Yeah, I um I got a lot of positive feedback about the golf carts from people actually stopping by my house and saying they're very happy with the way that the council decided to go with that. Any other messages? Well, then we will adjourn at 6:44 to our regular meeting at 7:30. That took a lot less time than we thought it was going to take.