[00:00:01]
          >> GOOD AFTERNOON. WE ARE GOING TO REVIEW THE AGENDA. 
          DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CONSENT AGENDA? IF NOT, HOW ABOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS? 
          >> I HAD QUESTION ON THIS. 
          I HAD ASKED BRENDA. 
          YOU CAN COME UP, BRENDA. 
          IT JUST SEEMS IF IOWA WEST IS OUT, WHICH SHE SAID THEY'RE OUT, BUT THEY'RE NOT, THE CITY SHOULD BE OUT OF IT, TOO. 
          IF THEY'RE SELLING THE PROPERTY, BUT I GUESS I WAS THE DEVELOPER, RIGHT? 
          >> WHEN WE DID IT ACTUALLY NOT FOR THE HOTEL. 
          IT WAS TO HELP SUPPLEMENT THE COST OF THE FIELD. 
          >> FIELD HOUSE. GO AHEAD, REN. 
          >> JUST TO BRING EVERYBODY UP SPEED. 
          ONLY A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WERE HERE WHEN THIS WHOLE THING WAS PUT TOGETHER. 
          2016 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE WERE A LOT OF COMMUNITY MEETINGS ABOUT HOW TO REINVIGORATE THE MAC. 
          THERE WAS A DECISION THAT SOMETHING HAD TO HAPPEN WITH A RETAIL SPINE, THAT A FULL SERVICE HOTEL WAS AN IMPORTANT ADDITION TO ACTIVATE THE MAC, AND THAT SOMETHING ATHLETIC, WHICH ENDED UP BEING THE FIELD HOUSE WOULD REALLY BOOST THAT AREA. 
          IOWA WEST COMMITTED TO MAKING THE INVESTMENT. 
          IT WAS ABOUT $40 MILLION ALL IN FOR THE INVESTMENT FOR ALL THREE OF THOSE. 
          IT WAS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS AND IOWA WEST THAT IOWA WEST WOULD MAKE THE INVESTMENT. 
          ESSENTIALLY, USING FUNDS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          THIS WAS CLEARLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          BUT UNLIKE A TIF WITH A PRIVATE ENTITY, THE AGREEMENT WAS THAT THE CITY WOULD TIFF AND THAT IOWA WEST WOULD COMMIT ANY INCOME FROM THE TIF AND MOTEL TAXES BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          ESSENTIALLY, IF WE WERE GOING TO INVEST FUNDS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE BENEFIT OF GRANTS TO THE COMMUNITY, WE PUT THOSE INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THEN WE COULD REGAIN WHATEVER WAS POSSIBLE THROUGH THE NORMAL TIF PROCESS, PUT IT INTO AN ACCOUNT WHICH WOULD BE RESERVED AND REPLENISH THAT ABILITY TO GRANT BACK TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          THE MONEY THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FOR OUR INVESTMENT AND ALL THREE OF THOSE PROPERTIES, AND THEY ALL HAVE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES, THE MONEY WE'VE RECEIVED IS KEPT IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT AND ALLOCATED SPECIFICALLY FOR PROJECTS THAT BENEFIT COUNCIL BLUFFS. 
          UNLIKE A TYPICAL TIF, WHERE THE CITY DOES AN AGREEMENT TO INCENTIVIZE A PRIVATE DEVELOP DEVELOPER WHO NEEDS A HIGHER PROFIT MARGIN, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE CITY SAYING, HEY, IF IOWA WEST WILL USE SOME OF ITS RESOURCES NOW TO DO THESE THINGS, THEN THE MONEY THAT CAN COME BACK OFF OF THAT INVESTMENT CAN BE REINVESTED IN THE COMMUNITY LATER, AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. 
          I WASN'T THERE. I CAN'T SAY THAT IOWA WEST WOULD OR WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE INVESTMENT, BUT FOR THE TIF. 
          BUT I CAN SAY IN THE FIVE YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE, THE MONEY THAT WE ARE GETTING BACK FROM THE TIF IN THE HOTEL MOTEL. 
          WE TALK ABOUT THAT A LOT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INVESTING IN THE CITY. 
          AS WE CONTINUE TO PAY OFF THESE RELATIVELY LARGE DEBTS, IT'S VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE THE EXTRA MONEY COMING INTO A PROTECTED ACCOUNT WHERE WE KNOW THAT IS RESERVED FOR THE COMMUNITY TO USE. 
          WE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, IN OUR ORIGINAL PLAN WITH THE PARTNER THAT HELPED DEVELOP THE HOTEL, HAD THE INTENTION OF SELLING IT WITHIN FIVE YEARS. 
          THAT PARTNERSHIP DID NOT WORK OUT VERY WELL. 
          WE TERMINATED THAT PARTNERSHIP IN 2024 AND SINCE THEN HAVE BEEN TRYING TO KIND OF GET THE HOTEL INTO A GOOD ENOUGH CONDITION WHERE IT IS MARKETABLE AND CAN BE SOLD, WHICH WAS OUR ORIGINAL INTENT BECAUSE WE DON'T DO HOTELS. 
          WE DO FOUNDATION WORK. 
          WE WANT TO GET BACK TO THE BUSINESS THAT WE DO. 
          WE WILL NEVER GET ANYWHERE NEAR $40 MILLION WORTH OF INVESTMENT, AND THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENT. 
          BUT HAVING SOME MONEY BACK INTO OUR ACCOUNTS THAT WE CAN THEN SEND BACK OUT TO THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL FOR US AND FOR THE COMMUNITY. 
          >> I THINK YOU AND I WERE PROBABLY THE ONLY ONES UP HERE AT THAT TIME THAT I REMEMBER WHEN WE DID THE TIF, AND IT WAS IT'S NICE THAT IT WAS THE FIRST TIME WE HAD DONE THAT OR SPECIFIC MONIES COLLECTED WOULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL BLUFFS, WHEREAS, IF WE DIDN'T DO THAT, THAT MONEY COULD HAVE BEEN TO SOUTHWEST IOWA TO NEBRASKA, DIFFERENT PLACES. 
          [00:05:02]
I DO REMEMBER DOING THAT. 
          THAT WAS IMPORTANT. 
          IF YOU SELL THE PROPERTY, YOU WILL CONTINUE AS THE DEVELOPER EVEN THOUGH IT'S ALREADY FULLY DEVELOPED, THE HOTEL ITSELF, I GUESS. 
          >> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A TYPICAL TIF IS. 
          IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO STEP FORWARD AT THE INITIAL POINT AND SAY, OKAY, WE'RE IN FOR THE $40 MILLION TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WORKS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE BACK AS MUCH AS WE CAN OF THAT INVESTMENT IN ORDER TO RECOUP WHAT WE DONATED IN ADVANCE. 
          I THINK THAT'S TYPICAL THAT WHEN A TIF OBLIGATION IS MADE TO A DEVELOPER, THE DEVELOPER RECEIVES THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS BECAUSE IT WAS A DEVELOPER WHO MADE THE INITIAL INVESTMENT. 
          I COULD BE ALL WRONG ON THAT, BUT THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND IT. 
          >> NOW IT WILL BE TAXABLE WITH THE SALE. 
          DIFFERENT THAN A NONPROFIT? 
          >> NO. IT WAS ALWAYS TAXABLE BECAUSE IT'S AN INCOME EARNING. 
          >> THAT'S WHY IT'S TIF BECAUSE IT'S TAXABLE. 
          THE FIELD HOUSE IS MOSTLY NOT FOR PROFIT USE AND NOT TAXABLE. 
          OBVIOUSLY, THE TIF ON THAT IS FORTUNATELY NOTHING. 
          >> YOU'LL CONTINUE TO COLLECT THE TIF GOING INTO THE SAME FUND AND THE NEW OWNERS WILL JUST OPERATE THE HOTEL? 
          >> EXACTLY. 
          >> OWN THE PROPERTY. 
          >> THEY DID NOT MAKE THE INITIAL INVESTMENT. 
          WE ARE NOT GOING TO RECOUP OUR ENTIRE INVESTMENT. 
          >> HOW MANY YEARS ARE LEFT ON THE TIF? BECAUSE WHEN WE TALKED IT SOUNDED LIKE THE THREE WERE TOGETHER, BUT THESE ARE SEPARATE, CORRECT? 
          >> THEY ARE ALL TOGETHER AS A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 
          BUT THE WAY EACH OF THEM IS HOW RELATED IS DIFFERENT. 
          IT'S NOT TO EXCEED 15 YEARS, BEGINNING JUNE 2020 AND ENDING JUNE 2034. 
          THERE'S NOT TO EXCEED 90% OF CAPTIVE TAX INCREMENT. 
          THERE'S NO CHANCE THAT THAT'S EVER GOING TO HAPPEN. 
          THERE IS A CAP ON THE HOTEL TAX OF A MAXIMUM OF $4.5 MILLION, ALSO, PRETTY MUCH NO CHANCE THAT WILL EVER HAPPEN. 
          >> MY CONCERN IS THEY BUY IT, THEY POTENTIALLY SELL IT AGAIN. 
          I KNOW YOU DID THE DOCUMENTS, MIMI. 
          IT'S AN UNKNOWN SITUATION. 
          WE HAVEN'T BEEN IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS. 
          >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT ROGER. 
          AS PART OF THIS CONSENT THAT I DRAFTED FOR YOU TO CONSIDER, WE REQUIRED THAT THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN IOWA WEST AND THE BUYER THAT THEY TRANSFER THEIR OBLIGATIONS. 
          THE BUYER, THEY HAVE TO CONTINUE WITH PAYING THE PROPERTY TAXES, THEY HAVE TO CONTINUE WITH THE PROMISED UP KEEP, ALL OF THAT. 
          THEY HAVE TO CONTINUE TO SUBMIT A YEARLY STATEMENT. 
          THEY HAVE TO KEEP UP THE INSURANCE. 
          THEY CAN'T ALLOW THE SITE TO DETERIORATE. 
          ALL OF THE OBLIGATIONS THAT IOWA WEST HAD, THEY HAVE TO PUT THAT INTO THEIR AGREEMENT WITH THEIR BUYER. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING, IF I RECALL FROM DRAFTING THIS 10 DAYS AGO OR SO IS, WE WOULD BE IN THE POSITION TO REVIEW IF THERE WAS ANOTHER SALE BECAUSE OF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS OF OBLIGATIONS. 
          >> REALLY, THE BUYER IS SOL. 
          >> THEY'RE JUST OUT THERE. 
          >> THE EXPECTATIONS THAT MIMI JUST DESCRIBED ARE COMPLETELY REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS. 
          THEY'RE NOT BECAUSE WE HAVE INVESTED MORE THAN THEY ARE PAYING, WHICH IS NOT A TYPICAL PROBABLY OF DEVELOPERS. 
          >> THEY PAY THE PROPERTY TAX. THEY DON'T GET BACK. IT GOES TO YOU. 
          >> YEAH. A PORTION. 
          >> DON'T PAY THE PROPERTY TAX. 
          IT DOESN'T GO TO THEM. 
          IT'S NOT AN OBLIGATION WE HAVE TO PAY THEM. 
          >> NO, I UNDERSTAND, BUT TYPICALLY, IF YOU'RE TIF, YOU PAY THE PROPERTY TAXES YOU GET IT BACK. 
          THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE DOING. NOW THE NEW OWNER PAYS THE PROPERTY TAXES. 
          I ASSUME THAT'S IN YOUR GUYS' AGREEMENT, THEY'RE PAYING LESS FOR THE PROPERTY. 
          >> THEY ARE WELL AWARE. 
          >> IN MY BRAIN, IT'S LIKE, IF I HAVE TO PAY THE PROPERTY TAXES, I'M NOT GET IT BACK, THAT SEEMS RIDICULOUS, BUT SURE. 
          >> IF THEY HAD PAID OUR WHOLE AMOUNT, WHAT WE ACTUALLY INVESTED, THEN THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A REASONABLE ARGUMENT. 
          >> IT'S NOT UNUSUAL AT ALL, IN THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, METRO CROSSING, WE PUT IN SOME SEWER LINES AND THE OWNERS OF THE BUSINESSES PAID TAXES TO THE CITY AND THE CITY REIMBURSED ITSELF. 
          [00:10:04]
          >> THEY DON'T NEED THE TIF TO OPERATE THE BUSINESS SUCCESSFULLY. 
          WE NEED THE TIF IN ORDER TO PAY THE INITIAL INVESTMENT. 
          >> I WAS THINKING ABOUT AS SOMEBODY BUYING THE HOTEL, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, WHICH I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE PAYING OR HOW THAT WORKS. THAT'S WHY I WAS. 
          >> IT IS OPERATING SUCCESSFULLY NOW AND CAN OPERATE AS A GOOD BUSINESS, AND THESE ARE GOOD LOCAL BUSINESS PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND. 
          YEP. THE BOTTOM LINE AND ARE MAKING THE DECISION FULLY INFORMED. 
          >> MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT YOU ALSO ASKED TO MAKE SURE THAT COUNCIL BLUFFS RESIDENTS WHO COULDN'T AFFORD TO LEASE AT THE FIELD HOUSE GOT SOME PRACTICE TIME OR PLAYING TIME THERE. 
          THIS IOWA WEST DOES THAT THROUGH THE COBRA PROGRAM, MAYBE. 
          >> HIGH SCHOOLS AND YEAH, LOTS. 
          >> GOOD. THANKS. 
          >> THANKS, BRENDA. I WANT TO CORRECT MY EARLIER STATEMENT, ROGER. 
          IT WOULD BE IF THERE WAS A FUTURE SALE AND THOSE OBLIGATIONS DIDN'T TRANSFER, THEN IOWA WEST WOULDN'T GET THE TIF MONEY, BUT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO CONSENT TO A FUTURE SALE. 
          >> OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE PUBLIC HEARINGS? ORDINANCES FIRST READING? 
          >> COURTNEY, CAN YOU COME UP AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT 5B? JUST CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I KNOW WE MIGHT GET SOME QUESTIONS FROM SOME BAR OWNERS THAT HAVE PATIOS. 
          >> THIS IS SPECIFIC TO ONES IN THE PR. 
          WE PASSED THAT WE ALLOWED FOR BEER TO BE SOLD WITHIN TO HAVE A TAVERN WITHIN A PR OVERLAY. 
          SPECIFICALLY, THE RIVER'S EDGE IS THE ONE THAT WE DID IT FOR. 
          WITH UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT OVERALL DEVELOPMENT IS DESIGNED TO DO. 
          WHAT WE FOUND IS THERE WAS SOME CONTRADICTORY LANGUAGE WITH WHAT WE HAD FOR THE BEER AND LIQUOR LICENSES. 
          THIS IS THE FIX TO THAT, BECAUSE TECHNICALLY RIGHT NOW, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GET THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE WITHOUT THIS GOING FORWARD. 
