Feb 09, 2026 City Commission

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:03]

GO AHEAD AND GET GOING. WE HAVE A FEW ITEMS ON THE STUDY SESSION FOR TODAY. SO I'M GOING TO START. DANIELLE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR FIRST GUEST? OH, SORRY. APOLOGIES. WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO JUMP AHEAD.

AND MIMI, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR NEW MEMBER OF OUR STAFF? SURE. JAKE, DO YOU WANT TO COME UP TO THIS PODIUM OVER HERE AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF? THIS IS JAKE SCHORLIMMER, OUR NEW ATTORNEY. HI, I'M JAKE SCHOELLAMER, AS SHE CORRECTLY PRONOUNCED. SO I'M THE NEW ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. I WAS WORKING AT LEGAL AID FOR THE PAST YEAR HERE IN COUNCIL BLUFFS, AND BEFORE THAT I LIVED IN GRINNELL, IOWA. I WENT TO LAW SCHOOL IN NEW YORK, SYRACUSE, AND UNDERGRAD AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE I NEED TO SAY. WELCOME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY. NOW, DANIELLE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR FIRST GUEST? SURE. I HAVE THE HONOR OF INTRODUCING AMY SCHRECK WITH FORVIS MAZARS. THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF PRESENT TO YOU OUR FY25 AUDIT. YOU ALL HAVE A COPY OF IN FRONT OF YOU. AMY WILL KIND OF GO OVER WHAT THE AUDIT ENTAILS, WHY IT'S IMPORTANT, AND THEN ANY SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OR ANYTHING THAT SHE DEEMS NECESSARY TO DISCUSS WITH YOU GUYS TODAY. SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO AMY. THESE ARE OURS. WE CAN MARK THESE UP, RIGHT? YEP.

[2. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS]

I'M A PARTNER WITH BORVIS MAZARS FROM THE OMAHA OFFICE, 1120 SOUTH, 101ST STREET, OMAHA, NEBRASKA, 68124. AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE RESULTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 AUDIT WITH YOU. THE AUDIT IS KIND OF LIKE EATING VEGETABLES. IT'S NOT VERY FUN. IT'S NOT VERY EXCITING, BUT IT'S NECESSARY.

IT'S IMPORTANT. IT HELPS TO DEMONSTRATE FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO TAXPAYERS, TO GRANTING AGENCIES AND OTHERS. IT'S REQUIRED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STATE STATUTES OR STATE CODE, AND IT'S ALSO REQUIRED FOR THE FEDERAL GRANTS THAT THE CITY RECEIVES. SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. THAT IT IS DONE AND THAT IT'S DONE TIMELY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL THE STANDARDS. WE DO PERFORM THESE AUDITS UNDER A NUMBER OF STANDARDS, AND I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A SHORT MEETING TODAY, SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT PAGE BY PAGE. I'M JOKING. I WILL GIVE YOU THE SUMMARY. IF YOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS, HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE AS WE GO THROUGH. THE FIRST PORTION IS THE OPINION ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT. SO WE LOOK AT THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

WE AUDIT THEM UNDER GENERALLY ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS.

AND THE TAKEAWAY FROM THAT IS THAT WE ISSUED AN UNMODIFIED OR CLEAN OPINION ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

THAT MEANS THEY ARE FAIRLY STATED IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOUNTING STANDARDS IN THE UNITED STATES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. THAT'S THE RESULT THAT YOU WANT TO SEE. THESE NUMBERS ARE AS YOU WOULD WANT THEM PRESENTED UNDER THOSE STANDARDS. WE ALSO PRESENT OR AUDIT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS UNDER GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING STANDARDS.

GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS, I APOLOGIZE. THOSE STANDARDS REQUIRE US TO ISSUE A REPORT ON THE INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING. WE DON'T ISSUE AN OPINION ON THE INTERNAL CONTROL STRUCTURE, BUT IF THERE ARE MATERIAL WEAKNESSES, SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES, WE HAVE TO REPORT ON THOSE. WE HAVE NO MATERIAL WEAKNESSES AND NO SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES TO REPORT AS A RESULT OF THE INTERNAL CONTROLS

[3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS]

IN ADDITION, WE ALSO HAVE TO PROVIDE AN AUDIT UNDER THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE, AND THAT RELATES TO THE FEDERAL GRANTS. SO WE ARE AUDITING FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL GRANT REQUIREMENTS THEMSELVES, AND SIMILAR TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, WE ISSUE AN OPINION ON THAT COMPLIANCE. WE TESTED TWO PROGRAMS THIS YEAR, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS PROGRAM AND THE CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUNDS PROGRAM, AND WE ISSUED CLEAN OPINIONS ON THE COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE TWO GRANTS. AS WELL.

THE FINAL REPORT THAT WE PROVIDE RELATES TO THE INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE, SO WE ALSO HAVE TO AUDIT THE CONTROLS OVER THE COMPLIANCE FOR THOSE GRANTS.

IN THAT AREA, WE DO HAVE A MATERIAL WEAKNESS TO REPORT. THAT RELATES TO THE REPORTING OF CERTAIN SUBAWARDS THAT WAS DONE UNDER THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM. THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT WHEN AWARDS ARE PROVIDED TO SUBRECIPIENTS, THAT ANY AWARDS OR MODIFICATIONS. HAVE TO BE REPORTED WITHIN 30 DAYS.

THAT 30-DAY TIMELINE WASN'T MET. THE REPORTS WERE MADE, SO THERE WASN'T A COMPLIANCE ISSUE AS FAR AS THE REPORTS HAVE BEEN DONE. THEY JUST WEREN'T DONE IN THAT TIMELY MANNER. SO THAT'S WHAT RESULTS IN THAT

[00:05:01]

MANAGEMENT HAS PUT IN PLACE A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE DOCUMENTS AS WELL TO ADDRESS THAT GOING FORWARD. I'M SORRY? DO WE KNOW THE REASON WHY? THE REASON WHY, THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE TIMING OF THAT WORKS. SO THE TIMING OF THE GRANT AWARDING, IT WAS BASED ON A CALENDAR YEAR BASIS, AND THE UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE COMMUNICATION OF THOSE SUBAWARDS COULD FOLLOW THAT TIMELINE AS WELL, AS OPPOSED TO EVERY TIME THOSE SUBAWARDS ARE MADE. THANK YOU. SURE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, THOUGHTS THAT YOU ALL HAVE? OKAY, THAT'S EVERYTHING I PLAN TO NECESSARILY GO THROUGH WITH YOU. THIS IS A LARGE DOCUMENT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PAGES THAT GO THROUGH HERE. THE FIRST PART IS THE INTRODUCTORY SECTION.

MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS PROVIDES SOME MORE PLAIN LANGUAGE DISCUSSION AS TO WHAT HAPPENED OVER THE COURSE OF THE FISCAL YEAR, FOLLOWED BY THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

GOVERNMENTS, AS YOU'RE PROBABLY AWARE, ARE UNIQUE. THEY ALSO PRESENT WHAT'S CALLED A STATISTICAL SECTION. THERE'S 10 YEARS OF DATA IN THAT SECTION, SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS, THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY GREAT INFORMATION IN THAT SECTION THAT CAN BE USED, AS WELL AS THE COMPLIANCE REPORTS ARE IN HERE AS WELL.

ANYTHING ELSE? ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? I ASSUME THERE'S GOING TO BE SOMEBODY. WE CAN ABOUT IMAGINE WHO, BUT SOMEBODY'S GOING TO WANT TO LOOK THROUGH THIS FROM THE PUBLIC, RIGHT? THIS IS OBVIOUSLY SOMEBODY CAN COME GET, IT'LL BE AVAILABLE AT JODY'S OFFICE, ONE OF THESE BOOKLETS, SO THEY CAN LOOK THROUGH IT IF THEY WANT.

YEAH, SO JODY HAS A VERSION OF IT AS WELL, WHICH CAN BE HOUSED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. IT'S ALSO PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S EXTERNAL WEBSITE AS WELL.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. AND A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO DANIELLE AND ALL OF THE STAFF THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE AUDIT. IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A HECTIC TIME FOR THE FIRST COUPLE WEEKS, BUT THEY DID SUCH AN AMAZING JOB.

SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

OKAY, NEXT UP, WE HAVE PETE TULIPANAS HERE TO GIVE AN UPDATE

[4. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS OR FOR AGENDA ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING (Part 1 of 2)]

THERE'S THE NEW PLAYGROUND, AND IN THE ORIGINAL CONCEPTION OF THIS, BACK SEVEN YEARS AGO, WHEN WE HAD OUR COMMUNITY COMMITTEE, THE IDEA WAS WE WANTED...

SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY AT THE RIVERFRONT. AND THIS PARTICULAR PLAY AREA THAT'S LABELED NUMBER ONE UP THERE IS REALLY DESIGNED TO AUGMENT THE TODDLER PLAYGROUND THAT'S

[00:10:01]

THIS IS FROM LIKE, STANDING ON THE LEVEE, IF YOU GO BACK. I'M SORRY. IF YOU GO BACK, ONE. OH, SURE.

THIS IS LIKE... STANDING ON THE LEVEE AS YOU'RE WALKING IN.

OKAY, I HAVE A HEARING ISSUE, SO I'M GOING TO NEED SOMEBODY. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK REALLY LOUD IN THE MICROPHONE. IS THIS A VIEW FROM STANDING ON THE LEVEE? EXACTLY. OKAY.

THANK YOU. SO YOU'LL WALK INTO THE LEVEE. OUR VISION FOR THIS HAS BEEN TO MAKE IT A REAL OASIS WITH PLENTY OF TREES AND QUIET AREAS. AND SOMEPLACE WHERE FAMILIES CAN COME AND EXPERIENCE THINGS TO PLAY ON THAT THEY CAN'T EXPERIENCE ANYWHERE ELSE IN COUNCIL BLUFFS. AND YET IT'D BE HAVE SOME UNIQUE PLAY APPARATUS AS WELL. THAT JUST GIVES YOU A BIG VISION OF IT.

THERE'S A WALK THROUGH THE ENTIRE THING THERE.

THAT'S WHAT THAT BLUE LINE REPRESENTS. RESTROOM AREAS IN THERE AS WELL, SO THAT FAMILIES DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK UP TO THE MAIN RESTROOM IN ORDER TO DO THAT TO USE THE FACILITIES. THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE MORE ELABORATE PIECES THAT YOU MIGHT NOT FIND IN ANY OTHER PARKS IN COUNCIL BLUFFS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID IN OUR RESEARCH WAS LOOK AT PARKS REGIONALLY, AS WELL AS A COUPLE IN THE EARLY DAYS NATIONALLY TO FIND OUT WHAT KIDS LIKE.

AND WHAT WE DISCOVERED WAS KIDS LIKE TO GO HIGH, THEY LIKE TO COME DOWN FAST, AND THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE PIECES THAT WILL BE MOST USED IN THIS PLAYGROUND. IT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE. SO THE IDEA IS THERE'S PLACES FOR...

TO DO CLIMBING AND FITNESS KIND OF ACTIVITIES, AS WELL AS PASSIVE ACTIVITIES.

THERE'S A CENTER SECTION THERE THAT ACTUALLY IS, THERE'S AN AREA, THERE'S A SECTION OF THIS THAT IS DESIGNED TO BE SENSORY IS THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT. BECAUSE WE KNOW, IN SOME SUCCESSFUL PLAYGROUNDS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT KIDS REALLY LIKE IS THINGS THAT RING BELLS OR MAKE NOISE, OR THAT THEY CAN USE IN THAT WAY. I'M NOT DOING THE BEST JOB OF DESCRIBING ALL THE PLAY APPARATUS, BUT YOU CAN GET A FEEL FOR KIND OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE AND HOW IT'S DESIGNED.

THERE ARE SHADED AREAS IN HERE. THERE ARE AREAS FOR FAMILIES TO PICNIC. THERE ARE PLACES FOR KIDS TO RUN.

THERE ARE PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO SIT QUIETLY ON BENCHES.

THAT PICTURE'S THE FITNESS ZONE, WHICH IS JUST EQUIPMENT THAT YOU'LL SEE IN A LOT OF PLAYGROUNDS, HAVE FITNESS KINDS OF PLAY AREAS THAT KIDS REALLY ENJOY DOING THAT. SO, PETE, WHERE'S THE PARKING LOT FOR FOLKS THAT ARE COMING FOR THIS? THE PARKING LOT IS GOING TO BE DOWN. THERE'S GOING TO BE A SIDEWALK COMING FROM THE LEVEE. GOING DOWN TO THE PARKING LOT THAT'S UNDERNEATH THE BRIDGE THERE.

SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO PARK IN THAT LOT AND WALK UP A SIDEWALK AND GO RIGHT INTO THE PLAYGROUND. HOW MANY PARKING SPACES? I HAVE NO IDEA, BUT THERE'S PROBABLY, I WOULD GUESS, HAVING BEEN IN AND OUT OF THERE, THERE'S ABOUT 30 OR 40 AT LEAST, MAYBE MORE. I KNOW IT WAS USED A LOT FOR RIVERFRONT EVENTS THAT ARE HELD THERE. SOMEBODY, ZACH MIGHT KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, DO YOU KNOW? NO? IT LOOKS LIKE ADEQUATE PARKING FOR A PLAYGROUND. THERE'S ONLY A BLOCK OR SO AWAY IS ALL THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING ALSO THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE GREAT LAWN. SO THAT GIVES YOU AN IDEA

[00:15:01]

BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO PLANT FULLY GROWN TREES, BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE LOTS OF TREES. I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. AND I THINK YOU'LL AGREE WITH THAT. THESE ARE THE KINDS OF TREES THAT WE'RE GOING TO PLANT. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT SOMEWHAT SPECIAL.

ONE OF THE PLACES THAT WE WENT TO LOOK AT WAS HOW LORTZ AND GARDENS DID THEIR, IT'S CALLED SOPHIA'S GARDEN, AND THEY DID A REALLY NICE JOB OF MAKING IT LOOK CLASSY WITHOUT IT COSTING A FORTUNE.

BY USING DIFFERENT KIND OF CONCRETE, SOME PAVERS. BIG STONES AND THAT KIND OF THING. AND SO OUR IDEA WAS WE REALLY WANT IT TO BE, FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT JUST A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK. ONCE AGAIN, IT'S A DESTINATION PARK. AND THIS GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT, HOW WE'RE TRYING TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE FINISHES OF THAT. THE SECOND AREA THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT IS THE DOG PARK. REAL QUICK. IT IS ON THE WET SIDE OF THE LEVEE. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS.

WORKING ON THIS, I KNOW THERE MAY BE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS AND I WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT. I'VE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE MAYOR ABOUT THIS AND I KNOW THAT SHE IS INTERESTED IN SEEKING OTHER SPOTS FOR THE DOG PARK. SHE'S BEEN QUITE UPFRONT ABOUT THAT. I DID SPEAK WITH ZACH AND SAID FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AND I'M ONLY SPEAKING FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF WE CAN FIND A SITE. THIS IS DESIGNED TO BE BOTH FOR BIG DOGS AND LITTLE DOGS.

IT'S VERY SIMPLE. IT'S BASICALLY A GREEN SPACE WITH SOME TREES IN THERE, WITH A SHADED AREA AND WATER.

IT WAS DESIGNED BY VINCENT MORTARILLO SO THAT THE FENCE AROUND IT COULD BE EASILY REMOVED AND PUT BACK IN IN THE CASE OF A FLOOD.

VINCENT WAS VERY ATTENTIVE TO MAKING SURE THAT EVERYTHING WE DID WAS AS MAINTENANCE-FREE AS POSSIBLE IN ALL THE TIME THAT HE WORKED WITH US. SO, MY PERSPECTIVE ON THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION IS, IF THE PARKS DIRECTOR CAN FIND A SITE THAT CAN MEET OUR NEED AND BE CLOSE TO THE RIVERFRONT, THEN I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. AND I WOULD TAKE THAT BACK TO OUR BOARD, SUPPORTING THAT WE DON'T SUBMIT THIS AS A PART OF OUR CORE APPLICATION.

BECAUSE THE ULTIMATE GOAL, WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR TONIGHT...

FROM YOU ALL IS I NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU APPROVE TO SUBMIT IN THE NEXT CORE APPLICATION, BECAUSE I CAN'T SUBMIT, I'VE GOT TO SUBMIT THE NEXT CORE APPLICATION.

TO MOVE THIS PROJECT TO THE FINISH LINE HERE AND RIGHT NOW, IT INCLUDES ALL THREE OF THESE COMPONENTS IT INCLUDES THE PLAYGROUND, THE DOG PARK AND THE DONOR PLAZA AND WAYFINDING AREA. SO IF YOU AREN'T GOING TO SUPPORT THAT. WE NEED TO KNOW THAT NOW, NOT AFTER.

WE'VE SUBMITTED IT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS. I WANT TO SAY THAT I THOUGHT THIS WAS ALL APPROVED. WHAT I WAS TOLD WAS THAT THIS WAS PRESENTED. IT WAS PRESENTED TO VINCENT. VINCENT WAS WORKING WITH US. IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE FORMER MAYOR, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. SO I WAS NOT AWARE UNTIL I HAD MY FIRST MEETING WITH THE CURRENT MAYOR. THAT NONE OF THIS HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU ALL. SO IT'S VERY DISCONCERTING TO ME THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SEVEN YEARS, AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. I'VE BEEN OUT REPRESENTING YOU WITH DONORS WHO COMMITTED $60 MILLION TO THIS PROJECT. IT'S ME GOING BACK TO THE DONORS AND SAYING, THIS IS WHAT I NOW HAVE APPROVAL TO DO. SO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE GO THROUGH THE REST OF THIS.

COMMENT ON THAT. SO THE DOG PARK REALLY IS SIMPLE. THERE'S NOT MUCH TO IT. AGAIN, I DON'T

[00:20:03]

WHILE IT WAS, I THINK, DISCUSSED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT COMES WITH. IF A FLOOD IS COMING TO GO DOWN AND PULL THAT OUT. AND PULL ALL THAT FENCING OUT AND THEN THE CLEANUP OF IT AND THEN PUTTING BACK THAT FENCING. WE WENT THROUGH THIS PREVIOUSLY AND IT WAS KIND OF A PERFECT STORM, WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE OTHER EVENTS GOING ON IN THE CITY. AND SO, BUT THAT STILL TOOK US ABOUT 30 DAYS TO GET EVERYTHING BACK. IF WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE SLUMP, SLUMP BUSTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHERE OUR ENTIRE STAFF IS OUT WORKING ON ANYTHING ELSE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE STAFF TO PULL, TO GO AND PULL FENCING NOW.

HOWEVER, I DID OFFER TO TAKE TO THE SINK BOARD. THAT SHOULD THERE BE A FLOOD AND THERE BE A PROBLEM WITH HAVING ADEQUATE STAFF TO DO THIS, THE MAINTENANCE OF THIS AND BRINGING IT BACK TO FUNCTIONING COULD BE APPROVED TO COME OUT OF THE ENDOWMENT THAT WE'RE GIVING TO THE CITY. I HAVE NOT TAKEN THAT TO THE SINK BOARD YET, PENDING THIS MEETING TONIGHT. I WOULD SAY NOT COULD BE, PROBABLY 100% WOULD BE. I MEAN, BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T WANT THIS TO BE AT A COST TO THE TAXPAYER. I THINK I'M DISAPPOINTED, TOO, BECAUSE IF YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR SEVEN YEARS AND IT WASN'T BROUGHT TO US, THAT'S RIDICULOUS. I AGREE.

WELL, AND, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHOSE FAULT IT IS. I ASSUME IT'S THE FORMER MAYOR, RIGHT? LIKE, AND WE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT. SO YOU COULD HAVE BEEN REPRESENTING. WELL, THE PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN, THERE WERE STAFF, PEOPLE ALL ALONG FROM THE CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT.

BUT THE STAFF DOESN'T COME TO US, JUST SO, YOU KNOW. THE STAFF REPORTS TO THE MAYOR.

CORRECT. WHO COMES TO YOU? YEAH, I DON'T KNOW WHOSE FAULT IT IS, BUT I AGREE. IT'S DISAPPOINTING THAT WE'VE HAD THIS BEFORE, WHERE PROJECTS GET WORKED ON AND THEY COME TO US WEDNESDAY WHEN WE GET THE PACKET, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS IN THE PAST, ROGER. I KNOW. ME TOO. I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 10 YEARS. I KNOW. I'M GLAD YOU SUPPORT IT. GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE. I THINK, LIKE YOU SAID, IT IS A... MINIMAL, RIGHT? IT'S JUST A DOG PARK. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF STRUCTURE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT IF WE CAN PUT IT ON THE DRY SIDE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE IDEAL. I DON'T THINK THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, IF WE CAN FIND A DECENT SPOT, WILL CREATE BLOWBACK FROM DONORS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

THAT'S WHY I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE EASY TO FIND A SPOT THAT'S CLOSE TO THE RIVERFRONT. I HAVE TWO THAT I'M SHOWING PETE ON FRIDAY, AND THEN I NEED TO TALK WITH ZACH ABOUT WHAT... PIECE OF LAND THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.

WELL, AND I THINK TO COVER YOUR ASS, TELL THE DONORS TO COME TALK TO US. WE DIDN'T KNOW, RIGHT? LIKE, I MEAN, THEY CAN ALL COME HERE AND TALK TO US. WE APPRECIATE THEIR INVESTMENT IN THE COMMUNITY, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S PART OF IT. I THINK IF THEY HAVE ISSUE WITH IT, I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE, BUT THEY CAN ALWAYS COME TALK TO US. AND SO I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT. ROGER, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME AND TALK TO YOU. THAT'S NOT HELPFUL.

WHAT, ARE THEY TALKING DOWN TO US? MAYBE IOWA WEST OR SOMEBODY ON THE IOWA SIDE OF THE RIVER.

BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME TO ME. ANYWAY, I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT. I'M NOT JUST SAYING THAT. I REALLY DON'T. I'VE DONE TONS OF THESE PROJECTS AND WORKED WITH THESE DONORS FOR MY ENTIRE CAREER. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME TO YOU.

THEY'RE GOING TO RELY ON THE INTERPRETATION THAT I TAKE BACK TO THEM. AND IF I TAKE BACK TO THEM AN INTERPRETATION THAT SAYS, WE BELIEVE WE FOUND A MORE REASONABLE SPOT FOR THIS PROJECT, FOR THIS PIECE OF THIS PROJECT, THAT'S BETTER MAINTENANCE, THAT STILL ACCOMPLISHES OUR GOAL. THEY'RE GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH THAT.

THAT'S MY TAKE FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

ON THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE PROJECT. WELL, HOPEFULLY THEN YOU CAN CHECK OUT SOME OF THESE OTHER OPTIONS AND WE CAN FIND AN ALTERNATIVE.

IN TALKING ABOUT TOM HANNAFIN PARK IN YEARS PAST, AS YOU GUYS, ROGER, YOU'RE PROBABLY THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS HERE, DO YOU RECALL WE TALKED ABOUT REDOING THE ELECTRICAL AFTER THE LAST 100-YEAR FLOOD? I REMEMBER. WHICH WE HAVE EVERY, LIKE, FIVE YEARS. I WASN'T IN FAVOR OF REDOING THE ELECTRICAL TO THE ENTIRE PARK BECAUSE... I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO GET DESTROYED AGAIN. WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE TOWER, WE HAD TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS ASSURANCES THAT THE ELEVATOR

[00:25:02]

WE'LL ALL STILL BE ALIVE.

TO RUN DOWN AND PULL PANELS, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO BE A FEASIBLE OPTION. IF A FLOOD'S COMING, LIKE YOU SAID, WE'RE LIABLE TO HAVE OTHER THINGS, SANDBAGGING, WHATEVER, GOD KNOWS WHAT. WE MIGHT BE TRYING TO PROTECT SOMETHING.

SOMETHING ELSE. WOULD THERE BE ANOTHER MEANS OF CORDONING THAT OFF THAT WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE REMOVED BY HAND? IS THERE AN AUTOMATED WAY? IS THERE ANOTHER WAY TO GET TO THE SAME SOLUTION, PERHAPS? AND I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT THERE, YOU KNOW.

WELL, THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS A SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FENCE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CUSTOM FOR THAT. AND WHAT WE FOUND IN DOING THE RESEARCH WAS...

THAT WAS GOING TO BE WAY MORE COMPLICATED TO GET OUT. SO WHAT WE ENDED UP RECOMMENDING WAS THE SAME KIND OF FENCE YOU AND I MIGHT HAVE IN OUR BACKYARD, WHERE, IF YOU'VE, I HAVE A FENCE VERY SIMILAR TO THIS IN MY BACKYARD, WHERE YOU CAN TAKE THREE BOLTS OUT AND YOU CAN LIFT UP THAT SECTION OF THE FENCE AND THEN CARRY IT OFF. AND THAT WAS BASED ON VINCENT'S RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. AGAIN, I DON'T THINK IT'S A CROSS TO DIE ON, THIS LOCATION.

SURE. WELL, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE GOT MULTIPLE OTHER OPTIONS, SO I THINK IT'S WHETHER THE PAST IS THE PAST.

THERE'S REALLY NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. ALL WE CAN DO IS, YOU KNOW, GO FROM HERE, BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME GOOD IDEAS, AND IT'S A GOOD ONGOING CONVERSATION TO HAVE AND TO TRY AND WORK OUT SOME ALTERNATIVES. I HOPE SO. I AGREE WITH THAT. AND I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOUR POINT ABOUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHOSE FAULT IT IS THAT YOU WEREN'T TOLD. I CAN TELL YOU PERSONALLY THAT I REQUESTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO TALK TO THE COUNCIL ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS ABOUT THIS PROJECT. SO, DO YOU KNOW THE SIZE? WE'RE SEEING PICTURES. WHAT'S THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THAT DOG PARK? DO YOU KNOW? 3,000 SQUARE FEET. 3,000 SQUARE FEET. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY? IT'S THREE ACRES, I THINK. IS IT THREE ACRES? THREE ACRES. RIGHT. THAT'S REAL DIFFERENT. I CAN'T. I REALLY CAN'T HEAR VERY WELL. THREE ACRES. THAT'S WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT. I DON'T KNOW.

DOES IT HAVE TO BE THREE ACRES? PROBABLY NOT, BUT TO KEEP THE INTEGRITY OF WHAT THE PLANNING WAS, IT SHOULD BE BIG ENOUGH THAT YOU CAN LITERALLY HAVE A BIG DOG SECTION AND A SMALL DOG SECTION. AND I'VE LOOKED AROUND AT THE DOG PARKS THAT ARE THROUGH THE METRO AREA JUST TO SORT OF EDUCATE MYSELF, AND SOME OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY PRETTY SMALL, REALLY. SO THREE ACRES IS KIND OF MAYBE A LUXURIOUS DOG PARK.

WELL, IT'S NOT TO SAY SOMEONE COULDN'T BRING THEIR DOG TO THIS SAME PARCEL OF LAND AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

THEY'LL JUST HAVE TO BE ON A LEASH, LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE. RIGHT.

WELL, PEOPLE BRING THEIR DOGS TO THE GREAT LAWN. YEAH, CORRECT. YOU SEE THEM ALL THE TIME. THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR BUILDING A DOG PARK TO KEEP THEM FROM, YEAH. BUT AT THAT POINT, TO BE OUT IN PUBLIC, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE IT LEASHED OR WHATEVER.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK THERE SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME GOOD OPTIONS FOR US, PLACES, ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD FACILITATE EVERYTHING GOING FORWARD.

