I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, first thing on the agenda is approve the regular agenda. Uh I do want to make a deletion. Uh we're not going to be talking uh in item 10, the designated new combined polling place. We're going to shove that for a couple weeks because we had some questions that we need to get clarified. So, uh that would be the only change I have. Does anyone else have any changes to the um agenda as presented? >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as amended. >> Second. >> Okay. I got a motion by Maggie Bass, second by Rick Siler. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes. 5-0. Next, do we have the consent agenda? Is there any questions uh issues and anything in the consent agenda? >> I did on the claims for payment and it kind of goes back for a few months. Josh, is there a way that we can get under legal matters there was quite a bit of um Kennedy and Graven, but the descriptions are very vague and I would just like to know I I think I asked that like six, eight months ago. I don't know what the right way is. If there can be an amendment on the back of the >> the overall packet that we can maybe splits it out a little bit more so it doesn't just eat up so much of the consent agenda. >> Okay. Yeah, we can we can try to pull together that detail >> um and kind of I guess my question to you, how how detailed would you like it? Would you like it like quarterly? We kind of pull >> Well, for example, and I I'm sorry, my computer's still so I'm not looking at it, but um yeah, for example, so and so So and so versus new pre. I have no idea what that's about right now. >> Okay. >> So, >> it'd be interesting to just see and maybe there's reasons that we can't share it. And there was different uh employment issues that came up. I >> Yeah. Well, I'll tell you what, especially with with it being legal matters. I will kind of pull together some of those details on this and I can shoot them out to you guys email-wise and give you a call if you want. We can kind of talk through some of those. But yeah, I can I can look into just how those are reported just so it's more transparent. >> Okay. because at this time it added up pretty substantial, you know, and then did we have that that amount budgeted and I don't I didn't reference the the budget. >> Yeah, I can do that. >> I would have to look at the exact line item you're looking at because there there's some of them even you go back to like 25 planning like we generally seem to spend more in planning for whatever reason in 2025 we didn't but we may offset it somewhere else and so I know generally we've stayed within our legal bounds. It may just not hit the departments we always expect it to. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. That was all I had. >> Any other >> move to approve the uh consent agenda? >> Okay. And I'll second that. So I got a motion by Rick Syler, second by Chuck Nikolai to approve the uh consent agenda. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. Anyone from the No, there's no governor. Dennis Tits thought he might be making it today, but uh I don't see him in the crowd. So, we'll move on. Next public forum. Uh, the only person I have to speak is Brian Pollson. >> Afternoon, mayor, uh, members of the council. My name is Brian Pollson, 2064 Street Southwest. Uh, the police department keeps telling us that their bi-annual audit that's later in the agenda, the flock alpr system is a strong safeguard to ensure there's no misuse. Uh that sounds good uh but is a little misleading. Uh tonight I want to explain what exactly the audit actually does and what it does not do. Uh under the Minnesota statute uh the required bianual audit is a simple compliance check out auditors verified basic uh recordkeeping that the part that the department logged the date and time the data was collected properly classified it deleted non-investigative data after 60 days uh limited uh storage to license plate time location etc. uh and maintained a public log. Uh they review written policies, roles, rolebased permissions, and a few random samples of audit trails. That's it. The official uh state auditor checklist confirms this. Uh it is a box ticking paperwork exercise focused on retention rules and data handling procedures. Uh the law and the checklist do not require auditors to look for patterns of abuse. uh they do not require checking for one officer repeatedly querying the same plate queries without a case number off hours access or behavioral red flags. The audit is not designed to catch misuse. Uh even more concerning is how difficult the city has made it for the public to review very information is supposed to be public. Uh when I requested the audit audit log trail, it's different than the uh bianual audit. Uh the data uh that the Minnesota log explicitly says must be public. Uh the city heavily redacted the information that should never have been hidden. I then asked them to release the unredacted public records. Uh and after they refused, um I had to contact the data practices office uh who followed up with the city who um I believe said they will have taken in consideration. Um they never got back to me. It was only after I filed a formal request for an opinion from the data practices office that the city city finally release the the version with some but not all of the improper redactions removed. Um the city uh fights just as hard to withhold this public basic public information about how the system is being used. How can we trust that we'll c catch officer misuse uh on their own? The bianual audit is a recordkeeping review, nothing more. It is not a proactive oversight that the city claims it is. Uh it's the city's own resistance to releasing the public laws that shows exactly why we cannot rely on the public will catch it as a safeguard. Uh this is why these flock cameras still pose an unacceptable risk to our privacy and trust. I urge the city council to remove them or uh attended the Rochester public hearing for their drones and their uh their ALPR and technology. Uh the chief of police said that full stop they're not going to use flock because he does not trust their data handling practices. So they're using Axon, a system that the city in Rochester knows and trusts and a vendor that they trust. I would have much less of a problem if new used Axon cameras for ALPR or than the flock because primarily that is that is my complaint is with the company. It's not with our police department or the officers. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I don't have anyone else on the public forum list, but I will give anyone an opportunity if they would like to come and speak. >> Yes. Can you state your name and address, please? >> Yeah. My name is Henry Lundine Dish. I live on 509 Cottonwood Lane. Um I am currently a senior attending Gustavis at office college down at St. Peter. Um, I've got a project that I'm doing um for my environmental studies class that has to do with education about pollinator gardens and prairie restoration. Um, I met uh I sat in on the park board meeting uh last week and talked about uh my project. Um I have these brochures that I printed out um if you guys want to take a look. Um they just pulled a bunch of information about starting your own gardens um and local resources. >> Yeah, there got extras too if anybody needs but basically um I um am emailing uh Ken right now talking about um the prayer restoration project in Settlers Park um and hopefully collaborating with him to get educational signage up in the park um at some point. uh for the public and hopefully uh school students to go through the park and learn about pollinators, uh pollinator gardens, restoration projects, um everything like that. So, I see a lot of potential in um educating the public about this vital uh environmental and ecological resource. Um and with these brochures, um I was hoping that I could uh put these at least in the city hall. Um, and then I'm going to reach out to the uh Scott County Library as well in town to talk about putting these up and other local um either like like Cedar Brook or places like that to just have these brochures up there. Um, I hope it was it would be okay if I go ahead and start collaborating with people to get these out in the city. >> Yeah, if you just want to work with me, uh, Josh Tetsov, the administrator. Yeah, we can make that happen. >> Okay, perfect. All right. Um, yeah. Thanks. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> And thank you for doing what you do. >> Okay. >> Anyone else like to speak? >> Okay. Next, we're going to go on to the public hearing uh for the purchase of unmanned aerial vehicles. So, Josh, you want to do an introd? >> Uh, yeah, I can do an introduction. I I'd give it to Tim, but I know he is losing his voice at this point. So, um just as a quick recap, back on December 15th, uh uh Tim in particular, but city staff did bring this to um the idea of purchasing two uh drones for the police department to use at the time. Um the thought from city staff was um we wanted to kind of bring awareness as to what this was as to well as to gauge the interest of the city council. Part of that being uh due to state statute, there is a process by which a public hearing must be held prior to any purchase. And if the city council wasn't on board at that time, then we wouldn't probably have even gone through the public hearing. But um at on December 15th, the city council did um kind of approve going forward as we saw at this point with the purchase of this. And so the next step in this process would be holding a public hearing which we do have scheduled for tonight. Um, part of the process is we did advertise um, and the public had a chance to not only speak tonight but also send in written comment and neither Chief Appan nor myself received any comments um, written to us. And so, kind of moving forward, as we talked about then, uh, this program is certainly to help with investigations, that sort of thing. Um there is certainly no intent to do any sort of generalized surveillance or routine monitoring at all. These are these are to be used for first responding and um basically investigations at that point. And so part of this will be adopting a policy of how these shall be used and we have included a draft at this point for review. Um I would expect it to come back as uh as need be if you guys had any comments but ultimately at this point I would recommend holding the public hearing. Um and then at that point we can discuss further. Um but the uh two drones that the city is looking at purchasing would be a total of $24,598. And at this point I can't remember the exact name of the fund that this was the crimerevention fund. >> Forfeiture >> forfeite fund. All right. So the forfeite fund and yeah these are basically funded from the forfeite vehicles that we have sold over the years when they've gone unclaimed that sort of thing. So >> and to clarify these drones have not been purchased yet. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> How much money sits in that fund right now? We have enough to cover the whole thing. Oh okay. >> Okay. Any other questions before we open the public hearing? If not, I guess I'll make a motion to open the public hearing. >> Second. Second by Rick Siler. All in favor open the public hearing say I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay, the public hearing is open. I have two people who have signed in. Uh Gary Whitis is first on the list. Good afternoon. Gary Whitis, 1406 9th Street Southeast. I wanted to speak in favor of the funds being spent to purchase these. Uh, I got looking at the dollars and I thought that's probably what about three golf carts and I don't think a golf cart has ever saved a life, right? And these thing these drones have saved many lives throughout the state of Minnesota looking for lost children, challenged adults, that type of thing. I can't it's absolutely it's modern technology. We need to use it. We need to have it. especially now that you have the funds that is going to come out of the the forfeited vehicles fund. It's a no-brainer. So, look forward to it. And I also have a suggestion. Uh I know you get uh keyboard warriors like to beat up on you guys about procedural errors from time to time. What you ought to do is maybe publish what it would cost to have a the city attorney here at every meeting to make sure there's never a mistake and you do everything perfectly. After all, you're not professional politicians. You're doing this with a lot of your spare time and it's appreciated, but it's really aggravating when keyboard wires are jumping all over you because you there's a procedural error made from time to time by the council. We do appreciate you and maybe if you told them what it would really cost to have an attorney here so you never made a mistake, it would shut some of that up. So, thank you for your time. >> All right. Thank you. >> Next, I have Brian Pollson. >> Brian Pollson, 2064 Street Southwest. Um, I'm concerned about the pattern that has become familiar with the city council meetings. Uh, last year the city signed a full contract to build a new police station before holding a public hearing. Then uh the hearing was simply forgotten. The community never got a chance to weigh in before the deal was done. Tonight we're watching the exact same thing happen again, only this time as with two UAV drones. A lot smaller, I understand. Uh on September 15th, as uh the city administer mentioned, the council approved the purchase of the UAVs. Four months months later, we finally get a public hearing. Let me note that what public hearings actually is. Public hearing is not a box to check after decisions already been made. According to the city's own memorandum and the Minnesota state statute, the purpose is to gather genuine community input and provide real transparency prior to the purchase of law enforcement UAVs. It is meant to give residents a meaning meaningful voice before contracts are signed, money is spent, and policies are written. The law doesn't say after the fact. It says prior. When we hold the hearing four months after the purchase is already approved, it stops being a real public input and becomes a formality. becomes theater instead of a conversation of the statute and the basic respect for the people who pay taxes it is supposed to guarantee. We deserve the city treats public hearings as a vital first step that they're meant to be not an afterthought or legal checkbox. But as far as the drones are concerned, I totally support getting them. The funds are from forfeertured vehicles and um it's not taken out of the general fund. It'd be a useful tool. Um you know, and I know like I just mentioned Flock, they make drones. I would definitely be against those, but these ones are like independent closed circuit. Uh I don't see the the abuse possibilities um with these nearly as much as as the other stuff. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else like to comment on the drone u public hearing? If not, I guess I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> And I got second by Rick Syler. All in favor closing the public hearing say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Public hearing is closed on the unmanned aerial vehicles. Okay. >> So, do you want us to um freshly approve them tonight? Uh yes. Okay. And then um are we also going to approve the um policy? >> I don't think there was an intent to approve the policy tonight. We need it until I guess obviously we acquired the drones. And so if you had any comments on the policy certainly we um can take them and revise at this point, but we weren't necessarily looking for approval on the policy tonight. I guess unless you really wanted to. >> So they wouldn't be used until the policyy's in place. >> Correct. Anyone have any questions, comments? >> Well, I would be in support of uh moving ahead with the purchase, but uh giving the council an opportunity to kind of dive a little deeper into the policy. um since this is the first that's been brought to our attention and so that we can ensure that we understand uh you know more specifically what the policy covers if there's anything that we think is uh a gap in the policy um just just a little more time. >> Yep. But we appreciate it. >> And I and I do want to mention and Tim you can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe much of this policy language kind of came from was it Lexapole who we use and so this is pretty standardized policy that I know um Lexapole attorneys have really combed through so >> and the Alexa the name >> the Lexapole is who does mo that's who our policy company is we so it's it's laid out this way and much of this follows the use by Minnesota state statute okay the drone so happy to have any any feedback that you would have on on the policies. Um, and just I I don't know it just so we're we're clear, the the intent of this process was to approve a purchase of the drones prior to doing any research or moving anything down the line that would just have spent staff time for no reason. So, it wasn't that we were trying to buy them and then come back to you and with an ask for an implementation. What we wanted to do is get an approval that the city was on board to purchase these before we went into laying out how we were going to use them with the policies and things of that nature. So, that was the intent of this. So we spent a lot of time going through policy asking a lot of questions of other agencies all over the state on how they use them, what works, what doesn't, what have you found is good and bad. So that was really the intent of this last three or four months is to do our homework on this to bring something to you that would be able to be implemented and hopefully meets all of your criteria along with the state statute. So that that was the intent with this. It wasn't to try and hide or buy something without council's approval or we we haven't bought anything drone related. >> No, I appreciate that, Chief Applin, and and um I totally understand because I know that we approve moving forward and you are trying to do your and are doing your due diligence. So, that's certainly appreciated. And I guess I wasn't involved in December, but I know a lot of instances when we'll give direction to staff. We approve, hey, this is what we want you guys to look into. It's not a a step that we're actually saying we're approving the actual pieces of equipment that we're going to buy. It's more of approving the staff to go forward. You know, that's my interpretation a lot of times when we look at things. So to say that the