          THIS IS VERY SPECIFIC TO CORRECTING WHERE WE'RE ALLOWING IT IN THE PR OVERLAY. 
          >> IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYBODY. 
          THIS IS GOING FORWARD, REALLY? 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> DID I READ IT RIGHT, THAT THE ORDINANCES WE PASSED BEFORE ALLOWED IN AREAS THAT WASN'T ALLOWED IN. 
          THIS IS AN AREA THAT IS ALLOWED IN, WHICH IS WHY IT'S A PROBLEM. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE ORDINANCES? 
          >> SHE JUST GOING TO HER STAY UP HERE. 
          >> I WAS GOING TO SAY. 
          >> COURTNEY, YOU CAN COME BACK. 
          >> COURTNEY YOU MAY WANT TO STAY UP. 
          >> COME ON UP. 
          >> I WAS GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE HUNTING ONE. 
          WE WERE CHATTING UP HERE JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO BEFORE WE GOT STARTED. 
          HOW DID THIS COME ABOUT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUES THAT I'M AWARE OF? 
          >> WE DID RECEIVE A COMPLAINT FROM SOMEONE THAT HAD A HUNTER IN THEIR BACKYARD ON A PROPERTY THAT THEY HAD A PERMISSION TO HUNT ON. 
          IT JUST SPARKED SOME CONCERNS THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ANY REGULATIONS REGARDING HOW FAR BACK A HUNTER COULD BE FROM AN ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE. 
          WE ALREADY HAD IN PLACE THAT YOU HAVE TO SHOOT FROM AN ELEVATED SURFACE OR STAND. 
          YOU HAD TO SHOOT NO MORE THAN 25 YARDS. 
          BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING IN PLACE TO SAY HOW CLOSE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES YOU CAN BE. 
          THIS PUTS THAT STANDARD IN PLACE THAT IF YOU WANTED TO BE WITHIN 10 YARDS OF AN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, THEN YOU HAD TO GET THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY OWNER'S PERMISSION, NOT EVERYONE AROUND IT, BUT JUST THAT PARTICULAR ONE, THEY HAVE TO CONSENT. 
          >> I TALKED TO A GENTLEMAN ABOUT THIS, AND ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT HE HAD IS THIS PERSON WAS HUNTING ON A PARCEL THAT THEY HAD LEGAL RIGHT TO BE ON, BUT HE WAS UP IN A STAND FACING NOT INTO THE PARCEL HE HAD ACCESS TO, BUT FACING ONTO A PARCEL HE DID NOT HAVE CLEARANCE TO BE ON AND HUNTING ACROSS AND OVER THE LINE IN AN AREA THAT THAT PARTICULAR LANDOWNER THAT DID NOT WANT HIM HUNTING THERE USES A WALKING PATH. 
          HE'S OUT WALKING WITH HIS WIFE ONE NIGHT, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN SEES SOMETHING UP IN THE TREES, AND THERE'S A GUY FULL DROP UP ABOVE HIM AND HE'S GOING, HEY, MAN, YOU CAN'T BE HERE. YES, I CAN. 
          I'M A FAN OF HOW IT'S PUT TOGETHER. 
          [00:15:02]
IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE HUNTING ON THE PROPERTY LINE OF SOMEONE'S PROPERTY, YOU NEED TO PROBABLY HAVE ESPECIALLY BEING IN TOWN PERMISSION OF THE ABUTTING. 
          YOU DON'T WANT ANYONE SHOOTING OVER YOUR HEAD. 
          >> BY LAW, YOU CAN'T SHOOT ONTO ANOTHER PROPERTY? 
          >> CORRECT. YOU CAN ONLY HUNT ON PROPERTY THAT YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO BE ON. 
          >> BUT IF YOU SHOOT AND THE ANIMAL GOES ACROSS, YOU CAN GO GET IT. 
          YOU CAN RETRIEVE THE DEAD ANIMAL. 
          >> BUT THEN WE'RE TRYING TO PROVE I SHOT IT OVER HERE, AND THEN IT WALKED FIVE OVER THERE, AND THIS THIS CLEANS IT UP A LITTLE BIT, WHICH IS GOOD. 
          >> I WOULD SAY, WE HAVE A VERY STRONG PROGRAM, AND THE HUNTERS THAT WE GO THROUGH QUALIFICATION ON, THEY UNDERSTAND THE RULES. 
          THEY UNDERSTAND THIS IS A PRIVILEGE. 
          THIS IS FRANKLY ONE OF THE FIRST COMPLAINTS THAT WE'VE HAD OF THIS NATURE IN THE TIME THAT WE'VE HAD IT. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S A COMMON PRACTICE TO ABUSE THAT PRIVILEGE. 
          I THINK THAT OUR PROGRAM IS VERY SUCCESSFUL AND HOW IT'S RUN. 
          >> TONY SENT AN EMAIL THIS MORNING, AND THAT WASN'T REDLINE. 
          ARE WE SETTING IT AT 25 FOOT OR 10 FOOT? 
          >> TEN YARDS. 
          >> TEN YARDS. 
          >> TEN YARDS SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME. 
          >> CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 25 AND 10 BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S INTERESTED PEOPLE HERE? 
          >> BEFORE YOU COULD HUNT RIGHT UP TO THAT PROPERTY LINE. 
          I THINK THAT ONE OF GALEN AND IS CONCERNS IS THAT TO 25 YARDS IN EVERY DIRECTION, AN ACRE GETS REALLY SMALL. 
          WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY NEGATE SOME OF THE LOTS THAT WE ALLOW HUNTING ON THAT MEET THE ACREAGE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SO MANY PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WOULD HAVE TO CONSENT IF WE WENT THAT ROUTE. 
          THAT'S WHY WE WANTED SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT SMALLER THAN THAT OR A SHORTER DISTANCE BECAUSE THEY STILL CAN'T SHOOT MORE THAN 25 YARDS. 
          THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THEY STILL HAVE TO HUNT ON THE PROPERTY WITH WHICH THEY HAVE PERMISSION. 
          THEY JUST NO LONGER CAN BE RIGHT UP ON THAT ABUTTING PROPERTY LINE, UNLESS THEY GET THAT SPECIFIC PERMISSION. 
          >> THERE'S OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE A BUFFER. 
          >> A DISTANCE. 
          >> I JUST WONDERING WHY IT CAME OUT, BUT THAT MAKES SENSE? 
          >> NO. 
          >> COURTNEY, SHOULD WE LOOK AT POSSIBLY MAKING THEM HAVE THE BACK THEIR STAND FACING INTO THE PROPERTY WITH THEIR BACKS TO THE BUTTING PROPERTIES? 
          >> I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE OVERREACH, REALLY. 
          THE CLOSER THEY ARE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, IF YOU WILL, IN THIS CASE, THEIR TRAJECTORY OF THEIR SHOT IS DOWNWARD THERE. 
          THE FURTHER OUT YOU GET, LIKE 25 YARDS, THE MORE ANGLED YOUR SHOT IS, YET RUN A LOT MORE RISK OF A PASS THROUGH AND THEN YOUR ARROW, THEN HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFLECT AND GO ELSEWHERE. 
          THE CLOSER YARD TO THAT PROPERTY LINE WITH A STRAIGHTER, I WON'T SAY STRAIGHT UP AND DOWN, THAT ANGLE OF THE SHOT IS MUCH MORE EFFICIENT, MUCH SAFER. 
          >> AS COURTNEY, SAID, THESE GUYS, FOR THE MOST PART FOLLOW THE RULES, SO IF YOU'RE THAT CLOSE, AND YOU'RE GOING TO SHOOT AT 10, THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          YOU CAN COME UP IF YOU'VE HAD SOME CONCERNS. 
          >> MARK ANDERSON, 565 COGLEYWOOD, MRS. AMY. 
          >> AMY, 565 COGLEYWOOD. 
          >> WE BROUGHT THIS ISSUE UP NUMBER 1, BECAUSE WE'RE WALKING THROUGH OUR WOODS, AND WE DO, YEAH, WE HAVE A GUY STANDING OVER THE TOP OF US WHEN WE'RE OUT THERE TRYING TO WALK IN OUR DOGS AND FOR THE SAFETY OF US. 
          >> I'M OUT THERE A LOT OF TIMES BY MYSELF, AND I'M UNARMED. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE THERE OR IF THEY'RE NOT THERE. 
          THEY'RE COMPLETELY CAMOED UP. 
          THEY DO NOT SPEAK TO ME. 
          >> THEY WON'T SPEAK. 
          >> THEY WON'T SPEAK. I GET VERY STARTLED. IT'S RIGHT ON MY PROPERTY LINE AND THE TREES HALF ON THE OTHER PROPERTY LINE, AND HALF ON MINE. 
          IT'S LIKE THEY'RE COMPLETELY ARMED AND YOU GUYS HAVE A RESTRICTION WHEN YOU GUYS DO YOUR TRAINING, IT'S 20 YARDS. 
          THEY CAN SHOOT 20 YARDS. 
          YOU GUYS DO THE TRAINING FOR IT. 
          >> SURE. 
          >> I'VE CHANGED MY PATTERN NOW. 
          I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE BEING IN MY OWN BACKYARD. 
          I DON'T WALK MY DOG THE SAME WAY. 
          I HAVE HUNTERS THAT ARE LAYING IN THE GROUND AND NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES. 
          WHEN THEY'RE SO CLOSE TO YOUR PROPERTY LINE, YOU'RE LIKE, I OWN THE PROPERTY, BUT THE PERSON HUNTING ON THAT PROPERTY IS NOT THE OWNER OF THAT OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          IT'S EXTREMELY. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WE HAVE CAMERAS ON OUR PROPERTY LINE, 
          [00:20:02]
FACING OUR PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE WATCHING US? 
          >> BECAUSE YOU'RE WATCHING MINE.[OVERLAPPING] 
          >> THEY DON'T EVEN OWN THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR. 
          >> THEY'RE STALKING, AND SO THAT HAPPENS ALL YEAR. 
          >> WE'RE TO THE POINT WHERE IF YOU GOT HOYT, WHICH IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST BOW MAKERS, IS ADVERTISING NOW, THEY CAN SHOOT A 75 FOOT SHOT WITHOUT A DROP, MEANING IT CAN GO 75 WITHOUT A DROP. 
          GUYS, YOU CAN SHOOT SOME LONG SHOTS AND SOME TRAJECTORIES. 
          WE LOOKED UP CEDAR RAPIDS IS 150 FEET, 50 YARDS, AND SO IS IOWA CITY IN THEIR ORDINANCE. 
          THAT'S THEIR ORDINANCES. NOW, I'M NOT AGAINST HUNTING. 
          I'M ONE OF THE BIGGER HUNTERS AROUND THIS COMMUNITY. 
          BUT I'M JUST SAYING WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT WE HAVE COMING AND WHEN A LINE IS GOING TO BE BUILT, AND WE COULD ACTUALLY CONTROL HOW CLOSE HE'S GOING TO BE TOWARD OUR PROPERTY. 
          THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR. 
          >> YEAH. BECAUSE I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE OUT THERE. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE IN THE WOODS. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE THERE. 
          OF COURSE, THEY'RE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES. 
          THEY'RE LAYING IN THE GROUND. 
          I'M OUT THERE WALKING BECAUSE THE TRAIL THAT I WOULD NORMALLY WALK ON, I DON'T WALK ON THAT TRAIL ANYMORE. 
          BECAUSE 20TH OF SEPTEMBER COMES AROUND OF THE 21ST, I FEEL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE. 
          I'VE ALSO HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH GALEN. 
          WE ORIGINALLY WERE THINKING ABOUT 25 YARDS WHEN WE TALKED TO HIM BEFORE, AND IT WAS ACTUALLY TO BE IN PLACE THIS YEAR, AND IT NEVER DID HAPPEN. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT IT HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE BEFORE. 
          [OVERLAPPING] I HAVEN'T LIVED THERE THAT LONG, AND IT'S BEEN THE LAST THREE YEARS. 
          IT'S BEEN A NIGHTMARE EVEN THINKING ABOUT WALKING IN MY AREA OR BEING AROUND IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE RIGHT THERE WITH AN ARROW ABOVE ME AND HAVING CAMERAS WATCH ME ALL SUMMER LONG, ALL SPRING LONG. 
          I WOULD REALLY LIKE IT TO BE 50 YARDS FOR TRAIL CAMERAS, AND ALSO THE HUNTING STAND. 
          IT MAKE ME FEEL SAFER. I'D FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE. 
          THIS IS ACTUALLY TAKES AWAY THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY. 
          BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO BE ON THE PROPERTY LINE, AND ACTUALLY, I FEEL THREATENED. 
          I'M CHANGING MY BEHAVIOR BECAUSE OF THIS. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT HUNTING IS REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          I'M NOT AGAINST HUNTING. 
          I'M ALL FOR IT, I UNDERSTAND YOU GOT TO CONTROL THE DEER, BUT I SHOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE AND SAFE ON MY OWN PROPERTY. 
          >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 
          >> DO YOU TALK TO THE OTHER LAND OWNER? LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S NOT THE PEOPLE HUNTING THEIR OWN LAND. 
          DO YOU TALK TO THE OTHER LANDOWNER AT ALL ABOUT THAT? 
          >> I TRIED AND HE SAID HE'S GOT PERMISSION. 
          >> HE HAS PERMISSION. 
          >> THAT'S FINE. HE DOES HAVE PERMISSION, AND I ACTUALLY ASKED THE PERSON UP IN THE TREE TO STAND, HEY, DO ME A FAVOR, TURN THE BLIND TO THE OTHER SIDE SO THEIR PLATFORMS AREN'T FACING OURS. 
          >> BECAUSE THEY'RE FACING HOME LIKE THIS. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WOULD NOT DO IT. WE WOULDN'T TALK. 
          >> JOHN NELSON OWNS A PIECE OF LAND RIGHT NEXT TO US. 
          HE'S ASKED US TO PUT UP NO HUNTING. 
          I GO OUT IN THE WOODS ALL THE TIME, AND I'VE TALKED TO GELAN ABOUT THIS AND ANYTIME IT HAPPENS AGAIN, WHICH I DON'T EVEN LIKE TO GO OUT THERE NOW IS THERE'S A DEAD DEER ALL THE TIME WITH BOW AND ARROWS IN THEM. 
          >> ARROWS, YEAH. 
          >> ARROWS IN THEM. GELAN SAYS WE CAN DEFINITELY HAVE THEM COME OUT AND LOOK IF IT HAPPENS AGAIN, THE ARROWS IN THERE. 
          WE CAN FIND OUT WHO'S LEAVING THESE ANIMALS OUT THERE FOR JUST DEAD. 
          THEY'RE NOT RESPECTING THE ANIMALS. 
          >> THE ARROWS IN THE ANIMAL. 
          >> ON THIS ORDINANCE ONLY DEALS WITH THE DISTANCE, SO TO THE CAMERAS AND TO THE BACK, WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT. 