WELL, IT SOUNDS TO ME, JOE, THAT... COUNCIL'S NOT GOING TO APPROVE ON ANYTHING ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE LEVEE. CORRECT. KIND OF END OF DISCUSSION THERE.

PETE'S GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE IT BACK TO HIS FOLKS AND SAY, OKAY, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR OTHER PLACES. WHAT FITS? LET'S TRY AND MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE. AGAIN, WE CAN REHASH WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST. IT'S NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING GOING FORWARD.

LET'S JUST TAKE WHAT WE GOT RIGHT NOW AND LET'S MOVE FORWARD AND SEE IF WE CAN MAKE THE BEST THAT WE CAN. THREE ACRES IS A BIG DOG PARK. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DID DOWN AT VALLEY VIEW. MAYBE ZACH KNOWS HOW BIG. 1.2. AND THAT'S HUGE, I THINK. AND THAT'S A BIG, BIG PARCEL THAT WE TOOK THERE.

BUT IT DIDN'T COST A MILLION BUCKS TO TURN VALUE INTO A DOG PARK. AND I THINK HUMANE SOCIETY WOULD SAY THE SAME THING. IT DOESN'T COST A MILLION BUCKS TO PUT A DOG PARK IN. THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE END UP.

IT'S, OKAY, THE DOLLAR AMOUNT ALONG WITH WHERE IT'S LOCATED, PROBABLY AN ISSUE FOR EVERYBODY. YEAH. SO WE CAN WORK ON SOMETHING IN THE YEAR TELLING US.

PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE? OKAY, WELL, LET'S GO THAT DIRECTION.

THAT'S MY GUESS. THAT'S MY BEST GUESS. YEAH, SOUNDS GOOD.

OKAY, THE DONOR PLAZA. SO THIS CAME UP. LATE, NOT LATE, BUT WHEN I SAY LATE, I MEAN IN YEAR TWO OR THREE OF SEVEN YEARS.

IN THE PROCESS, BECAUSE ONE OF THE CONCERNS, THE CITY, LET ME GIVE YOU HERE, THIS IS A BETTER VIEW OF WHERE IT IS. ONE OF THE

[5. CONSENT AGENDA]

[00:30:01]

TO FIND, FIND THE DIFFERENT THINGS, EXCEPT FOR MAYBE THE TOWER, WHICH STICKS OUT. SO THIS IS

[7.B. Items of Great Public Importance]

AND ON ONE SIDE, AND I THINK THAT REPRESENTS THE DONORS AT THE GOLD LEVEL OF THE ORIGINAL. IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. OF THE ORIGINAL. THERE'S A TON OF DONORS. I CAN'T REMEMBER, BUT IT'S HUNDREDS OF DONORS FOR THE ORIGINAL RIVERFRONT PROJECT THAT BUILT THE GREAT LAWN AND ALL OF THAT. AND SO HAVING THEM RECOGNIZED UP THERE WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE PREVIOUS PARK DIRECTOR.

SO THERE'S 14 PANELS IN TOTAL. THERE ARE SEVEN DOUBLE-SIDED CAST STONE PILLARS. EACH PANEL HAS SOMETHING ON IT THAT TELLS THE STORY OF WHAT'S DOWN AT THE RIVERFRONT AND TELLS YOU WHERE TO GO TO FIND IT. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT ALSO I WAS UNAWARE OF, BUT I WAS TOLD THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVED THIS.

THERE WAS A BOND, THAT WAS A BOND, AM I RIGHT, A BOND? I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS. IT WAS FUNDING THAT WAS IN YOUR BOND PACKAGE, AND THAT BOND PACKAGE INCLUDED $600,000 FOR THIS DONOR RECOGNITION AND WAYFINDING AREA. AND I WAS TOLD THAT WAS ALL DONE, APPROVED. YOU WEREN'T PAYING FOR ANY OF THE AMENITIES, BUT YOU WERE HELPING TO COVER THE COST OF RECOGNIZING THE DONORS AND FUND THAT. AND THAT YOU DID APPROVE IT. MY GUESS IS THAT WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS CIP. DOES THAT SOUND, RIGHT? YEAH, IT WAS A LINE ITEM IN LAST YEAR'S CIP THAT WASN'T CALLED OUT TO US.

AND SO PETE AND I DIDN'T HAVE A GREAT FIRST KICKOFF MEETING, BUT WE'RE WORKING FORWARD FROM HERE. AND SO THAT FOLLOWED UP WITH THE EMAIL THEN THAT I SENT TO THE COUNCIL LAST WEEK ABOUT THESE TWO CONCERNS.

OBVIOUSLY, THE... FINAL BUDGET WILL COME TO THE COUNCIL, BUT I WANTED TO RAISE THE CONCERN TO YOU ALL LAST WEEK ABOUT THE $600,000. YEAH, I FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THIS THAN I DO ABOUT THE DOG PARK. I TOOK YOUR STAFF AND THE PREVIOUS MAYOR'S WORD. I WENT OUT AND PRESENTED THIS TO DONORS AND SAID, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. THE CITY'S PARTICIPATING. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A REALLY NICE PLACE WHERE WE CAN RECOGNIZE ALL OF THE RIVERFRONT ACTIVITIES AND CREATE WAYFINDING. AND THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN OUR BUDGET BASED ON THE APPROVAL THAT THE COUNCIL MADE LAST YEAR IN THE BUDGET. I FEEL LIKE THIS IS IMPORTANT, AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING TO DISMISS LIGHTLY AT THIS JUNCTURE OF THIS PROJECT. YOU'LL HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION. CAN YOU GO BACK ONE STEP, PETE? AND THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I RAISED ON TOP OF THE MONETARY IS THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY IN THE LEVY RIGHT AWAY. SO IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN DOWN THERE, THE COURT COULD COME IN AND ASK US TO REMOVE ANYTHING THAT'S SITTING ON THE FLOOR. THE LEVEE RIGHT AWAY. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT TOP FLAT PART IS ACTUALLY IN THE RIGHT AWAY. SO IF IF IT'S SOMETHING COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD AND WE WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY, WELL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S YOUR DECISION.

BUT THE COURT COULD COME IN AND SAY THIS HAS TO GO AND WE WOULD HAVE TO RIP IT OUT. MY POSITION ON THAT WOULD BE THAT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THAT WOULD EVER HAPPEN. IN THE 25 YEARS THAT I'VE WORKED IN COUNCIL BLUFFS, WE'VE HAD, WHAT, FOUR FLOODS. NONE OF THEM HAVE EVEN COME CLOSE TO BEING UP THERE. AND, AGAIN, IT'S BEEN IN OUR PLAN. IT WAS PRESENTED BY THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR AND THE PREVIOUS MAYOR, AND THIS IS WHAT WE PRESENTED

[00:35:01]

AND IT'S NOT JUST THE BIG, BIG DONORS WHO'VE GIVEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. WHEN THAT FIRST CAMPAIGN WAS DONE FOR THE GREAT LAWN, THERE WERE A LOT OF COUNCIL BLUFFS, PEOPLE WHO GAVE $100 OR $50.

AND THEIR NAMES ARE UP THERE.

NOW, WHEN I WENT BACK AND RESEARCHED THIS, KNOWING THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING TONIGHT, YOU KNOW, I WASN'T PART OF THE COUNCIL BACK THEN, SO I HAD TO DO MY HOMEWORK.

ONE THING THAT KEPT STANDING OUT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS PROJECT AT THE BEGINNING WAS NO TAXPAYER MONEY IS GOING TO GO INTO THIS, RIGHT? AND I'M SURE YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT AS WELL.

BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE WITH THIS DONOR, AM I RIGHT? THIS WOULD BE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

WELL, I CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW THE PREVIOUS STAFF EXPLAINED THAT.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT...

NO TAXPAYER MONEY WENT TO ANY OF THE AMENITIES THAT WERE CREATED FOR THE RIVERFRONT.

BUT WHAT YOU ALL APPROVED WAS, I'M ASSUMING, TAXPAYER MONEY GOING FOR THE DONOR RECOGNITION PIECE OF THIS. AND I KNOW THAT'S A NUANCED DIFFERENCE, BUT IT IS A DIFFERENCE. WELL, YOU THOUGHT WE APPROVED IT. I WOULD SAY WE HAVEN'T APPROVED IT. WHAT HE'S SAYING IS IT WAS NCIP AND IT WAS A LINE ITEM.

THE ISSUE THERE, PETE, IS...

EVEN IF IT'S A LINE ITEM, THE SPECIFICS OF THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT HAVE TO BE APPROVED. AND THAT'S WHERE I SEE WE KIND OF COME IN. IT MIGHT BE EARMARKED AND SAY, OKAY, YEAH, ZACH, YOU CAN DO THIS. WE THINK A DONOR PLAZA MAKES SENSE. NOW WE GET INTO THE DETAILS OF, WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO MESS WITH THE LEVEE, BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID WE'VE HAD FOUR FLOODS, AND WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROJECT WITH THE LEVEE, IT WAS A MESS. A LOT OF HOLES, A LOT OF ISSUES. WE GOT THOSE CORRECTED. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS SITE MAKES SENSE.

I WOULD SAY THE CORE WOULD HAVE TO BE THAT.

BUT IF THIS WAS AN ISSUE SIMILAR TO THE DOG PARK TO SAY, LOOK, WE MAY HAVE TO MOVE THIS. I DON'T. IS THAT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE? I DON'T SEE THERE'S A PLACE TO MOVE IT. IF YOU COULD COME UP WITH A PLACE TO MOVE IT, I DON'T SEE ANY PLACE TO MOVE IT. I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, BUT AS I LOOK AT THIS PICTURE RIGHT HERE, WE HAVE AN OPEN SQUARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD BY THE OFFICE BUILDING. IT'S JUST PAVEMENT. IT'S JUST BRICKS. WELL, THAT'S PARKING.

THOSE SPOTS, I BELIEVE, ARE PART OF THAT. IT'S IN A DIFFERENT AGREEMENT. IT IS. YES. OKAY. THAT'S THE IOWA'S FOUNDING BUILDING.

WOULD THERE BE SPOTS BY THE PAVILION ON THE OTHER SIDE? BECAUSE PART OF THIS IS GOING TO BE TREETOP ISSUE AS WELL.

AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT IT AND MINIMIZE ANY IMPACT WE MIGHT HAVE ON THE LEVY. AND I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE TO THAT. THE SECOND THING IS.

WE DON'T WANT TAXPAYERS PAYING FOR THIS. THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. IT WAS NOT IN THE, AND I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, WELL, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AND I WENT THROUGH IT. EVERYTHING I CAME ACROSS, NO TAXPAYER DOLLARS WOULD GO TO THIS.

BUT HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TAXPAYERS ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT BECAUSE IT WAS IN CIP. OKAY, LET'S SLOW DOWN A SECOND AND LET'S SEE WHERE IT MAKES SENSE, AND LET'S SEE WHERE THE FUNDING CAN COME FROM. BEFORE WE JUMP INTO, OH, LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND GO FORWARD. WELL, AND DOES IT HAVE TO BE $600,000? CAN WE FIND AN ALTERNATIVE THAT IS A MORE COST-EFFECTIVE WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME GOAL? I LOVE THE WAY HE'S GOT IT LAID OUT. I LOVE THE PLAN. I LOVE THE DESIGN.

BUT WHERE IT'S AT, MAYBE, AND THE COST OF WHO'S GOING TO DO IT. AGAIN, I'VE BEEN A PART OF A LOT OF BOARDS. WE'VE DONE A LOT OF FUNDRAISING.

PETE'S ON A DIFFERENT LEVEL. I GET THAT. BUT MOST OF THE DONORS ARE DOING IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY, NOT TO BE RECOGNIZED. AND I WOULD SAY WE KEEP THAT INTO ACCOUNT BECAUSE THAT DOES AFFECT SOME OF THE DOLLARS THAT GO WITH IT. WE WANT IT TO BE NICE. I AGREE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, DON'T CREATE MORE HEADACHES FOR US DOWN THE ROAD. THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM WHERE THE CORPS CAN COME IN AND TAKE IT OUT. WE ALREADY LOST A DONOR PLAZA ONCE. HOW MUCH DID WE SPEND ON THAT? YEAH. AND THEN WE WENT ON TO ANOTHER. IT WAS WAY DOWN ON THE RIVER. YEAH. SO, AGAIN,

[00:40:02]

THAT'S TO DO WITH THE AMENITIES, BUT THIS IS ALSO, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW WE NEED THE WAYFINDING AND ALL THAT.

THE CORE, THEY, I BELIEVE, FROM THE CENTER LINE OF THE LEVEE IS 300 FOOT TO THE DRY SIDE OF. WHAT THEY REALLY HAVE, SAY, IS THE EASEMENT. SO IF WE CAN BE 300 FOOT FROM THAT CENTER LINE GOING EAST. I MEAN, WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT RATHER THAN BE IN THE EASEMENT. MATT COX, I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU, WOULD THE CITY EVER BUILD IN THE LEVEE RIGHT-OF-WAY? WOULD WE PUT SOMETHING THERE OURSELVES? I GUESS THAT'S, WHEN JILL SAYS, IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THAT'S MY QUESTION. WE HAVE.

MUCH OF WHAT YOU SEE IN THAT IMAGE IS IN THE LEVEE, RIGHT-OF-WAY.

THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY...

AND WHERE THE CORPS HAS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW. THOSE ARE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS. SO THE 300 OR 500 FEET, THAT'S WHERE THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO REVIEW IT TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE LEVEE. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS ACTUALLY THE PRISM FOR THE LEVEE, AND THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT FOR ACTUALLY THE INTEGRITY OF THE LEVEE. WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, WHERE THE DONOR PLAZA IS, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE CENTER LINE IS. IT'S SOMEWHERE CLOSE TO THE TRAIL. SO THAT'S LANDWARD OF THE CENTER LINE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY ABOVE THE LEVEE. SO THE AREA BEHIND THE LEVEE HAS BEEN FILLED SIGNIFICANTLY ALL THROUGH THAT AREA. AND SO IF YOU CAN PICTURE A LEVEE, IT'S GOING DOWN, BUT ALL THAT MATERIAL THAT SITS THERE IS ABOVE THAT POINT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT CAN'T HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE LEVEE, BUT IT'S NOT THE LEVEE ITSELF THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THE ISSUE OF THE CORPS HAVING THE ABILITY TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTIONS IN THE LEVEE, ET CETERA, IT'S A POSSIBILITY. I THINK IT'S A SLIM POSSIBILITY, LIKE PETE SAID. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LIKELIHOOD THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN. THE KEY IS THE ABILITY TO FLOOD FIGHT. SO IF WE CAN FLOOD FIGHT IN A HIGH WATER EVENT AND NOT IMPACT WHATEVER ENCROACHMENTS ARE THERE, WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, AND THAT'S THE SAME THING THE CORPS IS GOING TO DO. SO IF THEY CAN DRIVE A TRUCK DOWN IT, THAT WE CAN SANDBAGS, THAT WE CAN GET RESOURCES, PUMPS, MANPOWER, WHATEVER IT IS, THROUGH THAT AREA, THEN THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT, NOT NECESSARILY WHERE IT SITS IN RELATION TO THE CENTER OF MOUNTAIN HILL LEVEE. SO WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT THAT THE CORPS WOULD SAY IF WE TAKE THEM THIS TYPE OF PLAN? BASED ON PREVIOUS OBSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE AREA, WE HAVE LIGHTS, WE HAVE SIGNS, WE HAVE, THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS. IF IT'S THE CURRENT PLAYGROUND, THEN IT WOULD ALREADY BE IN THAT WAY AS WELL, OR NO? I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IT WOULD BE APPROVED. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME WHILE I'M UP HERE? ON THIS TOPIC. YOU GOT ANYONE THAT HAS $600,000 TO PAY FOR IT? WHITNEY, CAN YOU COME UP, PLEASE? I JUST WANTED TO...

SPEAK JUST TO THE DONOR PLAZA.

I KNOW THAT IT'S WRAPPED IN HERE WITH RIVERFRONT PHASE 5. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT JUST TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION THAT YOU GUYS DID IN 2021 APPROVE THE MOU. THAT IS FOR THE AMENITIES IN THAT DOCUMENT, WHICH IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT THAT HAS ACTUALLY COME FOR THE PROJECT APPROVAL TO COUNCIL. THERE IS NO MENTION OF A DONOR PLAZA, AND THERE IS NO FUNDING ALLOCATED FOR A DONOR PLAZA. SO THIS IS, IT'S BEING WRAPPED IN WITH PHASE 5, THE PLAYGROUND AND THE DOG PARK. ARE BOTH IN THE MOU THAT WAS APPROVED.

BOTH OF THEM ARE, IN FACT, ON THAT POINT, ON THE DRY SIDE OF THE LEVEE, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU GUYS APPROVED, AND THAT'S WHAT CAME TO COUNCIL. SO IN THE AGREEMENT THAT ACTUALLY CAME THROUGH, IT SAYS THAT THIS WILL BE ON THE DRY SIDE OF THE LEVEE, AND THAT WE WOULD OBTAIN LAND IF NECESSARY FOR THE DOG PARK ON THE DRY SIDE OF THE LEVEE, AND THEN THE DECISIONS WERE MADE, NOT BEFORE YOU GUYS, BY OTHER PEOPLE TO PUT THAT ON THE WET SIDE OF THE LEVEE.

BUT THE MOU YOU APPROVED SAYS DRY SIDE OF THE LEVEE FOR THE DOG PARK AND THE PLAYGROUND, AND THE DONOR PLAZA IS NOT, IN FACT, IN THE MOU. THAT CAME UP LATER IN DISCUSSIONS AT SOME POINT, BUT JUST SO THAT YOU'RE AWARE, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DONOR PLAZA, THE ONLY MENTION OF THAT, THAT I WAS ABLE TO FIND AT ALL, IS IN THE CIP DOCUMENT AS A LINE ITEM. PETE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SHARE? I DON'T THINK SO. I JUST, THE ONLY THING I NEED IS I NEED TO KNOW WHAT TO INCLUDE IN THE CORE APPLICATION. SO WE CAN'T TAKE A VOTE BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA. I UNDERSTAND THAT. CAN YOU TELL ME KIND OF WHEN I WILL GET THAT INFORMATION? WE CAN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY.

THAT'D BE GREAT. YEP. OKAY.

AND THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE ASKING IS, AT THIS JUNCTURE, I'M ASSUMING, BASED ON THE DISCUSSION, IS,

[00:45:01]

OKAY. I MEAN, THAT'D BE HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE WE'RE SPENDING MONEY ON DESIGN AND ALL THAT EVERY DAY, SO I'M GOING TO STOP ALL THAT UNTIL WE HEAR FROM YOU. YEAH, I WOULD STOP ALL THAT UNTIL WE GET A... YEAH. ACTUAL DIRECTIVE. I WILL DEFINITELY DO THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT UP REVIEWING THE AGENDA.

WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE ON WITH OUR FORMAT THAT WE STARTED LAST TIME. SO, IN THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR C.

WE HAVE THE UP MUSEUM WINDOWS AND DOORS. WHO'S SPEAKING TO THAT? I MEAN, JUST THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, ALL THE WORK'S BEEN DONE.

WE'VE INCLUDED THE CHANGE ORDERS THAT YOU APPROVED, INCLUDING THE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION FROM THE ENGINEER, ON HALF OF THE FIRST CHANGE ORDER.

NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THIS.

AT THE JUST RELEASING, THE WORKS BEEN DONE, IT'S GOOD. KEYNESVILLE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE REPAIRS THIS IS TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR REPAIRS THAT ARE NEEDED TO THE KINGSVILLE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT IS KIND OF ONGOING. WE'VE DONE A COUPLE OTHER REPAIRS TO THE BRIDGE, AND AT THIS TIME WE'VE GOT SOME DEFICIENCIES THAT HAVE BEEN NOTED, AND WE'D LIKE TO GO IN AND MAKE THE REPAIRS. SO, MARK, HOW LONG DO WE THINK? BECAUSE THIS BRIDGE, LIKE YOU SAID, WE'VE KIND OF BEEN TOUCHING IT AND TOUCHING IT AND TOUCHING IT, AND WE KEEP DOING IT. DO WE HAVE SOME EXPECTANCY OF REPAIRS OR LIFESPAN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT RIGHT NOW? WELL, I THINK IT DEPENDS ON HOW IT WEATHERS. AND, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE MINOR REPAIRS THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO MAKE TO KEEP IT IN PLACE.

IT IS A PEDESTRIAN AMENITY AT THAT LOCATION. RIGHT. SO WE'D LIKE TO KEEP IT AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE A TRUE DROP-DEAD DATE OF WHEN WE WOULD TAKE IT DOWN.

MY QUESTION WAS, HOW LONG WILL IT BE OUT OF COMMISSION WHILE WE'RE WORKING ON IT? AND HAVE WE WORKED WITH HOOVER AND KERN. I MEAN, I WALKED ACROSS THAT BRIDGE A LOT WHEN I WAS A KID AND RAN ACROSS THE STREET WHEN I SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A LOT OF KIDS, TOO. BUT JUST IF THEY CAN HAVE CROSSING GUARDS OR FIGURE OUT, BECAUSE IF IT'S DOWN FOR A LONG TIME. KIDS WALK THAT EVERY DAY TO AND FROM SCHOOL. WE'RE GONNA TRY AND BE AGGRESSIVE WITH THIS AND GET IT DONE AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IT WILL BE OPEN BY DAY ONE OF SCHOOL, BUT WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE FOR THE SAFETY OF THE KIDS GOING TO THE SCHOOLS. SO YOU'RE JUST KIND OF DOING IT BASED ON WHAT WE NEED. THERE ISN'T A SET, HEY, IN FIVE YEARS, WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THIS, RIGHT? NO. OKAY.

4E, THE MID-AMERICA CENTER PARKING LOT REHAB, PHASE SIX.

THIS IS ALSO AN ONGOING PROJECT. WE'VE DONE FIVE PREVIOUS PHASES. THIS WILL BE PHASE SIX. WE'LL HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL PHASE. AGAIN, WE'RE SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING TO GO TO BED, TO BRING A CONTRACTOR IN TO DO THIS WORK. IT'S PARKING LOT REHAB. WE'RE ALSO DOING SOME ADA UPGRADES IN THE AREA OF THE MAC. I MUST HAVE JUST HIT CONTROL C BECAUSE MY SAME QUESTION IS GOING TO APPLY HERE. YOU GOT ANY EXPECTATIONS FOR THESE REPAIR JOBS THAT WE'RE DOING DOWN THERE IN TERMS OF TIME? IS THAT JUST BASED ON WEATHER CONDITION? I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT WE'RE GETTING BETTER ALL THE TIME, DOUG, BUT WEATHER IS THE BIG FACTOR DOWN THERE. NO CHANGES IN CEMENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. TO SAY, OKAY, WE THINK WE CAN MAKE THIS LAST LONGER? NO. OKAY. OKAY, G, EXCUSE ME, F, THE KEYNESVILLE SANITARY SEWER EXPANSION, PHASE 1. SO THIS IS THE PROJECT WHERE WE EXTENDED SEWER FROM ROUGHLY THE MOSQUITO CREEK UP TOWARDS THE COLLEGE, AND ULTIMATELY WE DID PHASE 02, WHICH GOT US TO THE... EAST SIDE OF THE INTERCHANGE,

[00:50:01]

HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH A LITTLE OVER SEVEN GRAND PER ACRE, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY? IT'S THE EXACT COST OF THE PROJECT, DIVIDED BY THE BENEFITED ACRES. SO WE TOOK ALL THE PROJECT COSTS AND THEN DIVIDED BY THE AREA THAT BENEFITS FROM THE SEWER THAT CAN BE SERVED BY A GRAVITY SEWER. AND THAT'S IT WAS 200 AND SOME ACRES. WE TOOK THE TOTAL COST DIVIDED BY THE ACREAGE. THAT'S IT TO THE PENNY. SO IT'S 100% OF THE ACTUAL COST ASSESSED TO THOSE THAT WILL USE IT.

THAT'S THE CALCULATION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN, DANIELLE, I THINK YOU'RE G THROUGH M. IS THERE ALL OF OUR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS? YEAH. SO THIS IS TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF OUR FY27 CIP. GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE A COPY OF THIS IN YOUR PACKET. IT'S THE NINE STEPS OF THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROCESS. SO AT EACH OF THESE STEPS, YOU GUYS ACTUALLY GET A COPY OF THE CIP SCHEDULE, ALONG WITH HOW WE COLOR CODE TO ASSOCIATE WHICH PROJECTS GO TO EACH PURPOSE. HEARING. AND THEN THAT IS WHAT WE DO THE ENTIRE COURSE OF THE YEAR BEFORE WE ACTUALLY SELL THE BONDS. SO THIS IS JUST STEP TWO. STEP ONE IS APPROVING THE CIP. STEP TWO IS SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE DATE OF THE SALE OF THE BONDS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DANIELLE? AND THE MOU? ANYBODY TALKING TO THAT? I JUST AGREED WITH BRENDA. OH, OKAY, PERFECT.

THANK YOU. YEAH, I VOLUNTEERED.

BRENDA ASKED ME, I VOLUNTEERED. YEAH, IT'S JUST TO GO ON THE IOWA RACING BOARD AS THE EX-OFFICIO. OKAY, PERFECT. THANK YOU. AND THEN THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING ON THAT. OKAY, PERFECT. WE'LL HAVE ONE PROCLAMATION TONIGHT.

WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE FIRST ONE IS CHRIS, I THINK ALL THREE OF THESE ARE YOURS, RIGHT? SO I'LL HAVE YOU JUST TALK TO ALL THREE OF THEM. OKAY, SO RESOLUTIONS 2643 AND RESOLUTIONS 2645. THIS IS IN RELATION TO SPINDLOFTS, THE PROJECT THERE JUST NORTH OF CASEY, ON 23RD AVENUE. SO THE FIRST REQUEST IS TO RELEASE SOME EASEMENTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY RESERVED OVER VACATED ALLEYS. WE NEED TO DO THAT IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO SITE A BUILDING ON THAT PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR APPROVED SITE PLAN.

AND THEN THE SECOND RESOLUTION, 2645, IS ACTUALLY TO CONSOLIDATE ALL THE PARCELS THAT MAKE UP THAT TRACK OF LAND INTO ONE LOT OF RECORDS. SO THOSE TWO ARE BEING PACKAGED TOGETHER FOR APPROVAL. RESOLUTION 2648 AND THEN RESOLUTION 2649 LATER IN YOUR PACKET, THAT PERTAINS TO THE NORTH LINE. SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL THERE OFF NORTH BROADWAY AND IVY DRIVE. THAT'S A REQUEST BY GILA DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCT BETWEEN 113 AND 116 APARTMENT UNITS THERE, AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF IVY DRIVE AND NORTH BROADWAY.

IT'S ABOUT A 5.15 ACRE TRACK OF LAND. IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED R3. IT WAS ZONED R3 BACK IN 2008.

WHEN THERE WAS A PROPOSED HOSPICE FACILITY THAT WAS GOING TO GO IN THAT LOCATION, THE DEVELOPER HERE IS JUST PROPOSING TO BUILD MULTIFAMILY, WHICH IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT ON THAT PROPERTY. THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT HE IS PROPOSING IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT ON THAT PROPERTY, BASED UPON ITS ACREAGE.