public hearing was done in reverse order is again I wasn't here but I know in the past a lot of times we give the staff direction. >> Yes. >> To go down this thing so that they like Tim says they don't waste their time on a a subject and then come back and we say hey no we're not going to do it. So, I think that's kind of the way I interpret the memo that I got. Again, I said I was not the mayor at that time, but uh that's how I interpret the memo. So, >> we were here and we agree. >> Okay. Any other questions? Yes. If not, I guess uh I'll make a motion to approve the purchase of the two Vertex unmanned uh or the uh two matrix aerial systems for 24,598. >> Second. >> Okay, I got a second by Rick Syler. Any other questions? All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposition? Okay, passes 5-0. We have next city engineer projects. Matt, are you taking those? >> I just have a few updates for you. Um the 2022 uh project, that would be First A, sorry, that would be Columbus Avenue North. Um you'll see some work done there in the next couple weeks. Uh we did a walkthrough with them uh last year to do the final uh two-year warranty. Um we do a final walkthrough with the contractor and we come up with a list of sidewalks and curbs that need to get replaced. So, you'll see some work being done on that in the next uh I would assume the next three weeks. Um 2024 project has been the one that we've talked about quite a bit. Um trying to get the contractor back here to finish up um not even warranty work. We're trying to get them to finish up punch list items and we've had issues for a good year now. Um we did reach out to their bonding company and that um is usually the trigger point and then the next day the contractor called to schedule some work to be done in May. So, um, knock on wood, hopefully that happens and we can get that project completed. Um, 2025 project, that would have been last year's project. We did a walkthrough with the contractor on some punch list items and they'll be out there um in miday probably. It could be sooner depending on the weather. So, you'll see a lot of action in that northeast side of town uh here in the next three weeks just getting some warranty items done, some punch list items done, and then uh the final lift will be most likely in beginning of June on the 2025 project. So, um, projects are starting to start back up and, uh, um, you'll see in May hopefully we'll get some good bid items for the 2026 10th Avenue project that we'll bring to you in May. So, that's all I got. >> Okay. And I see on the list the Alton Avenue feasibility study. Ken, is that planning? Is there a rough draft of that already or? >> Uh, we have not had actually seen the draft. They're hoping within a couple of weeks we'll have that. >> Okay. >> That information out for the review. Not yet. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions regarding the engineering projects? If not, number eight, we have no ordinance for introduction. Number nine, it looks like that would be the second reading of that resoning ordinance. >> Yeah. And I don't have much of a update to provide for you on that. Uh if you recall on April 6th, the city council did approve the uh comp plan amendment and pass that resolution um to include um the area in that would be in the resoning uh to amen in the comp plan first. So that being approved allowed the first reading to happen which also occurred at the last council meeting and we posted that as required uh the day after the council meeting on our website and in the hallway. So tonight we're just looking for the final step to hold the um second reading and adopt the ordinance to reszone those properties. And if you remember the Kenir property which had the shouse uh on the corner was removed at this point um just because they weren't sure long term uh what they would like to do with their property and it can certainly be zoned commercial in the future if uh they look to move it that way. But, uh, that's really all I have to add for, um, staff comment, uh, before final consideration of the ordinance tonight. >> Okay. Anyone have any questions? If not, I'll look for a motion to approve the second reading of ordinance number 360. >> So moved. >> We got a motion by Sean Ryan. >> Second. >> Second by Bruce Wolf. There's no other questions, comments. All in favor say I. I. >> Any opposition? Okay, passes. Next on the agenda, we we took out item number 10. So, now we're into item 11. The first thing is the ambulance service contract. >> Uh, yes. So, this contract kind of reflects how our conversations have gone the last couple meetings. Um, the services contract is very similar to the existing contract with the terms updated to reflect a five-year agreement starting here on May 1st. And uh this is compared to the three-year contract we're currently in. And then the services of the facility lease agreement um has a few other changes. First, the lease rate for facil facility is being stated as $1 annually. Um this comes after conversations about increased financial pressures. Um and then North Ambulance has agreed to pay up to $5,000 annually towards utilities at the facility. So that's included in there as well. And then the lease is for a three-year lease um with the intention of examining the leasing environment in about two years or so um to see if the city needs to make any updates on that. So um with that, I guess staff recommends approval of both the 2026 ambulance services contract as well as the ambulance lease agreement with North Memorial. >> Anyone have any questions? We need to approve them. >> I think we need to do it separately. Separately? Yes. Make a motion to approve the ambulance service contract as it's presented. >> Okay. The >> I'll second. >> Yeah. I got a motion by Bruce Wolf. Second by Maggie Bass who for the agreement for ambulance services. There's no other questions. All in favor say I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. Next is the lease agreement. >> Um I Yes. So I will make a motion to approve the 2026 ambulance facility lease agreement. >> Okay. >> Second. >> We got a motion by Baggie Bass, second by Rick Syler. >> There's no other questions or comments. All in favor say I. I. Any opposition? Okay. Passes 5-0. Next on the agenda, long-term financial plan. >> Uh, yes. I can't remember if this predated you or not, Chuck, or if this is right when you kind of come on. Um, but I think it was last summer, the uh, city staff presented a proposal from Abdo. Um, who has been our auditor for a number of years now to help the city put together a five-year long-term financial plan. Um, at the time, city council kind of stated they wanted to see the police station a little closer to the end to make sure that we could work those numbers into it. And so with that project here, hopefully wrapping up in the next two or three months. Um, I'm bringing back the proposal. I have spoken to ABDO and they said they would still honor their original um, uh, costs or fee for that project. Uh, and the city did budget for this particular cost. And so this plan would really help the city council um and staff during the yearly budgeting process as we try to understand how different uh financial decisions we make would affect stuff two, three, four, five years down the road. And so I guess with that, I'm recommending proceeding uh with using ABDO to put together a long-term financial plan. I do remember um this and I think the reason what I recall I just came aboard was that we were also doing a comp study and we didn't want to throw so much on our finance director. So I know I think the council at that time decided it's best to address readress it again in in 2026 because we didn't want Robin to be stressed out. So >> they never do that for me. So, >> so that's what I remember, you know, when I just came back. So, >> and then just to um reiterate, the amount for this particular long-term financial plan um has already been budgeted. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Um in the material, they present the uh um I think it's fine. uh the I'm not really seeing but I'm hoping that we get through this process maybe better discussions or about either possible benchmarks or uh guideposts financially. I always struggle when we look at our budgets and looking at the financials of the cities is try to compare ourselves to who and what and in what way and how do we know that we're performing efficiently on it and through this process if we could have those kind of discussions too to say well this is the kind of uh ratio to tax capacity we should try to strive for try to stay within our guard rails of this or that And I know the audit provides some kind of peer numbers or numbers like that too. Which of those are any of those relevant as we try to help future councils kind of stay with the the guard rails? And oftentimes we get bogged down with um particular numbers or this year it's this and that and and that's fine but at least if we're all pointed in the same direction and not and try to hopefully help councils in the future not to be one person going this direction. Let's all agree upon what we're trying to do. Provide effective and efficient services to the residents and how is the best way to get there. Should we periodically compare ourselves to Buffalo, Minnesota or something else? or what ways can we help future financial discussions so they don't get bogged down and we're striving for some of the same goals and maybe to provide financial financial guidepost or goals as part of this process would be helpful too. So I'm not sure that all comes out in the in the in the letter of um the work letter here but I'm hoping we could try to include that in this process. I will certainly relay those thoughts because that is that I mean that is it feels like what's part of this would be using like how do we um how can we implement this and use it in an effective way and that seems like a very effective way to use it. So I can certainly relay those thoughts through this process. >> Thank you. Any other comments? If not, I guess I'm looking for a motion to approve the uh long-term financial plan uh study done with Abdo. >> So move. >> Got a motion by Rick Syler. Um I will second that. Second by Chuck Nikolai. If there's no other comments, questions, all in favor say I. I. Any opposition? >> Okay. Next is the massage therapy licenses. I'm just trying to get caught up on my computer here. >> Okay. Uh Ken, are you going to kind of >> I will >> take this. >> Yes. So, um, the question had come up a while back and then again at the April 6th meeting, the council asked staff to, uh, bring forward some, uh, potential language that could be used for a local, uh, ordinance to license m massage therapists in the city of New Prague. Um, so we did a bit of background information. uh Evan Garrapy uh planner and then he had talked with uh Katie Spicer and the police department and then um Chief Appan and myself also reviewed um the draft language uh that was basically taken from a an amalgamation of a number of um city's ordinances that they have for licensing u massage therapy. Um, one of the items too, you'll notice in the draft language at the very end um to uh Council Member Ryan's question of uh what cities including uh included language regarding holding a public hearing for every license. So, we did include language to show you uh Farmington that does require that. Uh we did not find any other city that currently at this point um and again we didn't uh survey every city in the state or anything but in the area uh Farmington was the only one that requires a public hearing for u each license to be issued and then again at the time of u renewal as well. Um but what we drafted in front of you and we're not looking to have a first reading or anything. We've not had the city attorney review the language at this point. Uh but what we brought forward was something that provides a basic groundwork for um requiring um some information that would be reviewed by uh Josh as city administrator similar to what we do for tobacco licenses where we have an application form. We have certain information. We're looking to prove that they've have a certain amount of education and a certificate uh that they've gone through training uh to practice massage therapy. And then some check lists that Josh could again use or whoever he would designate to do that uh before issuing those including um doing a background check through the police department. Also contains a few provisions regarding um actually having uh the ability to suspend or revoke licenses should there be any information that would come up um as noted in the ordinance u throughout their business activity. um so that if we had any reason to believe um you know it's being violated, it wouldn't have to necessarily continue to operate. Uh we could suspend that. They could hold a a hearing um for the appeal similar again to what we have for uh tobacco licenses. So at this point, uh just wanted to get you language in front of you to look at. Again, not looking at it being a uh first reading at this point, but looking for initial feedback. Um, if generally speaking, um, the council finds the terms acceptable, we would have the city attorney review further. And then I know the council talked before. This might be one even though we're not required to to hold a public hearing in front of the council regarding the ordinance uh before anything would be adopted. But again, kind of a first uh uh draft uh that we're bringing forward to you tonight for discussion and see if you got anything you'd like to add, remove, uh any more research you'd like us to look into. >> Well, overall, I'm in favor of licensing because I think it legitimizes the business. Um, I am not in favor of requiring a public hearing because I think it's targeting a business that is not providing anything that is a controlled substance, so to speak. Um, I think it also um would target uh a business that some people don't understand is a very legitimate business. um when you go through your proper training, your education, um you it is and I say this because I am a massage therapist um and have gone through the training that it's very rigorous and it's very professional and um there are a lot of considerations to take in place um from simple hygiene and ensuring that your client is uh comfortable um and that there's nothing um nefarious that is going on. Um it is all above board. Granted, I understand that there have been instances where uh massage therapists business has been advertised as a massage therapist and perhaps there has been some um ill will done. I think the majority of our massage therapists out there are out there to perform a service to help the health and well-being of their clients. Uh, and I feel that a public hearing would put a target on that particular business that is unwarranted. So, I am not in favor of that in any way. >> Okay. Any other comments? >> I really don't think that a public hearing is necessary. Um, and I don't know licensing beyond the original license. I don't know if you want to go too far into that either. I don't know. >> What do you mean by look too far into that? >> Well, to have um have the therapist come in here every year. Is that what you're talking? >> Well, uh, I've lived in an area where licensing was required and it is an annual license. You know, we could choose to do annual, we could choose to do something different. I think the initial license to do a background check um uh and ensure that that individual is properly trained um would be essential and also legitimize the business. when you have your license posted in your business, uh I think your clients would be more inclined to feel that you have met all the criteria to be a good massage therapist. Um and and do what you've been trained to do. Um I don't know if I want to do an annual um you know, further discussion I think we could have on that particular subject. I I'll say too, Rick, I think if we're going to go through the process of licensing licensing, um I guess to me the annual license just makes sense. I mean, at that point, you're keeping it up to date if that way you also kind of keep track of how many how many do we have out out there per se per town, which doesn't necessarily matter, but it does, especially if we're seeking legitimacy. It does provide that opportunity of just that renewal every year. I don't know if there's any licenses that we have in town that we only do one time and that license is good forever. Um, as far as I can recollect, and someone will correct me probably, there's probably one out there, but generally if we go through the process of requiring a license, it kind of becomes updated on some sort of regular basis. >> So, you would be in favor of doing an annual background check >> and and and yeah, we would have to look into exactly what that is because I don't know if we'd go do full background checks on every single thing that we relic. maybe you do the major background check and then it kind of becomes a more of a check-in type situation or maybe you do a full background check every five years or something like that. But >> so um just to refresh my memory and perhaps those in listening to us when um the liquor license is coming due and we renew a liquor license is a background check done at that time. I believe we do. Correct. >> The the initial license is more thorough and then we we have contacts with because their only license is only valid in New Prague. So we check the local we don't do another full complete five-year look back. We go year by year then after we do the initial license. >> Okay. >> How long are this for my own knowledge? How long are is a massage therapist license good for? Does it go like two years, five years, one year? How often do you have to renew to be licensed? >> There's there's nothing at at the state level that that requires that. >> Okay. >> But aren't they looking into that right now or I don't know if it ever got out of comm. >> Yeah. I don't know if it got out of committee this year either. >> So, right now it's at at the city level. Yes. >> Um and I'm talking 20 years ago in Lakeville. I think they required an annual license. I don't know if that's changed now or not. I guess >> maybe I'm too close to the business, but um I just feel it just puts a target because of a couple of instances where we've had some bad actors. Um and I don't want to necessarily put this particular industry under undue scrutiny. And so I think we just need to be very thoughtful about how often we require the renewal and if it's annual, how deep do we want that particular renewal to to go. Um I certainly understand I mean the education once you have your education you have it for your life. So something you know requiring to have proof of education every year I don't think is necessary. Proof of insurance I think is an important thing. Um I'm not so sure so sure about the criminal background checks, but I just we we just need to be very thoughtful because I just don't want to put this industry under a microscope that is unnecessary. >> How often do we do a a rental real estate? >> Every two >> every two years. And then uh I'm just trying to think educational uh license go quite a long way because I think they require continuing education but >> you're going to talk about teachers >> teachers license. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That that >> five years or something. >> Yeah. But >> a longer period of time, >> but that's state regulated. So the massage therapist at the state level there is no regulation. >> No, I'm just talking about the the need or the process or the procedure that you set up. Is it is there something we're gaining by doing it every year? But I guess I'd be more in favor of a two-year cycle or something like that because I'm not sure we're gaining a lot by doing it every year. But that's just my reaction to it. So if the license were to let's say there was an establishment um here in town and they sold that would the new light the new person would have to go through that, right? This ordinance would cover that, >> right? >> Yeah, that's Yeah, I think that's how we use most of our licenses. This this license is to a person, not to a place. >> To a person. Okay. >> Yes. >> So, not to a business. >> If there's five people working there, they each have a license. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. That's how Savage does it because my masseuse has an office here in New Prague and one in Savage. And they have to do everyone in her shop has to have a license every year for the city of Savage. >> And one last question. um records on the um customers or patients if you if you would at that you don't do any of that. >> It's confidential. >> It's all HIPPO. >> It's all confidential. >> Yeah. I'm not sure if it lands under HIPPO, but it's generally probably considered confidential. >> Would that be part of Would that be part of the licensing that it would require um that all information from the clients be >> that that's between that's the massage therapist's business. So, that's not something that we would poke our nose into. Um, that that information would have to be confidential. That would be between the massage therapist and their client. And if there was a breach of some sort, then those two parties have to deal with it. That's not something you would regulate. >> That that feels like it's potentially a sticky situation. Because let's just say for example, we did say require, okay, if you're going to be licensed, you'll just say you've got to keep your records confidential. What happens if something happens and that doesn't go? Are is the city ready to somehow enforce or I don't even know what we do to enforce quite. So I I don't know if that would be part of our licensing or not. I think like Maggie said, >> I would be more in favor of saying that's between a >> service a service provider and the one being provided the service. That's part of their business model and that's part of the massage therapist's training understanding that that information is clinical and it is confidential. So the situation that occurred here in New Prague was that was because we didn't have this ordinance and it was because the the massage therapists were not licensed. Is that correct? Or >> well, we don't have a local license, so I don't know that it would have prevented it necessarily, but um >> I mean, there was certainly in the case if they if these folks that were in there, and I don't know otherwise, maybe Tim can say differently, but >> would at least have gone through and had them prove that they had the education to be performing the work. So maybe from that standpoint, it would have prevented certain individuals, but beyond that, I don't know. I mean, anything to add to that? >> Yeah. Well, I think the background check might have, you know, if some of these people had a felony in their background or something or weren't in the country legally or something. The background check, initial background check when you do an extension, you know, I might have picked up something like that, but >> and and some of it probably too just comes down to deterrence. if they know they have to go through this process. If you're not a legitimate shop, you may not even try because there's plenty of places that don't require licenses where you could set up shop instead. I mean, obviously, anybody in any business can perform a heinous crime, but um I think some of this is just an attempt to deter some of that a little bit, too. >> Okay, any other questions? I guess uh they're looking for direction. Um I guess >> I would look for clarity. So Bruce, you mentioned two-year cycle. Is there any thought on on that? We certainly could do annual. We could do a two-year. It's really at at your discretion of how you the council would like to do that. I would do it every year because just in case you have someone new coming into town and do they have to register or >> but if it was someone new coming into town they would get their initial license. >> Okay. >> So >> so any person in this business would have to get initial license. >> Yes, that's my understanding. >> It's not like if we start 2027 the next licensing period is 2029. >> Correct. Yeah. you wouldn't be off the hook if you decide to start 2 days after the license period. >> Yeah. But anyone who is, let's say, currently licensed, then it would be on a two-year cycle. So, you have to get your initial license and then go on a two-year cycle. I would be okay with that. Um, you know, I think um our the massage therapist industry would be okay with that as well. Um, you're just validating what's already in place at that point. So, how would they watch and and I'm, you know, when I brought this up because Farmington and I think I thought they referenced Owatana was the other one that required that, but I I could be wrong when I brought that up. But the the public hearing part of it, um, and I went on record to say it wasn't a dealbreaker for me. I just I like the idea that >> we take as much feedback as we possibly can from the from the taxpayers. But um what would and and you're absolutely right. There's just a few bad actors that kind of skewer a thought process that somehow there's nefarious things going on. And I I don't believe that at all. And I I know 99.9% of them are are uh hardworking and and the the training that's in it. And I know massage therapists as well. Um, but I guess my my what what prevents somebody from coming in, opening up a a a shop in a strip mall, having two licensed therapists that end up leaving after a short period of time and then perhaps unregulated ones coming in or the fact that they that we have no idea. I mean, if they're breaking the law already in in certain ways, then it's I would guess the the slap on the wrist would be even less if they didn't have a license, per se. I mean, who's checking to make sure that everybody working in that storefront is licensed. Maybe they have two legitimate ones and we sign off on them and >> they were inspected. But, >> okay. How would a public hearing >> it? It wouldn't. That's Let's forget about the public hearing. I I'm not that like I said it wasn't a dealbreaker for me. I just again like as much feedback as I can get. >> I could see where if there was four of them that took over a strip mall and there was four independent ones that might be an issue for some of the neighbors that you know were getting whatever traffic from all over. But that I guess that would be >> you're you're scenario. I'm not trying to disparage though. >> But but you are you are you're saying, you know, well, what if what if what if? Well, that could have I mean, we do compliance checks with our liquor and our tobacco. I mean, it would be just as easy to come into a massage therapy business and say, you know, we're just checking to make sure you've got a current license. I don't know if that's something we want to go down the, you know, that street, but I I really don't want to target this industry as being bad because of an instance that we had in our city. And that's really putting a bad name to a very legitimate practice. >> I agree. And I'm sorry, I'm not trying to imply that whatsoever, but a bad thing did happen in New Prague and, you know, and we're trying to correct it >> because we didn't license. we didn't license. So this way we have an an avenue to license each individual know that they're in business and every two years re renew the license and anyone new coming in to set up a massage therapy practice would then obtain a license and if they don't well then they'll behold to the consequences. >> Okay. Well, you're right. There was some whatifs in there, but unfortunately that's how my mind thinks in the overall trying to >> come up with a way that's going to work for the city of New Prague. >> I haven't looked in detail of the information that you provide, but I assume that there