          >> IT'S JUST TO HAVE SOME PRIVACY. 
          IT JUST FEELS LIKE YOU'RE BEING STOCKED. 
          I'VE CHANGED MY BEHAVIOR BECAUSE OF IT. 
          IT'S ONE OF MY FAVORITE THINGS TO DO NOW, THE 20TH OF SEPTEMBER, THE 21ST SEPTEMBER. 
          I HATE THIS TIME OF YEAR, AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH THANKSGIVING, CHRISTMAS, AND THROUGH THE FIRST OF THE YEAR. 
          IT'S NOT FUN. IF IT WAS IN YOUR GUYS' BACKYARD, I THINK YOU'D FEEL THE SAME. 
          >> I HUNTED ABOUT A YEAR [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> THERE'S NO HUNTING ON YOUR PROPERTY? 
          >> YES, WE DO. THEY STILL DO IT. 
          >> I HUNTED A LOT OF YEARS WITHOUT A CAMERA. 
          I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY THEY WOULD NEED IT. 
          >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY WHO'S SERIOUS ABOUT DEER HUNTING WHO DOESN'T HAVE TRAIL CAMS. BUT THAT [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I WAS DEAD SERIOUS. 
          >> OH, NO. [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> YOU DON'T NEED A TRAIL. 
          >> WHEN'S THE LAST TIME YOU HUNT? I'M NOT MEAN. 
          >> BOW HUNTING OUT IN THE COUNTY WITH [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> I DON'T BOW HUNT. 
          >> I GET OUT OF THE COUNTY. 
          >> OUT IN THE COUNTY IS DIFFERENT THAN IN CITY. 
          >> BUT IN THE CITY, I DON'T [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> IT'S LIKE RIGHT THERE. SAY THIS TREE IS A FOOT AWAY FROM MY PROPERTY. 
          NOW I DON'T EVEN LIKE WALKING DOWN THERE. 
          IT SENDS AN INSTANT NOTIFICATION TO THEIR PHONE, AND I'M WALKING MY DOG. 
          MY MOM WON'T WALK WITH ME THIS TIME OF YEAR NOW. 
          >> NOW, I GET IT. 
          >> THIS IS EXTREMELY UNCONFORMABLE. 
          >> ALL RIGHT, COURTNEY. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> NOW, I UNDERSTAND. THANKS FOR CALLING THAT. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS. 
          I THINK THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME LEVEL OF WHAT WE CAN TRULY REGULATE. 
          IF THERE IS A COMPLAINT, THEY OBVIOUSLY NEED TO CALL, AND THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR THAT WE'VE HAD THESE CALLS INTO OUR OFFICE. 
          I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. 
          REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED THIS YEAR, IF THAT'S HOW THEY FEEL, 
          [00:25:01]
THIS IS WHEN THE COMPLAINT HAS COME FORWARD TO US. 
          IF THERE IS THOSE INSTANCES, THEY HAVE TO CALL SO THAT WE CAN ENFORCE. 
          I THINK WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT REGULATING THE CAMERAS THEMSELVES, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S ALL BASED ON SOMEBODY GIVING US A COMPLAINT. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO HAVE TO ENFORCE, IS YOU HAVE TO MOVE THIS CAMERA, WHO OWNS THIS CAMERA. 
          THERE'S A LOT THAT WOULD GO INTO THAT FROM A REGULATORY STANDPOINT, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW STAFF HANDLES. 
          WE CAN HANDLE IF SOMETHING IS SHOT ACROSS. 
          WE CAN HANDLE SOME OF THOSE THINGS. 
          BUT THERE'S A LEVEL WITH WHICH STAFF CAN TRULY HANDLE THOSE REGULATIONS, AND IF SOMEBODY'S HUNTING MORE THAN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO, THAT COULD FALL TO THE DNR. 
          I THINK THAT WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH 10 YARDS IS REASONABLE, ESPECIALLY WITH HOW SUCCESSFUL OUR PROGRAM'S BEEN. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE OVERREACH WOULD BE ON THIS. 
          LET'S JUST SAY WE HAVE A HABITUAL OFFENDER PROPERTY OWNER. 
          HE'S GIVEN THESE GUYS PERMISSION TO HUNT AND THERE JUST, WHERE DO WE STEP IN OR IS THAT A DNR THING TO THAT PROPERTY THEN BECOMES DEFUNCT OR I DON'T KNOW THE RIGHT WORD FOR IT, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FOLLOW ANY ORDINANCE. 
          >> THAT WOULDN'T BE THE PROPERTY OWNER, THAT'D BE THE HUNTER THEMSELVES. 
          >> THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN STILL KEEP GRANTING AND GRANTING. 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT. 
          >> WE GO AFTER THE HUNTER, BUT NOTHING WILL NEVER HAPPEN. 
          >> WE REGULATE THE HUNTERS THAT GO THROUGH OUR PROGRAM AND PASS THE TEST. 
          THEY HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR ZONING AND LOCK SIZE. 
          YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO ALLOW ANYBODY ON YOUR PROPERTY. 
          WE REGULATE THE ACTUAL HUNTER ITSELF. 
          >> IF YOU DON'T PASS THE TEST, YOU CAN'T HUNT. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> WITH THIS COMPLAINT, SINCE IT'S THE FIRST TIME COMING THROUGH, HAVE YOU GUYS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THE LAND OWNER ABOUT THE HUNTERS THAT ARE ON THERE? 
          >> THERE'S ONE HUNTER THAT USES THE LAND, AND FRANKLY, WE REACHED OUT, AND WE ASKED HIM TO MOVE HIS STAND. 
          HE SAID HE'S WITHIN HIS RIGHTS, AND HE ABSOLUTELY IS. 
          >> IS THIS IN THE COGLEYWOOD FOREST RESERVE? [NOISE] BECAUSE YOU OWN THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE? 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> IT'S OWNED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? 
          >> NO. IT'S HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY. 
          >> WELL, THIS IS COGLEYWOOD FOREST RESERVATION. 
          >> NO. 
          >> IT'S MIKE PETERSON'S. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND HOW TO REGULATE THE CAMERAS, AND I LIKE YOUR IDEA THOUGH OF PUTTING THE STAND IN BECAUSE AT LEAST THEN THEY'RE NOT FACING OTHER PROPERTY. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S WITHIN THAT AND IF YOU'RE SHOOTING DOWN. I GET THAT. 
          BUT FOR ME, IF I OWNED THAT LAND NEXT TO THEM AND I WAS OUT WALKING AND SOMEBODY STANDING ABOVE ME AND TRYING TO SHOOT DOWN AND NOT SPEAKING, IT WOULD BE VERY DISTURBING TO HAVE SOMEBODY WALKING AROUND. 
          >> I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE 10 YARDS COMES INTO PLAY, SO WHICHEVER DIRECTION THEIR STAND IS FACING THEY'RE NOT ON THE PROPERTY LINE AT THAT POINT. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD GO OUT AND INSPECT EVERY SINGLE DEER STAND TO MAKE SURE IT'S FACING THE PROPER DIRECTION. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> I AGREE. BUT IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT, THEN THEY TAKE A PICTURE, IT'S FACING THE WRONG WAY, THEN YOU GO AFTER THE HUNTER. 
          GREAT. THAT WOULD BE A SOMETHING WE COULD PUT IN THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY TAKE THAT ADDITIONAL STAFF TIME. 
          BUT IF THERE'S THAT COMPLAINT BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD SO FEW COMPLAINTS. 
          >> THIS ONE. [LAUGHTER] I THINK THAT'S IT. 
          WE'VE HAD ONE COMPLAINT. 
          I THINK THAT THAT IS A FAIR THING TO SAY JILL. 
          TO ME, WE'VE RESPONDED, WE'VE PROVIDED A DISTANCE THAT WE THINK IS REASONABLE TO MAKE SURE THE PROGRAM IS STILL SUCCESSFUL, AND FROM OUR STANCE, THAT REALLY MEETS WHAT THE INTENT OF MAKING THIS CHANGES. 
          >> I WISH THAT HUNTER WAS MORE OPEN TO WORKING. 
          >> I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS A LITTLE FURTHER. 
          I THINK WE CAN REGULATE CAMERA IN TOWN. 
          I DON'T THINK THEY NEED TO HAVE A CAMERA IN TOWN. 
          IT DOES NOTHING OTHER THAN TRACK ANIMALS. 
          ONE WAY YOU REGULATE IT IS IF YOU'RE HUNTING IN TOWN, YOU CAN'T USE A CAMERA. 
          IF THE PROPERTY OWNER [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> I THINK PEOPLE COULD SAY, LOOK, I GOT RING CAMERAS ALL OVER TOWN. 
          SAME DAMN THING. I'M JUST BEING A DEVIL'S ADVOCATE. I AGREE. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WELL, I AGREE, BUT WHEN YOU'RE FACING THESE CAMERAS IN THE PEOPLE'S YARDS, IT'S INVASION OF PRIVACY IN A SENSE. 
          THESE THINGS RUN 24 HOURS A DAY ON MOTIONS AND GO TO PHONES, AND ALL AS IT IS IS TO TRACK AN ANIMAL, AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ON AN ACRE OF PROPERTY FOR GOD'S SAKE. 
          [00:30:04]
          >> WHICH PROPERTY IS IT? THE ONE THAT [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> 521. 
          >> I SEE YOURS. YOU OWN THE ONE TO THE EAST. 
          IS IT THIS IN THE NORTH? [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IS TRYING TO [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIND IT ON THE MAP. 
          >> IT GIVES US A BETTER VISUAL. 
          >> [BACKGROUND] 
          >> CAN I ASK THAT YOU USE THE MICROPHONE IF YOU'RE GOING TO TALK BECAUSE YOU ARE THE OWNER. 
          >> I'M NOT TRYING TO STOP HUNTING. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO KNOW THAT 50 YARDS, LIKE I SAID, TWO OTHER MAJOR CITIES ARE DOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. 
          THEY'VE DONE THROUGH IT OBVIOUSLY FOR A REASON. 
          THE FACT OF IT IS, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET IT. 
          IF THE GUY STILL WANTS TO HUNT, HE CAN HUNT. 
          BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY, THERE'S A BUNCH OF TREES ALL ALONG THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THE FIRST YEAR, I GOT DOWN THERE AND WALK IN MY PROPERTY, THE BLINDS WERE ON MY PROPERTY. 
          I SAID, THOSE ARE ON MINE, HE GOES, NO, IT'S NOT. 
          I HAD TO ACTUALLY PAY $2,000 FOR A SURVEYOR TO SURVEY IT TO TELL HIM TO MOVE IT, SO HE MOVED OVER TO THE FOOT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          IT'S BEEN A THORN IN OUR SIDE. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> I WANT HIM TO BE ABLE TO HUNT THE GROUND. I'M NOT TRYING TO STOP IT. 
          IT'S JUST THAT 10 YARDS IS TOO SHORT. 
          NOT WHEN YOU WANT TO TAKE A 20 YARD SHOT. 
          >> EXACTLY. IT'S JUST [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> SHOULD BE 25 AT THE MINIMUM. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THAT OUR PROPERTY IS ONE THAT WE COULD ALLOW TO HUNT, AND WE CHOOSE NOT TO, BUT THAT OTHER NEIGHBOR HAS THAT RIGHT TO DO THAT. 
          BUT IT'S ALSO LIKE I'M CHANGING MY BEHAVIOR ON MY OWN PROPERTY, AND I'M NOT EVEN DOING MY WALKING TRAIL ANYMORE BECAUSE OF IT. 
          IT IS TERRIFYING WHEN THEY DON'T SPEAK TO YOU. 
          IT'S NOT LIKE I'M REQUESTING TOO FAR AWAY. 
          EVEN IF WE DO 25-35 YARDS INSTEAD OF 10 YARDS. 
          IT WOULD GIVE A SAFETY NET. 
          I MEAN, 30 FEET COMPARED TO 75 FEET TO 105 FEET. 
          THAT IS A SAFER RANGE AND WHERE I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE. 
          I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT SELLING OUR PROPERTY. 
          I DON'T EVEN WANT TO OWN IT ANYMORE. 
          THERE'S NOT MANY PROPERTIES IN THE CITY THAT YOU CAN HUNT ON. 
          MY MOM AND DAD HAVE A PIECE, THEY ALLOW HUNTERS TO HUNT THERE, BUT THEY HAVE ALMOST 20 ACRES. 
          IT'S A SAFER TOGETHER. 
          THERE'S NO ONE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, WALKING OR ANYTHING, AND IT'S VERY SAFE AND VERY COMFORTABLE. 
          BUT THE FACT THAT I'M NOT EVEN DOING WHAT I WOULD NORMALLY DO BECAUSE THIS PERSON REFUSED TO. 
          GALEN DID ASK THE PERSON TO SEE IF THEY WOULD MOVE THEIR STAND, AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO. 
          THAT SHOWS YOU HOW UNREASONABLE THEY ARE. 
          THEY DON'T WANT TO HONOR IT, AND THEY DON'T OWN THE LAND. 
          THEY'RE A PROFESSIONAL HUNTER. 
          THEY CAN DEFINITELY SHOOT MORE THAN A 20 YARD SHOT AND NAIL IT. 
          SAY IF A NEW HUNTER COMES AND HE CAN ALREADY SHOOT 20 YARDS, AND HE'S 10 YARDS AWAY, AND HE MIGHT NOT BE AN EXPERIENCED HUNTER, AND I'M OUT THERE DOING IT. 
          THIS STANDARD BOW CAN GO 200 YARDS. 
          WE'RE ONLY ASKING FOR 10 YARDS. 
          THAT'S RIDICULOUS. 
          IT'S NOT SAFE FOR ME TO BE OUT THERE WALKING. 
          MY MOM DOESN'T WALK WITH ME ANYMORE BECAUSE OF THIS. 
          I DON'T EVEN FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH MY DOG. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT. 
          IF IT WAS ME, I'D JUST GO OUT THERE IN THE MORNING AND PUT A BOOM BOX OUT THERE WITH THE RADIO AND GET THE [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> THAT'S HARASSMENT OF A HUNTER, AND I'M NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. 
          I WAS TOLD BY THE DNR [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> WHAT? ON MY OWN PROPERTY? 
          >> YOU WANT TO KNOW MORE OF THE STORY? [LAUGHTER] I WAS CALLED TO WHITE OAK GAS STATION. 
          MARK WAS TOO, BY THE DNR, SAYING THAT THIS HUNTER, BECAUSE HE'S BEST BUDDIES WITH THE DNR. 
          I GET THREATENED TO HAVE A TICKET SAYING THAT I WAS HARASSING A HUNTER BECAUSE I WANTED TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID. 
          GALEN SAID THAT I COULD GO OUT AND PUT STRINGERS OUT THERE AND TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING. 