REALLY, WHAT THE COUNCIL IS REVIEWING TONIGHT IS THE FINAL PLAT.

TO MAKE A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION, OUTLOT AOB FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE REMAINING TRACK WILL BE FOR THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION.

AND THEN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD REALLY BE SPECIFIC TO SETBACKS, THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE OFF-STREET PARKING, WHAT THE BUILDING LOOKS LIKE.

EVERYTHING HE HAS PROPOSED REALLY COMPLIES WITH OUR CODE, BY RIGHT. HE'S NOT ASKING FOR ANY TYPE OF...

[00:55:02]

YOU KNOW, WITH A 113 UNIT BUILDING, HE'S PROPOSING 154 PARKING STALLS. THERE WAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT WOULD NOW BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE INTERSECTION OF IVY DRIVE AND NORTH BROADWAY. WE GOT A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE BUILDING BEING FOUR STORIES. IN AN R3 DISTRICT, YOU CAN GO UP TO 60 FEET. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THIS DEVELOPMENT, I THINK, IS 46.

SO HE'S STILL UNDER WHAT THE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT WOULD ALLOW IN AN R3. BUT MAINLY, IT WAS JUST RELATIVE TO A LOT OF THE PARKING, THE TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH IT. WE WERE VERY CLEAR WITH THE PUBLIC THAT THE PROPERTY IS ZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY PURPOSES. SO IT CAN BE USED FOR MULTIFAMILY PURPOSES. THE CODE SAYS HE CAN HAVE UP TO, I BELIEVE, 116 UNITS. HE'S COMING IN AT 116. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF DISCREPANCY BETWEEN HIS FINAL PLAT AND WHAT THE COUNTY SHOWS, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK IT OUT WITH HIM TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS A TRUE ACTUAL NUMBER, BUT IT'LL RANGE BETWEEN 113 AND 116 WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE. SO, REALLY, IF THERE WASN'T A PR OVERLAY, HE COULD HAVE JUST STARTED BUILDING. THERE'S NO REZONE.

AND THEN WE, THE CITY, WHICH I THINK IS GOOD, TOOK IT UPON OURSELVES TO CONTACT ALL THE NEIGHBORS.

EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN'T HAVE TO, BECAUSE UNLESS THEY WERE, IF HE WAS GOING TO REZONE, WE WOULD HAVE TO CORRECT.

YEP, RIGHT, AND SO I, THE WAY I READ IT THERE. HE'S PUTTING IN MORE PARKING, YES, THEN THEN IS REQUIRED, SO THAT'S SO THERE WON'T BE MORE PARKING ON THE STREET. THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, AND THIS IS PROBABLY MORE FOR MR. AUGUSTINE, MR. COX IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT UP ON ZENITH. IS THE BRIDGE RIGHT? THE BRIDGE FROM? IF THAT BRIDGE IS WHERE THEY BUILD AT SIMILAR TIMES, RIGHT? LIKE, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONCERNS. I THINK OBVIOUSLY WE'VE, WE'VE ALL GOTTEN EMAILS FROM FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT ABOUT THIS PROJECT. SO THAT THAT BRIDGE IS SIMILAR TO THE ONE UP ON ZENITH, RIGHT? IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT GOING ACROSS. AND I READ ALL YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT, HEY, WE DID THE STUDY UP HERE AS ZENITH, RIGHT? THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PARKING STUDY AND TRAFFIC STUDY, SO THIS ONE WASN'T REQUIRED.

THAT CORRECT. THAT'S RELATED TO TRAFFIC. IN OUR OPINION, THIS WAS LESS TRAFFIC THAN WHAT HE WOULD EXPERIENCE AT SYLVAN. THE TRAFFIC STUDY COMPLETED FOR THAT PROJECT DID NOT SHOW A NEED FOR ANY IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. SO IT WAS OUR OPINION THAT WITH LESS TRAFFIC, THIS ONE WOULDN'T SHOW ANY NEED FOR IMPROVEMENTS EITHER.

RIGHT. WELL, AND I THINK THE ONE ON ZENITH PROBABLY SERVICES OVER 50 TO 100 HOMES. THIS IS LIKE 25 TO 30 HOMES AT MOST.

LESS THAN THAT, AND IT'S A DEAD-END STREET, SO IT'S NOT A THROUGH STREET.

YEAH. REGARDING THE BRIDGE, SO WE INSPECT ALL BRIDGES, ALL PUBLIC-OWNED BRIDGES, EVERY TWO YEARS. SO THE LAST INSPECTION WAS IN 2024 FOR THIS BRIDGE. WE WILL INSPECT IT AGAIN THIS SUMMER.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED IN 1987, SO I'VE HEARD SOME COMMENTS OF 50S OR 60S OF WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED.

THE LAST CONSTRUCTION OF THIS BRIDGE WAS 1987. THERE ARE FOUR MAIN CRITERIA WHERE WE... EVALUATE THE CONDITION OF A BRIDGE. THEY'RE RATED ON A SCORE OF 1 TO 9. 9 BEING THE REALLY GOOD, 1 BEING VERY POOR. THIS BRIDGE SCORED 7, 06, 7, AND 8 FOR THE FOUR MAIN CRITERIA OF THE BRIDGE. SO, IN MY OPINION, THIS IS FAIR OR BETTER THAN FAIR AS FAR AS THE CONDITION OF THE BRIDGE. IT WILL NOT HAVE AN ISSUE HANDLING LEGAL LOADS. YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY WERE TO EXCEED A LEGAL LOAD, THAT COULD BE AN ISSUE. BUT THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT ANYWAY. BUT AS FAR AS CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC OR TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT, OR ANYONE USING IT AFTER CONSTRUCTION, I DON'T FORESEE A PROBLEM WITH THE BRIDGE. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT TRAFFIC OR THE BRIDGE OR INFRASTRUCTURE? I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT USING OUR CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE AND FINDING MORE WAYS TO PUT PROPERTY ON THE TAX ROLLS. I THINK THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL INFILL PROJECT, REALLY, IS HOW I SEE IT, RIGHT? I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO ADD A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TAX VALUE TO A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN...

VACANT FOR 25 YEARS IN TOWN.

AND AS I SAID, WITH

[01:00:01]

YOU CAN COME UP AGAIN. THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SAFETY OF NORTH BROADWAY, IT WAS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, ETC. I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT, SO I WENT BACK AND WHAT I COULD FIND IN RESEARCH WAS THAT THERE WERE. I FOUND FOUR ACCIDENTS IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS ASSOCIATED WITH IVY DRIVE, OR NORTH BROADWAY AT IVY DRIVE. ONE OF THOSE WAS A VEHICLE DEER ACCIDENT, AND ONE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ON NORTH BROADWAY, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS OUR RESURFACING PROJECT.

SO ONLY TWO IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS ASSOCIATED WITH JUST GENERAL TRAFFIC ON NORTH BROADWAY AND IVY DRIVE.

SO FROM MY RESEARCH, I COULD NOT FIND A PATTERN OF...

CONCERN WITH TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS OR SAFETY ISSUES WITH THAT ROADWAY. THANK YOU.

THANKS MATT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS PROJECT OR COMMENTS? I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT THE WEIGHT ON THOSE BRIDGES WE DROVE. I MEAN, I WROTE, A FIRE TRUCK ACROSS THAT, NOT ON PARTICULARLY IVORY DRIVE, BUT ON ELLIOTT CRIME. AND HE SAKES ALL THE TIME. AND WE STOP ON THAT, ON THOSE BRIDGES AND WAIT FOR TRAFFIC, AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT IS MUCH HEAVIER THAN A FIRE TRUCK. AND SO I HAVE FULL FAITH IN WHAT MATT IS SAYING, AS FAR AS THE WEIGHT AND WEAR AND TEAR ON THOSE BRIDGES. YEAH, I DID, TOO. I MEAN, IF THE BRIDGES, IF MATT IN 2024 CAME BACK WITH THREES AND TWOS AND ONES, WE WOULD HAVE ALREADY REPAIRED IT, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S WHY I ASKED HIM, RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S THE CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE HAVE.

THAT'S THE EMAILS WE'VE BEEN GETTING. SO I JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IT OUT IN THE OPEN. YES, AND ALSO I SAT UP THERE DURING THE BUSY TIME OF THE SCHOOLS BEFORE AND AFTER THE LAST FEW WEEKS, PARTICULARLY TIMES OF THE DAY. AND EVEN AT HIGH-TRAFFIC AREAS, IVY DRIVE GETS MAYBE FOUR CARS UP DURING THAT BUSY TIME. LOCUST LODGE GETS A LITTLE MORE, AND NORTH BROADWAY GETS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE.

BUT IT'S STILL CLOSE TO 10 TO 12 CARS A MINUTE, IF YOU SIT AND COUNT AS WHAT I KIND OF CAME UP WITH. AND SO IN AN HOUR'S TIME, YOU'RE LOOKING AT 600 VEHICLES THROUGH THAT AREA, MOSTLY ON NORTH BROADWAY. JODY, I WAS JUST GOING TO LET YOU KNOW, SINCE I HEARD THIS CASE AND VOTED PREVIOUSLY ON PLANNING, I'LL ABSTAIN TONIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? OKAY. 7-8 ORDINANCE, WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT ONE ON THE FIRST READING. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR FOLLOW-UPS ON THE ORDINANCE FOR THE THIRD READING? WE'VE COVERED THIS ONE. OKAY.

RESOLUTIONS IN? I SORRY, I'M THE THIRD ONE. YES. CHRIS, CAN YOU, IF WE LEAVE AT R1, CAN HE BUILD THE SAME BUILDING? HE CAN BUILD A STRUCTURE.

WELL, I MEAN, SO THE APPLICANT'S ASKED TO REZONE HIS PROPERTY TO ONE ZONING DESIGNATION.

SO, WHETHER YOU REZONE AT R1 OR R3, THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS YES. HE CAN STILL BUILD THAT BARN, BUILDING THE SIZE HE WANTS TO.

EVEN IF WE CHANGE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY TO R1? CORRECT.

OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE? OKAY. RESOLUTION 9A. THIS IS THE, THIS IS A RESOLUTION THAT'S COMING FROM COUNCILMAN GORMAN AND SANDOW.

THIS RESOLUTION IS DIRECT AND OUR LEGAL TEAM TO LOOK INTO A DE-CONFLICT SITUATIONS THAT COULD ARISE OUT OF ICE COMING INTO OUR COMMUNITY. WHAT THE MAIN POINT THAT I WAS TRYING TO GET IS THAT WE CONSIDER PUBLIC SAFETY, THE SAFETY OF OUR POLICE. THAT WE DON'T GET IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE WORKING AGAINST EACH OTHER. I'D LIKE TO SEE ICE COORDINATE WITH OUR COMMUNITY SO THAT WE KNOW WHO'S WORKING IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND THAT THEY'RE WORKING WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND OUR CITY AND STATE POLICIES. I ECHO WHAT STEVE SAID. IT'S REALLY JUST A, I ASSUME ICE CAN COME IN HERE WITHOUT TELLING US, BUT WE'RE

[01:05:01]

THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS TO ME IS, AND STEVE AND I TALKED ABOUT IT. SORRY. I WAS GOING TO SAY WE CAN TAKE SOME QUESTIONS FROM TONY. HE'S LOOKING FOR SOME DIRECTION OF WHAT WE WANT TO COVER. I JUST TOLD YOU, TONY. AND I WILL TELL YOU SEPARATELY, CHIEF DAVIS AND MYSELF, AND TONY AND MIMI HAVE STARTED WORKING ON SOME UPDATED LANGUAGE ABOUT PROTESTING IN GENERAL.

SO IF WE WANT TO KEEP THAT KIND OF SEPARATE, SO IT DOESN'T MUDDY THE WATERS FROM THIS ORDINANCE VERSUS THAT. THANK YOU, GUYS. I DID, AFTER OUR LAST CONVERSATION, KNOWING WE WERE GOING TO COME HAVE THIS CONVERSATION. I TOOK A LOOK AT WHAT OTHER CITIES AND STATES HAVE BEEN DOING ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. I FOCUSED HEAVILY ON WHAT OTHER CITIES IN IOWA ARE DOING AS WELL, AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD THE GENERAL DIRECTIVE TO BE. YOU KNOW, WE. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO IMPEDE ICE, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO OVERLY HELP. YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST WE. THEY HAVE A JOB, WE HAVE A JOB. AND WE WANT TO DO IT IN A WAY WHERE WE'RE PROTECTING OUR POLICE OFFICERS, OUR CITIZENS. AND THE ICE AGENTS. TO ME, IT'S ABOUT COLLABORATION, EXACTLY.

YEAH, YEAH. AND SO... JUST WORK TOGETHER. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT ONE OF THE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS THAT I'VE SEEN KIND OF ACROSS THE UNITED STATES IS, AND I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO THE DECISIONS OF IT, BUT THE MASKING. THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF INCIDENTS OF INDIVIDUALS COMMITTING CRIMES POSING AS ICE AGENTS, RIGHT? THEY ARE KIDNAPPING PEOPLE, THEY ARE COMMITTING THEFTS, THEY ARE DOING THINGS, WEARING A MASK, WEARING FAKE ICE GEAR. AND SO THERE HAVE BEEN LEGITIMATE CONCERNS IN TERMS OF, WELL, IF OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT DOESN'T KNOW THEY'RE HERE, OR THEY DON'T KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE, ARE THESE EVEN REALLY ICE AGENTS, RIGHT? AND SO I KIND OF THOUGHT THAT WAS A LITTLE FAR-FETCHED, BUT I DID LOOK INTO IT, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF INCIDENCES LIKE THIS. I MEAN, A LOT OF THEM ARE IN. CLOSER, YOU KNOW, EITHER CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES, TEXAS COMMUNITIES, PLACES THAT ARE CLOSER TO THE BORDER. AND HAVE A LOT MORE OF KIND OF THIS EXPECTED PRESENCE, IF YOU WILL. BUT THE WAY THAT I WROTE THIS RESOLUTION IS, YOU KNOW, IN MY VIEW OF IT, THERE'S PEOPLE HAVE BASICALLY DONE FOUR DIFFERENT THINGS. THEY'VE KIND OF DONE A DECLARATION OF MUNICIPAL PURPOSE AND VALUES, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A STATEMENT, LIKE IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT OF COOPERATION. THERE ARE CITIES IN IOWA THAT HAVE DONE A STATEMENT OF LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES, ESSENTIALLY SAYING, YOU KNOW, DIRECTING THAT. IT'S THE POSITION OF THE CITY OF SO-AND-SO THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS TYPE OF THING ADOPTED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

THREE, I BELIEVE IT'S THE CITY OF DAVENPORT, THEY DID A STATEMENT REGARDING PRIORITY-BASED POLICING. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THEY KIND OF SAID, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY MADE A PUBLIC...

DECLARATION OF WHAT THEY WANTED THEIR POLICE OFFICERS SPENDING THEIR TIME DOING, RIGHT? IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH FEDERAL AGENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT IT WAS ESSENTIALLY SAYING.

OUR LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT IS HERE TO PROTECT OUR LOCAL CITIZENS, AND THEREFORE, WE WANT OUR POLICE TO EMPHASIZE AND DO THESE TYPES OF THINGS, AGAIN, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE. AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS PASSING RESOLUTIONS OR ORDINANCES THAT ARE ADDRESSING THE SUBSTANTIVE TOPICS IN SECTION 3. AND SO FOR SECTION 3... WHAT I DID WAS I JUST KIND OF TOOK ANYTHING THAT WAS IN THIS AREA. NONE OF IT IS INTENDED TO BE COMMENTARY OR DECISION MAKING, BUT IT'S, IT'S. STUFF THAT I FOUND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WITHIN THIS REALM THAT I WANTED TO PROVIDE TO YOU AS A BUFFET OF OPTIONS. YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS COULD TELL ME, JUST DO A, JUST DO F, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER YOU WANTED THIS TO LOOK LIKE. I KIND OF WANTED YOU TO PICK A FRAMEWORK UNDER SECTION 2 AND THEN PICK WHATEVER TOPICS UNDER SECTION 3 THAT YOU WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT ON. I DID, IN THE COUNCIL OF COMMUNICATION, TRY TO PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE. I'LL TELL YOU, THAT'S VERY ROUGH. BUT...

THERE ARE A LOT OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES HERE.

IN TERMS OF THERE'S FEDERAL PREEMPTION THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH, THERE'S STATE PREEMPTION THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. AND SO THE MORE THAT WE KIND OF HAVE TO DIG INTO PREEMPTION, THE HARDER, YOU KNOW, THE MORE TIME IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO GET THROUGH. AND SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, WANT TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE GENERAL CONTEXT OF WHAT THIS RESOLUTION IS SEEKING TO DO. AND I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN KIND OF AN ONGOING CONVERSATION

[01:10:01]

STEVE, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I THINK FOR ME, IT WAS MORE OF THE FIRST PART, THE DECLARATION OF THIS IS, I DON'T WANT A LOT OF TIME PUT INTO THIS. THIS IS HEY, WE HAVE SOMETHING OUT. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. IT'S KIND OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT. I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, GOING TO LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES OR DIRECTING OUR LOCAL POLICE OFFICERS, CHIEF DAVIS KNOWS WHAT OUR GUYS NEED TO DO. WE DON'T NEED TO GET INTO THAT. I AGREE. YOU KNOW, THE CHIEF DOES HAVE A LOT OF OPERATIONAL AUTHORITY.

YEAH, YES. IT'S JUST A DECLARATION, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS YOU SAID, IT'S TERRIBLE THAT THOSE THINGS ARE HAPPENING. IF A BAD GUY WANTS TO PUT ON A MASK AND STEAL SOMEBODY, THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT.

WHETHER ICE IS DOING THIS OR NOT, RIGHT? I MEAN, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE CAN SAY TO THEM. WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS THAT WE DO KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHO'S POLICING IN OUR COMMUNITY. AS CITIZENS, WE DESERVE TO KNOW WHO'S CARRYING A BADGE AND WORKING WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY. AND WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW THAT PUBLICLY.

BUT THEY DO NEED TO REGISTER WITH OUR POLICE. YEAH, I AGREE.

FOR PUBLIC SAFETY REASONS. I THINK WE CAN SAY IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE TO. WE CAN ASK FOR IT, AND I THINK WE SHOULD SEND IT TO WHOEVER WE NEED TO SEND IT TO, ASK THE QUESTION, AND TRY AND GET THE INFORMATION. THAT'S THE BEST THAT I THINK ALL OF US- THE MAIN THING IS THAT WE COVER THE PUBLIC SAFETY OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS, OUR FIRST RESPONDERS. RIGHT.

THAT WE DON'T GET IN A SITUATION WHERE ICE IS OUT.

WORKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, DOWN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SOMEBODY CALLS AND SAYS, HEY, THERE'S PEOPLE RUNNING AROUND DOWN HERE WITH MASKS ON, DON'T KNOW WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON.

AND THEY CALL OUR POLICE INTO THERE AND THEN THEY GET INTO A SITUATION THAT GETS UGLY. THAT HAPPENS VERY QUICKLY AT NIGHT. I WOULD IMAGINE, AND I DON'T KNOW THIS FOR SURE, DEPENDING ON WHICH STATE OR WHICH CITY, THAT THEY'RE COLLABORATING WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AND THIS IS WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO ASK, CHIEF DAVIS. I GUESS ONE THING IS I READ THROUGH THIS AS HE'S COMING UP, AND AGAIN, I WASN'T HERE WHEN YOU GUYS WENT THROUGH THIS. WHERE DID THIS COME FROM? JUST YOU GUYS THINKING WE NEED TO BE PROACTIVE. I WAS LOOKING AT THIS WAY BACK RIGHT AFTER THANKSGIVING. I SAW SITUATIONS HAPPENING THAT I PERCEIVED AS COULD BE A POSSIBLE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE WITH OUR POLICE AND FIRST RESPONDERS. THEN, AS THIS DEAL IN MINNESOTA STARTED TO EXPLODE AROUND, THEN IT BECAME MORE THAT IT COULD ADVANCE OUT INTO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AND SO THIS IS WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM. IT STARTED WITH ME.

OKAY. AND AGAIN, I WANT TO BE PROACTIVE ABOUT SOME OF THESE THINGS AS WELL, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO CREATE A PROBLEM THAT WE DON'T HAVE.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PROBLEM IS. THESE ARE THE EXPERTS ON THAT. RIGHT. IF WE HAVE ONE. I DON'T WANT TO HAMSTRING OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT IN ANY WAY.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. AND I GO TO BOTH SIDES. THAT'S WHETHER IT'S OUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OR THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

AND SO... IF WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THIS PATH, IT'S GOT TO BE WORTH SOMETHING. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. SO, YEAH. BRIAN, I'D LIKE TO ASK, WHAT ARE OUR CURRENT OPERATIONS? ARE YOU CURRENT? DO THEY ALREADY TALK TO OUR CBPD BEFORE THEY COME AND CONDUCT OPERATIONS? I AGREE. ABSOLUTELY. I CAN ASSURE COUNCIL AND THE CITIZENS IN THE CITY THAT.

SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, THERE'S BEEN DIRECT COORDINATION WITH OUR PARTNERS IN FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM THE FBI, DEA, ATF, HSI, ICE. A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT, FRANKLY, WE'RE SEEING AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE HAPPENING IN JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE.

KIND OF LIMITED THE ROLE OF POLICE AND SHERIFFS AND JAILS IN THE RELATIONSHIPS.

AND WHAT THEY CAN DO AND WHAT THEY CAN'T DO WITH ICE. WE DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM HERE IN IOWA. POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY SHERIFF BROWN AND THE JAIL WORK WITH ICE ON THE DETAINER PROCESS. AND WHENEVER WE COORDINATE WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, THERE ARE ESTABLISHED MODELS TO DO THAT. OVER THE SUMMER, THE COUNTY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FORWARDED A COUNCIL FOR REVIEW. THE CITY'S HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN, WHICH IS A DHS, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTED FEMA, NOT ICE OR HSI MODEL FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT COORDINATION. WE WOULD FOLLOW THAT MODEL IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAME INTO TOWN. SO, YOU KNOW, WE ARE DOING THESE THINGS. WE HAVE PROTOCOLS IN PLACE. WE HAVE WAYS TO COMMUNICATE AND COORDINATE WITH OUR FEDERAL PARTNERS. WE

[01:15:01]

AND I THINK... THERE'S A NEED TO PROVIDE THEM THAT CLARITY, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU, WE HAVE THE MODELS TO COORDINATE AND COMMUNICATE.

AND I PERSONALLY AM NOT WORRIED. I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE'D BE ABLE TO COORDINATE WITH OUR FEDERAL PARTNERS AND DO THIS IN A WAY TO KEEP OUR OFFICERS AND KEEP OUR CITIZENS SAFE AND INFORMED. YEAH, I THINK IF YOU WORK WITH HIM ON HOW TO PUT A DECLARATION OUT, ON JUST PRETTY SIMPLE THINGS WE'RE ALREADY DOING, I THINK THAT'S FINE.

BUT AS YOU SAID, I... I HAD NO DOUBT THAT IT WAS ALREADY HAPPENING, RIGHT? LIKE, YOU GUYS DO A GREAT JOB. AND WHEN STEVE REACHED OUT TO ME, IT'S LIKE, OKAY, WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO IS TO HELP, SUPPORT.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. SO IF YOU GUYS COME UP WITH, HEY, THESE ARE THINGS WE'RE ALREADY DOING, AND IT JUST, WE PUT OUT A DECLARATION OF UNDERSTANDING, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO WORD IT, I THINK THAT'S JUST GOOD, SO THE CITIZENS SEE IT FROM US AS WELL. YEAH, IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF THIS STUFF'S ALREADY HAPPENING.

YEAH. THEY'RE ALREADY COORDINATING WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES. AND NOT JUST LIMITED TO ICE, BUT ALL FEDERAL. LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. WOULD THIS IN ANY WAY IMPACT OR HAMSTRING YOU GUYS ON WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO? NO, SO LONG AS WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE FEDERAL AND STATE REGIMES THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY OPERATING UNDER, AND IF THIS IS JUST A POLICY STATEMENT TO KIND OF ASSURE CITIZENS THAT WE ARE GOING TO COORDINATE WITH OUR FEDERAL PARTNERS, AND THAT'S A BENEFIT OF THE LAWS HERE IN IOWA.

WE'RE NOT INHIBITED.

FROM COOPERATING, SHARING INFORMATION. WE'RE ACTUALLY, MUNICIPALITIES ARE PREEMPTED FROM DOING THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD INHIBIT US IN ANY WAY. JUST TO MAKE A GENERAL STATEMENT, TO INFORM THE PUBLIC THROUGH RESOLUTION OF GOODWILL, COOPERATION.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE EVERY EFFORT TO KEEP, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE SAFE AND INFORMED.

HONESTLY, IT CAN JUST BE, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO IT. I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

THAT SATISFY YOU, TONY. I'M JUST HERE TO TAKE NOTES ON WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU BOTH.

WHATEVER YOU GUYS TELL THEM.

AWESOME. 9B IS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL FIBER OPTIC INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS.

IT'S JUST OUR STANDARD RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT. WE'VE BEEN CONTACTED BY TELEPORT COMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, WHICH IS AT&T. TO ENTER INTO OUR STANDARD RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT, WHICH YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, AND THEY'VE AGREED TO THE TERMS. HOW MANY OF THESE DO WE HAVE OUT THERE? YOU STOLE MY QUESTION, ROGER. I'M GOING TO ASK MARK AUGUSTINE TO COME AND SPEAK TO THESE QUESTIONS. MARK DOESN'T WANT TO. I'VE ASKED HIM. HE KNOWS. THERE'S TOO MANY. BUT WE CAN'T SAY NO, RIGHT? WE DON'T HAVE AN OPTION.

HOW DO WE COORDINATE IT BETTER, I GUESS, IS THE QUESTION.

WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN PROVIDERS WHO ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED. I KNOW.

THIS WILL BE FOR MARK. CAN WE COORDINATE THIS A LITTLE BETTER INSTEAD OF DIGGING UP MY YARD FIVE OR SIX DIFFERENT TIMES? I DON'T KNOW. I WISH WE COULD.

WE CANNOT. EVERYBODY'S GOT A DIFFERENT BUSINESS MODEL. OH, BOY. I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU.

EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO POSSIBLY DIG UP JOE'S YARD AND CUT MY SPRINKLERS. AND EVEN THAT MAYBE, YOU KNOW, JUST PUT IT OUT THERE.

DIRECTIONAL BORE UNDERNEATH MY DRIVEWAY THAT'LL COLLAPSE AT SOME POINT, AND WHOSE FAULT IS IT? WHICH ONE? NO, BUT I MEAN, IT'S BEEN DIRECTIONAL BORED UNDER FIVE TIMES.

AT SOME POINT, IT'S GONNA COLLAPSE. I'M GONNA SAY, MARK, WHICH GUY DO I CALL? TO BE HONEST WITH YOU? WE'VE BEEN COORDINATING THINGS LIKE THAT JUST ABOUT EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. I BELIEVE YOU, IT'S. IT'S CRAZY. WE. WE HAVE SEVERAL ACTIVE ENTITIES AND WE HAVE SEVERAL MORE THAT WANT TO COME IN AND PUT FIBER IN.

