All right, it is five o'clock.

I'll call the GNO committee to order.

Can the clerk call the roll, please?

Alder McGuire.

Here.

Alder True Hart.

Here.

Alder Frankie.

Here.

And Alder Vestine.

Here.

All right.

All four are present.

Uh item B, correction of minutes from May 26th, 2026.

Those will then stand as presented.

Item C business C one discussion and possible action regarding ordinance repealing and recreating subsection 5-2-317 of the Monroe City Code Landscape Surface Ratian in the light industrial zoning district.

This is administrator Rindi.

And so this is a recommendation from the plan commission regarding our light industrial zoning code.

Um when really it was intended to be 20%.

So I think when it was created, the the numbers kind of got flipped, and so just kind of a correction to that.

Unless there are other questions, I'll make a rep recommendation to send this council.

I'll second.

Please clerk call the vote.

Aye.

And Alder Vesteen.

Aye.

Okay.

That will move on to council.

Item C2 discussion impossible action regarding the City of Monroe's vaping ordinance.

Administrator Rindian this is follow-up from our last meeting and discussion regarding if there's interest in us proceeding with adding e-devices and vaping as one of the prohibited indoor um I guess activities.

Um that we currently adopt the state um regulations with no smoking in the indoor facilities, but that doesn't address kind of the e-devices and vaping.

And so attorney Bardoff took the direction that you guys provided last time of adding the definition of that and reflecting um that this would then go into place that the electronic delivery devices and vaping would not be allowed similar to the smoking within structures.

And then noted that it would be a similar citation of a class four forfeiture.

Well, I would support this.

Um I just have one question.

Will the will the businesses this affects, will they be notified?

Yeah, I think that's one thing that we'll um definitely want to work through.

So following the recommendation from you, this would have a public hearing set um next week at council, so then the official public hearing and potential approval wouldn't occur until the July 6th is a count the next council meeting.

Um so yeah, as I think with that, we I would send some notification.

I already gave some indication to like Main Street just with that conversation, but assuming that this kind of continues from here, then I do plan to do some roll out with notifying businesses as well as um sharing through other media resources as well.

Um, because yeah, that's definitely I think kind of one area that the biggest part probably of adopting something like this is the public education side of it as well.

So then leapfrogging ahead, uh enforcement of it would be uh if somebody violated that ordinance, uh, then they would contact the non-emergency police and there would be a police report for no smoking, uh you know, vaping indoors.

And I think when former Chief Kelly was here, kind of mentioned it's probably gonna be more of being notified versus like going in necessarily circing seeking this out, but having then the opportunity of if they're notified to then be able to cite and enforce now.

Second we have a motion and a second then.

Um clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Truehart, aye, Alder Frankie, aye, Alder Vestine, aye, and Alder McGuire.

I will move on to council as well.

That will move on to council as well.

Item D, any business presented by members.

I wanted to have a little discussion.

We have a um rule or or or bylaw that we currently are having constructed by our attorney in regards to how we handle elections if somebody gets voted from uh from Alder on to mayor.

Um and we have um this rule that we put together um and he's working on that would have the person who has the most votes um in the election then automatically take that position.

Now I think that Alder Mosher is going to be a fantastic alder, so don't get me wrong.

But what I want us to think about is is that when it actually came into practice, we didn't want to go with what the result was.

So if in practice we don't want to go forward with the results, then why would we put a law in place in order to make us do that?

And I we can't truly have discussion on it back and forth right now since it's not on the agenda, but I think a very valid point to bring forward and it will um the public hearing is being set for that at the next July 6th as well.

So it will be on the council agenda next Monday to set that public hearing, and even though the public hearing isn't occurring at that time, conversation can be had with the full council next Monday then is at that point.

All right, I look forward to it then.

Any other business?

Otherwise, I'll take one last motion.