          I THOUGHT THAT THAT WOULD BE OKAY TO DO SO THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM DOING THAT. 
          BUT I'M NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. 
          I CAN GET A TICKET FROM THE DNR. 
          BUT WHEN I GOT DONE HAVING THAT CONVERSATION WITH THEM, WHEN I DROVE BY, GUESS WHO WAS SITTING ON THE BACK OF THE TRUCK WITH THE DNR, HAVING A DRINK? THEY WERE ALL TOGETHER SITTING THERE MAKING FUN OF ME, SAYING, I'M GOING TO GET MY WAY. BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? 
          [00:35:01]
WE OWN IT BECAUSE HE'S FRIENDS WITH THE DNR. IT'S REALLY SAD. 
          IT'S VERY UNCOMFORTABLE, AND IT REALLY MAKES ME WANT TO SELL MY PIECE OF PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THIS. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> THAT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE GOT A TICKET. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND. 
          I DON'T KNOW, I THINK WE OUGHT TO TALK ABOUT IT MORE AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO. 
          >> ANY THOUGHTS, TONY? 
          >> THAT'S WILD. HARASSMENT. 
          >> FIND OUT WHO THE OWNER IS. THE DNR SHOWED UP. 
          >> JUST PUT A STAND RIGHT NEXT TO HIM. GO SIT BY HIM. 
          >> I THINK, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CAMERAS, AND IF YOU'RE WANTING TO REGULATE OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT WE SHOULD DEFINITELY REVISIT IT. 
          THE NUMBERS THAT ARE IN THERE, IF THAT NEEDS TO BE REVISITED, THAT'S ALL STUFF THAT'S UP TO COUNSEL. 
          I THINK THAT THERE IS SOME OVERLAP HERE BETWEEN WHAT DO YOU WANT TO REGULATE AS A CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PENALTY THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S INVOLVED WITH VERSUS WHAT REMEDIES ARE AVAILABLE UNDER CIVIL LAW. 
          WHEN YOU HAVE AN INVASION OF PRIVACY OR YOU HAVE HUNTERS WHICH IS AN INHERENTLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITY, AND IT'S AFFECTING YOUR USE OF THE LAND. 
          THERE ARE PRIVATE CAUSES OF ACTION THAT CAN BE TAKEN. 
          BUT I THINK, FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, IF WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT ON FOR FIRST READING, WE MAYBE DELAY THAT AND FIX IT, IF THAT'S HOW WE WANT TO DO IT. 
          THEN THAT WOULD ALLOW DISCUSSION, EITHER AT FUTURE COUNSEL SESSIONS, OR IF YOU WANT TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO, COURTNEY OR GALEN ABOUT MAYBE ADDITIONAL THINGS YOU'D LIKE TO BE SEE PUT INTO THIS. 
          I DID PREPARE IT, BUT WHAT I DID WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT A LEGAL FORMAT. 
          IT'S NOT POLICY,. 
          >> THIS HAS GOT TO GO THREE READINGS, TWO, FOR SURE. 
          WE'RE INTO JANUARY ANYWAY, NOTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN THIS HUNTING SEASON, CORRECT? 
          >> RIGHT. THE ONLY THING TO CONSIDER IS THAT UNDER THE STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS FOR THE CREATION BECAUSE HUNTING IS ILLEGAL IN THE CITY, UNLESS THE CITY CHOOSES TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT IMPLEMENTS THE STATE LAW GOVERNING URBAN DEER AND TURKEY MANAGEMENT, WHICH WE'VE DONE. 
          BUT BECAUSE WE'RE CONSIDERING CHANGES TO THE LAW, WHATEVER CHANGES WE MAKE CANNOT GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL IOWA DNR HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE AND APPROVE THEM. 
          IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO IT, THEN WE'LL PROBABLY WANT TO WRITE IT IN A WAY WHERE THE IOWA DNRS APPROVAL IS DEPENDENT ON EACH SECTION, THAT WAY, IT'S SEVERABLE. 
          THAT WAY, WHATEVER IOWA DNR APPROVES, WILL GO INTO LAW, WHENEVER THEY DON'T APPROVE, WE'LL GET RESCINDED OUT OF THE LAW, WHICH IT'S NOT CURRENTLY WRITTEN IN THAT MANNER, BECAUSE IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE ONE CHANGE IS BEING MADE, AND IF THAT GOES AWAY, THEN WE JUST STAY WITH OUR CURRENT LAW. 
          BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO MULTIPLE THINGS, THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER TOO. 
          >> HAVE WE HAD ANY CONVERSATION WITH IOWA DNR AT ALL ABOUT THIS? HAVE YOU REACHED OUT TO THEM IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM? 
          >> I HAVE NOT. BUT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYBODY ELSE. 
          >> NOT SURE. 
          >> GARRY AND SHAKEN SAID NO. 
          >> NO. PERHAPS THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO DO, I GUESS, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, WE PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER, BUT IF WE COULD WITH A SIMPLE PHONE CALL, SAID, HEY, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT X Y OR Z, AND THEY GO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPROVE THAT. 
          >> WELL, THERE IS TWO OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE IT. THERE'S THE STANDARD. 
          MAYBE THEY RECOMMEND 20, NOT 10, THE OTHER CITIES ARE A 50, THEY'LL APPROVE IT, BUT WHATEVER THEY SEE WHAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION MIGHT BE, OBVIOUSLY, IT STILL SITS WITH US. 
          >> I THINK AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT TO REMEMBER IS THAT BECAUSE HUNTING IN THE CITY IS PRESUMED ILLEGAL, NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO HUNT. 
          IT'S A PRIVILEGE THAT CAN BE GRANTED. 
          THAT IS WHAT ALLOWS US TO PUT CONDITIONS ON. IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. 
          >> THEY CAN'T EFFECTIVELY TRUMP OUR DECISION AT THE STATE LEVEL AND SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T PUT ANY RESTRICTIONS ON. 
          >> BECAUSE THE LAW IS WRITTEN THE WAY THAT IT IS, IT DOES REQUIRE DNRS APPROVAL. 
          [00:40:02]
BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR MECHANISMS ARE FOR REVIEWING THAT DECISION INTERNALLY OR HOW YOU GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. 
          BUT, THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD WANT MORE TIME TO FIGURE OUT, AND SOMETHING I WOULD BE FIGURING OUT OVER THE THREE GATINGS, IF IT DOES GO FORWARD TODAY. 
          WOULD BE COMMUNICATING WITH IOWA DNR TO FIGURE OUT, WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS OF THIS PROCESS? IF AND WHEN IT PASSES ON THE THIRD READING, HOW DO WE GET IT TO YOU FOR APPROVAL? 
          >> GOT YOU. 
          >> NO, GO AHEAD. 
          >> AFTER YOU. 
          >> NO, GO AHEAD. 
          >> WELL, THE REASON WE DID THIS WAS BECAUSE OF VEHICULAR ACCIDENTS WITH DEER. 
          >> ACCIDENTS WITH DEER. 
          >> I KNOW WE'VE TALKED IT'S OVER 100 DEER CARCASSES ARE PICKED UP, BUT HOW MANY DO YOU THINK RELATED TO VEHICULAR? 
          >> NINETY NINE PERCENT OF THEM. 
          >> IT HELPS CALL THE HARDEN. 
          >> I KNOW THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE UP OF IVY LAST WEEK WHERE A DEER WAS SHOT AND JUST LEFT THERE. 
          MY OPINION WOULD BE IS FOR US TO PULL THIS, AND LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW WE WANT TO GO FORWARD AND DO IT RIGHT AND PUT IT INTO THE THREE SECTIONS SO IF SOMETHING DOESN'T PASS WITH DNR, THEN WE CAN PULL IT. 
          THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. 
          >> YEAH, I WOULD AGREE. 
          >> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR FOR MYSELF, AS WELL AS FOR COURTNEY AND GALEN. 
          BUT WHAT I HEAR FROM THE COUNSEL IS THAT YOU WANT MAYBE MORE RESEARCH ON THE DISTANCE. 
          FOR THE STANDS, YOU WANT [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> FACING AWAY FROM PROPERTY. 
          >> I WOULD LIKE THEM FACING INTO THE PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE HUNTING. 
          >> DOES THAT MATTER BECAUSE I'M NOT A DEER HUNTER. 
          >> IT DOESN'T. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] CAN'T YOU JUST TURN AND STRAP ON? 
          >> WELL, YOU CAN BUT YOU CAN'T SHOOT DIRECTLY BEHIND YOU. 
          >> YOU CAN SHOOT AN ANGLE, BUT YOU CAN'T TURN AROUND BEHIND THE TREE. 
          YOU JUST CAN'T. 
          >> IT WILL DEFINITELY HELP. 
          >> SEE IF DNR HAS A RECOMMENDATION ON THE WEIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LENGTHS. 
          >> I KNOW THAT STAFF HAS STATED THAT, THAT WOULD MAKE SOME AREAS HARDER TO GET, BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO GET MORE PERMISSION, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF YOU ARE NOT A BAD ACTOR, HOW HARD IS IT TO GET [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> THEN IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. 
          >> WELL, IS THERE A WAY BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PERMISSION AND I KNOW THIS OVER SIMPLIFICATION. 
          YOU COULD HAVE TEN ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT LET'S SAY THERE'S FOUR. 
          IF THE OTHER ONES DON'T CARE, ONLY IF THERE'S AN OBJECTION. 
          >> YOU'RE SAYING, SET IT UP IN A REACTIVE MANNER, IF SOMEONE OBJECTS THEN THEY COULD COME [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WELL, SO THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT'S PRESUMPTIVELY ILLEGAL, WOULD BE BREAKING THE LAW IF IT WAS PLACED WITHIN 10 YARDS. 
          BUT THEN IT SETS OUT A SPECIFIC EXCEPTION FOR CASES WHERE THE NEIGHBORS [OVERLAPPING] WHERE THEY DO SAY IT'S OKAY. 
          REQUIRES THAT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. 
          ESSENTIALLY, A GRANT OF PERMISSION WOULD BE GOOD FOR AN ENTIRE HUNTING SEASON, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO EVERY TIME. 
          IN SITUATIONS WHERE PROPERTY DOES TRADE HANDS, SOMEBODY CAN'T FOR 50, JUST CLAIM THAT THIS IS IN PERPETUITY WITH THE LAND BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE TO GET IT UPDATED EVERY YEAR. 
          ESPECIALLY, IT COULD BE THAT TWO NEIGHBORS SHARE THEIR PROPERTY AND HUNT THE WHOLE THING TOGETHER. 
          YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A WAY TO ALLOW IT WITHOUT MAKING IT ILLEGAL IN EVERY SITUATION, BUT YOU DO HAVE TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL AS THE PRESUMPTION BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'S EFFECTIVELY DELEGATING THE GOVERNMENTAL POLICE POWER TO A NEIGHBOR. 
          IF YOU SAY IT'S ONLY ILLEGAL UNLESS THAT PERSON COMPLAINS, THAT'S A DIFFERENT APPROACH. 
          THE LAST THING WAS THE TRAIL CAMERAS. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? 
          >> LIKE ROGER SAID, I'VE GOT CAMERAS ON MY FRONT DOORS. 
          A LOT OF PEOPLE DO. 
          WHAT I WOULD ASK IS JUST SOME RESEARCH ON HOW THAT'S MAYBE HANDLED IN OTHER COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE STATE. 
          IF THERE'S ANY PRECEDENT SET ANYWHERE IN THE STATE OF IOWA AND OTHER COMMUNITIES. 
          [00:45:02]
          >> BECAUSE MY BACK CAMERA CAN SEE MY NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD. WHICH IS FINE. 
          >> WELL, AND IF YOU HAVE A 25-50 YARDS INSIDE THE PROPERTY AND IT'S FACING TOWARDS THAT PROPERTY OWNER, IT'S A WEIRD SETUP BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE IT SOMEWHERE ON THAT PROPERTY AND IT'S GOING TO SHOW. 
          A PROPERTY OWNER THAT DOESN'T WANT TO. 
          >> BUT I THINK THE INSTANCE IN THIS CASE IS IT'S ON THE PROPERTY EDGE FACING AWAY FROM THE AREA. 
          >> THAT ONE IS ON THE PROPERTY EDGE, CORRECT? 
          >> IT'S ON THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY, SO THEY CAN SEE WHATEVER [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> IT'S A THIRD PARTY. 
          >> BUT THERE IS NO CURRENT LAW THAT PROHIBITS IT. 
          >> I GET IT. 
          >> I'VE DONE A LOT OF BOW HUNTING, AND I HAD PROPERTY WHERE I HAD NEIGHBORS THAT I BOW HUNTED ON. 
          I WAS ON THE ACREAGE. 
          WHEREVER I PUT MY STAND, I PUT FLARE TAPE UP SO THAT THEY KNEW WHAT MY STAND WAS IN THE AREA. 
          >> YOU'RE A GOOD GUY. MOST PEOPLE AREN'T. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          BUT IT'S A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HUNTER TO PROTECT ANYBODY THAT COMES IN THAT AREA. 
          >> WE COULD PUT IT INTO THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE REFLECTIVE TAPE [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> IT'S JUST A FLARE TAPE. 
          IT'S A FLUORESCENT PLASTIC. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WE COULD PUT THAT IN THERE. 
          >> THAT WAY THEY'RE VISIBLE. 
          [OVERLAPPING] YOU'LL GET USED TO IT, THEY'LL COME UP AND STAND UNDER YOURS. I DON'T MIND. 
          >> JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A BAD ACTOR THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO ADHERE TO. 
          >> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP OUR HERD DOWN IN TOWN AND I DON'T WANT TO LIMIT HUNTING. 
          I HAVE HUNTED MY WHOLE LIFE. 
          BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME COMMON SENSE IN SOME RESPECT AT THE SAME TIME. 
          >> AGREED. 
          >> AGREED. 
          >> CAN WE TELL MARK AND AMY, THEY DON'T HAVE TO SHOW UP TONIGHT? 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> WE'LL PULL IT FOR TONIGHT. 
          >> WELL, IT WOULDN'T BE EFFECT UNTIL NEXT YEAR. 
          I THINK PULL IT FOR TONIGHT. 
          >> THAT WAY WE CAN GET IT AND YOU CAN COME BACK WITH WHAT YOU FOUND ON SOME OF THOSE THINGS. 
          WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION AND DECIDE WHAT WE WANT TO DO AND THEN PRESENT IT IN A MANNER SUCH THAT LIKE YOU SAID, IF PARTS OF IT, DNR IS NOT OKAY WITH, WE'VE COMPARTMENTALIZED TO SOME EXTENT. 
          WE'RE NOT COMING BACK TO THEM THREE AND FOUR TIMES. 
          >> ARE YOU JUST MAKING NO MOTION SO THE ORDINANCE WOULD DIE OR CONTINUING IT. 