WELL, I LIKE, THEY'RE AT LEAST CALLING. I MEAN, HOW WAS IT? IT WAS A YEAR OR TWO AGO. REMEMBER, THE GUY WAS JUST DRILLING A HOLE OUT HERE. WE DIDN'T KNOW WHO THEY WERE. YEAH. NO PERMITS, NO, NOTHING.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY. LIKE, IN THE SHADOW OF CITY HALL, HE'S JUST DOING WHATEVER I WANT BECAUSE THE FEDS SAY I CAN, OR THE STATE SAYS I CAN'T.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE'VE GONE TO THESE LICENSE AGREEMENTS TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE GETTING PERMITS. THAT GIVES US A LITTLE BIT BETTER CHANCE TO FIND OUT WHO'S GOING UNDER ROGER'S DRIVEWAY. FOR REAL. SO.

BUT YES, WE DO COORDINATE THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS. WE DO WORK WITH THEM ON RESTORATION. GOOD ABOUT RESTORATION. NOW, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THERE AREN'T CONTINUED ISSUES. WE'VE BEEN OUT ON SEVERAL THAT ARE REPEATED ALSO. TO DATE, WE'VE HAD A GOOD RESULT, WITH THEM COMING BACK IN REPEATED TIMES TO TRY AND CORRECT ISSUES. AND THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT THEY JUST... ABSOLUTELY SAY THAT WAS PRE-EXISTING, YOU KNOW, AND

[01:20:02]

THROUGH OUR STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T ASSIGN BLAME.

AND WE CAN'T REALLY LIMIT IT. I MEAN, IF ONE COMPANY GETS ACCESS, WE CAN'T SAY, OH, THE NEXT GUY CAN'T.

BUT COULD WE SCHEDULE THIS, OR ARE YOU SCHEDULING THIS TO SAY, HEY, OUR WINDOW OF DOING THIS FOR THIS GROUP OF FOUR OR WHATEVER HAVE REQUESTED WILL BE THIS TIME. YOU GUYS ALL GET THIS TIME TO GET IT DONE.

AND THEN THE NEXT, I DON'T KNOW, OR IS IT JUST AS THEY COME IN, WE JUST, OKAY, YOUR DATE IS THIS DATE. AS I SAID BEFORE, EVERY ENTITY THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HAS THEIR OWN BUSINESS MODEL. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THEM THAT ARE REALLY AGGRESSIVE AND THEY WANT TO BUILD OUT THE ENTIRE CITY. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THEM THAT ARE BUILDING AS THEY GET THE NEED.

AND WE HAVE SOME THAT ARE JUST BEING SPECULATIVE, AND THEY'RE BUILDING AREAS, THINKING THAT THEY'LL GET SERVICES. AND THIS ALL GOES BACK TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S...

WE WANT BROADBAND COMMUNICATIONS. RIGHT. AND COMPANIES TOOK MONEY, AND NOW THEY'RE HAVING TO PUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE. AND SO WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT RIGHT NOW. AND WE HAVE, I MEAN, WHEN THESE GUYS COME IN, WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY REQUIREMENTS.

THEY'RE LICENSED, ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE'RE GETTING, ALL THE CONTACT INFORMATION, RIGHT? IS THERE ANYTHING MORE THAT WE CAN, I DON'T WANT TO RESTRICT THEM, RIGHT? I MEAN, BUT JUST MORE. I DON'T KNOW.

WE CAN'T RESTRICT THEM. NO, I KNOW. I DON'T WANT TO RESTRICT THEM, BUT JUST LIKE...

FROM THE STATE, BUT... WHAT IS THE LIMIT THAT WE CAN... ARE WE LOOKING AT TO GO THROUGH OUR EASEMENTS? I MEAN, THERE'S GOT TO BE A POINT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE FULL THROUGH OUR EASEMENTS. WE HAVE CORRIDORS THAT ARE FULL. YES.

AND WHEN WE GET CORRIDORS THAT ARE FULL, THEY TRY AND REROUTE AND REMAP TO DIFFERENT AREAS, WHICH JUST MEANS MORE FIBER IN AREAS THAT YOU MAYBE WOULDN'T EXPECT AS MUCH. TO DATE, WE'VE... OH, I WOULD SAY, DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF WARDING OFF BIGGER ISSUES.

WE ALWAYS HAVE ISSUES. OUR STAFF IS BUSY. I'M SENDING INSPECTORS OUT ON A DAILY BASIS TO MULTIPLE CALLS. AND THEY TRY AND HANDLE THEM IN THE FIELD AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. WE TRY TO INTERACT IN THE FIELD BEFORE. THE ENTITIES LEAVE, BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, SIX MONTHS AFTER THE FACT, SOMEBODY FINDS A LATERAL OR SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN BORED THROUGH, IT JUST DIDN'T SHOW UP EARLY ON, AND TRY AND GET SOMEBODY BACK OUT. BUT THEN AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE ENTITY. WELL, YEAH, YOU CAN, I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY SHOWS UP, YOU CAN TAKE PICTURES OF YOUR PROPERTY RIGHT AWAY BEFORE THE TRUCK STARTS DOING ANYTHING, BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE PICTURES UNDERGROUND. OUR RECOMMENDATION TO EVERYBODY THAT'S DOING THIS IS TO VIDEO AND PHOTO THEIR WORK ZONES. SO THAT IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING ON THAT THEY SAY, NO, HERE'S WHAT IT WAS LIKE. WE GET IT ALL THE TIME WITH, THEY CRACKED MY SIDEWALK.

WELL, YOU CAN GO BACK TO STREET VIEW AND GOOGLE EARTH AND... SO THEY DO A GOOD JOB IN THAT MEANS. THEY ALSO DO A GOOD JOB OF SOMETIMES JUST GOING IN AND WORKING WITH THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS. A COUPLE OF THE COMPANIES ARE REALLY GOOD ABOUT THAT WITHOUT US GETTING INVOLVED.

ARE THEY ADDRESSING THEIR LINES? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE LINES? PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT WE GET REDLINED AS-BUILTS. WE ALSO GET PLANS SHOWING WHERE THEY'RE GOING. SO WITH OUR NEW PERMIT SYSTEM, THAT'S ALL BEING ARCHIVED.

ANYTHING ELSE? EVERYBODY'S NOW A FIBER GURU. JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT MARK SAID, WHEN HE SAYS THEY'RE BUSY, HE'S NOT KIDDING, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY...

SOMETIMES, MISTAKENLY, THEY MAKE A CLAIM WITH THE CITY, WHICH THEN ENDS UP ON MY DESK. AND SO MARK ALL DAY LONG DEALS, WITH PEOPLE YELLING AT HIM.

THINKING THE CITY HAS DONE SOMETHING OR CAUSED A PROBLEM, OR THAT THE CITY SHOULD BE DOING THIS, OR THE CITY SHOULD BE STOPPING THIS. AND SO HE IS A LOT OF TIMES GETTING ANGRY CALLS, AND HE DOES A GREAT JOB OF DE-ESCALATING. AND MAKING

[01:25:01]

IN THE DIVISION, WE CURRENTLY HAVE SIX RECYCLING AIDS, AND THAT REQUIRES A CLASS B CDL WITH HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATING EXPERIENCE. AND THE TWO RECYCLING LABOR POSITIONS ARE FOCUSED ON REAL MANUAL LABOR, SORTING MATERIAL. AS WE ALL KNOW, BACK IN 2023, WE SWITCHED TO CURBSIDE SINGLE-STRING RECYCLING. THAT CHANGE IN THE PROCESS REALLY DECREASED THE AMOUNT OF MANUAL SORTING WE DO DOWN THERE.

WITH THAT MATERIAL, IT GETS SHIPPED TO DES MOINES FOR THE FINAL SORTING. WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, CUSTOMER TRAFFIC AND TONNAGE RECEIVED AT THE RECYCLING CENTER HAS INCREASED BY ABOUT 8% PER YEAR. SO BUSIER AND BUSIER EVERY YEAR. LAST YEAR, WE SAW APPROXIMATELY 70,000 VEHICLES THROUGH THERE. SO, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, EVERYTHING THAT COMES IN HAS TO GO BACK OUT. WELL, WE TRUCK THAT MATERIAL BACK OUT.

SO THAT WORKLOAD REQUIRES MORE EQUIPMENT, OPERATING EXPERIENCE, MORE CLASS B CDL DRIVERS. THIS CHANGE WILL NOT CAUSE ANY LOSS OF A JOB TO ANY EMPLOYEE. WE RECENTLY HAD A RECYCLING LABORER MOVE INTO A VACANT RECYCLING AID POSITION. AND WE NOW HAVE AN ACTIVE CIVIL SERVICE LIST WE'D HIRE OFF OF THAT LIST. THE NET SALARY IMPACT IS ABOUT $12,000 PER YEAR, AND THAT REFLECTS A HIGHER SKILL LEVEL REQUIRED.

AND I ASSUME YOU JUST BUDGETED FOR THIS? YEP. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DONNIE? IF YOU HAVEN'T GONE DOWN TO TAKE THE TOUR, IT'S REALLY COOL. AND YOU SHOULD GO DOWN. STEVE'S THERE ALL THE TIME. THERE YOU GO.

HE'S LOOKING FOR PART-TIME WORK. THERE YOU GO. AND WE GOT TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THANKS, TONY. RESOLUTION E-2650. THIS IS A RESOLUTION DEVELOPMENT AMENDING EMPLOYEE LEAVE POLICY. I BELIEVE THIS CAME FROM COUNCILMAN DESALVO.

LED THIS EFFORT? YEAH, WE HAVE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS AS OF LATE. AND IT KIND OF BECAME APPARENT THAT WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ANY SPECIFIC SORT OF LEAVE. FOR ANYONE, MOTHERS OR FATHERS, IN REGARDS TO THIS, WHICH IS JUST MIND-BOGGLING TO ME. EFFECTIVELY, WE WOULD LET SOMEONE TAKE OFF BEREAVEMENT TIME FOR THEIR, YOU KNOW, SECOND, THIRD, UNCLE'S, GRANDFATHER'S, COUSIN, SOME RELATION OF SOME SORT. YOU GET A FEW DAYS OFF, BUT YOU LITERALLY COULD HAVE HAD A CHILD YESTERDAY. AND IF YOU DIDN'T PLAN IT RIGHT, YOU BETTER BE AT WORK THE NEXT DAY, YOU KNOW. SO I JUST THINK WE NEED TO REVISIT SOME OF THIS AND FROM THE SOUNDS OF IT... I BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN SOME EFFORTS AT THE STATE AND OTHER PLACES WHERE THIS HAS COME UP. BUT OUR KIND OF DIRECTION HERE IS TO HAVE LEGAL WORK WITH HR AND TRY AND FORM. THE PROBLEM THAT ARISES IS MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS MUCH DIFFERENT THAN STEVE'S OR JILL'S, OR DOUG'S OR ROGER'S.

WE ALL THINK SOMETHING'S DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW. WHAT I KIND OF HAD BEEN HOPING FOR WITH THIS IS THAT I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE OTHER MAJOR COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE STATE OF IOWA. BECAUSE IT'S SPECIFIC TO OUR STATE. BUT I ALSO WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE OUR HIGH PROPENSITY OF OUR, YES, EMPLOYEES HAVE THE OPTION SOMETIME TO WORK HERE. OR PERHAPS WORK IN OMAHA, WORK IN PAPILLION, WORK IN RALSTON.

I'D LIKE US TO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE PRESENTED TO US, AT LEAST OF ALL OF THE COMMUNITIES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER. WITH WHICH WE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF FIGHT FOR SOME OF THE SAME EMPLOYEES.

I KNOW FOLKS THAT LIVE HERE, THAT WORK OVER THERE, THAT WERE FROM THIS COMMUNITY, BUT THEY HAD A BETTER PACKAGE AND BETTER BENEFITS OVER THERE. YOU KNOW, WHAT I FEEL LIKE, AND THIS IS JUST JOE'S PERSONAL OPINION, WE HAVE A VERY GOOD IPERS PROGRAM IN THE STATE OF IOWA, BUT... NEBRASKA IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. I FEEL LIKE IT'S MUCH MORE ADVANTAGEOUS HERE. WHAT WOULD CAUSE THEM, SHORT OF A DOLLAR AN HOUR HERE AND THERE, TO MAYBE CHOOSE TO GO ACROSS THE RIVER? SO THAT'S, I KNOW THAT. THAT IS, OMAHA IS NOT THE SAME CITY AS COUNCIL BLUFFS, BUT I WANT THE KNOWLEDGE BASE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS BASED OFF OF THAT. THAT'S WHY I SUGGESTED US REACHING OUT FOR THAT INFORMATION. I APPRECIATE

[01:30:04]

SO MORE TO COME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? OKAY. F2651. THIS IS A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR TALENT CONSTRUCTION FOR THEIR SOUTH POINT APARTMENTS THERE, AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNCIL POINT ROAD AND VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY. WE NEED TO SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION TO HELP THEM WITH THEIR WORKFORCE HOUSING TAX CREDITS.

SO, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. H.N.

IS A RESOLUTION FOR ME TO SIGN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WAIVER FORM. I'LL SPEAK AND YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE COMING THAT COULD COME INTO THE AREA. AND WE ARE BEING ASKED TO SIGN A OR, SORRY, THIS IS MY CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM. SO THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE NORMALLY DO ON A YEARLY BASIS. I SIGNED IT AS A COUNCIL PERSON IN NOVEMBER.

EVERY WE ALL HAD A SIGN OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I JUST NEED TO RESIGN MY ONE AS A MAYOR.

AND I HAVE NO CONFLICTS. NO, I'M SORRY, MAYOR, THIS IS 2653. SO THIS IS, TONY CAN SPEAK TO THIS ONE. IT'S ABOUT THE STEM HIGH SCHOOL.

OH, GOT YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS RESOLUTION IS SIMPLY, SO, IN THE LEGAL WORLD, ATTORNEYS HAVE A DUTY TO THEIR CLIENTS. WHEN WE UTILIZE OUTSIDE COUNSEL, WE TYPICALLY UTILIZE A FIRM, ALLERS COONEY, OUT OF DES MOINES, THAT SPECIALIZES IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. THEY ALSO SPECIALIZE IN REPRESENTING SCHOOL DISTRICTS. AND IN THIS CASE, WHEN AN ATTORNEY OPERATES AS A SCRIVENER, MEANING THEY ARE SIMPLY DRAFTING AN AGREEMENT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN REACHED BETWEEN TWO PARTIES, THEY CAN'T DO IT UNLESS THEY HAVE THE AGREEMENT OF BOTH PARTIES TO ACT IN THAT CAPACITY. SO IT WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR SOMEONE TO REPRESENT TWO PARTIES WHO ARE NEGOTIATING AGAINST EACH OTHER. BECAUSE HOW DO YOU PROPERLY ADVOCATE FOR ONE IF YOU ARE NECESSARILY ADVOCATING AGAINST THE OTHER? AND IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE NOT IN THAT ROLE. THEY ARE JUST DRAFTING AN AGREEMENT, AND THE TYPE OF AGREEMENT THEY'LL BE DRAFTING IS SOMETHING THAT IS OUTSIDE OF OUR WHEELHOUSE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY ROUTINELY DO. AND SO I'M RECOMMENDING AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN.

IT'S REALLY JUST ALLOWING THEM TO WORK ON OUR BEHALF, ON THINGS THAT WE DIRECT TO THEM. AND SO THIS IS JUST SPECIFIC TO ONE CASE, AND THAT'S ALL IT IS. SO WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINATED, BOTH OF THE LEADERS THAT STARTED THIS PROCESS ARE NO LONGER IN THEIR ROLES. YEAH.

CORRECT? WE'RE GONNA, THE UNDERLYING AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE GONNA BE DIRECTING, YET WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS. THAT'S HOW I'LL SAY THAT. SO JUST IN THE INTEREST OF GETTING THIS DONE AND OUT OF THE WAY, SHOULD WE MOVE FORWARD? THIS ISN'T COMMITTING US TO ANYTHING. IT'S JUST SAYING, IF WE GO FORWARD, THEY CAN DO THIS ON OUR BEHALF. BECAUSE THAT'S WHY I WAS RESIGNED. CORRECT.

SHE'S STILL HERE, THOUGH, UNTIL THE MIDDLE OF SUMMER. SO SHE'S STILL IN PLACE UNTIL THE END OF JUNE. I'M GUESSING MATT WAS INVOLVED.

YEAH. SO BOTH THOSE PEOPLE ARE GONE. CORRECT. AND IS THERE A NEED OR A... WE'LL DISCUSS IT.

OKAY. THAT'S ONE OF OUR SESSIONS COMING UP.

YEAH. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE? THANKS, TONY. ALL RIGHT. APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS AND CANCELLATIONS.

WE ARE SEPARATING OUT A, FIRST DOLLAR 19. ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE? ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL COUNCIL ITEMS ON 11 THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT GETTING ON THE NEXT AGENDA? THIS IS A SECTION THAT WE'VE KIND OF KICKED AROUND. WHETHER OR NOT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH LEGAL IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN, WITH ALL THE OPEN MEETING LAWS AND THINGS. WHERE WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING SOMETHING UP,

[01:35:01]

THIS SECTION IN THE MEETING WILL ALLOW US TO DO THAT AND THEN POSSIBLY GET LOOSE DIRECTION FROM, YOU KNOW, WHAT DID WE SAY? WAS IT THREE FOLKS, TWO OR THREE FOLKS? SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE ONE PERSON DIRECTING LEGAL.

ON EFFECTIVELY A GOOSE CHASE.

THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD DO. THIS IS BASICALLY STREAMLINING SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSS.

CORRECT. WE CAN DO IT HERE IN THE STUDY SESSION, STREAMLINE IT TO GET IT ON THE AGENDA, OR DIRECT OUR LEGAL TO WORK BETTER WITH ALL OF US. MIMI, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO... PUT OUT HERE AS WELL, YEAH, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT. OF COURSE, WE'RE ALWAYS AVAILABLE FOR MINOR REQUESTS, THINGS THAT TAKE LESS THAN A FEW DAYS TO ANSWER. THIS IS MORE. IF YOU WANT TO DIRECT US TO UNDERTAKE MAJOR PROJECTS JUST THAT WAY, WE CAN HAVE A SPOT. BECAUSE I THINK THE DISCUSSION BEFORE WAS OKAY. WE HAVE TO POST THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT, MAYBE TALKING ABOUT DIRECTING. SO THIS IS THE PLACEHOLDER CORRECT, CORRECT, YEAH, AND WE CAN'T CALL AND TALK OUTSIDE. YEAH, DON'T, THIS IS PERFECT. YEAH, SO, YEAH. AND THEN IT KEEPS IT SO, BECAUSE EVEN IF WE SEND AN EMAIL BACK TO JODY AND SHE SENDS IT OUT TO EVERYONE ELSE. JUST THIS WAY. WE CAN KIND OF HAVE SOME CONVERSATION AROUND DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO BRING UP IN EACH MEETING. THAT WOULD NOT CAUSE US ANY PROBLEM. I'M GOING TO SEND A PUBLIC FORUM. SO, YEAH, ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT ONE, OKAY. MOTION TO GO TO EXECUTIVE. NOPE. ALL RIGHT. SO BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT TOPIC, WHICH IS THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATION, TRAINING FROM THE LABOR CENTER STAFF, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE FOR THE EVENING, OR ANY OF OUR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THAT CAME FOR ANY OTHER TOPIC, YOU CAN FEEL FREE TO, TO HEAD OUT. YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAY FOR THIS NEXT SECTION. IT'S GOING TO BE ABOUT AN HOUR LONG. AND IT IS CONTRACT NEGOTIATION, TRAINING. SO I'LL GIVE EVERYBODY JUST A MINUTE TO CLEAR FOR THOSE THAT WANT TO HEAD OUT. THIS IS HOW WE AVOID THE ISSUES, LIKE WITH PETE, WHERE YOU GUYS WEREN'T AWARE. NO, WE ARE STILL ON THE RECORD. YEP, THE WHOLE THING'S ON THE RECORD. SO WE HAVE PAUL IVERSON HERE. YEP, WE HAVE PAUL IVERSON HERE TONIGHT FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LABOR CENTER. AGAIN, IN KIND OF ME TAKING THE NEW STEP OF MAYOR, I WANT TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE WITH EVERYBODY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PREVIOUSLY HAPPENED WHEN IT CAME TO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WAS WE WOULD GIVE OUR LEAD NEGOTIATOR SOME SET TERMS. THEY WOULD GO OUT. DO THE NEGOTIATION AND THEN WE WOULD JUST GET A FINAL CONTRACT. THERE'S A FEW OTHER STEPS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THAT, THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS. AND SO PAUL IS HERE TO KIND OF JUST DO A HIGH LEVEL. HOW DO NEGOTIATIONS WORK? WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? SOME TOPICS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR, SOME TERMS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR. SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO PAUL. HI, MY NAME IS PAUL IVERSON. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA LABOR CENTER. I'M FROM MOUNT VERNON. I'M NOT LUCKY ENOUGH TO BE A COUNCIL BLUFFS RESIDENT.

AND I REALIZE THAT YOU'VE GOT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND A COUNCIL MEETING AT 7, SO AN HOUR MAY... I'LL MOVE THIS ALONG AS QUICKLY AS I CAN. A LITTLE BACKGROUND, THE LABOR CENTER WAS CREATED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN 1951.

WE'RE PART OF THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA, THE ONLY PART OF THE REGION SYSTEM THAT'S DEDICATED TO RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FOR WORKERS AND WORKER

[7.C. Other Items Requiring Public Hearing]

[01:40:01]

BUT THE CONTEXT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. AS LONG AS THERE HAVE BEEN PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND PUBLIC EMPLOYERS, THERE'S DISPUTES BETWEEN EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS. AND THEN HOW YOU RESOLVE THOSE DISPUTES ARE IMPORTANT. SO, BEFORE 1974, THE FIRST PUBLIC SECTOR UNION ORGANIZED IN THE STATE WAS IN 1938. SO THERE WERE UNIONS REPRESENTING EMPLOYEES, AND THEY WERE NEGOTIATING CONTRACTS BEFORE THE PERA. WHAT THE PERA, WHAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THE PERA, WAS THAT? THERE WASN'T A WAY, IF THE PARTIES WEREN'T FINALLY REACHING AGREEMENT, TO REACH AN AGREEMENT EXCEPT THAT THE UNION WOULD STRIKE.

AND SO THERE WERE SOME VERY PUBLIC STRIKES. THE KEOKUK TEACHER STRIKE BEING ONE IN WHICH THE SUPERINTENDENT WENT TO COURT AND GOT AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE STRIKE, AND THE TEACHERS WERE ORDERED TO GO BACK TO WORK. THEY REFUSED TO DO SO, AND SO TEACHERS WERE ROUNDED UP AND JAILED. AND THAT BECAME, YOU KNOW... CAUSED A LOT OF ISSUES. THE SCHOOL BOARD, WHEN THE SUPERINTENDENT REFUSED TO DISSOLVE THE INJUNCTION, THE SCHOOL BOARD WENT INTO THE JAIL TO NEGOTIATE THE AGREEMENT, AND THAT CAUSED A LOT OF... A LOT OF PUBLICITY SAYING THAT IF WE HAD A PUBLIC SECTOR BARGAINING LAW, THIS NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

AND SO THAT WAS A MAJOR IMPETUS FOR THIS BARGAINING LAW. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT IS THE LAW THAT COVERS PRIVATE SECTOR BARGAINING, PASSED IN 1935, SO IOWA HAD THAT AS A MODEL. AND SO THEY GAVE THE SAME RIGHTS TO EMPLOYEES AS... THERE ARE, UNDER PRIVATE SECTOR LAW, THE RIGHT TO ORGANIZE, FORM, JOIN, OR ASSIST UNIONS, THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE COLLECTIVELY THROUGH A REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR CHOOSING, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. THE EMPLOYEES, YOUR EMPLOYEES, HAVE THE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE COLLECTIVELY THROUGH A REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR CHOOSING, AND ALSO TO PARTICIPATE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES. IT'S LAWYER TALK. ACTING IN CONCERT, WHATEVER TWO OR MORE ARE ACTING TOGETHER, THEY'RE INVOLVED IN CONSERVATIVE ACTIVITIES.

YOU SEE AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF A LARGE RALLY. THOSE SORTS OF THINGS ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE STATUTE, AND NONE OF THAT HAS CHANGED. SO ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKE TO POINT OUT AT THE BEGINNING IS, WHO'S THE BOSS? AND UNDER THE STATUTE, A PUBLIC EMPLOYER IS THE STATE OF IOWA, IT'S BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, SUBDIVISIONS, CITY BEING ONE. AND UNDER IOWA LAW, THOSE SUBDIVISIONS ARE RUN BY GOVERNING BOARDS.

IN THIS CASE, CITY COUNCIL, AND PARTICULARLY IN COUNCIL BLUFFS, A MAYOR, COUNCIL GOVERNING. SO IT IS THE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ARE THE BOSS. SO IT'S NOT THE CITY MANAGER. IT'S NOT ANY STAFF.

THE BOSS. IT'S YOU GUYS. SO IN 2017, THERE WERE MAJOR CHANGES TO THE STATUTE. TWO CLASSES OF EMPLOYEES WERE CREATED, PUBLIC SAFETY AND NON-PUBLIC SAFETY. SO, TO PUT IT, IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENTS THAT

[01:45:02]

SO IF BARGAINING, IF A BARGAINING UNIT IS LESS THAN 30 PERCENT PUBLIC SAFETY, THEN THERE WERE MAJOR CHANGES IN THAT. THERE'S ONLY ONE MANDATORY SUBJECT OF BARGAINING, WHICH IS BASE WAGES, WAGES PAID TO THE STARTING WAGES. BUT THERE ARE A FEW ITEMS THAT WERE PROHIBITED, BUT MOST ITEMS ARE WHAT ARE CALLED PERMISSIVE.

THE PUBLIC EMPLOYER CAN CHOOSE TO BARGAIN, BUT THEY CAN ALSO CHOOSE NOT TO. IF BOTH PARTIES AGREE TO BARGAIN OVER THE ISSUE AND THEY REACH AGREEMENT, IT GOES INTO A CONTRACT AND IT'S ENFORCEABLE FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT. SO WHAT CHANGED AND WHAT DIDN'T CHANGE WITH 2017? WHAT DIDN'T CHANGE IS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES SUPPORT THEIR UNIONS. WHAT DID CHANGE IS THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR AN ELECTION. EACH CONTRACT CYCLE. BUT IN 2005, AS IN EVERY YEAR SINCE 2017, 98% OF THE PEOPLE VOTING VOTED YES FOR THEIR UNION. AND THAT WAS OVER 77% OF ALL ELIGIBLE VOTERS VOTED YES. AND SINCE 2017, THAT'S BEEN THE CASE. 98.3% OF THOSE VOTING HAVE VOTED YES.

WHAT ELSE DIDN'T CHANGE? THERE'S DISPUTES BETWEEN PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND PUBLIC EMPLOYERS.

THERE ALWAYS ARE. WHAT DID CHANGE IS THE PUBLIC EMPLOYER CAN DECIDE NOT TO NEGOTIATE WITH EMPLOYEES OVER MANY OF THOSE ISSUES. IF THEY DO, THEN THERE'S NO NEUTRAL THIRD PARTY TO RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES, AND THEY HAVE TO BE RESOLVED.