are requirements like to post a license as an example within it. >> Correct. Yes. >> A person coming in if there's new people if you don't see a license, that's one way that >> u someone that goes there can tell if that person's licensed or not. But I also assume that there is some kind of compliance feature to this. >> We do not at this point have that language in there. We definitely can add that. >> I don't >> Well, I think we should if we're going to do a two-year license. I think we should I think we should have a compliance thing that not everyone's going to get. It could be a spot check thing. So, you know, it's just like an audit. you know, you you know, they don't audit everyone, but they may pull someone out of out of we're going to and they're going to walk in and say, "Okay, you don't have your licenses. You know, I'll give you a warning. They're not posted." And then if you find out someone's in there that doesn't have a license, you know, okay, we'll, you know, maybe have it, you get one verbal warning, you know, we can come back. >> Well, yeah. And I think this is uh so it's not uniform, >> right, >> Minnesota. So most of what we'd be doing in compliance is educating is we're we would normally get people saying well are you we'll ask them are you licensed said no I didn't know we needed to well that's >> right >> the issue not all communities have license so our the way we enforce a lot of things is to educate people first and then then say okay next time make sure you get a well get a license you will say >> right >> but I would certainly expect that to happen because this is not a uniform thing in in Minnesota. >> Do you want PD doing those or city staff doing the compliance checks? >> I guess I would ask staff to figure out what is a reasonable way to do it with the least most effective and efficient way to run the city. >> Okay. Well, we can talk about that internally, I guess. Recommendation. A lot of it's administrative, not >> right on >> and and the fact that there aren't that many businesses here in town, right? I mean, it's we're talking a small number um maybe under 10. So, it's not >> right >> widespread, >> but I think it, you know, I have no problem with the two-year license renewal, but I also think there should be some kind of compliance note in there that you might out of the blue someone might come knocking on your door and said, "Hey, okay, you know, educate them and say, hey, you got to post your license and uh >> how many massage people do you have here? Do you have a license for each one type of thing, you know, just simple stuff. We're not looking to shut the business down, but just like Bruce said, just educate them, especially being it's a new uh ordinance. >> Right. I think um what I've read in some of the materials and it's it's happened to me as well is you do go to the city and ask, "Do you require a license?" Because this is something that we do learn in massage therapy school that there are licensing requirements out there. although they're not necessarily consistent. Um, uh, the massage therapists that are currently in business that are not licensed, um, they're doing so perfectly legally. So, it might behoove us in the event that we adopt some licensing, um, that we send some notice or letter to those existing uh, businesses so that they are aware that licensing is is needed. Um and then they can do so uh ahead of any compliance check. >> And this uh this would carry forward to any residential property then as well. >> Correct. Or anybody that might be invited to come in and perform massage therapy would have to have to operate in the city of the Craig. That's probably the most common question we get is, hey, I'm coming into a client's home or whatever. Do I need a license? And obviously we >> and would this be for compensation? So >> correct. >> Okay. Yes. >> Just for compensation then. So if we have someone coming in that's going to do something for there's a fundraiser and they're going to have >> this onite and that's count for that. >> I I think that should be licensed Bruce. I um let me give you a scenario of a massage therapist who's no longer practicing and they have a friend who hurt their back and it's like okay come on. I'll get you on my table. Does that require a license? I don't know. Um, but I think if it's a fundraiser that's very public, you're dealing with the public at large. It's not a family member. It's not a close friend. Um, and so I think in that instance, a license is required. And I'll give you an example. Um, when I lived in Apple Valley, um, Lakeville was holding the youth baseball state tournaments or something along those lines. And we're talking many years ago. And I went to the city of Lakeville and I said, "I've got a chair massage and I'd like to set it up. What do I need?" And they said, "We need you to be licensed even though it's just for this one event." And so that happened. >> Yeah. That that's where the education has to be pretty important because you need some timeline. Those fundraisers aren't always Yeah. >> thinking about that part of it. >> Yeah. You know, or baseball tournament where their parents are saying, "Yeah, you know, I want you to work at my son. He's a pitcher." So, but that is a very professional setting and so I think a license is required. But if you've got your brother or sister or a friend that says, "Man, you know, my back's hurting me." Okay, I'll get you on my table. I don't know that that requires a license. >> If you're looking for language on that St. Paul, the Saints have got um a nun that >> St. Yeah. >> And um my guess is that she has to be licensed. >> She does. I went to her school. So, and that's where I >> one of my teachers at St. >> Okay. And that's where I did my in my internship were at the some of the Saint St. Paul Saint games. >> I had some nuns do something to me, but was nothing. But >> yeah, that ruler hurt. >> It was Sister Jeff. >> Yeah. School of >> Ken, do you got enough direction? >> I think we've got good direction for you. We'll we'll do some tweaking here. >> Yes. And I think if we get something closer, then we can send it to the attorney and then uh hopefully our goal would maybe get it implemented by, you know, January 1st. So, >> all right. Thank you. >> Okay. Next is on the agenda is the council special uh looks like our special council meetings for interviews with people who are applying for our boards and commission uh positions that are opening. So Josh, are you looking for um >> just I'm actually looking for a few dates at this point. So I know in the past we've generally tried to allocate about 15 minutes or so to each person. Um we do have 11 this time. So I would say either we do three meet three 1 hour meetings at 15 minutes or um two 1-hour meetings at 10 minutes a piece might also work better. And like I said, we do have 11 um total applicants to work through here. Um and maybe the easiest thing at this point is are you guys available on Monday nights? Like I know we obviously don't have a council meeting next Monday. We could meet for an hour and get four or five done or we could meet for two hours and get them all done. However you guys want to potentially do that. Um the one thing being that not everyone may be able to make it. So it may be better to pick two dates at that point. we can kind of split up and figure out the best schedule from there. >> But yeah, if you're >> talking about the 27th, >> trying to keep things easy and go on the 27th and maybe have backups on the 4th before the next council meeting, too, if you'd like. >> Um, but I'm >> I I do have a golf board meeting on the 27th. Remember, it was supposed to be on Tuesday. That's right. >> And we moved it. That's the only thing I have next >> Monday and the fourth. Well, that's a council on the 11th. I'm wide open. I don't but but that would be my only conflict on the 27th >> and again if if we well is there available that ability on the 28th then since we no longer have that golf board meeting >> and not everybody's got to be at every single one we >> Right. I Yeah, I'm wide open on the 28th. >> I am too. >> Yeah. And you're talking April 28th. >> Yeah. Next week. So, so how about we do try to get as many as possible on April 28th and we'll just do like 10 minutes a pop and we'll kind of have is there availability on the 4th say at like five o'clock just in case for some reason somebody can't make it we can see if we can catch them then on the Monday the 4th >> before the council meeting >> before the council meeting. >> Yeah, I'm again wide open till council. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I am too. >> Me too. >> Yeah. So, why don't we shoot for that? see if we can get >> as many on the 28th and then if we can clean them up on before the council on the 4th and then uh I guess we could almost uh put that on the agenda and approve them if we want. >> Yeah. Say if we can get them all done, we can do that. Otherwise, that does still give us the the second meeting. What is that? The 18th. >> Yes. >> Would you have for a second date? Yeah. 4th before council. >> So yeah, April 28th and May 4. >> I'm sorry. What was the time though on the 28th? >> I don't know if we know the time yet. >> Uh five o'clock work or do you guys want to go a little bit later? >> I'm >> five would work. >> I I think five. >> Start at five and then Okay. And then May 4th is the alternative. >> Correct. >> Okay. Sounds good. >> And that's before the council meeting. Yes. >> Yes. The May 4th would be at five o'clock. >> Okay. I may or may not be available on the 28th, but that you have plenty of people. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Next. Fire station approach improvement. >> Uh yes. So, >> is this is fire chief gonna take this one? >> He can if he wants. >> I sure can. >> Uh I I I can give he can give me some backup here. So, um kind of throughout this process as we've been looking at the uh fire station and making the improvements on the side for the police station. I know one thing was kind of brought up in this process um from the chief that uh the driveway on the what is that the north side of the building. Correct. Um I don't if it was poured I been there since the beginning. It sounds like uh the way the way chief described it to me is as the trucks go over it they torque a little bit and it's not necessarily good to torque those giant trucks that we're spending a whole ton of money on. And so it kind of came up with well what would it be to fix fix this at this point? And so um a quote kind of came out and uh initially uh Bolan Mink was looking at just fixing that but part of the plans for this was to kind of realign the sidewalk a little bit that went in front of the giant garage. And we kind of looked at that of why why are we throwing away good concrete like that that stuff's there. Um, so what what would happen if we just don't kind of realign that sidewalk a little bit and we instead try to fix this actual problem we have going on over here? Um, am I kind of correct in all saying that? >> Yeah, that that that hits the nail on the head there. The original quote just to fix what we needed fixed was like $40,000 and I I thought that was way too much money to spend. It is an issue. It's been an issue since the day the station was built. essentially uh the slope that we have there when the trucks go over it, the cab runs rubs on the box because it twists the the frame twists so much on it. And since they're taking out a good chunk of that anyways to put the sidewalk in, I said, "Now's the time that we should fix this." And uh I wasn't about to spend $40,000 on it. Um, and then when we started looking at the project and looking at perfectly good concrete in front of our our our main bay area, I said, "Well, what if we left that concrete and use that money to fix this issue over here?" And then that's where they came in with that uh what is it like $5,500 to to get the issue fixed. >> Yeah. So, it' be an an additional $5,500 over what the project currently costs. Um, kind of bringing this back to you guys because this isn't really a police station issue per se. this is more fire station related and so I just wanted to make sure um I would certainly recommend approval on this to get that fixed. Like I said, we do spend a lot of money on those trucks and so I'd rather not be torquing them or rubbing things that shouldn't be rubbing. Um if we can get that fixed now, >> is that on the east side? >> So it's the far north drive. So when you come out of the east side of the building, you drive around the north right next to Randy Kubish's lot there. Yeah, that big driveway. and you come down, it comes down and then it goes up real fast right there. So, we would lower the whole thing um like 6 in our trucks aren't rubbing, the cabs aren't rubbing on the the box of the truck and the frames aren't twisting. >> And it actually works out better for the sidewalk as well. I had uh um Matt out there as well looking at the project just to make sure that the dumb fire chief in New Prague wasn't out of line here. Um but he agreed that it would help with the sidewalk dropping it down 6 in because there's a manhole there which would align it a lot better as well. >> Can I ask why we didn't get um check under warranty and make the contractor that built the fire station fix What is it for? Did they do it for water runoff or is there a purpose behind that? >> No idea. That was four people before me. >> Well, the 5500 I mean that's not a bank breaker, but I'm I'll make the motion. Uh >> hold it here. Bruce still wants to >> Bruce is gonna say something. >> Oh, I'm sorry Bruce. I took a breath. Um it's not a material not money or anything like that. I totally support it, but I'm just curious why why aren't we breaking out the normal way where the fire department and therefore clean the township or whoever pays our normal costing structure that we use >> 50/50 with the rural you mean or yeah >> why why isn't half of the or whatever part of this part of why we treating it that way where that which we normally would >> yeah I think we certainly can go that route I know at this point the the previous sidewalk work was kind of already built into the police station so that was kind of my my continued thought with that, but yeah, we can certainly break it out and get a quote kind of of exactly what the cost is of that now that we're moving this so that way we can bill rural for that half as well. That's yes, I I will I will admit I did not think of that like that. I guess I mean it's a small amount of money so it's not a big deal but it would seem to be a fairer way of doing it than if it is an improvement that's an improvement for the fire station is what I'm understanding. >> Correct. >> Right. That would be an oversight on my the I don't think the rural would have a problem paying half of the $5,400. Um, if you're looking for them to pay half of the original quote without the sidewalk being removed of $40,000, I probably wouldn't be in supportive of that, I would probably just take it off the table then, >> right? But all you're asking for is to do the 5,400. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. So, I guess to Bruce's point, I agree it I think we should ask him if they're willing to split the 5,400. I I don't even think we even entertained the 40,000 because you already said it's not feasible or not right doing. >> Yeah. And I I can call them. I I don't think they'll have a problem with that. >> Okay. So, why don't we go that direction then? I don't think it needs to come back to the council for approval of the >> uh can I get a motion and uh >> vote on that? I'll make a motion that we uh put the the fire station driveway approach. Um I'd be fine for a total of 54 6684 uh with 50% being paid for by the rural. >> Okay, I'll second that. So I got a motion by Sean Ryan, second by Chuck Nikolai. Is there any other comments? All in favor say I. I. >> I. Any opposition? Okay, passes 5-0. Thanks, Steve. >> Next, we have the independent audit. Um, >> uh, as a miscellaneous item that was really there for your reading. >> Okay. >> Um, I guess if you have any questions, certainly let us know. But, um, yeah, that was that independent bianual audit that we discussed previously. I do have a comment or a question. Um, this is done because of state statute. I my understanding is and then and I don't have a question so much about the audit. I'm just curious about some of the information that's on there. I just surprised what I read about the and apparently this must be state statute that we only retain the information for 30 days. Um, is that my a correct understanding of that? We only keep it for 30 days. Seems like a very short period of time and then this uh the wheels of things just don't get done in 30 days. I I would think that we're deleting information when prosecution might not even been started >> data that becomes part of a case we would retain longer than 30 days. >> Right. But, uh, as an I'm trying to come up with an example. If, uh, some infraction occurred and you didn't you weren't even made aware of it until 25 days after it occurred and you're doing your investigation and you're still doing it, your your your information is deleted by the time you even arrest somebody. >> Yep. And that's that's in the state statute. That's in paragraph C, the 30 days. Doesn't that seem like a >> I guess >> like it's designed like there's some problem with how that is structured? >> I would have to talk to the legislature about that because I I don't disagree with you but I didn't I don't write the statute. So that's what we're required to >> to maintain and and comply with. >> Sure. But if someone contact contacts you and say hey I'm looking into this do then the process is okay I'm not going to delete this in 30 days >> right if we have a reason to make it part of a case file we can extend that longer than 30 days so if someone if someone reported something to us that happened 33 days ago we may not have that information any longer if someone reported us in 15 days we were able to find data, we could then retain that data for longer than 30 days. >> What's the criteria? You got to have a case filed over. >> You have to have a crime. A crime. Uh we're investigating another or assisting another agency. Some type of criminal investigation has to be happening either with us or somebody else. Right. >> And that doesn't matter what system you use that state statue, whatever. Well, this is particular to ALPR. >> Yeah. But not not, you know, flock versus, >> right? It defines ALPR, automatic license plate readers. So, right is the language. So, it doesn't matter if it's flock. >> Doesn't matter who the vendor is. No, >> right. That that's what the statute is. It's based on that. >> Do we have how many license plate readers do we have? Four. We It'd be nice to know Rick how many times he got your buggy a year in. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Any other questions on the the audit? Okay. So, there's nothing else. Uh I guess we're going to go around the Rick. Do you have anything else to add under miscellaneous? >> As I compile the information, um, it's about the state flag. Uh, there's cities that are dropping out of this new state flag and 69 and I would like us to have that policy as well. >> So, which flag are you going to what are you going to put the last flag? Are you going to put the first flag? I mean, there's the >> original Well, the original was No, not the original one in Civil War, but the No, there was a plate we had right before this one. >> Well, that that was started in 1957. You do realize that it wasn't, >> you know, the only reason you call it the original is because that's what you remember. But there is >> the one that I think we looked at it together, the one at the or at the capital. >> Yeah. you know, so you know, that's my only thing is that it's it doesn't mean we have to present it. I mean, we don't have to have it on any of our buildings. You know, it's so I don't know if I want to >> I I guess I guess my thought behind this whole thing is that we are a political subdivision of the state of Minnesota and and this is the flag that the state of Minnesota has chosen. Whether we >> No, it's a state that that government chose >> whether we agree with how the process of how it was chosen, I guess, is one thing or the other, but this is the flag that was chosen. Um, flying any other flag other than this one would be no different than flying a flag for the state of Iowa or the country of Canada or or anything else. And so >> I like the kid. >> Um, if we're going to fly a flag, I guess I would recommend flying this one as it is the the flag for the state that we are a part of. Um, >> and yeah. Yeah, that I guess that's my opinion. I >> I would disagree, but it's probably going to change anyway soon as he's out of office, so who knows? Well, I mean, if it changes, whatever the flag that the state government tells us is their state flag, that would be the flag I guess I would recommend we fly. >> Yeah, I agree with that. I don't think you want to get into, you know, I know at the Veterans Memorial, he still flies the other the old flag, but that's not us. That's the Legion doing that. But I think on our our buildings, I think I would like us just to fly the flag that is the official state flag of Minnesota right now. But that's just me. >> I like the old one. We'll voice end on it. But >> well, I mean, I like the look of the old one, but I just think you Why create a >> I I signed a petition and it's building fast. So, >> yeah. Well, and I'm sure it is. I mean, there's a lot of there's a number of that have gone. And I'll say this too, Rick, because I know this happened to be a conversation I had with um Scott Riggs here a number of months ago when I think I can't remember which city kind of made the news because they did that and I just mentioned it to him. Um and he'd kind of mentioned it was along the same lines of when we received that display case downstairs. Um, at first our thought was, hey, we could have, you know, various city organizations if they wanted to like use the display case for a month to kind of help drum up the various things people are doing. And it was actually recommended that we not do that because at some point somebody then is going to ask or petition for something to be put in there that we won't necessarily like or agree with that organization and at that point we'll almost have to allow it because we've allowed all these other things. Um he said in his recommendation it was the same way with the state flag. If if we don't fly if we fly a flag anything other than ourselves or a political subdivision being the state or the country um we run the risk of well why did we fly a different flag and how could I get my flag of choice up there as well too. So, um, you and it's a very lawyer answer. 100% will admit that. But it was his way of trying to protect us, I think, of careful what you're willing to fly or display on city property. >> Well, you could tell they took the Somali flag and they just changed colors a little bit. >> I don't like it. >> But I don't think that's our decision uh to to decide which is a state flag. Well, I don't want to be here all night arguing it, but there are plenty of schools in certain school districts and communities that fly a wide range of flags supporting one thing that other people can find offensive. I don't really care, but I'm just saying there is >> Oh, yeah. No, I'm >> plenty of situations like this. And to Rick's point, there's plenty of cities in the state of Minnesota that have decided not to fly the new PL flag because they feel that choice was a very political choice to based on some people's interpretation of the old flag. And um you know, so I mean the argument can be made, but I mean I ultimately I think it's up to the city council on what flag we fly out there. And I like I said, I'm not I don't care either way. I'm not I I just uh I voice my opinion on it, but I don't think we need to get tied up into a discussion on >> Yeah. >> this right now. We have another meeting to go to. >> Bruce, you have anything? Sean, you got anything? >> Uh just where do I get a shirt that says city of New Prague? Like the mayor? >> How did he get How did he get one of those? And we >> uh do you remember it >> was part of my sign back up? >> Oh, okay. Uh, actually, do you remember Sean? We've kind of done that the last couple years of found apparel. I can have Kim reach out to you guys um to see if you guys want to reup and get anything else with a logo on it. >> Yeah, I want that shirt. >> That exact shirt. >> That's Yeah, >> just just take his. >> It'll be two sizes bigger than his, but that's the shirt I want. >> Yes. I will have Kim Lee reach out to all five of you if you'd like to order any apparel for this year. >> Okay. Thank you. You big baby. >> That was all I had. >> Maggie, you have anything? >> I have nothing. >> Josh, anything? >> Nothing. >> Ken, Robin? >> Um, >> oh man, I just asked you out of >> It's just going to be like an hour. Um, the audit report, we should be sending that to you folks with plenty of time before um the next council meeting, May 4th, I believe. >> Um, so Abdo will be here to present that. Okay. Thank you. Tim, you got anything? >> Just to clarify with Bruce your question about the data retention. Were you talking how long we can hang on to the data or how long the data needs to be reported after the audit is done. >> My understanding is that whatever data we have at the end of 30 days we delete it. >> The state statute I maybe misspoke that's up to 60 days. We retain it for 30. So the state says you can have 60. Our policy says 30. Okay. So, this is something that you can adjust if we choose to later on >> up to 60. Yeah. Most many agencies are doing the 30 opposed to the 60. >> What What you say many agency, why would you do that when there's a potential risk of you losing information to be able to prosecute someone? >> Just so you're not holding on to all that data >> because the the volume of it. >> Mhm. Well, I'm not involved in law enforcement. So, that whatever seems to work, I guess. >> Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that. I didn't know if I because I was reading the memo and or the the report and the report says we have to get it up to the legislator within 30 days. So, that's what I was referencing. So, the state I think I referenced a statute saying 30 days and it should be 60. However, ours is 30. So, >> thank you. >> Yep. >> Okay. Matt, anything? Steve, anything? >> Mitch? Patrick, you good? I just have one question. Do we actually have an official city flag? >> We do. >> We do. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um I know our city flag is flown at the Scott County Fairgrounds. >> Correct. That's the only time I've ever seen it. >> You have a picture of it at the public workshop. >> Is it okay? >> I'd love to see it. >> Is it white? just all white and then in green in the logo behind you >> and then it says tradition of progress >> exactly like that >> as if you turn Yeah, if you turn around it looks like that. >> Oh, was that actually determined to be an official flag? >> Uh it's been at Sky County for forever. I would say 20 plus years that I know of. And um so I just took it as that was the flag that we've been ordering for the last five years when Scott County asked us for a new new PRA flag. >> Okay. >> So did someone vote on it? I don't know that >> the logo was created. I didn't know that we adopted the logo as the official flag. But >> I'm not saying it's an official flag. I'm just saying that's a flag I order every 5 years for Scott County. So that's what I >> like I said, that's the only time I've ever seen it is when I go to the breakfast county. >> Okay, that's all I have. I guess I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second by Rick Ser. All in favor of adjournment say I. >> I. Mine.