          >> MAKE NO MOTION, THE ORDINANCE DIES, TONY WILL BRING IT BACK WHEN WE'RE READY. 
          I WASN'T MAKING LIGHT OF YOUR SITUATION. 
          I HOPE YOU KNOW THAT. WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT PUTTING MUSIC OUT IN FRONT OF THE HUNTER. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] 
          >> PUT A TREE STAND RIGHT NEXT TO [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> THIS BODY IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORMERS CONDONING BREAKING OR VIOLATING STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> JUST SO WE'RE AWARE. 
          >> BUT YOU CAN HUNT YOUR OWN LAND AND AS LOUD AS YOU WANT. 
          THAT IS LEGAL. THANK YOU. 
          >> ANYTHING ON ORDINANCE FOR SECOND? 
          >> THERE IS A REQUEST TO WAIVE THIRD ON THAT ONE. 
          >> NO PROBLEM. NO QUESTIONS. 
          HOW ABOUT THE RESOLUTIONS. 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON F. F IS ASKING FOR A BIG CHANGE FROM CHEE SHOP TO GO FROM 38 TOWNHOUSES TO 44 APARTMENT UNITS. 
          I KNOW WE'VE ALL TALKED ABOUT THE NEED FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING. 
          >> THAT'S A BIG CHANGE FROM TOWN HOMES TO FORTY EIGHT APARTMENT UNITS [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> ONE BUILDING. 
          >> THE REQUEST IS, IT'S TWO THINGS. 
          ONE, WE ACTUALLY SPURRED THIS REQUEST AT THE CITY BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZED THAT ALL THOSE CUTS ON SECOND AVENUE AND ALL THOSE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS WERE GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC. 
          THERE WASN'T A GREAT WAY TO REAR LOAD THEM AND STILL MEET THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 
          THE INTENT TO GO TO A MULTIFAMILY STYLE, IT DOES INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          THEY CAN STILL PARK IT, BUT IT ALSO ELIMINATES A LOT OF THOSE CURB CUTS INTO OUR ROAD AND MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S ONE OF OUR SNOW ROUTES. 
          WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR. 
          FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS A BETTER SOLUTION TO THE ACTUAL ROAD ITSELF AND MAKING SURE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT CAN MOVE FORWARD. 
          >> IT'S TWO STORY. 
          >> YES, TWO STORY. 
          >> THE APPEARANCE TO THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE RELATIVELY THE SAME, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? 
          [00:50:03]
          >> YEAH, THEY ALL HAD INDIVIDUAL GARAGES, INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS BEFORE. BUT, YES. 
          >> WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT TWO STORY IT'S GOING TO SIT ON THE SAME PRETTY MUCH FOOTPRINT. 
          YOU JUST WANT TO HAVE ALL THOSE INDIVIDUAL POP IN. 
          >> THERE WILL ACTUALLY BE MORE GREEN SPACE THAN THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY. 
          >> DO ALL THOSE HOUSES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SECOND AVENUE NOT HAVE CURB CUTS? 
          >> I THINK A LOT OF THEM DO. 
          >> SOME DO, SOME DON'T. 
          SOME CUT OFF ON THE SIDE STREET. 
          >> NO, THAT DENTIST DOES. 
          >> I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT LIKE OTHERS ON THE CORNERS USUALLY KICK OUT TO THE SIDE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. 
          >> BUT THIS WOULD BE A BUNCH OF CURB CUTS. 
          >> IT WOULD BE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR ALMOST EVERY SINGLE DRIVEWAY, AND WE TRIED TO PAIR THEM TOGETHER SO THAT IT WOULD JUST BE ONE. 
          BUT AGAIN, IT WOULD LITERALLY BE CUT AFTER CUT AFTER CUT. 
          WE THINK THIS IS A GOOD SOLUTION. 
          >>NOT JUST SNOW, SAFETY IS A FACTOR. 
          >> I WAS GOING TO SAY YOU'RE RUNNING A FIRE TRUCK DOWN SECOND AB OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          >> I WOULD BE A LOT BETTER WITH GOING TO BUILD THEM. 
          >> HAVE LESS WATER. WE WOULD HAVE LESS WATERSHED COMING OFF OF THOSE DRIVE. 
          >> I GET IT. IT'S JUST WE HAVE A LOT OF APARTMENTS GOING IN DOWN THERE. 
          WE NEED DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING IN OUR COMMUNITY. 
          >> WELL, WE DID. THERE WERE STILL GOING TO BE RENTALS. 
          THAT IS THAT PART IS STAYING THE SAME. 
          >> IT'S 40 INSTEAD OF 38? SAME FOOTPRINT. 
          >> IT'S THE SAME THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BE OWNED. 
          THEY WERE GOING TO BE RENTAL UNITS ANYWAYS. 
          FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT NAME ON THE SAME THING IT SOUNDS LIKE THEN. 
          I MEAN, WE WERE CALLING THEM TOWN HOMES, BUT IF THEY'RE RENTALS, THEN IT'S EFFECTIVELY AN APARTMENT SITUATION ALMOST ANYWAYS, I FEEL LIKE. 
          >> GOT A TRANSITIONAL FEEL FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL? 
          >> WHEN THIS FIRST CAME, DID WE THINK THE 38 CURB CUT WOULD'VE BEEN FINE? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WHEN IT FIRST CAME TO US, WE OBVIOUSLY LOOKED AT THAT. 
          WE THOUGHT IT WAS OKAY THEN, BUT NOW IT'S CHANGED. 
          >> WE CONTINUED TO EVALUATE IT AND LOOK AT THAT. 
          THIS WAS REALLY JUST SOMETHING THAT WHEN HE CAME BACK AND SAID, IT'S JUST THINGS ARE CHANGING FOR ME FINANCIALLY, AND WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IT. 
          THIS WAS ONE OF OUR SUGGESTIONS AS A CITY TO SAY THIS IS SOMETHING WE WOULD LIKE TO SOLVE ALREADY. 
          IF YOU'RE WILLING TO CHANGE THE STYLE, WE TRIED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RELOAD THEM. 
          IT JUST DIDN'T WORK. 
          THIS FELT LIKE A GOOD TRANSITION TO MOVING TO A MULTI FAMILY THAT STILL MEETS THE INTENT OF THE AREA, BUT SAVE OUR ROAD A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. 
          >> WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN INVESTMENT? 
          >> HE STILL HAS TO KEEP THE SAME VALUATION. 
          THAT'S NOT CHANGING. 
          IT'S JUST IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE COST SAVINGS FOR THE WAY HE'S DOING IT VERSUS EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE. 
          EVERY SINGLE LIKE, YES. 
          YOU GET WHAT I'M SAYING? THE MINIMUM ASSESSMENT IS NOT CHANGING WHAT HE'S COMMITTING TO. 
          >> WELL, THAT HELPS ME BECAUSE IF HE WAS CHANGING IT A LOT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION, I THINK. 
          >> I THINK ACTUALLY IT'LL BE A HIGHER ASSESSED VALUE, BUT IT WILL DEFINITELY NOT GO DOWN. 
          >> OTHER QUESTIONS FOR COURTNEY? OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE RESOLUTIONS? PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS. 
          UPDATE ON THE SHELTER ORDINANCE. 
          >> I'VE BEEN THINKING A LOT ABOUT HOW TO BEST ADDRESS THIS. 
          I MET WITH BOTH OF THE FIRE CHIEFS AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE FROM JENNY ED AND INDIVIDUALS WHO WE IN CONNECTION WITH THE HOT PROGRAM. 
          AFTER WALKING AWAY FROM THE LAST MEETING, I THINK THE BIGGEST QUESTION I HAVE FOR THE COUNCIL IS WHAT ROGERS THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, AS WRITTEN, PROPOSED BY ROGER IS SEEKING TO REGULATE HOMELESS SHELTERS BECAUSE OF PERCEIVED SAFE, 
          [00:55:02]
I MEAN, IT'S FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. 
          WE WANT PEOPLE IN THE SHELTER TO FEEL SAFE. 
          WE WANT PEOPLE WHO ARE HOMELESS TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THE SHELTER AND FEEL SAFE. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH ROGER, BUT THAT'S A VERY SPECIFIC AND DIFFERENT, THAT'S WHAT THAT IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, AND I TOOK PRETTY DETAILED NOTES OF EVERYONE'S COMMENTS. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE PEOPLE DIDN'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH WHAT WAS BEING ACCOMPLISHED IN THE ORDINANCE, AND MY POSITION ON THIS IS LEGAL, IT'S NOT POLICY. 
          BUT WHAT I FELT WHEN I WENT BACK AND I SAID. 
          WHAT DID EVERYBODY WANT TO SEE ON THE COUNCIL? THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS IN THE CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS AND WHAT CAN WE AS A CITY DO TO TAKE A LARGER ROLE IN THAT PROCESS. 
          I REALIZED THAT THERE'S AN INHERENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE CHARGES. 
          ROGER IS INTERESTED IN BRINGING AN ORDINANCE THAT REGULATES THE SAFETY AND THE CRITERIA FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS OPERATING IN THE CITY. 
          A LOT OF THE COMMENTS WERE FOCUSED ON, WHAT CAN WE BE DOING AS A CITY TO EITHER IMPROVE OR ADDRESS THE HOMELESSNESS PROBLEM. 
          I THINK IT WAS REFLECTED, AND EVERYONE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY WERE HAPPY ROGER BROUGHT THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT STARTED A CONVERSATION. 
          BUT I THINK THE MORE I LOOKED AT IT, THE MORE I PERSONALLY REALIZED IN TRYING TO DO WHAT'S BEING ASKED OF ME IS THAT ORDINANCE IS ONLY. 
          IT'S ONE SMALL EQUATION IN A VERY BIG PICTURE. 
          IF WHAT WE WANT IS A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OR OVERHAUL OF HOW THE CITY IS GOING TO DO THAT, I THINK THAT'S IN A DIFFERENT DOCUMENT OR A DIFFERENT PROPOSED ORDINANCE OR I WOULD NEED A REQUEST FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS, AS TO THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT ROGER IS PROPOSING, I GUESS.AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, I HAVE A LIST OF 21 ISSUES THAT I'VE FOCUSED IN ON IN TERMS OF WHAT WE CAN DO, AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY. 
          I THINK THAT THERE WAS SOME MISUNDERSTANDINGS JUST BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS LAST WEEK, AND, THE SLIGHT MEDIA COVERAGE I'VE SEEN OF IT. 
          BUT THE WAY THAT THIS STARTED WAS THAT, I THINK, IN TRYING TO REACH THAT SAFETY GOAL AND TRYING TO SEE BETTER OUTCOMES FOR HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE PARTICIPATING IN PROGRAMS. ROGER REQUESTED AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING SHELTERS TO BE HIGH BARRIER. 
          HIGH BARRIER SHELTER, THE MAIN COMPONENT OF THAT IS THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE TO BE SOBER TO COME INTO THE FACILITY, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER COMPONENTS THAT GO ALONG WITH IT. 
          WHAT WAS IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS A LOT OF THOSE OTHER COMPONENTS, BECAUSE I SPENT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME RESEARCHING THAT SOBRIETY ISSUE, AND IT APPEARED TO ME THAT UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT AND THE FAIR HOUSING ACT, AS WELL AS REGULATIONS UNDER HUD, I HONESTLY, JUST COULD NOT THINK OF A WAY TO PUT THAT REQUIREMENT IN THAT WOULD IN ANY WAY, BE LEGAL OR ENFORCEABLE. 
          THERE'S AND WE DON'T NEED TO GO INTO THE RABBIT HOLE IN THAT, BUT THAT IS NOT A COMPONENT OF IT, AND I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, WHEN ROGER AND I FIRST TALKED ABOUT THIS AND IN FOLLOW UP CONVERSATION SINCE ONE OF THE INSTRUCTIONS WAS SPECIFICALLY TO NOT PUT THE CITY, AT LIABILITY. 
          HE DID NOT WANT TO EXPOSE US TO ANY LITIGATION OR LIABILITIES AS A RESULT OF IT. 
          MY RESEARCH INTO THAT LEGALITY WASN'T SPURRED BY ME, IT WAS SPURRED BY THE REQUEST. 
          I THINK THAT ROGER ACKNOWLEDGED THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME, MAYBE EVERYTHING HE WAS ASKING FOR WASN'T POSSIBLE. 
          BUT THAT'S WHERE THAT DEVELOPED FROM. 
          I THINK ANOTHER THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED IS, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF RESEARCH LEFT TO CLEAN UP AND MAKE SURE THAT EACH PROVISION IS ENACTED IN A WAY THAT THAT'S PROPER, AS LEGAL, AS AUTHORIZED. 
          BUT THE OVERALL SCOPE OF IT IS IN A FORM AT WHICH IS LARGELY COMPLIANT WITH SOME OF THE BIGGEST THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED IN THIS AREA. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. 
          [01:00:05]
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE WAY THAT IT WAS ENACTED OR THE WAY THAT IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN IS THE TOP OF THE LINE, WAY IT'S GOING TO END UP. 
          BUT ROGER, AGAIN, IN OUR CONVERSATIONS, WAS ALSO VERY OPEN TO AMENDING IT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, BECAUSE HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WAS ADDITIONAL RESEARCH TO BE DONE ON IT, AND IN THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD ABOUT THE THINGS I FOUND THAT CAN'T GO IN OR NEEDING TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 
          THE INSTRUCTIONS I'VE GOT TO BE CLEAR, OUR POLICY IS WE DO THIS WHEN TWO OF YOU WANT SOMETHING, AND SO CHRIS HAS SUPPORTED ROGER IN THAT ENDEAVOR. 
          BUT WE'VE SPOKEN MAINLY WITH ROGER BEFORE IT CAME PUBLIC AT OUR LAST MEETING, AND ROGER WAS ALWAYS RECEPTIVE TO TAKING ANYTHING OUT THAT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAW. 
          AS WE CONTINUE TO DO THIS, AND PART OF THE CONVERSATION WAS THAT SOME OF THIS STUFF, MAY NOT END UP BEING LAWFUL, AND WE MIGHT HAVE TO TAKE IT OUT LATER. 
          THAT WAS UNDERSTOOD, THAT BEFORE THE THIRD READING, BEFORE IT GOES FINAL, THAT WE HAD SIGNIFICANT WORK TO DO. 
          I'LL TELL YOU, I MEAN, I DO APPRECIATE BEING GIVEN EXTRA TIME BY THE COUNCIL. 
          I THINK THAT HOW WE BROKE LAST WEEK WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THERE ARE BIG PICTURE THINGS, AND I HAD JUST HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT IT TO, THE TWO OTHER CITY ATTORNEYS IN THE OFFICE. 
          AND ALLOWING THE THREE OF US TO HAVE SOME OF THOSE BIG PICTURE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT FILTERING THIS DOWN TO WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT NEED TO BE RESEARCHED THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE TO YOU AND FINALIZE. 