WE'RE BACK IN THE SITUATION WHERE CONCERTED ACTIVITY IS WHAT HAS TO BE USED TO RESOLVE THE MATTER.

UNDER THE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A DUTY TO BARGAIN IN GOOD FAITH, AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS IS, OKAY, OVER WHAT? SO THE LEGISLATURE KNEW THAT THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT HAD, EXCUSE ME, I WENT THE WRONG WAY, HAD WAGES, HOURS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.

THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GO THAT FAR, SO THERE WERE 18 SPECIFIC. SUBJECTS OVER WHICH THE EMPLOYER WAS REQUIRED TO BARGAIN. AFTER 2017, IN PUBLIC SAFETY UNITS, IT'S THE SAME THING. ONE OF THEM, WITH CHECKOFF, WAS PROHIBITED, BUT THE OTHER 17 ARE STILL MANDATORY SUBJECTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY UNITS, SO YOU BARGAIN OVER THOSE ISSUES WITH POLICE AND FIRE. THE NON-PUBLIC SAFETY MANDATORY TOPICS IS JUST THE STARTING WAGE FOR EACH CLASSIFICATION.

SO THEY DID MAKE SOME ITEMS PROHIBITED, SUCH AS DUES CHECKOFF, PAYROLL DEDUCTION FOR PAC CONTRIBUTIONS.

INSURANCE IS A MAJOR ONE.

RETIREMENT SYSTEMS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PROHIBITED BECAUSE IPERS EXISTED. BUT THEY MADE INSURANCE PROHIBITED, AND THERE WAS SOME TALK AT THE TIME OF DOING AN IPERS-LIKE STATEWIDE HEALTH INSURANCE FUND, BUT THAT NEVER CAME TO FRUITION. SO EVERYTHING ELSE IS PERMISSIVE. OTHER, IT'S PHRASED, OTHER ITEMS MUTUALLY AGREED UPON. SO YOU CAN BARGAIN OVER ANYTHING YOU WANT THAT ISN'T PROHIBITED. SO JUST TO LOOK AT THAT LIST THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1974, SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF.

BUT STILL, WAGES BEYOND STARTING WAGES, HOURS, VACATIONS, HOLIDAYS, LEAVES OF ABSENCE, THERE ARE MANY AREAS THAT YOU ARE PERMITTED.

TO BARGAIN OVER. AND SOME PEOPLE HAD THE IMPRESSION THAT ALL YOU CAN BARGAIN OVER NOW IS STARTING WAGES, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO DECIDE HOW YOU WANT TO INTERACT WITH YOUR OWN EMPLOYEES. AND YOU CAN DECIDE TO BARGAIN OVER ALL OF THESE ISSUES AND MAY FIND IT HELPFUL TO DO SO.

SO WHAT DIDN'T CHANGE IS YOU'RE

[01:50:02]

WHAT DIDN'T CHANGE IS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN CONCERTED ACTIVITIES. IF THE EMPLOYER REFUSES TO BARGAIN, THAT JUST MEANS THAT THERE MIGHT BE MORE ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE RESOLVED THROUGH CONCERTED ACTIVITIES.

WHAT DIDN'T CHANGE... IT'S THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN WITH THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

SO THAT DIDN'T CHANGE. WHAT DID CHANGE IS YOU MIGHT GET MORE OF THAT IF YOU DON'T BARGAIN OVER THESE ISSUES. WHAT DIDN'T CHANGE, IT'S PROHIBITED PRACTICE UNDER THE ACT FOR A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES OR THE UNION TO NEGOTIATE OR ATTEMPT TO NEGOTIATE DIRECTLY WITH A MEMBER OF A GOVERNING BOARD, YOU GUYS, WHERE YOU HAVE APPOINTED A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE. SO IF YOU HAVE A BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE, THEY CAN'T COME TO YOU AND BYPASS YOUR BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE. BUT WHAT DID CHANGE IS IF YOU REFUSE TO BARGAIN OVER A SUBJECT, YOU DON'T HAVE A BARGAINING, REP. AND SO THERE'S FEWER SUBJECTS TO IT. SO IF YOU SAY WE'RE ONLY GOING TO... BARGAIN OVER STARTING WAGES, THEN THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT YOU CAN SAY, GO TALK TO OUR BARGAINING REP. THE OTHER THINGS, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME TALK TO YOU ABOUT.

PAUL, I'M GOING TO PAUSE YOU RIGHT THERE.

BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE REACHED OUT TO COUNCIL MEMBERS. I KNOW WHEN I WAS, THEY DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO REACH OUT WHEN WE'RE NOT, WHEN THE CONTRACT IS NOT OPEN AND INFORMATION. DEFINITELY.

DEFINITELY. IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THIS TO TALK TO THE TO TO SHARE INFORMATION WITH THE COUNCIL. WHAT THIS PREVENTS IS BARGAINING. YOU KNOW, IF THEY SAY, HEY, IF IF YOU'LL GIVE US THREE AND A HALF PERCENT, THEN WE'D TAKE THAT.

CAN'T, CAN'T DO THAT SORT OF THING. SO RECENTLY, I HAD A GROUP APPROACH ME TO HAVE A CONVERSATION. AND THEN I BROUGHT IT TO LEGAL.

BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT FELT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I WAS. I DIDN'T WANT TO GET ANYONE IN TROUBLE, BUT THEN THE FOLLOWING WAS IT.

MONDAY, WE APPOINTED BRENDA AS OUR REPRESENTATIVE, SO I HAVE NOT REACHED BACK OUT TO THOSE FOLKS BECAUSE AT THAT POINT I FEEL LIKE NOW WE HAVE SOMEONE. SO I COULD POSSIBLY GET SOME INFORMATION. AGAIN, I JUST FIGURED AT THIS POINT TO KEEP EVERYTHING ABOVE BOARD. BECAUSE I'M NOT TRYING TO GET ME IN TROUBLE OR THEM IN TROUBLE OR ANYTHING. I'VE ALWAYS BEEN LIKE, WE SHOULDN'T TALK BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO GET OURSELVES IN TROUBLE. EVERY, ASK ME, THEY'RE ALL ON DIFFERENT TIMELINES, RIGHT? LIKE, SOME ARE THREE, SOME ARE TWO. AND SO. SO YOU CAN TALK DURING THE CONTRACT? SO LAST MEETING, WE APPOINTED BRENDA AS THE HEAD OF NEGOTIATIONS. SO AS OF THAT EVENING, WE CANNOT TALK TO THAT ENTITY UNTIL CONTRACTS ARE DONE.

WELL, LIKE I SAID, THAT'S WHAT, LIKE, IT WAS. YEP. I TALKED TO LEGAL, SHE'S LIKE, WELL, JOE, WE'RE APPOINTING THAT.

LIKE, THAT'S ON THE THING. AND I WAS LIKE, ALL RIGHT, WELL, THEN I'M JUST GOING TO NOT TOUCH ANYTHING BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO LOOK LIKE I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE TO OUR. STAFF, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO GET US IN A SLING. YEP.

RIGHT. AND WITH PUBLIC SAFETY UNITS, IT'S STILL THE SAME SUBJECTS THERE WAS BEFORE, EXCEPT FOR DUES CHECKOFF, AND SO IT'S REALLY EASY TO SAY, IF YOU'RE TALKING POLICE OR FIRE, YEAH, TALK TO OUR REPRESENTATIVE. THE ONLY ISSUE COMES UP WITH THE NON-PUBLIC SAFETY UNITS. IF YOU'RE REFUSING TO BARGAIN OVER THE PERMISSIVE TOPICS, THEN YOU HAVEN'T APPOINTED SOMEONE TO BARGAIN ON YOUR BEHALF. IT WAS. ONE OF THOSE TWO GROUPS. YEAH, AND THEN THAT'S NO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU WERE DOING BEFORE 2017. SO SOME PUBLIC EMPLOYERS, THE STATE IN PARTICULAR, DECIDED TO JUST DO THE MANDATORY TOPICS. AND THIS, AS YOU CAN SEE, WITH ARTICLES 100 PAGES LONG, THIS, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY ONE PAGE AND... AND SIGNATURE LINES. AND, YOU KNOW, SO THE QUESTION FOR YOU IS, HOW DOES THE CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS WANT

[01:55:01]

FOR THE CITY DOLLAR. IT JUST PAYS FOR ITSELF. AND SO YOU CAN HAVE THAT POINT OF VIEW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO, I'M NOT, I DON'T THINK I'M TELLING YOU ANYTHING YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW, BUT YOU HAVE A TALENTED AND DEVOTED STAFF OF EMPLOYEES THAT ARE VERY PROUD TO BE. COUNCIL BLUFFS, CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS EMPLOYEES AND HAVE THE CONCERNS OF COUNCIL BLUFFS IN MIND. AND IF YOU DECIDE THAT WE WANT TO TREAT THIS GROUP, WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT ALL THE ISSUES WE CAN AND SO WE CAN RESOLVE THINGS IN A MORE AMICABLE, AMICABLE MATTER. THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE TO DO AND YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE IT. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING? AND, PAUL, YOU'LL SHARE THIS SLIDESHOW WITH US, AND THEN AT THE END OF WEEK WE'LL HAVE IT. IF YOU CAN COPY IT TO YOUR COMPUTER, YOU MAY HAVE A COPY. THIS IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT. THANK YOU, PAUL. I DON'T THINK I COULD REFUSE TO GIVE IT TO YOU DURING A PUBLIC MEETING. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR PAUL? OKAY. ROGER? SORRY TO...

NO, YOU'RE GOOD. THANK YOU.

SORRY TO GO... CAN I TELL YOU JUST ONE EXAMPLE? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF DEALING WITH DEDICATED PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, IN MY LAWYER DAYS IN MINNESOTA, REPRESENTED THE UNION THAT REPRESENTED PARKS DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, THE CITY OF ST. PAUL. AND THEY PUT UP A... LIST OF PEOPLE THAT HAD TO COME IN ON SATURDAY, WHICH WOULD NORMALLY BE THEIR DAY OFF, TO CLEAN THE PARKS. AND PEOPLE LOOKED AT IT AND THEY WERE LIKE, WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS? AND THE UNION GOES IN AND SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PEOPLE, THIS IS SUDDEN, THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE OTHER ARRANGEMENTS THAT THEY HAVE TO MAKE. YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FILE A GRIEVANCE.

WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS? AND THEY SAID, WELL... THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION STARTS IN ST. PAUL ON SUNDAY.

AND THERE'S GOING TO BE NEWS CREWS ALL OVER THE CITY, AND THEY LOVE TO TAKE THOSE SHOTS IN THE PARKS. AND WE WANT ST.

PAUL TO LOOK GOOD. AND HE SAYS, OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES WANT THE PARKS TO LOOK GOOD.

WE SUPPORT THAT. YOU'RE JUST GOING ABOUT IT THE WRONG WAY.

LET US HAVE A MEETING. HOW MANY... VOLUNTEERS DO YOU REALLY NEED, AND WE'LL GET THEM FOR YOU.

AND THEY HAD A MEETING AND I WOULDN'T HAVE BELIEVED IT IF THEY DIDN'T SEE IT, BUT YOU HAVE A SINGLE MOM, SAY, I CAN'T GET... TAKE CARE AT THE SHORT DATE. AND SOME GUY IN HIS MID-50S SAYS, YOU KNOW WHAT, ALL MY KIDS ARE GROWN AND I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING SPECIAL GOING ON THIS WEEKEND, I'LL GO SATURDAY. YOU JUST COVER FOR ME SOMETIME. YOU KNOW, SO THEY HAD THE SAME GOALS.

AND JUST REALIZING THAT SOMETIMES, THAT YOU CAN COOPERATE WITH YOUR EMPLOYEES. AND THE RESULT THEY GOT WAS A CITY LOOKED GREAT ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. THE RESULT THAT EVERYBODY WANTED WAS ACHIEVED, BUT IT WAS ACHIEVED IN A WAY THAT DIDN'T TRAMPLE ON ANY EMPLOYEE. THANKS. THANK YOU, PAUL. THANK YOU. ROGER? NO, MOTION TO GO TO EXECUTIVE. SECOND. COLE BUTTON? AYE. AYE. JOE DISALVO? AYE. STEVE GORMAN? AYE. DOUGLAS RUE? AYE. ROGER SANDOW. ALL RIGHT.

FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE 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. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. WE ARE FIRST STARTING OFF WITH CITIZENS REQUEST TO BE HEARD. THIS IS, IF ANYBODY WISHES TO BE HEARD BY THE COUNCIL AT THIS TIME, NOT RELATED TO AN ITEM THAT'S ON THE AGENDA. SO IF YOU ARE HERE FOR A SPECIFIC ITEM,

[02:00:03]

BUT IF ANYBODY WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ANYTHING ELSE, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STEP FORWARD TO THE PODIUM. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. JUST BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY THE SECOND TIME WE'VE DONE THIS, THIS IS WHAT USED TO BE AT THE VERY END OF ALL THE MEETINGS. SO IF YOU WAITED UNTIL THE END BEFORE AND YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT, WE MOVED IT TO THE FRONT.

OKAY. SEEING NONE, MOTION FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES. WE DO HAVE ONE. MAYOR'S PARK.

PROCLAMATION TODAY. AND SO IN THE CITY OF CONSUL BLOUSE, IOWA, IN THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR PROCLAMATION, WHEREAS TURNER SYNDROME IS A NON-INHERITABLE CHROMOSOMAL DISORDER THAT AFFECTS 1 IN 02,500 LIVE FEMALE BIRTHS, AND WHEREAS INDIVIDUALS WITH TURNER SYNDROME ARE AT AN INCREASED RISK OF NONVERBAL LEARNING DISORDERS, WHICH LEAD TO CHALLENGES IN BOTH ACADEMIC SETTINGS AND IN THE WORKPLACE, AND WHEREAS EARLY DIAGNOSIS CAN AID IN THE PREVENTION AND PREVENTION OR REMEDIATION OF GROWTH, FAILURE, AND LEARNING DIFFICULTIES, AND WHEREAS, WITH THE SUPPORT OF MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND WITH A STRONG SOCIAL SUPPORT SYSTEM, WOMEN WITH TURNER SYNDROME CAN LEAD TO HAPPY AND HEALTHY LIVES.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JILL SHUDAK, MAYOR OF COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA, BY THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM FEBRUARY AS TURNER SYNDROME AWARENESS MONTH IN THE CITY AND ENCOURAGE ALL CITIZENS TO LEARN MORE ABOUT TURNER SYNDROME. SUPPORT THOSE AFFECTED BY IT AND ADVOCATE FOR AN EARLY DIAGNOSIS AND INTERVENTION. AND DO WE HAVE SOMEBODY HERE TO ACCEPT THE PROCLAMATION? IT'S THE BUTTON. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. WHEN I WAS BORN IN 19, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT NECESSARY TO KNOW.

THIS PARTICULAR CHROMOSOMAL DISORDER WAS ONLY 40 YEARS OLD, AS FAR AS KNOWLEDGE. WE STILL HAVE A LOT TO GO. IF YOUR STATE WOULD LOVE, I WOULD LOVE TO BE A PART OF ANY KIND OF RARE DISEASE. CONFIRMATION OR COMMITTEE KIND OF SITUATION, BECAUSE THIS IS KIND OF THE OPPOSITE. OF DOWN SYNDROME, INSTEAD OF ONE X, WE HAVE ONE X INSTEAD OF TWO XS, WHEN DOWN SYNDROME USUALLY HAS, YOU KNOW, DOUBLE X AND DOUBLE Y.

OR WHATEVER. SO NOT A LOT IS KNOWN BECAUSE IT'S FAR MORE RARE. ONE IN 2,500 IS BORN WITH THIS, AND ONLY 2%. MAKE IT OUT OF THE WOMB. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF MY TRYING TO RAISE A LITTLE BIT MORE AWARENESS OF THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR COMING. FIT. NEXT UP ON THE AGENDA IS OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

RESOLUTION 26-43, A RESOLUTION TO RELEASE A 20-FOOT WIDE PERMANENT AND PERPETUAL UTILITY EASEMENT OVER THE VACANT EAST-WEST ALLEY OF IN BLOCK 14. HUGES IN DELAFINE'S ADDITION, LAYING BETWEEN THE EXCUSE ME, LYING BETWEEN THE WEST LINE OF LOT 13 AND 20 OF SAID BLOCK 14 TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT RIGHT AWAY IN THE SOUTH EXPRESSWAY. AND TO RELEASE THE 12-FOOT WIDE PERMANENT AND PERPETUAL UTILITY EASEMENT OVER THE VACATED WESTERNLY NORTH-SOUTH ALLEY IN BLOCK 14, LYING BETWEEN THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 13 AND OF SAID BLOCK 14 PROJECTED

[02:05:01]

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'LL BE ABSTAINING ON THIS, AS I'VE SEEN THAT THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION. OKAY.

MADAM CLERK, DO YOU WANT TO CALL ROLL? ROGER SANDOW? AYE. COLE BUTTON? AYE. JOE DISALVO? AYE. STEVE GORMAN? AYE. DOUG RUE? ABSTAIN. MOTION APPROVES. UM, RESOLUTION 26, DASH 45, OR RESOLUTION GRANTING THE FINAL PLOT APPROVAL, APPROVING OF ONE LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS SPIN LOFTS, BEING LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A REPLOT OF PARTS OF LOTS 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 23, 24, AND 25. ALONG WITH ALL OF THE LOTS 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, AND 22. ALL IN BLOCK 14, TOGETHER WITH THE VACATED ALLEYS LYING WITHIN SAID BLOCK 14, ALONG WITH THE PARTS 16, 17, 18, AND 19, BLOCK 19, HUGHES AND DELAFINES ADDITION, TOGETHER WITH ALL THE VACATED. 22ND AVE. RIGHT-OF-WAY LANE ADJACENT TO SAID BLOCK 14 AND 19, AND BETWEEN THE SOUTH EXPRESSWAY ON THE EAST AND THE FORMER WABASH RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE WEST, LOCATED LOCATION IS UNDEVELOPED LAND LYING WEST OF THE SOUTH EXPRESSWAY, SOUTH OF SOUTH 21ST AVE. AND EAST OF SOUTH 6TH STREET. IS PROOF OF PUBLICATION ON FILE? YES, IT IS. ANY WRITTEN COMPLAINTS RECEIVED? NONE RECEIVED.

ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO ADDRESS US ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I'LL BE ABSTAINING ON THIS AS WELL. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DOUG GREW. EPSTEIN.

ROGER SANDOW. AYE. COLE BUTTON. AYE. JOE DISALVO.

AYE. STEVE GORMAN. AYE. ALL RIGHT, AND THAT PASSES.

RESOLUTION 26-48 A RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLOT APPROVAL OF TWO LOT MINOR SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS THE NORTH LINE BEING LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A REPLOT OF LOT TWO AUDITORS SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-FOURTH, NORTHWEST ONE-FOURTH AND PART OF LOT FIVE AUDITOR SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTHEAST, ONE-FOURTH, NORTHWEST. ONE-FOURTH AND ALL OF SECTION 30-75-43.

LOCATION, UNDEVELOPED LAND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH BROADWAY STREET AND IVY DRIVE. IS PROOF OF PUBLICATION ON FILE? YES, IT IS. ANY WRITTEN PROTESTS RECEIVED? NONE RECEIVED. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. HELLO. THANKS FOR GIVING ME A CHANCE TO TALK HERE. JASON JAMES, GILA DEVELOPMENT, 535, WEST BROADWAY. I'M JUST HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR. THIS IS COMBINED WITH 26492, SO CAN I JUST COVER IT ALL HERE? OKAY.

SO, FIRST OF ALL, THIS IVY DRIVE PROJECT, I WANTED TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT AND HOW I CAME ABOUT FINDING THE SITE.

AFTER DOING MY RIDGELINE PROJECT AND MY PATRICK CIRCLE PROJECT, I REALIZED THERE WAS QUITE A DEMAND FOR HOUSING OF PEOPLE 55 OR OLDER, OR AGE-RESTRICTED HOUSING. SO I WENT THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, LOOKING FOR A SITE THAT I THOUGHT WOULD FIT IT WELL. AND I CAME ACROSS THIS IVY DRIVE SITE THAT I'D HAD FOR SALE FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS. THAT WAS ZONED R3, CURRENTLY ZONED FOR THE USE THAT I'M WANTING TO USE IT FOR.

AFTER IDENTIFYING THAT SITE, I CAME TO THE CITY AND MET WITH CITY PLANNING AND MADE SURE THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF THAT TYPE OF PROJECT THERE. AND THEY AGREED IT WAS A GOOD PROJECT FOR THAT SITE. I WENT AHEAD AND WORKED THROUGH THE CITY, THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND RELAYED OUT THE BUILDINGS AND THE SITE AND MADE EVERYTHING

[02:10:01]

WE THINK IT'S GOING TO BE BETWEEN 112, NO MORE THAN 116.

IT COMES DOWN TO REALLY THE FINAL SURVEY. IT CAME IN A LITTLE, THE COUNTY SHOWED IT ONE SIZE AND IT CAME IN A LITTLE SMALLER, SO WE HAD TO MAYBE CUT THE UNITS DOWN.

WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO FIND OUT IF THE COUNTY WRONG OR THE SURVEYORS WRONG ON THAT. A LITTLE BIT WHY I CHOSE SENIOR HOUSING. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT IN THAT CORRIDOR THAT ARE AGING AND THEY KIND OF WANT TO AGE IN PLACE. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WANT TO LEAVE THE AREA. MANY OF THEM ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY $3,000 TO $4,000 A MONTH AT MAYBE A HARMONY COURT OR PRIMROSE, BUT THEY CAN AFFORD MAYBE $1,300 OR $1,500 IN A NORMAL SENIOR HOUSING WITH MAYBE NOT QUITE AS MANY AMENITIES. LIKE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO COOK MEALS OR DO THAT.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN ACTUAL DINING ROOM.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A COMMUNITY ROOM ON EACH FLOOR AND THEN A LOBBY BY THE ELEVATORS, AND WE'RE GOING TO DO SOME LIGHT PROGRAMMING.

BUT WE ARE GOING TO OFFER A MENU OF SERVICES SO THAT, SAY, SOMEONE GETS TO THE POINT WHERE THEY NEED HELP WITH MEALS. OR THEY MIGHT NEED HELP LETTING THEIR PET OUT WHILE THEY'RE OUT OF TOWN, VISITING THEIR KIDS, OR WHATEVER. WE'RE GOING TO OFFER A MENU OF SERVICES THERE. WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT THERE. IT'S GOING TO ALLOW PEOPLE THAT...

MAYBE CAN'T AFFORD THAT MORE EXPENSIVE STUFF, BUT THEY'RE NOT SO LOW INCOME THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T QUALIFY FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING BECAUSE THIS ISN'T LOW INCOME HOUSING. AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME NEIGHBORS CONCERNS. YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN IT. PROBABLY IT'S BEEN ON, YOU KNOW, THE NEWS AND DIFFERENT THINGS.

AND IT'S HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I THINK OTHER THINGS. THAT COULD HAVE BEEN THERE, A NURSING HOME, WHICH I BELIEVE WOULD HAVE AS MUCH OR MORE TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE A JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER. I MEAN, THERE'S OTHER THINGS UNDER THIS ZONING THAT COULD BE THERE, THAT COULD, TO ME BE SO MUCH.

YOU KNOW, WORSE IF YOU WERE A NEIGHBOR. I CHOSE SENIOR HOUSING. SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS YOU MIGHT HEAR IS TRAFFIC. YOU KNOW, AFTER OUR FIRST MEETING, WE WENT TO CITY PLANNING. FOUR OF THE CITY PLANNING MEMBERS, ONE OF THEM IS DOUG RUE HERE, WHO ISN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE TONIGHT, VOTED 8-0 IN FAVOR OF THIS, AND FOUR OF THEM LIVED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AT ONE TIME IN THEIR LIFE, OR ONE OF THEM LIVES THERE NOW, AND THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF IT. SO I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW... YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR A LOT OF THE SAME ARGUMENTS THEY HEARD.

AFTER THE MEETING, I REACHED OUT TO MATT COX AND SAID, HEY, IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THE BRIDGE? HE SAID, NO, THERE'S NOT. I ASKED, THERE'S ARGUMENTS ABOUT TRAFFIC COUNTS. I KNOW GREG REEDER, WHO WAS OUR CITY ENGINEER, A GREAT GUY, WORKED WITH HIM OVER THE YEARS. ONE OF HIS CONCERNS WAS, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC IN THAT OFFSET INTERSECTION. I REACHED OUT TO MATT COX, AND MATT SAID, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS THERE. IT'S NOT EVEN LABELED AS A PROBLEM INTERSECTION. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THOSE ARE ALL FAIR. THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, JASON, NOT TO INTERRUPT YOU REAL QUICK, I ASKED ABOUT ACCIDENTS ON THAT ROAD TODAY, AND MATT COX SPECIFICALLY SAID THERE WAS FOUR IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

ONLY TWO WERE RELATED TO ACTUAL TRAFFIC. ONE WAS RELATED TO A DEER AND THE OTHER ONE WAS RELATED TO RESURFACING PROJECT ON NORTH BROADWAY. SO FOUR ACCIDENTS IN FIVE YEARS, ONLY TWO TRAFFIC RELATED. SO WHEN YOU, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE CORRECT GOOD TO MAKE YOU. I'M JUST TRYING TO COUNTER SOME OF THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE PEOPLE TALKING PROBABLY AGAINST IT. AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE THOUGHT ABOUT SOME OF THIS STUFF. AND, AGAIN, I DID GO TO THE CITY. I MET WITH THE CITY ENGINEER. I MET WITH THE CITY PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING, WENT THROUGH ALL THAT PROCESS. SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE I'VE DONE MY DUE DILIGENCE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE, AS A DEVELOPER, YOU COULD DO BEFORE YOU BUY A PROPERTY.

BUT GO TO THE CITY AND SEE IF THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF IT. BUY A PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND THEN PUT THERE WHAT FITS WITHIN THAT ZONING, YOU KNOW. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF THAT. CURRENTLY, THE TAXES ON THAT ARE, I THINK, $2,600 OR $2,800 A YEAR. WHEN THE APARTMENTS, OR THIS 55-PLUS HOUSING COMPLEX IS DONE, THOSE TAXES SHOULD BE AROUND $250,000 A YEAR. THAT'S IF I'M AT A MINIMUM ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT OF $14 MILLION, WHICH IS WHAT YOU KNOW, I SAID I WOULD AGREE TO A 14 MILLION MINIMUM ASSESSMENT, MEANING I HAVE TO BUILD THAT MUCH ASSESSMENT THERE. YOU KNOW, THE OTHER THING IS, YOU'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THIS IN THE CITY OF, HEY, QUIT, STRETCHING US FURTHER. QUIT GOING OUT ON THE EDGE. WHY NOT DEVELOP THE GROUND WE ALREADY HAVE? YOU KNOW, DON'T TAKE UP PARKS AND THINGS LIKE THIS. WELL, THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE. THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN SITTING VACANT FOR 25 YEARS. IT HAS A STREET THAT EVERYONE'S BEEN PAYING ON IN FRONT OF IT THAT DOESN'T NEED IMPROVEMENT. IT HAS PROPER SEWER, PROPER WATER. IT HAS GAS AND ELECTRIC THERE. IT'S READY FOR SOME TO BE BUILT. THERE'S NOTHING BEING ASKED FOR THE CITY TO PUT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IN.