          I THINK THAT STUFF'S IMPORTANT. 
          BUT IN TERMS OF AN UPDATE, I THINK WHAT WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL AT LEAST TO ME GOING FORWARD, IS YOU GUYS HAVING THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT IS ROGERS ORDINANCE, AND WHAT ARE THE OTHER REQUESTS THAT THIS IS HOMELESS ADJACENT, AND THIS CERTAINLY DOES CONTEMPLATE REGULATING HOMELESS SHELTERS.BUT ALL THE OTHER REQUESTS, IS THAT RELATED TO THIS ORDINANCE, OR IS IT A SEPARATE THING THAT WE WANT TO BE BROUGHT? 
          >> THIS IS NOT EXACTLY IDEA, IT'S HIS THING TO BRING IT FORWARD, BUT I GUESS, IN MY OPINION, THE THING WE NEED TO CONSIDER AND LOOK AT WITH THIS ORDINANCE WHEN WE PUT IT TOGETHER IS THAT ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK, OF THE MANY DIFFERENT THINGS THAT CAME UP, SOME OF THOSE ARE NOT TO DO WITH SAFETY, WHICH I BELIEVE THIS IS WHAT THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING SHOULD BE LAID FORWARD. 
          THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND PERHAPS TAKE A OVERALL OVERHAUL OR LOOK AT HOW WE HANDLE THINGS AS A COMMUNITY. 
          I THINK THAT IS TRUE, TOO, BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS ONLY ONE SMALL PIECE OF IT, AND PERHAPS WOULD BE BETTER FOR US TO FOCUS ON THIS PIECE. 
          THEN ONCE THIS IS DONE, THEN WHAT'S THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE BRING UP AND DO OR GO OVER OR DISCUSS OR HOW DO WE WORK WITH THE HOT PROGRAM AND SOME OF THAT OTHER STUFF. 
          BUT AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY, I THINK FOCUSING IN ON TRUE TO THE ORIGINAL CHARGE, IF YOU WILL, OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND MAKING SURE THAT, THEY HAVE A BECAUSE I THINK WHEN WE ALL HAD THE CONVERSATION LAST WEEK, EVERYONE WAS ON BOARD, THE STAFF THAT WORKS THERE, THE FOLKS THAT WE HAVE HERE, OUR STAFF. 
          EVERYONE WANTS TO MAKE SURE THERE'S A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE COMING AND GOING FROM THE PLACE AND FOR THE PUBLIC AND EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          I MEAN, THERE'S WE HAVE, THE GIRL SCOUTS GOING DOWN THERE AND HELP HELPING FEED PEOPLE. 
          DO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN GO IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT AND THEY'RE MORE APT TO WANT TO DO THAT, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. 
          I JUST I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT THAT WE HAD TWO SEPARATE CONVERSATIONS, I FEEL LIKE GOING ON. 
          BUT I FEEL LIKE ESPECIALLY AFTER CONVERSATIONS AFTER, WE WERE ALL PRETTY MUCH IN AGREEMENT THAT THE SAFETY PIECE OF THIS IS WHAT IT GETS TO. 
          AGAIN, THAT'S JUST CHEESEBURGERS. WHAT DO I KNOW? BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS FEEL THE SAME ON THAT OR NOT. 
          >> WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS, ORDINANCE OVER HOUSING, SHORT TERM HOUSING OR, 
          [01:05:02]
EMERGENCY HOUSING REGULATION THAT WE HAVE. 
          MY FEAR WITH THIS WAS HOW IS IT GOING TO IMPACT OTHER LIKE MICA HOUSE AND PIER CENTER AND THOSE THINGS IF WE ENACT AN ORDINANCE OF THIS TYPE. 
          DO WE NEED TO GO TOWARDS MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, DO WE NEED TO GO TOWARDS A SECOND LICENSE WHERE IT'S A HIGH BARRIER LICENSE SO THAT WE DON'T SAY THAT WOULD VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW? 
          >> THE SOBRIETY REQUIREMENT WOULD VIOLATE. 
          BUT THAT IS I THINK WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED IN DICTATING IT, BECAUSE THERE ARE SHELTERS IN OMAHA THAT ARE HIGH BARRIER THAT HAVE SOBRIETY REQUIREMENTS, BUT THAT'S GOING TO WORK. 
          >> YOU CAN RUN YOUR BUSINESS HOW YOU SEE FIT TO RUN YOUR BUSINESS, YOU'RE SAYING SO. 
          BUT IF WE WERE TO PUT IT OUT AND SAY, YOU'VE GOT TO DO IT THIS WAY, THEN THAT'S WHERE IT BECOMES A VIOLATION. 
          I COMPLETELY AGREE, I DON'T WANT TO GET US IN ANY LEGAL ANYTHING, 100%. 
          >> I WANT TO COME BACK TO THE CONVERSATION HERE? BECAUSE FROM HEARING FROM BRANDY THE LAST TIME WITH THE PLANS THAT ARE IN PLACE TO GO IN WITH THE MOVING STUFF TO THE BACK, WITH SECURE ENTRY, IF WE MANDATE THAT, ARE WE GOING TO GIVE HER A YEAR TO RAISE FUNDS AND PUT IT IN? ARE WE GOING TO FIND HER RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE? 
          >> NO, I COMPLETELY AGREE. 
          I DON'T THINK WE CAN SAY, HEY, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THIS TOMORROW. 
          I THINK THERE'S GOT TO BE SOMEONE SAY, HEY, YOU'VE GOT A GENERAL EXPECTATION OF A TIMELINE. 
          >> WE ARE OF THE CITY GOING TO PROVIDE FUNDS, BECAUSE WE PASSED THEM, $15,000 A YEAR. 
          >> TWENTY AND 300K. 
          >> I'LL SAY 300K. 
          >> THERE'S BEEN PROGRESS MADE AT THE SHELTER AS FAR AS FOR SAFETY. 
          THERE'S WORK TO BE DONE ALL THE TIME. 
          THINGS CHANGE AND PEOPLE ROLLING THROUGH THEIR CHANGE. 
          I DON'T WANT TO GET IN A SITUATION WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE BINDING ON THEM TO PROVIDE SHELTER FOR EMERGENCY SHELTER, BUT IT HAS TO BE A SAFE PLACE AND WE ALL AGREE OF THAT. 
          >> RIGHT. 
          >> THAT'S JUST BASIC NEED IS FOR THE PEOPLE TO BE SAFE. 
          THERE'S SOME THINGS WE CAN DO OUT FRONT. 
          IN THE STREET AREA, WE COULD HAVE PARKING DURING THEIR BUSINESS HOURS, AT NIGHT THEY CAN MOVE THEIR CARS. 
          AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, OTHERWISE, THEY GET SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE IN CARS OUT ON THE STREET AND EAT THERE. 
          WE CAN DO SOME THINGS TO MANAGE THAT. 
          WE DO THAT IN TOWN AND OTHER PLACES WHERE YOU PARK IN BUSINESS HOURS, YOU CAN'T PARK THERE AT NIGHT. 
          THOSE ARE SOME THINGS WE CAN LOOK AT. 
          ONE THING I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS PUTTING IN AN ORDINANCE THAT'S FORCING THEM TO DO BACKGROUND CHECKS ON EVERYBODY DOWN THERE. 
          A LOT OF TIMES THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SERVICING AND/OR WORKING WITHIN THESE FACILITIES HAVE THAT BACKGROUND AND IT WILL ELIMINATE THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO FIND WORK THAT'S GOING TO BRING THEM UP OUT OF THAT HOMELESSNESS. 
          SOMETIMES THAT CURTAILS THOSE INDIVIDUALS FROM BEING ABLE TO GET GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT IN A SITUATION THAT WOULD HELP OTHERS. 
          THOSE ARE SOME OF MY CONCERNS. 
          I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE OVER REGULATING THEM TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO REGULATE THEM IN A MANNER THAT'S GOING TO REDUCE PEOPLE COMING IN. 
          THE HOMELESSNESS IS ON THE RISE RIGHT NOW, AND THAT IT'S FLUCTUATE. 
          IT GOES UP AND DOWN. IT'S FLUID. 
          WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL HOW WE WRITE THIS, AND I RESPECT THAT YOU'VE BROUGHT THIS IN HERE AND HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. 
          BUT LET'S NOT THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS REALLY LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE. 
          IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE WORKED WITH PEOPLE. 
          WE HAVE A LOT OF REGULATIONS AND A LOT OF CHANGES THAT WE BROUGHT INTO FIRE PROTECTION IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          WE WENT OUT AS A DEPARTMENT AND DIDN'T ENFORCE THESE THINGS. 
          WE WORKED WITH THE STORE OWNERS AND THE FAMILIES TO EMPOWER THEM TO DO THE CHANGES SO THAT WE COULD WORK TOGETHER. 
          SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO ENFORCE IT. 
          BUT IT'S BETTER IF THEY COME ON BOARD AND WORK WITH US TO GET THIS ACCOMPLISHED AND I THINK WE CAN GET THAT DONE. 
          [01:10:04]
          >> WELL, AND I AGREE. ASHLEY REACHED OUT AND I WENT BACK TO THE MICA HOUSE. 
          I HADN'T BEEN DOWN THERE IN THREE YEARS SINCE I LEFT THE CAMPUS. 
          WE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION ABOUT IT AND I STATED, I LIKE SOME THINGS THAT ARE IN IT. 
          I DON'T LIKE SOME THINGS THAT ARE IN IT. 
          I SAID TO HER, YOU AS WELL, BRANDY, I WANT YOU GUYS PART OF THAT. 
          WHAT I GOT OUT OF THAT CONVERSATION IS WE NEED TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO COUNCILMEN AT COFC IF I SAID THAT RIGHT. 
          WE NEED TO BE AT THE TABLE AS WELL AS THE MAYOR SAID, THE CITY NEEDS TO BE THERE. 
          BUT I WANT YOU GUYS ARE THE EXPERTS TO GO THROUGH THAT AND SAY, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO THAT, WE CAN'T DO THAT, CAUSE AND EFFECT. 
          ASHLEY AND I HAD A LONG CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT SHE DID DOWN THERE. 
          THIS CONVERSATION NEVER GOES AWAY. 
          I THINK THAT'S BEEN THE PROBLEM. 
          YOU GUYS GO IN ONE WAY, WE GO IN ANOTHER WAY AND THERE'S OTHER CITY ISSUES THAT POP UP, BUT THE BIG THING WE GOT OUT OF THAT IS THAT THIS CONVERSATION CAN'T STOP AND IT KEEPS CONTINUING TO STOP AND HIT ROADBLOCKS. 
          BUT I DON'T KNOW MY FUTURE, BUT LIKE I SAID, WE NEED TO HAVE COUNCILMEN ON THAT SITTING THERE WITH THE CHIEFS, SITTING THERE WITH YOU GUYS, LIKE WE USED TO DO WHEN IT WAS AN UNORGANIZED CHAOS. 
          >>YEAH, DURING COVID. 
          >> I MENTIONED THAT. 
          >> WE CAN GO OVER THOSE HURDLES WITH YOU GUYS, AND CRAFT, ADD SOME THINGS, TAKE SOME THINGS AWAY AND HEAR IT FROM BOTH SIDES BECAUSE IT'S A NATIONAL EPIDEMIC. 
          I'M READING ALL KINDS OF THINGS. 
          IT'S NOT JUST COUNCIL BLUFFS AND OMAHA IT'S EVERYWHERE, SO I THINK THE CITY'S JUST GOING TO HAVE TO PLAY A LARGER ROLE. 
          WE'RE NOT HERE TO OVERREACH, BUT WE'RE THE CONDUIT FOR CITY HALL. 
          THAT'S THE BIGGEST TAKEAWAY I TOOK FROM THAT MEETING. 
          YOU GUYS HAVE THE ORDINANCE OR THERE'S A COPY FLOATING AROUND, HACK IT UP, SEND NOTES BACK, BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL DEAL BETTER WITH FEEDBACK. 
          LIKE, HEY, THIS METAL DETECTOR COULD WORK, BUT HERE'S SOME DOWNFALLS. 
          THAT WAY WE SEE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF WHAT IT DOES TO YOUR DAY TO DAY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T AFFECT US DAY TO DAY, IF THAT MAKE SENSE. 
          THAT'S WHY [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE CONVERSATION TO STOP UP HERE OR WITH YOU GUYS, BECAUSE ONCE IT STOPS AND THE CHIEFS ARE INVOLVED AND THEY'RE BUSY. 
          WE DON'T ALWAYS GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO THEM AND THAT'S NOT THE FIRST THING THEY WAKE UP TO DO, I GOT TO CALL THE COUNSEL AND BRIEF THEM ON THE MEETING YESTERDAY. 
          HAVING ONE OR TWO OF US THERE IS GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THEN THEY CAN COME BACK AND THAT'S WHY WE SIT ON VARIOUS GROUPS AND BOYS WILL COME BACK AND REPORT. 
          >> WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE STILL SPENDING AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME ON THIS. 
          WE WANT TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATIONS, BUT MAYBE HAVE TONY SHIFT. 
          >> I THINK TONY'S COURSE OF ACTION AT THIS POINT AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST MY FIFTH, WOULD BE TO CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH AS WE HAVE IT AND REMOVE THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO PUT US AT SOME RELIABILITY AND THEN TO FOCUS IN ON THE SAFETY MECHANISMS. THEN LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WE TALKED ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          THE OTHER CONVERSATION TO HAVE IS, IS IT SOMETHING LIKE CHRIS IS SAYING, WE CAN HAVE A COUPLE OF US GO OR ONE OR TWO OF US GO OR ROTATE OR WHATEVER, TO THOSE OTHER CONVERSATIONS AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN GO FORWARD TO HELP DO MORE OF OUR PART TO DO SOME OF THE LIFTING, PERHAPS. 
          BUT AS FAR AS YOU'RE CONCERNED, YOUR CHARGE, YOUR TASK GOING FORWARD, AS I'D STATED, JUST TAKE OUT, REMOVE THE THINGS THAT WILL HAVE US IN A LEGAL BIND DOWN THE ROAD, THEN WE HAVE WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH AND NOW WE KNOW, THIS IS AS IT SITS. 
          THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT WE CAN THEN GO THROUGH AND SAY, FIRST READING HERE. 
          NOW, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE FEASIBLE FOR X Y Z REASON, THEN WE CAN MAKE THE CHANGES, THEN IT BECOMES MORE THAT LIVING DOCUMENT LIKE CHRIS IS SAYING WHERE WE CAN DO THIS, WE CAN DO THAT, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO WORK AND HERE IS WHY, BUT THEN WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. 
          >> DO WE TAKE THE DOCUMENT AND GO BACK TO THAT LARGER GROUP? BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN AN UPDATE FROM THE LARGER GROUP. 
          >> I THINK TONY SHOULD KEEP WORKING. 
          I GAVE HIM TWO WEEKS. 
          >> I DON'T REALLY HAVE A DOCUMENT YET. 
          >> THAT'S RIGHT. 
          >> I THINK ONCE HE GETS WHAT'S LEGAL, WHAT'S NOT LEGAL, THEN WE'LL HAVE A DOCUMENT TO PRESENT THEM, I GUESS IS WHAT I'M SAYING, AND THEN WE CAN PUSH IT OUT TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED AND SAY, OKAY, GUYS. 
          >> BEFORE WE BRING IT IN FOR A READING? 
          >> YEAH, BEFORE WE PUT EVERYTHING INTO. 
          [01:15:02]
BUT IN THAT WAY, WE HAVE A LEGIT. 
          WE'RE NOT PUTTING SOMETHING OUT THERE THAT'S GOING TO GET US IN TROUBLE. 
          WE KNOW THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TRIED TO PUSH FORWARD. 
          THEY DON'T VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW. 
          WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET SUED, ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. 
          NOW, WE'VE GOT A DOCUMENT, LET'S HAVE THE CONVERSATION. 
          WHAT DO WE WANT TO KEEP? WHATEVER. BUT THAT WAY, IT GIVES US SOMETHING PHYSICAL AND TANGIBLE TO GET OUT TO THE POWERS AT B. 
          >> I DIDN'T MEET WITH HIM SINCE OUR LAST MEETING BECAUSE I KNEW HE WAS DOING A MILLION THINGS. 
          THIS IS AN IMPORTANT THING TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> THE ENTIRE WHOLE THING. 
          YES, IT'S TAKING HIM SOME TIME. 
          BUT IF HE DOES OTHER THINGS, THIS IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS OTHER THINGS IN MY OPINION. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> MIMI, WHITNEY, THEY'RE ALL WORKING ON IT RIGHT THERE. 
          I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, AND I'LL MEET WITH HIM BEFORE THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, BUT I DON'T THINK WE TAKE TONY OFF AS AN UPDATE. 
          LIKE I SAID, HE CAN HELP US EVERY COUNSEL MEAN NO PROBLEM. 
          >> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD. 
          >> WELL, IT ALSO KEEPS US IN THIS MINDSET DISCUSSION, LIKE CHRIS SAID, WE HAD DONE THAT FOR A WHILE AND THEN COVID HIT AND EVERYTHING GOT BLOWN TO SMITHEREENS AND NOW WE'VE TAKEN HOW MUCH TIME TO COME BACK TO THIS CONVERSATION AND IT JUST NEEDS TO BE TOP OF MIND FOR US BECAUSE IT'S IT'S A BIG ISSUE FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 
          >> I THINK IF WE APPROACH IT SLOWER, WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH THE RIGHT DIRECTION RATHER THAN RUSH THROUGH THIS AND HAVE BAD THINGS THAT WE CONSIDER WOULD WORK, BUT END UP BEING HARMFUL. 
          IF WE CAN JUST BE A LITTLE SLOWER AND A LITTLE MORE DELIBERATE, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET A BETTER POLICY. 
          >> DO YOU THINK YOU COULD HAVE A ROUGH DRAFT BY NEXT MEETING OR PERHAPS NOW? 
          >> I THINK SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE TRIES TO ACCOMPLISH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          I THINK YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT FOCUSING REALLY ON THE PHYSICAL SAFETY ASPECT OF SOME OF IT, I THINK ROGER AND I CAN MEET AND MAYBE HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WAYS IN WHICH MY RESEARCH COULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DIRECTED DEPENDING ON DIFFERENT SECTIONS. 
          BUT I THINK THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT ROGER HASN'T, HE'S JUST GOTTEN A FULL COPY OF IT AND I THINK, MAYBE BREAKING IT DOWN INTO ALMOST LIKE AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET OF, HERE ARE THE DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY GOOD, NEUTRAL OR THIS IS PROBABLY CLOSER TO OUT THAN IN AND TALKING WITH HIM ABOUT MAYBE WHAT WE CAN LEAVE OR TAKE. 
          >> MAYBE JUST AN UPDATE BY NEXT MEETING THEN, AND THEN THE FOLLOWING, PERHAPS, WE'LL HAVE A ROUGH DRAFT THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY. 
          >> IT DOESN'T MATTER TIME, BUT YES, I THINK WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT. 
          >> YEAH, 100% AGREE. 
          >> AND DISCUSS. I'LL MEET WITH TONY AGAIN. 
          IT'S GOING TO CONTINUOUSLY GET DOWN THE FUNNEL [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WE FINALLY GET A GOOD DOCUMENT THAT WE CAN WORK WITH. 
          >> I DID WANT TO ANSWER JILL EARLIER, YOU'D ASKED ABOUT, SO DOING THIS AS A LICENSING SCHEME, IF YOU WILL, HOW TO REGULATE THROUGH LICENSING. 
          I HAVE FOUND AN ANSWER. 
          I DO NOT SEE ANYTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT A LICENSE SCHEME FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED UNDER IOWA LAW. 
          BUT TO YOUR POINT, WHEN IMPLEMENTING A LICENSE, THERE IS A REQUIRED, ESSENTIALLY A GRANDFATHER PERIOD AND I PUT 180 DAYS IN THERE BECAUSE I WOULD NOT FEEL CONFIDENT GOING ANY LESS THAN 180 DAYS ON THAT GRACE PERIOD. 
          BUT THAT'S AGAIN, THAT TO ME IS THE LEGAL MINIMUM, SO THAT'S WHAT'S IN THERE. 
          >> IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO THAT ROUTE, YOU GOT TO CONSIDER THAT MAYBE THE LICENSEE SAYS, I CAN'T DO BUSINESS UNDER THOSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND SO I'M OUT AND THEN WE GOT NOTHING. 
          >> BUT I THINK WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ALL THE THINGS IRONED OUT, WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE. 
          WE GOT TO GET THAT FIRST AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. 
          >> COOL. THANK YOU. 
          >> ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE COUNCIL? 
          >> I WAS WONDERING WE HAD THAT INCIDENT DOWN AT CASEY'S ON 35TH, IF WE COULD HAVE AN UPDATE TO THE COUNSEL OF WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THAT SITUATION. 
          >> SURE. A LITTLE BACKGROUND AS TO WHAT HAPPENED. 
          DO YOU WANT ME TO GO THROUGH WHAT HAPPENED AS WELL? 
          >>YES, PLEASE. 
          >> DODGE COUNTY OFFICIALS, ONE YOUNG SHERIFFS DEPUTY AND ONE CORRECTIONS OFFICER TRANSPORTED 
          [01:20:05]
AN INMATE IN HANDCUFFS FROM DODGE COUNTY TO COUNCIL BLUFFS TO CASEY'S. 
          >> DODGE OR DOUGLAS? DOUGLAS. 
          >> DODGE. 
          >> DODGE COUNTY. 
          >> I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST DOUGLAS. I MISREAD THAT. 
          >> QUITE A WAYS. 
          >> FIFTY MILES. 
          >> UNLIKE COURTESY RIDES WHERE YOU SOMETIMES GIVE FOLKS A RIDE SOMEWHERE, THIS FELLOW WAS HANDCUFFED AND DRIVEN QUITE A WAYS, HE WAS OUT ON BOND AND PART OF HIS BOND CONDITIONS WERE THAT HE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO LEAVE THE STATE OF NEBRASKA. 
          THEY ASSISTED HIM IN BASICALLY BREAKING HIS BOND CONDITIONS BY BRINGING HIM TO COUNCIL BLUFFS. 
          THEY DROPPED HIM OFF AT THE CASEY'S. 
          HE GOT OUT HANDCUFFED AND IMMEDIATELY BEGAN TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE DEPUTIES AND THEY CALLED HIM BACK AND TOOK OFF HIS HANDCUFFS. 
          HE RAN AND GOT INTO A FEDEX TRUCK. 
          THEY HAD TO PHYSICALLY REMOVE HIM. 
          THEY WERE TELLING HIM TO JUST LEAVE. 
          THEN HE GOT IN THE BACK OF A FEDEX TRUCK, THE SAME FEDEX TRUCK AND WENT UP THROUGH THE FRONT, AND SO THEY HAD TO PULL HIM OUT AGAIN. 
          MEANWHILE, THE SHERIFF'S DEPUTY IS TALKING TO DODGE COUNTY DISPATCH. 
          DODGE COUNTY DISPATCH COMMUNICATES WITH OUR DISPATCH, POTT COUNTY DISPATCH AND DISPATCHES CBPD. 
          THEY RESPOND VERY QUICKLY WITHIN 3 MINUTES. 
          BUT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME, IN THAT TIME, DODGE COUNTY DEPUTIES LEFT. 
          THEY HAD THIS MAN ACTING THIS WAY AND THEY ARE ADVISED BY THEIR SUPERIORS TO LEAVE AND LEAVE HIM THERE IN THAT MANNER. 
          OF COURSE, THE CHIEF CONTACTED ME AND I WROTE A PRESERVATION LETTER AND COPIED THE DODGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THE DODGE COUNTY ATTORNEY, THE SHERIFF AND THE CLERK AND JUST ADVISED THEM TO TAKE ALL REASONABLE STEPS TO PRESERVE ALL INFORMATION RELATED TO THIS INCIDENT, ALL VIDEO, ALL AUDIO, ALL EMAIL, ALL WRITTEN RECORDS, ALL PERSONNEL RECORDS. 
          >> THE DODGE COUNTY ATTORNEY CALLED JUST BEFORE THIS STUDY SESSION AND ASKED FOR THE RECORDINGS OF THE INTERVIEWS OF THEIR EMPLOYEE SO THAT SHE COULD INVESTIGATE. 
          I EMAILED MATT WILBUR BECAUSE I WANT TO CONFIRM. 
          TYPICALLY, IF WE GET A RECORDS REQUEST AND THERE'S A PENDING INVESTIGATION, WE DON'T RELEASE THOSE RECORDS IF THEY'RE CONSIDERING CRIMINAL CHARGES. 
          MATT WAS OUT OF TOWN LAST WEEK. 
          HE'S JUST BACK THIS WEEK. 
          I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT, HE HAS NO OBJECTION, I GUESS TO RELEASING THOSE RECORDS IF THERE'S A PENDING INVESTIGATION. 
          BUT I JUST INFORMED DODGE COUNTY IN THE LETTER THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER ALL OF OUR OPTIONS. 
          I WILL SAY THAT, PLEASE DO NOT OPINE ON WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT ON THE AGENDA. 
          I'M ALLOWED TO GIVE YOU AN INFORMATIONAL UPDATE. 
          YOU'RE ALLOWED TO ASK INFORMATIONAL QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW, BUT WE CAN'T DELIBERATE OR TAKE ACTION, BUT I CAN SET IT FOR THE AGENDA NEXT TIME. 
          >> I'D LIKE TO BE KEPT INFORMED, AND MAYBE WE NEED TO HAVE IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA. 
          >> I WOULDN'T MIND CONSENT OR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT IT. 
          >> I THANK YOU FOR YOUR UPDATE, THOUGH. 
          >> SURE. 
          >> ANYBODY ELSE. 
          >> THE ONLY THING I KNOW WE'VE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME, SO I'M NOT GOING TO KEEP US A LONG TIME, BUT I AFTER THE LAST MEETING, DID MEET WITH MIMI, SLIGHTLY FOR A FEW MINUTES ABOUT AGAIN, BRINGING BACK THE LICENSE APPRENTICESHIP PORTION INTO THE RFPS. 
          THE HOMELESS SITUATION OBVIOUSLY IS TAKING PRECEDENT. 
          I JUST WANT TO INFORM YOU GUYS THAT I AM STILL WORKING ON THAT, AND THAT WE'LL BE COMING BACK FORWARD. 
          IT'S AN AMENDMENT, SO IT DOESN'T NEED TO. 
          >> CORRECT? IF IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO SO FOR INSTANCE, WHEN WE WERE THE CITY COUNCIL WAS VOTING ON THE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. 
          THAT WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT. 
          >> TO THAT ONE. 
          >> IN THOSE SITUATIONS, IF IT'S AN AMENDMENT, ONE SINGLE COUNCIL MEMBER CAN MAKE IT. 
          IF YOU WANT A NEW ORDINANCE, 
          [01:25:01]
TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS NEED TO BRING THAT FORWARD. 
          >> YOU CAN DO AN AMENDMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACTION. 
          YOU CAN'T DO AN AMENDMENT THREE WEEKS LATER, CAN YOU? 
          >> CORRECT. THAT ONE HAS PASSED. 
          >> RIGHT. 
          >> JUST BE GOING FORWARD. 
          >> IF I DON'T HAVE A SECOND FROM SOMEBODY. 
          I'LL JUST RAISE IT AS AN AMENDMENT EACH TIME. 
          >> ANYTHING ELSE? 
          >> SEVEN. IT'S ONLY 513613. 
          >> I KNOW I LOOKED EARLIER AND WE GOT A PROBLEM. 
          >> TEN? 
          >> SEVEN. 
          >> DOES THAT MATTER? NOT AGAIN. 
          >> READY. 
          [1) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
          >> 
          [2) CALL TO ORDER]
          >> CALL ME IN ORDER ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE IN ATTENDANCE, AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          [3) CONSENT AGENDA]
          >> MOTION APPROVED. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> IS THERE A DISCUSSION? ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> OPPOSE SAME SIGN. 
          TONIGHT, WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          [4.A) Resolution 25-267
Resolution of intent to provide conditional consent to assignment under the Development Agreement with MAC Ventures, LLC
 
 
 
 
 ]
IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL, PLEASE STEP FORWARD TO THE MICROPHONE, GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 
          NOW IS THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN REGARDS TO RESOLUTION 25-267. 
          THIS RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO PROVIDE CONDITIONAL CONSENT, TO THE ASSIGNMENT UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH MAC VENTURES LLC, IS PROOF OF PUBLICATION ON FILE. 
          >> YES, IT IS. 
          >> ANY WRITTEN PROTESTS RECEIVED? 
          >> NONE RECEIVED. 
          >> ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL IN REGARDS TO THIS MATTER? 
          >> YES, PLEASE. 
          >> BRENDA MAINWARING, IOWA WEST FOUNDATION 4201, RIVERS EDGE PARKWAY. I PROVIDED INFORMATION. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO REVIEW THAT, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS DIFFERENT THAN MOST. 
          IT IS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          WHAT I FORGOT TO ASK YOU THIS AFTERNOON WAS TO PROVIDE YOUR CONSENT, TO ALLOW US TO DO THIS. 
          WE DON'T RUN HOTELS. 
          WE'RE NOT ESPECIALLY GOOD AT IT. 
          IT GETS THE WAY IN THE WAY OF OUR MISSION, TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY. 