THE SITE HAS BEEN SITTING BECAUSE IT'S A CHALLENGE, BECAUSE PART OF IT IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN, WHICH I HAVE TO BRING OUT,

[02:15:01]

AND THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF GRADING THERE, A DECENT AMOUNT, WHICH IS IN OUR PLAN, AND WE'LL HAVE TO DO THAT ALL THROUGH THE ENGINEERED PLANS.

BUT... UNFORTUNATELY, FOR SOME REASON. I'VE KIND OF BEEN GETTING A LOT OF THESE SITES THAT ARE THE TOUGH ONES TO DEVELOP, YOU GUYS, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S LEFT. I MEAN, IN THE CITY. WHEN YOU GET TO A LOT OF THESE SITES, THE REASON THEY'RE NOT DEVELOPED IS BECAUSE THEY'RE STRUGGLE, THEY'RE TOUGH SITES. AND SO I THINK I'VE FOUND A PLAN THAT WILL BE GOOD FOR THIS. I THINK IT'LL SERVE A LOT OF THE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, IN THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THEIR HOMES, THEIR HOME IS MAYBE PAID FOR, THEY HAVE A FIXED INCOME, THEY CAN PAY THEIR BILLS. THEY DON'T HAVE BAD CREDIT, THEY JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO MAYBE SAVE THAT EXTRA $10,000 OR $15,000 FOR A NEW ROOF, OR THE $8,000 FOR A FURNACE, WHERE SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SELL THEIR HOUSE AND MAYBE COME LIVE IN THIS PLACE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE AHEAD. I HAVE ALREADY, I MEAN, FROM THIS BEING ON THE NEWS, I THOUGHT IT WOULD MAYBE BE A NEGATIVE. I'VE GOTTEN A TON OF CALLS FROM PEOPLE THAT HAVE INTERESTS THAT ARE OLDER, THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA, AND HONESTLY, SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME UP AGAINST IT, I FELT LIKE THEY'D BE GOOD CANDIDATES SOMEDAY TO LIVE HERE, YOU KNOW? SO FOR ME, IT'S A LITTLE DISHEARTENING.

THEY DON'T WANT IT THERE, BUT... I CAN'T HELP THAT.

BUT I JUST, IN CLOSING, WOULD LIKE TO SAY I WAS THOUGHTFUL WITH THE LOT. I LAID THE BUILDING OUT ON THE LAND, THE BEST WAY I FELT TO WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORS. I PUT THE ENTRANCE DOWN BY THE BOTTOM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE I COULD HAVE DID. I CONTACTED THE CITY BEFORE. I WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS WITH THEM. IT'S BEEN ALMOST TWO YEARS. I'M HERE TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING ON A PIECE OF LAND THAT'S ALREADY ZONED FOR IT. I'M ASKING TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY ALLOWED. I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANY EXCEPTIONS TO ANY RULES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO I GUESS I'M JUST ASKING THAT YOU'LL HOPEFULLY GIVE ME YOUR SUPPORT IN THIS.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR JASON BEFORE HE WALKS AWAY? ONE THING THAT SOMEBODY ASKED ME ABOUT WAS THE HILLSIDE IN THE BACK AND THE TREES. HOW MUCH OF THAT'S GOING TO BE REMOVED, OR HOW MUCH ARE YOU GOING TO TRY AND LEAVE? SURE.

IN THE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE THE BUILDING KIND OF, THERE WILL BE A SMALL PORTION WHERE THE GARAGES KIND OF GO AROUND AND HOLD THE BANK. WE MADE THOSE GARAGES THAT WAY, KIND OF LIKE I DID ON THE RIDGELINE TO HOLD THE BANK ALONG THE INTERSTATE THERE.

THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE A LOT OF THEM TAKEN OUT. WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE ALL OF THEM UP AROUND TOP. AND I'M NOT MAKING PROMISES BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO IMPLY, BUT MY HOPE WAS TO KIND OF CLEAN THAT UP SOMETIME AND MAYBE HAVE SOME WALKING TRAILS OR SOMETHING BACK THERE AS AN AMENITY. WE DO HAVE A DOG PARK PLANNED IN THIS DOWN FOR FRONT FOR OUR RESIDENTS. AND THE OTHER THING IS, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY THAT I'M NOT A PERSON THAT'S GOING TO BUILD THIS, AND I'M NOT PLANNING ON SELLING OR ANYTHING. I'M STAYING IN THE COMMUNITY. I'M GOING TO OWN IT. I MEAN, I HOPE TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE COMMUNITY ROOMS. IF NEIGHBORS MAYBE WANT TO HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING OR SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS. I KNOW WHEN WE'RE DONE, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY WE'RE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU, JASON. THANKS. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

ELIZABETH HUNTER WITH SNYDER AND ASSOCIATES, 231 BENNETT AVE. I'M JASON'S ENGINEER AND I JUST WANTED TO BE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. I CAN ATTEST TO THE DIFFICULTY OF DEVELOPING THE SITE, BUT I THINK THE NUMBER ON THE TREES, I THINK WE HAD TO CALC THAT UP FOR SOMETHING THAT WE WERE DOING. I THINK IT'S LESS THAN A QUARTER ACRE OF TREE CANOPY THAT WE'RE TAKING OUT UP ON THE TOP. SO ANYWAY, IF YOU NEED MORE DETAILS, I DO HAVE PLANS. I THINK IT'S ALL IN YOUR PACKET, BUT HERE TO ANSWER ANY OF THE MORE TECHNICAL THINGS IF YOU NEED IT. ANY QUESTIONS? ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO DISCUSS OR TALK ON THIS TOPIC? A NEIGHBOR OF MINE THAT... HOLD ON ONE SECOND. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? MY NAME IS JEFF SHUDAK, 120 IVY DRIVE. I HAVE A NOTE FROM ONE OF MY LAWYERS, ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS THAT WAS ILL, CAN'T GET ALONG, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF I COULD PASS ONE OUT TO ALL THREE OF YOU. MOST SMALL SEASON FILE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. AND CAN WE HAVE A VOTE ON THAT? YOU CAN JUST HAND IT TO COLE. YOU'RE GOOD.

ALL RIGHT, WE NEED A VOICE VOTE. NO, JUST MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE NEED TO VOTE, YEAH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? ABSTAIN.

ANYWAY, I'M NOT SAYING THE PROJECT'S A BAD PROJECT.

ACTUALLY, I THINK THE PROJECT'S GOOD. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR HOUSING, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE ALL RIGHT. I THINK THE ALARMING PART TO ME WAS JUST THE ONE EXIT DUMPED OUT ONTO A... DEAD END STREET. I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS. I KNOW THERE WASN'T A TRAFFIC STUDY DONE. I WENT THROUGH YOUR

[02:20:02]

ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE OTHER TRAFFIC STUDY IS GUNN AVENUE, WHICH IS LIKE A HALF CIRCLE. THERE IS NOTHING ACROSS FROM THERE.

WHAT'S ACROSS FROM THE STREET HERE IS IVY DRIVE. AND BASED ON THIS ESTIMATED SURVEY, OR WHATEVER THIS IS, THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF CARS THAT COME ON IVY DRIVE. A LOT MORE EVEN. IF YOU ADD UP IVY DRIVE AND LOCUST LODGE, 600 CARS MORE. SO, A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT MORE.

THERE'S TWO SCHOOLS DOWN OFF IVY. I MEAN, SCHOOL IS SEVERAL BLOCKS AWAY FROM THE OTHER PROJECT. I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS JUST A TRAFFIC STUDY. I KNOW, ROGER ASKED THE QUESTION. I WAS HERE FOR THIS TRAFFIC STUDY THING.

AND THE GUY SAID, THERE'S BEEN FOUR ACCIDENTS OFF IVY, NOT OFF LOCUST LODGE. HE SAID IVY DRIVE.

WELL, I HOPE SO. THERE'S ONLY 17 HOUSES ON THERE, AND IT'S A DEAD END. I'D LOVE TO KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS OFF LOCUST LODGE. HE SAID NORTH BROADWAY, BUT... HE SAID IVY DRIVE, ACTUALLY. ANYWAY.

BOTH, YEAH. I AGREE. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT, NOT DOTTING OUR T'S AND CROSSING OUR I'S AND NOT DOING THIS THE RIGHT WAY. THE PERSON THAT I KNOW THE SECOND LONGEST IN THIS ROOM IS JASON JAMES,

[8.A. Ordinances - Second Reading]

I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN JUST PASS THIS AROUND OR WHATEVER YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET. THAT'S WHERE I GOT IT FROM, BUT IT'S NOT APPLES TO APPLES. THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THIS FLOW OF TRAFFIC, WITH THE BRIDGE, WITH THE, YOU KNOW, JUST THE DEAD END ASPECT, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO DOT OUR I'S AND CROSS OUR T'S.

BEFORE IT'S THE CITY'S LIABILITY AND BEFORE IT'S THE TAXPAYER'S LIABILITY. AND I'M JUST ASKING FOR THE STUDY THAT SHOULD BE DONE ON THIS PROJECT. APPRECIATE YOU GUYS' TIME. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC? HI, I'M JENNIFER COULTER, AND I LIVE AT 1321 NORTH BROADWAY, SO THAT IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS. MY MAIN PROBLEM IS RIGHT NOW I HAVE THE HARDEST TIME JUST PULLING OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY. LUCKILY WE HAVE IT THREE WIDE, SO WE DO, YOU KNOW, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX POINT TURN. TO GET OUT OF OUR DRIVEWAY SO THAT WE CAN DRIVE OUT DIRECTLY ONTO NORTH BROADWAY. AND I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES I CAN'T TURN LEFT BECAUSE THERE'S JUST SO MUCH TRAFFIC. I HAVE TO TURN AND GO TO LOCUST LODGE AND THEN GO UP TO NORTH AVENUE AND THEN GO. IF I WANT TO GET OUT, ESPECIALLY WHEN SCHOOL'S IN SESSION, WHEN SCHOOL'S IN SESSION, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN ON NORTH BROADWAY, BUT PEOPLE ARE BLOCKING ONE OF THE LANES FOR NORTH BROADWAY. ALL THE WAY FROM PROBABLY CLOSE TO SUPER SAVER DOWN, YOU KNOW, PAST THE SCHOOL SOMETIMES. THE TRAFFIC IS JUST KIND OF A NIGHTMARE THERE. THANK YOU. THANKS. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC TONIGHT? YEP. GO AHEAD AND COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I GOT A LETTER.

CONCERNED CITIZEN, DIANE STORY AT 148 IVY, AND I'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING AFTERWARDS AS WELL.

MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE.

SHE CANNOT BE HERE. SHE'S NOT HERE. YOU CAN HAND IT TO COLE. MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE. SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

OPPOSED? ABSTAIN. CAN WE GET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? DAN STORY, I'M AT 162, CORRINE. I DON'T KNOW, YOU GUYS GOT TO REALIZE WHEN YOU'RE COMING DURING SCHOOL, BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL, IT'S THE ZOO DOWN THERE. THAT GOES FROM ONE, TWO, DOWN TO ONE RIGHT THERE AT IVY DRIVE. THEY TURN AROUND AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PICKING UP THEIR KIDS TURN AROUND AND IVY DRIVE, DO A TURN AND GO OUT.

JUST TO GO BACK THE OTHER WAY. OR THEY'LL GO UP LOCUST LODGE. SO YOU'RE NOT. THE TRAFFIC STUDY NEEDS TO BE DONE TO SEE WHAT KIND OF TRAFFIC.

AND CONSIDERING THE OTHER

[02:25:01]

LIKE, HE'S SAYING, I AM NOT AGAINST THE OLD FOLKS, YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK YOU'RE NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TRAFFIC AT ALL. IT'S GOING TO BE A NIGHTMARE. I CAN'T EVEN GET OUT OF MY AREA NOW. I HAVE TO GO THROUGH MERCY HOSPITAL TO TAKE A, I CAN'T TAKE A RIGHT OR LEFT TURN TO GO TOWARDS MY MOM'S ON IVY DRIVE DURING SCHOOL. I HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO MERCY HOSPITAL, COME AROUND BY THE... YMCA. AND THEN TURN IN JUST TO GET OUT. AND THEN IT'S DOWN LIKE 5 O'CLOCK, UNTIL 5 O'CLOCK. THEN WHEN WORK GETS OUT, IT'S EVEN WORSE.

THAT'S A COMBINATION OF THE TWO. GO TO SUPER SAVER AND TRY TO GO IN THERE AND SHOP. THAT'S WHERE I SHOP EVERY DAY. I CAN'T GET IN THERE AND PARK. THERE'S NO PARKING. YOU GOT A CURRENT COMING OUT OF THERE AT THE SAME TIME. KIDS WALKING THROUGH THERE. IT'S GOING TO BE A NIGHTMARE. YOU GUYS AREN'T CONSIDERING THE TRAFFIC AT ALL. AND HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT TAXES. WHEN DOES THE TAXES KICK IN ON THIS? IS IT RIGHT AWAY, OR IS IT 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD? IS HE GETTING A TIP ON THIS? I'D KIND OF LIKE TO KNOW THAT. IS IT GOING TO BE 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WHEN HE STARTS PAYING TAXES AND MAKING A BIG DEAL ABOUT THESE TAXES? IS HE GETTING A DEAL ON THAT? SO THAT'S MY CONCERN. THANK YOU.

DOES ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC TONIGHT? WENDY STORY, THAT IS MY SON. I'VE LIVED ON THE IVY DRIVE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND MY CONCERN, 248 IVY DRIVE, MY CONCERN IS NOT SO MUCH THAT THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE HORRIBLE, WHICH IT DEFINITELY IS. MY CONCERN IS, IT'S A VERY THING THAT DOES NOT FIT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE FIVE SOMEWHERE. FOUR STORIES, BUT HE'S GOING TO BUILD IT ON SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY A STORY TALL, SO THEN IT'S GOING TO BE FIVE STORIES TALL, L-SHAPED. AND WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING, WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT RESEMBLES A PRISON, HONESTLY, AND I'M FOR IT. IF HE WOULD LOWER THE AMOUNT OF,

[8.A.1. Ordinance 2026-03: Amending the Future Land Use Designation of Approximately 4.55 acres at Beacon Street and East Park Avenue East of Billings Street (A. Skinner, Planning and Building Director)]

DOES ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC TONIGHT? I'M RICHARD OWEN, 105, LOCUST LODGE. MY WIFE AND I BUILT A HOUSE ON LOCUST LODGE A LITTLE OVER 50 YEARS AGO. WE'VE LIVED THERE AND STILL LIVE THERE ON LOCUST LODGE. THE TRAFFIC IS SO BAD ON LOCUST LODGE NOW THAT WE'VE HAD AMBULANCE STOP IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSE. BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T GET UP THE HILL BECAUSE OF CARS PARKED RIGHT SIDE BY SIDE AND THEY COULDN'T MAKE IT THROUGH. WE'VE HAD SNOW PLOWS HIT THEIR HORN AT 10 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T GET UP THE STREET WITH THE BLADE BECAUSE CARS WERE PARKED.

PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. AND IT'S A SNOW ROUTE. THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE, BUT THEY COULDN'T GET THROUGH.

BEFORE SCHOOL, ANYBODY NORTH OF LOCUST LODGE THAT LIVES ON NORTH BROADWAY, ANYWHERE NORTH, THEY'VE GONE THROUGH LOCUST LODGE. THAT'S THE SHORTCUT TO GET OVER EVERYBODY. ALL THE WAY TO CRESCENT AND BEYOND, THEY ALL TURN UP LOCUST LODGE. PEOPLE COMING OUT OF... HOOVER SCHOOL DROPPED THEIR KIDS OFF THERE AND TURNED UP LOCUST LODGE, ALONG WITH THE PEOPLE GOING TO KERN

[02:30:01]

IT'S GOING TO GET WORSE IF YOU ADD 300 MORE CARS. THANK YOU. ANYONE

[8.A.2. Ordinance 2026-04: Amending the Zoning Designation of Approximately 4.55 acres at Beacon Street and East Park Avenue east of Billings Street (A. Skinner, Planning and Building Director)]

BY A DRUNK DRIVER, BUT I MEAN, IT WASN'T A TRAFFIC ISSUE THEN, BUT I MEAN, SAFETY ON THAT ROAD IS PARAMOUNT. AND RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL, DID IT HAPPEN? ON TOP OF THAT, WE HAVE PEOPLE PARKING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY, FILLING UP FROM THE SCHOOL. I COULDN'T IMAGINE IF WE HAD PEOPLE VISITING, YOU KNOW, THE OLDER FOLKS OVER THERE, IF THEY WERE LINING UP ON OUR STREETS, BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T PARK OVER THERE ANYMORE. I MEAN, IT ALREADY MAKES IT HARD FOR ME TO GET TO AND FROM WORK, BUT I HAVE A QUICK BREAK TO RUN HOME, FEED THE DOGS,

[8.A.3. Ordinance 2026-05: Amending the Future Land Use Designation of Approximately 2.12 acres at Fishers Island between the Matanzas River and State Road 312, commonly known as Fish Island Inholding (A. Skinner, Planning and Building Director)]

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU. I'M JANELLE MILLER.

I LIVE AT 130 CORRINE AND DOUG RUE WAS OUR NEIGHBOR, SO WE KNOW EACH OTHER FROM A LONG TIME AGO. MY CONCERN IS ONLY ONE WAY TO GET IN AND OUT OF A 116, A BUILDING THAT HAS 116 APARTMENTS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEXES, WHEN THERE'S A LOT, I DON'T CARE WHICH ONE YOU WANT TO LOOK AT, PRIMROSE, GRACEVIEW, ANY OF THOSE.

THERE'S MORE THAN ONE WAY

[8.A.4. Ordinance 2026-06: Amending the Zoning Designation of Approximately 2.12 acres at Fishers Island between the Matanzas River and State Road 312, commonly known as Fish Island Inholding (A. Skinner, Planning and Building Director)]

FOR THERE ONLY TO BE ONE ENTRANCE TO THAT, I WOULD THINK 116 APARTMENTS, YOU WOULD HAVE AT LEAST PROBABLY THAT MANY CARS, MAYBE A LOT MORE. SO THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE ONE WAY TO GET IN, AND THAT, TO ME, DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT. IF YOU THINK ABOUT RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, AND I WILL TELL YOU, I WORK FOR EMANUEL COMMUNITIES, SO I KNOW ABOUT COMMUNITIES IN COUNCIL BLUFFS, I KNOW ABOUT THEM IN OMAHA. ONE ENTRANCE.

TO THE COMMUNITY IS NOT ENOUGH.

AND COMING OFF IVY DRIVE, WHICH IS ALREADY TOO NARROW, WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE UP THERE.

AND NORTH BROADWAY, NORTH BROADWAY IS TERRIBLE. WE WERE THERE WHEN THE BRIDGE BY THE

[8.A.5. Ordinance 2026-07: Amending the Zoning Designation of Approximately 54.67 acres at Fishers Island between the Matanzas River and State Road 312, commonly known as Fish Island Preserve (A. Skinner, Planning and Building Director)]

IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR A LOT OF YEARS. BUT IT HAS TO HAVE, I WOULD HAVE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE WAY TO GET IN, AND I DON'T SEE THAT YOU CAN HAVE THEM JUMPING ACROSS THE CREEK. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC TONIGHT? SEEING NONE, IS THERE... I MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? AGAIN, I'LL ABSTAIN AS I'VE ALREADY VOTED ON THIS ITEM THROUGH PLANNING. THE PARCEL IN

[02:35:01]

MOST OF WHAT HE'S ASKING TO DO CAN BE DONE BY RIGHT.

THE ONLY REASON WE'RE EVEN HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE PR OVERLAY THAT WAS PUT THERE.

FOR THIS REASON, TO BE ABLE TO LET US HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER KIND OF WHAT'S GOING TO GO IN THERE. AND I AGREE THAT IT IS A BETTER OPTION THAN SOME OF THE ALTERNATIVES. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO BECAUSE OF THE PR OVERLAY, IF I HAVE MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT, IS... WE CAN MAKE SURE WE HAVE AMPLE PARKING. AND WE MADE A CONVERSATION POINT, I THINK IT WAS LAST MEETING,

[11. ITEMS BY CITY ATTORNEY]

SO THAT IF THERE IS EXTRA THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PARK THERE, SO IT WOULD NOT BLOCK THE STREET. AND FROM THE SOUNDS OF IT, MAYBE ANOTHER POINT THAT WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING IS... IS PERHAPS PUTTING SOME SORT OF TRAFFIC CONTROL OR LIGHT IN THAT INTERSECTION FROM WHAT YOU GUYS ARE ALL SAYING.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD GET WITH MATT COX AND THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO MAYBE LOOK INTO, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE A SEPARATE SITUATION.

AND LIKE I SAID, IN THIS CASE, EVERYTHING THAT HE'S DOING IS WHAT THIS PARCEL IS SET OUT TO BE USED FOR.

YEAH. WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT THIS.

THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS I ASKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE BRIDGE. THE BRIDGE WAS BUILT IN 1987, AND WE INSPECT OUR BRIDGES EVERY TWO YEARS. THE LAST INSPECTION WAS DONE IN 2024, AND THE WAY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR EXPLAINED IT IS, THERE'S FROM ONE TO NINE, NINE BEING GOOD, ONE BEING BAD. THAT BRIDGE SCORED, EVERYTHING WAS, I THINK, SEVEN AND ABOVE, SIX, SEVEN, ONE, SIX, AND THEN SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, SEVEN, EIGHT. YEAH, SO THE BRIDGE IS IN GOOD SHAPE. WE'LL INSPECT IT AGAIN THIS SUMMER, SO EVERY TWO YEARS. WHAT ELSE DID WE TALK ABOUT? THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PARKING, I KNOW THAT'S A CONCERN, HAVING MORE CARS PARKED ON YOUR, ON IVY DRIVE, ON THE STREET, PARKED ON BOTH SIDES. I THINK THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS FOR THE UNITS IS 134. THE PLANS TODAY HAVE 154, SO HE'S EXCEEDING THAT. WE LEARNED TODAY THAT, AS HE SAID, IN R3, THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT CAN GO IN, A TON OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

THIS HAS BEEN ZONED R3. THERE WAS A PR OVERLAY PUT IN PLACE IN 2008, I THINK IS WHAT MATT SAID. AND BECAUSE HE'S NOT REZONING THE PROPERTY, HE CAN, AS JOE SAID, HE CAN DO THIS BY RIGHT. THE CITY TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, I THINK IT WAS DONE BEFORE YOU WERE SITTING THERE, AND UNDER A FORMER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. THEY TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES, BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG CHANGE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TO SEND OUT THE NOTIFICATION TO EVERYBODY WITHIN 200 FEET.

THAT WAS NOT A REQUIREMENT.

BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY ZONED.

HE'S NOT REZONING THE PROPERTY.

IF WE WERE GOING TO REZONE IT, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE GOT THE NOTIFICATION, NO MATTER WHAT.

SO I THINK AS THE CITY, I THINK THAT WAS GOOD ON US TO INFORM THE NEIGHBORS WHEN SOMETHING BIG LIKE THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN, WHETHER IT'S REZONING OR NOT.

SO I THINK THAT WAS GOOD ON US. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT, THAT DOES MAKE A LITTLE SENSE TO ME. JASON HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY. I THINK IF WE COULD LOOK AT A WAY TO GET TWO WAYS IN ON BOTH SIDES, I THINK WE COULD DISCUSS THAT.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'D BE OPPOSED TO IF THE CITY SAID, LET'S LOOK AT, BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU PUT THE ENTRANCE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILLS, CLOSER TO THE BOTTOM. IF THERE WAS ANOTHER WAY IN AND OUT, I THINK WE COULD LOOK AT THAT.

I DON'T THINK IT'S A MAKE OR BREAK, BUT YEAH, I'D LOVE FOR YOU TO COME UP. I THINK.

YOU SAID YOU'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY FOR 18 MONTHS ON THIS PROJECT, AND SO I THINK ALL THESE QUESTIONS HAVE COME UP. I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE WORKED THROUGH ALL THIS. WHAT'S THAT? THE TOP OF IT WILL BEND UP.

OH, I'M SORRY. THERE YOU GO.

YEAH, SO, LIKE I SAID, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY 18 MONTHS, AND I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF THE ONE WAY IN, ONE WAY OUT, AND MS. MILLER TALKED ABOUT A MANUAL. YOU CAN GO UP TO A MANUAL RIGHT NOW ON

[02:40:01]

BUT THESE ARE SPRINKLED. THESE ARE TOWARDS THE BOTTOM. I MEAN, MOST OF THIS TRAFFIC ISN'T GOING. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE GAL THAT WAS HERE. I THINK SHE'S HERE TODAY. THAT LIVES AT THE MOST AFFECTED IS RIGHT DOWN WHEN YOU TURN OUT OF OUR DRIVEWAY AND TAKE A RIGHT. AND

[12. ITEMS BY CITY CLERK]

THEY'RE GOING TO BE OLDER.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO PARK CLEAR UP ON THAT STREET. SO, I MEAN.

THE DEAL DOESN'T WORK, I THINK, FOR ANYBODY. IF YOU HAD TO PUT ANOTHER BRIDGE IN, AND

[13. ITEMS BY CITY MANAGER]

NO, I DIDN'T MEAN A BRIDGE. I JUST MEANT ANOTHER EXIT ONTO IVY DRIVE. I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT A BRIDGE SPECIFICALLY. I WAS TALKING ABOUT TWO WAYS IN AND OUT TO YOUR PROPERTY.

AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT—I'M NOT SAYING IT'S REQUIRED. I'M JUST ASKING IF STAFF WAS LIKE, HEY, MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE TWO ENTRANCES IN FOR WHETHER THAT'S FIRE OR SAFETY. IT'S SOMETHING YOU'D LOOK INTO, I GUESS. YEAH, IT WAS, WHEN WE LOOKED, I MEAN, THERE WASN'T REALLY, THE WAY THE BANK GOES UP THERE, I MEAN, YOU'D BE HAVING TO LET UP A HIGHER ON THE HILL. AND, I MEAN, IF YOU GRADED UP AND CAME OUT AT THE TOP UP THERE AND TOOK ALL THOSE TREES OUT, I THINK YOU'D CREATE A MESS.

AND, AGAIN, LIKE, I CAN GIVE YOU EXAMPLES OF OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE SIMILAR, AND THEY HAVE ONE WAY IN AND OUT FROM, YOU KNOW, SO.

WELL, STAFF WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU IF YOU NEEDED TO. I HOPE SO.

FROM THE BEGINNING. I MEAN.

SO, I DON'T, I'M NOT SAYING YOU NEED TO. I JUST. AND AGAIN, WE ARE SPRINKLED, AND YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ALL SPRINKLED. SO FROM A FIRE STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE EVEN, YOU KNOW, SPRINKLED OUR BALCONIES.

SO, I MEAN, AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWING GRILLS ON THE BALCONIES. THAT'S WHY WE'RE PUTTING THE OUTDOOR GRILLS IN THE DOG PARK IN FRONT. SO I GUESS THAT'S MY RESPONSE. I MEAN, AN IDEAL SITUATION PROBABLY BE OKAY, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT'S POSSIBLE ON THAT SITE. I UNDERSTAND.

THE OTHER THING I TALKED ABOUT AT STUDY SESSION IS YOU. AS A CITY, WE HAVE TO GROW.

TO FOR OUR TAX BASE, RIGHT? AND SO WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THIS IS A TRUE INFILL PROJECT.

WE ARE UTILIZING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS ALREADY IN PLACE VERSUS HAVING TO PUT EXTENDED SEWER LINE OUT TO THE OUTSKIRTS OF TOWN. SO I THINK THIS IS A LOT THAT'S BEEN

[14. ITEMS BY MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS]

YEAH, I MEAN, BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT. AND CURRENTLY, THE TIF, AS I HAD DISCUSSED WITH THE CITY EARLIER, WE WOULD, BEFORE IT WAS PAID BACK, THE CITY WOULD GET ABOUT 20 TIMES THE TAXES THEY GET NOW.

ONCE PAID BACK. THEY WOULD BE JUST UNDER A HUNDRED TIMES WHAT THEY'RE GETTING NOW. ESTIMATED PAYOFF IS AROUND EIGHT YEARS, BUT THEY'RE STILL, DURING THE EIGHT-YEAR PERIOD, GETTING TAXES IN EXCESS OF $50,000 A YEAR. RIGHT, SO THE MINIMUM ASSESSMENT KICKS IN RIGHT AWAY. YEAH, THE MINIMUM ASSESSMENT, THE CITY GETS THEIR CERTAIN PORTION, BECAUSE WE DON'T GET IT ALL.

IT'S NOT LIKE A 100% TIP LIKE SOME OF THESE. NO, IT NEVER IS. WE'RE NOT GIVING YOU A HUNDRED. RIGHT, SO OBVIOUSLY, IF I GOT IT ALL BACK AT THE BEGINNING AND STARTED GETTING IT, I COULD PAY BACK.

QUICKER, BUT IT TAKES LONGER BECAUSE I'M GIVING PART AS I GO. SO YES, YEP, ANYTHING ELSE? NO, I THINK THAT'S GOOD. MAYBE WE'LL SEE, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP IF WE NEED YOU. SO I YOU ONLY GET ONE CHANCE. SO, UM, TODAY, IT BRINGS IN A LITTLE OVER THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS IN TAXES AT THE START OF THE PROJECT, WHEN THIS IS APPROVED, IT'LL BRING IN ROUGHLY 50,000 FOR THE FIRST EIGHT YEARS, AND THEN PROBABLY CLOSER TO 250,000 AT THE END OF THE TIF, WHICH IS A HUGE POSITIVE TO THE CITY. AND SO I THINK

[02:45:01]

AND AS I SAID, I ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS AT STUDY SESSION ABOUT THE BRIDGE AND TRAFFIC AND PARKING. I ALWAYS WANT YOU TO KNOW WHY I'M VOTING, THE WAY I'M VOTING. I DON'T JUST SIT UP HERE AND TELL YOU. I'M VOTING THIS WAY BECAUSE I DON'T JUST VOTE AND NOT TELL YOU WHY, SO I HOPE I'VE EXPLAINED MYSELF AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD ON TO THAT THAT I JUST WENT THROUGH AN ELECTION CYCLE. AND THE MAIN CONCERN THAT CAME FORWARD WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT WAS INFILL. AND THIS IS AN INFILL PROJECT THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT, WHETHER WE WERE DOING IT NOW OR FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. IT'S AN INFILL LOT.

IT'S ALREADY ZONED FOR WHAT IT'S GOING IN THERE.

THERE IS NO PERFECT LOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OR FOR DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE A NEGATIVE TOWARDS THAT DEVELOPMENT. WE CAN MEDIATE MANY OF THOSE THINGS IF WE WORK TOGETHER AND GET IT DONE. THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT. IT'S GOING TO PUT DENSITY INTO OUR POPULATION, WHICH WE NEED DESPERATELY. I THINK I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT GOING FORWARD. ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO MENTION IS YOU MENTIONED COST, AND I DON'T.

MY MOM'S PASSED AWAY. MY DAD STILL LIVES IN HIS HOME.

BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT 55 AND OLDER AND RESTRICTED AGE LIMIT ON HOUSING, HAVING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THESE FOLKS WHO ARE AT 55 PLUS TO BE IN A PLACE THAT THEY CAN PAY 14 TO. UNDER $1,500, POTENTIALLY FOR A ONE BEDROOM, IS SOMETHING WE DESPERATELY NEED IN THE COMMUNITY. AND SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY I THINK, AS JAY SAID, SOME PEOPLE CAN AFFORD OTHER PLACES THAT ARE $3,000 OR $4,000. THIS WILL BE AT A SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER COST, WHICH AGAIN, I THINK WE NEED.

SO I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THAT, TOO. ANY OTHER CONVERSATION FROM THE COUNCIL? SEEING NONE, CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? ROGER SANDOW? AYE. COLE BUTTON? AYE. JOE DISALVO? STEVE GORMAN? AYE. DOUG RUE? ABSTAIN. MADAM CLERK? OKAY, WE HAVE ORDINANCE 6669, AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH TAP-ON FEES FOR THE CANESVILLE SANITARY PHASE 1 PROJECT. SECOND.

MOTION TO APPROVE. ANY DISCUSSION? I GUESS I CAN TALK, SO I GUESS I CAN. YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. MY NAME IS JEFF SHUDAK 120 IVY DRIVE.

AND I GUESS I WAS SITTING HERE THINKING ABOUT, AND I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP EARLIER, BUT IT'S STILL UNDER THE SAME THING. I REALLY THINK THAT THE CITY NEEDS A HOTLINE TO REPORT UNLICENSED WORKERS.

IT'S A PROBLEM THAT WE'RE HAVING HERE, A MAJOR PROBLEM THAT HAPPENS IN THIS TOWN, AND I GUESS I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE THAT DONE. THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF SKILLED TRADES, PLUMBERS, ELECTRICIANS, FITTERS, THAT JUST AREN'T. THAT JUST DON'T HAVE IOWA PLUMBING LICENSES, AND IT'S A SHAME.

BIG PROJECTS HERE IN TOWN, TIF PROJECTS HERE IN TOWN. AND LET ME CLARIFY SOMETHING, IT'S NOT HIS PROJECT EITHER, BY THE WAY.

BUT THAT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO BRING UP. I JUST, I FEEL AT A LOSS HERE, WHAT TO DO, AND I'M JUST ASKING. THIS IS A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, SO I GUESS IT KIND OF TIES TO IT. IT'S NOT REALLY ON KEYNESVILLE, BUT I THINK IF... IF YOU WANTED TO PUT THAT INTO PLACE, YOU COULD. I AM ALREADY WORKING ON IT, AND I BELIEVE IT WILL BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING SHE WOULD PUT IN PLACE VERSUS, I MEAN, WE PROBABLY COULD, TOO, BUT IT WOULD GO INTO HER OFFICE. HER INSPECTORS WOULD GO LOOK AT IT, RIGHT? SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING JILL WOULD DO. IT SHOULD BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA, IF NOT, THEN THE FOLLOWING ONE.

THANKS. YES. AND IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP TO THE COMMUNITY OF DEVELOPMENT BY MYSELF. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? JUST A SECOND, YEP. SEEING NONE. ROLL CALL. ROLL CALL AGAIN. OKAY, SO

[02:50:07]

STEVE GORMAN. AYE. DOUG, RUE.

AYE. DON'T YOU HAVE TO ABSTAIN? OH.

BUT I WAS TOUCHED, SO WE DON'T NEED A ROLL CALL ON THIS ONE. OH, YEAH. I THOUGHT WE HAD ROLL CALL, SO YOU HAD TO SAY. ROGER SANDOW. AYE. MOTION APPROVED.

COLE BUTTON. AYE. SORRY, COLE. DO I GET TO VOTE? HE THREW ME OFF BY STARTING TO TALK. GOTCHA. APOLOGIES. NO WORRIES. IT'S THE NEXT ONE.

SANDFORD. HE SAID ROLL CALL.

OKAY, ORDINANCE IS UNDER THIRD CONSIDERATION.

ORDINANCE 6667, AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP. AS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE IN SECTION 5.27.020, BY REZONING PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS, PART OF LOTS, 2 AND 3.

AUDITOR SUBDIVISION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 297543, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT, FROM R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO R3 LOW DENSITY MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 15.10. LOCATION IS 280 COLLEGE ROAD. I'D MAKE A MOTION TO REZONE THE WHOLE PROPERTY TO R1. SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? ALL ABSTAIN, AS I'VE SEEN THIS THROUGH PLANNING. I GUESS THE REASON, AS I SAID BEFORE, THE REASON, AND I ASKED TODAY AT STUDY SESSION, I WANT MR. AUGUSTINE TO BE ABLE TO BUILD HIS GARAGE. I ASKED CHRIS GIBBONS TODAY, CAN HE DO IT IF WE KEEP IT R1? HE SAID, YES, AND SO THAT'S...

I THINK THE ONLY R3 IS PRIMROSE, THE REST IS R1 ALL AROUND IT. I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP IT R1, AND THAT'S WHY I'M MAKING THE MOTION. I THINK THE... HOMEOWNER BUILT HIS HOUSE IN R3, WHICH ABUTS OTHER R3, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HE WAS DOING. AND I THINK BY US CHANGING IT TO R1, I THINK THE HOUSE IS ALREADY BUILT AND WAS BUILT TO THOSE STANDARDS. I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT SHOULD BE THE LEADING OF THE TWO PARCELS, RATHER THAN CHANGING ONE WHICH HE ALREADY BUILT WITH THE INTENT TO...

MAYBE POSSIBLY PUT A SECONDARY HOME ON OR DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH. THERE'S A REASON HE DIDN'T DO THAT BEFORE HE BUILT, WHICH HE COULD HAVE. THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY R1 STANDARDS. HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE WOULD LIKE, THOUGH. LIKE, WHAT I'M SAYING IS HE COULD BUILD A SECONDARY UNIT SOMEWHERE, OR HE COULD BUILD ADDITIONAL.

HE HAS SOME THINGS THAT HE CAN DO WITH R3, THAT HE CAN DO WITH R1, AND HE BUILT THIS HOUSE. AS, HOWEVER, HE DID IT, YES, TWO R1 STANDARDS, BUT WITH THE INTENT, KNOWING THAT HIS PARCEL WOULD BE R3. I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD HIS SHOP, GARAGE, WHATEVER, EITHER WAY, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT FURTHER AS OUR 20-YEAR PLAN COMES UP, THAT WE EVEN HAVE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION TO HAVE HIM TO EVEN DO THIS. I THINK IT SHOULD BE PUT INTO R3. WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

YEP. WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

YEP. WOULD YOU? YEP. YEP. YOU CAN, YEAH. GO AHEAD. COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS JAMIE AUGUSTINE. I'M AT 280 COLLEGE ROAD. SO, UM... THAT'S PARTLY TRUE, WHAT ROGER SAID ABOUT THE R1 AND BEING ABLE TO BUILD MY GARAGE THERE ON THE R1, AS FAR AS IT'S PLOTTED RIGHT NOW. HOWEVER, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN R3 AND R1. I'VE ALREADY BUILT THE HOUSE UNDER THE PRETEXT OF R3, AND NOW I CANNOT BUILD A SUBSTRUCTURE. ONE SQUARE FOOT BIGGER THAN THE MAIN FLOOR OF MY HOUSE CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW.

IF I HAD R3, I WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUILD A GREENHOUSE BIGGER, A BIGGER SHOP LIKE ALL MY NEIGHBORS HAVE DOWN THE STREET, 20,000 SQUARE FOOT. SHOPS WITH 800-FOOT HOUSES, AND I SHOULD BE AFFORDED THE SAME RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES AS EVERYBODY ELSE DOWN MY STREET. WHEN YOU GET ATOP OF COLLEGE ROAD AND YOU GO TO THE BOTTOM OF COLLEGE ROAD, THERE'S AT LEAST A HALF A DOZEN BIG OUTBUILDINGS. WE HAVE THREE ACRES TO 20-ACRE LOTS.

THE NEIGHBOR THAT'S IN OPPOSITION OF THIS, I DON'T EVEN REALLY COUNT AS A NEIGHBOR. SHE'S ON FAIRWAY. I COULD BUILD A 20-STORY BUILDING, AND SHE WOULDN'T SEE IT OR HEAR IT. SO IT'S KIND OF, I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND IT. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEIGHBOR. YOU'RE SAYING THE POSSIBILITY

[02:55:01]

BUT I ALREADY BUILT THE HOUSE.

CHANGE THEM LATER. DON'T CHANGE THEM ON ME IN THE MIDDLE OF... WE COULD JUST TELL YOU NO. I MEAN, WE'RE TRYING TO LET YOU BUILD YOUR GARAGE.

WELL, I COULD BUILD IT ON R3 RIGHT NOW. PARDON ME? I COULD BUILD IT ON THE R3 LOT IF I WANTED TO GO THROUGH ALL THE OBSTACLES AND HARDSHIP.

ON YOUR NORMAL LOT. YEAH, WITH THE HARDSHIP. AND WE DON'T WANT A VARIANCE. THAT'S THE WHOLE OTHER THING. WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU A VARIANCE.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE YOU BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S NONCONFORMING AND HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE.

THAT'S PART OF IT, TOO, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO ZONING BACK THAT I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE IDEA. SO IF WE ZONE IT TO R1, YOU CAN STILL BUILD IT. YOU JUST CAN'T BUILD IT RIGHT ON YOUR PROPERTY LINE. NO, I CAN BUILD A SMALLER GARAGE. I CAN'T BUILD A BIG GARAGE. I CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING ONE SQUARE FOOT BIGGER, R1, THAN YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE, THE MAIN FLOOR OF YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE. I UNDERSTAND.

IN SUBSTRUCTURES, LIKE A GREENHOUSE THAT I WANT TO BUILD. I UNDERSTAND. SO I'M JUST SOL. BUT THAT'S NOT, YOUR GREENHOUSE DOESN'T SAY YOU WANT TO BUILD A GREENHOUSE. I KNOW, BUT I TALKED TO ZONING ABOUT IT, AND THEY SAID THAT I COULDN'T BUILD IT. R1 AND R3 ARE DISTINGUISHEDLY DIFFERENT IN THAT REGARD. SO THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO GET THE POINT ACROSS. YOU ARE CREATING A HARDSHIP FOR ME. FOR WHAT REASON? I DON'T UNDERSTAND. THERE'S NOWHERE IN HERE THAT, SAYS GREENHOUSE. I UNDERSTAND ON THE PLOT, IT DOESN'T. I'M $10,000 IN WITH AN ENGINEER. I'LL ADD THAT ON THE PLAN WHEN I SUBMIT IT TO THE CITY TO BUILD. WHEN YOU FIRST CAME TO THE COUNCIL, IT DIDN'T MATTER IF IT WAS R1 OR R3. WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THE COUNCIL, IT DIDN'T MATTER. THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. THAT'S WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL THE VERY FIRST TIME THAT IT WAS BROUGHT IN FRONT OF US. YOU WERE GOING TO MAKE ONE LOT OUT OF TWO. RIGHT. AND IT DIDN'T MATTER IF IT WAS R1 OR R3. I DIDN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE THEN. I DIDN'T KNOW, I WAS LIMITED ON THE SIZE OF BUILDING I COULD BUILD.

WELL, THAT... I BUILT THE HOUSE ALREADY. I GOT A MILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS THERE. IS YOUR HOUSE DONE? YES. I LIVE THERE.

THEN IT WOULDN'T MATTER IF WE WENT WITH AN R1 TO AN R... I MEAN, FROM AN R3 TO AN R1. IF IT GOES R1, THEN HIS SHOP OR SHED WOULD HAVE TO BE... I'M HAMSTRINGED BEHIND ME TO BUILD A SMALLER GARAGE. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD A BIG GARAGE THERE, AS BIG AS I WANT, LIKE MY NEIGHBORS. I MEAN, HAS ANYBODY DROVE DOWN COLLEGE ROAD TO SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE? I KNOW ALL ABOUT COLLEGE ROAD. OKAY. I MEAN...

WELL, THERE'S A MOUNTAIN THAT'S ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW, A THOUSAND FOOT TALL, WHERE MY NEIGHBOR'S ON THE OTHER SIDE. THAT'S IN OPPOSITION OF IT. I DON'T EVEN GET IT.

YOU COULDN'T EVEN SEE OR HEAR NOTHING. I COULD HAVE, I MEAN, A PARTY OVER THERE. YOU WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW IT. A HUNDRED PEOPLE OVER THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHY I SHOULD BE NOT AFFORDED THE SAME RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES AS EVERYBODY ELSE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. IF YOU'RE ADAMANT ABOUT CHANGING IT TO R1, WHY DON'T YOU GIVE ME A VARIANCE, LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, AND ALLOW ME TO BUILD WHATEVER SUBSTRUCTURES I WANT TO ACCOMMODATE ME. YOU CAN GO TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND GET A VARIANCE.

WE DON'T ISSUE VARIANCES.

YEAH, WELL, I'M $10,000 IN NOW. AND I DON'T MEAN THIS RUDELY, BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE GOT APPROVED. NO, I DO CARE.

THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. I CARE MORE THAN MOST. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. YOU SHOULD HAVE GOT APPROVAL BEFORE YOU WERE $10,000 IN. I DON'T MEAN THAT RUDELY. I'M JUST SAYING. WE HAVE PEOPLE COMING FOR US ALL THE TIME. IT AIN'T HOW IT WORKS, THOUGH. THEY MAKE YOU DO ALL THESE THINGS. THEY MAKE YOU DO ALL THESE STEPS BEFORE YOU EVEN GET HERE. YOU HAVE TO GET AN ENGINEER. YOU HAVE TO GET AN ATTORNEY'S OPINION.

YOU'VE GOT TO GET A RECORD PLOT PLAN PROVIDED. AN ENGINEER HAS TO DO IT. THAT'S WHAT I SAID TO ZONING. I SAID, WHY CAN'T I GO TALK TO THEM FIRST AND SEE? YOU'VE GOT TO DO ALL THIS STUFF IN PREPARATION. I THINK JILL'S TRYING TO CHANGE SOME OF THOSE THINGS. BUT WE'RE HERE. I'VE ALREADY SPENT THE MONEY, MAN. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IT'S MY SECOND TIME HERE SPENDING MONEY.

THIRD TIME HERE SPENDING MONEY ON DIFFERENT THINGS. IT'S JUST, IT ALWAYS SEEMS LIKE I'M GETTING THE SHORT END OF THE STICK. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY MY PRIMARY RESIDENCE.

THIS AIN'T SOME PROJECT I'M TRYING TO MAKE MONEY ON. THIS IS MY HOUSE, WHERE I LIVE, MY FAMILY. I UNDERSTAND. I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. I THINK IT SHOULD BE R1. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, I SAY WHAT I SAID. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC? MY NAME IS MARGARET NICOLINI. MY HUSBAND AND I OWN THE PROPERTY AT 2129... WHAT'S YOUR ADDRESS? OH, SORRY. I BEG YOUR PARDON.

GO AHEAD. YOU'RE GOING WITH YOUR ADDRESS. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ON. 2125 EAST

[03:00:01]

AS WE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO COMBINING THE TWO LOTS, TO ALLOWING THEM TO COMBINE THE TWO LOTS. WE'RE OPPOSED TO REZONING THEM TO R3, A DECISION THAT WOULD PERMANENTLY CHANGE OUR PROPERTY. WE WOULD BE AFFECTED, JUST LIKE THE... DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY. IF SOMETHING ZONED R3 IN THE FUTURE, 25 YEARS DOWN THE LINE, EVEN SOMEBODY COULD BUILD SOMETHING THAT WOULD UNDERMINE THE VALUE OF OUR PROPERTY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT AND WE CAN SEE FROM OUR PROPERTY, WE CAN SEE THE PROPERTY BELOW US AND IT IS CONCERNING TO US. WE THANK YOU. PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY KNOWING THAT, EXCEPT FOR A QUIET MEMORY CARE HOME, THE SURROUNDING LAND WAS ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. WE INVESTED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BUY AND REMODEL A LONG-HELD FAMILY HOME THAT CARRIES DEEP PERSONAL AND HISTORICAL MEANING. WE INVESTED OUR SAVINGS INTO A FAMILY HOME THAT REPRESENTS GENERATIONS OF HARD WORK, STEWARDSHIP, AND CARE, AND WE CONTINUE THAT LEGACY TODAY. BY RESTORING STORM DAMAGED LAND AND PROPERTY, PLANTING DOZENS OF TREES, MAINTAINING THE LAND AND PROTECTING THE NATURAL BEAUTY THAT MAKES THIS PLACE SPECIAL. WE ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT THIS REQUEST FOR A CHANGE TO R3 ZONING ONLY INVOLVED NOTIFICATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THIS CHANGE WOULD AFFECT ALL THE ACREAGES AND HOMES ALONG COLLEGE ROAD, AS WELL AS NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS. WE WERE TOLD THAT... WHEN WE CONTACTED THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT ONLY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED, MEANING THAT NO ONE ACROSS OR DOWN THE STREET WERE CONTACTED.

FIRST, DID THIS EVEN MEET THE 200-FOOT NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT? IT'S A QUESTION WE'RE ASKING. SECOND, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT ZONING CHANGE WITH BROAD IMPLICATIONS THAT EXTEND WELL BEYOND THE LIMITED NOTIFICATION AREA. DOZENS OF FAMILIES ALONG THE ROAD AND IN NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS WHOM YOU REPRESENT WILL BE AFFECTED WITHOUT EVER EVEN BEING GIVEN A VOICE. AT PUBLIC MEETINGS, IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THE PROPOSED HOUSE AND GARAGE FULLY COMPLY WITH R1 ZONING STANDARDS. EVEN THE APPLICANT STATED HE WOULD ACCEPT R1 ZONING. THAT WAS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, IF THE LOTS COULD BE COMBINED.

SO AGAIN, WE MUST ASK, IF R1 WORKS, WHY PUSH FOR R3? R3 ZONING ALLOWS APARTMENTS, CONGREGATE HOUSING, GROUP CARE FACILITIES, AND EVEN JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITIES. I UNDERSTAND THAT, MR. AUGUSTINE IS SAYING, HEY, HE'S NOT GOING TO DO THAT. BUT AS HE'S ALREADY DEMONSTRATED, THERE ARE THINGS THAT HE HASN'T YET TOLD US THAT HE'S PLANNING TO DO, THAT HE HAS, HE IS PLANNING, AND COULD PLAN LATER, GIVEN THE ZONING CHANGE. ONCE THE ZONING IS GRANTED, THOSE USES BECOME POSSIBLE, NOT JUST TODAY, BUT FOR FUTURE OWNERS. THIS IS NOT A TEMPORARY DECISION. IT'S PERMANENT. WE HAVE LIVED THROUGH WHAT HIGH DENSITY ZONING DOES TO A NEIGHBORHOOD. IT INCREASES CRIME, TRAFFIC, STRANGERS CUTTING THROUGH YOUR YARDS, LOSS OF PRIVACY, AND FEAR WHERE THERE WAS ONCE PEACE. WE SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO RELIVE THAT EXPERIENCE AFTER INVESTING SO DEEPLY IN OUR HOME AND OUR LAND. THIS IS NOT ABOUT STOPPING ONE HOMEOWNER FROM BUILDING A HOUSE OR A GARAGE. AND, BELIEVE ME, I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATIONS OF SAYING OTHER PEOPLE HAVE THESE BIG STRUCTURES.

SOMETIMES THINGS ARE GRANDFATHERED. IT'S FRUSTRATING. WE UNDERSTAND HIS FRUSTRATION THERE. WE HAVE SOME SIMILAR ISSUES ON OUR PROPERTY. THIS IS ABOUT PREVENTING AN UNNECESSARY ZONING CHANGE THAT COULD PERMANENTLY HARM OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND FUTURE GENERATIONS OF FAMILIES. IT'S ABOUT PROTECTING FAMILIES WHO TRUSTED THE CITY'S ZONING, INVESTED ACCORDINGLY, AND NOW FEEL THE RUG BEING PULLED OUT FROM UNDER THEM. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO HELP ONE HOMEOWNER WITHOUT HARMING THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THIS ORDINANCE BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW THE LOTS TO BE COMBINED WHILE KEEPING THE ZONING R1. THIS APPROACH BALANCES THE APPLICANT'S NEEDS WHILE PROTECTING THE COMMUNITY YOU SERVE. WE EVEN HAD SAID, IF NEED BE, MAYBE... A COMPROMISE COULD BE AVERAGE THE TWO AND MAKE IT R2 INSTEAD OF R3. WE'RE ASKING YOU TO PLEASE PROTECT OUR HOME, OUR FAMILY HISTORY, AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE, AS WELL AS THOSE OF THE GREATER COMMUNITY.

[03:05:01]

WITHOUT GOING THROUGH SOME HOOPS. BY GOING FROM R3 TO R1, IT STRIPS AWAY SOME OF HIS...

THE PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ON HIS OWN PROPERTY. I MEAN, AGAIN, I FEEL LIKE THE R3 SHOULD BE THE LEAD IN THIS SITUATION. YES, I UNDERSTAND. YOU BOUGHT A HOUSE ON AN ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE OTHER PARCEL, BUT IT'S AN EXTREMELY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE PARCEL THAT HIS HOUSE WAS BUILT ON, WHICH WAS R3 AND HAS BEEN R3, WHICH AGAIN ABUTS THE OTHER R3 PROPERTIES ON THE TWO, YOU KNOW. THERE'S A SMALL SECTION AND THEN THE MEMORY CARE ONE NEXT TO IT. I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S RIGHT TO GO TO R1 AND REMOVE RIGHTS AWAY FROM SOMEONE THAT'S CURRENTLY GOT A CONSTRUCTED, BUILT, LIVED IN HOME. IF THAT'S WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE PRIOR TO HIM BUILDING HIS HOUSE.

AGAIN, IF YOU WERE TO ANNEX IN LAND TO THE CITY, YOU WOULDN'T DO IT. ONCE SOMETHING'S BUILT, YOU HAVE TO GET THEM TO DO A CONDITIONAL, OR THEM TO AGREE TO IT. AND I FEEL LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THIS PLACE IS, IF YOU DO, FLIP IT TO R1. YOU'RE SIMPLY VIOLATING HIS RIGHTS. HAD HE BUILT AN APARTMENT COMPLEX ON AN R3, I CAN AGREE WITH THAT. BUT HE BUILT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, RIGHT? SO HE, I MEAN, IT'S A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THAT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH AN R1 ZONE. AND SO, AGAIN, I THINK... JUST BECAUSE HE DOESN'T EXERCISE HIS RIGHT DOESN'T MEAN HE DOESN'T HAVE IT. YOU DON'T LOSE YOUR RIGHTS BECAUSE YOU DON'T EXERCISE THEM ALL THE TIME. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS ALREADY ZONED R1.

CORRECT. I'D BE FINE GIVING THE VARIANCE TO BUILD THE THING AND LEAVE IT SPLIT BEFORE I SEE IT. FLIP R1 OVER TO R3. YOU KNOW, TO FLIP BOTH R3S INTO R1, THAT AGAIN SEEMS LIKE A VIOLATION OF HIS PERSONAL RIGHTS TO ME. I DISAGREE ONLY BECAUSE, AS I SAID, THE ZONING GOES WITH THE PROPERTY, NOT WITH THE PERSON. CORRECT, AND IT'S ANY PERSON THAT WOULD BUY IT OR LIVE THERE, BUT IT IS ALREADY THREE AND BUILT ON.