          IT REDUCES OUR RESOURCES AND OUR TIME AND OUR ATTENTION, AND WE CANNOT SELL THIS HOTEL WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT. 
          I WILL ALSO SAY WE CONTINUE TO PAY DOWN ON SOME PRETTY SIZABLE DEBTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT WERE WRITTEN IN THE 2015-2019 RANGE. 
          WHAT WE GET BACK IN RETURN FOR THE INCREASE IN TAXES ON SOME OF THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS REALLY DOES HAVE A MEANINGFUL IMPACT ON OUR ABILITY TO DO PROJECTS IN COUNCIL BLUFFS. 
          I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR CONSENT ON OUR REQUEST FOR THIS RESOLUTION. 
          >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? 
          >> NO. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION THIS AFTERNOON AS WELL. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> IS THERE A MOTION? 
          >> MOTION TO APPROVE? 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> OPPOSE. SAME SIGN. MADAM CLERK. 
          [5.A) Ordinance 6660
Ordinance to amend Chapter 9.34 Emergency Snow Routes of the 2025 Municipal Code of Council Bluffs, Iowa, by amending Section 9.34.030 "Emergency Snow Route Established"]
          >> ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING, ORDINANCE 6660, ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 9.34 EMERGENCY SNOW ROUTES, OF THE 2025 MUNICIPAL CODE OF COUNCIL BLUFFS BY AMENDING SECTION 9.4.030. 
          EMERGENCY SNOW ROUTES ESTABLISHED. 
          >> MOTION APPROVE. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> IS THERE A DISCUSSION? 
          >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ON THE SAME SIGN. 
          >> ORDINANCE 66 61, 
          [5.B) Ordinance 6661
Ordinance to amend Chapter 3.08 "Beer and Liquor Control" of the 2025 Municipal Code of Council Bluffs, Iowa, by amending Section 3.08.045 "Exceptions to CBMC 3.08.045 Paragraph E"]
AND ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 3.08 BEER AND LIQUOR CONTROL OF THE 2025 MUNICIPAL CODE OF CONC BLOFS BY AMENDING SECTION 3.08.045, EXCEPTIONS OF C BMC 3.08 0.045 PARAGRAPH E. 
          >> MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> IS THERE A DISCUSSION? 
          >> THIS IS SPECIFIC TO THE PR OVERLAY. 
          IT'S JUST LANGUAGE THAT NEEDED CLEANED UP, SO IT WAS ALLOWED. 
          >> OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> OPPOSE, SAME SIGN. 
          >> ORDINANCE 6662, 
          [5.C) Ordinance 6662
Ordinance to amend Chapter 4.21 "Urban Deer and Turkey Management" of the 2025 Municipal Code of Council Bluffs, Iowa, by repealing and replacing Section 4.21.020 "Hunting Regulations". ]
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 4.20 URBAN DEER AND TURKEY MANAGEMENT OF THE 2025 MUNICIPAL CODE OF COUNCIL BLUFFS BY REPEALING AND REPLACING SECTION 4.21, 0.020 HUNTING REGULATIONS. 
          >> MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A MOTION. 
          >> JODI, CAN WE MOVE THIS ON TO STUDY SESSION FOR NEXT FOR DISCUSSION? YES FOR DISCUSSION. 
          >> I HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON IT AS WELL, SO THAT'S GREAT. 
          >> WE'LL PUT IT ON THE NEXT ONE FOR STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. 
          [01:30:04]
ORDINANCE IS ON SECOND READING, ORDINANCE 6658, 
          [6.A) Ordinance 6658
Ordinance approving the Amended and Restated Consolidated Urban Revitalization Plan Amendment 3. URV-25-006]
AND ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CONSOLIDATED URBAN REVITALIZATION PLAN AMENDMENT 3. 
          >> MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> IS THERE A DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> OPPOSE SAME SIGN. 
          >> MOTION TO WAIVE THIRD. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> IS THERE A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO WAIVE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> OPPOSE, SAME SIGN. 
          >> RESOLUTION 25-268, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CERTIFICATION OF INDEBTEDNESS, 
          [7.A) Resolution 25-268
Resolution authorizing the certification of indebtedness, reduction in certification of indebtedness, and direct the filing of the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) indebtedness certification report with the County for Valley View North, New Horizon, 23rd Avenue, West Broadway, Original 1983 Downtown Mall, Playland Park, Marketplace, Bluffs Northway, Franklin Avenue, Bluffs Vision, Kanesville, and South Avenue Urban Renewal Areas. ]
REDUCTION IN CERTIFICATION OF INDEBTEDNESS, AND DIRECT THE FILING OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING, IN-DEBT CERTIFICATION REPORT TO THE COUNTY FOR VALLEY, VIEW NORTH, NEW HORIZON, 23RD AVENUE, WEST BROADWAY, ORIGINAL 1983 DOWNTOWN MALL, PLANNED MARKETPLACE, BLUFFS NORTHWAY, FRANKLIN AVENUE, BLUFFS VISION, KINESVILLE, AND SOUTH AVENUE, URBAN RENEWAL AREAS. 
          >> MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          >> SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? EVERY YEAR, THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO CERTIFY DEBT AGAINST THEIR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ZONE. 
          THESE ARE NOT NEW ISSUES OF TIF FINANCING, THESE ARE ANNUAL CERTIFICATIONS. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> OPPOSED. SAME SIGN. 
          >> RESOLUTIONS 255, 269, 
          [7.B) Resolutions 25-269, 25-270, 25-271, 25-272, 25-273 and 25-274
Resolutions authorizing Internal / Interfund Loan approval for FY27 TIF Certifications.]
270, 271, 272, 273, 274. 
          RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING INTERNAL INTERFUND LOAN APPROVAL FOR FY 25 TIF CERTIFICATIONS. 
          >> MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          >> SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. 
          >> RESOLUTION 25-275, A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING WHITNEY JACK AS THE ADA COORDINATOR AND 
          [7.C) Resolution 25-275
Resolution designating Whitney Jacque as the ADA Coordinator and the Title VI Coordinator for the City of Council Bluffs as well as authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute the Title VI Non-Discrimination Agreement and all other documents to consummate this matter between the City of Council Bluffs and The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT). ]
THE TITLE 56 COORDINATOR FOR THE CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS AS WELL AS AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE TITLE 6 NONDISCRIMINATION AGREEMENT AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS. 
          ON THIS MATTER, BE BETWEEN THE CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS AND THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. 
          >> MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> IS THERE A DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> OPPOSE SAME SIGN. 
          >> RESOLUTIONS 25-260, 276 AND 277, 
          [7.D) Resolutions 25-276 and 25-277
Resolutions approving the MidAmerican Energy proposal for the extension of electrical services in conjunction with the East Manawa Subdivision Project.]
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MIN AMERICAN ENERGY PROPOSAL, FOR THE EXTENSION OF ELECTRICAL SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EAST MANAWA SUBDIVISION PROJECT. 
          >> MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          >> IS THERE A DISCUSSION? THIS EXPENSE GETS REIMBURSED AS HOUSEHOLDS GET HOOKED UP ON THE LINE, SO ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? 
          >> OPPOSED SAME SIGN. 
          >> RESOLUTION 25-278. 
          [7.E) Resolution 25-278
Resolution to amend the Bluffs Tomorrow: 2030 Plan (Comprehensive Plan), specifically by reclassifying properties legally described as being part of Sections 5-73-43 and 6-73-43, City of Council Bluffs, Mills County, Iowa (and being more particularly described in the Council packet) from ‘Industrial’ (Mills County) to ‘Light Industrial’ (City).  CP-25-001
 ]
RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE BLUFFS TOMORROW 2030 PLAN, SPECIFICALLY BY RECLASSIFYING PROPERTIES LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS BEING PART OF SECTION 57343 AND 67343, CITY OF COUNCIL BLUFFS MILLS COUNTY, IOWA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE COUNCIL PACKET FROM INDUSTRIAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. 
          >> MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> IS THERE DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> OPPOSE SAME SIGN. 
          RESOLUTION, 25-279. 
          [7.F) Resolution 25-279
Resolution amending an adopted MCR/Mixed Commercial-Residential District development plan for Treehouse, on properties legally described as Lots 1 through 3, Main Line Subdivision.  Location:  151 South 34th Street and undeveloped land located at the northeast corner of the intersection of South 34th Street and 2nd Avenue, as well as, undeveloped land located at the northwest corner of the intersection of South 32nd Street and 2nd Avenue. MCR-20-001(M)]
RESOLUTION AMENDING AND ADOPTED MR MIXED COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TREE HOUSE ON PROPERTIES LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS ONE THROUGH THREE MAIN LINE SUBDIVISION. 
          LOCATION IS 151 SOUTH FOURTH STREET. 
          >> MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          >> YOU GO TO READ THE REST. NOT TO CUT OFF. 
          >> IT'S MORE DESCRIPTION OF WHERE THERE. 
          >> IT'S THE COMMON. 
          >> GOT YOU. 
          >> IS THERE A SECOND? 
          >> SECOND? 
          >> IS THERE A DISCUSSION? 
          >> WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN STUDY SESSION. 
          THIS IS GOING FROM TOWNHOUSES INTO AN APARTMENT BUILDING. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE WE WERE ASKED TO MAKE THIS CHANGE BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS BY THE BUILDER. 
          >> WELL, SHE'D SAID THEY WE'D SUGGESTED IT AS A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE AS WELL. 
          [01:35:01]
          >> RIGHT STRAIGHT? 
          >> YEAH. IT WOULD BE SAYING IT WOULD ALSO HELP ALLEVIATE SOME ISSUES WITH THE CUTOFFS IN PARKING. 
          >> CURB CUTS. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND. 
          >> I THINK. 
          >> I MEAN, WE APPROVED IT AS TOWN HOME. 
          WE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE THE CURB CUTOUTS. 
          WE'VE TALKED ABOUT NEEDING DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING. 
          I'M JUST PERSONALLY DISAPPOINTED THAT WE'RE MOVING INTO MORE APARTMENTS. 
          I UNDERSTAND THERE'S MORE UNITS. 
          THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE WHETHER THEY ARE TOWN HOMES OR APARTMENT BUILDINGS. 
          THEY WERE NOT GOING TO BE OWNER OCCUPIED. 
          BUT TO ME, I'M JUST DISAPPOINTED THAT WE ARE SWITCHING THE PLAN. 
          >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THE DISAPPOINTMENT. 
          HOWEVER, 38 TOWN HOMES GOING TO 48 APARTMENTS. 
          MY MAIN QUESTION WAS THE MINIMUM ASSESSMENT THAT COURTNEY AGREED THAT IT'S GOING TO STAY THE SAME. 
          LESS CURB CUTS ON SECOND AVENUE. 
          THERE IS 10 MORE UNITS. 
          POTENTIALLY TEN MORE FAMILIES, OR COULD BE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. I LIKE TO SEE TOWN HOMES. 
          >> APARTMENTS AS I WOULD PREFER THE TOWN HOMES, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PARKING SITUATION AND TRYING TO SNEAK EVERYTHING INTO THE BACK WASN'T REALLY GOING TO BE FEASIBLE, SO THIS PROVIDES AN ALTERNATIVE. 
          >> I THINK STAFF. 
          MATT STAFF SHOULD BRING THINGS LIKE THIS TO THE TABLE. 
          IF THERE'S CONSTRAINTS OR ISSUES, WE SHOULD FIGURE OUT A WAY TO HELP RATHER THAN JUST SAY NO. 
          >> I THINK THAT'S COURTNEY AND HER TEAM BROUGHT FORTH A SOLUTION, AND IT'S ABLE TO WORK. 
          WE STILL HAVE THAT TREE HOUSE PROJECT STILL GOING ON VERSUS JUST STOPPING. 
          >> ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFIED BY SAYING AYE? 
          >> AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN. 
          >> AYE. RESOLUTION 25-280, 
          [7.G) Resolution 25-280
Resolution approving the Annual Urban Renewal Report for Fiscal Year 2024-2025.]
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ANNUAL URBAN RENEWAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR '24/25. 
          >> MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> IS THERE A DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFIED BY SAYING AYE? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> OPPOSED SAME SIGN. 
          >> RESOLUTION 25-281, A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF 
          [7.H) Resolution 25-281
Resolution approving and authorizing execution of a First Amendment to the Agreement for Private Development with EDC Omaha LandCo LLC.]
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGE FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WITH EDC OMAHA LANDO LLC. 
          >> MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> IS THERE A DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> BOTH THE SAME SIGN. 
          >> APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS AND CANCELLATIONS, 8A, 
          [8.A) Liquor Licenses1. Goldmine Bar & Grill, 1601 Harry Langdon Blvd.
2. La Caretta Rosa, 620 South Main St.3. Pizza King, 1101 N. Broadway]
          [8.B) Device Retailer License (1 - New)]
          [8.C) Special Event - Veteran's Day Parade, November 8, 2025.]
LIQUOR LICENSES, ONE THROUGH 3, 8B, AND 8C. 
          >> MOTION TO APPROVE 8A1 THROUGH 38B, AND 18C. 
          >> COULD WE DO ROLL CALL? 
          >> WE CAN. 
          >> DO I HAVE A SECOND? 
          >> YES. I'LL SECOND. 
          >> CHRIS PETERSON? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ROGER SANDAL? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> JILL SHUDAK? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> JOE DESALVO. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> STEVE GORMAN. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OTHER BUSINESS? 
          [9) OTHER BUSINESS]
          >> TOMORROW'S ELECTION DAY, GET OUT AND VOTE. 
          POLLS ARE OPEN FROM 7:00 A.M.-8:00 P.M. 
          IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE TO VOTE, YOU CAN GET ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE. 
          YOU GOT A LOT OF THINGS, YOU GOT MAYOR, COUNCIL. 
          YOU'VE GOT SOME BONDS, I WESTERN. COUNCIL BOARD. 
          SCHOOL BOARD COUNCIL OF S LOIS CENTRAL. GET OUT AND VOTE. 
          IT'S IMPORTANT. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE TO VOTE, YOU CAN GET IT ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE. 
          >> ONE ITEM THAT I THINK THAT PEOPLE MAYBE NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH, AND HAVE HAD QUESTIONS TO ME ABOUT WAS THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND HOW THEY USE THEIR SAVED MONEY. 
          THIS IS THE WE USED TO BE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX BEFORE THE STATE STARTED COLLECTING IT. 
          IT YES VOTE, I BELIEVE, ALLOWS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO CONTINUE TO USE THAT MONEY FOR THEIR FACILITIES. 
          PLEASE GIVE THAT CAREFUL CONSIDERATION. 
          >> IT'S NOT NEW MONEY. 
          IT'S A CONTINUATION OF WHAT'S ALREADY THERE. 
          >> ANY CITIZENS REQUESTING TO BE HEARD? IF NOT, WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.