IT'S NO LONGER A GREENFIELD, WHICH I KNOW THIS ISN'T GREENFIELD-BROWNFIELD STUFF, BUT IT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED.

THERE'S ALREADY SOMEONE LIVING THERE. I GET IT, AND I'M NOT... I FEEL LIKE THAT DETRACTION IS... I'M NOT TELLING YOU I'M RIGHT OR YOU'RE RIGHT. I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT I BELIEVE. AND NOT ONLY DOES IT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT, POTENTIALLY IT COULD ALTER THE VALUE OF HIS PROPERTY DOWN THE ROAD. MAYBE HE WANTS TO SELL IT TO THE FOLKS NEXT DOOR, AND THEY WANT TO ABSORB IT UP. I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S HARD SAYING, I GUESS.

CONVERSELY, IT COULD INCREASE THE VALUE OF HIS PROPERTY. I MEAN, COME ON. THAT'S HYPOTHETICAL.

FROM THE PLOT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE LOT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS TO THE EAST OF...

WHERE HE IS, WHERE HIS HOUSE IS BUILT. AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO BUILD A GARAGE UP TOWARDS THE FRONT OR ALONGSIDE THE HOUSE, SO IT'S GOING TO GO TOWARDS THE REAR. YEAH.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE GO R3, HE CAN PUT A 60-FOOT BUILDING BACK THERE. HE COULD PUT A 60-FOOT BUILDING WHERE HIS HOUSE IS RIGHT NOW. 60-FOOT TALL. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID. I SAID WHAT I SAID.

WHERE HIS HOUSE IS, BUT IT'S NOT AT THE BACK OF HIS PROPERTY. HE COULD DO IT TOWARDS THE REAR OF HIS.

BUT THE POINT IS, HE COULD BUILD ON HIS PARCEL RIGHT NOW. HE BUILT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON THE OTHER ONE. CORRECT. AND SO THAT'S GOING TO— BUT WITHOUT MAKING ANY CHANGES, HE COULD BUMP THAT THING TO 60 FOOT TALL, MAKE A TOWER, IF HE WANTS, ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. CORRECT.

BUT HE WANTS TO COMBINE AND MAKE THE WHOLE THING. THREE.

YES, AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS— THAT MAKES ABOUT, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT HE'S NOT GOING TO BUILD A 60-FOOT TALL TOWER IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS HOUSE. HE MIGHT NOW, BUT, YOU KNOW.

WELL, WE WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT A GREENHOUSE EITHER BEFORE. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A GARAGE.

NO, HE'S TALKING ABOUT A GARAGE, BUT IF THEY'RE ALL CONNECTED, THEN HE CAN BUILD A SECONDARY STRUCTURE. HE CAN, HE HAS THE OPTION TO DO THOSE THINGS. RIGHT NOW,

[03:10:01]

HE COULD GET A VARIANCE. AND THERE COULD BE NO ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES. HE COULD GET A VARIANCE. HE CAN GET A VARIANCE, THAT'S TRUE. I MEAN, I... THE VARIANCE IS ALL THE...

RIGHT. I MEAN, WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO BUILD NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES, BECAUSE IF 50% GOES DOWN, YOU CANNOT REBUILD. AGREED. WE AVOID THAT. HOWEVER, I DISAGREE WITH A LOT OF OUR ZONING STUFF. BUT I...

IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS NOT ABUTTING ANY R3 TODAY. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? HIS PROPERTY IS R3. WELL, I GUESS HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY IS R3. THE ENTIRETY OF THE ONE SITE IS ABUTTING R3, AND SO IS THE ONE THAT HE BUILT THE HOUSE ON. IT'S ALSO ABUTTING R3. IT'S NOT SPOT ZONING IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. IT'S CONGRUENT.

EVERYTHING ELSE, THE LOT THAT HE'S LOOKING AT, THAT'S GOING TO THE EAST, BUTTS UP AGAINST R1. BOTH SIDES CORRECT. I MEAN, THERE HAS TO BE A TRANSITION AT SOME POINT, I MEAN, WE CAN'T. JUST IT'S NOT GOING TO BE R3 INFINITELY, YOU KNOW, YEAH, I JUST, I JUST SEE THIS AS A R1 SINGLE FAMILY LOT.

IT'S JUST THAT'S HOW I SEE IT.

AND AGAIN, I WANT HIM TO BE ABLE TO BUILD WHAT HE WANTS TO BUILD, AND HE STILL CAN.

YEAH, WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD A GARAGE. THAT'S JUST WHAT STEPS IS HE GOING TO HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH TO GET IT DONE, I GUESS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SO WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO AMEND THIS TO AN R1 CORRECT COLE BUTTON? NO. JOE DISALVO? NAY. STEVE GORMAN? AYE. ROGER SANDOW? AYE. DOUG RUE? ABSTAIN. SO THAT'S 2-2. THE MOTION FAILS. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE LET THEM PUT IT TOGETHER AND MAKE IT ALL R3. SECOND. FOR THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION, I MEAN... ROLL CALL. JOE DISALVO? AYE. STEVE GORMAN? NAY. DOUG RUE? ABSTAIN. ROGER SANDOW? NAY. COLE BUTTON? AYE.

2-2, MOTION FAILED. SO MIMI, WHAT HAPPENS NOW? HAS IT FAILED IN A THIRD READING? HOW DOES THAT, HE STARTS OVER? HOW DOES THAT WORK? BECAUSE I JUST DON'T WANT HIM TO SIT HERE AND BE LIKE, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENS NEXT? YEAH, IT WOULD START OVER. I WILL LOOK INTO THAT AND I CAN ADVISE HIM. I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. I KNOW TONY'S HERE TOO, AND HE SITS ON THE, HE ADVISES THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT, TONY, BUT I MEAN, IT FAILS AT THIS POINT AND THERE'S NO TIEBREAKER. SO WE'RE DONE.

IN THE EVENT IT WERE TO COME BACK, WOULD DOUG STILL HAVE TO ABSTAIN? THAT GO AROUND? YEAH, IF HE'S VOTED DIRECTLY ON THIS ISSUE AT PLANNING COMMISSION, HE HAS TO ABSTAIN. EVEN IF IT GOES BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION? EVEN IF IT COMES BACK THROUGH AS A NEW... SO THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IS, CAN HE BE TRULY IMPARTIAL OR IS IT PRE-DECIDED? SO IF HE HAS...

WEIGHED IN AND ESSENTIALLY VOTED ON THIS INITIALLY, THAT WOULD PROBABLY WEIGH, MY OPINION WOULD BE THAT HE SHOULD STILL ABSTAIN UNLESS HE COULD CONVINCE ME AND YOU THAT HE'S TRULY IMPARTIAL. I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY UNLIKELY. WHAT IF THERE'S NEW INFORMATION OR MR. AUGUSTINE COMES WITH A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WHAT IF THERE'S SIGNIFICANT CHANGES? SOMETHING MATERIALLY.

MATERIALLY, YEAH, SOMETHING CHANGES. I THINK THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT. IF IT'S THE EXACT SAME REQUEST, I'VE ALREADY VOTED ON THAT THROUGH PLANNING. I CAN'T VOTE ON IT AGAIN NOW. I'VE ALREADY GIVEN MY VOTE. IF IT'S MATERIALLY DIFFERENT AND THERE ARE SOME CHANGES IN IT, THEN IT'S LIKE A NEW PLAN AND IT'S A NEW THING, THEN I WOULD LOOK AT IT IN THAT LIGHT. OKAY, THIS IS NEW. WE'D LOOK AT IT THEN AND THEN I THINK I'D BE OKAY. IS THAT CORRECT, TONY? YEAH.

YEAH. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. I DO WANT TO JUST KIND OF ADDRESS THIS SITUATION. IT IS A LITTLE AWKWARD, AND

[03:15:04]

WELL, FOR HIM. NOT FOR US.

BUT THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I DID, I HAVE OBSERVED ALL OF THE PROCESS. WHAT I'M HEARING TODAY IN TERMS OF MATERIAL DIFFERENCE IS MY UNDERSTANDING. AT PLANNING COMMISSION, I BELIEVE WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY COMMUNICATED TO THE INDIVIDUAL APPLYING FOR THIS REQUEST WAS THAT.

REALLY, WHETHER IT WAS R3 OR R1 DIDN'T MATTER, WHICH IS WHY AT PLANNING COMMISSION, HE COMMUNICATED HE DIDN'T REALLY CARE. ONE WAY, HE JUST WANTS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD HIS GARAGE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I WISH CHRIS GIBBONS WAS HERE. I, I DON'T KNOW PLANNING WELL ENOUGH, UM, TO KNOW, BUT.

BUT WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT BEING ABLE TO, TO BE HAVING TO BE RESTRICTED ON AN R1 TO ONLY BEING ABLE TO BUILD A GARAGE THE SAME SIZE? THAT WOULD BE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS COMMUNICATED DURING PLANNING, BUT I HONESTLY, DOUG PROBABLY KNOWS THE PLANNING CODE BETTER THAN I DO, BUT I DO BELIEVE, BELIEVE THAT IS. MATERIALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS COMMUNICATED AT PLANNING COMMISSION. AND SO I WANNA SHARE THAT WITH THE COUNCIL.

JUST THAT IS WHAT WE WERE SHARED, TOO, IS YOU WERE GOOD. EITHER WAY, R3 OR R1 AT PLANNING COMMISSION. JUST SO, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T JUST COME UP WITH THAT. THAT WAS WHAT WAS TOLD TO US. JUST I WANT YOU TO BE AWARE. IT'S NOT LIKE, I JUST DREAMT THAT UP. THAT'S WHAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO US.

YOU WERE OKAY WITH R1 OR R3.

THAT'S WHAT WAS COMMUNICATED BACK TO US FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. I UNDERSTAND. I'M JUST, I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK I JUST JUMPED THAT UP OUT OF NOWHERE. THAT WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ENTIRE COUNCIL. AND IT WASN'T UNTIL HE MENTIONED IT TONIGHT THAT THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I'D HEARD THAT. THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE GARAGE PORTION. SO IT MAY BE THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT OUR SIDE, OUR PLANNING NEEDS TO, MAYBE.

LOOK AT THAT AND MAYBE CHANGE IT, CORRECT? YEAH. I AGREE. YEAH, AND TO YOUR POINT, TOO, IS OUT OF THIS, I THINK THAT MAYBE WE CAN, IN TERMS OF THESE TRANSITION ZONES AND HOW THIS WORKS, MAYBE GIVE A DIRECTIVE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO LOOK INTO, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE HANDLE THIS? WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR ZONING LAWS. SO DON'T THINK YOU'RE JUST DONE AND OUT. I THINK WE HAVE.

SIMILAR GOALS AND SIMILAR, WE WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO. WE JUST HAVE A DIFFERENT WAY OF GETTING THERE. SO I DON'T, AND I THINK, I DON'T KNOW HOW QUICKLY IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT JILL, CAN YOUR TEAM LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS? YEAH, WE HAVE ONE FOR THAT TEAM. WE HAVE ONE THING AHEAD OF IT. AND THEN ONCE WE GET THAT TAKEN CARE OF, WE CAN MOVE THIS TO THE TOP OF THE LIST. SO DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK YOU'RE OUT, BUT. SO WE ARE TAKING, WITH ME COMING IN. AS MAYOR, WE ARE TAKING A LOOK AT A LOT OF OUR ORDINANCES AND UPDATING CODES AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS. AS FAR AS HOW DO WE HANDLE DIFFERENT THINGS, SOME THINGS THAT ARE OUTDATED.

AND SO WE'LL MOVE THIS UP ON OUR LIST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GET IT ADDRESSED. SO BY THE TIME WE GO BACK THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION, HOPEFULLY WE HAVE SOMETHING THERE. YES, IT DIED TONIGHT, SO IT STARTS BACK. YES. WITH, TO BE FAIR, WITH NEW ADMINISTRATION.

RIGHT. SO I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE IN YOUR FAVOR, JUST SO, YOU KNOW. SO WE HAVE RESOLUTION 2644, A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO RESEARCH CERTAIN LEGAL ISSUES RELATED... ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS. MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. GO AHEAD, TONY. YEAH, I THOUGHT THIS WAS JUST DIRECTING YOU TO START THE WORK, RIGHT? CAN YOU USE THE MICROPHONE? SORRY. OTHERWISE... DON'T YOU HAVE A HANDHELD? I COULD GIVE HIM ONE. I THINK I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU GUYS APPROVE IT SPECIFICALLY. A DECLARATION.

SECTION 2.1 AND SECTION 3.A SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE KIND OF CAME TO. AND SO WE, YOU KNOW, I'LL IGNORE THE REST OF IT AND FOCUS ON THAT.

MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION

[03:20:01]

SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION THIS AFTERNOON WITH CHIEF. DAVIS ABOUT THIS, SO WE'RE, WE'RE ALL KIND OF AN AGREEMENT HERE, I HOPE SO, YEAH, I THINK ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH. MAKE IT RIGHT. DON'T MAKE IT ANY MORE DIFFICULT THAN IT NEEDS TO BE, AND JUST MAKE SURE WE GET IT TAKEN CARE OF. KIND OF NOT HAMSTRING ANY OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AT ALL. THAT WASN'T THE INTENT OF THE OF THE RESOLUTION. IT'S BASICALLY TO GET IT WRITTEN, GIVE THEM THE AUTHORITY TO GO IN AND WORK ON IT, AND THEN WE'LL MAKE A DECISION GOING FORWARD FROM THERE. THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT, BUT WE'LL DO IT WITH THE 1A AND 3, SO THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? DID I HEAR DOUG VOGUE? I DID THIS TIME. MOTION PASSES.

RESOLUTION 26-46, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A... NON-EXCLUSIVE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT WITH TELEPORT COMMUNICATIONS AMERICA LLC TO INSTALL, MAINTAIN, OPERATE, AND CONTROL A FIBER OPTIC INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS.

MOTION TO? SECOND.

UNFORTUNATELY. ANY DISCUSSION? I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY, AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THE FOLKS OUT THERE ARE EXPERIENCING THE SAME THINGS THAT WE EXPERIENCE WITH EVERYBODY. DIGGING IN YOUR RIGHT-OF-WAY. AS THESE THINGS COME THROUGH TOWN, WE DID QUESTION MARK AUGUSTINE PRETTY EXTENSIVELY THIS AFTERNOON IN REGARDS TO THAT AND TRIED TO GET SOME, I GUESS, SOME CLARIFICATION ON HOW THOSE THINGS ARE WORKING AND IF WE CAN SCHEDULE THOSE OUT A LITTLE BIT BETTER. AND JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, HE IS AWARE OF THE CONCERNS THAT MOST OF US HAVE AS WE LOOK AT THESE THINGS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. RESOLUTION 26-47, A RESOLUTION ABOLISHING ONE RECYCLING LABOR POSITION AND CREATING ONE NEW RECYCLING AID POSITION WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? THIS WAS BUDGETED FOR. THIS IS A SMALL SALARY INCREASE. YEP. AND IT WOULD REQUIRE SOMEONE THAT WOULD THEN HAVE A... CDO. YEAH, CORRECT, WHICH IS MORE USEFUL THAN WHAT THE LABOR POSITION USED TO BE WITH THE CHANGE WE'VE MADE IN THE RECENT FLIP OVER TO ALL-IN-ONE TRASH. ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. RESOLUTION 26-49, A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE ASSOCIATED PR1 PLAN RESIDENTIAL. THANK YOU. PLAN FOR 116-UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIOR LIVING ON PROPERTY. LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A REPLAT OF LOT 2 AUDITOR SUBDIVISION IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER, NORTHWEST QUARTER, AND PART OF LOT 5 AUDITOR SUBDIVISION IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, NORTHWEST QUARTER, ALL IN SECTION 307543, UNDEVELOPED LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH BROADWAY AND IVY DRIVE. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. AGAIN, I'LL HAVE TO ABSTAIN. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MADAM CLERK? JOE DESALVO? AYE. STEVE GORMAN? AYE. DOUG RUE? ABSTAIN. ROGER SANDOW? AYE. COLE, BETTNER? AYE. MOTION CARRIES.

RESOLUTION 2650, A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN AMENDED EMPLOYEE LEAVE POLICY.

MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? COUNCIL MEMBERS, CAN WE GET A LITTLE DIRECTION, TOO, ON? I THINK THERE MAYBE WAS A TWO-STEP PROCESS YOU WERE CONSIDERING, WHERE MAYBE AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

THEY BRING BACK SOME COMPARABLES AND THEN. YEAH, I FEEL LIKE WE ALL SHOULD GET THE INFORMATION TO KIND OF PARSE THROUGH A LITTLE BIT TO TRY AND FORM. AN OPINION, I GUESS, AND LIKE I SAID, MY OPINION IS PROBABLY VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM EVERYONE.

EVERYONE UP HERE IS GOING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT IDEA, BUT IF WE COULD SEE WHAT THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES HAVE AND THE OTHER MAJOR COMMUNITIES IN THE STATE OF IOWA, IT WOULD KIND OF GIVE US, I GUESS, A GOOD STARTING POINT TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, BUT IT'S A DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO BE HAD. YEAH, I THINK WE NORMALLY COMPARE IT TO SIX OR SEVEN DIFFERENT CITIES IN IOWA, AND THEN A COUPLE ACROSS THE BRIDGE WOULD BE.

WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE WHAT THE, I MEAN, KIND OF GET SOME GUIDELINES. AND WE CAN GO, YOU KNOW, KEEP THIS BETWEEN THE NAVIGATIONAL BEACONS AND WE'LL. WHAT THEIR POLICIES ARE. YEAH, CORRECT.

AND THEN WE'LL GIVE YOU SOME

[03:25:01]

OBVIOUSLY, I KNOW WE'RE NOT THE STATE AND WE DON'T. YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT THE SAME BUDGET OR WHATEVER, BUT AGAIN, JUST TO KEEP IN MIND WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THINGS. WOULD IT BE BETTER TO CONTINUE THIS RESOLUTION? NO, I THINK WE'RE GOOD. THIS IS A PROBLEM, I FEEL LIKE, WITH THESE. SO WE'RE GOOD.

THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY A RESOLUTION OTHER THAN, WELL, IT IS, BUT IT'S A DIRECTIVE TO WORK, REALLY. YEAH, SO THIS DIRECTIVE IS FOR A PRESENTATION OF AN AMENDED POLICY BY YOU BY MARCH 9TH, BUT IF I WERE YOU, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE WOULD JUST, YOU COULD AMEND YOUR MOTION AND AMEND THE DIRECTIVE.

TO BRING SOME COMPS AT THE NEXT MEETING, AND THEN A FULLY DEVELOPED POLICY AT THE MEETING AFTER THAT. WE SHOULD PROBABLY INCLUDE THE COUNTY IN THOSE COMPS AS WELL. OKAY, YEAH, THAT'S FINE. CORRECT.

INCLUDE THE COUNTY IN THOSE COMPS. YEAH. SEE WHAT THEY HAVE, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. WHO'S THE SECOND? I SECONDED SECOND.

OKAY. SO ARE YOU AMENDING YOUR MOTION? YEAH, I SAID, SO MOVED.

THAT WAS MY LAZY WAY OF SAYING WHAT SHE SAID. AND SHE SECONDED THE AMENDMENT.

COMPS FOR THE NINTH AND THEN THE FOLLOWING TO GET AN ACTUAL PLAN PUT TOGETHER AND PRESENTED TO US. YES, CORRECT. ACTUALLY COMPS FOR THE 23RD. PLAN FOR MARCH. THAT'S WHY I SAID, SO, MOVE, RIGHT? SEE WHAT HAPPENED THERE? I GOT IT. WE DON'T TRUST YOU. YOU GOT THE RIGHT DATES OVER THERE? PERFECT. I DO.

FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. RESOLUTION 26S51, A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE SUBMISSION OF AN IOWA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY APPLICATION TO THE WORKFORCE HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM BY SOUTH POINT APARTMENTS, LLC.

MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. RESOLUTION 26-52, A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT. AND RESTATED PURCHASE, SALE, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS AND SPINDLOFF LLC.

MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I WILL HAVE TO ABSTAIN. OKAY. ANY OTHER? MADAM CLERK? WE'RE GOING TO GO DOUG RUE. ABSTAIN.

ROGER SANDOW. AYE. COLE BUTTON. AYE. JOE DISALVO.

AYE. STEVE GORMAN. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. RESOLUTION 26-53, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WAIVER FORM.

MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND.

ACTUALLY, BASED OFF OF OUR SESSION, I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A MOOT POINT. AND SO WE SHOULD LET THIS DIE. OH.

OKAY. SO DO YOU WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE? AND SECOND? YES. YEAH. SO NO MOTION, THEREFORE RESOLUTION DIES? DIES, YEP. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO WE HAVE APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS AND CANCELLATIONS, LIQUOR LICENSES, 10A1. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. MADAM CLERK. STEVE GORMAN. AYE.

DOUG, RUE. AYE. ROGER SANDALE. AYE. COLE BUTTON.

AYE. JOE DISALVO. EPSTEIN.

MOTION CARRIES. APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS AND CANCELLATIONS 10B1-5. MOTION TO APPROVE 10B1 THROUGH 5. SECOND.

DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. AND IS THERE ANY OTHER ACTION THAT THE COUNCIL WISHES TO DISCUSS FOR POSSIBLE DIRECTION? YEAH, I'VE GOT TWO, ACTUALLY.

FIRST, IN LIGHT OF RECENT EVENTS TONIGHT, AND WE MIGHT BE HIGH LEVEL ON THIS, BUT...

WITH ALL THE DISCUSSION OF THE LOCUST LODGE, IVY AREA, AND AS MUCH TRAFFIC AS IT SOUNDS LIKE IS GOING THROUGH THERE, I DON'T KNOW HOW BEST TO, I GUESS, WORD IT. BUT DO WE NEED

[03:30:01]

CORRECT.

FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

MIMI, WOULD WE BE BETTER OFF, IN THIS CASE, TO HAVE JILL THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH? ON ACCOUNT OF MOST OF THESE FOLKS? ALL REPORT TO HER, GO THROUGH IT, OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DIRECT? I THINK THIS IS MORE IN THE MAYOR'S WHEELHOUSE.

CORRECT. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT UP BECAUSE I SAID WHAT I SAID WHEN I SAID IT, AND I MEAN IT. IF THAT'S A PROBLEM, WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT. AGREED. OKAY. I'LL WORK WITH STAFF AND I'LL PUT SOMETHING IN OUR UPDATE AND THEN I'LL HAVE SOMETHING FOR THE PUBLIC AT OUR NEXT MEETING. SO THAT'S THE FIRST, KIND OF LAST, YOU KNOW, THROWING TOGETHER THAT SECOND. A LIGHT AND PARKING, THAT'S TWO. WELL, THAT WAS ALL RELATIVE TO THE SAME TOMATO, TOMATO. ANOTHER DISCUSSION OR THING THAT'S KIND OF COME UP IS IN REFERENCE TO OUR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.

MAYBE SOME TALK HAS HAPPENED OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND GOING FORWARD.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN TALKING WITH FOLKS FOR A LONG TIME ABOUT IS HOW MANY PEOPLE REPORT BACK TO THAT PERSON. IN REFERENCE TO THE BUILDING DIVISION, AND THAT MANY OTHER COMMUNITIES PLACE THAT SPECIFIC DIVISION UNDERNEATH THE FIRE MARSHAL.

AND MIMI AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS BRIEFLY, AND I THOUGHT THIS INSTEAD OF DOING IT, HOW WE DID WITH SOME OF THESE OTHERS.

THIS BEING THE TIME WE'RE HAVING THE OPEN CONVERSATION WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO BRING UP AND DISCUSS WITH OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS.

TO MAYBE DIRECT CITY STAFF TO RESEARCH THE POSSIBILITIES OF THAT AND HOW THAT MIGHT WORK OUT. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS? ARE YOU TALKING MEETING AND INSPECTION? YEAH, BUT EVERYONE UP ON THIS FLOOR, YOU KNOW, BUILDING DIVISION UP HERE, WOULD INSTEAD REPORT TO ALEX INSTEAD OF TO DOWNSTAIRS. ALEX ITSELF ISN'T ACTUALLY AN APARTMENT. WELL, NO, BUT IT WOULD PUT IT UNDER FIRE. BECAUSE IT'S MY STAFF. I WILL LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM LOOKING AT MAKING SOME DIVISIONAL CHANGES AND ACTUALLY TAKING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND BREAKING IT UP.

TO COINCIDE WITH THE START OF THE NEW FISCAL YEAR. SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE'LL BE SOME CHANGES? YEAH, I PUT THAT IN TWO WEEKS WORTH OF NOTES FOR YOU GUYS. SO THAT IS COMING, BUT BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME CHANGES. HEAVY LIFTING. YES. CORRECT. MAKES SENSE TO DO IT AT THE START OF THE FISCAL YEAR? UM, AND AGAIN, MORE OF THIS IS US TRYING TO FIGURE OUT OUR PROCESSES. I GUESS, REALLY. UM, BECAUSE ME AND I HAD HAD THIS KIND OF CONVERSATION. I SAID, WELL, WHY DON'T I JUST BRING IT UP AT THIS NEW ACTION ITEM SPOT? I FEEL LIKE? BUT I FEEL LIKE SOME OF THIS IS GOOD BECAUSE THESE ARE SOME CONVERSATIONS THAT, YEAH, WE HAVEN'T HAD. AGREE, AGREE.

AND SO I WANT YOU GUYS TO BRING THAT UP. BUT YEAH, IT'S DEFINITELY ON MY RADAR, AS NOTED IN MY RECAPS TO YOU GUYS, AND SO I'M GOING TO BE TAKING A LOOK AT, AS FAR AS DEPARTMENT HEADS, THERE'S ANOTHER CHANGE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS AS WELL. WE HAVE SOMEBODY WHO I BELIEVE SHOULD BE A DEPARTMENT HEAD, WHO IS NOT A DEPARTMENT HEAD RIGHT NOW, AND THERE'S A FEW OTHER THINGS THAT I AM GOING TO BE PRESENTING TO YOU GUYS IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, AND MOST OF THOSE WILL COINCIDE WITH THE START OF THE FISCAL YEAR. SOME OF THAT. WHICH IS? FINE. I JUST, AGAIN, I WANTED TO BRING IT UP AND HAVE THIS CONVERSATION. LIKE, THAT IS DEFINITELY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE SAID FOR YEARS, BUT WE HAVEN'T, YOU KNOW. WELL, AND BUILDING CODE AND FIRE CODE ARE PRETTY SIMILAR, SO I THINK IT'S...

WELL, AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT... THAT'S WHERE I WOULD PLACE IT IF I WAS GOING TO PLACE IT ANYWHERE. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOLKS HAVE TO DEAL WITH, THEY'VE GOT TO KNOW THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR THE BUILDING STUFF, AND THEN THEY'VE GOT TO HANDLE THE DOG CATCHER. I MEAN... I KNOW THAT'S A LOOSE OVER EXAGGERATION, BUT YOU UNDERSTAND MY POINT.

AND YOUR POINT AS WELL. THE PROBLEM YOU'LL RUN INTO IS

[03:35:01]